# why is mozart criticized so?



## Tromboneman (Jan 4, 2007)

I am always searching the internet for different stuff, and i fell upon countless links to Mozart and facts that some of his stuff wasn't written by him and some was written by other composers. Why is this such a surprise and why is he criticized for it??? I mean, Elton John NEVER wrote any of his lyrics, his lover did, but ppl still consider him a great singer and musician and don't criticize him. Of course Mozart didn't write all of his stuff, he was one of the greatest, if not the greatest composer, of the time, he, and any other amazing composer, could take someone's written composition and change it, and take it, and they could do it bcuz of their fame. So i don't get why ppl think less of Mozart bcuz some of his stuff isn't his, lol that still goes on today. Mozart's compositions that he DID write himself were still far better and more advanced than anything ppl had ever seen, and i still consider him the greatest composer ever, hands down. i feel some flaming coming on after this post lol


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Are you referring to the Mozart controversy discussed on this board?



Tromboneman said:


> Mozart's compositions that he DID write himself were still far better and more advanced than anything ppl had ever seen


But that's exactly it. Certain member(s) of this board were claiming that exactly those pieces that were "far better and more advanced than anything people had ever seen" were not actually by Mozart. If Mozart didn't write those pieces, then obviously he was not one of the greatest composers. Whoever wrote those other pieces were. The reason why is he thought to be a great composer is because of his finest compositions. Take those compositions away from him, and you no longer have a great composer.

It's all a matter of degree. There are pieces in the Koechel catalog that are most likely not compositions by Mozart. It's inevitable that after 250 years, some records are going to be faulty. In addition, publishers had financial incentive to take a work that's not by Mozart and say it is by Mozart, which further complicates the issue in determining which works are authentic Mozart. Lastly, the issue of authorship in the 18th century was sort of clumsily and casually handled in general. So there is confusion about some pieces about whether or not they are genuine Mozart. Determining which pieces are and aren't is a standard part of Mozart research, and no one criticizes Mozart for the fact that certain works have been attributed to him which aren't his.

However, most of these are less important works that most people would probably not be upset by, were they to be removed from the Koechel catalog. In some sense, removing these works does not diminish our view of Mozart as a great composer, because he still has to his name the great operas, symphonies, piano concerti, etc. So I don't think most people would be critical of Mozart in this regard.

If you're referring to the Luchesi authorship controversy, well that's a whole different ball game, because the assertion there is that Mozart masterpieces (exactly those works which have convinced us to regard him as 'great') are not his.


----------



## Tromboneman (Jan 4, 2007)

yes, but he did write most of his stuff, Don Giovanni and Requiem are the most major ones that i hear of that some were not his work. But what about the 25th?? the 40th? his Mass in C Minor?? i still think those are greater than most compositions i hear, i try to download other composers that u ppl talk of, but i cannot get into them the way i can with Mozart, his is just natural and sooo interesting, whereas Handel is ok, i cannot be emotionally moved by most of his works. Whenever i hear Mozart's Requiem and Gran Partita Serenade Adagio, i really feel the music. Altho we all know Mozart's Requiem is not all his (duh), there is still controversy over who created Tuba Mirum, him or Sussmayer. Which i still think could be considered Mozart's doing even if he didn't do it, bcuz Sussmayer was his pupil, he taught him and Sussmayer finished the Requiem as Mozart would have wanted it done, which is in my eyes, still some credit to Mozart. I just think that ppl are putting way too much thought into who created what, bcuz not everyone creates their own music, as i stated. I can guarantee Beethoven, Chopin, Handel, Brahm, and all the great composers did, to some extent, take some music from other composers, but yet u rarely read about it anywhere. I believe ppl are trying to downplay Mozart bcuz, even though it is clichèd, he is the greatest composer ever, which makes me disappointed.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Tromboneman said:


> I can guarantee Beethoven, Chopin, Handel, Brahm, and all the great composers did, to some extent, take some music from other composers


Definitely. One of the most famous works from that talentless ******* of Brahms steals material from other great figure of his time, a violinist I think,

...

And I somehow have the idea that the work is currently known as:

*THE PAGANINI VARIATIONS*​
Now seriously... Could you please provide examples of Beethoven, Chopin and Brahms as cheaters? (In the way sick weirdos as Newman consider Mozart, I mean).


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

I am little confused by what your exact position is, Tromboneman. Are you asserting that Beethoven, Chopin, etc. consciously stole music from lesser-known composers and passed them off as their own? That is what Robert, Colleen, etc. has asserted about Mozart and Haydn. Or, are you merely asserting that there are similarities between the music of the greatest composers and those of lesser composers?

No one would deny that our greatest composers gained a great deal of influence from their lesser-known contemporaries. Mozart, for as much as he made Muzio Clementi out to be a buffoon, still had no difficulty lifting a theme of Clementi for his overture to _Die Zauberfloete_, and in doing so, immortalize it. One can name similar examples all over Mozart, Beethoven, etc.

But that sort of borrowing is, to some extent, probably completely unconscious on the part of those composers. And it's very different from what Robert Newman has proposed -- namely, that entire works were stolen and passed off in someone else's name. Could you be a little more clear about what your position is? -- preferably with some sort of specific evidence or example.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Ive never heard such criticism of Mozart. But, with the kind of phenomenal (as they were considered at the time) works written by many composers even after Mozart's time, these conspiracies always arise. (Similar to the one concerning Shakespeare and his often questioned originality.) I couldnt think of any examples that would prove, or even point to, such a theory for any of the composers you mentioned (not to say there arent any).


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Personnally, I am a critic of Bachj and Mozart because they are worshipped like gods. So I think that either they should not be worshipped that way or many other composers as good or better than both should be worshipped the same way.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> No one would deny that our greatest composers gained a great deal of influence from their lesser-known contemporaries. Mozart, for as much as he made Muzio Clementi out to be a buffoon, still had no difficulty lifting a theme of Clementi for his overture to _Die Zauberfloete_, and in doing so, immortalize it. One can name similar examples all over Mozart, Beethoven, etc.


In one of the many documentaries filmed in the 80s about Horowitz he mentions his wife bought him a book with sonatas by Clementi; he started playing them and liked a lot. Then he plays one excerpt of a sonata and points out how _beethovenesque_ it sounds (an one might think the work comes from a Ludwig van's copycat) even though it was written by Clementi when Beethoven was 7 years old.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Daniel said:


> Manuel: If you didn't notice yet: colleengail726 already had been banned.
> 
> We try to react as quick as possible, but sometimes we are all absent and cannot stop posts which have been done meanwhile. But this chapter has been closed.
> 
> Daniel


I'm afraid I didn't notice that when writting my post.

Ok. So we can now sanely derail the thread.

To backup my previous post about Clementi, Beethoven and Horowitz* I suggest everybody to get this fantastic cd










*Suggestion also valid for those who care little about the link I mentioned but want to enjoy the finest pianistic repertoire.


----------



## Aigen (Jul 30, 2007)

The stuff about Mozart's fake death and reappearance as Nissen appeared a couple of years ago on Openmozart, an unmoderated forum which closed a good while ago. I can't remember what the poster called him/herself at the time.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

I believe the proponent of the Mozart/Nissen conspiracy was David Roell, who posted sometimes under the username 'droell.' For anyone interested, a Google search for the string 'droell mozart nissen' should probably bring up a few results. If I remember correctly (and it has been awhile since reading this), one of the "key" pieces of "evidence" was that the portraits of Mozart and Nissen look similar! 

Manuel, thanks for bringing up the Horowitz anecdote and also that CD, which looks interesting to check out. There are indeed many cases, especially in early Beethoven, of Beethoven borrowing not only from Clementi, but also Dussek (perhaps consciously or not), and of course also Mozart and Haydn.

I'm not sure why Tromboneman thinks we ought to criticize Beethoven and other composers for this. _Any_ artist in any genre, and also authors, gains experience by imitating (or at least, gaining inspiration from) older masterpieces in their genre of study, and also from their contemporaries. To name an example totally separate from classical music: think about all the high fantasy novels that resemble Lord of the Rings, by Tolkien. Some of the resemblances are alarming, but in some cases, authors move beyond that imitation stage quickly, in some sense using Tolkien's world as a platform from which to carry out their own explorations -- a comfortable foundation, of sorts. We can say something similar of composers, and there's nothing to criticize there. I agree with Handel when he said that we have a tendency to "worship" the great composers. (In the case of Mozart, the Amadeus movie certainly did not help, with that "dictation from God" rubbish.) If anything, this testifies to the high quality of their music, which inspires such strong emotions from us. It is good to remember, though, that they are just human beings (albeit, extremely talented ones) living from day to day, trying to earn their keep. Especially in the case of the Baroque and Classical composers, much of what these composers did was not for any high-up, far-flung, artistic reason as it was just mere practicality, e.g. deciding which piece to complete or leave unfinished, based on the possibility or likelihood of an upcoming concert. It's good to maintain just a bit of perspective.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Personnally, I am a critic of Bachj and Mozart because they are worshipped like gods. So I think that either they should not be worshipped that way or many other composers as good or better than both should be worshipped the same way.


A composer like... oh say Handel? And by the way... how dare you spell the name of the Lord God wrong!!!


----------



## zlya (Apr 9, 2007)

Handel said:


> Personnally, I am a critic of Bachj and Mozart because they are worshipped like gods. So I think that either they should not be worshipped that way or many other composers as good or better than both should be worshipped the same way.


It is just as bad to dislike something because it is popular as it is to dislike it because it is unpopular. Works should be judged by their merit alone, and Mozart and Bach's works have a heck of a lot of merit.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Handel said:


> Personnally, I am a critic of Bachj and Mozart because they are worshipped like gods. So I think that either they should not be worshipped that way or many other composers as good or better than both should be worshipped the same way.


So you don't really have a problem with Bach or Mozart, but your issue is with their audience, particularly those who turn into _excessive __enthusiasts_.

Care to name any of the


> other composers as good or better than both


 that


> should be worshipped the same way


?


----------



## stuart (Sep 13, 2007)

BACH WAS A GOD !!!!!!! period.......


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

stuart said:


> BACH WAS A GOD !!!!!!! period.......


This is why there are some critics against Bachists. 

When I say Handel is a god, I half-joke. But are you?


----------

