# I finally "got" Mozart!



## eljr

I have only been listening to classical music in earnest for 4 years. A longggggggg time fan of Philip Glass but until 2014 my classical listen had been limited. 

Bach, love him. Early music? Can't get enough. Choral, my good friend @Joe B opened up for me. Baroque, chok guzel!

Beethoven, good stuff. Simpson, Reich, Adams, what is not to love? Williams, Schoenberg, wonderful. Hyden, what can be better...

But this guy Mozart. He and this guy Wagner. I just don't "get."

Well, today, finally, while not trying, I was listening to Mozart, Piano Concerto #13 and wow. It just hit me. This stuff is wonderful! 

I just needed to celebrate so that is what I am doing here. 

I finally got Mozart!

still waiting to "get" Wagner though....


----------



## Itullian

Congrats!!!
Listen to Mozart with your heart to fully "get" him. 

And check out our Wagner threads.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Glad you found a way to appreciate an artist you couldn't before!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Congrats. Mozart was the first composer I really discovered, so he basically formed what I thought of music. I was first exposed to Wagner in the movie Excalibur which used a small part from one of the Ring operas, and Bugs Bunny which used the Tannhauser overture. Real stirring stuff.


----------



## Highwayman

Good for you mate! Chok guzel :cheers:


----------



## Guest

Great to hear! Mozart is one of my top 3 favourites. What other works do you like?


----------



## Manxfeeder

Like you, I didn't "get" Mozart until I heard his piano concertos. They are wonderful, especially the later ones.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Manxfeeder said:


> Like you, I didn't "get" Mozart until I heard his piano concertos. They are wonderful, especially the later ones.


I especially enjoy his Piano Sonatas.


----------



## mbhaub

Lucky you - I think. I've been trying to get what so many people hear in his music for close to 50 years and I still don't get it. I've played enough of it: many overtures, the late symphonies, a couple of operas -- it just hasn't entered my soul. Maybe there's too much Schoenberg in me; he didn't care for Mozart either. But two of my favorite composers, Mahler and Tchaikovsky, both idolized him. Maybe someday...


----------



## Pyotr

"Getting Mozart" didn't take much effort for me. It was his music that got me interested in classical.


----------



## Jacck

I am strongly ambivalent towards Mozart. Like you, I have been trying to "get" him for almost a year. There are some works of his that I genuinly enjoy, and others that I have not been able to warm up to until today. The most annoying thing about Mozart are the musical clichés and frequent repetitions (like in each symphony, he repeats basically the same motif 3x times). For me he is definitely THE most difficult composer to fully enjoy. Boulez and his ugly music is easier than Mozart and his syrupy pop-melodies .


----------



## Larkenfield

If anyone is going to completely mischaracterize this amazing composer of consummate genius and fame, please be accurate.  He was celebrated before kings and queens by the time he was five when most children are lucky enough if they can tie their own shoelaces.


----------



## Enthusiast

eljr said:


> But this guy Mozart. He and this guy Wagner. I just don't "get."
> 
> Well, today, finally, while not trying, I was listening to Mozart, Piano Concerto #13 and wow. It just hit me. This stuff is wonderful!


"While not trying" is the key for me. That is how it works when I suddenly get some music that was closed to me before.


----------



## Jacck

Larkenfield said:


> If anyone is going to completely mischaracterize this amazing composer of consummate genius and fame, please be accurate.  He was celebrated before kings and queens by the time he was five when most children are lucky enough if they can tie their own shoelaces.


the problem is that his development halted at the age 5 and when he was 30, he was still using the same empty clichés to entertain the nobles and trying to fit into the straight-jacket image of the Wunderkind. Had he mustered more courage to break away from that image, he could have achieved so much more with his talent.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> the problem is that his development halted at the age 5 and when he was 30, he was still using the same empty clichés to entertain the nobles and trying to fit into the straight-jacket image of the Wunderkind. Had he mustered more courage to break away from that image, he could have achieved so much more with his talent.


I'm always amazed at our capacity to allow our "theories" to colour our perceptions. None of what you say is remotely true. None of it would stand up to the most cursory examination of the data (Mozart's music!) but you have a theory and you believe it to be true so you are Mozart-deaf. With crowd-funding you might get enough for a theory-ectomy and thereby get your aesthetic sense restored.


----------



## derin684

And did you listen to Fantasia K. 475? Yes! It's very like a pop song!

And why can I not reply to someone's post?


----------



## PlaySalieri

eljr said:


> I have only been listening to classical music in earnest for 4 years. A longggggggg time fan of Philip Glass but until 2014 my classical listen had been limited.
> 
> Bach, love him. Early music? Can't get enough. Choral, my good friend @Joe B opened up for me. Baroque, chok guzel!
> 
> Beethoven, good stuff. Simpson, Reich, Adams, what is not to love? Williams, Schoenberg, wonderful. Hyden, what can be better...
> 
> But this guy Mozart. He and this guy Wagner. I just don't "get."
> 
> Well, today, finally, while not trying, I was listening to Mozart, Piano Concerto #13 and wow. It just hit me. This stuff is wonderful!
> 
> I just needed to celebrate so that is what I am doing here.
> 
> I finally got Mozart!
> 
> still waiting to "get" Wagner though....


Welcome to the promised land.

No 13 is exuberant - flush with ideas and bright energy.

Glad you listened to this one and not perhaps, 16 or 18 - which for Mozart, are below par.

Then there is no need to fear the major keys and step like others do, into minor key territory seeking something that seems to look forward to the romantic world.

Try no 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25 for more delights. Go for no 17 first - and amaze yourself with the quality of invention particularly in the final section of the 3rd mvt.


----------



## derin684

Geza Anda recording of 17 is gorgeous, also has No 21 and No 6 in it.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> 16


But I love this one! Better to form one's own preference


----------



## Guest

Mozart is great.


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Mozart is great.


yea 

.....................................................................


----------



## PlaySalieri

shirime said:


> But I love this one! Better to form one's own preference


Yes - no harm in recommendations though.


----------



## Jacck

dogen said:


> Mozart is great.


don't exaggerate, he is overrated and idolized and fetishized to such a degree that people are actually afraid to admit openly that they do not like his music
https://www.quora.com/Does-anybody-not-like-Mozart
a guy here says "In fact, during my time studying music at university I often worried that criticizing Mozart in class might have led to disfavor from a favorite teacher or mentor."


----------



## JAS

I enjoy a great deal of Mozart's music, and that is enough for me. (He doesn't need to be the greatest or most brilliant or whatever accolade one chooses to use. Music isn't a sporting event, even if there is often a lot of jousting between the fans.)


----------



## eugeneonagain

All this about 'getting' or 'not getting' Mozart or any composer. I used to say I didn't get Bruckner, but the truth is that I just had preconceived ideas about Bruckner's music and thus never bothered listening to it. Plus ones tastes change - back and forth sometimes - over the years.
On the whole though, if you've already listened to a lot of a composer's music and it does nothing at all for you, it's unlikely ever to do anything for you. In that scenario just pack it up, stop wasting your life and listen to the things you do like.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Jacck said:


> The most annoying thing about Mozart are the musical clichés and frequent repetitions (like in each symphony, he repeats basically the same motif 3x times). For me he is definitely THE most difficult composer to fully enjoy. Boulez and his ugly music is easier than Mozart and his syrupy pop-melodies .


I guess you haven't really listened to a lot of Mozart then or bothered looking at the developments (the very rapid development in the last 10 years of his life especially) that took place in his compositional technique.



Jacck said:


> the problem is that his development halted at the age 5 and when he was 30, he was still using the same empty clichés to entertain the nobles and trying to fit into the straight-jacket image of the Wunderkind. Had he mustered more courage to break away from that image, he could have achieved so much more with his talent.


As above this is completely mistaken in every way. You've only been trying to 'get' Mozart for a year - a very short period of time - so you should be given a chance to do a bit more careful listening, reading of his scores and looking at his development. I'm confident you'll feel slightly embarrassed when looking back at these two posts.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> .... he is overrated and idolized and fetishized to such a degree that people are actually afraid to admit openly that they do not like his music
> https://www.quora.com/Does-anybody-not-like-Mozart
> a guy here says "In fact, during my time studying music at university I often worried that criticizing Mozart in class might have led to disfavor from a favorite teacher or mentor."


Well, at least you're not scared to admit that you don't like him! In fact it is one of your main subjects. I bet you can't kick the habit of looking out for opportunities to confess your Mozart-deafness ... or is it campaigning to tell us that you are right and all those over the centuries who have told us he is great are wrong? I don't know why but Mozart is clearly important to you, too.

The quote from a student could have come from any student on any subject - there are plenty of scary teachers and insecure students. It certainly isn't a Mozart only phenomenon. On the other hand, the teacher is right: if you don't like Mozart you are doomed!


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> *don't exaggerate, he is overrated* and idolized and fetishized to such a degree that people are actually afraid to admit openly that they do not like his music
> https://www.quora.com/Does-anybody-not-like-Mozart
> a guy here says "In fact, during my time studying music at university I often worried that criticizing Mozart in class might have led to disfavor from a favorite teacher or mentor."


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Enthusiast said:


> Well, at least you're not scared to admit that you don't like him! In fact it is one of your main subjects. I bet you can't kick the habit of looking out for opportunities to confess your Mozart-deafness ... or is it campaigning to tell us that you are right and all those over the centuries who have told us he is great are wrong? I don't know why but Mozart is clearly important to you, too.
> 
> The quote from a student could have come from any student on any subject - there are plenty of scary teachers and insecure students. It certainly isn't a Mozart only phenomenon. On the other hand, the teacher is right: if you don't like Mozart you are doomed!


 I would be surprised if a music professor would take exception to a student not liking Mozart, or any other major master for that matter. It depends though on how that indifference is articulated. 
Still - having spent time in various musical colleges (not as a student) I never heard anyone say I dont like Mozart. I suppose it would be like doing an English degree and saying Shakespeare is overrated. People don't tend to do it as it doesn't sound like a credible statement and they dont want to appear foolish.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Actually quite a lot of people, including English students, say Shakespeare is overrated. There's a sizeable academic output devoted to debunking The Bard. Orwell's assessment of Tolstoy's tirade against Shakespeare (_Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool_) asks this question: "If Shakespeare is all that Tolstoy has shown him to be, how did he ever come to be so generally admired?"

That essay is an interesting parallel to the usual tirades directed at Mozart: that he is overrated; that he was a lightweight fawned upon by aristocrats; that he wrote tiresome, repetitive little tunes; that he is just a name bigged-up by the average classical listener and the general public; that he was a fraud (notably also a charge levelled against Shakespeare).

However in a similar spirit to science - though not identical - we can say the music is there and the test of its quality is its longevity and the resistance to critique. Not tirades or denunciations, but actual meaningful critique, positive and negative. Shoddy things rarely escape analysis unscathed. I think Mozart is pretty safe.


----------



## Captainnumber36

eugeneonagain said:


> Actually quite a lot of people, including English students, say Shakespeare is overrated. There's a sizeable academic output devoted to debunking The Bard. Orwell's assessment of Tolstoy's tirade against Shakespeare (_Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool_) asks this question: "If Shakespeare is all that Tolstoy has shown him to be, how did he ever come to be so generally admired?"
> 
> That essay is an interesting parallel to the usual tirades directed at Mozart: that he is overrated; that he was a lightweight fawned upon by aristocrats; that he wrote tiresome, repetitive little tunes; that he is just a name bigged-up by the average classical listener and the general public; that he was a fraud (notably also a charge levelled against Shakespeare).
> 
> However in a similar spirit to science - though not identical - we can say the music is there and the test of its quality is its longevity and the resistance to critique. Not tirades or denunciations, but actual meaningful critique, positive and negative. Shoddy things rarely escape analysis unscathed. I think Mozart is pretty safe.


Excellent post! I love Shakespeare (Everything I've read) and some Mozart (not most of it though).


----------



## Fredx2098

I love Mozart. Is anyone else not a big fan of Beethoven? It's almost like it's an opinion.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fredx2098 said:


> I love Mozart. Is anyone else not a big fan of Beethoven? It's almost like it's an opinion.


I adore Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

How about stranding Jacck on an island with DavidA, who claims that Mozart's operas are in every way the unquestionable epitome of human (if not superhuman) perfection while trash-talking Wagner as relentlessly and blindly as Jacck disparages Mozart? Give them the complete works of Mozart and Wagner and a month's supply of oatmeal, Spam and sauerkraut (for vitamin C), and they might return to civilization born again.


----------



## Guest

That would be worth paying to watch Woodduck.

It is funny how sometimes when people don't get a particular composer they think that it is due to the composer's shortcomings. Big ego or what???


----------



## Guest

My trajectory was probably the more common one, Mozart was one of my early favorites when I came to classical music. Nowadays I don't listen to Mozart very often. More frequently I listen to new (to me) music to recapture the joy of discovery I first had listening to Mozart. But when I return to Mozart more often than not I experience a depth of enjoyment which is rarely matched.

I'm reading a lot of claims here that Mozart's music consists of cliche's, syrupy pop melodies, boring repetition, and I can only feel astonishment.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Baron Scarpia said:


> My trajectory was probably the more common one, Mozart was one of my early favorites when I came to classical music. Nowadays I don't listen to Mozart very often. More frequently I listen to new (to me) music to recapture the joy of discovery I first had listening to Mozart. But when I return to Mozart more often than not I experience a depth of enjoyment which is rarely matched.
> 
> I'm reading a lot of claims here that Mozart's music consists of cliche's, syrupy pop melodies, boring repetition, and I can only feel astonishment.


I get the cliche and repetition parts, but not being pop, not that pop is bad. His melodies were catchy!


----------



## Guest

Captainnumber36 said:


> I get the cliche and repetition parts, but not being pop, not that pop is bad. His melodies were catchy!


Of course Mozart had to conform to the musical customs of his time, to my ears he filled those forms (or cliche's) with more meaningful music than any other composer of the era. Except for the menuetto & trio movements, in which there is a lot of literal repetition, I find Mozart always gives us a new and interesting context when a motif or melody is repeated.


----------



## Woodduck

Baron Scarpia said:


> Of course Mozart had to conform to the musical customs of his time, to my ears he filled those forms (or cliche's) with more meaningful music than any other composer of the era. Except for the menuetto & trio movements, in which there is a lot of literal repetition, I find Mozart always gives us a new and interesting context when a motif or melody is repeated.


I would like Classical period works better without those ubiquitous, repetitive minuets. Apparently Haydn wasn't thrilled with them either; he said, perhaps with a sigh, that someday someone might write a really original minuet. He might have been delighted with Beethoven's replacement of the minuet with the scherzo.


----------



## Guest

Well, you can always skip them. There are some by Mozart and Haydn that I enjoy a lot, although the HIP practice of observing _all_ repeats can be too much of a good thing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

mbhaub said:


> Lucky you - I think. I've been trying to get what so many people hear in his music for close to 50 years and I still don't get it. I've played enough of it: many overtures, the late symphonies, a couple of operas -- it just hasn't entered my soul. Maybe there's too much Schoenberg in me; he didn't care for Mozart either. But two of my favorite composers, Mahler and Tchaikovsky, both idolized him. Maybe someday...


Mozart was schoenbergs greatest hero


----------



## eugeneonagain

Didn't Haydn also write scherzos? The second movts of his op.33 set are scherzos instead of his usual minuet. Then he seems to revert!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Baron Scarpia said:


> My trajectory was probably the more common one, Mozart was one of my early favorites when I came to classical music. Nowadays I don't listen to Mozart very often. More frequently I listen to new (to me) music to recapture the joy of discovery I first had listening to Mozart. But when I return to Mozart more often than not I experience a depth of enjoyment which is rarely matched.
> 
> I'm reading a lot of claims here that Mozart's music consists of cliche's, syrupy pop melodies, boring repetition, and I can only feel astonishment.


A lot of claims?

I can see just one


----------



## Bluecrab

Baron Scarpia said:


> I'm reading a lot of *claims* here that Mozart's music consists of cliche's, syrupy pop melodies, boring repetition, and I can only feel astonishment.


I would call those comments opinions rather than claims. After all, we're talking about personal taste here. One man's musical trash is another man's musical treasure.

I listen mostly to baroque and modern music. The negative comments about modern music (especially atonal music) on this forum are legion. I couldn't care less. You like what you like, I like what I like. What I can't fathom are those who say things such as "listeners who simply don't like the music of (insert name of any given composer) must not 'get' him/her", or that those listeners are simply "wrong." That to me is utterly untenable nonsense.


----------



## Guest

Bluecrab said:


> I would call those comments opinions rather than claims. After all, we're talking about personal taste here. One man's musical trash is another man's musical treasure.
> 
> I listen mostly to baroque and modern music. The negative comments about modern music (especially atonal music) on this forum are legion. I couldn't care less. You like what you like, I like what I like. What I can't fathom are those who say things such as "listeners who simply don't like the music of (insert name of any given composer) must not 'get' him/her", or that those listeners are simply "wrong." That to me is utterly untenable nonsense.


I only said I was astonished. Do you permit me to be astonished?


----------



## DeepR

I don't know that much of Mozart's music. I've listened to some concerto's, a few symphonies and some other famous pieces (Requiem among others). 
He's great, no doubts there. I like his music a lot. In fact, there has never been a piece of classical music that I liked SO much right the first time I heard it. It brought me into a state of exaltation, completely spellbinded. It's the 4th movement of the 41st symphony.


----------



## Bluecrab

Baron Scarpia said:


> I only said I was astonished. Do you permit me to be astonished?


You don't need my permission to do anything. If you want to feel astonished, go right ahead. I'd just suggest that you bear in mind that that's a subjective reaction.


----------



## Guest

Bluecrab said:


> You don't need my permission to do anything. If you want to feel astonished, go right ahead. I'd just suggest that you bear in mind that that's a subjective reaction.


Is there any possible context in which being astonished is not subjective?


----------



## Bluecrab

Baron Scarpia said:


> Is there any possible context in which being astonished is not subjective?


Well, I suppose that one could be astonished to learn of some empirically verifiable fact. Perhaps there were some who were astonished to learn that Pluto is not a planet. It's likely that there were mathematicians who were astonished when Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theoeim. But those examples are very different from being astonished that somebody opines that there are cliches in Mozart's music, or that they find his music (insert any negative opinion of Mozart's music here).


----------



## jdec

Bluecrab said:


> One man's musical trash is another man's musical treasure.


Since we are talking about Mozart here, I'd rather say: "One man's musical trash is another 100 men's musical treasure."


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm so glad to hear that you've finally gotten Mozart. Now, the next step is to meet with us on Tuesday nights, and be sure to wear silk pants and a powdered wig!


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> However in a similar spirit to science - though not identical - we can say the music is there and the test of its quality is its longevity and the resistance to critique. Not tirades or denunciations, but actual meaningful critique, positive and negative. Shoddy things rarely escape analysis unscathed. I think Mozart is pretty safe.


silly ideas can even in science survive for centuries until they are finally corrected. Because a lot of the process of doing science is the culture of it. Students are trained by the professors to to think in certain ways, they soak in those ideas while they are young, and when they get old, they themselves become the conservatives and perpetuate the wrong ideas. And when a genius appears who can think outside the box, he is often ridiculed by the academic establishment and it can take decades for his ideas to take hold. Just a random example - Ludwig Boltzmann.
And there is some objectivity in science (reality itself is the corrective force to weed out the silly ideas), there is no objectivity in arts and the silliness perpetuated in the arts and soft sciences is many magnitudes higher than the silliness in hard sciences.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> You don't need my permission to do anything. If you want to feel astonished, go right ahead. *I'd just suggest that you bear in mind that that's a subjective reaction.*


I think he's aware of that.

I also think it's quite natural to be astonished when one hears, what seem to be tasteless criticism, of a fairly well universally admired composer.


----------



## Eusebius12

Mozart admired? He has far less youtube hits and itunes downloads than Drake.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> silly ideas can even in science survive for centuries until they are finally corrected. Because a lot of the process of doing science is the culture of it. Students are trained by the professors to to think in certain ways, they soak in those ideas while they are young, and when they get old, they themselves become the conservatives and perpetuate the wrong ideas. And when a genius appears who can think outside the box, he is often ridiculed by the academic establishment and it can take decades for his ideas to take hold. Just a random example - Ludwig Boltzmann.
> And there is some objectivity in science (reality itself is the corrective force to weed out the silly ideas), there is no objectivity in arts and the silliness perpetuated in the arts and soft sciences is many magnitudes higher than the silliness in hard sciences.


Music was in a far more advanced state than science when Mozart was alive. In the 19thC there were scientists whose ideas were ahead of their time - and the scientific world was still in a stage of development in terms of peer review etc.

Nothing much escapes the world of science today - if a genius is born and presents his findings in the right format - it will be noticed and given credit.

If Mozart's music is silly, how would you characterise the music of other masters from that era who are now forgotten? Or did the silly survive and true greateness was somehow overlooked as in the case of Ludwig Boltzmann? Bear in Mind that in the mid 19thC Mozart's music was thought the be quite primitive by many and it was only in the 20thC that he started to receive the credit he enjoys today.

The truth is there is no sillyness in art objectively speaking and this is just another silly post re-iterating your dislike of Mozart - and trying to build an objective argument by comparing science to art. You are saying that in due course posterity will reject Mozart for the same reasons you do.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> Music was in a far more advanced state than science when Mozart was alive. In the 19thC there were scientists whose ideas were ahead of their time - and the scientific world was still in a stage of development in terms of peer review etc. Nothing much escapes the world of science today - if a genius is born and presents his findings in the right format - it will be noticed and given credit. If Mozart's music is silly, how would you characterise the music of other masters from that era who are now forgotten? Or did the silly survive and true greateness was somehow overlooked as in the case of Ludwig Boltzmann? Bear in Mind that in the mid 19thC Mozart's music was thought the be quite primitive by many and it was only in the 20thC that he started to receive the credit he enjoys today. The truth is there is no sillyness in art objectively speaking and this is just another silly post re-iterating your dislike of Mozart - and trying to build an objective argument by comparing science to art. You are saying that in due course posterity will reject Mozart for the same reasons you do.


I did not say that Mozart is silly, I meant people like you who are building cults around Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> I did not say that Mozart is silly, I meant people like you who are building cults around Mozart.


Are you saying that me and others who adore Mozart are silly and dumb?


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from negative, personal comments. This thread is about celebrating Mozart. Posts which denigrate Mozart or those who enjoy his music are inappropriate here.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Jacck said:


> silly ideas can even in science survive for centuries until they are finally corrected. Because a lot of the process of doing science is the culture of it. Students are trained by the professors to to think in certain ways, they soak in those ideas while they are young, and when they get old, they themselves become the conservatives and perpetuate the wrong ideas. And when a genius appears who can think outside the box, he is often ridiculed by the academic establishment and it can take decades for his ideas to take hold. Just a random example - Ludwig Boltzmann.
> And there is some objectivity in science (reality itself is the corrective force to weed out the silly ideas), there is no objectivity in arts and the silliness perpetuated in the arts and soft sciences is many magnitudes higher than the silliness in hard sciences.


And of course over 300 years has not been long enough to "correct" the wrong-headed legacy of Mozart as you see it. So it is a conspiracy of mass-hypnosis and when I marvel at Mozart's excellent counterpoint writing in Symphony 41, I am just parroting the prejudices of professors?
Of course, you, with your one year of Mozart under your belt have seen the ruse for what it is. Maybe you are that lone genius thinking out of the box?

Give us a break.


----------



## Larkenfield

Jacck said:


> I did not say that Mozart is silly, I meant people like you who are building cults around Mozart.


 In case you haven't noticed, this is a Mozart appreciation thread and party crashers who try to spoil the festivities with inappropriate accusations about "cults" and a bullying attitude toward the partygoers aren't particularly welcome. The exit is on your right.


----------



## Triplets

eljr said:


> I have only been listening to classical music in earnest for 4 years. A longggggggg time fan of Philip Glass but until 2014 my classical listen had been limited.
> 
> Bach, love him. Early music? Can't get enough. Choral, my good friend @Joe B opened up for me. Baroque, chok guzel!
> 
> Beethoven, good stuff. Simpson, Reich, Adams, what is not to love? Williams, Schoenberg, wonderful. Hyden, what can be better...
> 
> But this guy Mozart. He and this guy Wagner. I just don't "get."
> 
> Well, today, finally, while not trying, I was listening to Mozart, Piano Concerto #13 and wow. It just hit me. This stuff is wonderful!
> 
> I just needed to celebrate so that is what I am doing here.
> 
> I finally got Mozart!
> 
> still waiting to "get" Wagner though....


Re: Wagner. That might be a long wait for you, based upon the Composers that you so far have enjoyed. If it never happens, don't sweat it; you won't be the first listener to escape the spell of that sorcerer.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> And there is some objectivity in science (reality itself is the corrective force to weed out the silly ideas), there is no objectivity in arts and the silliness perpetuated in the arts and soft sciences is many magnitudes higher than the silliness in hard sciences.


So you are saying - apparently in the belief that it is an objective judgement that you and very few others just happen to be privy to - that Mozart's music is made up of silly ideas. First, in taking the comparison with science in this direction you are suggesting that the two are trying to do the same thing. But the truth that great art seeks to deliver to us is not at all the same as the truth that science (including soft science - which I suspect is another area you don't understand) aims at. Secondly, how come you are an authority on Mozart - a composer whose work you clearly lack an understanding of as well as an empathy for - or on what is valuable, meaningful and "not silly" in music? And, lastly, what evidence do you have that Mozart's reputation rests on the beliefs of a misguided cult? Your thinking is circular - "Mozart is rubbish - I know this because I feel it but, unlike others, what _I _feel is the truth - so all those highly experienced, rigorous and cultured people over hundreds of years must be deluded - this is evidence of cult thinking". This is almost paranoia!

Meanwhile, I am left wondering why this matters to you so much? OK, you are unable to enjoy and receive sustenance from a composer that most of those who like classical music think of as one of the greatest. But look around you on this site. Most of us have blind spots. Most of us also know that - that it is a blind spot - but you can't let yours go. You think it is a matter of everyone else being victims of an elaborate con while your taste is the only true guide to what is worthwhile in the world - not just for you but for everyone else, too. Why? You are not like that on other matters, are you? Why the obsession with Mozart's "silliness".

Forget about Mozart. He is not for you. But let us enjoy his music in peace and - if you could manage this it would be nice - without despising us!


----------



## Jacck

Larkenfield said:


> In case you haven't noticed, this is a Mozart appreciation thread and party crashers who try to spoil the festivities with a bullying attitude aren't particularly welcome. The exit is on your right.


no, I haven't noticed. This is a thread about "finally getting Mozart" and I feel the thread is relevant to me. To some degree, I "got" Mozart several months ago, ie I honestly did enjoy some of his music. And you are the bullies here. When someone says "I don't like Mozart or I feel he is overrated", you immediately come with you haughty condescending attitudes about the person being somehow wrong or not getting it or wait couple of years till you mature, then you will be ashamed of your comments etc. This discrespect to the genuine feelings, opinions and experiences of others is the real problem here. I like Bach, but I would never behave in such a condescending manner to someone, who does not "get" Bach. So grow up.


----------



## Larkenfield

Jacck said:


> no, I haven't noticed. This is a thread about "finally getting Mozart" and I feel the thread is relevant to me. To some degree, I "got" Mozart several months ago, ie I honestly did enjoy some of his music. And you are the bullies here. When someone says "I don't like Mozart or I feel he is overrated", you immediately come with you haughty condescending attitudes about the person being somehow wrong or not getting it or wait couple of years till you mature, then you will be ashamed of your comments etc. This discrespect to the genuine feelings, opinions and experiences of others is the real problem here. I like Bach, but I would never behave in such a condescending manner to someone, who does not "get" Bach. So grow up.


Believe me, the OP thread is not relevant to you. It's about the OP. If you continue on this appreciation thread, I will lodge a formal protest with the mods and you can take it up with them. It's not that you haven't had a chance to express your constant complaints about a man who contributed so much to the music and refer to others as cultists (untrue) ad infinitum on other threads, and frankly it's starting to suggest some troubling personal issues and I hope the mods intervene before the situation gets any worse. This was never intended as a general Mozart discussion thread.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> no, I haven't noticed. This is a thread about "finally getting Mozart" and I feel the thread is relevant to me. To some degree, I "got" Mozart several months ago, ie I honestly did enjoy some of his music. And you are the bullies here. When someone says "I don't like Mozart or I feel he is overrated", you immediately come with you haughty condescending attitudes about the person being somehow wrong or not getting it or wait couple of years till you mature, then you will be ashamed of your comments etc. This discrespect to the genuine feelings, opinions and experiences of others is the real problem here. I like Bach, but I would never behave in such a condescending manner to someone, who does not "get" Bach. So grow up.


Sorry but when you start insulting music by claiming it is ridden with cliche's and that the cult of Mozart alone is fueling his popularity - and calling admirers of a composer dumb and silly - you have really gone beyond expressing your preferences in a dignified way.

I must admit when I arrived on this forum 10 years ago I initially made some unwise comments and modified my behavior and language out of respect for others feelings and preferences.

You've been reprimanded by a moderator for making inappropriate comments on a thread so overall you need to go and take a careful look at yourself before landing yourself in further trouble and getting banned outright. I am actually surprised you have not at least had an infraction.

I also see you are from Czech - a nation that keeps Mozart very close to its heart. How do you manage?


----------



## Captainnumber36

It's undeniable, objective fact, that Mozart has certain phrases he utilizes in a lot of his music. It is of personal taste if you enjoy his music or not.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's undeniable, objective fact, that Mozart has certain phrases he utilizes in a lot of his music. It is of personal taste if you enjoy his music or not.


Every composer uses stock phrases over and again. It's the nuts and bolts of the music.

Listen to Mahler - the same motifs on that trumpet keep coming back in different works


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Actually quite a lot of people, including English students, say Shakespeare is overrated. There's a sizeable academic output devoted to debunking The Bard. Orwell's assessment of Tolstoy's tirade against Shakespeare (_Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool_) asks this question: "If Shakespeare is all that Tolstoy has shown him to be, how did he ever come to be so generally admired?"


Quite a few people who say they like Shakespeare really just watched the movie "Shakespeare in Love" (or just know that Shakespeare is highly regarded as a writer) and have never really read or seen a Shakespeare play.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> Every composer uses stock phrases over and again. It's the nuts and bolts of the music.
> 
> Listen to Mahler - the same motifs on that trumpet keep coming back in different works


I suppose it's more apparent to me with Baroque and Classical Era music; I haven't noticed it with Mahler at all, but I have decided I don't care much for Mahler after all (see my Mahler: Most Bi Polar composer ever thread for details if interested).


----------



## Captainnumber36

JAS said:


> Quite a few people who say they like Shakespeare really just watched the movie "Shakespeare in Love" (or just know that Shakespeare is highly regarded as a writer) and have never really read or seen a Shakespeare play.


I admittedly read Shakespeare, for pleasure, in modern English translations. I did read the original text in High School and that almost ruined reading for me forever. What an unnecessary struggle! If they want us to read Old English, they should teach that to us in schools along with modern english from a young age to prepare us for it.

Right now I'm reading the Canterbury Tales in modern english.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> Quite a few people who say they like Shakespeare really just watched the movie "Shakespeare in Love" (or just know that Shakespeare is highly regarded as a writer) and have never really read or seen a Shakespeare play.


And?

There may be people who are as you describe but what does that mean? It _doesn't _mean that all people who claim to like Shakespeare have never read (or seen) him. There are also a lot of people who claim to hate Shakespeare and yet have never read or seen a single one of his plays.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> no, I haven't noticed. This is a thread about "finally getting Mozart" and I feel the thread is relevant to me. To some degree, I "got" Mozart several months ago, ie I honestly did enjoy some of his music. And you are the bullies here. When someone says "I don't like Mozart or I feel he is overrated", you immediately come with you haughty condescending attitudes about the person being somehow wrong or not getting it or wait couple of years till you mature, then you will be ashamed of your comments etc. This discrespect to the genuine feelings, opinions and experiences of others is the real problem here. I like Bach, but I would never behave in such a condescending manner to someone, who does not "get" Bach. So grow up.


I know you are sincere. But I don't think anyone is bullying you. And I don't think anyone is having a go at you because you don't like Mozart. But several among us object to your repeated claim that those who enjoy Mozart are deluded, the unwitting victims of a con trick or, even worse, are liars. This seems to make you the bully: you wish to claim that those who don't feel the same way as you about Mozart are wrong. Read through the thread and you will see that this is true.


----------



## ido66667

eljr said:


> Early music?


I'd recommend checking out lute repertoire: John Dowland, Robert de Visee, Silvius Leopold Weiss, Marco Dall'Aquil and many more! Don't miss out on Renaissance madrigals and choral music too! Arcadelt, Gabrieli, Monteverdi, Gesualdo, ect.

Never forget Shosty, Prokofiev and Britten when it comes to modern!

And just a tip: don't try to force "getting" something. Just explore and if you don't like something, move on for now, maybe it'll come naturally later. Some things you may never "get" too, like everyone, and that's okay!
The thing about classical, and music in general is there are always pleasant suprises for those dearing enough.

Speaking of Mozart, I always liked the Sonata Semplice, as cliché as it is. Also, Mitsuko Uchida is my go to for Mozart... Just beware of the cringeworthy "conducting".


----------



## PlaySalieri

ido66667 said:


> I'd recommend checking out lute repertoire: John Dowland, Robert de Visee, Silvius Leopold Weiss, Marco Dall'Aquil and many more! Don't miss out on Renaissance madrigals and choral music too! Arcadelt, Gabrieli, Monteverdi, Gesualdo, ect.
> 
> Never forget Shosty, Prokofiev and Britten when it comes to modern!
> 
> And just a tip: don't try to force "getting" something. Just explore and if you don't like something, move on for now, maybe it'll come naturally later. Some things you may never "get" too, like everyone, and that's okay!
> The thing about classical, and music in general is there are always pleasant suprises for those dearing enough.
> 
> Speaking of Mozart,* I always liked the Sonata Semplice, as cliché as it is.* Also, Mitsuko Uchida is my go to for Mozart... Just beware of the cringeworthy "conducting".


Me too - I never tire of listening to that one (K545) - those scales in the 1st mvt sound wonderful when played to perfection.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> Me too - I never tire of listening to that one (K545) - those scales in the 1st mvt sound wonderful when played to perfection.


I'm a fan of all of Mozart's Piano Sonatas.  I have Barenboim's set. I've also enjoyed Lily Krauss and Gould's cycles as well.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> I admittedly read Shakespeare, *for pleasure, in modern English translations.* I did read the original text in High School and that almost ruined reading for me forever. What an unnecessary struggle! If they want us to read Old English, they should teach that to us in schools along with modern english from a young age to prepare us for it.
> 
> Right now I'm reading the Canterbury Tales in modern english.


???

Shakespeare's period is really the start of the modern English era. There are some archaic expressions and words but it is easily understandable.

what is difficult is the figurative language and allusions, word play etc - which is the essence of Shakespeare - and if you dont get that - it will sound like a foreign language.

I hated shakespeare at school for these reasons and only discovered him in my 30s when I did an A level in english lit.

Chaucer in the original late middle english is tough but loses all charm when rendered into modern english.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> And?
> 
> There may be people who are as you describe but what does that mean? It _doesn't _mean that all people who claim to like Shakespeare have never read (or seen) him. There are also a lot of people who claim to hate Shakespeare and yet have never read or seen a single one of his plays.


It just means that when someone (or something) reaches a certain level of general acceptance or admiration it becomes problematic to determine actual popularity, in a genuine sense, from people just wanting to be associated with something widely deemed as good. (It does not say that Shakespeare isn't worthy of admiration, or is.) To stay on topic, something similar might be said about Mozart. There is also a reverse effect, where one stands in opposition to something widely deemed as good chiefly for the sake of establishing independence. People can be very complicated.


----------



## JAS

stomanek said:


> Shakespeare's period is really the start of the modern English era. There are some archaic expressions and words but it is easily understandable.


And there are always annotated editions to help with references and historical word usages. (When Juliet says "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo?" she isn't asking where he is.) Much of the power of Shakespeare is in the beauty of his language. (I wonder if the rather quaint and archaic sense that we have of it now alters its relevance from when it was more contemporary. As a play, written in high poetic style, I suspect that it has always had a somewhat special sense to the language. I generally prefer my Shakespeare plays to have traditional settings and retain the original language.)



stomanek said:


> Chaucer in the original late middle english is tough but loses all charm when rendered into modern english.


I have CD recordings of several of the tales, but I don't think they had enough commercial appeal to finish the set. I also have Beowulf in the original tongue, although one wonders about the pronunciations. It is interesting to hear and to get a sense of the original context, but almost none of it is recognizable as English (and there are still lots of debates about what it really is).


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> ???
> 
> Shakespeare's period is really the start of the modern English era. *There are some archaic expressions and words* but it is easily understandable.
> 
> what is difficult is the figurative language and allusions, word play etc - which is the essence of Shakespeare - and if you dont get that - it will sound like a foreign language.
> 
> I hated shakespeare at school for these reasons and only discovered him in my 30s when I did an A level in english lit.
> 
> Chaucer in the original late middle english is tough but loses all charm when rendered into modern english.


This is what makes it difficult and unenjoyable for me and makes me prefer the modern english versions. I don't feel like taking the time to familiarize myself with archaic terms. I know I lose a lot of the poetic nuance and beauty, but I still get the plot.

Same thing goes for Chaucer.


----------



## Captainnumber36

JAS said:


> And there are always annotated editions to help with references and historical word usages. (When Juliet says "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo?" she isn't asking where he is.)
> 
> I have CD recordings of several of the tales, but I don't think they had enough commercial appeal to finish the set. I also have Beowulf in the original tongue, although one wonders about the pronunciations. It is interesting to hear and to get a sense of the original context, but almost none of it is recognizable as English (and there are still lots of debates about what it really is).


And that's fine if you want to pause while reading to learn the historic terms to appreciate the original text, this is not my preference.

I have purchased copies of and plan to read The Odyssey and Beowulf.


----------



## ido66667

stomanek said:


> ???
> 
> Shakespeare's period is really the start of the modern English era. There are some archaic expressions and words but it is easily understandable.
> 
> what is difficult is the figurative language and allusions, word play etc - which is the essence of Shakespeare - and if you dont get that - it will sound like a foreign language.
> 
> I hated shakespeare at school for these reasons and only discovered him in my 30s when I did an A level in english lit.
> 
> Chaucer in the original late middle english is tough but loses all charm when rendered into modern english.


I whole heartedly agree. Same with Robert Burns' poems in "anglicized" pronouncation and dialect.
Generally, poetry is best read and heard in its original language and dialect.

As for Shakespeare, Chaucer and Burns, you have lots of readily available resources that can aid you with understanding them in their original form.

Reading Chaucer for example? No worry, read a wee about middle english grammar and open up a middle english dictionary online.
Shakespeare? You have an unending amount of notes online that can help you with unraveling even the most cryptic of lines.

Where will you run into trouble? Finnigans Wake... That one's a beast.



Captainnumber36 said:


> And that's fine if you want to pause while reading to learn the historic terms to appreciate the original text, this is not my preference.
> 
> I have purchased copies of and plan to read The Odyssey and Beowulf.


Well, I think it's fair enough reading Beowulf and The Odessy in translations. You still want to be able to access these great works without spending years learning and mastering another language.

Still, something is always lost or changed in translation. There's no escape, especially when translating from vastly different tounges. As an Hebrew speaker, I can testify that biblical poetry (written in classical Hebrew, a Semitic Afroasiatic language) is very different in the original than when you read it in English (a Germanic Indo-European language) translations. It's hard to explain and stress how much is lost.


----------



## Captainnumber36

ido66667 said:


> I whole heartedly agree. Same with Robert Burns' poems in "anglicized" pronouncation and dialect.
> Generally, poetry is best read and heard in its original language and dialect.
> 
> As for Shakespeare, Chaucer and Burns, you have lots of readily available resources that can aid you with understanding them in their original form.
> 
> Reading Chaucer for example? No worry, read a wee about middle english grammar and open up a middle english dictionary online.
> Shakespeare? You have an unending amount of notes online that can help you with unraveling even the most cryptic of lines.
> 
> Where will you run into trouble? Finnigans Wake... That one's a beast.


I understand where you are coming from and I concede that reading the original text helps appreciate the beauty of the poetic nuance going on.

However, I can't be bothered at this time to put in that kind of effort. I just want to appreciate the story and for poetry, read modern works.

But, I do buy versions of the books that have both the original and translated texts so in case I feel so inspired in the future to learn archaic English, I can.

It's undeniable that schools do not prepare you to understand these old works and it is like reading a foreign language when they push it on you. I think something needs to be done about that, b/c it makes reading un-fun and like I said, almost turned me off from the great art of literature!


----------



## JAS

Fortunately, language is not really the same kind of barrier for orchestral works, although one must be sympathetic to a style to appreciate it. That would go for Mozart, who, I believe, is, technically, the subject of the thread (from which we have greatly digressed).


----------



## Captainnumber36

JAS said:


> Fortunately, language is not really the same kind of barrier for orchestral works, although one must be sympathetic to a style to appreciate it. That would go for Mozart, who, I believe, is, technically, the subject of the thread (from which we have greatly digressed).


Perhaps the biggest similarity is an arrangement of the original being like a translated version of the original...sometimes made simpler for beginners.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JAS said:


> It just means that when someone (or something) reaches a certain level of general acceptance or admiration it becomes problematic to determine actual popularity, in a genuine sense, from people just wanting to be associated with something widely deemed as good. (It does not say that Shakespeare isn't worthy of admiration, or is.)


And if I wanted a ton of Kudos among intellectuals I would shrewdly say, I like Phlip Glass and Stockhausen - the last composer I would mention is Mozart. Beethoven has far more prestige than Mozart as the former is perceived as a serious composer.

I recall a mum telling me about her 14 y/o son's passion for music - she asked - who is your favourite comp? I said - Mozart. Her moment had come. Ah, she said with some satisfaction, and proudly declared with much emphasis, eyes shining - XXX prefers Beethoven!

I considered myself well and truly put in my place.

So you see - there's really not much to be gained from taking Mozart's side, except the music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> And if I wanted a ton of Kudos among intellectuals I would shrewdly say, I like Phlip Glass and Stockhausen - the last composer I would mention is Mozart. Beethoven has far more prestige than Mozart as the former is perceived as a serious composer.
> 
> I recall a mum telling me about her 14 y/o son's passion for music - she asked - who is your favourite comp? I said - Mozart. Her moment had come. Ah, she said with some satisfaction, and proudly declared with much emphasis, eyes shining - XXX prefers Beethoven!
> 
> I considered myself well and truly put in my place.
> 
> So you see - there's really not much to be gained from taking Mozart's side, except the music.


I think I recall you stating that story before. Very funny, I would have politely called her out, probably. Something along the lines of, "It seems like you believe Beethoven is superior to Mozart, why is that?"

You are being sarcastic when you say you felt put in your place, right?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> This is what makes it difficult and unenjoyable for me and makes me prefer the modern english versions. I don't feel like taking the time to familiarize myself with archaic terms. I know I lose a lot of the poetic nuance and beauty, but I still get the plot.
> 
> Same thing goes for Chaucer.


If you want a way into Shakespeare I suggest either Hamlet or HenryV. Go and look up the St Crispin's Day speech and see if you can get the spirit of it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think I recall you stating that story before. Very funny, I would have politely called her out, probably. Something along the lines of, "It seems like you believe Beethoven is superior to Mozart, why is that?"
> 
> You are being sarcastic when you say you felt put in your place, right?


I had no wish to dampen a mother's enthusiasm and pride for her son's choice.


----------



## JAS

Mozart's general popularity soared with the play, and even more with the movie, "Amadeus." Beethoven's did not get the same boost from "Immortal Beloved," although perhaps he didn't need it. (And the Mozart story is more entertaining, if not historically accurate.) Both are old enough now for that effect to have diminished, unless they suddenly become heroes in the Marvel comics world.


----------



## ido66667

stomanek said:


> And if I wanted a ton of Kudos among intellectuals I would shrewdly say, I like Phlip Glass and Stockhausen - the last composer I would mention is Mozart. Beethoven has far more prestige than Mozart as the former is perceived as a serious composer.
> 
> I recall a mum telling me about her 14 y/o son's passion for music - she asked - who is your favourite comp? I said - Mozart. Her moment had come. Ah, she said with some satisfaction, and proudly declared with much emphasis, eyes shining - XXX prefers Beethoven!
> 
> I considered myself well and truly put in my place.
> 
> So you see - there's really not much to be gained from taking Mozart's side, except the music.


To be honest, I think saying Beethoven, Stockhausen, Or Glass will gain you favour with the *pseudo-intellectuals*. In my opinion, most serious enthusiasts of classical music will be able to appreciate you naming Mozart. Well, but maybe I'm just being too optimistic here...


----------



## JAS

stomanek said:


> If you want a way into Shakespeare I suggest either Hamlet or HenryV. Go and look up the St Crispin's Day speech and see if you can get the spirit of it.


And it often helps to hear it "sold" by a great actor rather than reading the words, flat on the page (unless one has a histrionic streak or one's own). There is a lot of room for the actor in Shakespeare, which is part of why there are so many versions.


----------



## Captainnumber36

JAS said:


> And it often helps to hear it "sold" by a great actor rather than reading the words, flat on the page (unless one has a histrionic streak or one's own). There is a lot of room for the actor in Shakespeare, which is part of why there are so many versions.


I think if I read the modern play, then saw an actual live performance of it in Shakespearean language, it would help with understanding the original text.

Were plays ever meant to be read in Shakespeare's day?


----------



## ido66667

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think if I read the modern play, then saw an actual live performance of it in Shakespearean language, it would help with understanding the original text.
> 
> Were plays ever meant to be read in Shakespeare's day?


Well, originally they were ment to be played, per definition, and it's still the best way to experience it.
Even with modern stuff, reading "Waiting for Godot" is less than half the experience than actually seeing it acted.

Though, yeah, with the archaicness of shakespeare and his language, it'll help alot reading and understanding it in before hand.


----------



## JAS

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think if I read the modern play, then saw an actual live performance of it in Shakespearean language, it would help with understanding the original text.
> 
> Were plays ever meant to be read in Shakespeare's day?


A few of his plays were published in his lifetime, near the end, I think, but mostly they were collected and published only after his death. They were meant to be performed. (An interesting question is how the actors got their lines. It is possible that many of them could not actually read, so there may have been limited copies written out and distributed to the actors, or they just learned their lines by having them read to them. There are no surviving manuscripts, unless they turn out to be buried at Oak Island, along with the Ark of the Covenant . . . I am kidding there, although both ideas have actually been suggested.)

And it is certainly helpful to read a summary of characters and plot, as it often is for operas. Otherwise, you often have to go through it more than once, just to get an idea of what is going on, and that much focus becomes too much work and ruins much of the pleasure.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JAS said:


> Mozart's general popularity soared with the play, and even more with the movie, "Amadeus." Beethoven's did not get the same boost from "Immortal Beloved," although perhaps he didn't need it. (And the Mozart story is more entertaining, if not historically accurate.) Both are old enough now for that effect to have diminished, unless they suddenly become heroes in the Marvel comics world.


This myth about Mozart owing his popularity to Amadeus just does not stack up.

Before the play or film - Mozart was already the most recorded composer and along with Beethoven - most played in concert halls. In opera then as now - he is second only to Verdi in terms of number of operas performed per year.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JAS said:


> And it often helps to hear it "sold" by a great actor rather than reading the words, flat on the page (unless one has a histrionic streak or one's own). There is a lot of room for the actor in Shakespeare, which is part of why there are so many versions.


Agreed - But I recall reading the passage before seeing it on screen and just being blown away.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> This myth about Mozart owing his popularity to Amadeus just does not stack up.
> 
> Before the play or film - Mozart was already the most recorded composer and along with Beethoven - most played in concert halls. In opera then as now - he is second only to Verdi in terms of number of operas performed per year.


Ya, Amadeus may have generated further interest in a composer that was already well regarded by Mainstream America and Classical enthusiasts alike.


----------



## JAS

stomanek said:


> This myth about Mozart owing his popularity to Amadeus just does not stack up.
> 
> Before the play or film - Mozart was already the most recorded composer and along with Beethoven - most played in concert halls. In opera then as now - he is second only to Verdi in terms of number of operas performed per year.


He certainly does not "owe" it to the play, but it also clearly "soared" due to it, which is why I chose the word.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> It just means that when someone (or something) reaches a certain level of general acceptance or admiration it becomes problematic to determine actual popularity, in a genuine sense, from people just wanting to be associated with something widely deemed as good. (It does not say that Shakespeare isn't worthy of admiration, or is.) To stay on topic, something similar might be said about Mozart. There is also a reverse effect, where one stands in opposition to something widely deemed as good chiefly for the sake of establishing independence. People can be very complicated.


I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. It is not important if some people pretend to like something that lot of people already like. People like that are not so common and they don't matter anyway. Actually, unless you are a concert planner or a record company executive, I wouldn't worry about popularity at all.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Enthusiast said:


> I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. It is not important if some people pretend to like something that lot of people already like. People like that are not so common and they don't matter anyway. Actually, unless you are a concert planner or a record company executive, I wouldn't worry about popularity at all.


Or an aspiring artist, like me! :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

Captainnumber36 said:


> This is what makes it difficult and unenjoyable for me and makes me prefer the modern english versions. I don't feel like taking the time to familiarize myself with archaic terms. I know I lose a lot of the poetic nuance and beauty, but I still get the plot.
> 
> Same thing goes for Chaucer.


Schools can do a lot of damage with Shakespeare. Or (as in my case) a good teacher can do the opposite - set you up for life. But, for those who feel they don't like Shakespeare, do they read plays (and poems) by others - it is not so easy reading a play - or do they routinely go to the theatre to see serious drama? If the answer to these is no then it isn't Shakespeare they don't like, it is drama.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> Mozart's general popularity soared with the play, and even more with the movie, "Amadeus." Beethoven's did not get the same boost from "Immortal Beloved," although perhaps he didn't need it. (And the Mozart story is more entertaining, if not historically accurate.) Both are old enough now for that effect to have diminished, unless they suddenly become heroes in the Marvel comics world.


I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing not as old as me! Mozart's popularity was perhaps greater among ordinary classical music fans in the 60s and 70s than it is now. I don't know if Amadeus helped to reverse that trend for a while but it wasn't such a big boost.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Enthusiast said:


> Schools can do a lot of damage with Shakespeare. Or (as in my case) a good teacher can do the opposite - set you up for life. But, for those who feel they don't like Shakespeare, do they read plays (and poems) by others - it is not so easy reading a play - or do they routinely go to the theatre to see serious drama. If the answer to these is no then it isn't Shakespeare they don't like, it is drama.


Perhaps school turned them away from it.


----------



## Enthusiast

I don't know if this helps the Mozart doubters but the music of every period has things that are done - stylistic flourishes and so on - that help give shape and punctuation to the music. Good composers have their own takes on these flourishes. Coming anew to the music of any period the first things you hear are these stylistic devices. It seems to me that it is these that people who are uncertain about Mozart are disturbed by rather than the music. It is rather like focusing on the frame rather than the picture. 

I think the same thing is true for people who hate the very modern. They never get past to stylistic flourishes and devices, feeling that they are inexplicable (perhaps in the same was that orchestras used to feel about much of the writing in Schubert's 9th). It is not that these devices are unimportant (they are style, they tell us how the composer sees him/herself) but rather that the function they play is decoration and punctuation and framing rather than the music's narrative. 

Sorry, but I don't have the proper language to discuss these things. I hope you get what I mean.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know if this helps the Mozart doubters but the music of every period has things that are done - stylistic flourishes and so on - that help give shape and punctuation to the music. Good composers have their own takes on these flourishes. Coming anew to the music of any period the first things you hear are these stylistic devices. It seems to me that it is these that people who are uncertain about Mozart are disturbed by rather than the music. It is rather like focusing on the frame rather than the picture.
> 
> I think the same thing is true for people who hate the very modern. They never get past to stylistic flourishes and devices, feeling that they are inexplicable (perhaps in the same was that orchestras used to feel about much of the writing in Schubert's 9th). It is not that these devices are unimportant (they are style, they tell us how the composer sees him/herself) but rather that the function they play is decoration and punctuation and framing rather than the music's narrative.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't have the proper language to discuss these things. I hope you get what I mean.


Like I said above, it is far more apparent to me in the Classical/Baroque Eras, but what you described here, doing an own take on the styles reminded me of the Symphonies I've heard from Haydn; he uses these tools, but I feel he really has a strong unique voice.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I also really love Haydn's piano sonatas (the ones I've heard).


----------



## Strange Magic

Regarding Shakespeare, I've found that a multi-pronged approach works best, certainly for the history plays. First, become familiar with the history/biography that encompasses the play. Second, watch a good movie of the play. Third, read the play carefully, perhaps seeing the film again. _Julius Caesar_ will yield rich dividends using this method; watching the film with Brando, Mason, Gielgud, Calhern et al; a great cast and a great picture. The play then leaps into life. Ditto with the Henry and Richard plays.


----------



## eugeneonagain

The subject of this thread (Mozart) and the comparison made to Shakespeare and the usual 'love it or hate it' business, is really demonstrative of the fact that the sport of knocking popular genius is alive and well. Haven't we seen it done to death in the last 40-odd years?

Mozart is either a tin-pot tunesmith or didn't even write his own music.
Shakespeare didn't write his plays.
Einstein, stole all his ideas from more capable people (half the story, or less).

The latter really was a genuine genius, but of course he was also suited for public consumption as a celebrity. He looked like a mad scientist, said amusing and eccentric things, pronounced on world politics and 'the meaning of life'. So he was always going to be more than just a 'scientist' read by scientists. 

Mozart? A wunderkind, and a bit of a superstar. Known for being slightly eccentric, course, single-minded and an obsessed musical genius. He also appears to have been a bit more interesting than the steady supply of other Viennese classical composers. Dying young helped (his posthumous image, not Mozart!) because we all know the built-in tragedy of genius cut short by death.

Does any of this diminish their actual achievements and qualities. No, I say, though it will never stop the endless books, articles, documentaries informing us how these people are not what we thought they were and that there are a hundred other people more deserving of recognition. It's true that many people never get the recognition they are perhaps due - like e.g. Thomas Young - but this doesn't mean the one is better because he is famous and the other is no good because he is less well-known; that is a superficial fame thing. The fact that more people on the street will know the name of Mozart or Shakespeare or Einstein is not evidence of their undeserved position based upon media coverage and a cabal of professors demanding obedience.


----------



## JAS

There is a strange thing in human nature that often seems to want to pull genius down from the heights to within the reach of our own arms.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Genius is a highly romanticized term. There is only brilliant (or say "genius" if you want, but I stray away from it b/c of how terribly out of control it's meaning has gotten) human productivity, on a relative scale, measured by the criteria that it takes to achieve success within all the various disciplines we engage in.

This doesn't discount the achievements by those who throughout history have been termed genius, for those should be celebrated, but we also shouldn't look at them as flawless beings. Just like any other human being, we should take a critical eye when examining them.

Likewise, we should also celebrate the great achievements of all human beings, no matter what their discipline is. Someone could have fantastic interpersonal skills, and be a fantastic waiter/waitress/bartender, which is not an easy job at all.

That's my .02 on genius!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing not as old as me! Mozart's popularity was perhaps greater among ordinary classical music fans in the 60s and 70s than it is now. I don't know if Amadeus helped to reverse that trend for a while but it wasn't such a big boost.


I actually went to see Amadeus when it came out (film) in 1984. Yes - I saw it at the Odeon on Nottingham - 2.30 showing - and only 4 of us in the auditorium. Little did I know sitting there laughing at this ridiculous caricature that in 3 years time I would discover Mozart proper and become a life long fan. Did I go out and seek Mozart's music after the film? No. It was only later than found myself discovering classical music via greatest hits tapes and realised I liked Mozart's music more than any other.


----------



## Luchesi

Some experts say the works were written by many different authors with some collaborating. 
William Shakespeare of Stratford as he was called was the ‘manager’ handling all the details of the play’s productions.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Luchesi said:


> Some experts say the works were written by many different authors with some collaborating.
> William Shakespeare of Stratford as he was called was the 'manager' handling all the details of the play's productions.


Interesting to know!


----------



## Luchesi

Captainnumber36 said:


> Genius is a highly romanticized term. There is only brilliant (or say "genius" if you want, but I stray away from it b/c of how terribly out of control it's meaning has gotten) human productivity, on a relative scale, measured by the criteria that it takes to achieve success within all the various disciplines we engage in.
> 
> This doesn't discount the achievements by those who throughout history have been termed genius, for those should be celebrated, but we also shouldn't look at them as flawless beings. Just like any other human being, we should take a critical eye when examining them.
> 
> Likewise, we should also celebrate the great achievements of all human beings, no matter what their discipline is. Someone could have fantastic interpersonal skills, and be a fantastic waiter/waitress/bartender, which is not an easy job at all.
> 
> That's my .02 on genius!


Yes, it's interesting if we recognize what's a great work by the idea that no other composer could have composed it. Look at the keyboard partitas of JsB, Mozart's K466, Beethoven's Opus 110, and Chopin's youthful Concerto in E minor.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Some experts say the works were written by many different authors with some collaborating.
> William Shakespeare of Stratford as he was called was the 'manager' handling all the details of the play's productions.


Sort of the way Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David were the show runners for Seinfeld, who had a staff of writers to produce the scripts, I suppose.


----------



## Luchesi

Captainnumber36 said:


> Interesting to know!


They say that the Shakespeare person wasn't paid very much and he didn't have a lot of money. It's a living nonetheless.

The authors didn't need or want the little bit of money and they surely didn't want the notoriety because of class considerations. It would have been dangerous for them.


----------



## eljr

stomanek said:


> Welcome to the promised land.
> 
> No 13 is exuberant - flush with ideas and bright energy.
> 
> Glad you listened to this one and not perhaps, 16 or 18 - which for Mozart, are below par.
> 
> Then there is no need to fear the major keys and step like others do, into minor key territory seeking something that seems to look forward to the romantic world.
> 
> Try no 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25 for more delights. Go for no 17 first - and amaze yourself with the quality of invention particularly in the final section of the 3rd mvt.


listening to 23 now... Rudolf Serkin / Claudio Abbado / London Symphony Orchestra


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> *Some experts* say the works were written by many different authors with some collaborating.
> William Shakespeare of Stratford as he was called was the 'manager' handling all the details of the play's productions.


Who? Derek Jacobi?

Shakespeare was a bit of a mystery - not that much is known about his life, given that he is the most celebrated playwright in history.

But I have not heard any convincing arguments for me to accept that anyone other than WS wrote the plays attributed to him. If it was Bacon - I would have thought he would want to take the credit and so there would be evidence. Unless you subscribe to some absurd fringe conspiracy theory.

Mozart on the other hand we know much more - from letters, MS etc


----------



## PlaySalieri

eljr said:


> listening to 23 now... Rudolf Serkin / Claudio Abbado / London Symphony Orchestra


Ah - the A major - you couldn't have made a better choice.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Who? Derek Jacobi?
> 
> Shakespeare was a bit of a mystery - not that much is known about his life, given that he is the most celebrated playwright in history.
> 
> But I have not heard any convincing arguments for me to accept that anyone other than WS wrote the plays attributed to him. If it was Bacon - I would have thought he would want to take the credit and so there would be evidence. Unless you subscribe to some absurd fringe conspiracy theory.
> 
> Mozart on the other hand we know much more - from letters, MS etc


Some say he was the illegitimate son of the underage future Queen Elisabeth. Interesting web of logic therein.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it's interesting if we recognize what's a great work by the idea that no other composer could have composed it. Look at the keyboard partitas of JsB, Mozart's K466, Beethoven's Opus 110, and Chopin's youthful Concerto in E minor.


That's getting into tricky area. I'm not sure we can objectively say, no other composer could have created those works, or something similar.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it's interesting if we recognize what's a great work by the idea that no other composer could have composed it. Look at the keyboard partitas of JsB, Mozart's K466, Beethoven's Opus 110, and Chopin's youthful Concerto in E minor.


Good point. Their distinct DNA sound signatures in these works are so unmistakeably characteristic of only themselves (if one is familiar with their works overall) that these works could not possibly have been mistaken as having been composed by anyone else. An unmistakeable distinct characteristic in sound and style is one of absolute signature of their individual genius. It's what most listeners look for -- a composer who is absolutely characteristic of him- or herself and cannot be mistaken for any other composer. I call that one of the absolute indications of genius that one composer does not remind one of anyone else and can usually be identified even at the very start of something they wrote, Mozart being a prime example, and the other works mentioned above.


----------



## Eusebius12

The plays of Shakespeare wouldn't have been published for the general public if they weren't intended to be read as well. Shakespeare is a supremely literary playwright.


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> The plays of Shakespeare wouldn't have been published for the general public if they weren't intended to be read as well. Shakespeare is a supremely literary playwright.


In my young days, I worked as a stack boy in the California State Library in Sacramento. If you wanted to look at books, you filled out the cards and I would go into the many-layered bowels of the building and bring the books up on wooden carts (and return them later to their appointed places).

The banes of my existence were the old ladies trying to find out who wrote Shakespeare's plays! Day after day, cart after cart, book after book. This became more than tiresome; it was cruelly burdensome.

Since then, I have become quite short-tempered whenever the subject comes up.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Some experts say the works were written by many different authors with some collaborating.
> William Shakespeare of Stratford as he was called was the 'manager' handling all the details of the play's productions.


But this is absurd with barely a shred of evidence for it. It is fringe, almost a loony idea. Some eejit was polluting the world's music fora with an even more absurd idea that Mozart didn't write his own music. Your very nickname reminds me of that guy.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Some say he was the illegitimate son of the underage future Queen Elisabeth. Interesting web of logic therein.


Or completely insane illogic, depending on your point of view.


----------



## Larkenfield

Shakespeare _produced_ the plays but I highly, highly doubt that he could have possibly written any of them. He was essentially _illiterate_ and _so were his children_... Read his will. He doesn't mention his plays at all. He was essentially a business man and "his" plays were most likely written by a number of different playwrights, including the brilliant Francis Bacon, one of the finest thinkers and writers of his time. But the Elizabethan period had a variety of renown playwrights who could have written them and for some reason decided to keep the authorship of these marvelous plays private, quite possibly because they were Rosicrucians and members of that secret society and wrote anonymously for the educational and entertainment benefit of the English public. The plays have an amazing depth that a borderline illiterate could not have possibly written.

"It is quite evident that William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name. He did not possess the necessary literary culture, for the town of Stratford where he was reared contained no school capable of imparting the higher forms of learning reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, and in his early life he evinced a total disregard for study. There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered, nor is there even a tradition concerning them other than the fantastic and impossible statement appearing in the foreword of the Great Folio." -Manly Hall


----------



## Eusebius12

I can understand why some might take time to appreciate the idiom of Mozart. I feel it has taken me some time to really give him the status he deserves in my mind. However now I am apt to consider him greater than Beethoven, and only behind Bach in the great composers' stakes. However I still on the whole prefer Beethoven's music, his idiom, his musical philosophy, his blood and guts emotionalism, his spirituality. Mozart though was an absolute master craftsman who brimmed with brilliant ideas, sometimes utterly gobsmackingly incredible ideas. Mozart was too gifted, and had a perfect upbringing to become a great composer. Something was almost fated about it. The idiom he writes in I can sometimes take or leave. Galanterie does nothing for me really, and there is a precious, precise quality to some of the music, especially that written for amateurs and for the Viennese at times. Actually, early Haydn is far more precious and galant and indeed cliched than mature Mozart. Mozart can though write in a very varied idiom, and let loose with incredible streams of drama and passion when the mood takes him. Also some of his dramatic moments really take the breath away, even more so because of the cool restraint that generally contextualizes them. He has an earthy side too no doubt. The nobility and serenity of much of the music hides the nature of the man, revealed in his more scatological moments. Enough; an honest appraisal of the man's work leaves one with awe not just respect for his accomplishments.

In regards to Chaucer though, he is certainly overrated imo 
His work is clunky, quite formulaic, and prosaic at times. You only have to compare him with William Langland to see that this is not a question of chronology (let alone Petrarch and Dante)


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> Shakespeare _produced_ the plays but I highly, highly doubt that he could have possibly written any of them. He was essentially _illiterate_ and _so were his children_... Read his will. He doesn't mention his plays at all. He was essentially a business man and "his" plays were most likely written by a number of different playwrights, including the brilliant Francis Bacon, one of the finest thinkers and writers of his time. But the Elizabethan period had a variety of renown playwrights who could have written them and for some reason decided to keep the authorship of these marvelous plays private, quite possibly because they were Rosicrucians and members of that secret society and wrote anonymously for the educational and entertainment benefit of the English public. The plays have an amazing depth that a borderline illiterate could not have possibly written.
> 
> "It is quite evident that William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name. He did not possess the necessary literary culture, for the town of Stratford where he was reared contained no school capable of imparting the higher forms of learning reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, and in his early life he evinced a total disregard for study. There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered, nor is there even a tradition concerning them other than the fantastic and impossible statement appearing in the foreword of the Great Folio." -Manly Hall


You are easily persuaded.

No record of Shakespeares education survive - true. But since no records of anybody's education at Stratford Kings New School survive - that doesnt mean much. We know what the curriculum would have been - in addition to English he would hav learned Latin and a deep study of the classics. There is no good reason to believe S did not receive this quality of education.
Virtually nothing survives of Shakespeare's hand - except as you say - some scrawled signatures. Honestly this means little - I have seen signatures of many learned men and they look like the scribbling of a monkey.

the truth is - we know little about anybody at all from that era - how S lived his early years and could have acquired the necessary knowledge to write the plays he did. But that's not reason enough to construct an absurd theory.

Bear in mind that the plays and sonnets published at that time all bear W Shakespeares name - I'm sorry but without any other evidence to explain why his name would appear next to works by other more learned and talented men - I think we need to conclude that S did indeed write the plays that are attributed to him, notwithstanding - some help he had from others in one or two plays that mainstream scholarship has acknowledged.

NB Manly Hall is not an acknowledged scholar and expert in Shakespearean studies. he is an occultist writer.


----------



## JAS

Eusebius12 said:


> The plays of Shakespeare wouldn't have been published for the general public if they weren't intended to be read as well. Shakespeare is a supremely literary playwright.


The plays were collected and published for the general public, but, it must be noted, not by Shakespeare himself. Clearly the intent of the publisher was for the plays to be read, but, since Shakespeare was dead, less clearly the intention of the author. He may or may not ever have thought that they would be read by the general public, rather than being heard performed, when he wrote them. On the other hand, I cannot imagine that Shakespeare would have objected to the publication (once his income from them was not dependent on the monopoly of the texts for performances) as the general interest would certainly be flattering and he would have had every right to be proud of his achievement gaining such attention and of entering the realms of more permanent literary works.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> Or completely insane illogic, depending on your point of view.


As we do today they loved rumors and scandal back then. The enemies of the Queen would come up with some real doozies.

This might be considered support for you side; or maybe the opposing camp?

from wiki

Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy in his lifetime. However, in 1623, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, John Heminges and Henry Condell, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as his.[13] The volume was prefaced with a poem by Ben Jonson, in which the poet presciently hails the playwright in a now-famous quote as "not of an age, but for all time".


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> But this is absurd with barely a shred of evidence for it. It is fringe, almost a loony idea. Some eejit was polluting the world's music fora with an even more absurd idea that Mozart didn't write his own music. Your very nickname reminds me of that guy.


Yes, I read some of those posts. Entertaining posts, but not apparently if you care who precisely composed what.. Do you get upset by the idea that some work wasn't composed by a favorite composer?

I had a name on TC in 2013 and when I came back last year TC gave me this name. I don't remember exactly why. Do you know the procedure?


----------



## Guest

I've only read (and enjoyed) three Shakespeare plays, King Lear, Othello and Julius Caesar. Although there is no evidence of it, I don't find it impossible to believe that Shakespeare was a sort of producer who had a staff of writers that generated plays that he edited, producing a signature style. There isn't enough biographical information about Shakespeare to rule this out.

But to think that Mozart didn't write his own works is utter absurdity. We have ample biographical information, the expressed admiration of his contemporaries, manuscripts in his hand, etc. Am I to believe that Mozart brought his ghost-writer along, who was whispering in his ear when he wrote the Gigue KV574 directly into the note book of the court organist in Leipzig?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't find it impossible to believe that Shakespeare was a sort of producer who had a staff of writers that generated plays that he edited, producing a signature style. There isn't enough biographical information about Shakespeare to rule this out.


And yet neither is there evidence to cause one to suppose it; not that it stops people.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> And yet neither is there evidence to cause one to suppose it; not that it stops people.


Agreed. Except for the weak argument, "how could one obscure dude write all that awesome stuff?"


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> But to think that Mozart didn't write his own works is utter absurdity. We have ample biographical information, the expressed admiration of his contemporaries, manuscripts in his hand, etc. Am I to believe that Mozart brought his ghost-writer along, who was whispering in his ear when he wrote the Gigue KV574 directly into the note book of the court organist in Leipzig?


The question I have is, do you care so much about the identity of the person so long ago? What are the ramifications one way or another? I can think of a few and then I think... no.. that's not that important, ...today. 
Does it have to do with a particular individual's outlook on the world that you're appreciating in the music or the plays? Maybe we can really know what that outlook was in the case of Mozart because we have so much material that would help us. Is that one of the ways in which you appreciate his music?


----------



## Guest

There is some interest in tracing the development of an artists over his or her life. There is an argument that Mozart's style changed after exposure to the works of Bach. It would be another thing to accept the absurd suggestion that his style changed because he found a different ghost writer.

Shakespeare plays show some considerable erudition, as I understand it. There is some interest in the idea that a commoner in London could have such erudition, which would be moot if we accept the (unsupported) suggestion that his plays were written by some nobleman or other who didn't want it known that he dabbled in the theater.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Good point. Their distinct DNA sound signatures in these works are so unmistakeable characteristic of only themselves (if one is familiar with their works overall) that these works could not possibly have been mistaken as having been composed by anyone else. An unmistakeable distinct characteristic in sound and style is one of absolute signature of their individual genius. It's what most listeners look for -- a composer who is absolutely characteristic of him- or herself and cannot be mistaken for any other composer. I call that one of the absolute indications of genius that one composer does not remind one of someone else and can usually be identified even at the very start of something they wrote, Mozart being a prime example, and the other works mentioned above.


Truth be told, I chose those works because the works of high-quality nearest to them seemed to be not good examples, as I was thinking about them at that time. This gets complicated to relate to someone else. It's a state of recognition and esteem for the achievements as varied as they are from one master work to another.


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> There is some interest in tracing the development of an artists over his or her life. There is an argument that Mozart's style changed after exposure to the works of Bach. It would be another thing to accept the absurd suggestion that his style changed because he found a different ghost writer.
> 
> Shakespeare plays show some considerable erudition, as I understand it. There is some interest in the idea that a commoner in London could have such erudition, which would be moot if we accept the (unsupported) suggestion that his plays were written by some nobleman or other who didn't want it known that he dabbled in the theater.


Yes, I wonder how Shakespeare would've known about the intrigue in the Court and especially what people would be thinking about it if he only lived the life of a lowly commoner. Of course it's possible with people talking and rubbing elbows with imaginative people. What else was there to gossip about?

"There is some interest in tracing the development of an artists over his or her life. "

When I listen to music I often think about the conditions of the poor composer. The stress and the terrible conditions having to work under is such an obvious feeling for me. They rose above, we're spoiled by the comforts we can pay for.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Baron Scarpia said:


> I've only read (and enjoyed) three Shakespeare plays, King Lear, Othello and Julius Caesar. Although there is no evidence of it, I don't find it impossible to believe that Shakespeare was a sort of producer who had a staff of writers that generated plays that he edited, producing a signature style. There isn't enough biographical information about Shakespeare to rule this out.
> 
> But to think that Mozart didn't write his own works is utter absurdity. We have ample biographical information, the expressed admiration of his contemporaries, manuscripts in his hand, etc. Am I to believe that Mozart brought his ghost-writer along, who was whispering in his ear when he wrote the Gigue KV574 directly into the note book of the court organist in Leipzig?


Must have been quite something special - these backroom hacks.

Better than Marlowe and Kyd yet they allowed WS to take the credit.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Baron Scarpia said:


> There is some interest in tracing the development of an artists over his or her life. There is an argument that Mozart's style changed after exposure to the works of Bach. It would be another thing to accept the absurd suggestion that his style changed because he found a different ghost writer.
> 
> Shakespeare plays show some considerable erudition, as I understand it. There is some interest in the idea that a commoner in London could have such erudition, which would be moot if we accept the (unsupported) suggestion that his plays were written by some nobleman or other who didn't want it known that he dabbled in the theater.


and what would be the motive for a wealthy nobleman to do such a thing?

The greatest artists in history are all united by one feature - poverty. It stretched credulity that a nobleman would have sweated over the plays which are attributed to Shakespeare.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Getting back to the OP, I think the issue is with this idea of "getting" such and such composer. That's like saying there's this absolute truth out there, and it's just a matter of listening closely enough, being musically educated enough, etc. to realize and understand this brilliant truth. But it just ain't so. If you don't like Mozart, big deal. If you think he was the cat's pajamas, good for you. He was just a guy making music that many seem to like (me included). But there is no universal musical test which when applied to a composer results in a Yes or No Greatness. There might be an opinion poll, but in the end it's just an opinion poll. (Well, except for Debussy, who actually did channel the universal music god that objectively exists and isn't just part of my imagination.  ).


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> and what would be the motive for a wealthy nobleman to do such a thing?


Nothing better to do?

I don't give the theory any credence, but there are worse sources of entertainment than such theories.


----------



## Guest

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Getting back to the OP, I think the issue is with this idea of "getting" such and such composer. That's like saying there's this absolute truth out there, and it's just a matter of listening closely enough, being musically educated enough, etc. to realize and understand this brilliant truth. But it just ain't so. If you don't like Mozart, big deal. If you think he was the cat's pajamas, good for you. He was just a guy making music that many seem to like (me included). But there is no universal musical test which when applied to a composer results in a Yes or No Greatness. There might be an opinion poll, but in the end it's just an opinion poll. (Well, except for Debussy, who actually did channel the universal music god that objectively exists and isn't just part of my imagination.  ).


The fact that so many people have enjoyed Mozart for so many years seems to imply there is something to "get," I think.


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> The fact that so many people have enjoyed Mozart for so many years seems to imply there is something to "get," I think.


Who are the real musical "experts"? In my view, they are the great composers themselves. And their opinions of Mozart are pretty unanimous.


----------



## Luchesi

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Getting back to the OP, I think the issue is with this idea of "getting" such and such composer. That's like saying there's this absolute truth out there, and it's just a matter of listening closely enough, being musically educated enough, etc. to realize and understand this brilliant truth. But it just ain't so. If you don't like Mozart, big deal. If you think he was the cat's pajamas, good for you. He was just a guy making music that many seem to like (me included). But there is no universal musical test which when applied to a composer results in a Yes or No Greatness. There might be an opinion poll, but in the end it's just an opinion poll. (Well, except for Debussy, who actually did channel the universal music god that objectively exists and isn't just part of my imagination.  ).


I wonder why you think intelligent people study the science of aesthetics. It takes a lot of time and effort.


----------



## Ras

KenOC said:


> Who are the real musical "experts"? In my view, they are the great composers themselves. And their opinions of Mozart are pretty unanimous.


The only one who didn't like Mozart was Salieri - at least according to that movie, you know...


----------



## Ras

Luchesi said:


> I wonder why you think intelligent people study the science of aesthetics. It takes a lot of time and effort.


They are probably bored to death by art, my dear Luchesi! :devil:


----------



## endelbendel

Rollo May writes the key to Mozart is passion.


----------



## endelbendel

Right. There is the story of Brahms being ambushed by a toast and deflecting the admiration to Mozart.


----------



## Luchesi

Ras said:


> They are probably bored to death by art, my dear Luchesi! :devil:


That's the best answer I've heard.

There are only so many notes the ear can hear. Art is artifice? Art is life? Life is?

Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor. 
Sholom Aleichem


----------



## PlaySalieri

Baron Scarpia said:


> *Nothing better to do? *
> 
> I don't give the theory any credence, but there are worse sources of entertainment than such theories.


hunting, womanizing?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I read some of those posts. Entertaining posts, but not apparently if you care who precisely composed what.. Do you get upset by the idea that some work wasn't composed by a favorite composer?
> 
> I had a name on TC in 2013 and when I came back last year TC gave me this name. I don't remember exactly why.* Do you know the procedure?*


Yes - you choose your own username

they are not allocated.

you chose the username Luchesi yourself.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the problem with Mozart is that "Classical" musical thinking had reached a plateau, and there was not much real innovation going on; things had solidified and congealed into a sameness. To recognize Mozart's genius, you have to see how he was able to think outside this box. That means his innovations were more subtle, such as rhythmic quirks, irregular measures, strange turns of harmony, surprises in form... which still were "in bounds"...The late piano concertos are an example.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem with Mozart is that "Classical" musical thinking had reached a plateau, and there was not much real innovation going on; things had solidified and congealed into a sameness. To recognize Mozart's genius, you have to see how he was able to think outside this box. That means his innovations were more subtle, such as rhythmic quirks, irregular measures, strange turns of harmony, surprises in form... which still were "in bounds"...The late piano concertos are an example.


I fully recognize Mozart's genius and can see that he was obviously a great master, the problem is that I cannot emotionally relate to his music. His music evokes in me some kinds of sublime geometric forms which are symmetric and almost perfect, but depict nothing of meaning that I could relate to, no humans, no animals, no nature, no emotions. Mozart sounds alien to me, out of this world. The music is perfect but depicts nothing of meaning, and hence lacks any depth to me. It is a perfection of form without content, so perfect that is uninteresting. That is at least my attempt to describe the subjective way how he effects me.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Yes - you choose your own username
> 
> they are not allocated.
> 
> you chose the username Luchesi yourself.


That's what I would've thought. But they gave me this one and I really don't care.

I think it says you can change your name if you want to.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem with Mozart is that "Classical" musical thinking had reached a plateau, and there was not much real innovation going on; things had solidified and congealed into a sameness. To recognize Mozart's genius, you have to see how he was able to think outside this box. That means his innovations were more subtle, such as rhythmic quirks, irregular measures, strange turns of harmony, surprises in form... which still were "in bounds"...The late piano concertos are an example.


It's an amazing history that Bach and Mozart were able to do exactly that. And Beethoven too.

I think Chopin stretched it marvelously in his choice of forms and harmony, but not everyone agrees with me.


----------



## Luchesi

Does Mozart ever go beyond the 9th? That could be the problem for modern ears.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem with Mozart is that "Classical" musical thinking had reached a plateau, and there was not much real innovation going on; things had solidified and congealed into a sameness. To recognize Mozart's genius, you have to see how he was able to think outside this box. That means his innovations were more subtle, such as rhythmic quirks, irregular measures, strange turns of harmony, surprises in form... which still were "in bounds"...The late piano concertos are an example.


I would say the Mozart's era was one which had musical conventions which were relatively tightly constrained, but I wouldn't call it a plateau. It was a period of rapidly changing styles. The contrast between Mozart's early and late symphonies, or between his early and late piano concertos is quite dramatic.


----------



## Larkenfield

For some listeners, their epiphany of appreciation for Mozart comes later in life, even in their 50s or 60s or later, if he’s meant to be appreciated in their lifetime... and the understanding finally happens spontaneously without trying to force it. There’s such a thing as trying too hard and the wisdom of taking a break for a few years and then coming back to him. In the meantime, it can also help not to make repeatedly condescending or denigrating statements about a composer one is supposedly trying to understand, such as ‘there was no real development in his music between the age of 5 and 30.’ What listener who ever understood him would possibly make a statement like that when one would have to read 100 books on him to find a similar negative opinion that is completely unsupported by those who were privileged to hear him, like Joseph Haydn? There are ways that one can block one’s own understanding and then take it out on the composer one admittedly doesn’t like or understand at the time. It’s not the composer’s responsibility to make someone appreciate him. Sometimes the listener has to go through an internal change before the epiphany, if one is desired, and that’s really what happened with the OP who started this thread. It was he who had changed, not Mozart, and the change opened the doors of understanding and appreciation.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> I fully recognize Mozart's genius and can see that he was obviously a great master, the problem is that I cannot emotionally relate to his music. His music evokes in me some kinds of sublime geometric forms which are symmetric and almost perfect, but depict nothing of meaning that I could relate to, no humans, no animals, no nature, no emotions. Mozart sounds alien to me, out of this world. The music is perfect but depicts nothing of meaning, and hence lacks any depth to me. It is a perfection of form without content, so perfect that is uninteresting. That is at least my attempt to describe the subjective way how he effects me.


It is difficult to understand this upon listening to the Jupiter's last movement or to the Piano Concerto No.24. The Jupiter's exhilaration/exaltation is so powerful/palpable that I must stand up (or fight the urge to) when I hear it. For something with no depth or content, it is a remarkable piece of music.


----------



## Eusebius12

JAS said:


> The plays were collected and published for the general public, but, it must be noted, not by Shakespeare himself. Clearly the intent of the publisher was for the plays to be read, but, since Shakespeare was dead, less clearly the intention of the author. He may or may not ever have thought that they would be read by the general public, rather than being heard performed, when he wrote them. On the other hand, I cannot imagine that Shakespeare would have objected to the publication (once his income from them was not dependent on the monopoly of the texts for performances) as the general interest would certainly be flattering and he would have had every right to be proud of his achievement gaining such attention and of entering the realms of more permanent literary works.


I think the reason Shakespeare wouldn't have wanted his works printed in his own lifetime might have been to do with copyright or the lack thereof. No point in publishing your works all over the country so that they can be performed for free. Also these works didn't reach their unalterable form for quite a while, if ever. Hamlet for example was a work in progress as can be seen by the significantly different versions.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I read some of those posts. Entertaining posts, but not apparently if you care who precisely composed what.. Do you get upset by the idea that some work wasn't composed by a favorite composer?
> 
> I had a name on TC in 2013 and when I came back last year TC gave me this name. I don't remember exactly why. Do you know the procedure?


There is no reason for me to take personal ownership vis-a-vis the production of certain artists. Perhaps at times I do  but really it is not strictly relevant. I believe that the burden of proof lies on the side making outrageous claims. Newman was a controversialist, a dogmatist, who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag, all he could do was make outrageously unsupported claims based on supposition, or suppositories, I forget which. That the core of Mozart's work is well attested as being by him through documentary and yes, sonic evidence I find rock solid.

As others have said, the process in your acquisition of that non-de-guerre I find unusual.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I wonder how Shakespeare would've known about the intrigue in the Court and especially what people would be thinking about it if he only lived the life of a lowly commoner. Of course it's possible with people talking and rubbing elbows with imaginative people. What else was there to gossip about?
> .


I find this a pretty weak argument. Shakespeare played for the royal court, he was acquainted with some of the nobility (the sonnets prove this). And there is nothing specific in the Shakespeare plays that requires in depth knowledge of the intimate personal views of Elizabeth I or James I to compose. Shakespeare's historical works are based on specific works of history and artistic license. Somehow his knowledge of Italy is so great that he had to have travelled there, speaking to someone about Italy couldn't count (Italy is so close to England and the journey wasn't that perilous even then), but actually Shakespeare's understanding about Italy could probably be written on the back of a small postage stamp. He actually seems to believe that you can travel by boat from Sicily to Bohemia! He 'knows' that Italians are quick tempered fellows and fall in love easily.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> There is no reason for me to take personal ownership vis-a-vis the production of certain artists. Perhaps at times I do  but really it is not strictly relevant.
> 
> As others have said, the process in your acquisition of that non-de-guerre I find unusual.


It's not relevant. It's an indication of how much you care. We all have grandfathers of grandfathers of grandfathers who lived at the same time with Mozart. If someone is interested in here I can post my genealogy back to Charlemagne starting about 1800 and then they can link to it with their own grandfathers --- and have all their longevity research.

I guess we could ask an administrator how I got this name.


----------



## Eusebius12

Ras said:


> The only one who didn't like Mozart was Salieri - at least according to that movie, you know...


And well rebutted by historical facts 
Actually, Mozart may have been quietly loathed in musical circles, There is the jealousy factor, Mozart also had something in his nature which was quick to denigrate the work of others. Certainly he didn't have much time for Vogler..and then Kozeluch seems to have returned the 'favour', and certainly Salieri was a personal competitor, but if they had any personal difficulties, these seem to have been more or less sorted towards the end of Mozart's life.


----------



## Luchesi

I haven't looked to this since there were a few articles about the 17th Earl of Oxford in some popular magazines (before the Internet).

but wiki says;

Oxfordian arguments rely heavily on biographical allusions; adherents find correspondences between incidents and circumstances in Oxford's life and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets, and longer poems.[9] The case also relies on perceived parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Shakespeare's works and Oxford's own poetry and letters. Oxfordians claim that marked passages in Oxford's Bible can be linked to Biblical allusions in Shakespeare's plays.[10] That no plays survive under Oxford's name is also important to the Oxfordian theory.[11] Oxfordians interpret certain 16th- and 17th-century literary allusions as indicating that Oxford was one of the more prominent suppressed anonymous and/or pseudonymous writers of the day. Under this scenario, Shakespeare was either a "front man" or "play-broker" who published the plays under his own name or was merely an actor with a similar name, misidentified as the playwright since the first Shakespeare biographies of the early 1700s.

The most compelling evidence against the Oxfordian theory is de Vere's death in 1604, since the generally accepted chronology of Shakespeare's plays places the composition of approximately twelve of the plays after that date. Oxfordians respond that the annual publication of "new" or "corrected" Shakespeare plays stopped in 1604,[12] and that the dedication to Shakespeare's Sonnets implies that the author was dead prior to their publication in 1609. Oxfordians believe the reason so many of the "late plays" show evidence of revision and collaboration is because they were completed by other playwrights after Oxford's death.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> It is difficult to understand this upon listening to the Jupiter's last movement or to the Piano Concerto No.24. The Jupiter's exhilaration/exaltation is so powerful/palpable that I must stand up (or fight the urge to) when I hear it. For something with no depth or content, it is a remarkable piece of music.


Here's good info and the moving score of
Magnificent Counterpoint in the Finale of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> It's not relevant. It's an indication of how much you care. We all have grandfathers of grandfathers of grandfathers who lived at the same time with Mozart. If someone is interested in here I can post my genealogy back to Charlemagne starting about 1800 and then they can link to it with their own grandfathers --- and have all their longevity research.
> 
> I guess we could ask an administrator how I got this name.


I wasn't making a big issue out of it, I accept your explanation. I should have clarified, the process by which you acquired that nick was unusual. I don't believe that you are Newman . Just a casual remark


----------



## Eusebius12

The English are inveterate snobs. No one questioned Shakespeare's authorship for centuries. But now that 'experts' consider Shakespeare by far the best author in English, the forelock tuggers deny that he could possibly be bourgeois, he had to be an aristocrat, which flies in the face of artistic experience. The vast majority of great art comes from the bourgeoisie; and as it happens, very little from the aristocracy. You have identified some of the fatal flaws of the Oxford theory. No one other than Shakespeare really seems to fit all the known facts; and it wasn't as if someone couldn't have verified his authorship at the time. Unless we are in Dan Brown or 'the Jews did 9/11' territory.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> It's not relevant. It's an indication of how much you care. We all have grandfathers of grandfathers of grandfathers who lived at the same time with Mozart. If someone is interested in here I can post my genealogy back to Charlemagne starting about 1800 and then they can link to it with their own grandfathers --- and have all their longevity research.


I am interested BTW, you could pm it to me if you like


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> I wasn't making a big issue out of it, I accept your explanation. I should have clarified, the process by which you acquired that nick was unusual. I don't believe that you are Newman . Just a casual remark


I just now realized, you could check with Lark or Kenoc or anyone on the Amazon people thread who knew me for 5 to 10 years over there on the Amazon classical thread.

https://www.talkclassical.com/53705-amazonians-register-here-2.html?highlight=scarecrow

They might remember that I said some outrageous things, but not about Mozart...


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> I am interested BTW, you could pm it to me if you like


Yes, it could be helpful for you or for someone you know who does genealogy.


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> I just now realized, you could check with Lark or Kenoc or anyone on the Amazon people thread who knew me for 5 to 10 years over there on the Amazon classical thread.
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/53705-amazonians-register-here-2.html?highlight=scarecrow
> 
> They might remember that I said some outrageous things, but not about Mozart...


How about that time that you claimed Mozart was an alien from a flying saucer who had abducted Salieri and subjected him to a rectal probe? Of course, it might have been quite true though it didn't make the movie.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> How about that time that you claimed Mozart was an alien from a flying saucer who had abducted Salieri and subjected him to a rectal probe? Of course, it might have been quite true though it didn't make the movie.


The whole opera here in 3 minutes


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> That's what I would've thought. But they gave me this one and I really don't care.
> 
> I think it says you can change your name if you want to.


Two untruths in your post

1. Usernames have never been assigned on TC or any other community forum to the best of my knowledge.

2. Once signed up under a username - it cannot be changed.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> How about that time that you claimed Mozart was an alien from a flying saucer who had abducted Salieri and subjected him to a rectal probe? Of course, it might have been quite true though it didn't make the movie.


Huh... It's been years since I saw "Amadeus," but I seem to remember something rectal in it.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> Two untruths in your post
> 
> 1. Usernames have never been assigned on TC or any other community forum to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> 2. Once signed up under a username - it cannot be changed.


I seem to remember that the mods allow name changes but only one per year.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> It is difficult to understand this upon listening to the Jupiter's last movement or to the Piano Concerto No.24. The Jupiter's exhilaration/exaltation is so powerful/palpable that I must stand up (or fight the urge to) when I hear it. For something with no depth or content, it is a remarkable piece of music.


I really like Jupiter's last movement, the problem is that I do not like the predececing ones, especially the first, so on the whole the symphony leaves me lukewarm. But yesterday, I relistened to his Sinfonia concertante for violin and viola and that is a piece I _really _like. It has not this playful superficial quality that bothers me in much of his music, but seems like a serious work with dark undertones and some real emotions.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> I really like Jupiter's last movement, the problem is that I do not like the predececing ones, especially the first, so on the whole the symphony leaves me lukewarm. But yesterday, I relistened to his Sinfonia concertante for violin and viola and that is a piece I _really _like. It has not this playful superficial quality that bothers me in much of his music, but seems like a serious work with dark undertones and some real emotions.


I was going to also include the Sinfonia Concertante in my set of examples of Mozartian Marvelousness. Based on your response here, I will predict that some more listening plus an unknown number of earthly rotations will result in your becoming a Mozart enthusiast of the first magnitude. Another poster said something about getting older somehow working to increase one's appreciation of that unique young man's music, and I believe it's true; it was true in my case anyway. I happened to see Perlman and Zukerman perform the Andante and maybe the Presto (it's been a while) on TV when I was of mature years but not then keen on Mozart. Was hooked then and there.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> I was going to also include the Sinfonia Concertante in my set of examples of Mozartian Marvelousness. Based on your response here, I will predict that some more listening plus an unknown number of earthly rotations will result in your becoming a Mozart enthusiast of the first magnitude. Another poster said something about getting older somehow working to increase one's appreciation of that unique young man's music, and I believe it's true; it was true in my case anyway. I happened to see Perlman and Zukerman perform the Andante and maybe the Presto (it's been a while) on TV when I was of mature years but not then keen on Mozart. Was hooked then and there.


it is possible. I really would like to enjoy Mozart. I also listened to his clarinet quintet yesterday and found the second movement really beautiful.


----------



## JAS

Jacck said:


> it is possible. I really would like to enjoy Mozart. I also listened to his clarinet quintet yesterday and found the second movement really beautiful.


This is a little like the repeated discussions about modern classical music. The music is there (with the great advantage of recordings to make convenient access from home on your own time table and, with youtube, sampling can often be free). People can make recommendations, to try or to avoid, and comments can describe features of the music, the context in which it was composed and, if relevant, what it was trying to accomplish. But ultimately, the listener either responds favorably or doesn't, and that is the final judgement on the work (for that listener).

No one is obligated to like any composition or performance, even of a composer as long and as widely admired as Mozart. And, up to the limit of one's own degree of interest and willingness to explore, there is no obligation to listen to any composition or the work of any composer, to like or even appreciate said music, or to respect it or say only nice things about the composition or the person who created it. No music or composer has a right to demand deep study or extensive listening in having a reaction or forming a personal opinion.

A representative sampling is sufficient to set a general position, and not liking the works heard, in this case works of Mozart, does not necessarily reflect poorly on the listener (just as liking the works heard really does not necessarily reflect favorably on the listener). It is very possible that what the music does simply isn't what that listener wants. (And, for the sake of making my own position clear, I say this as someone who enjoys nearly everything I have heard by Mozart, as long as it is a decent performance.)

Discussion of music need not be blind advocacy, and there is nothing less useful than a discussion of only one position in a context where there are multiple valid positions to be considered. And disagreement is not a valid reason for anyone to be personally offended or become angry or dismissive.


----------



## Jacck

JAS said:


> This is a little like the repeated discussions about modern classical music. The music is there (with the great advantage of recordings to make access from home on your own time table and, with youtube, sampling can often be free). People can make recommendations, to try or to avoid, and comments can describe features of the music, the context in which it was composed and, if relevant, what it was trying to accomplish. But ultimately, the listener either responds favorably or doesn't, and that is the final judgement on the work (for that listener). No one is obligated to like any composition or performance, even of a composer as widely admired as Mozart. And no is obligated other than one's own degree of interest and willingness to explore, there is no obligation to listen to any composition or the work of any composer.


you are right, of course. But from experience I know, that the enjoyment of some music does not come immediately. Take Schoenberg. When I first encountered his music, I thought: "what is that atrocity? how come someone even call this ugliness music?". But then I consciously decided to play his piano concerto once every day, because somehow the music intrigued me. And after about 15 listenings, the music clicked and I have been a Schoenberg fan since. And I have the same feeling with Mozart. His music intrigues me somehow and I hope that with repeated exposure, it will also click with me. With a lot of modern music, I have not this feeling that it is worth to invest time in it, it does not intrigue me.


----------



## JAS

Jacck said:


> you are right, of course. But from experience I know, that the enjoyment of some music does not come immediately. Take Schoenberg. When I first encountered his music, I thought: "what is that atrocity? how come someone even call this ugliness music?". But then I consciously decided to play his piano concerto once every day, because somehow the music intrigued me. And after about 15 listenings, the music clicked and I have been a Schoenberg fan since. And I have the same feeling with Mozart. His music intrigues me somehow and I hope that with repeated exposure, it will also click with me. With a lot of modern music, I have not this feeling that it is worth to invest time in it, it does not intrigue me.


It is true that multiple listenings, usually spaced out a bit more than once a day, _can_ produce a different response, but there are plenty of instances where multiple listenings simply verify the initial response. (That has certainly been my own reaction to Schoenberg and most modern classical music.) Part of the overall question is probably the degree of a negative response. If it is just a reaction that the music was pleasant, unoffensive but not terribly appealing, more listenings may be in order. If, on the other hand, one really disliked the piece, and had a similar reaction to several other pieces by the same composer, it is perfectly reasonable for that listener to give up trying and more on to other works and other composers. There are also some pieces where I really like some parts, enough to ignore other parts that I do not like.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> you are right, of course. But from experience I know, that the enjoyment of some music does not come immediately. Take Schoenberg. When I first encountered his music, I thought: "what is that atrocity? how come someone even call this ugliness music?". But then I consciously decided to play his piano concerto once every day, because somehow the music intrigued me. And after about 15 listenings, the music clicked and I have been a Schoenberg fan since. And I have the same feeling with Mozart. His music intrigues me somehow and I hope that with repeated exposure, it will also click with me. With a lot of modern music, I have not this feeling that it is worth to invest time in it, it does not intrigue me.


I'm a fan of multiple hearings of something that you don't immediately relate to but think may be very worthwhile. For me, the point is not so much to listen in a focused way (that is a mode of listening that _requires_ an immediate response from you) but to become familiar with what emerges. But I do often leave long spaces between hearings and after a couple of times I tend to rely on it calling to me ("time for another hearing of x").


----------



## Enthusiast

Listening to quite a lot of Mozart over the past couple of days, I tried to arrive at a description for myself of what it does to me. It wasn't easy. Mozart has a lot of moods and does them all very powerfully. But I know of no composer who writes happy music as well as Mozart. And, equally, much of his music makes me feel I'm in heaven. He soothes and raises my emotions at the same time. Angry thoughts and memories But don't other composers present heaven to us, too? Bach, for example? Bach's heaven is architectural and like a glorious painting. It is about powerful emotions. The heaven that Mozart can transport me to is simple and personal and _physical_. It is like _being in _heaven rather than looking at or contemplating it. In fact, I think Mozart was the most physical composer in classical music. You can relate to thought a lot more in Bach's and Beethoven's music.

Probably you could categorise the music of different composers using the Myers-Briggs categorisation.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> The English are inveterate snobs. No one questioned Shakespeare's authorship for centuries. But now that 'experts' consider Shakespeare by far the best author in English, the forelock tuggers deny that he could possibly be bourgeois, he had to be an aristocrat, which flies in the face of artistic experience. The vast majority of great art comes from the bourgeoisie; and as it happens, very little from the aristocracy. You have identified some of the fatal flaws of the Oxford theory. No one other than Shakespeare really seems to fit all the known facts; and it wasn't as if someone couldn't have verified his authorship at the time. Unless we are in Dan Brown or 'the Jews did 9/11' territory.


Oh really! The conspiracy theories about others writing Shakespeare's plays are hardly unique. So many greats from the past - the further back the better - are subject to them. Including, as we have seen, Mozart. There is nothing uniquely English in this.


----------



## Eusebius12

Not saying that it is unique to the English, but the idea that Shakespeare couldn't be a great artist because he wasn't aristocratic (which seems to inform some of these conspiracy theories) seems a rather English idea which I couldn't imagine coming out of anywhere else.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eusebius12 said:


> Not saying that it is unique to the English, but the idea that Shakespeare couldn't be a great artist because he wasn't aristocratic (which seems to inform some of these conspiracy theories) seems a rather English idea which I couldn't imagine coming out of anywhere else.


I never heard of this notion before. As has been pointed out - with the exception of Byron there have been very few aristocratic great masters. I suppose by Bourgeois you mean people like V Woolf and Forster, Elgar - but you forget the great number of those who were merely offspring of lowly clergymen (Austen, Bronte) - or even coal miners (DHL).

I am afraid to say the only service the aristocracy as a class have done for the art world is providing great houses to the National Trust (to escape death duties) to store and display thousands of pieces of art (produced by "commoners").


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I seem to remember that the mods allow name changes but only one per year.


Yes and don't forget the "member in good standing" clause. Very few name changes, then.


----------



## Eusebius12

stomanek said:


> I never heard of this notion before. As has been pointed out - with the exception of Byron there have been very few aristocratic great masters. I suppose by Bourgeois you mean people like V Woolf and Forster, Elgar - but you forget the great number of those who were merely offspring of lowly clergymen (Austen, Bronte) - or even coal miners (DHL).
> 
> I am afraid to say the only service the aristocracy as a class have done for the art world is providing great houses to the National Trust (to escape death duties) to store and display thousands of pieces of art (produced by "commoners").


My definition of bourgeois is probably more 'elastic' than yours 
Strictly speaking when Mozart was in the employ of the Archbishop, he wasn't bourgeois, he was a serf, just like the peasants tilling the Archbishop's land. But when he ran away to Vienna he became bourgeois, even if he was at times sort of unemployed. Poverty is no disqualification, just as wealth was no certain entry card into the aristocracy.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Two untruths in your post
> 
> 1. Usernames have never been assigned on TC or any other community forum to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> 2. Once signed up under a username - it cannot be changed.


Where did you get your facts? You're dreaming them up and it clearly has a nasty tone to it. Grow up!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Where did you get your facts? You're dreaming them up and it clearly has a nasty tone to it. Grow up!


I have since been informed that usernames can be changed so apologise for that. It is good news for me as I wish to change my u/n.

But unless someone, besides you, contradicts me, I am quite sure that TC never assigned usernames.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> But unless someone, besides you, contradicts me, I am quite sure that TC never assigned usernames.


You don't know the circumstances and yet you post that I'm lying.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Baron Scarpia said:


> The fact that so many people have enjoyed Mozart for so many years seems to imply there is something to "get," I think.


Not really. Millions of people have enjoyed the Beach Boys for many years (not as many years as WAM of course). Does that make them anything more than syrupy pop music? (not implying WAM is syrupy pop).


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

KenOC said:


> Who are the real musical "experts"? In my view, they are the great composers themselves. And their opinions of Mozart are pretty unanimous.


That may be the best argument, what do the experts think. But it still has to be taken in context. The experts of rock and roll, the Rock Hall of Fame, have inducted numerous bands, for ex Beach Boys. Does that mean there's something "to get" about the BB? I would venture to guess a good majority of classical music aficionados tend to not like the BB (or pick your favorite popular pop band). So does that mean that classical music experts can definitively say that the BB have nothing to get? Maybe so, just continuing the discussion.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky

Luchesi said:


> I wonder why you think intelligent people study the science of aesthetics. It takes a lot of time and effort.


Umm I didn't say that. And double umm, just because someone describes something as "the science of" doesn't mean it is. That's not to say there aren't any theories about what constitutes beauty, just that from my experience, way back as a philosophy student, those theories tended to be opinion in disguise.


----------



## Guest

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Not really. Millions of people have enjoyed the Beach Boys for many years (not as many years as WAM of course). Does that make them anything more than syrupy pop music? (not implying WAM is syrupy pop).


It makes them the best quality syrupy pop music. They created a unique sound all their own, but they were of their time and their influence seems to be decaying fast.


----------



## Luchesi

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Umm I didn't say that. And double umm, just because someone describes something as "the science of" doesn't mean it is. That's not to say there aren't any theories about what constitutes beauty, just that from my experience, way back as a philosophy student, those theories tended to be opinion in disguise.


Many people don't like this debate. I like it because I always will learn something from a person like you.

Is aesthetics an art or science? Relativism or objectivism.

Is evolutionary psychology able to educate us about music appreciation?

Is art about 'liking' or is it about enduring significance?

Can a neophyte's opinion be as worthy as that of an experienced musician or composer? By worthy I mean would it save us time?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Luchesi said:


> Is aesthetics an art or science? Relativism or objectivism.


Bertrand Russell referred to aesthetics as "learn_ed_ rubbish". I don't think I entirely agree with his assessment, but I think he was making a fair point about the sorts of ludicrous discussions that go on in aesthetic discussions.

De gustibus non est disputandum is still a good basic rule of thumb. It's possible to develop appreciation for things, but a waste of time trying to argue for or against human whims.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> You don't know the circumstances and yet you post that I'm lying.


maybe your memory is poor

but let the question be asked

step forward if TC chose a username for you


----------



## Luchesi

eugeneonagain said:


> Bertrand Russell referred to aesthetics as "learn_ed_ rubbish". I don't think I entirely agree with his assessment, but I think he was making a fair point about the sorts of ludicrous discussions that go on in aesthetic discussions.
> 
> De gustibus non est disputandum is still a good basic rule of thumb. It's possible to develop appreciation for things, but a waste of time trying to argue for or against human whims.


Some music theorists love the subject so much that the love overflows into ludicrousness. The rest of us are jealous because what is the goal of art ever since caveman days? -- to transcend our humdrum reality after we've grown up into it. Artifice, play and helpful metaphors. Artistically constrained ambiguity and the world that it offers.

For a philosopher to say "learned rubbish" tickles me, especially from a man back then. He enjoyed his math logic as much as we enjoy music.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> maybe your memory is poor
> 
> but let the question be asked
> 
> step forward if TC chose a username for you


That guy must've really wiped the floor with you!


----------



## Larkenfield

Aesthetics. Curved lines beautiful… Sharp lines not... It’s as simple as what is a melody.


----------



## millionrainbows

Baron Scarpia said:


> I would say the Mozart's era was one which had musical conventions which were relatively tightly constrained, but I wouldn't call it a plateau. It was a period of rapidly changing styles. The contrast between Mozart's early and late symphonies, or between his early and late piano concertos is quite dramatic.


I would have thought that it was because he reached puberty.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> I fully recognize Mozart's genius and can see that he was obviously a great master, the problem is that I cannot emotionally relate to his music. His music evokes in me some kinds of sublime geometric forms which are symmetric and almost perfect, but depict nothing of meaning that I could relate to, no humans, no animals, no nature, no emotions. Mozart sounds alien to me, out of this world. The music is perfect but depicts nothing of meaning, and hence lacks any depth to me. It is a perfection of form without content, so perfect that is uninteresting. That is at least my attempt to describe the subjective way how he effects me.


Sublime geometric forms, perfection...it sounds like you are well on your way. Just wait a few years, after you've gone through a couple of divorces, and your dreams have been smashed, then you'll get it. You'll be so sick of "emotion" that you won't ever listen to Tchaikovsky again.


----------



## Eusebius12

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> That may be the best argument, what do the experts think. But it still has to be taken in context. The experts of rock and roll, the Rock Hall of Fame, have inducted numerous bands, for ex Beach Boys. Does that mean there's something "to get" about the BB? I would venture to guess a good majority of classical music aficionados tend to not like the BB (or pick your favorite popular pop band). So does that mean that classical music experts can definitively say that the BB have nothing to get? Maybe so, just continuing the discussion.


I genuinely like some of the Beach Boys songs, to be as anti-snobbish as one can get for a second 

I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to them any time soon though. With Mozart, I am likely to seek out his music much more frequently. Of course the old 60 million Frenchmen can't be wrong is a fallacy, and mere popularity is no guide, otherwise the recent fecal offerings of the 'record industry' would have some artistic merit, and the latest piece of rubbish by Drake wouldn't be cringingly postintestinal. On the other hand, Mozart has been admired by 1000s who seemed to know who they were talking about. Is that an argument by authority? The greatest musical minds have found not just pleasure in his works but all sorts of artistic merits in them. But no one should be forced directly or passive aggressively into liking something that to them is 'non simpatico'.


----------



## Eusebius12

Larkenfield said:


> Aesthetics. Curved lines beautiful… Sharp lines not... It's as simple as what is a melody.


How true is that


----------



## Aloevera

I had this problem with every composer except Mozart. What was stopping me from "getting" other composers was that I would be subconsciousally listening to see how well they fit the role of sounding like Mozart. The way each phrase flows into another perfectly, satisfying one;s emotional craving without indulging in it. Whenever I would hear other composers aka romantic music I could only hear a defect. It's funny I was listening to Beethoven's 8 symphony and I thought wow I can see how he influenced the later romantics and it reminded me of this kingdom hearts level called symphony of sorcery, so i decided to look it up and I found out that they actually used the 6th symphony as the soundtrack. It was quite a dreamy level but definitely got me to hear it outside of a Mozart lense and all of a sudden I felt like I "got" romantic music and I for sure was missing out . 

Likewise, I don't think its fair to judge Mozart's music through the lense of romantic music, even though for some its hard to seperate


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Aesthetics. Curved lines beautiful… Sharp lines not... It's as simple as what is a melody.


Yeah, what do we need all those big books for. And all those impressive theorists who are a fascination just to read. They all wasted their lives.

"Music Criticism Has Degenerated Into Lifestyle Reporting"

Now that's what we really care about. Who's ill, who's divorcing, who's burning out, who's wearing the shortest skirts


----------



## millionrainbows

Pure, hard logic...that's why Schoenberg loved Mozart. Enough of this drippy romantic sentiment! If you want that, go to Tchaikovsky! Mozart is logic, and perfection, and grace, like good architecture. It is what it is! 
Hail the Greek quadrivium! Hail mathematics and perfect forms! Long live Plato! 
Mozart is _idea,_ not teardrops. Submit to the logic! Fall down on your miserable knees and acknowledge the great edifice he has created!


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Pure, hard logic...that's why Schoenberg loved Mozart. Enough of this drippy romantic sentiment! If you want that, go to Tchaikovsky! Mozart is logic, and perfection, and grace, like good architecture. It is what it is!
> Hail the Greek quadrivium! Hail mathematics and perfect forms! Long live Plato!
> Mozart is _idea,_ not teardrops. Submit to the logic! Fall down on your miserable knees and acknowledge the great edifice he has created!


Arguably, the greatest music is that which avoids the cliché. That's hardly the case with much of Mozart's music imho. For some, such clichés are extremely annoying; others appear to not even consider them so.

Who's right?


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> Arguably, the greatest music is that which avoids the cliché. That's hardly the case with much of Mozart's music imho. For some, such clichés are extremely annoying; others appear to not even consider them so.
> 
> Who's right?


People love clichés! Listen to LvB, better known as Mr. Dominant Tonic. The extended cliché at the end of his 5th Symphony always sends 'em home happy.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> People love clichés! Listen to LvB, better known as Mr. Dominant Tonic. The extended cliché at the end of his 5th Symphony always sends 'em home happy.


...but the work, as a whole - you wouldn't dare describe as clichéd would you?


----------



## KenOC

The 5th is full of clichés. One of the most amusing is his use of a "Mannheim rocket" as the first main theme of the Scherzo, something that was well out of fashion by that time. And to top it off, the theme is identical (except for key signature and some note values) to the opening theme of the finale to Mozart's 40th Symphony. The sketchbooks prove that Beethoven was quite aware of his borrowing!


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> Arguably, the greatest music is that which avoids the cliché. That's hardly the case with much of Mozart's music imho. For some, such clichés are extremely annoying; others appear to not even consider them so.
> 
> Who's right?


You referring to musical conventions in Mozart's music as cliché is false, his harmonic language for his time was fresh and cutting edge. Mozart's music has become so universally loved and performed that to someone lacking knowledge into his compositional mastery may hear this commonly performed language and call it "cliché", it doesn't make it so. You constantly bringing up this weak argument is becoming worse than a cliché though. At least with most clichés there is an element of truth in them, (hence the reason for them becoming over used phrases in the first place). Your argument isn't even good enough to be called a cliché.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> The 5th is full of clichés. One of the most amusing is his use of a "Mannheim rocket" as the first main theme of the Scherzo, something that was well out of fashion by that time. And to top it off, the theme is identical (except for key signature and some note values) to the opening theme of the finale to Mozart's 40th Symphony. The sketchbooks prove that Beethoven was quite aware of his borrowing!


Never noticed that.

For me, this use of the arpeggio doesn't sound as mere commonplace but something inspired - and that would be because of the music that surrounds it - giving it originality. The Mozart movement is not to my liking - though his other three movements are genius I'd say.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> You referring to musical conventions in Mozart's music as cliché is false, his harmonic language for his time was fresh and cutting edge. Mozart's music has become so universally loved and performed that to someone lacking knowledge into his compositional mastery may hear this commonly performed language and call it "cliché", it doesn't make it so. You constantly bringing up this weak argument is becoming worse than a cliché though. At least with most clichés there is an element of truth in them, (hence the reason for them becoming over used phrases in the first place). Your argument isn't even good enough to be called a cliché.


You are challenging the fact that such harmonic cadences irritate me? As I said in my post:

_



For some, such clichés are extremely annoying; others appear to not even consider them so.

Who's right?

Click to expand...

_


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> You referring to musical conventions in Mozart's music as cliché is false, his harmonic language for his time was fresh and cutting edge. Mozart's music has become so universally loved and performed that to someone lacking knowledge into his compositional mastery may hear this commonly performed language and call it "cliché", it doesn't make it so. You constantly bringing up this weak argument is becoming worse than a cliché though. At least with most clichés there is an element of truth in them, (hence the reason for them becoming over used phrases in the first place). Your argument isn't even good enough to be called a cliché.


Its _*commonly performed language*_ but isn't a cliché? How so?


----------



## Guest

I think what people are struggling to express is that these elements which you call "cliches" are dictated by the style of Mozart's era. They are the punctuation, so to speak, that delimit the musical argument. They are the signposts his audience expected to mark the points along the musical journey. Mozart had to include these in order to prevent his audiences from becoming bewildered, if he wanted to remain employed. I find when I listen to Mozart I have to put on my 18th century ears and listen for the content that Mozart put between these musical signposts. Compared with every other composer of his era, with the exception of Haydn, the music that Mozart wrote was the least cliched.

If you can't reconcile yourself to those elements of late 18th century music, then by all means avoid Mozart and his contemporaries. Lord knows there is enough music in the world without Mozart.


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think what people are struggling to express is that these elements which you call "cliches" are dictated by the style of Mozart's era. They are the punctuation, so to speak, that delimit the musical argument. They are the signposts his audience expected to mark the points along the musical journey. Mozart had to include these in order to prevent his audiences from becoming bewildered, if he wanted to remain employed. I find when I listen to Mozart I have to put on my 18th century ears and listen for the content that Mozart put between these musical signposts. Compared with every other composer of his era, with the exception of Haydn, the music that Mozart wrote was the least cliched.
> 
> If you can't reconcile yourself to those elements of late 18th century music, then by all means avoid Mozart and his contemporaries. Lord knows there is enough music in the world without Mozart.


It's probably just psychological... because I'm so aware while listening that Mozart was in his late 20s early 30s --- but his music always sounds so youthful. Some people like it and some people can only take a little of it. He can't help trying to involve an older audience with his compositional decisions. I can't imagine him as a 60-year-old writing these his great works that we continuously put under the microscope. We spend so much more time reviewing and dissecting them than he ever did.


----------



## Larkenfield

. . . . . . . .


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> Its _*commonly performed language*_ but isn't a cliché? How so?


What gives the word "cliché" a negative denotation is when a phrase has been repeated so much that it becomes used mindlessly to the point of showing _a lack of original thought_. This clearly was not the case in Mozart's choice of musical syntax, therefore there are no clichés in his music. If you are suggesting Mozart used these musical devices as some kind of a lazy crutch because he couldn't think of anything else to put in his compositions, then I suggest you are very wrong.


----------



## R3PL4Y

My thought on the subject is that use of cliches does not necessarily make the work as a whole cliche. For sure some techniques used by Beethoven or Mozart could be described as cliche, but everything surrounding it, such as the harmony, the way these ideas are treated, etc. can work towards making what could appear cliche and derivative actually become great music. A great example is Mahler; Leonard Bernstein says that Mahler's music is built of cliches. He uses the example of the 9th symphony. The middle section of the third movement and the 4th movement use a theme that is basically just a turn, which could be associated with an out of date, trite style of music, and to an extent, this is evoked in the 3rd movement. But his use of this theme in the 4th turns the trite into the transcendental, the cliche into something new and beautiful. To me, this is the difference between music containing cliches and music being cliche.


----------



## tdc

R3PL4Y said:


> My thought on the subject is that use of cliches does not necessarily make the work as a whole cliche. For sure some techniques used by Beethoven or Mozart could be described as cliche, but everything surrounding it, such as the harmony, the way these ideas are treated, etc. can work towards making what could appear cliche and derivative actually become great music. A great example is Mahler; Leonard Bernstein says that Mahler's music is built of cliches. He uses the example of the 9th symphony. The middle section of the third movement and the 4th movement use a theme that is basically just a turn, which could be associated with an out of date, trite style of music, and to an extent, this is evoked in the 3rd movement. But his use of this theme in the 4th turns the trite into the transcendental, the cliche into something new and beautiful. To me, this is the difference between music containing cliches and music being cliche.


Yes I suppose this makes sense. Once again it comes down to semantics.

I guess my issue stems from janx suggestion the greatest music cannot contain these kinds of devices or "clichés", if you will. I think post #213 shows a lack of understanding of musical structures and is just lazy thinking.


----------



## Guest

Imagine if Mozart had lived to be 70. He would have died at more or less the same time as Beethoven. I don't think he would have moved towards Beethoven's style. I imagine his use of counterpoint becoming freer and more extensive, and greater liberties with harmony, foreshadowing Brahms.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> What gives the word "cliché" a negative denotation is when a phrase has been repeated so much that it becomes used mindlessly to the point of showing _a lack of original thought_. This clearly was not the case in Mozart's choice of musical syntax, therefore there are no clichés in his music. If you are suggesting Mozart used these musical devices as some kind of a lazy crutch because he couldn't think of anything else to put in his compositions, then I suggest you are very wrong.


Am I not entitled to express my reaction to Mozart? I accept that we perceive him differently - but you are determined to enforce what you see as objective truth.

My post merely reacted to millionrainbows:



millionrainbows said:


> Pure, hard logic...that's why Schoenberg loved Mozart. Enough of this drippy romantic sentiment! If you want that, go to Tchaikovsky! Mozart is logic, and perfection, and grace, like good architecture. It is what it is!
> Hail the Greek quadrivium! Hail mathematics and perfect forms! Long live Plato!
> Mozart is _idea,_ not teardrops. Submit to the logic! Fall down on your miserable knees and acknowledge the great edifice he has created!


Notwithstanding all this - I esteem some Mozart as utter genius.


----------



## Luchesi

When I was young I came across books like this and I was so happy to find out that sonatas could be put into words. No talk about style here. This is from Donald Tovey.


----------



## Bulldog

janxharris said:


> Am I not entitled to express my reaction to Mozart?


Of course you are, but I don't understand why you do it so often.


----------



## Luchesi

What complaints can we count on about these guys? They worked under harsh conditions, winters and summers, disease, injuries and headaches - no pain killers, bad food, short lives and poverty.

I've heard these;

Bach -too mathematical

Chopin -too flowery

Schubert -too long

Beethoven -too loud and intense

Brahms -boring

Haydn -derivative

Mozart -too much repetitively classical with clichés


----------



## janxharris

Bulldog said:


> Of course you are, but I don't understand why you do it so often.


Well, as i said, I was reacting to this (specifically, the boldened):



millionrainbows said:


> Pure, hard logic...that's why Schoenberg loved Mozart. Enough of this drippy romantic sentiment! If you want that, go to Tchaikovsky! *Mozart is logic, and perfection*, and grace, like good architecture. It is what it is!
> Hail the Greek quadrivium! Hail mathematics and perfect forms! Long live Plato!
> Mozart is _idea,_ not teardrops. Submit to the logic! Fall down on your miserable knees and acknowledge the great edifice he has created!


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Its _*commonly performed language*_ but isn't a cliché? How so?


Are you back with your clichéd posts?

Commonly performed musical language artfully used cannot be clichés - educate yourself - go and look up the word.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Are you back with your clichéd posts?
> 
> Commonly performed musical language artfully used cannot be clichés - educate yourself - go and look up the word.


And you seem to be back responding that they aren't.

As I said:



> For some, such clichés are extremely annoying; others appear to not even consider them so.
> 
> Who's right?


I merely responded to an assertion about Mozart being perfect. That is all.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> And you seem to be back responding that they aren't.
> 
> As I said:
> 
> I merely responded to an assertion about Mozart being perfect. That is all.


You're right. I support your questioning. Posters who try to discourage the exchange of ideas and new discussions always seem to say the same things. They surely don't post interesting posts. They should try to make them more interesting.

Maybe you've brought this up before, going around and around, but I've never read about these opinions. I don't remember points being made about clichés. There are new members to TC all the time. There are new readers of the various threads all the time.

I think I can hear signature clichés in Liszt and Chopin, maybe Schumann. Whenever they needed a short connecting flourish in their 'style'. It didn't seem to bother them, but I do think it was conscious choice. I guess it just didn't seem that important before recordings.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> You're right. I support your questioning. Posters who try to discourage the exchange of ideas and new discussions always seem to say the same things. They surely don't post interesting posts. They should try to make them more interesting.
> 
> Maybe you've brought this up before, going around and around, but I've never read about these opinions. I don't remember points being made about clichés. There are new members to TC all the time. There are new readers of the various threads all the time.
> 
> I think I can hear signature clichés in Liszt and Chopin, maybe Schumann. Whenever they needed a short connecting flourish in their 'style'. It didn't seem to bother them, but I do think it was conscious choice. I guess it just didn't seem that important before recordings.


It has come up on other threads.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> It has come up on other threads.


Members don't read every thread. If they were interested and it wasn't in the title how would they find it? Amazon had a much better search. I've actually never found anything that I've been looking for. I should occasionally find something I'm looking for. right? Once I get better at searching I'll find stuff I guess, maybe old stuff about a new breakthrough about a new religion under the sun or.. Do you use search?

It's natural for people to think that there's only a few people reading and thinking about a debate a few posters are having.

"Look! The world is wide!"


----------



## Woodduck

At one time I could barely tolerate most music of the Classical period. The "cliches" - the symmetrical phrase structure, the Alberti bass, the predictable cadences, the obsessive alternation of tonic and dominant - were a distraction and a barrier to enjoying even music I could recognize as well-composed. At the same time I never had a problem with the "sewing machine" rhythms in Bach, the ornamental filigree in Chopin, or the ubiquitous diminished and half-diminished seventh chords in Wagner.

Every artist, in every medium, has identifying traits, mannerisms, "cliches." If you like their work, you accept those traits. If you don't, you point to those traits as a reason why you don't. The same can be said of period or national styles. Over time we may learn to see past stylistic mannerisms, or even to hear them in a different way. When I'm not in the mood for a composer's music, his "cliches" may annoy me. But usually I can listen through or past them if I choose to.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> Members don't read every thread. If they were interested and it wasn't in the title how would they find it? Amazon had a much better search. I've actually never found anything that I've been looking for. I should occasionally find something I'm looking for. right? Once I get better at searching I'll find stuff I guess, maybe old stuff about a new breakthrough about a new religion under the sun or.. Do you use search?
> 
> It's natural for people to think that there's only a few people reading and thinking about a debate a few posters are having.
> 
> "Look! The world is wide!"


For subjects on talkclassical it is best to search on, say, google - the talkclassical search box isn't good.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> At one time I could barely tolerate most music of the Classical period. The "cliches" - the symmetrical phrase structure, the Alberti bass, the predictable cadences, the obsessive alternation of tonic and dominant - were a distraction and a barrier to enjoying even music I could recognize as well-composed. At the same time I never had a problem with the "sewing machine" rhythms in Bach, the ornamental filigree in Chopin, or the ubiquitous diminished and half-diminished seventh chords in Wagner.
> 
> Every artist, in every medium, has identifying traits, mannerisms, "cliches." If you like their work, you accept those traits. If you don't, you point to those traits as a reason why you don't. The same can be said of period or national styles. Over time we may learn to see past stylistic mannerisms, or even to hear them in a different way. When I'm not in the mood for a composer's music, his "cliches" may annoy me. But usually I can listen through or past them if I choose to.


Excellent post which should be copied to several other threads as well!

For me, I have learned to enjoy and smile with those "cliches" (_really_ not the right word!) for the music of most periods.


----------



## Luchesi

If we put ourselves only as far back as the time of Chopin, how would we ever hear one of his difficult pieces if not a special occasion, and how many times would we hear it during our whole lifetime? 

When you're pouring over a Ballade or Scherzo and trying to memorize sections and trying to get fingering to sound fluid, confident and forthright, the last thing you care about is whether it's got some short clichés in it. You're trying to be able to express yourself with it. 

Imagine if any of those composers ever thought their pieces would be recorded and played over and over and over...

Even if you play for 40 years you'll be surprised by the combination of notes that sounds so fresh, if you're playing on an instrument that's fine enough to inspire you. It's like the combinations are limitless.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> At one time I could barely tolerate most music of the Classical period. The "cliches" - the symmetrical phrase structure, the Alberti bass, the predictable cadences, the obsessive alternation of tonic and dominant - were a distraction and a barrier to enjoying even music I could recognize as well-composed. At the same time I never had a problem with the "sewing machine" rhythms in Bach, the ornamental filigree in Chopin, or the ubiquitous diminished and half-diminished seventh chords in Wagner.
> 
> Every artist, in every medium, has identifying traits, mannerisms, "cliches." If you like their work, you accept those traits. If you don't, you point to those traits as a reason why you don't. The same can be said of period or national styles. Over time we may learn to see past stylistic mannerisms, or even to hear them in a different way. When I'm not in the mood for a composer's music, his "cliches" may annoy me. But usually I can listen through or past them if I choose to.


Excellent post Woodduck. I want to explore this but I don't have time now.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> At one time I could barely tolerate most music of the Classical period. The "cliches" - the symmetrical phrase structure, the Alberti bass, the predictable cadences, the obsessive alternation of tonic and dominant - were a distraction and a barrier to enjoying even music I could recognize as well-composed. At the same time I never had a problem with the "sewing machine" rhythms in Bach, the ornamental filigree in Chopin, or the ubiquitous diminished and half-diminished seventh chords in Wagner.
> 
> Every artist, in every medium, has identifying traits, mannerisms, "cliches." If you like their work, you accept those traits. If you don't, you point to those traits as a reason why you don't. The same can be said of period or national styles. Over time we may learn to see past stylistic mannerisms, or even to hear them in a different way. When I'm not in the mood for a composer's music, his "cliches" may annoy me. But usually I can listen through or past them if I choose to.


Quite clearly then it follows - the old maxim - one man's gold is another man's rubbish.

You hear Cliche's in music you dont like - and in music you do like you only hear beautiful sounds.

So saying you dont like music because of the cliche's is pretty much meaningless because all you are saying is the music has features you dont like.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> It has come up on other threads.


Only you and Jaack have ever brought up the term cliche's in relation to Mozart's music. I have been a regular poster here for 10 years and until you and Jaack started posting nobody ever talked about it.

You are most likely one and the same poster under different guises.


----------



## KenOC

Whether those things in Mozart's music are "clichés" or "gestures" seems to depend on whether or not we like them.


----------



## Bluecrab

stomanek said:


> Only you and Jaack have ever brought up the term cliche's in relation to Mozart's music.


Count me as number 3. By the way, it's _cliches_, not _cliche's_.



stomanek said:


> I have been a regular poster here for 10 years...


Really? Then why does your profile say that you joined this forum in June 2012? Let's see... 2018 - 2012 = 6, not 10. How do you explain this discrepancy?



stomanek said:


> You are most likely one and the same poster under different guises.


Yes, that must be the answer. And I'm the third member under this guise. It's a vast conspiracy. :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> Count me as number 3. By the way, it's _cliches_, not _cliche's_.
> 
> Really? Then why does your profile say that you joined this forum in June 2012? Let's see... 2018 - 2012 = 6, not 10. How do you explain this discrepancy?
> 
> Yes, that must be the answer. And I'm the third member under this guise. It's a vast conspiracy. :lol:


I had a previous username and joined in 2008 - subsequently closing one acc and opening another.

You never said that Mozart's music has cliches but do seem to have taken up their cause - this is language specifically characteristic of Jaack and Janxharris. They may be one and the same person or a pair with similar views. It's too much of a co-incidence that they both started posting on here regularly at the same time and the only posters to use the word cliche in connection with Mozart.

I can only fathom that they both share a hatred of Mozart's music and perhaps his fans too They try to evoke some credibility by claiming they acknowledge Mozart to be a genius - praising a handful of works - g minor sy etc - but dismissing the bulk of the music as being ridden with cliches - and this derogatory language is acceptable because of course it's just opinion. OK they have made their point - but why keep returning and repeating?

Jaack has been rebuked by a mod for coming onto this thread which is supposed to be a member celebrating the fact he has got Mozart. So saying - well I like some Mozart but it's mostly cliche ridden - is not appropriate on this thread. If either wants to put this issue before the board why not start a thread devoted to the topic.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Quite clearly then it follows - the old maxim - one man's gold is another man's rubbish.
> 
> You hear Cliche's in music you dont like - and in music you do like you only hear beautiful sounds.
> 
> So saying you dont like music because of the cliche's is pretty much meaningless because all you are saying is the music has features you dont like.


Um...yes, your first statement is obviously true. But the other two don't ring true, and may also be misinterpreting something I said. I'm really not sure, but you seem to be disagreeing with something.

The thrust of my statement was that the accusation of "cliche" arises when we don't like a composer's style and are likely to fix on certain characteristic traits to "explain" to ourselves our dislike. All composers have such typical traits, but we're less likely to notice them, and unlikely to think of them as "cliches," when we like the music.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Duplicate-poster paranoia: now becoming a cliché . Seriously, why don't we just substitute the word "habit" for "cliché" and we can all be happy. I readily discern such "habits" in the music of Prokofiev, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff, Martinů.,,,,,,


----------



## janxharris

eljr said:


> I have only been listening to classical music in earnest for 4 years. A longggggggg time fan of Philip Glass but until 2014 my classical listen had been limited.
> 
> Bach, love him. Early music? Can't get enough. Choral, my good friend @Joe B opened up for me. Baroque, chok guzel!
> 
> Beethoven, good stuff. Simpson, Reich, Adams, what is not to love? Williams, Schoenberg, wonderful. Hyden, what can be better...
> 
> But this guy Mozart. He and this guy Wagner. I just don't "get."
> 
> Well, today, finally, while not trying, I was listening to Mozart, Piano Concerto #13 and wow. It just hit me. This stuff is wonderful!
> 
> I just needed to celebrate so that is what I am doing here.
> 
> I finally got Mozart!
> 
> still waiting to "get" Wagner though....


Are we okay to continue discussing the merits or otherwise of Mozart's music here?


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> So saying - well I like some Mozart but it's mostly cliche ridden - is not appropriate on this thread.


I can't agree with you on this one. Members have every right to express a view not held by the person who starts a thread. What I object to is the repetitive nature of it all. I've been reading the word "cliche" for many days now - must be an addiction.


----------



## Luchesi

Bulldog - I've been reading the word "cliche" for many days now - must be an addiction.

David Lehman
cliché
"One Day at a Time"
What goes around comes around.
I made up that phrase this morning.
Do you like it? Would you like to use it?
Be my guest. Help yourself.
You can have your cake and eat it too.
You get the best of both worlds,
six of one and half a dozen of the other.
But don't bite off more than you can chew.
I've been smoke-free now for three years
and there's no such thing as a free lunch.
But say you get your ducks in a row
(your sitting ducks, your lame ducks,
your lucky ducks, your dead ducks),
then, at the last moment of consciousness,
when your whole life flashes before you,
these words will go from your mouth to God's ear
and he (whatever you conceive him to be)
will nod once, with mild eyes,
and say, “Been there. Done that.”


Conversational, opinionated, and idiomatic, these Word Notes are an opportunity to see a working writer's perspective on a particular word or usage.


----------



## Luchesi

Remember this exchange from Amadeus;


SALIERI
I think you overestimate our dear Viennese, my friend. Do you
know you didn't even give them a good bang at the end of songs
so they knew when to clap?

MOZART
I know, I know. Perhaps you should give me some lessons in that.

SALIERI
(fuming)
I wouldn't presume. All the same, if it wouldn't be imposing, I
would like you to see my new piece. It would be a tremendous
honour for me.

MOZART
Oh no, the honour would be all mine.

SALIERI
(bowing)
Grazie, mio caro, Wolfgang!

MOZART
Grazie, a lei, Signor Antonio!


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> If we put ourselves only as far back as the time of Chopin, how would we ever hear one of his difficult pieces if not a special occasion, and how many times would we hear it during our whole lifetime?
> 
> When you're pouring over a Ballade or Scherzo and trying to memorize sections and trying to get fingering to sound fluid, confident and forthright, the last thing you care about is whether it's got some short clichés in it. You're trying to be able to express yourself with it.
> 
> Imagine if any of those composers ever thought their pieces would be recorded and played over and over and over...
> 
> Even if you play for 40 years you'll be surprised by the combination of notes that sounds so fresh, if you're playing on an instrument that's fine enough to inspire you. It's like the combinations are limitless.


Today's novelties are tomorrows cliches, if a piece is popular enough.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> I can't agree with you on this one. Members have every right to express a view not held by the person who starts a thread. *What I object to is the repetitive nature of it all.* I've been reading the word "cliche" for many days now - must be an addiction.


Then we agree.

There are two members on this board who seem to take every opportunity to say that Mozart's music is cliche ridden. The recent thread about Einstein and Brahms is a good example. These are views that don't need to be expressed again and again unless there is something substantially new to add.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> You're right. I support your questioning. Posters who try to discourage the exchange of ideas and new discussions always seem to say the same things. They surely don't post interesting posts. They should try to make them more interesting.
> 
> Maybe you've brought this up before, going around and around, but I've never read about these opinions. I don't remember points being made about clichés. There are new members to TC all the time. There are new readers of the various threads all the time.
> 
> I think I can hear signature clichés in Liszt and Chopin, maybe Schumann. Whenever they needed a short connecting flourish in their 'style'. It didn't seem to bother them, but I do think it was conscious choice. I guess it just didn't seem that important before recordings.


Liszt turned a number of things into cliche. One is something I call the 'worm'; it is a downwards cascade of notes a tone apart that gets reduced by a semitone after each iteration. The excessive use of diminished sevenths; the use of interlocking octaves; the use of the tritone in certain pieces and even his use of the whole tone scale. But in certain of his works, every one of these devices can add to the whole. Chopin's cliches seem there to the ear but hard to really enumerate/delineate in practice, and really of cliche early Schumann might be said to have none at all. It was his 'shocking' originality that dumbfounded the tum-tum critics like Chorley of Schumann's time.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Remember this exchange from Amadeus;
> 
> SALIERI
> I think you overestimate our dear Viennese, my friend. Do you
> know you didn't even give them a good bang at the end of songs
> so they knew when to clap?
> 
> MOZART
> I know, I know. Perhaps you should give me some lessons in that.
> 
> SALIERI
> (fuming)
> I wouldn't presume. All the same, if it wouldn't be imposing, I
> would like you to see my new piece. It would be a tremendous
> honour for me.
> 
> MOZART
> Oh no, the honour would be all mine.
> 
> SALIERI
> (bowing)
> Grazie, mio caro, Wolfgang!
> 
> MOZART
> Grazie, a lei, Signor Antonio!


Then:

Mozart
"I didn't know that music like that was possible!"
Salieri
"You flatter me"
Mozart
"One hears such sounds and what can one say but 'Salieri'"


----------



## Eusebius12

janxharris said:


> Arguably, the greatest music is that which avoids the cliché. That's hardly the case with much of Mozart's music imho. For some, such clichés are extremely annoying; others appear to not even consider them so.
> 
> Who's right?


It is important to try to hear music with fresh ears. Haydn's cliches were almost all at a fairly recent date to their composition novelties. Some of what we hear as cliche in Mozart's music may have been part of what was understood to be fundamental to good style and technique at the time. Having lived well part Beethoven and his successors, the appearance of certain stereotyped statement/obviously flagged development/naked recapitulation/short coda things seem incredibly stereotyped today;I am sure no one would attempt such a style today except as pastiche. But within the confines, the straightjacket indeed of that form, it is incredible how many good and varied ideas Mozart poured in thereto. It isn't at all easy to write convincingly in such a narrow confine, he and Brahms imo are the masters of doing so, Brahms primarily in his chamber works (rather than say, his symphonies; I consider Mozart's symphonic oeuvre far more convincing and sui generis).

Really, unless one has been listening to Eine Kleine on a loop for a while, the subtleties of Mozart become apparent, in works such as the end of the Piano Concerto 24, the disconcerting harmonic ambiguities of parts of the 40th symphony and the finale of the 41st (the fugato here becomes almost manic and cackling), the opening of the Dissonance quartet, and the penultimate scene of Don Giovanni. Nothing really cliche about that, even though it has been heard so often. The D Minor piano concerto was truly radical for its time. The Qui Tollis from the C Minor Mass, is an incredibly dangerous sounding work after the munchings and galanteries of so many of Mozart's contemporaries.

On a side note, although his radicalism could even be considered to become a little cliche, is there any 18th century composer less predictably cliche than CPE Bach?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eusebius12 said:


> It is important to try to hear music with fresh ears. Haydn's cliches were almost all at a fairly recent date to their composition novelties. Some of what we hear as cliche in Mozart's music may have been part of what was understood to be fundamental to good style and technique at the time. Having lived well part Beethoven and his successors, the appearance of certain stereotyped statement/obviously flagged development/naked recapitulation/short coda things seem incredibly stereotyped today;I am sure no one would attempt such a style today except as pastiche. But within the confines, the straightjacket indeed of that form, it is incredible how many good and varied ideas Mozart poured in thereto. It isn't at all easy to write convincingly in such a narrow confine, he and Brahms imo are the masters of doing so, Brahms primarily in his chamber works (rather than say, his symphonies; I consider Mozart's symphonic oeuvre far more convincing and sui generis).
> 
> Really, unless one has been listening to Eine Kleine on a loop for a while, the subtleties of Mozart become apparent, in works such as the end of the Piano Concerto 24, the disconcerting harmonic ambiguities of parts of the 40th symphony and the finale of the 41st (the fugato here becomes almost manic and cackling), the opening of the Dissonance quartet, and the penultimate scene of Don Giovanni. Nothing really cliche about that, even though it has been heard so often. The D Minor piano concerto was truly radical for its time. The Qui Tollis from the C Minor Mass, is an incredibly dangerous sounding work after the munchings and galanteries of so many of Mozart's contemporaries.
> 
> On a side note, although his radicalism could even be considered to become a little cliche, is there any 18th century composer less predictably cliche than CPE Bach?


Good comments. Not so much because I agree with them - but you are actually going into detail to back up what you are saying.

CPE back proves that you can be cutting edge - daring - devoid of cliche.

And still not be interesting enough.

I devoted real time to exploring his work after people on this board with great excitement urged me to open my ears. What you say is no doubt true. And yet his 12 minute symphonies and concertos fail to interest me for any length of time.


----------



## Eusebius12

Thanks 

CPE Bach, like all composers, writes some works better than others. His cello concertos are generally high quality. His work can be quite diverse; that which we might call 'the CPE Bach style' doesn't really apply to some of his early works. I really enjoyed reading through quite a lot of his piano works. His choral work is rarely performed but there is a Passion setting that is quite backward looking in a sense, looking back towards his father, but is really an imposing work. Since he was immensely prolific though as is common for composers of the era, it becomes a little harder imo to narrow down one's search.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Thanks
> 
> CPE Bach, like all composers, writes some works better than others. His cello concertos are generally high quality. His work can be quite diverse; that which we might call 'the CPE Bach style' doesn't really apply to some of his early works. I really enjoyed reading through quite a lot of his piano works. His choral work is rarely performed but there is a Passion setting that is quite backward looking in a sense, looking back towards his father, but is really an imposing work. Since he was immensely prolific though as is common for composers of the era, it becomes a little harder imo to narrow down one's search.


CPE Bach was a Classical pioneer in much of his work but he seems mostly to have had at least one foot in the Baroque. I find the mixture quite beguiling. His Magnificat is a fine and exciting choral work, not at all backward looking in my view.


----------



## Larkenfield

What a mistake to pander to the whole idea of Mozart's music being full of clichés. They aren't clichés... They are cadences that are deliberately used simply to relax the end of a phrase before the next one comes along. They are always perfectly voiced and written consciously with intent. When the pianist is alert to them and does not play them as rote cadences, they are beautifully harmonious and in perfect accord with the rest of the phrase, and the audience appreciates them. But to consistently pander and give in and pander to the idea of Mozart music being cliché ridden, I consider a total mistake that is only encouraging and indulging a complete misconception... What a tiresome subject, and Mozart couldn't be as redundant and as repetitive in 25 lifetimes as this subject being brought up time and time again with no hint of any further understanding or appreciation on the part of the complainer, who might be better served by finding some other composer to redundantly, repeatedly, and repetitiously complain about, especially when this started out as a Mozart _appreciation_ thread and not the so-called _repetition of clichés_ thread. Instead, it's been too often hijacked when the OP had no complaints about the composer he finally "got"... If one wants to genuinely "get" a composer, the first step is to stop complaining about him and learn from others what to listen for and what are the best recordings where the performers maintain their sparkle and alertness. For the sonatas and concertos, Uchida is marvelous and so is Brendel.


----------



## PlaySalieri

OP how did you get on with PC23?


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> Liszt turned a number of things into cliche. One is something I call the 'worm'; it is a downwards cascade of notes a tone apart that gets reduced by a semitone after each iteration. The excessive use of diminished sevenths; the use of interlocking octaves; the use of the tritone in certain pieces and even his use of the whole tone scale. But in certain of his works, every one of these devices can add to the whole. Chopin's cliches seem there to the ear but hard to really enumerate/delineate in practice, and really of cliche early Schumann might be said to have none at all. It was his 'shocking' originality that dumbfounded the tum-tum critics like Chorley of Schumann's time.


Yes, Liszt piano pieces always sound to me like someone playing the piano. As if it wasn't composed away from the piano. Chopin worked and worked adding smoothness and interest to his pieces (instead of virtuosity) so that it wouldn't sound that way, but it is a problem for composers who are spectacular pianists (like Rachmaninov).

If I can say something which might ruffle a few feathers... When Lark said Brendal and Uchida in the Mozart sonatas I thought Mozart would probably have preferred Glenn Gould's recklessness. For piano students what's necessary is that they don't get bored or complacent or confused by the 'old sound' AND they hear what's possible for expression, for bad and for good.

For just listening of course Brendel is top notch and Uchida is very intense and exploratory, amazing!


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 - "On a side note, although his radicalism could even be considered to become a little cliche, is there any 18th century composer less predictably cliche than CPE Bach?"

Yes, how does one express yourself with them? You have to do a lot of listening to recordings of them, I think. But even then they're surprising and quirky. 

I remember vividly going to my friend's house who played viola da gamba in a Renaissance group and he put a CPE Sonata on his grand and said, "Hey, play this.". It looked simple enough on the page and I started playing it and he was watching my face to see my reaction. I haven't gotten very far when I did a double take. The patterns are so different.


----------



## Woodduck

Although it is not my habit to use this forum as a way of complaining about music I dislike, and although people who diss composers repeatedly, as if the limitations of their tastes should somehow be of interest to others, have occasionally been the bane of my existence, I don't think it's valueless to point out what we dislike as long as we make an effort to be specific and to grapple with possible reasons for our distaste. A thread titled "I Finally Got Mozart" can reasonably prompt people to talk about why they don't get Mozart, and give rise to worthwhile discussions of what Mozart's music is actually like, along with related questions such as whether the term "cliche" properly describes a composer's characteristic devices and procedures. 

I agree with most here that "cliche" is a poorly chosen word, but I would also agree with some that the formal conventions of certain styles and periods of music are particularly obvious and easy for lesser composers to fall back on in place of genuine creativity. The Classical style has always impressed me as one of those styles; indeed it may be the easiest period style in which a composer of no special talent or inspiration can turn out a satisfactory and "correct" piece of music. We might expect a high degree of conventionality during periods when art is produced on commission to fulfill prescribed social functions, when aesthetic philosophy is dominated by "ideals" (such as Classicism's "neoclassical" devotion to presumed Greek ideas of beauty), and when innovation will therefore be valued only within fairly definite parameters. For many listeners it may require fairly extensive acquaintance with the works of the best composers of such periods to grasp just how much originality and freshness can be achieved by the most creative minds (in this case Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven). Thus the assertions we frequently hear that Classical period music is "clicheed" and "predictable" are not difficult to understand.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...I agree with most here that "cliche" is a poorly chosen word, but I would also agree with some that the formal conventions of certain styles and periods of music are particularly obvious and easy for lesser composers to fall back on in place of genuine creativity. The Classical style has always impressed me as one of those styles; indeed it may be the easiest period style in which a composer of no special talent or inspiration can turn out a satisfactory and "correct" piece of music.


Perhaps a stable musical style with well-understood rules attracts a lot of composers, most of whom invariably have mediocre abilities. I can't count the number of active composers in Mozart's Vienna; 24 are represented in Bamert's CD set of _Mozart's Contemporaries_, and I know of quite a few more.

Amazingly, Vienna at that time had about the population of today's Amarillo, Texas.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Perhaps a stable musical style with well-understood rules attracts a lot of composers, most of whom invariably have mediocre abilities. I can't count the number of active composers in Mozart's Vienna; 24 are represented in Bamert's CD set of _Mozart's Contemporaries_, and I know of quite a few more.
> 
> Amazingly, Vienna at that time had about the population of today's Amarillo, Texas.


I too was amazed to read a list of the number of "successful" composers active during the late 18th century, most of whom are now totally neglected (though I'm sure many have cropped up on recordings before being forgotten again).


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I too was amazed to read a list of the number of "successful" composers active during the late 18th century, most of whom are now totally neglected (though I'm sure many have cropped up on recordings before being forgotten again).


Indeed. Without the artificial respiration, the CPR, the metaphorical Iron Lung of thankfully receding memory, of recording and playback, one might speculate how many composers post-Classical would today have long vanished into the gloom of historical oblivion.


----------



## Guest

This topic has an amazing ability to go on and on and on, chasing its own tail. Is the a sentiment which has been been repeated dozen times, and yet it continues. (I'm guilty too.) Mozart lived in a time when music conventions were rather constraining. Mozart is credited with fitting more content into those constraints than others of his time. Some listeners enjoy or see past the conventional aspects of the music, some find the conventional aspects of the music too tedious. Either way is okay. Is there anything else to it?


----------



## Woodduck

Baron Scarpia said:


> This topic has an amazing ability to go on and on and on, chasing its own tail. Is the a sentiment which has been been repeated dozen times, and yet it continues. (I'm guilty too.) Mozart lived in a time when music conventions were rather constraining. Mozart is credited with fitting more content into those constraints than others of his time. Some listeners enjoy or see past the conventional aspects of the music, some find the conventional aspects of the music too tedious. Either way is okay. Is there anything else to it?


Actually, there isn't. That was very good. Drinks on me.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> At one time I could barely tolerate most music of the Classical period. The "cliches" - the symmetrical phrase structure, the Alberti bass, the predictable cadences, the obsessive alternation of tonic and dominant - were a distraction and a barrier to enjoying even music I could recognize as well-composed. At the same time I never had a problem with the "sewing machine" rhythms in Bach, the ornamental filigree in Chopin, or the ubiquitous diminished and half-diminished seventh chords in Wagner.
> 
> Every artist, in every medium, has identifying traits, mannerisms, "cliches." If you like their work, you accept those traits. If you don't, you point to those traits as a reason why you don't. The same can be said of period or national styles. Over time we may learn to see past stylistic mannerisms, or even to hear them in a different way. When I'm not in the mood for a composer's music, his "cliches" may annoy me. But usually I can listen through or past them if I choose to.


I would say that none of the examples you cite (in a general sense) compare with what is in effect practically identical chord progressions and superficial melodic lines at cadence points (often with an obligatory trill) that we find in the classical period.

Listening to the first movement of Mozart's 40th symphony however, I do not easily perceive any such clichés. I can hear moments where they could be problematic, but the music has such strong forward propulsion and melodic invention that none arise. So too the second and third movements. For me, even if Mozart had only written this one work, then I would still have considered him a genius.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Only you and Jaack have ever brought up the term cliche's in relation to Mozart's music. I have been a regular poster here for 10 years and until you and Jaack started posting nobody ever talked about it.
> 
> You are most likely one and the same poster under different guises.


Ad hominems aren't permitted stomanek. Please edit your post.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> I had a previous username and joined in 2008 - subsequently closing one acc and opening another.
> 
> You never said that Mozart's music has cliches but do seem to have taken up their cause - this is language specifically characteristic of Jaack and Janxharris. They may be one and the same person or a pair with similar views. It's too much of a co-incidence that they both started posting on here regularly at the same time and the only posters to use the word cliche in connection with Mozart.
> 
> I can only fathom that they both share a hatred of Mozart's music and perhaps his fans too They try to evoke some credibility by claiming they acknowledge Mozart to be a genius - praising a handful of works - g minor sy etc - but dismissing the bulk of the music as being ridden with cliches - and this derogatory language is acceptable because of course it's just opinion. OK they have made their point - but why keep returning and repeating?
> 
> Jaack has been rebuked by a mod for coming onto this thread which is supposed to be a member celebrating the fact he has got Mozart. So saying - well I like some Mozart but it's mostly cliche ridden - is not appropriate on this thread. If either wants to put this issue before the board why not start a thread devoted to the topic.


It's quite amazing that this is permitted. It's below the belt stomanek.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> Jaack has been rebuked by a mod for coming onto this thread which is supposed to be a member celebrating the fact he has got Mozart. So saying - well I like some Mozart but it's mostly cliche ridden - is not appropriate on this thread. If either wants to put this issue before the board why not start a thread devoted to the topic.


I got some private message from some mod for using the word silly, did not really understand what it was about. I did not know that the word silly is offensive in the English language. But Stomanek, you intolerance of the opinions of others is remarkable. You want to silence people, because they say that Mozart's music seems to contain cliches? Why do you mind at all? Let others think whatever they want about Mozart and you can enjoy his music. Nobody is preventing you from enjoying his music, nobody is preventing you from writing the most positive things about him. Why do you feel you need to silence all his critics? Why can't you stand other people not enjoying Mozart?
BTW: I would say I enjoy about 50% of Mozart's output and the cliches bother me less and less as I am getting used to the music. The music definitely has clichés, ie using the sequences of chords over and over again, but contains also a lot of very original material.


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> This topic has an amazing ability to go on and on and on, chasing its own tail. Is the a sentiment which has been been repeated dozen times, and yet it continues. (I'm guilty too.) Mozart lived in a time when music conventions were rather constraining. Mozart is credited with fitting more content into those constraints than others of his time. Some listeners enjoy or see past the conventional aspects of the music, some find the conventional aspects of the music too tedious. Either way is okay. Is there anything else to it?


We know roughly what was expected by Mozart's audiences. And we know about the Esterhazy employment of Haydn and that orchestra. Entertainment was probably primary, and the people listening wanted to hear something familiar during most of the works. Mozart was more rebellious, they would've said back then, but he also had to offer entertaining and attractive compositions. Later as he was revered as a more mature voice he could be more serious in the furtherance of the art, but he also didn't want to bomb, because of his income prospects (and what the competition was doing, I'd guess).


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Ad hominems aren't permitted stomanek. Please edit your post.


I see no ad hominem in Stomanek's post, only slight paranoia, because he thinks we are the same person. My English must be really good then, because he cannot see that you are a native speaker, while I am not.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> We know roughly what was expected by Mozart's audiences. And we know about the Esterhazy employment of Haydn and that orchestra. Entertainment was probably primary, and the people listening wanted to hear something familiar during most of the works. Mozart was more rebellious, they would've said back then, but he also had to offer entertaining and attractive compositions. Later as he was revered as a more mature voice he could be more serious in the furtherance of the art, but he also didn't want to bomb, because of his income prospects (and what the competition was doing, I'd guess).


From what I've read (his letters, etc) Mozart enjoyed delighting his audience. I don't think he felt oppressed by the constraints, but loved to slip something in that was more subtle than people realized. He was no Beethoven, claiming he was writing for a future age.


----------



## KenOC

We should remember that Mozart wasn’t selling CDs. Except for orchestral and concerted works, he was mostly selling sheet music to the amateur market. His immediate buyers were the publishers, who needed to be very canny what the amateurs wanted, how much they would pay, and how many copies could be sold.

He definitely pushed the boundaries a bit and lost some sales, or had multi-work agreements curtailed, because the publishers found his music “too difficult” for their market. Since he himself had rather expensive tastes, it’s understandable if he composed mostly in the idiom he knew so well and which had proven success in his market.


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> From what I've read (his letters, etc) Mozart enjoyed delighting his audience. I don't think he felt oppressed by the constraints, but loved to slip something in that was more subtle than people realized. He was no Beethoven, claiming he was writing for a future age.


I actually had a dream of Mozart playing strict 12 tone music at home alone. I think it was Mozart, it was quite difficult to remember what he looked like, but that's the sense I got. I was looking over his shoulder as he was writing out a tone row very quickly and then making all the complicated allusions forward and backward and filling in the implied intervals here and there. Weird dream! I wish I could remember some of the music, but of course we never can! (Robert Schumann and Tchaikovsky)


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Yes, Liszt piano pieces always sound to me like someone playing the piano. As if it wasn't composed away from the piano. Chopin worked and worked adding smoothness and interest to his pieces (instead of virtuosity) so that it wouldn't sound that way, but it is a problem for composers who are spectacular pianists (like Rachmaninov).
> 
> If I can say something which might ruffle a few feathers... When Lark said Brendal and Uchida in the Mozart sonatas I thought Mozart would probably have preferred Glenn Gould's recklessness. For piano students what's necessary is that they don't get bored or complacent or confused by the 'old sound' AND they hear what's possible for expression, for bad and for good.
> 
> For just listening of course Brendel is top notch and Uchida is very intense and exploratory, amazing!


I find Uchida far too 'Dresden China' in her approach. It is too pretty pretty at times, she is also of the 'forte from the next suburb' school. Almost no real drama there.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> I too was amazed to read a list of the number of "successful" composers active during the late 18th century, most of whom are now totally neglected (though I'm sure many have cropped up on recordings before being forgotten again).


I quite like Franz Xaver Richter, Joseph Myslivecek and Joseph Woelffl


----------



## Eusebius12

Oh and Joseph Martin Kraus. Dittersdorf and Vanhal become rather tiresome quickly.


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> Oh and Joseph Martin Kraus. Dittersdorf and Vanhal become rather tiresome quickly.


Kraus is first rate. Many of his extant works are on YouTube and are very fine.


----------



## Woodduck

Personally, I favor Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> I find Uchida far too 'Dresden China' in her approach. It is too pretty pretty at times, she is also of the 'forte from the next suburb' school. Almost no real drama there.


Ha. Yes, she's different. That's what I want. I presume recordings to be ephemeral, transient documents. Few fans agree with me about this. But how can a world-class pianist be anything but absorbing..

Jeremy Denk grew up in our church and you should see what he can do when he's just playing for us informally as our home-town virtuoso. They're all like that (their abilities not their dispositions).


----------



## Larkenfield




----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Kraus is first rate. Many of his extant works are on YouTube and are very fine.


Yes Kraus is a fine composer. Writes well in the minor mode. A real sturm and drang fire there at times.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Personally, I favor Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher.


Why can no one ever remember Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Ha. Yes, she's different. That's what I want. I presume recordings to be ephemeral, transient documents. Few fans agree with me about this. But how can a world-class pianist be anything but absorbing..
> 
> Jeremy Denk grew up in our church and you should see what he can do when he's just playing for us informally as our home-town virtuoso. They're all like that (their abilities not their dispositions).


Yes, let 1000 flowers bloom. The sonatas are great music no doubt, but stylistically tricky. Andras Schiff seems as well equipped as any currently in this music, even if I do enjoy (and play them) with a fair bit more red blood. The Schnabelian approach. Howard Shelley is very acceptable in the concertos.

I love this recording from my favourite pianist:


----------



## Larkenfield




----------



## KenOC

My fave recording of the Mozart Sonatas is Fazil Say, who (I think) is still out of jail in Turkey.


----------



## Eusebius12

Larkenfield said:


>


Brendel is certainly a master.

KenOC
My fave recording of the Mozart Sonatas is Fazil Say, who (I think) is still out of jail in Turkey.

He isn't THAT bad. No I am joking, sad situation there. Fazil Say can be very engaging.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I would say that none of the examples you cite (in a general sense) compare with what is in effect practically identical chord progressions and superficial melodic lines at cadence points (often with an obligatory trill) that we find in the classical period.
> 
> Listening to the first movement of Mozart's 40th symphony however, I do not easily perceive any such clichés. I can hear moments where they could be problematic, but the music has such strong forward propulsion and melodic invention that none arise. So too the second and third movements. For me, even if Mozart had only written this one work, then I would still have considered him a genius.


superficial melodic line is purely subjective. Trills - even Beethoven used trills, Brahms too. Mozart used certain chord progressions because he thought they sounded good - he used them in exactly the right place at the right time. Eric Blom once said the pinnacle of Mozart's art is not in the material he uses - but the way he organises his pieces. Structurally they work - so one part follows another and it sounds right, natural - and no matter if it's an oft use chord progression - it produces the music he wanted. I actually disagree with Blom - as I think that what really flowers in his music, these superb structures - is the ingenuity of the material - the rythms - melodies - harmonies too.


----------



## Aloevera

Woodduck said:


> Although it is not my habit to use this forum as a way of complaining about music I dislike, and although people who diss composers repeatedly, as if the limitations of their tastes should somehow be of interest to others, have occasionally been the bane of my existence, I don't think it's valueless to point out what we dislike as long as we make an effort to be specific and to grapple with possible reasons for our distaste. A thread titled "I Finally Got Mozart" can reasonably prompt people to talk about why they don't get Mozart, and give rise to worthwhile discussions of what Mozart's music is actually like, along with related questions such as whether the term "cliche" properly describes a composer's characteristic devices and procedures.
> 
> I agree with most here that "cliche" is a poorly chosen word, but I would also agree with some that the formal conventions of certain styles and periods of music are particularly obvious and easy for lesser composers to fall back on in place of genuine creativity. The Classical style has always impressed me as one of those styles; indeed it may be the easiest period style in which a composer of no special talent or inspiration can turn out a satisfactory and "correct" piece of music. We might expect a high degree of conventionality during periods when art is produced on commission to fulfill prescribed social functions, when aesthetic philosophy is dominated by "ideals" (such as Classicism's "neoclassical" devotion to presumed Greek ideas of beauty), and when innovation will therefore be valued only within fairly definite parameters. For many listeners it may require fairly extensive acquaintance with the works of the best composers of such periods to grasp just how much originality and freshness can be achieved by the most creative minds (in this case Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven). Thus the assertions we frequently hear that Classical period music is "clicheed" and "predictable" are not difficult to understand.


Here's the thing. You are writing as if the classical period is a thousand year old tradition and the classical composers just simply took on the tradition and revalidated it. The classical period was very brief and very progressive at the time! In fact I watched a documentary on Bach which said that a reason why Bach didn't receive more popularity was that his style was a bit old fashioned In relation to the changing times and it was his kids who reached popularity. The only reason I can think of as to why the classical era is viewed as a symbol of strict conservatism was I suppose it still favored the notion of hierarchal order. Nevertheless the classical period was filled with a form of freedom that people had not experienced before in a societal level.

You brought up classical Greece which was also around the span of 50 years. What you're forgetting is the cause of Classical Greece was was a brief period in which Sparta and Athens were no longer at war with each other. It was the state of peace which brought up new forms of thinking due to more leisure time. So thr classical era doesn't contain a sense of existential dread partly because the feeling was absent on a societal level

Mozart was born into the development of the classical period and took it to its end. Does it get tiresome that he used the same format each and every piece? Certainly. Does he often use the same phrasing ? Yes. Would it be better if he didn't? Sure , but I'd imagine his output would drastically decrease as well. But all of this doesn't account for his peaks and when he's at his best. Structure in itself is something of merit, just like technique, feeling or spirit. If a piece only contained structure would the piece sound lousy? Sure.Would you trade structure for feeling? Sure but when Mozart is at his best he combines all of those elements


----------



## millionrainbows

Aloevera said:


> ...he used the same format each and every piece...he often use(d) the same phrasing...Would you trade structure for feeling? Sure.


At last, somebody stating their honest opinion.


----------



## Aloevera

By “sure” I mean I can understand why someone would feel that way, and it’s understandable if they didn’t


----------



## PlaySalieri

Aloevera said:


> By "sure" I mean I can understand why someone would feel that way, and it's understandable if they didn't


I am glad you clarified that. Those of us who like mozart dont hear deficiencies in his work.

Would shakespeares plays be better if they werent so formulaic?

By asking this question you are supposing they could be something other than what they are.


----------



## Aloevera

stomanek said:


> I am glad you clarified that. Those of us who like mozart dont hear deficiencies in his work.
> 
> Would shakespeares plays be better if they werent so formulaic?
> 
> By asking this question you are supposing they could be something other than what they are.


I was going off the critique, rather than formulating the criticism. Some critiques I could understand even if I don't agree with. For example in my Shakespeare class we read a critique that Shakespeare would often get too carried away with the use of language and lose control in his writing. Something which I can see without having to undermine his work as a whole. I on the other hand don't think it's fair to say that his works are formulaic since the notion of form was something that people at the time highly valued and I don't see how that is a problem in and of itself.

I think when seeing Mozart's entire cummilation of works and his progression , I think it is as close to perfection as it can get. With that said, sometimes when I listen to some of his earlier works I can get the feeling of repitition when zooming into a single not so well known piece. I don't think I can use this as a basis that Mozart as a whole is repetitive because I can easily turn to more inspired pieces


----------



## Luchesi

Aloevera - "Does he often use the same phrasing ? Yes. Would it be better if he didn’t?"

Really? Can you give examples? What does that mean? same phrasing?


----------



## Aloevera

Luchesi said:


> Aloevera - "Does he often use the same phrasing ? Yes. Would it be better if he didn't?"
> 
> Really? Can you give examples? What does that mean? same phrasing?


The signature long trill right before the repition of a main theme for example he uses in almost every concerto. Some his later themes are more developed forms of his earlier themes. In piano concerto 21 we can hear the foreshadowing of symphony 40. I could give more examples if you'd like. Once again I myself don't see this as a problem, I'd imagine Mozart was a very fast writer and has a improvising quality to be it. When you improvise you generally arnt creating something out of nothing, but instead using some of your tools in your toolbox of technique and creativity.


----------



## millionrainbows

I can recognize Mozart when I hear it; or can I? 
What am I hearing? Am I hearing "the Classical style" or am I hearing something that only Mozart can do? 
Let's see some examples which show the true Mozart. Or is that possible? 
Maybe we could do a blindfold test.
I have a feeling that the "answer" is going to be less obvious, and less exciting, than we expect.

And people complain that there is a "sameness" to serial and atonal music.
The tonal system seems just as limited. After all, you only have 7 notes in a scale to work with, and 7 chords; there are only six intervals, with inversions. And the whole system is recursive and circular, always coming back to the same root note and relationships.


----------



## Luchesi

Aloevera said:


> The signature long trill right before the repition of a main theme for example he uses in almost every concerto. Some his later themes are more developed forms of his earlier themes. In piano concerto 21 we can hear the foreshadowing of symphony 40. I could give more examples if you'd like. Once again I myself don't see this as a problem, I'd imagine Mozart was a very fast writer and has a improvising quality to be it. When you improvise you generally arnt creating something out of nothing, but instead using some of your tools in your toolbox of technique and creativity.


A trill and a 'foreshadowing'. That's using the same phrasing?


----------



## Woodduck

Aloevera said:


> Here's the thing. You are writing as if the classical period is a thousand year old tradition and the classical composers just simply took on the tradition and revalidated it. The classical period was very brief and very progressive at the time! In fact I watched a documentary on Bach which said that a reason why Bach didn't receive more popularity was that his style was a bit old fashioned In relation to the changing times and it was his kids who reached popularity. The only reason I can think of as to why the classical era is viewed as a symbol of strict conservatism was I suppose it still favored the notion of hierarchal order. Nevertheless the classical period was filled with a form of freedom that people had not experienced before in a societal level.
> 
> You brought up classical Greece which was also around the span of 50 years. What you're forgetting is the cause of Classical Greece was was a brief period in which Sparta and Athens were no longer at war with each other. It was the state of peace which brought up new forms of thinking due to more leisure time. So thr classical era doesn't contain a sense of existential dread partly because the feeling was absent on a societal level
> 
> Mozart was born into the development of the classical period and took it to its end. Does it get tiresome that he used the same format each and every piece? Certainly. Does he often use the same phrasing ? Yes. Would it be better if he didn't? Sure , but I'd imagine his output would drastically decrease as well. But all of this doesn't account for his peaks and when he's at his best. Structure in itself is something of merit, just like technique, feeling or spirit. If a piece only contained structure would the piece sound lousy? Sure.Would you trade structure for feeling? Sure but when Mozart is at his best he combines all of those elements


I have no idea what part of my post you're referring to, but you appear to want to say that I'm wrong about something. "Here's the thing. You are writing as if..." is unhelpful. Was there a particular statement you wanted to discuss?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Aloevera said:


> The signature long trill right before the repition of a main theme for example he uses in almost every concerto. Some his later themes are more developed forms of his earlier themes. In piano concerto 21 we can hear the foreshadowing of symphony 40. I could give more examples if you'd like. Once again I myself don't see this as a problem, I'd imagine Mozart was a very fast writer and has a improvising quality to be it. When you improvise you generally arnt creating something out of nothing, but instead using some of your tools in your toolbox of technique and creativity.


I have no issues with the long trill - I also have no issue with the way the music winds up before the 1st mvt cadenza. This is more or less identical in every concerto. There are one or two stock phrases he does overuse - but his music is otherwise so good I can forgive that.
Yes he did compose fast - but taking more time probably would not have improved the music. If he could compose Figaro in 6 weeks or sy 35 in a week while on the move - a work overflowing with originality - I think he took as much time as he needed and quite often he did not labour over his work.
I also don't think he resorted to stock phrases or devices out of time reasons. He would have used these feeling it was exactly the right thing to do.


----------



## janxharris

Aloevera said:


> You brought up classical Greece which was also around the span of 50 years. What you're forgetting is the cause of Classical Greece was was a brief period in which Sparta and Athens were no longer at war with each other. It was the state of peace which brought up new forms of thinking due to more leisure time. So thr classical era doesn't contain a sense of existential dread partly because the feeling was absent on a societal level


The definition of Classical Greece is different to yours which seems rather narrow.


----------



## Aloevera

Woodduck said:


> I have no idea what part of my post you're referring to, but you appear to want to say that I'm wrong about something. "Here's the thing. You are writing as if..." is unhelpful. Was there a particular statement you wanted to discuss?


Ergh not really trying to say you were wrong as I was commenting that the cliches doesn't seem to be cliche given the brief period of what is known as the classical era and the progressive nature and even freedom given its context


----------



## Aloevera

janxharris said:


> The definition of Classical Greece is different to yours which seems rather narrow.


Apparently between the Persian wars so 350 years. The point is still the same


----------



## janxharris

Aloevera said:


> Apparently between the Persian wars so 350 years. The point is still the same


Sorry, but I am unclear as to what your point is.


----------



## Aloevera

janxharris said:


> Sorry, but I am unclear as to what your point is.


Point is classical ages occur when there is a period of peace of and people use that time for higher order thinking. So if classical music reflects that I don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## Aloevera

Point is classical ages occur when there is a period of peace of and people use that time for higher order thinking. So if classical music reflects that I don’t see anything wrong with it. By that I don't mean that the music itself is of a higher order in comparison to the romantics of course. I mean that it reflects a brighter time


----------



## janxharris

Aloevera said:


> Point is classical ages occur when there is a period of peace of and people use that time for higher order thinking. So if classical music reflects that I don't see anything wrong with it.


I agree with you. I guess it is always a little more complicated (Storm und drang, the French revolution) - but certainly in the refined aristocratic courts this was the prevailing spirit it would seem.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> superficial melodic line is purely subjective. Trills - even Beethoven used trills, Brahms too. Mozart used certain chord progressions because he thought they sounded good - he used them in exactly the right place at the right time. Eric Blom once said the pinnacle of Mozart's art is not in the material he uses - but the way he organises his pieces. Structurally they work - so one part follows another and it sounds right, natural - and no matter if it's an oft use chord progression - it produces the music he wanted. I actually disagree with Blom - as I think that what really flowers in his music, these superb structures - is the ingenuity of the material - the rythms - melodies - harmonies too.


Please retract your previous insinuation and smear. No one here can prove they have a single account.


----------



## Luchesi

Music people in here know of the changing politics and reforms. But also, JsB's strict Lutheranism, Vivaldi’s reaction to his Church, Mozart kowtowing to the nobility, Napoleon disappointing LvB, the plight of Poland often on Chopin's mind, the antisemitism around Mendelssohn. Can we hear it in their creations?

I saw in a video the idea that the mystery of God and God’s creation preoccupied the Baroque composers. The confidence of Man vis a vis God and the scientific experimenting offering a more predictable universe was in the Classical Period mindset. Romanticism ushered in the potential for individualistic and personal expression becoming the new universality. Then that was diluted later in the century due to changing exposures, with angst and the larger wars. Is this what we can hear? Bernstein talks extensively about Mahler's thoughts and what he hears..


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Please retract your previous insinuation and smear. No one here can prove they have a single account.


I have no issues with that - I guess you are different posters. I think one of you introduced the word cliche and the other copied it.
So do not worry - your reputation is intact.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> I have no issues with that - I guess you are different posters. I think one of you introduced the word cliche and the other copied it.
> So do not worry - your reputation is intact.


Thank you stomanek.


----------



## Aloevera

Luchesi said:


> Mozart kowtowing to the nobility


I mean as much as we would like to place Mozart as the victim of authority, he was a top degree mason and was made so extremely quickly.



Luchesi said:


> I saw in a video the idea that the mystery of God and God's creation preoccupied the Baroque composers. The confidence of Man vis a vis God and the scientific experimenting offering a more predictable universe was in the Classical Period mindset. Romanticism ushered in the potential for individualistic and personal expression becoming the new universality. Then that was diluted later in the century due to changing exposures, with angst and the larger wars. Is this what we can hear? Bernstein talks extensively about Mahler's thoughts and what he hears..


I think the departure of classic era, music certainly became more nationalistic and i think that is reflected in the music


----------



## Larkenfield

"Music people in here know of the changing politics and reforms. But also, JsB's strict Lutheranism, Vivaldi's reaction to his Church, Mozart kowtowing to the nobility, Napoleon disappointing LvB, the plight of Poland often on Chopin's mind, the antisemitism around Mendelssohn. Can we hear it in their creations?"

I can't, except perhaps knowing that Bach was writing both religious (Cantatas using a religious text) and secular works to the glory of God; Vivaldi continuing to write religious works with his usual spirit and aliveness. Mozart kowtowing to nobility, I think not but that he was perhaps writing to amaze and impress his listeners; if he kowtowed he would have been compromising the genius that the nobility wanted to hear. Beethoven had already written his _Eroica_ before Napolean crowned himself and disappointed the composer, so I do hear something of a Napoleonic heroism in the music. Chopin never forgot his roots in Poland and the pain and celebration of that can be heard in his Mazurkas. The only way the antisemitism in Wagner's music can be imagined is perhaps in the words but not the music itself. He would have had to parody Hebrew music and I may be wrong but I do not believe that he did this.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm not surprised with some listeners 'not getting' or even disliking Mozart's music, and the era he came from, and the horse he rode in on. The era of kings and royalty is irksome to free people of today (although America is very marginal). Beethoven, by comparison, is much bolder and freer than Mozart. Mozart seems like he's holding back something, as if he doesn't want to rock the boat, or upset anyone. He was a 'very good boy,' and always was. Nice, safe Mozart. Ptaah!


----------



## Eusebius12

Aloevera said:


> The signature long trill right before the repition of a main theme for example he uses in almost every concerto.


Please. The 'long trill' is at the end of generally the first movement cadenza of a piano concerto, to show the orchestral players when to rejoin the action. Mozart virtually invented the piano concerto as such. The use of trills like that was a device to help the orchestral leader to pick up the time after the unrestraint of a cadenza. This is a terrible example on your part.



> Some his later themes are more developed forms of his earlier themes. In piano concerto 21 we can hear the foreshadowing of symphony 40.


I can't. And I know these works well. Do you realize that Beethoven used the same theme for his Prometheus Ballet, his 3rd symphony, and his Eroica Variations? What cliched writing. He didn't even compose that theme.



> I could give more examples if you'd like. Once again I myself don't see this as a problem, I'd imagine Mozart was a very fast writer and has a improvising quality to be it. When you improvise you generally arnt creating something out of nothing, but instead using some of your tools in your toolbox of technique and creativity.


Look please don't, or if you do, make them better examples. His work sometimes grew out of improvisation, but quite often it had more to do with billiards. Yes he is natural in his work, but there is plenty of 'science' in it as well.


Code:


----------



## Eusebius12

Why on Earth doesn't multi-quote work...


----------



## Eusebius12

stomanek said:


> I have no issues with the long trill - I also have no issue with the way the music winds up before the 1st mvt cadenza. This is more or less identical in every concerto. There are one or two stock phrases he does overuse - but his music is otherwise so good I can forgive that.
> Yes he did compose fast - but taking more time probably would not have improved the music. If he could compose Figaro in 6 weeks or sy 35 in a week while on the move - a work overflowing with originality - I think he took as much time as he needed and quite often he did not labour over his work.
> I also don't think he resorted to stock phrases or devices out of time reasons. He would have used these feeling it was exactly the right thing to do.


The 1st movement trill is not a 'stock phrase', it was the universal signal for the end of a cadenza, which every composer prior to 1800 (including Beethoven) used. Beethoven even uses it in the Emperor in a sense, even though he writes the cadenza out.

Mozart was incredibly industrious, there is no question as to his work ethic. He may have composed with 'very few corrections' (although there is evidence at least in some cases that that was a myth) but the complexity of his work was new for his era and barring Bach, for all prior eras, you just have to compare the innocence and simplicity of Haydn with Mozart to see this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Aloevera said:


> The signature long trill right before the repition of a main theme for example he uses in almost every concerto.





Eusebius12 said:


> Please. The 'long trill' is at the end of generally the first movement cadenza of a piano concerto, to show the orchestral players when to rejoin the action. Mozart virtually invented the piano concerto as such. The use of trills like that was a device to help the orchestral leader to pick up the time after the unrestraint of a cadenza. This is a terrible example on your part.


I think that what Aloevera is saying is that the trill itself, and the way it's used, is a cliche. Whether it be a device or not, it's heard that way to most listeners.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eusebius12 said:


> Why on Earth doesn't multi-quote work...


You're making your slash-mark the wrong direction in the


> box. it should be /, not \.


----------



## Eusebius12

janxharris said:


> The definition of Classical Greece is different to yours which seems rather narrow.


He isn't far off. Generally speaking, it is often considered the era between the Persian Wars and the fall of Athens. This is more like 100 years. Obviously you have precursors (like the 9 lyric poets) and successors, such as Plato and Aristotle. The high point of classical Greek culture was definitely the 5th century. Praxiteles could be seen to represent the end of Attic classicism in art or the beginnings of the Hellenistic. Obviously with the rise of Alexander we enter the Hellenistic era proper.


----------



## Eusebius12

Aloevera said:


> Apparently between the Persian wars so 350 years. The point is still the same


What? Your history is fairly duff. Perhaps your understanding of Mozart as well.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Let's leave Beethoven out of this. I hate to see him sacrificed in order to save Mozart. If we have to save one, let's save Beethoven.


Hmmm. I'm riding in a sleigh deep in the woods on a snowy night. A pack of wolves is gaining from behind, howling hideously. On one side of me sits Mozart, and Beethoven on the other. Which one do I seize and throw out? Any suggestions?

(and no, it ain't gonna be me!)


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Music people in here know of the changing politics and reforms. But also, JsB's strict Lutheranism, Vivaldi's reaction to his Church, Mozart kowtowing to the nobility, Napoleon disappointing LvB, the plight of Poland often on Chopin's mind, the antisemitism around Mendelssohn. Can we hear it in their creations?
> 
> I saw in a video the idea that the mystery of God and God's creation preoccupied the Baroque composers. The confidence of Man vis a vis God and the scientific experimenting offering a more predictable universe was in the Classical Period mindset. Romanticism ushered in the potential for individualistic and personal expression becoming the new universality. Then that was diluted later in the century due to changing exposures, with angst and the larger wars. Is this what we can hear? Bernstein talks extensively about Mahler's thoughts and what he hears..


Weird because Mozart used the play Le Mariage de Figaro with its specific anti-royalist themes (which Da Ponte removed). He also essentially gave the finger to the Archbishop of Salzburg, who literally (via a subordinate) gave him a 'kick up the ****'. Beethoven might have been more republican in his political beliefs (Mozart's political beliefs are pretty well speculation) but hobnobbed with the nobility like you wouldn't believe. Baroque composers were often in the employ of the church. I see no 'scientific' influence over rococo composers. Beethoven is no more 'scientific' than Bach. Actually if you consider music a science, who was more 'scientific' than Bach anyway? Religiosity doesn't seem to have been a sore point for Mozart, Haydn and Schubert. Beethoven had a less conventional religiosity early in his career, but inserted marginal notes about prayer into his scores and dedicated the slow movement of one of his string quartets to 'the deity'. Honestly whoever says these sort of things, they seem fairly cliched in themselves. One hears more of a mechanistic, Newtonian (Newton was also obsessed with theology and scripture) universe in say the WTC than the mystic Zauberfloete or Missa Solemnis. Voltaire was contemporaneous with Bach and Mozart (and CPE Bach, being a fellow resident at Frederick the Great's residence in Potsdam) but was a figure of opprobrium in the Mozart household judging by the letters.


----------



## Eusebius12

millionrainbows said:


> I think that what Aloevera is saying is that the trill itself, and the way it's used, is a cliche. Whether it be a device or not, it's heard that way to most listeners.


Is a double bar line a cliche? Is a repeat a cliche? Theme, development, recapitulation? Yes repeats, and other techniques of sonata form do sound a little cliche. What about the entry of themes in a fugue? If you use a form, you generally follow the rules of that form. You can play around with the rules, break them a little. Don't judge Mozart on what no other living composer was doing. Ex post facto listening is pointless, you can't judge art of a previous age by the conventions of subsequent ages. You can choose not to listen but that has zero, absolute zero, to do with the artistic value of the work itself.


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> Weird because Mozart used the play Le Mariage de Figaro with its specific anti-royalist themes (which Da Ponte removed). He also essentially gave the finger to the Archbishop of Salzburg, who literally (via a subordinate) gave him a 'kick up the ****'. Beethoven might have been more republican in his political beliefs...


Da Ponte left in enough to get the opera banned in several places.* And Beethoven was no republican but a believer in "enlightened nobility," although he seemed a bit short on details about how to make sure things turned out that way.

*Or was it the play? Mr. Memory is not behaving well today.


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Hmmm. I'm riding in a sleigh deep in the woods on a snowy night. A pack of wolves is gaining from behind, howling hideously. On one side of me sits Mozart, and Beethoven on the other. Which one do I seize and throw out? Any suggestions?
> 
> (and no, it ain't gonna be me!)


Keep them both, and shoot the wolves


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Da Ponte left in enough to get the opera banned in several places. And Beethoven was no republican but a believer in "enlightened nobility," although he seemed a bit short on details about how to make sure things turned out that way.


Certainly the text of Figaro is memorably used in the movie Amadeus, although evidently that specific scene has no basis historically (like a lot of that movie/play). 'Enlightened nobility' can mean almost whatever you want, perhaps something along the lines of Plato's Republic, no doubt Beethoven saw a role for himself in an 'enlightened' state. He certainly supported a more egalitarian, republican form of government in France, before Napoleon took the throne.


----------



## Eusebius12

millionrainbows said:


> I think that what Aloevera is saying is that the trill itself, and the way it's used, is a cliche. Whether it be a device or not, it's heard that way to most listeners.


Late Beethoven piano sonatas are absolutely full of trills. Are they 'cliche'?


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Da Ponte left in enough to get the opera banned in several places.* And Beethoven was no republican but a believer in "enlightened nobility," although he seemed a bit short on details about how to make sure things turned out that way.
> 
> *Or was it the play? Mr. Memory is not behaving well today.


I am pretty sure that the opera was not banned. But Joseph II had banned the play. The general tone of the opera is anti-aristocratic, but nowhere near as fiercely as Beaumarchais' play. There is no doubt that the original play played some role in the French Revolution and the mood that led up to it, just as Auber's La Muette played a role (more obviously and more directly) in the Belgian Revolution of 1830.


----------



## KenOC

Thanks Eusebius. I stand (or more truthfully sit) corrected.


----------



## Larkenfield

The trill a cliché as used by Mozart? It was a study in and of itself during the Classical era and frequently used by virtually everyone:

http://www.oldflutes.com/articles/classicaltrill/index.htm

Why use a trill? Because it creates a sense of expectation for when it finally resolves. It also creates a sense of the music being suspended and hovering in the air - a device that seems to defy gravity - and it takes skill to do it rapidly, especially when trilling from one note to the next to the next. It can be magical and I've seldom heard it be overly used. It can be taxing on the performer in long passages.


----------



## Aloevera

Eusebius12 said:


> Late Beethoven piano sonatas are absolutely full of trills. Are they 'cliche'?


Not just a trill, a long trill mainly in a concerto leading into the main theme.

Btw I was giving a defense for the classical era being cliche . I really don't understand why people are acting like I'm the one doing the criticism, Jesus


----------



## Aloevera

Let me rephrase my point because apparently I've been misunderstood. All I said was some people may find the classical era cliche and traditional in our modern ears, but at the time it was more free and progressive in comparison to strict church rule. So many of the composers did not feel a restrain but the opposite. While today we have the romantic music to compare it to, the composers back then did not


----------



## Eusebius12

Larkenfield said:


> The trill a cliché as used by Mozart? It was a study of in and of itself during the Classical era and frequently used by virtually everyone:
> 
> http://www.oldflutes.com/articles/classicaltrill/index.htm
> 
> Why use a trill? Because it creates a sense of expectation for when it finally resolves. It also creates a sense of the music being suspended and hovering in the - it is a device that seems to defy gravity - and it takes skill to do it rapidly, especially when trilling from one note to the next to the next. It can be magical and I've seldom heard it be overly used. It can be taxing on the performer in long passages.


Just as a side note, the trill prior to 1800 or so was almost invariably begun on the upper partial, the semitone above the note that 'tr' is written over in the score. This better serves the purpose which you describe imo, and highlights the other purpose of the trill, the implied dissonance in it.


----------



## Eusebius12

Aloevera said:


> Not just a trill, a long trill mainly in a concerto leading into the main theme.
> 
> Btw I was giving a defense for the classical era being cliche . I really don't understand why people are acting like I'm the one doing the criticism


Fair enough I didn't read all your posts in this thread, but you could have used a better example, especially as you seem to be referring mainly to the end of a cadenza, and there are good reasons for this, which composers well into the 19th century continued in their concertos.


----------



## janxharris

Eusebius12 said:


> Fair enough I didn't read all your posts in this thread, but you could have used a better example, especially as you seem to be referring mainly to the end of a cadenza, and there are good reasons for this, which composers well into the 19th century continued in their concertos.


I made the cliché criticism but it wasn't focused on the the trill (though I did mention it).


----------



## Aloevera

Eusebius12 said:


> Fair enough I didn't read all your posts in this thread, but you could have used a better example, especially as you seem to be referring mainly to the end of a cadenza, and there are good reasons for this, which composers well into the 19th century continued in their concertos.


Binging through concertos, it's a move that I personally find to become tiresome. Saying it now and looking to find a piece as an example wouldn't work, because its only when youve listened to countless amounts do the trills become less exciting. It's also like asking to find a Mozart piece which is boring, you can't individually point it out, the boringness only might arise when youre binging up the Ks. With this being said, I don't find him to be cliche or boring. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who does and thats something that comes to mind.


----------



## Eusebius12

Do you object to the trill as a device 'in-itself' or do you object to its function of introducing the reprise at the end of a cadenza? There is no doubt that ornaments were highly abused in some works in the 18th century in particular. I think the French baroque is an obvious example. I find Rameau's overuse of ornamentation quite irritating, and modern performances of Rameau's vocal works seem to make a big deal out of not very much at all. So yes Rameau's overuse (and Couperin's as well) of needless and non-structural ornamentation is plainly cliche. I still enjoy the works of Rameau and Couperin to an extent though. However, just because for example the members of the early 18th century Italian string school don't seem to layer their works with overornamented phrasing in the text, doesn't mean that practise avoided ornament. The Italians would improvise ornamentation with any excuse, so in performance many Italian instrumentalists' and vocalists' work would have sounded disfigured I suggest to the modern ear. Even orchestral performances would be layered with ornamentation not marked in the score (improvised to the individual performer's 'taste'). When this practise was abolished is hard to pinpoint, but certainly was the case during the lifetime of Spohr and Mendelssohn. On a harpsichord, with it's plangent and mostly unvarying tone, ornament was essential to emphasise certain notes. Hence the profusion of ornamentation in works of the French Harpsichord School and its imitators/continuers.


----------



## Eusebius12

Sorry for the text wall, the basic point is that the trill was far more abused by the Baroque and in performance in other countries than by Mozart (Steibelt must have been another abuser), let alone the other ornaments, the mordent, the shake, and the turn (and various others).


----------



## Eusebius12

Just a side note, some of the keyboard sonatas of Haydn, and not just the earlier ones, have incredibly basic and cliched seeming keyboard textures, often based on simple ornamentation, or scales and arpeggios, for which he receives very little abuse. There is a sonata in d major (I know because I played it for an exam) the last movement of which is 3 turns, followed by a little scale, then a passage of two slower inverted turns, then followed by 4 scales at approximately the same pitch. I forget which one it is, and the point is not to bash Haydn (Haydn was Mozart's greatest contemporary) but to show how selective some of this criticism is.


----------



## Aloevera

No I like trills, and I don't think they are overused at all in this sense. I mean isn't a cadenza the section that is open for improvisation? Ending it with a trill seems necessary to let orchestra know that the solo is finished. I'll get back to you, because if the long trill I'm talking about is mainly in the cadenzas then I would mistaken for saying that


----------



## KenOC

My lawyer warned me against posting, but here goes anyway. I got really tired of those d****d trills, concerto after concerto, cadenza after cadenza. I felt I had to do something, anything! So I wrote Mozart and told him that if he kept that up, things were likely to go very badly for him.

But he didn't listen and everybody knows what happened then. I'm absolutely not claiming I had anything to do with that, but let's face it -- we should always listen to a word to the wise, if we're wise.


----------



## Aloevera

I'm not crazy. I was beginning to think i was . 10:38. Not a cadenza Though it took me longer than I predicted to find it.


----------



## Eusebius12

Aloevera said:


> I'm not crazy. I was beginning to think i was . 10:38. Not a cadenza Though it took me longer than I predicted to find it.


But it is marking a re-entry to the main theme. In the days of divided leadership, or even possibly with no conductor at all (Mozart probably lead from the keyboard) such devices help to maintain focus and ensemble. We cannot forget that Mozart was a practical performing musician. Orchestral standards were far from what we are accustomed now.


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> My lawyer warned me against posting, but here goes anyway. I got really tired of those d****d trills, concerto after concerto, cadenza after cadenza. I felt I had to do something, anything! So I wrote Mozart and told him that if he kept that up, things were likely to go very badly for him.
> 
> But he didn't listen and everybody knows what happened then. I'm absolutely not claiming I had anything to do with that, but let's face it -- we should always listen to a word to the wise, if we're wise.


Himmel! You aren't Salieri are you


----------



## Eusebius12

For one thing, I don't think this is Mozart being a bad composer, just coming to a natural stop, any more than the block chords of the opening of the 1st movement show Mozart as being lacking in invention. Beethoven uses a very similar device at the beginning of his Eb concerto (no accident that!. Compare also the 2 c minor concertos of the 2 composers). For non conventional writing, take the finale. Actually, I find the theme of the last movement rather conventional, overly galant. 'Cliched' perhaps even. But then when Mozart starts darkening the mood, inserting a totally unexpected and wondrous slow section, I think, 'this man was a genius'. This is such a gorgeous passage, so reminiscent (but still different) of the end of Figaro. And I haven't even mentioned the brutal passion of parts of the 1st movement and the glorious melancholy of the slow movement of just this piece, the Eb, probably about 5th or 6th on my list of favourites.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eusebius12 said:


> For one thing, I don't think this is Mozart being a bad composer, just coming to a natural stop, any more than the block chords of the opening of the 1st movement show Mozart as being lacking in invention. Beethoven uses a very similar device at the beginning of his Eb concerto (no accident that!. Compare also the 2 c minor concertos of the 2 composers). For non conventional writing, take the finale. Actually, I find the theme of the last movement rather conventional, overly galant. 'Cliched' perhaps even. But then when Mozart starts darkening the mood,* inserting a totally unexpected and wondrous slow section, I think, 'this man was a genius'. This is such a gorgeous passage,* so reminiscent (but still different) of the end of Figaro. And I haven't even mentioned the brutal passion of parts of the 1st movement and the glorious melancholy of the slow movement of just this piece, the Eb, probably about 5th or 6th on my list of favourites.


I was going to mention this section at some point - it really is a treasure anyway and glad you find it so too. I always feel a bit sad when it ends and the main theme returns.


----------



## Luchesi

When I was young K466 was my favorite and K467 was my least favorite. I went for years without ever going back to it as much as all the other concertos, only occasionally, and it was just too predictable compared to his others. I couldn't believe they were one right after another. And then I read Beethoven and other people saying this level will never be obtained again or something to that effect. I thought there must be something wrong with me..

Much later I was able to appreciate it more, but it never comes close to K466 for me. The short phrases are so predictable but he does an amazing job of putting them all to fully use artistically. And I guess that takes a while for a neophyte to hear. Of course for the audiences of his time it was just at the right level for instant recognition.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Hmmm. I'm riding in a sleigh deep in the woods on a snowy night. A pack of wolves is gaining from behind, howling hideously. On one side of me sits Mozart, and Beethoven on the other. Which one do I seize and throw out? Any suggestions?
> 
> (and no, it ain't gonna be me!)


Mozart, without a doubt, would be easier to overpower. He was a real powderpuff.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> When I was young K466 was my favorite and K467 was my least favorite. I went for years without ever going back to it as much as all the other concertos, only occasionally, *and it was just too predictable compared to his others*. I couldn't believe they were one right after another. And then I read Beethoven and other people saying this level will never be obtained again or something to that effect. I thought there must be something wrong with me..
> 
> Much later I was able to appreciate it more, but it never comes close to K466 for me. The short phrases are so predictable but he does an amazing job of putting them all to fully use artistically. And I guess that takes a while for a neophyte to hear. Of course for the audiences of his time it was just at the right level for instant recognition.


From what you write about Mozart I sometimes think you must be from a parallel universe listening to something else.

which "Others" - you mean like K175?

I dont hear anything predictable in the 2nd mvt - it is utterly different from any mvt he ever wrote. So your statement

*Of course for the audiences of his time it was just at the right level for instant recognition.*

is strange - inaccurate.

The 1st Mvt with its long orch intro was unlike anything the Viennese of those times would have been used to from a PC - unless they had been following Mozart - as the piano, in a classical concerto - usually comes in near the beginning. Furthermore, there is the entry of the piano at the conclusion of 2 minutes of music - not repeating any one of a number of musical ideas hitherto presented - but introducing new material before picking up where the orchestra left off. This is all new and bold for those times. The 1st mvt lasts some 13 minutes or so - longer than entire concertos from those times - and when I listen it never sounds repetitive - the themes - writing for strings and winds - is so strong - I never tire of hearing it all. Yes it is different from K466 - but no less fine in my view.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mozart, without a doubt, crafted things beautifully, and was very musically intelligent. He appeals to the opposite side of my brain than most classical. It's the side that likes modernism, abstraction, and intellect-over-emotion. Cool and detached. Haydn's symphonies are a little like that, too. I think the best way to get into Mozart's personality is through his piano sonatas. Since he was a keyboard player, these seem to reveal a more intimate side of him.

Like John Cage, Mozart seems to have 'removed his personality' from the work, to an extent. His work calls into question whether music should be a vehicle for the expression of emotion, as opposed to a conveyor of pure musical ideas.

I like the times in his music, both symphonies and piano sonatas, where an idea will have an odd number of measures, or a measure or beat seems to have been left out. That sort of thing gets my attention. It's similar to some of the old Hank Williams (senior) recordings, where beats appear to be missing in order to follow the voice.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> From what you write about Mozart I sometimes think you must be from a parallel universe listening to something else.
> 
> which "Others" - you mean like K175?
> 
> I dont hear anything predictable in the 2nd mvt - it is utterly different from any mvt he ever wrote. So your statement
> 
> *Of course for the audiences of his time it was just at the right level for instant recognition.*
> 
> is strange - inaccurate.
> 
> The 1st Mvt with its long orch intro was unlike anything the Viennese of those times would have been used to from a PC - unless they had been following Mozart - as the piano, in a classical concerto - usually comes in near the beginning. Furthermore, there is the entry of the piano at the conclusion of 2 minutes of music - not repeating any one of a number of musical ideas hitherto presented - but introducing new material before picking up where the orchestra left off. This is all new and bold for those times. The 1st mvt lasts some 13 minutes or so - longer than entire concertos from those times - and when I listen it never sounds repetitive - the themes - writing for strings and winds - is so strong - I never tire of hearing it all. Yes it is different from K466 - but no less fine in my view.


Thanks. I would've benefited from those points you make back then when I guess my first impression was a negative one (I don't remember the specific setting) . At that age I was just looking for something exciting and I wasn't thinking in terms that you're bringing up. I was spending my allowance on recordings and the last thing I wanted was a work that I would only listen to once.

I had been transported by K466 and I'm still transported via its one long and passionate stream of consciousness. K467 to me was are well-crafted compilation of clever phrases by Mozart that we had heard before - at least that was the impression I was getting. For me the Beethoven C minor concerto was a vast improvement with none of the interruptions. So I guess those Beethoven solo parts I was learning is what sealed it for me for a decade or so. I read what the critics say about it and I go back to see what I had overlooked. I can see what they're saying, but for a listening experience I'd much rather hear K466 and the rest of the great ones.

Glenn Gould admired it enough apparently to record it. The only one. And at the time I was thinking, well, that's just the contrapuntal passages and expressive virtuosity that he's admiring. Do you think I'll ever get over my initial letdown?

I had the same experience with Chopin's last Polonaise. I actually scratched the record with careless handling. It was one of the Rubinstein box set. But today for me it's his biggest accomplishment among all his works. There's so much new to be found in it every time you listen to it - and what he was trying to do - and succeeded in his own way. Some critics disagree. A pianist can really express themselves with it because it has everything.


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> Mozart, without a doubt, crafted things beautifully, and was very musically intelligent. He appeals to the opposite side of my brain than most classical. It's the side that likes modernism, abstraction, and intellect-over-emotion. Cool and detached. Haydn's symphonies are a little like that, too. I think the best way to get into Mozart's personality is through his piano sonatas. Since he was a keyboard player, these seem to reveal a more intimate side of him.
> 
> Like John Cage, Mozart seems to have 'removed his personality' from the work, to an extent. His work calls into question whether music should be a vehicle for the expression of emotion, as opposed to a conveyor of pure musical ideas.
> 
> I like the times in his music, both symphonies and piano sonatas, where an idea will have an odd number of measures, or a measure or beat seems to have been left out. That sort of thing gets my attention. It's similar to some of the old Hank Williams (senior) recordings, where beats appear to be missing in order to follow the voice.


That is interesting, and completely different from how I hear Mozart. Mozart taps into my emotions, his music speaks of joy, mixed with sadness and the contemplation of the beautiful. For me beauty tends to elicit a strong emotional response.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Mozart, without a doubt, crafted things beautifully, and was very musically intelligent. He appeals to the opposite side of my brain than most classical. It's the side that likes modernism, abstraction, and intellect-over-emotion. Cool and detached. Haydn's symphonies are a little like that, too. I think the best way to get into Mozart's personality is through his piano sonatas. Since he was a keyboard player, these seem to reveal a more intimate side of him.
> 
> Like John Cage, Mozart seems to have 'removed his personality' from the work, to an extent. His work calls into question whether music should be a vehicle for the expression of emotion, as opposed to a conveyor of pure musical ideas.
> 
> I like the times in his music, both symphonies and piano sonatas, where an idea will have an odd number of measures, or a measure or beat seems to have been left out. That sort of thing gets my attention. It's similar to some of the old Hank Williams (senior) recordings, where beats appear to be missing in order to follow the voice.


I think I may agree with you. Apart from the last paragraph were this is only apparent in his late work; the majority of the symphonies and sonatas are rather balanced according to classical aesthetics.


----------



## Larkenfield

The complaints about the use of trills. If there’s anything more innocuous in all of music than the innocent use of a trill, I can’t think of it. If anything could be said against it, it’s that more of the contemporary modern composers didn’t seem to use it as much. Their loss! Because trills always add a note of sparkle and lightness and the defying of gravity. Maybe if some of them had used it more liberally they wouldn’t have seemed so negative & depressed. Maybe they thought they were too advanced and sophisticated in the modern age to use such a simple cheerful device.  But Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, and Brahms, etc. etc., without the free use of the trill would be unimaginable. Of all the silly complaints! And the thought never occurred to me that Mozart was over-using them or using them inappropriately. Just wow with the nitpicking when there’s a potential feast to be “got”, even if it takes 20 or 30 years to appreciate him.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> The complaints about the use of trills. If there's anything more innocuous in all of music than the innocent use of a trill, I can't think of it. If anything could be said against it, it's that more of the contemporary modern composers didn't seem to use it as much. Their loss! Because trills always add a note of sparkle and lightness and the defying of gravity. Maybe if some of them had used it more liberally they wouldn't have seemed so negative & depressed. Maybe they thought they were too advanced and sophisticated in the modern age to use such a simple, cheerful device.  But Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, and Brahms, etc. etc., without the free use of the trill would be unimaginable. Of all the silly complaints! And the thought never occurred to me that Mozart was over-using them or using them inappropriately. Just wow with the nitpicking when there's a potential feast to be "got", even if it takes 20 or 30 years to realize.


As you know, instruments didn't have the sustain power for the composers before 1770 or so. Trills had been a happy addition for centuries.


----------



## Eusebius12

stomanek said:


> From what you write about Mozart I sometimes think you must be from a parallel universe listening to something else.
> 
> which "Others" - you mean like K175?
> 
> I dont hear anything predictable in the 2nd mvt - it is utterly different from any mvt he ever wrote. So your statement
> 
> *Of course for the audiences of his time it was just at the right level for instant recognition.*
> 
> is strange - inaccurate.
> 
> The 1st Mvt with its long orch intro was unlike anything the Viennese of those times would have been used to from a PC - unless they had been following Mozart - as the piano, in a classical concerto - usually comes in near the beginning. Furthermore, there is the entry of the piano at the conclusion of 2 minutes of music - not repeating any one of a number of musical ideas hitherto presented - but introducing new material before picking up where the orchestra left off. This is all new and bold for those times. The 1st mvt lasts some 13 minutes or so - longer than entire concertos from those times - and when I listen it never sounds repetitive - the themes - writing for strings and winds - is so strong - I never tire of hearing it all. Yes it is different from K466 - but no less fine in my view.


K466 was also on a level of drama unheard of in its day. Certain things of Haydn and CPE Bach point to it somewhat (the peak of sturm and drang was supposedly about a decade prior to the composition of this work) but k466 is the apex of rococo sturm and drang, with the possible exception of the dinner scene in Don Giovanni. This is a prophetic, epochal work, a work of passion, which remained in the repertory throughout the centuries after WAM's death. The romantics loved this work. As for k467, it is a fine piece of different character. Its passion is more restrained and confined to contrast in the first movement. Beethoven's debt to it is clearly seen in his own C major concerto, some of the themes are remarkably similar. Of course one might say that the slow movement of 467 is hackneyed, or 'cliche', but only in the sense of being overplayed out of its context. It is an extraordinarily beautiful movement. K467 is unusually rugged in its exterior movements, just not on the same level of ruggedness as 466. One also possibly detects a slight 'Spanish' feel in the chromatics of 466, which may be another pointer to Don Giovanni (with which it has been linked. 482 might be parallel with Figaro).

Of the music that Beethoven remarked upon as being representative of Mozart's highest genius, I believe it was a passage in the finale of k491, along with k503 in my view the greatest of his concertos. 491 is as passionate as 466 but this is completely flawless composition with not a note being out of place or capable of recomposition. The passion is restrained by truly Apollonian grandeur, majesty and elegance. K503 is a work of spiritual refinement of the highest order, notwithstanding its arpeggios. The other supremely great concerto I haven't mentioned in this thread directly is k488. Another glorious work, quite vigorous keyboard writing. Perhaps the cadenza left by Mozart is a bit disappointingly rudimentary.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> As you know, instruments didn't have the sustain power for the composers before 1770 or so. Trills had been a happy addition for centuries.


Particularly keyboard instruments. And as I mentioned already, the harpsichord was restricted in terms of dynamic contrast (and sustaining power). Trills compensated for this. The early fortepianos were somewhere between modern pianos and harpsichords.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. I would've benefited from those points you make back then when I guess my first impression was a negative one (I don't remember the specific setting) . At that age I was just looking for something exciting and I wasn't thinking in terms that you're bringing up. I was spending my allowance on recordings and the last thing I wanted was a work that I would only listen to once.
> 
> I had been transported by K466 and I'm still transported via its one long and passionate stream of consciousness. K467 to me was are well-crafted compilation of clever phrases by Mozart that we had heard before - at least that was the impression I was getting. For me the Beethoven C minor concerto was a vast improvement with none of the interruptions. So I guess those Beethoven solo parts I was learning is what sealed it for me for a decade or so. I read what the critics say about it and I go back to see what I had overlooked. I can see what they're saying, but for a listening experience I'd much rather hear K466 and the rest of the great ones.
> 
> Glenn Gould admired it enough apparently to record it. The only one. And at the time I was thinking, well, that's just the contrapuntal passages and expressive virtuosity that he's admiring. Do you think I'll ever get over my initial letdown?
> 
> I had the same experience with Chopin's last Polonaise. I actually scratched the record with careless handling. It was one of the Rubinstein box set. But today for me it's his biggest accomplishment among all his works. There's so much new to be found in it every time you listen to it - and what he was trying to do - and succeeded in his own way. Some critics disagree. A pianist can really express themselves with it because it has everything.


467 sounds familiar because of:

a movie by some forgotten Swede, and
Other composers, such as Beethoven, who were influenced by it. As one of Mozart's most popular works, it has truly been played to death.

As for Chopin's last polonaise, to you mean the Polonaise Fantasy at all? Or do you mean the Heroic Polonaise in Ab? The Polonaise Fantasy is truly one of Chopin's very greatest, just behind perhaps the 2nd scherzo and the 4th ballade.


----------



## Luchesi

Op61 Polonaise is 4 years after op53 Heroic and an amazing leap into his new circumstances, it sounds like to me.


----------



## Eusebius12

I should've mentioned k595, barely different from the others mentioned in terms of formal perfection, 'sehnsucht', 'empfindung', and gorgeous lyricism. These (466,467, 482, 491, 503, and 595) mark a unique series of concertos in the history of music, and constitute Mozart's magnum instrumental opus. Only the great operas (and 2 choral works) can compete with them. Next in the series I would place k453 (17 in G), justly famous, paired with its less famous cousin k456 in Bb. The slow movement of 453 is heartbreaking, but 456 although much less well known is well worth hearing. K459 in F is to my ears a little weaker, whereas k537 in D is not in the same league. A disappointing work, but apparently it only exists in somewhat skeletal form.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Op61 Polonaise is 4 years after op53 Heroic and an amazing leap into his new circumstances, it sounds like to me.


So you meant the Polonaise Fantasy. It isn't pure Polonaise as its moniker indicates.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> I should've mentioned k595, barely different from the others mentioned in terms of formal perfection, 'sehnsucht', 'empfindung', and gorgeous lyricism. These (466,467, 482, 491, 503, and 595) mark a unique series of concertos in the history of music, and constitute Mozart's magnum instrumental opus. Only the great operas (and 2 choral works) can compete with them. Next in the series I would place k453 (17 in G), justly famous, paired with its less famous cousin k456 in Bb. The slow movement of 453 is heartbreaking, but 456 although much less well known is well worth hearing. K459 in F is to my ears a little weaker, whereas k537 in D is not in the same league. A disappointing work, but apparently it only exists in somewhat skeletal form.


The K537 has the big avail of being easiest to play. lol


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> So you meant the Polonaise Fantasy. It isn't pure Polonaise as its moniker indicates.


That's a good point to remember. And for me it makes what he did with it while thinking polonaise a consummate extension and expansion only he could achieve with so much taste in a large piano work.

I imagine Schumann would get bogged down, Liszt would do his Liszt thing, Mendelssohn would pull back, Beethoven would be too critical of the whole conception.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> That's a good point to remember. And for me it makes what he did with it while thinking polonaise a consummate extension and expansion only he could achieve with so much taste in a large piano work.
> 
> I imagine Schumann would get bogged down, Liszt would do his Liszt thing, Mendelssohn would pull back, Beethoven would be too critical of the whole conception.


Chopin was experimental in his search for forms matching content, although at times content with some simple received forms. He is criticized for lack of ambition, formally speaking, but in works such as this and the ballade no.4 I mentioned earlier (also the Fantasy in F Minor, and the sonatas no.2 and 3) he defies that critique. Liszt wrote some fine but grandiloquent polonaises. Schumann is formally inventive and inspired by Chopin to an extent yet hardly imitative of him. Schumann's Fantasy, Kreisleriana and Etudes Symphoniques do not get bogged down, and are in my view equal to the best of Chopin's piano works whilst embodying a different ambience and aethetic. Mendelssohn was too much of a classicist and Beethoven didn't really compose much outside the sonata structure. His Polonaise (he wrote one) was pretty poor.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> Chopin was experimental in his search for forms matching content, although at times content with some simple received forms. He is criticized for lack of ambition, formally speaking, but in works such as this and the ballade no.4 I mentioned earlier (also the Fantasy in F Minor, and the sonatas no.2 and 3) he defies that critique. Liszt wrote some fine but grandiloquent polonaises. Schumann is formally inventive and inspired by Chopin to an extent yet hardly imitative of him. Schumann's Fantasy, Kreisleriana and Etudes Symphoniques do not get bogged down, and are in my view equal to the best of Chopin's piano works whilst embodying a different ambience and aethetic. Mendelssohn was too much of a classicist and Beethoven didn't really compose much outside the sonata structure. His Polonaise (he wrote one) was pretty poor.


Can you envision Schumann composing a masterpiece for pianists like the Polonaise Fantaisie?

I can't, but we shouldn't take this too seriously. It's a fun game, but there's so many factors to be aware of.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Can you envision Schumann composing a masterpiece for pianists like the Polonaise Fantaisie?
> 
> I can't, but we shouldn't take this too seriously. It's a fun game, but there's so many factors to be aware of.


Schumann could extend the nostalgic, fragmentary world of inner improvisatory monologue as well as Chopin, but Chopin and Schumann are probably my favourite piano composers to listen or to play, so I am probably biased.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> Schumann could extend the nostalgic, fragmentary world of inner improvisatory monologue as well as Chopin, but Chopin and Schumann are probably my favourite piano composers to listen or to play, so I am probably biased.


They were both born at the right time and place for exploring that fragmentary world, or I should say the world of fragmentary building blocks, very elemental constituents. It's amazing to me how the mind of the composer works like that. I doubt you could do it if you weren't very very familiar with playing the piano.

This article is quite critical of Chopin the man. Beware - some lovers of his music would be upset by this;

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...ed-genius-the-truth-about-chopin-1848372.html

A troubled genius: The truth about Chopin


----------



## Samehada

I think Schumann is in general somewhat undervalued. With the obvious exception of the Toccata, he avoided sacrificing substance for technical difficulty. Just listen to the opening bars of Dichterliebe, "In the glorious month of May," where the piano flawlessly transports you to a melancholic summer walk in the field. Sometimes I wish young pianists would branch out of the same 20 Chopin/Liszt/Rachmaninov pieces they all play to fit in some Schumann too.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Schumann Chopin?

Let's get back to Mozart guys.


----------



## Open Book

Mozart was always a rather easy listen for me because there's something in his music for every level. He can be catchy and hook you in and only later do you begin to digest all his remarkable subtleties. You never finish with that, there's always something new. There are still works by him that I don't know well or that are to me less immediately accessible, his late operas, for instance.


----------



## Captainnumber36

It's an interesting thought, I think I'd enjoy more Mozart if he hadn't used all those same tools over and over again in every piece. Each piece he has written on it's own is really good, but a good majority of them sound very similar to each other which makes me prefer the ones that stand out from the rest more.

I feel like Haydn relies less on the Classical Era tools, such as the "trill", which makes me enjoy more of his work.

I do, however, enjoy all of Mozart's Piano Sonatas. So far, I know I love the 40th and 41st symphonies, I have to explore his symphonies more to see which others I also enjoy.


----------



## Luchesi

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's an interesting thought, I think I'd enjoy more Mozart if he hadn't used all those same tools over and over again in every piece. Each piece he has written on it's own is really good, but a good majority of them sound very similar to each other which makes me prefer the ones that stand out from the rest more.
> 
> I feel like Haydn relies less on the Classical Era tools, such as the "trill", which makes me enjoy more of his work.
> 
> I do, however, enjoy all of Mozart's Piano Sonatas. So far, I know I love the 40th and 41st symphonies, I have to explore his symphonies more to see which others I also enjoy.


It's interesting that there are people talking about cliches who read music and people who don't read music, so, especially with Mozart, the two groups have predictable starting points for their opinions. I think reading these opinions is good for everyone, because we unpretentiously stereotype JsB, Mozart, LvB and Chopin.


----------



## kyjo

Mozart isn't one of my favorite composers, but I enjoy a lot of his later works quite a bit (most of his earlier works are annoyingly simplistic to my ears - the 25th Symphony is an exception). His late chamber works are my favorites of his (the "Dissonance" and "Prussian" string quartets, the G minor string quintet, the Divertimento for string trio, and the piano quartets). I also enjoy his final three symphonies (plus the "Haffner") and the Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola. If he would've lived 5 or 10 years longer I think he could've probably produced some really extraordinary works, judging by the increasing complexity and sophistication of his late works.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ I used to think a little like that at one time (although I would never have put it that way and even then I would have added at least 4 operas and many piano concertos to the list) but actually many of the earlier works are packed with invention as well as (simplistic?) charm. I think the later works are just so great that they make us look at the earlier ones as unnecessary. But I am certain that, if they were all we had, we would still count Mozart among the 25 greatest.


----------



## Luchesi

kyjo said:


> Mozart isn't one of my favorite composers, but I enjoy a lot of his later works quite a bit (most of his earlier works are annoyingly simplistic to my ears - the 25th Symphony is an exception). His late chamber works are my favorites of his (the "Dissonance" and "Prussian" string quartets, the G minor string quintet, the Divertimento for string trio, and the piano quartets). I also enjoy his final three symphonies (plus the "Haffner") and the Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola. If he would've lived 5 or 10 years longer I think he could've probably produced some really extraordinary works, judging by the increasing complexity and sophistication of his late works.


Schubert 31
Mozart 35
Purcell 36
Bizet 36
Mendelssohn 38
Gershwin 38
Chopin 39
Weber 39
Alexander the Great 33
Jesus 30/33 estimated from other estimates


----------



## Eusebius12

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's an interesting thought, I think I'd enjoy more Mozart if he hadn't used all those same tools over and over again in every piece. Each piece he has written on it's own is really good, but a good majority of them sound very similar to each other which makes me prefer the ones that stand out from the rest more.
> 
> I feel like Haydn relies less on the Classical Era tools, such as the "trill", which makes me enjoy more of his work.
> 
> I do, however, enjoy all of Mozart's Piano Sonatas. So far, I know I love the 40th and 41st symphonies, I have to explore his symphonies more to see which others I also enjoy.


Yes he uses trills a lot, especially here:






The trills are always what wreck it for me. I am happy enough listening to some vapid recapitulation and then my core is shattered! Yet another trill! Mind you when he gets it right, it can be rather trilling


----------



## Eusebius12

Also listen to the stereotypical writing in this:






Mozart was clearly a hack. Lots of trills here too. I gotta say, I was less dan trilled


----------



## Eusebius12

Compare this really sophisticated offering from Haydn, with so much depth, and hardly any trills:


----------



## DavidA

Eusebius12 said:


> Also listen to the stereotypical writing in this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozart was clearly a hack. Lots of trills here too. I gotta say, I was less dan trilled


You certainly chose the appropriate piece for your remark. A musical joke! :lol:


----------



## Kieran

eljr said:


> I have only been listening to classical music in earnest for 4 years. A longggggggg time fan of Philip Glass but until 2014 my classical listen had been limited.
> 
> Bach, love him. Early music? Can't get enough. Choral, my good friend @Joe B opened up for me. Baroque, chok guzel!
> 
> Beethoven, good stuff. Simpson, Reich, Adams, what is not to love? Williams, Schoenberg, wonderful. Hyden, what can be better...
> 
> But this guy Mozart. He and this guy Wagner. I just don't "get."
> 
> Well, today, finally, while not trying, I was listening to Mozart, Piano Concerto #13 and wow. It just hit me. This stuff is wonderful!
> 
> I just needed to celebrate so that is what I am doing here.
> 
> I finally got Mozart!
> 
> still waiting to "get" Wagner though....


I like when people finally "get" the Maestro. I feel safer, knowing the world has just become a more civilised place. Thing with Mozart is, there's too much of it. Before you know it you'll be learning Italian and chuckling along on the bus to Figaro, in your earphones. He has everything covered. From solo stuff to the full shebang with orchestras and choirs. Hope you have many more years of listening to him, he'll never let you down!


----------



## Kieran

Jacck said:


> don't exaggerate, he is overrated and idolized and fetishized to such a degree that people are actually afraid to admit openly that they do not like his music
> https://www.quora.com/Does-anybody-not-like-Mozart
> a guy here says "In fact, during my time studying music at university I often worried that criticizing Mozart in class might have led to disfavor from a favorite teacher or mentor."


It's defeatist to say that Mozart is overrated. It's like arguing that rain isn't wet. Better to be coy and hedge your bets. Say something like, "gee, I know that his music is, well, and eh....ooh, is that the time?"

See how easy it is then to avoid the obvious stares? Mozart is underrated, if anything. Too often dismissed by people who should know better as a sentimental hack. Too often he's mistaken for somebody else, maybe a character created by Pushkin, or Shaffer. The genius is buried beneath the need to mythologise everything, but in fact, the best thing to do is just listen...


----------



## jdec

Eusebius12, am I correctly sensing some sarcasm in your last 3 posts above? 

Anyway, this one has lots of "unnecessary trills" and "no depth" :






"Mozart is The Number 1 for me".
- V. Horowitz


----------



## Bluecrab

Kieran said:


> I like when people finally "get" the Maestro. I feel safer, knowing the world has just become a more civilised place


Ahh... so those who don' t like Mozart's music are uncivilized?


----------



## Kieran

Bluecrab said:


> Ahh... so those who don' t like Mozart's music are uncivilized?


They can do better, but don't worry, we're here to help...


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> At one time I could barely tolerate most music of the Classical period. The "cliches" - the symmetrical phrase structure, the Alberti bass, the predictable cadences, the obsessive alternation of tonic and dominant - were a distraction and a barrier to enjoying even music I could recognize as well-composed. At the same time I never had a problem with the "sewing machine" rhythms in Bach, the ornamental filigree in Chopin, or the ubiquitous diminished and half-diminished seventh chords in Wagner.
> 
> Every artist, in every medium, has identifying traits, mannerisms, "cliches." If you like their work, you accept those traits. If you don't, you point to those traits as a reason why you don't. The same can be said of period or national styles. Over time we may learn to see past stylistic mannerisms, or even to hear them in a different way. When I'm not in the mood for a composer's music, his "cliches" may annoy me. But usually I can listen through or past them if I choose to.


This is why the performer is so important in Bach and Mozart. Remember how Glenn Gould made us hear Bach in a new way? He illuminated The Goldberg Variations, a work previously thought to be just a trifle compared to his other works.

Haydn is the same; you just have to listen to the right performance. Richter is my preference; music that is clichéd like this demands to have up=tempo, sensational performance, or else be profound in some other way.

Mozart? I'll take Glenn Gould on the sonatas, precisely because they are so unorthodox.


----------



## DavidA

Bluecrab said:


> Ahh... so those who don' t like Mozart's music are uncivilized?


My dear friend, you can hate Mozart with all your might and mane as far as I'm concerned. It makes not the slightest difference to my enjoyment of the great composer. Every man to his taste. One man's meat...and all that


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> This is why the performer is so important in Bach and Mozart. Remember how Glenn Gould made us hear Bach in a new way? He illuminated The Goldberg Variations, a work previously thought to be just a trifle compared to his other works.
> 
> Haydn is the same; you just have to listen to the right performance. Richter is my preference; music that is clichéd like this demands to have up=tempo, sensational performance, or else be profound in some other way.
> 
> Mozart? *I'll take Glenn Gould on the sonatas, precisely because they are so unorthodox.*


*

Or perverse??????
*


----------



## KenOC

It's da trills...da trills, I tell ya...

Now Mozart was wont to write trills
Just as sure as the postman brings bills
But I hear the damned things
And my head fairly rings
And I reach for my bottle of pills.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Or perverse??????
> [/B]


If there's some "perverse" or ironic, or even mocking humor in Glenn Gould's Mozart, I say: Huzzah! Huzzah!

"A perversion is whatever I'm not in the mood for that day."


----------



## Eusebius12

jdec said:


> Eusebius12, am I correctly sensing some sarcasm in your last 3 posts above?
> 
> Anyway, this one has lots of "unnecessary trills" and "no depth" :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mozart is The Number 1 for me".
> - V. Horowitz


Horowitz really made Mozart sound good 
Horowitz could really make a silk purse out of ein ohr die sau


----------



## Eusebius12

millionrainbows said:


> If there's some "perverse" or ironic, or even mocking humor in Glenn Gould's Mozart, I say: Huzzah! Huzzah!
> 
> "A perversion is whatever I'm not in the mood for that day."


"Major Bloodnok, it's time for your afternoon perversion."


----------



## Jacck

I attempted the Magic Flute yesterday and could not even finish the first Act, I found it really boring compared to other operas.


----------



## Eusebius12

Really Jacck? It's my favourite. And Beethoven's incidentally. Is it the spoken dialogue? The story admittedly is mostly piffle, but that isn't Mozart's fault. There is a broadening, a spiritual feeling, in this work that distinguishes it from his earlier operas. GBShaw likened the music given to Sarastro as sounding like it had come from the mouth of God. I know what he means. If you let your guard down, you might find that it grows on you. To my ears it is as grand and great as any opera ever written.


----------



## Eusebius12

Maybe you should see it live first.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mozart must be a mirror: what you see in it is yourself! If you see sublime or joyful music then you must be sublime or joyful. If you see something else .... . :lol:

More seriously, though, the classical tendency is a bit out of fashion at the current time. The fashion is more for blurt it all out, wear your heart of your shirt sleeve, be as intense as possible music and art. I associate that with the need for quick fixes and instant gratification that many see in our times. The same cause, I think, leads to people being unable to put the work into listening to much music from later than the 1950s.


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> I attempted the Magic Flute yesterday and could not even finish the first Act, I found it really boring compared to other operas.


Thanks for letting us know!


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> This is why the performer is so important in Bach and Mozart. Remember how Glenn Gould made us hear Bach in a new way? He illuminated The Goldberg Variations, a work previously thought to be just a trifle compared to his other works.
> 
> Haydn is the same; you just have to listen to the right performance. Richter is my preference; music that is clichéd like this demands to have up=tempo, sensational performance, or else be profound in some other way.
> 
> Mozart? I'll take Glenn Gould on the sonatas, precisely because they are so unorthodox.


Mozart can be ruined by a bad performance but good performances of his music are not _so_ rare. And, as with all the great composers, I am unable to think that there is only one true approach or player. Hearing how different performers play Mozart, and hearing different things in different performances, is part of the pleasure. There are players who I don't like in Mozart or who leave me unmoved but there are quite a few who I do enjoy too. Among the pianists I like in the sonatas I include Gulda, Brautigam, Pires and Uchida - a very varied group. Gulda's Mozart seems to get little response on this forum. I'm not sure why.


----------



## Kieran

Enthusiast said:


> Mozart can be ruined by a bad performance but good performances of his music are not _so_ rare. And, as with all the great composers, I am unable to think that there is only one true approach or player. Hearing how different performers play Mozart, and hearing different things in different performances, is part of the pleasure. There are players who I don't like in Mozart or who leave me unmoved but there are quite a few who I do enjoy too.


A better man than me once discussed the difficulties of playing Mozart, and they weren't necessarily technical: they were emotional. Sensitivity, a good ear for the occasional light drizzle of rain, and the often rapid changes of tone, and colour, where the lightbulb died and left us in the gloom, just before a torch was lit and brightened everything up again, but still changed from before. I watched a really heartbreakingly lousy performance of Mozart's 23rd PC by a very famous and highly pianist, who seemed to think the trademark Sappy Grin of Olde Worlde Gaeity was all that he required to show us during the slow set. I couldn't believe my eyes - or my ears!


----------



## Enthusiast

Kieran said:


> A better man than me once discussed the difficulties of playing Mozart, and they weren't necessarily technical: they were emotional. Sensitivity, a good ear for the occasional light drizzle of rain, and the often rapid changes of tone, and colour, where the lightbulb died and left us in the gloom, just before a torch was lit and brightened everything up again, but still changed from before. I watched a really heartbreakingly lousy performance of Mozart's 23rd PC by a very famous and highly pianist, who seemed to think the trademark Sappy Grin of Olde Worlde Gaeity was all that he required to show us during the slow set. I couldn't believe my eyes - or my ears!


Yes indeed. Not complex but not at all easy to get right. I suspect that piano playing robots will find Mozart the last great challenge.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> Yes indeed. Not complex but not at all easy to get right. I suspect that piano playing robots will find Mozart the last great challenge.


Especially all those trills.


----------



## Fredx2098

I find it strange that there are people on this site who worship Beethoven and hate Mozart. Beethoven seems like an objective step backwards from Mozart or really any composer before him, and I would like someone to try to argue with that. The only reasons I can see for enjoying Beethoven are its superficial boisterousness and mind-numbing simplicity.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> I find it strange that there are people on this site who worship Beethoven and hate Mozart. Beethoven seems like an objective step backwards from Mozart or really any composer before him, and I would like someone to try to argue with that. The only reasons I can see for enjoying Beethoven are its superficial boisterousness and mind-numbing simplicity.


What do you mean by seems like an objective step backwards? His very early pieces?


----------



## KenOC

Fredx2098 said:


> I find it strange that there are people on this site who worship Beethoven and hate Mozart. Beethoven seems like an objective step backwards from Mozart or really any composer before him, *and I would like someone to try to argue with that*. The only reasons I can see for enjoying Beethoven are its superficial boisterousness and mind-numbing simplicity.


I think almost anybody would argue with that, if they thought it worth the effort. "Mind-numbing simplicity"???


----------



## janxharris

Grosse Fugue: 



Section of third movement of 5th symphony 




Ninth Symphony.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> What do you mean by seems like an objective step backwards? His very early pieces?


I feel like in general his music is less creative and expressive than composers before him like Bach, Haydn, Mozart.



KenOC said:


> I think almost anybody would argue with that, if they thought it worth the effort. "Mind-numbing simplicity"???


I'm enjoying that trio. I haven't heard much of his chamber music, but that seems like when I'd appreciate him most.



janxharris said:


> Grosse Fugue:
> 
> 
> 
> Section of third movement of 5th symphony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ninth Symphony.


I do like the Grosse Fuge, also the Missa Solemnis, but not any of his symphonies so far.

The stepwise motion and repetitive figures of his music wears me out. I do enjoy some of his music, but pretty much anyone else holds my attention better.


----------



## DavidA

Fredx2098 said:


> I find it strange that there are people on this site who worship Beethoven and hate Mozart. Beethoven seems like an objective step backwards from Mozart or really any composer before him, and I would like someone to try to argue with that. The only reasons I can see for enjoying Beethoven are its superficial boisterousness and mind-numbing simplicity.


You sure you're really listening to Beethoven? 'Mind-numbing simplicity' us not the word I would use for the Eroica symphony or the Hammerklavier sonata or the Diabelli variations. Ax to worship, I don't worship any composer. Just enjoy their music.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> I feel like in general his music is less creative and expressive than composers before him like Bach, Haydn, Mozart.
> *I haven't heard much of his chamber music,* but that seems like when I'd appreciate him most.


Then you really don't know Beethoven. His chamber music is the largest proportion of his output next to his keyboard works. How anyone could call his violin sonatas, cello sonatas, string quartets and piano sonatas less creative than those of his predecessors (or his successors for that matter) I can't imagine.


----------



## Eusebius12

Perhaps if I pretend to be Fredx2098 for a second, or at least play Devil's Advocate for a bit, there is a roughness to Beethoven's thematic material which tends not to apply to Mozart, which was discussed on another thread. The contour of Mozart's themes might be said to be more complex, more rounded at least. Mozart's emotional states are possibly more elusive at times than Beethoven's.


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> Perhaps if I pretend to be Fredx2098 for a second, or at least play Devil's Advocate for a bit, there is a roughness to Beethoven's thematic material which tends not to apply to Mozart, which was discussed on another thread. The contour of Mozart's themes might be said to be more complex, more rounded at least. Mozart's emotional states are possibly more elusive at times than Beethoven's.


Mozart's suave lyricism and sensuality is certainly not a great part of Beethoven's makeup. On the other hand, Beethoven's rugged power and structural daring are unprecedented. I don't like to pit such immense geniuses against each other, or criticize either for lacking what the other has.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm old fashioned and there are a few greats who cannot (for me) be criticised or compared in value/worth. Beethoven and Mozart are two of those. 

But I do know people who don't enjoy Beethoven. When my daughter was growing up she wanted to try some classical music and my first recommendation was a Beethoven symphony. I was surprised when she felt much the same - she disliked the music for the same reasons - as Fredx2098. Still, if someone doesn't like Mozart, I feel they are missing a brain part but can still see how they might have missed the genius on the basis of a superficial trawl through some pieces. Not liking Beethoven seems a more obviously "genuine" position. You can't miss anything in his music and if you don't like it ... well, I guess you don't like it. At the moment, anyway.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Mozart's suave lyricism and sensuality is certainly not a great part of Beethoven's makeup. On the other hand, *Beethoven's rugged power* and structural daring are unprecedented. I don't like to pit such immense geniuses against each other, or criticizing either for lacking what the other has.


my wife has praised Beethoven a lot - holding him up as an expressive genius with serious things to say - contrasting him with the light carefree world of Mozart. One day in the car she said lets have some beethoven - I put on the eroica - after 3 minutes she said is this Beethoven? Turn it off - let's have the moonlight sonata.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Maybe your wife is just not very knowledgable about Beethoven.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> I'm old fashioned and there are a few greats who cannot (for me) be criticised or compared in value/worth. Beethoven and Mozart are two of those.


they can be and they should be criticised. Einstein is generally considered the second greatest genius in physics (after Newton) and yet he got many things wrong and is widely criticised today for having failed to grasp the emerging quantum theory. In art, there is no experiment to prove Mozart or Beethoven wrong. But from my point of view, it is dangerous and wrong to idolize anyone. Both Mozart and Beethoven were great composers, both composed great works that I enjoy and also works that I am less enthusiastic about. I certainly fail to see how both of these composers stand so far above the rest of composers that they are beyond critique. So many other composers (even the lesser ones) composed works that are imho superior to the average works by Mozart and Beethoven. To claim that everything Mozart ever composed is perfection beyond critique is dangerous and is simply not truth.


----------



## Eusebius12

eugeneonagain said:


> Maybe your wife is just not very knowledgable about Beethoven.


Very probably because Beethoven can be just as carefree as Mozart. 
Take this:
_



_
Actually, Beethoven's joy is more undivided than Mozart's. Beethoven achieves greater solidity of mood, Mozart's joys are more often coloured by a hint of melancholy or sardonicism (not that Beethoven doesn't have moments of sardonicism). Mozart's wit is a little more pointed; he seems to be laughing at us or the world more than Beethoven is. Beethoven bares his soul a little more and a little more frequently than Mozart does.


----------



## Larkenfield

Again, Mozart and Beethoven were not "wrong". But there's never been a composer who didn't have his or her shortcomings, and some of us expect their shortcomings to be discussed with respect rather than ridiculous dismissals and mischaracterizations. Shortcomings can be found in Bach (too busy), Haydn (too common), Chopin (too melancholy and morbid), Brahms (too serious and lacking in a sense of humor), Rachmaninoff (too sentimental) and any composer who has ever lived. But they weren't "wrong", being creatively true to themselves, in the superficial sense of the word. At his best, in my estimation, there is an absolute perfection in Mozart's works that has never been equaled by any other composer, and he has been abundantly praised by the other immortals, such as Wagner, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mahler, and others whose opinions are worth considering by those stuck in reverse. Reportedly Mahler's last words were, "Mozart!, Mozart!"


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> they can be and they should be criticised. Einstein is generally considered the second greatest genius in physics (after Newton) and yet he got many things wrong and is widely criticised today for having failed to grasp the emerging quantum theory. In art, there is no experiment to prove Mozart or Beethoven wrong. But from my point of view, it is dangerous and wrong to idolize anyone. Both Mozart and Beethoven were great composers, both composed great works that I enjoy and also works that I am less enthusiastic about. I certainly fail to see how both of these composers stand so far above the rest of composers that they are beyond critique. So many other composers (even the lesser ones) composed works that are imho superior to the average works by Mozart and Beethoven. To claim that everything Mozart ever composed is perfection beyond critique is dangerous and is simply not truth.


This is a weird post! I will grant you that there are works by both Mozart and Beethoven which are not towering masterpieces and from that viewpoint it is worth pointing to them as less successful works. But you lost me on why you mention two physicist geniuses (as if they were engaged in the same or an equivalent endeavour). You seem not to have a good grasp, anyway, on why Einstein is considered so great and you seem to think that scientists have to be right to be great. I am really not clear what an average work by Beethoven or Mozart is. Looking for an average among their life works seems a venture doomed to fail or mislead. And what does it matter if some works by other composers are greater than some works by Mozart or Beethoven? I never tried to belittle the work of everyone else - I was talking about greatness, a quality that is outside of that sort of comparison (that was my point).


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> This is a weird post! I will grant you that there are works by both Mozart and Beethoven which are not towering masterpieces and from that viewpoint it is worth pointing to them as less successful works. But you lost me on why you mention two physicist geniuses (as if they were engaged in the same or an equivalent endeavour). You seem not to have a good grasp, anyway, on why Einstein is considered so great and you seem to think that scientists have to be right to be great. I am really not clear what an average work by Beethoven or Mozart is. Looking for an average among their life works seems a venture doomed to fail or mislead. And what does it matter if some works by other composers are greater than some works by Mozart or Beethoven? I never tried to belittle the work of everyone else - I was talking about greatness, a quality that is outside of that sort of comparison (that was my point).


it is exactly because I have some insight into the physics communisty and how they view their pantheon, that I decided to use this comparison. In physics, the ultimate criterion is always the experiment 
_"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman_
no physicist is beyond critique and should not be idolized. In fact, the personalities of the physicists are completely irrelevant. It does not matter if the physicist was wise or wanted to use nuclear weapons to kill people (John von Neumann), what matters are only the theories and if they agree with reality. 
In comparison, I feel that the personalities of the composers are idolized a little too much in classical music. In other words - you judge the music's worth through the personality of the composer and not through its intrinsic worth/beauty. I am sure if you took random people unexposed to classical music and let them judge a certain piece of music, their judgement would be different if you told them they were listening to Mozart or not. They would overvalue the music if they knew Mozart composed it. (I am sure there is plenty of psychological reasearch about how preconceptions shape perceptions and judgements)


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> it is exactly because I have some insight into the physics communisty and how they view their pantheon, that I decided to use this comparison. In physics, the ultimate criterion is always the experiment
> _"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman_
> no physicist is beyond critique and should not be idolized. In fact, the personalities of the physicists are completely irrelevant. It does not matter if the physicist was wise or wanted to use nuclear weapons to kill people (John von Neumann), what matters are only the theories and if they agree with reality.
> In comparison, I feel that the personalities of the composers are idolized a little too much in classical music. In other words - you judge the music's worth through the personality of the composer and not through its intrinsic worth/beauty. I am sure if you took random people unexposed to classical music and let them judge a certain piece of music, their judgement would be different if you told them they were listening to Mozart or not. They would overvalue the music if they knew Mozart composed it. (I am sure there is plenty of psychological reasearch about how preconceptions shape perceptions and judgements)


I must not have expressed myself clearly as you are not getting my points. Science is _about_ our knowledge advancing and our getting closer and closer to understanding how things truly are. Art is not. If it were then that would be saying that art is forever improving and getting better. I don't think that is the case and I don't think you do either. As for the subject of personality - you have introduced this. When I say Beethoven is x or y I am talking about the music we have from a man who we know as Beethoven. I think most of us use the name in that way so as to avoid saying "Beethoven's music" of "the works of Beethoven". If I (probably we) want to talk about the personality of that man I think this will be clear from the context or I will say something like "as a man Beethoven was ...". As for what an uninitiated listener would do, you may be partly right - some might respond more positively if the knew the music was genuine Beethoven. Some might go the other way in a reaction against our cultural inheritance (this might be the larger group). But so what? I have been talking about what these composers mean to me ... and, by extension, perhaps to other lovers of classical music. Call me a snob but I don't care what those who are not CM fans think is important in CM!

With that said, I do think that the critical consensus about the composers of the past is a reliable guide about where to invest their time for the relatively uninitiated and even for the rest of us. Certainly it must be better than relying on our own perceptions alone.


----------



## eljr

I heard Mozart's Oboe Quartet on satellite radio today. I'd like to buy a recording of this. Any recommendations?


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ I used to like this one but it is a while since I listened to it.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> This is why the performer is so important in Bach and Mozart. Remember how Glenn Gould made us hear Bach in a new way? He illuminated The Goldberg Variations, a work previously thought to be just a trifle compared to his other works.
> 
> Haydn is the same; you just have to listen to the right performance. Richter is my preference; music that is clichéd like this demands to have up=tempo, sensational performance, or else be profound in some other way.
> 
> Mozart? I'll take Glenn Gould on the sonatas, precisely because they are so unorthodox.


"Mozart? I'll take Glenn Gould on the sonatas, precisely because they are so unorthodox."

We need at least three recordings of every piece we care about. Orthodox, unorthodox, fast, slow, Richter, not Richter. OK, well that could be 6 renditions. lol


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> I feel like in general his music is less creative and expressive than composers before him like Bach, Haydn, Mozart.
> 
> I'm enjoying that trio. I haven't heard much of his chamber music, but that seems like when I'd appreciate him most.
> 
> I do like the Grosse Fuge, also the Missa Solemnis, but not any of his symphonies so far.
> 
> The stepwise motion and repetitive figures of his music wears me out. I do enjoy some of his music, but pretty much anyone else holds my attention better.


I want to know about the experience of the composer. What did he grow up with? what he was listening to? What were the elements of music that he was 'called' to work with. I think of it as a calling. What were the forms? what was he developing as we look back.

How much music theory have you been lucky enough to appreciate? Most people like certain works but they don't know why they 'like' them and they don't 'like' music theory. It's a tough nut to crack.

Students tell me -- I don't want to learn a lot of music theory because I'll lose the joy.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> I want to know about the experience of the composer. What did he grow up with? what he was listening to? What were the elements of music that he was 'called' to work with. I think of it as a calling. What were the forms? what was he developing as we look back.
> 
> How much music theory have you been lucky enough to appreciate? Most people like certain works but they don't know why they 'like' them and they don't 'like' music theory. It's a tough nut to crack.
> 
> Students tell me -- I don't want to learn a lot of music theory because I'll lose the joy.


I know a fair amount of theory. I can perform and I'm working on composing. I know enough to describe what I like or dislike about music. I don't think that knowing theory gets in the way of my enjoyment, it just lets me better understand what's going on and how I feel about it. Beethoven's music sounds logical and rational, and I prefer when art surprises me rather than fulfills my expectations. I appreciate his talent and enjoy some of his music, but none of it has really blown my mind (except perhaps the Missa Solemnis), including symphonies 5 and 9 and piano sonatas, which might sound ridiculous. I just don't understand how Beethoven could be someone's favorite composer but they passionately hate Mozart and consider him talentless in comparison.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> I know a fair amount of theory. I can perform and I'm working on composing. I know enough to describe what I like or dislike about music. I don't think that knowing theory gets in the way of my enjoyment, it just lets me better understand what's going on and how I feel about it. Beethoven's music sounds logical and rational, and I prefer when art surprises me rather than fulfills my expectations. I appreciate his talent and enjoy some of his music, but none of it has really blown my mind (except perhaps the Missa Solemnis), including symphonies 5 and 9 and piano sonatas, which might sound ridiculous. I just don't understand how Beethoven could be someone's favorite composer but they passionately hate Mozart and consider him talentless in comparison.


Well, what do you get out of music? Surprises? I'm not picking on you, I ask this of everybody. I might be just a weird person --but I enjoy dissecting music into its basic elements to see the cleverness in the new arranging of the patterns in a composition. It's the same notes and intervals for centuries of music. So with that always in our minds, how do we categorize the finished accomplishments?

I'm glad that you can play the pieces because when you can play through the works you understand much more about the whole experience of creating and the expected reactions by music lovers.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> Well, what do you get out of music? Surprises? I'm not picking on you, I ask this of everybody. I might be just a weird person --but I enjoy dissecting music into its basic elements to see the cleverness in the new arranging of the patterns in a composition. It's the same notes and intervals for centuries of music. So with that always in our minds, how do we categorize the finished accomplishments?
> 
> I'm glad that you can play the pieces because when you can play through the works you understand much more about the whole experience of creating and the expected reactions by music lovers.


That's an interesting and tough question that could have many types of answers. Being surprised isn't the first thing I'd say I enjoy in music. I named that as the opposite extreme of logic/rationality which I prefer in terms of extremes. A better way to word what I enjoy would be experiencing new, interesting, changing ideas. Then I'd say "beauty" which isn't really possible to define and I think has infinite possible conflicting meanings for each person. I like to hear interesting types of sounds, ideally an abstract mix of consonance and dissonance, in terms of tonality at least. I like music that requires a lot of concentration to fully appreciate and understand, so that it can hold my full attention.

So, do you dislike Mozart? I just find it strange for someone to love one and hate the other, because they seem rather similar in terms of talent and style. I don't really dislike many composers, if any, but Beethoven is one who has resonated with me the least on average. Maybe a good way to put it would be that his music is straightforward (to my ear, I suppose I should add) and I prefer roundabout.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> That's an interesting and tough question that could have many types of answers. Being surprised isn't the first thing I'd say I enjoy in music. I named that as the opposite extreme of logic/rationality which I prefer in terms of extremes. A better way to word what I enjoy would be experiencing new, interesting, changing ideas. Then I'd say "beauty" which isn't really possible to define and I think has infinite possible conflicting meanings for each person. I like to hear interesting types of sounds, ideally an abstract mix of consonance and dissonance, in terms of tonality at least. I like music that requires a lot of concentration to fully appreciate and understand, so that it can hold my full attention.
> 
> So, do you dislike Mozart? I just find it strange for someone to love one and hate the other, because they seem rather similar in terms of talent and style. I don't really dislike many composers, if any, but Beethoven is one who has resonated with me the least on average. Maybe a good way to put it would be that his music is straightforward (to my ear, I suppose I should add) and I prefer roundabout.


This will sound pretentious and affected, but it's true. 
I don't like or dislike anything in the arts. I look for and I evaluate for what I think will have an enduring value - and what is significant to me at this time in my life (it was different in the past). Maybe that's liking, I don't know. When I was growing up we were taught not to use the word "like" (as a verb) or "nice", because they're said to be meaningless in an intelligent conversation. That little spurt stuck.. For example, I don't enjoy listening to all of the Grosse Fuge. I enjoy short parts of it. I certainly appreciate it and value it highly, and it doesn't even matter what I think he was trying to do. It's that significant for that time.

I certainly approve of and disapprove of many things in the sciences. because there you have evidence and outcomes and predictions. You can poo poo some ideas and yet really embrace others, at least temporarily. In the arts it's all done without evidence - except for evolutionary psychology and what we learn in aesthetics, and what we learn in aesthetics again depends upon the 'maturity' of the aesthetician (maturity is the wrong word, but if he's convincing he's giving you what he truly thinks during that decade of his life - as a guide to evaluating a collection of art).

So I think Mozart will endure (grin) and he is significant in some of his works, for most people, in most decades of their lives (it all depends upon the individual for which decades). The same for Beethoven and the same for all the greats.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> This will sound pretentious and affected, but it's true.
> I don't like or dislike anything in the arts. I look for and I evaluate for what I think will have an enduring value - and what is significant to me at this time in my life (it was different in the past). Maybe that's liking, I don't know. When I was growing up we were taught not to use the word "like" (as a verb) or "nice", because they're said to be meaningless in an intelligent conversation. That little spurt stuck.. For example, I don't enjoy listening to all of the Grosse Fuge. I enjoy short parts of it. I certainly appreciate it and value it highly, and it doesn't even matter what I think he was trying to do. It's that significant for that time.
> 
> I certainly approve of and disapprove of many things in the sciences. because there you have evidence and outcomes and predictions. You can poo poo some ideas and yet really embrace others, at least temporarily. In the arts it's all done without evidence - except for evolutionary psychology and what we learn in aesthetics, and what we learn in aesthetics again depends upon the 'maturity' of the aesthetician (maturity is the wrong word, but if he's convincing he's giving you what he truly thinks during that decade of his life - as a guide to evaluating a collection of art).
> 
> So I think Mozart will endure (grin) and he is significant in some of his works, for most people, in most decades of their lives (it all depends upon the individual for which decades). The same for Beethoven and the same for all the greats.


I think it's important to like and dislike things, but equally important to accept others' likes and dislikes and to say more than "I like/dislike this" when having a real discussion. What do you mean by enduring value? What will be popular? When I listen to music, that concept is nowhere in my mind. In my opinion, the only things that matters in the case of art itself is each person's own enjoyment of it. The success of a piece of art is separate from the art, and I don't think it should be a factor of how one thinks about the art. I suppose that your grin means that he is not significant to you at this time. I find enjoyment in almost all music.


----------



## Eusebius12

Jacck said:


> it is exactly because I have some insight into the physics communisty and how they view their pantheon, that I decided to use this comparison. In physics, the ultimate criterion is always the experiment
> _"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman_
> no physicist is beyond critique and should not be idolized. In fact, the personalities of the physicists are completely irrelevant. It does not matter if the physicist was wise or wanted to use nuclear weapons to kill people (John von Neumann), what matters are only the theories and if they agree with reality.
> In comparison, I feel that the personalities of the composers are idolized a little too much in classical music. In other words - you judge the music's worth through the personality of the composer and not through its intrinsic worth/beauty. I am sure if you took random people unexposed to classical music and let them judge a certain piece of music, their judgement would be different if you told them they were listening to Mozart or not. They would overvalue the music if they knew Mozart composed it. (I am sure there is plenty of psychological reasearch about how preconceptions shape perceptions and judgements)


Wouldn't that mean then I would rate all Mozart's works the same? I rate Mozart's piano sonatas as greater than Haydn's or any of his direct contemporaries, but he wrote a few duds. The sonatas are inferior to Beethoven's, although there are a few exceptions (on both sides). His early works are sometimes barely worth hearing, although even there there are surprises. Quite possibly certain pieces are only played because they are by Mozart, therefore we hear them and we don't hear some of the best pieces of Vanhal, Schmitt or Kraus (I have no doubt that Kraus is a very fine composer). Whether or not there is an element of truth in what you say, I don't see how it could apply to me, since there is something in Mozart's style that took a great deal of accomodation on my part. I find his galanterie at times insufferable. But when I examine the music, I still find a great musical mind at work.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> I think it's important to like and dislike things, but equally important to accept others' likes and dislikes and to say more than "I like/dislike this" when having a real discussion. What do you mean by enduring value? What will be popular? When I listen to music, that concept is nowhere in my mind. In my opinion, the only things that matters in the case of art itself is each person's own enjoyment of it. The success of a piece of art is separate from the art, and I don't think it should be a factor of how one thinks about the art. I suppose that your grin means that he is not significant to you at this time. I find enjoyment in almost all music.


How can we discuss enjoyment? Have you been successful in discussing enjoyment with other classical music fans? How did the discussion go?


----------



## millionrainbows

Trills don't bother me so much as that "perils of Pauline" technique where piano chords are sustained by a back-and-forth rocking of the hand (especially on diminished chords, for that "dramatic" effect). That sounds really corny, and Beethoven did it quite often.


----------



## Fredx2098

Wouldn't I love Beethoven as well if I was predisposed to enjoy music by popular names? It's not exactly uncommon to enjoy Beethoven. I gather that people think Beethoven's music is more serious than Mozart's? I don't hear it, unless serious means to lack personal emotion. Beethoven usually hits my ears as hollow seriousness.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> How can we discuss enjoyment? Have you been successful in discussing enjoyment with other classical music fans? How did the discussion go?


I would explain why I enjoy or don't enjoy things, and you would do the same. I would accept your opinion, and you would accept mine, and we would discuss the reasons we gave. I find it to be an enjoyable type of conversation. I don't enjoy a conversation about how one composer has more value than another because they're more popular.


----------



## KenOC

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't hear it, unless serious means to lack personal emotion. Beethoven usually hits my ears as hollow seriousness.


Sounds like a problem either with Beethoven or with your ears. I certainly couldn't guess which.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Trills don't bother me so much as that "perils of Pauline" technique where piano chords are sustained by a back-and-forth rocking of the hand (especially on diminished chords, for that "dramatic" effect). That sounds really corny, and Beethoven did it quite often.


I know a place where Ludwig does this in a quartet, with a humorous intent. But I can't recall an example from his piano music, if I understand your meaning correctly. Can I ask that you supply an example?


----------



## Fredx2098

KenOC said:


> Sounds like a problem either with Beethoven or with your ears. I certainly couldn't guess which.


I would guess it's a problem with my personal tastes, but what's the problem with Mozart?


----------



## KenOC

Fredx2098 said:


> I would guess it's a problem with my personal tastes, but what's the problem with Mozart?


Mozart? Always bowing and scraping, that guy. And that fright wig and those satin pants! I mean, I'm as tolerant as the next guy, but count on it: If he's on one side of the street, I'll be on the other soon enough.

Some of his music's not bad though. I like the one with the dinosaurs.


----------



## Larkenfield

Fredx2098 said:


> I would guess it's a problem with my personal tastes, but what's the problem with Mozart?





> The famous complaint of Emperor Joseph II about The Marriage of Figaro - "too many notes, Mozart" - is generally perceived to be a gaffe by a blockhead. In fact, Joseph was echoing what nearly everybody, including his admirers, said about Mozart: he was so imaginative that he couldn't turn it off, and that made his music at times intense, even demonic. Hence Mozart's bad, or cautionary, reviews: "too strongly spiced"; "impenetrable labyrinths"; "bizarre flights of the soul"; "overloaded and overstuffed". [unquote]
> 
> Unfortunately, they did not have the advantage of repeated hearings from recordings where everything does not have to be perceived the first time. And their criticisms are the reverse of the ones on this thread: they weren't complaining about trills, so-called redundancies and clichés but too much information, intensity, and a super-abundance of imagination. Big difference!


----------



## Fredx2098

Larkenfield said:


> The famous complaint of Emperor Joseph II about The Marriage of Figaro - "too many notes, Mozart" - is generally perceived to be a gaffe by a blockhead. In fact, Joseph was echoing what nearly everybody, including his admirers, said about Mozart: he was so imaginative that he couldn't turn it off, and that made his music at times intense, even demonic. Hence Mozart's bad, or cautionary, reviews: "too strongly spiced"; "impenetrable labyrinths"; "bizarre flights of the soul"; "overloaded and overstuffed". [unquote]
> 
> Unfortunately, they did not have the advantage of having repeated hearings from recordings where everything does not have to be perceived the first time. And their criticisms are the reverse of the ones on this thread: they weren't complaining about so-called redundancies and clichés but too much information, intensity, and a super-abundance of imagination. Big difference!


Was he the first avant-garde composer?  Still controversial today!


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Mozart? Always bowing and scraping, that guy. And that fright wig and those satin pants! I mean, I'm as tolerant as the next guy, but count on it: If he's on one side of the street, I'll be on the other soon enough.


Don't forget the bleedin' trills


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> Was he the first avant-garde composer?  Still controversial today!


People like to cite the captious critics of the day to show that composers of the past were "avant-garde" or ahead of their time or misunderstood. The truth is that Mozart was fantastically successful; his operas played to cheering houses, his tunes were whistled in the street, and he made a ton of money. He wasn't really controversial then, and he isn't now.


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> People like to cite the captious critics of the day to show that composers of the past were "avant-garde" or ahead of their time or misunderstood. The truth is that Mozart was fantastically successful; his operas played to cheering houses, his tunes were whistled in the street, and he made a ton of money. He wasn't really controversial then, and he isn't now.


Well yes, that was my joke. He seems to be a bit controversial here from what I've seen though, and I wonder why.


----------



## Star

Fredx2098 said:


> Wouldn't I love Beethoven as well if I was predisposed to enjoy music by popular names? It's not exactly uncommon to enjoy Beethoven. I gather that people think Beethoven's music is more serious than Mozart's? I don't hear it, unless serious means to lack personal emotion. Beethoven usually hits my ears as hollow seriousness.


Maybe you should get your ears adjusted then?


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> Well yes, that was my joke. He seems to be a bit controversial here from what I've seen though, and I wonder why.


Because we're a motley crew of ignorami?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Refreshing to read some anti Beethoven views - let's have more.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> People like to cite the captious critics of the day to show that composers of the past were "avant-garde" or ahead of their time or misunderstood. The truth is that Mozart was fantastically successful; his operas played to cheering houses, his tunes were whistled in the street, and he made a ton of money. He wasn't really controversial then, and he isn't now.


He made a lot of money when he was in his hey day - the early 1780s - but that did not last long and after 1785 he was continually downgrading his living standards. Salieri was in a different league. Even Da Ponte always went begging to Salieri wanting to do his libretti. He only went to Mozart with Cosi after Salieri had rejected it. They whistled his tunes in Prague - not Vienna.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> Refreshing to read some anti Beethoven views - let's have more.


Beethoven -- the first composer to make a living by being in a bad mood.


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> People like to cite the captious critics of the day to show that composers of the past were "avant-garde" or ahead of their time or misunderstood. The truth is that Mozart was fantastically successful; his operas played to cheering houses, his tunes were whistled in the street, and he made a ton of money. He wasn't really controversial then, and he isn't now.


Well, this is true, up to a point, but his music was often considered to be unnecessarily complicated, too, which cost him dearly. But he wasn't really controversial, which means nothing anyway, since being controversial isn't a musical virtue. But yeah, it seems to have been a highlight of his life, to arrive in Prague in 1787 and hear them all whistling and singing tunes from Figaro. What a pity he didn't stay there after the success of Don Giovanni!


----------



## Kieran

Fredx2098 said:


> Was he the first avant-garde composer?  Still controversial today!


Neither. Unless we define "controversial today" as, "people still think Mozart is the proto-rockstar bloke from the movie, when in reality he was just a hardworking musician who was highly educated and maybe a little bit ordinary, otherwise..."


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> He made a lot of money when he was in his hey day - the early 1780s - but that did not last long and after 1785 he was continually downgrading his living standards. Salieri was in a different league. Even Da Ponte always went begging to Salieri wanting to do his libretti. He only went to Mozart with Cosi after Salieri had rejected it. They whistled his tunes in Prague - not Vienna.


I think we also ought to add that Mozart was pretty profligate with money. I think a relative described him 'like a child' (which is where the barmy caricature in Amadeus comes from) with money. But he was still getting commissions like Tito from royalty no less. What killed him may have been the overwork in trying to keep his earnings up with his spending.


----------



## DavidA

Kieran said:


> Well, this is true, up to a point, but his music was often considered to be unnecessarily complicated, too, which cost him dearly. But he wasn't really controversial, which means nothing anyway, since being controversial isn't a musical virtue. But yeah, it seems to have been a highlight of his life, to arrive in Prague in 1787 and hear them all whistling and singing tunes from Figaro. What a pity he didn't stay there after the success of Don Giovanni!


My goodness Figaro was highly controversial in its day, mocking the nobility.


----------



## Kieran

DavidA said:


> My goodness Figaro was highly controversial in its day, mocking the nobility.


This is true, but do we know if Mozart chose it because it was controversial - or because of its comic value? I suspect it was the latter...


----------



## Luchesi

* Mahler's last word before he died was “Mozart”.

* Rocker Eddie Van Halen named his son “Wolfgang van Halen” in honor of Mozart.

* One anagram of “Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart” is “A famous German waltz god.”

* Mozart had six children, but only two survived infancy. Neither of his two sons, Karl Thomas and Franz Xaver, married or had children.

* Mozart was a tenor. He was also left handed.

* Mozart’s wife destroyed many of his sketches and drafts after his death.

* Mozart had several pets, including a dog, a starling, a canary, and a horse.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I know a place where Ludwig does this in a quartet, with a humorous intent. But I can't recall an example from his piano music, if I understand your meaning correctly. Can I ask that you supply an example?


Well, it's not exactly "chords" that he does this on; it's usually bass notes in the left hand, which to me produces the same effect. It might be an arpeggiated figure, but there's so usually much pedal being used that it blurs into the same dramatic mush. Sometimes it's a rhythmic figuration that he repeats. You probably won't hear it. These are just pianistic conventions that sound clichéd to me. It's like he's trying to get the piano to sustain, like a violin, but due to the percussive nature of the piano, he just hammers away.

Piano Sonata #1 In F Minor, Op. 2/1 - 3. Menuetto: Allegretto

Piano Sonata #2 In A, Op. 2/2 - 1. Allegro Vivace

Piano Sonata #4 In E Flat, Op. 7 - 1. Allegro Molto E Con Brio


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> People like to cite the captious critics of the day to show that composers of the past were "avant-garde" or ahead of their time or misunderstood. The truth is that Mozart was fantastically successful; his operas played to cheering houses, his tunes were whistled in the street, and he made a ton of money. He wasn't really controversial then, and he isn't now.


If there is any "modern thinking" in composers such as Mozart or Beethoven, it's usually well-hidden, but it's there. Look for it in Mozart's chromatic tendencies, and in the use of diminished seventh chords. Beethoven also, in the late quartets, where he turns dim7 chords into 7#9 chords (known now as altered dominants). Bach as well.
This has nothing to do with popularity, but in the way the real 'greats' were able to see past the 7-note diatonic system into the 12-note chromatic spectrum. The diminished seventh chord is one of the "cracks" in the diatonic scale system; they're hard to "spell" as seventh chords, and they have "dual natures."

Any composer who is able to use these "out of the diatonic box" concepts, meaning concepts which are chromatic in nature, are using "modern" musical thought, since they use ideas derived from the 12-division of the octave.


----------



## Euler

Yes Mozart could be fiercely chromatic and unsettling against the prevailing tide of bland galanterie. Imagine hearing the E-flat Haydn quartet (K. 428) in 1783. Wouldn't this strike us as wonderfully strange, transgressive even? But Woodduck's point about provincial critics who knew only the latest fashions is a good one. Repelled by chromaticism some 200 years after Cipriano de Rore and Marenzio and Gesualdo? It seems funny today; at least they had better excuses for ignorance than us internet geeks.

The caricature of Mozart as twee robot is, of course, equally idiotic as pretending he wrote a volley of impenetrable violence.

As for Mozart being modern or avant-garde, I don't think his chromaticism really qualifies. That's as old as the hills, and all composers good, great and woeful have used it. I agree that controversial isn't synonymous with revolutionary; Giulio Caccini strikes me as far more inventive than, say, Dick Higgins. Mozart's development of the keyboard concerto and opera better illustrate his restlessness IMO.


----------



## Luchesi

Euler said:


> Yes Mozart could be fiercely chromatic and unsettling against the prevailing tide of bland galanterie. Imagine hearing the E-flat Haydn quartet (K. 428) in 1783. Wouldn't this strike us as wonderfully strange, transgressive even? But Woodduck's point about provincial critics who knew only the latest fashions is a good one. Repelled by chromaticism some 200 years after Cipriano de Rore and Marenzio and Gesualdo? It seems funny today; at least they had better excuses for ignorance than us internet geeks.
> 
> The caricature of Mozart as twee robot is, of course, equally idiotic as pretending he wrote a volley of impenetrable violence.
> 
> As for Mozart being modern or avant-garde, I don't think his chromaticism really qualifies. That's as old as the hills, and all composers good, great and woeful have used it. I agree that controversial isn't synonymous with revolutionary; Giulio Caccini strikes me as far more inventive than, say, Dick Higgins. Mozart's development of the keyboard concerto and opera better illustrate his restlessness IMO.


I guess he just wrote this Gigue for fun. k574


----------



## KenOC

I suspect that some of the very real reaction against Mozart was due to his love for counterpoint, which still stank of pre-enlightenment culture to some. Even Beethoven was criticized early on in some of his reviews. Of his Op. 12 violin sonatas: "Learned, learned, ever more learned, and no nature, no song!"


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> * Mahler's last word before he died was "Mozart".
> 
> * Rocker Eddie Van Halen named his son "Wolfgang van Halen" in honor of Mozart.
> 
> * One anagram of "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" is "A famous German waltz god."
> 
> * Mozart had six children, but only two survived infancy. Neither of his two sons, Karl Thomas and Franz Xaver, married or had children.
> 
> * Mozart was a tenor. He was also left handed.
> 
> * Mozart's wife destroyed many of his sketches and drafts after his death.
> 
> * Mozart had several pets, including a dog, a starling, a canary, and a horse.


Thanks for these facts - what Constanze destroyed was a pile of what she considered to be worthless doodling and sketches.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Euler said:


> Yes Mozart could be fiercely chromatic and unsettling against the prevailing tide of bland galanterie. Imagine hearing the E-flat Haydn quartet (K. 428) in 1783. Wouldn't this strike us as wonderfully strange, transgressive even? But Woodduck's point about provincial critics who knew only the latest fashions is a good one. Repelled by chromaticism some 200 years after Cipriano de Rore and Marenzio and Gesualdo? It seems funny today; at least they had better excuses for ignorance than us internet geeks.
> 
> The caricature of Mozart as twee robot is, of course, equally idiotic as pretending he wrote a volley of impenetrable violence.
> 
> As for Mozart being modern or avant-garde, I don't think his chromaticism really qualifies. That's as old as the hills, and all composers good, great and woeful have used it. I agree that controversial isn't synonymous with revolutionary; Giulio Caccini strikes me as far more inventive than, say, Dick Higgins. Mozart's development of the keyboard concerto and opera better illustrate his restlessness IMO.


I have no training to talk about chromatic music or dimished 7ths. However - listening to some of Mozart's more daring compositions I cant believe they were not though of as exceptionally modern for their times - in the same way when we see an abstract piece of art we can fathom we dismiss or rank it modern - too too modern. The opening of the g minor quartet for example - the dissonance quartet - minor key concertos - don giovanni d minor stone guest scene.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Thanks for these facts - what Constanze destroyed was a pile of what she considered to be worthless doodling and sketches.


I wonder what modern scholars could have made of that pile. Interesting but endless speculating..

This scholar plays an early version of K284 piano sonata in D major.






Not the Mozartian perfection we're accustomed to.


----------



## eugeneonagain

And yet a crossed-out draft with 0 mistakes. Long live the king.


----------



## Euler

stomanek said:


> I have no training to talk about chromatic music or dimished 7ths. However - listening to some of Mozart's more daring compositions I cant believe they were not though of as exceptionally modern for their times - in the same way when we see an abstract piece of art we can fathom we dismiss or rank it modern - too too modern. The opening of the g minor quartet for example - the dissonance quartet - minor key concertos - don giovanni d minor stone guest scene.


Yes, there's innovation aplenty in his operas as early as Idomeneo, and his concertos from Jenamy onwards.
As said I do think aspects of his music would seem wild-hearted to contemporary audiences and conservative critics, given the prevailing style. But that prevailing style was one of simplicity, formality and even temper. Haydn and Mozart's development of the Classical style into a more adventurous realm was partly regressive, for example integrating baroque counterpoint, re-loosening the strictures of tonic-dominant polarity, or writing with the grandeur we hear in the likes of K.503 and K. 504, K. 515 and K. 516 etc etc. Whether this combination of new and old amounts to innovation depends on definitions I guess.

Personally I feel Mozart's oeuvre is so littered with miracles we don't need to pretend he was a demented radical who left audiences perplexed for decades hence. Rather part of his genius resides in his alliance of depth and accessibility.


----------



## Luchesi

Euler said:


> Yes, there's innovation aplenty in his operas as early as Idomeneo, and his concertos from Jenamy onwards.
> As said I do think aspects of his music would seem wild-hearted to contemporary audiences and conservative critics, given the prevailing style. But that prevailing style was one of simplicity, formality and even temper. Haydn and Mozart's development of the Classical style into a more adventurous realm was partly regressive, for example integrating baroque counterpoint, re-loosening the strictures of tonic-dominant polarity, or writing with the grandeur we hear in the likes of K.503 and K. 504, K. 515 and K. 516 etc etc. Whether this combination of new and old amounts to innovation depends on definitions I guess.
> 
> Personally I feel Mozart's oeuvre is so littered with miracles we don't need to pretend he was a demented radical who left audiences perplexed for decades hence. Rather part of his genius resides in his alliance of depth and accessibility.


Life was hard and even the comfortable classes wanted soothing, clever, attractive music. I doubt they wanted much pathos. The appetite for drama was growing, but it was mixed with humor. Anyway, that's the way I see those audiences. The turmoil in France began in the late 1780s.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> People like to cite the captious critics of the day to show that composers of the past were "avant-garde" or ahead of their time or misunderstood. The truth is that Mozart was fantastically successful; his operas played to cheering houses, his tunes were whistled in the street, and he made a ton of money. He wasn't really controversial then, and he isn't now.


I disagree to an extent. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were controversial. And Wagner even more so (not forgetting Schumann and Chopin). They were transgressive, were considered at least a little avant-garde, in a way that Haydn never was. All were accused of not writing music. However there is a great gulf between that and some of the 20th century heroes, who were sprayed with volleys of opprobrium and uncomprehension. Mozart and Beethoven were also popular in certain quarters. Haydn was probably much more popular than Mozart however, except (it seems) in Prague. Certain 20th century lions haven't had much approbation anywhere.


----------



## Eusebius12

Kieran said:


> Neither. Unless we define "controversial today" as, "people still think Mozart is the proto-rockstar bloke from the movie, when in reality he was just a hardworking musician who was highly educated and maybe a little bit ordinary, otherwise..."


He seems to have been personally rather odd. He doesn't appear to have been highly educated outside of music. He wasn't interested in philosophy as far as we know. No mention of science really in his letters that I am aware of. He did have a peculiar laugh, this is attested. He had a childlike predisposition towards practical jokes. There is a report of him leaping up out of a chair and pretending to be a cat. There is a childlike innocence, and yet _scatology_, about his letters. I don't believe it is necessary to demystify him. He was at least a bit weird. His childhood was far from normal.


----------



## Eusebius12

Kieran said:


> This is true, but do we know if Mozart chose it because it was controversial - or because of its comic value? I suspect it was the latter...


Don Giovanni was controversial. It was considered immoral. Beethoven considered it so. And the dinner scene might have disturbed some of its early listeners. And Cosi Fan Tutte is pretty heavy going even today, with its anti-love message. Mind you Mozart would only advise Da Ponte on the libretti, not dictate the subjects. Figaro was much lighter fare, especially after the play was fairly bowdlerized.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eusebius12 said:


> I disagree to an extent. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were controversial. And Wagner even more so (not forgetting Schumann and Chopin). They were transgressive, were considered at least a little avant-garde, in a way that Haydn never was. All were accused of not writing music. However there is a great gulf between that and some of the 20th century heroes, who were sprayed with volleys of opprobrium and uncomprehension. Mozart and Beethoven were also popular in certain quarters. Haydn was probably much more popular than Mozart however, except (it seems) in Prague. Certain 20th century lions haven't had much approbation anywhere.


Beethoven was almost universally revered in and throughout his lifetime. Some of his most innovative middle-period works (Eroica, Fifth Symphony) only mystified segments of his audience for a short time before achieving mass adulation. As for the late sonatas and quartets, some of those are still mystifying.

Bach considered avant-garde? What are you talking about?


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Beethoven was almost universally revered in and throughout his lifetime. Some of his most innovative middle-period works (Eroica, Fifth Symphony) only mystified segments of his audience for a short time before achieving mass adulation. As for the late sonatas and quartets, some of those are still mystifying.


Interestingly, although audiences might have found Beethoven's late music mystifying, they certainly had an appetite for it. Starting with the Missa Solemnis, Beethoven supplemented his publisher's payments by selling "subscriptions" in advance, which seem to have included admissions to early performances along with etched scores when available.

In the case of the last quartets, publishers paid Beethoven quite handsomely since they anticipated very good sales of the sheet music - not necessarily for performance, but as "study scores" for a public anxious to learn more about this "modern music." Mendelssohn was likely an enthusiastic customer (much against his father's wishes) and I'd guess Schubert as well.


----------



## Eusebius12

EdwardBast said:


> Beethoven was almost universally revered in and throughout his lifetime. Some of his most innovative middle-period works (Eroica, Fifth Symphony) only mystified segments of his audience for a short time before achieving mass adulation. As for the late sonatas and quartets, some of those are still mystifying.
> 
> Bach considered avant-garde? What are you talking about?


Bach was extremely dissonant for the time. His music was called ugly by several critics. He was more or less forgotten (except by good musicians) after his death. Beethoven was revered, almost universally recognized as a genius, but his music was far less popular than Rossini or Weber, let alone the writers of ephemera. He earned good money for his scores (sometimes playing publishers against one another) but how many amateurs could cope with the abstruseness of op.106, or the late quartets? Still, it is true that there was some mass awareness of his work. Certainly some of his concerts in Vienna were well intended (even if they often ended in fiasco).


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Interestingly, although audiences might have found Beethoven's late music mystifying, they certainly had an appetite for it. Starting with the Missa Solemnis, Beethoven supplemented his publisher's payments by selling "subscriptions" in advance, which seem to have included admissions to early performances along with etched scores when available.
> 
> In the case of the last quartets, publishers paid Beethoven quite handsomely since they anticipated very good sales of the sheet music - not necessarily for performance, but as "study scores" for a public anxious to learn more about this "modern music." Mendelssohn was likely an enthusiastic customer (much against his father's wishes) and I'd guess Schubert as well.


Poor old Schubert. Whilst Beethoven drove his publishers hard, even engaging in occasional sharp practise, Schubert received very little of the remuneration that his publishers received for his works (especially his songs, which were popular). Publishers exploited Schubert brutally.


----------



## Aloevera

I'm honestly trying to get myself exposed to other music especially romantic music, I really am. I know by doing so it would improve my piano playing but I don't know, it's hard to explain, I can hear the most beautiful romantic music but there is still some feeling of existential dread like a departure from home


----------



## janxharris

Aloevera said:


> I'm honestly trying to get myself exposed to other music especially romantic music, I really am. I know by doing so it would improve my piano playing but I don't know, it's hard to explain, I can hear the most beautiful romantic music but there is still some feeling of existential dread like a departure from home


???.......................................


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> Poor old Schubert. Whilst Beethoven drove his publishers hard, even engaging in occasional sharp practise, Schubert received very little of the remuneration that his publishers received for his works (especially his songs, which were popular). Publishers exploited Schubert brutally.


Beethoven was adept at dealing with publishers, dealing honestly (in most cases) and receiving the same in return. His claim to not know arithmetic was possibly bogus, since he was able to drive a sharp bargain.

As an example, he sold his very first opus, the Op. 1 piano trios, in a complex deal involving up-front cash and free printed scores for gifts and/or personal sale. Cooper estimates that this sale made him enough money to live comfortably in Vienna for half a year! Amusingly, he then bought himself a horse and carriage, possibly to seem less of a country rube in the big city. But he almost never used them, and was outraged to find that the man he trusted to look after them was renting them out on his own account and pocketing the proceeds.


----------



## Aloevera

janxharris said:


> ???.......................................


I was beginning to take what other people were saying into account. That maybe Mozart is a bit overhyped, and only sounds special because of the humane desire to want to hear something divine but that placement turns to dogma. I thought perhaps I was being dogmatic so I tried giving the romantics a serious listen. For a while I thought they right as many of the piano pieces make Mozart's sonatas seem like tacky little excirsizes. Then I just feel a huge burden of existential dread and have to return to Mozart to put myself at ease


----------



## Jacck

Aloevera said:


> I was beginning to take what other people were saying into account. That maybe Mozart is a bit overhyped, and only sounds special because of the humane desire to want to hear something divine but that placement turns to dogma. I thought perhaps I was being dogmatic so I tried giving the romantics a serious listen. For a while I thought they right as many of the piano pieces make Mozart's sonatas seem like tacky little excirsizes. Then I just feel a huge burden of existential dread and have to return to Mozart to put myself at ease


Incidentally, I have spent a lot of time lately listening to piano sonatas - Mozart, Beethoven, Bach (English suites, French suites, keyboard partitas), Schumann, Prokofiev. I love them all. It would be difficult to rank them, but I would definitely place Bach on top. These 18 keyboard suites of Bach (French, Englisch, partitas) are imho some of the best music ever written. But they are demanding and require repeated listening to get. But the Mozart piano sonatas are wonderful. No doubt, but so is Schumann, so is Beethoven and so is Prokofiev and Scriabin and many others.


----------



## Aloevera

Jacck said:


> Incidentally, I have spent a lot of time lately listening to piano sonatas - Mozart, Beethoven, Bach (English suites, French suites, keyboard partitas), Schumann, Prokofiev. I love them all. It would be difficult to rank them, but I would definitely place Bach on top. These 18 keyboard suites of Bach (French, Englisch, partitas) are imho some of the best music ever written. But they are demanding and require repeated listening to get. But the Mozart piano sonatas are wonderful. No doubt, but so is Schumann, so is Beethoven and so is Prokofiev and Scriabin and many others.


I mean personally I wouldn't say Mozart's piano sonatas are his high points. Even playing anything by Bach the melodic lines and counter point are much more detailed, in fact in every category there is something which another composer does better at but its difficult to explain, but too much listening to even Bach would make require my soul to be re-watered by Mozart or else I'll become malnourished.

Edit: No doubt that if anyone is a serious musician be it listener or composer they need to listen to many forms of music. And of course I can appreciate many classical pieces and Id say music has progressed since no doubt. IN fact my style in playing is in many ways the exact opposite of his. However to me, Mozart represents a brief period in time - if we are to be Hegelians - that the universe gains awareness of itself


----------



## Kieran

Eusebius12 said:


> Don Giovanni was controversial. It was considered immoral. Beethoven considered it so. And the dinner scene might have disturbed some of its early listeners. And Cosi Fan Tutte is pretty heavy going even today, with its anti-love message. Mind you Mozart would only advise Da Ponte on the libretti, not dictate the subjects. Figaro was much lighter fare, especially after the play was fairly bowdlerized.


Well, the fact that Beethoven found it immoral doesn't mean it was. Nor, apart from the aristocracy behaving terribly angle, is it controversial. And I don't remember reading that it caused a scandal in its day. Tales of Don Juan were woefully common at the time...


----------



## Kieran

Eusebius12 said:


> He seems to have been personally rather odd. He doesn't appear to have been highly educated outside of music. He wasn't interested in philosophy as far as we know. No mention of science really in his letters that I am aware of. He did have a peculiar laugh, this is attested. He had a childlike predisposition towards practical jokes. There is a report of him leaping up out of a chair and pretending to be a cat. There is a childlike innocence, and yet _scatology_, about his letters. I don't believe it is necessary to demystify him. He was at least a bit weird. His childhood was far from normal.


Scatology was not strange humour at that time. Still isn't, to be honest. Mozart's mother sent him a stinking pile of scatalogical jokes. His personality will continue to be debated, given that Schaffer and Pushkin, and a ton of silly Romantic notions, have gotten between us and the man, but he seems quite ordinary, and highly educated in music, maths, theatre, etc. His leaping around like a cat doesn't seem odd when you consider that maybe just before that he'd probably written an incredible amount of intoxicatingly gorgeous music. I've even seen it described as a sign of a well balanced personality!

His childhood was far from normal, indeed! But then, so was his whole life. The picture I get from Mozart, from his letters, contemporary accounts, is that of a single-minded hardworking musician, whose main aim was to pocket some money to feed his loved ones, and to try be financially independent enough to compose more and more operas...


----------



## DavidA

Eusebius12 said:


> Don Giovanni was controversial. It was considered immoral. Beethoven considered it so. And the dinner scene might have disturbed some of its early listeners. And Cosi Fan Tutte is pretty heavy going even today, with its anti-love message. Mind you Mozart would only advise Da Ponte on the libretti, not dictate the subjects. Figaro was much lighter fare, especially after the play was fairly bowdlerized.


The Don was a reflection of da Ponte's own experiences - also Casanova who advised him on the libretto. Yes it is immoral in that it is the story of a psychopathic sex maniac who looks upon women as a plaything. The interest lies in the surrounding characters. Of course, the audience has the satisfaction of knowing the villain is pulled down to hell for his crimes.
I'm surprised you find Cosi heavy going. Probably some modern productions make it so by taking it too seriously. It is of course a bitter-sweet farce which was never meant to be taken too seriously. Both da Ponte and Mozart had their tongues in their artistic cheeks here. One notices how the men behave worse than the women from a modern perspective! Cosi fan Tutte should be applied to everyone. The thing it has going for it is some of the most miraculous operatic music ever written. In fact I think it was Wagner who felt disgusted that such wonderful music should be wasted on such a plot.
Figaro lighter fare? Don't think so. Probably that was the most controversial of Mozart's operas, cocking a snook at the aristocracy of the day.


----------



## Jacck

Kieran said:


> Scatology was not strange humour at that time. Still isn't, to be honest. Mozart's mother sent him a stinking pile of scatalogical jokes. His personality will continue to be debated, given that Schaffer and Pushkin, and a ton of silly Romantic notions, have gotten between us and the man, but he seems quite ordinary, and highly educated in music, maths, theatre, etc.


scatological humor and bad language are a cultural thing among the Germanic tribes (Germany, Austria, Anglo-Saxon world) - they use mostly words like aßß, aßßhole, ßhit. The latin/roman tribes and also the slavic tribes use mostly genitalia, both male and female. I wonder what papa Freud would have thought of it. The Germans are obsessed with order (Ordnung) and cleanliness (Reiningkeit), maybe it has something to do with the **** stage of psychosexual development (see Freud)


----------



## Luchesi

Aloevera said:


> I mean personally I wouldn't say Mozart's piano sonatas are his high points. Even playing anything by Bach the melodic lines and counter point are much more detailed, in fact in every category there is something which another composer does better at but its difficult to explain, but too much listening to even Bach would make require my soul to be re-watered by Mozart or else I'll become malnourished.
> 
> Edit: No doubt that if anyone is a serious musician be it listener or composer they need to listen to many forms of music. And of course I can appreciate many classical pieces and Id say music has progressed since no doubt. IN fact my style in playing is in many ways the exact opposite of his. However to me, Mozart represents a brief period in time - if we are to be Hegelians - that the universe gains awareness of itself


 "However to me, Mozart represents a brief period in time - if we are to be Hegelians - that the universe gains awareness of itself."

Yes and look at how much the universe has learned since Mozart's time. One of the ramifications of string theory is that we're actually the universe. There's none of the expected boundaries from classical physics within this sea of Dark Matter. So therefore, Minimalism is the most appropriate idea for music, universally.

I avoid Minimalism, like I avoid Calabi Yau descriptions of matter.


----------



## Eusebius12

DavidA said:


> The Don was a reflection of da Ponte's own experiences - also Casanova who advised him on the libretto. Yes it is immoral in that it is the story of a psychopathic sex maniac who looks upon women as a plaything. The interest lies in the surrounding characters. Of course, the audience has the satisfaction of knowing the villain is pulled down to hell for his crimes.
> I'm surprised you find Cosi heavy going. Probably some modern productions make it so by taking it too seriously. It is of course a bitter-sweet farce which was never meant to be taken too seriously. Both da Ponte and Mozart had their tongues in their artistic cheeks here. One notices how the men behave worse than the women from a modern perspective! Cosi fan Tutte should be applied to everyone. The thing it has going for it is some of the most miraculous operatic music ever written. In fact I think it was Wagner who felt disgusted that such wonderful music should be wasted on such a plot.
> Figaro lighter fare? Don't think so. Probably that was the most controversial of Mozart's operas, cocking a snook at the aristocracy of the day.


Figaro was much more political in its original stage version though. The anti-aristocratic tone was far less explicit in the Da Ponte/Mozart version. Even the Viennese censors allowed it without a murmur (although the original was banned)


----------



## Luchesi

Anyone here interested in music theory who isn't a little interested in physics?


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Anyone here interested in music theory who isn't a little interested in physics?


I've studied music theory, analyzed scores, and composed music - I particularly enjoy writing counterpoint - but have little interest in physics beyond knowing that hot air rises and cold air sinks, which helps me decide which way to aim the flaps on my air conditioner.

I suspect Mozart didn't even care to know that much.


----------



## DavidA

Eusebius12 said:


> Figaro was much more political in its original stage version though. The anti-aristocratic tone was far less explicit in the Da Ponte/Mozart version. Even the Viennese censors allowed it without a murmur (although the original was banned)


da Ponte applied self censorship when writing the libretto. Rather than revolution, the main theme of the opera became love and forgiveness. However, it was still seen as cocking a snook at the aristocracy


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> I've studied music theory, analyzed scores, and composed music - I particularly enjoy writing counterpoint - but have little interest in physics beyond knowing that hot air rises and cold air sinks, which helps me decide which way to aim the flaps on my air conditioner.
> 
> I suspect Mozart didn't even care to know that much.


Thanks. That's interesting.


----------



## Eusebius12

DavidA said:


> I'm surprised you find Cosi heavy going. Probably some modern productions make it so by taking it too seriously. It is of course a bitter-sweet farce which was never meant to be taken too seriously. Both da Ponte and Mozart had their tongues in their artistic cheeks here. One notices how the men behave worse than the women from a modern perspective! Cosi fan Tutte should be applied to everyone. The thing it has going for it is some of the most miraculous operatic music ever written. In fact I think it was Wagner who felt disgusted that such wonderful music should be wasted on such a plot.


I suppose I have taken it too literally, as have (as you say) some modern productions. It is a bit radical, how many operas seem to have such a cynical anti-love message (if that is how you interpret it. I realize that there are other interpretations and valid ones). For that matter how many modern Hollywood movies. A movie or TV sitcom with a similar theme would almost certainly tank in the United States, 200+ years later.


----------



## DavidA

Eusebius12 said:


> I suppose I have taken it too literally, as have (as you say) some modern productions. It is a bit radical, how many operas seem to have such a cynical anti-love message (if that is how you interpret it. I realize that there are other interpretations and valid ones). For that matter how many modern Hollywood movies. A movie or TV sitcom with a similar theme would almost certainly tank in the United States, 200+ years later.


The problem is that Cosi was written in an age where people thought differently to what we do. To try and update it something is lost unless it's a farce


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> If there is any "modern thinking" in composers such as Mozart or Beethoven, it's usually well-hidden, but it's there. Look for it in Mozart's chromatic tendencies, and in the use of diminished seventh chords. Beethoven also, in the late quartets, where he turns dim7 chords into 7#9 chords (known now as altered dominants). Bach as well.
> This has nothing to do with popularity, but in the way the real 'greats' were able to see past the 7-note diatonic system into the 12-note chromatic spectrum. The diminished seventh chord is one of the "cracks" in the diatonic scale system; they're hard to "spell" as seventh chords, and they have "dual natures."
> 
> Any composer who is able to use these "out of the diatonic box" concepts, meaning concepts which are chromatic in nature, are using "modern" musical thought, since they use ideas derived from the 12-division of the octave.


The simple view is that we look for integer patterns and symmetry in every one of the arts. We start out with nursery rhymes then we explore the level of Mozart, and then on through to the complexities of Mahler. Composers got tired trying to rearrange the disguising leaps in the intervals of the tonality so they divided it all as far as they could (we still imagine we hear diatonics anyway) in the atonal direction. When the integers weren't found and the symmetry had to be imagined by very experienced listeners atonality faded. Minimalism came up as somewhat of a reaction to try to find imagined or unconscious symmetries with a minimum of tonal relationships.

Composers didn't want to sound corny. They were serious creators.


----------

