# Be Honest Here #4: Do you think Mozart overrated?



## Guest

Yes. Mozart is the next topic which i have picked upon in my Honest series [It's a series now ]

I have always found him both overrated and his works unlikable. So _simple_. Ofcourse, the age old argument... There is a _depth_ which i cannot hear. Fine! Regardless, i find his works simple. I do not find his symphonies or his piano concerti/sonatas appealing at all and so i dislike his works.

Now, overrated or dislike... I would like to group them so if you feel either of the two, click yes. It is not the most perfect decision but it is what it is.


----------



## JohannesBrahms

I think Mozart is overrated. That is not to say that I think he is a bad composer. I just don't enjoy any of his works, except for the piano sonatas, which even those I don't listen to very often at all. I think people make him out to be a better composer than he is. He is usually grouped with Bach and Beethoven, when really he is just not at their level.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I cast my vote: no. I'll leave the comments to others.


----------



## ahammel

I think the term 'overrated' is overrated.

Wolfie is just rated enough, though.


----------



## Op.123

I accidentally went for yes.


----------



## Kieran

Burroughs said:


> I accidentally went for yes.


It's subliminal - you know you wanted to...


----------



## Ukko

karajan said:


> [...]
> I have always found him both overrated and his works unlikable. [...]


In the spirit of the _Geezer Tradition_, I point out that, for you, _always_ doesn't cover much.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Certainly not around these parts. Personally, I find him second only to J.S. Bach. His operas are magical. His late symphonies and late quartets fabulous. He is unrivaled for the piano concerto... and there are endless works... well-known and less-well-known... that never fail to enthrall: the clarinet quintet and concerto, the violin concertos, the Gran Partita, etc... Is the music "deep"? How do we measure depth? No; Mozart doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve and flaunt his emotions. He's not Beethoven or Mahler. But Beethoven and Mahler are not Mozart. You cannot measure the worth of one composer by comparing him with the goals and standards of another composer. I love Beethoven and Mahler (among many others)... but I also love Mozart and find in no way is he overrated.


----------



## ptr

He most certainly is overrated, that is why he is such a fascinating figure! 

/ptr


----------



## ahammel

karajan said:


> YI have always found him both overrated and his works unlikable. So _simple_.


Here's the thing, though: they aren't. He's just making it look easy.

By way of analogy: Roger Federer is a very good tennis player. He plays a tremendous variety of shots amazingly well, his footwork is perfect, and he's one of the best tactical players ever. In contrast to, say, Rafael Nadal, he very rarely has to stretch to return a shot and he never grunts, in fact never has hair out of place, even if he's been playing for five hours. Unlike Nadal, whose exertions are always on display, watching Federer makes one forget that what he's doing is _incredibly_ difficult. He is such a good tennis player technically that the quality of his technique is concealed: it looks easy.

Mozart is like Roger Federer.

"_t is for the finale [of his 41st Symphony] that Mozart has reserved all the resources of his science, and all the power, which no one seems to have possessed to the same degree with himself, of concealing that science, and making it the vehicle for music as pleasing as it is learned."
-Sir George Grove_


----------



## Ravndal

If most people think he is the greatest composer of all, then yes - he is overrated to the skies. But I voted no. Even if I don't like his works, I can see that he is great. But far from the greatest.


----------



## mmsbls

When someone says that a particular composer is overrated, I simply take that to mean that person either does not enjoy or appreciate the merits of the composer's music as much as the rest of the listening community. I assume everyone here knows that Mozart is routinely considered one of 3 truly great composers, that countless great composers value his music supremely, and that critics give him the highest praise. 

So if one considers Mozart overrated, what is different about that person? Why does that person not value Mozart's music supremely? Obviously people can like or dislike any music, and maybe it's nice to know that you are not alone in your feelings about Mozart as long as people realize that considering Mozart overrated is really a comment about themselves and not Mozart's music.

My view is simply that I know of no composer who has created as much beautiful music across so many genres. Like many others in the past, I consider the mere fact of his musical output almost beyond comprehension.


----------



## DavidA

No certainly not. You cannot overrate a staggering genius.


----------



## chrisco97

I think he is rated just right. Praise should be given where it is due.


----------



## Mahlerian

No. He is not. These "Be Honest Here" polls are surprisingly easy for me to be honest about!


----------



## Ingélou

ahammel said:


> Here's the thing, though: they aren't. He's just making it look easy.
> 
> Mozart is like Roger Federer.


A very apt analogy, ahammel. Grace & elegance can so easily be misjudged as 'simple'.

Myself, I thought of Jane Austen, and how many clever but conceited students I've taught who told me she was just another romantic novelist, missing the wit, irony, precision of language, subtle delineation of character, humanity, clarity of intellect, and intricate plotting skills that Jane Austen possesses.

Mozart is wonderful! And certainly not overrated.


----------



## Ukko

"possesses"

Hey Teach...


----------



## Ingélou

Hilltroll72 said:


> "possesses"
> 
> Hey Teach...


Something wrong?

Present tense because she is timeless - four esses because it does have - used the bigger word because 'has' at the end of my list would have sounded bathetic.

Any more questions?


----------



## Kieran

Ingenue said:


> Something wrong?
> 
> Present tense because she is timeless - *four esses because it does have* - used the bigger word because 'has' at the end of my list would have sounded bathetic.
> 
> Any more questions?


Ah Teach! *Possesses *possesses 5 esses! :devil:


----------



## Ingélou

Kieran said:


> Ah Teach! *Possesses *possesses 5 esses! :devil:


Time to crawl under the table again!


----------



## Kieran

Ingenue said:


> Time to crawl under the table again!


:lol: I don't which you teach, maths or spelling, but you have your homework laid out for tonight!


----------



## violadude

karajan said:


> So _simple_. Ofcourse, the age old argument... There is a _depth_ which i cannot hear. Fine! Regardless, i find his works simple.


Whoever gave you this argument was being honest.


----------



## Ukko

Ingenue said:


> Something wrong?
> 
> Present tense because she is timeless - four esses because it does have - used the bigger word because 'has' at the end of my list would have sounded bathetic.
> 
> Any more questions?


Five esses there... one long hisssss. And this 'bathetic' you use... are you obsessed with cleanliness?

You see? there are esthetics involved in word choice, and clues for the psychoanalyst.

[And I never got to pick on my 6th grade teacher - who complained about mayonnaise on toast for breakfast.]


----------



## Ingélou

Hilltroll72 said:


> Five esses there... one long hisssss. And this 'bathetic' you use... are you obsessed with cleanliness?
> 
> You see? there are esthetics involved in word choice, and clues for the psychoanalyst.
> 
> [And I never got to pick on my 6th grade teacher - who complained about mayonnaise on toast for breakfast.]


Would it help my defence if I told you that I lisped? Pretty bold, in the circs, to use a word with five esses.

To be honest, you were the first person to reply to my first thread, and I hadn't a clue what you were on about...

... and I still don't!


----------



## starry

ahammel said:


> I think the term 'overrated' is overrated.


Overhyped is a better word. There is probably an argument that Mozart, Beethoven and JS Bach are overhyped. But as they are very good it's not as bad a thing as it could have been had they been overrated.


----------



## schuberkovich

Mozart is _really _good.


----------



## Kieran

schuberkovich said:


> Mozart is _really _good.


He's twice as good as that! He's _really _really good!


----------



## moody

I think that you will agree that you should go away and look again--carefully.


----------



## Skilmarilion

I think the beauty of some of his works is _because of_ its simplicity - it can sound effortless but be phenomenally moving (the greatest example of this is the slow movement of the 23rd PC).

Mozart is far from overrated, imo. His genius is profound.


----------



## Feathers

No! He is definitely not overrated, and I am being honest! 

By the way, even though this thread is posted in Orchestral Music, my reply applies to his other music too!


----------



## Novelette

Sometimes I think he is overrated, in a different sort of way.

Much of Mozart's output, not unlike most composers, is bland and fairly uninteresting--at least in my reckoning. But the high points of his output are so excellent and complex [piano concerti and operas, especially--also piano quartets, etc.] that they easily thrust Mozart into the top tier of master composers. Yet I think that many of his most popular works [that is, universally popular], like the "Nachtmusik", are among Mozart's less impressive--by my reckoning, at least--works.

The piano concerti, excepting a famous ones, are not frequently heard. Likewise the operas are represented by only a comparatively small fraction of the whole--admittedly, though, monumental examples!

But then again, it's not for me to determine which works are and are not worthy of acclaim--'tis only my opinion. So it would be in keeping with the foregoing that I voted "yes", while adding the proviso that he is most certainly under-appreciated in other respects.


----------



## Air

I thought Mozart was overrated too, and then I discovered opera.


----------



## Ukko

Air said:


> I thought Mozart was overrated too, and then I discovered opera.


And then I returned to the mature piano concertos and realized that they are opera too..


----------



## PetrB

If you don't get Mozart, you really don't get music. Period.


----------



## bigshot

Ignorance is bliss


----------



## DavidA

Mozart's mature works are among the finest in every genre. We must remember that he died at the age of 35 so he had a very small window to work in when he had reached his maturity. The mature operas are the best ever written in my opinion - ie the da Ponte and the Flute. Mozart appears to get more expression in a phrase than most composers can get in a whole act. The piano concertos are the most sublime set of concertos ever written. And take the miracle of the last three symphonies! Mozart does not appeal to the heart on sleeve types but he was absolutely immense with genius.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> If you don't get Mozart, you really don't get music. Period.


This probably isn't a corollary, but maybe it's _one_ of those logic things: If you don't explore _widely_ the K numbers below 300, you don't really get Mozart.


----------



## violadude

I have two possible solutions for the op.

1). Spend time listening to other contemporaries of Mozart. Spend a lot of time listening to guys like Salieri, Boccherini, the Bach sons ect. All these composers are very good, but if you listen carefully to these composers for a while and then come back to Mozart you'll start to hear why he was so unique and amazing for his time period. 

2). If that fails, why don't you try writing some Mozart replicas since you think his music is so simple?  I mean, if you could write like Mozart it should get you at least somewhat well known even though it's 2013 now. It shouldn't be that hard for you to write such simple music, ya?


----------



## Kieran

Careful, violadude! You're applying logic to the matter. That very rarely works in threads like this...


----------



## Ukko

Kieran said:


> Careful, violadude! You're applying logic to the matter. That very rarely works in threads like this...


Yeah. We are trying to wax philosophical here. Any unavoidable logic must be circumspect, and preferably circumnavigated.


----------



## Kieran

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah. We are trying to wax philosophical here. Any unavoidable logic must be circumspect, and preferably circumnavigated.


When it comes to an argument like this, it's kind of like trying to describe the scent of a rose to a man without a nose. Takes a long time and ends in a compromise which doesn't please anybody...


----------



## Guest

These questions seem ridiculous. The fact that 2 centuries after his death, his name is still one of the most recognizable in the classical world, even to those who don't listen to classical, should stand for something. That is not overrated - that is staying power.

There is much depth in Mozart, for those who don't dismiss him as simplistic. He is the only composer who wrote operas that I actually liked. His late symphonies are some of the finest examples of the genre. His piano concerti are simply wonderful. His choral works (and no, I am not merely referring to his Requiem, which was finished by another) are impressive. Did he master every genre? No. He is not my preferred artist for string quartets, or piano sonatas, or several other genres. But the fact that he has recognizable and well received works in just about every genre is an impressive accomplishment. 

I think much of the classical period gets over-looked. For too many people, that period between the death of Bach and the advent of Beethoven is fly-over country. They miss out on much that is of great worth - C.P.E. Bach, Hummel, Haydn, Mozart, Boccherini, Gluck, etc. They don't have the ornamentation of Bach, or the proto-Romantic qualities of Beethoven, but were so critical for what followed. Would there have been the Beethoven symphonies and string quartets had there not first been the Haydn and Mozart string quartets? Such questions are obviously pointless hypotheticals, but I think not.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> No. He is not. These "Be Honest Here" polls are surprisingly easy for me to be honest about!


Yes, All my polls are being trashed by the community one by one. The replies which i get are most unexpected! I have read so many threads mentioning his overrated-ness and yet here we are...


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> I have two possible solutions for the op.
> 
> 1). Spend time listening to other contemporaries of Mozart. Spend a lot of time listening to guys like Salieri, Boccherini, the Bach sons ect. All these composers are very good, but if you listen carefully to these composers for a while and then come back to Mozart you'll start to hear why he was so unique and amazing for his time period.
> 
> 2). If that fails, why don't you try writing some Mozart replicas since you think his music is so simple?  I mean, if you could write like Mozart it should get you at least somewhat well known even though it's 2013 now. It shouldn't be that hard for you to write such simple music, ya?


That sir is most true... Perhaps as a mere teenage and just a new born listener my critique shows my impatience, naivety and more which perhaps even i do not possess the knowledge to understand.

Farewell sir!


----------



## moody

karajan said:


> Yes, All my polls are being trashed by the community one by one. The replies which i get are most unexpected! I have read so many threads mentioning his overrated-ness and yet here we are...


Pe5rhaps you should cease?


----------



## Guest

One day i might but my #3 is a hit! [Wrong adjective yes.. Still, the response is good.] Mozart is a composer where the listening community becomes very touchy. This response was obvious but i was searching for those rare one or two honest or different responses and i have been successful in finding them so in a way i have accomplished my task.


----------



## Ukko

karajan said:


> One day i might but my #3 is a hit! [Wrong adjective yes.. Still, the response is good.] Mozart is a composer where the listening community becomes very touchy. This response was obvious but i was searching for those rare one or two honest or different responses and i have been successful in finding them so in a way i have accomplished my task.


So... the one or two 'honest' responses were those that agreed that Mozart is overrated. Then the rest must be lies, eh?


----------



## moody

Having read what you have had to say maybe members will ignore you now.


----------



## Marisol

karajan said:


> I have always found him both overrated...


I find him somewhat overrated.


----------



## Guest

I don't understand the concept of over-rated. That seems to be more of a pop art/music phenomenon. In classical music circles, it seems that various works are rated fairly accurately. Now, you may argue over/under exposed, but that is a different matter. On here, the degree to which a work is esteemed seems to be based on exposure to the work. For the most part, when we say we enjoy a piece, it is because we have listened to it and rated it in our own minds. The same goes with composers in general. Mozart is highly rated around here because a majority, or at least a plurality, of individuals have listened to enough of his works to be convinced in their minds that he is a great composer. The fact that a minority dissents from that opinion is irrelevant, and does not make the composer "overrated." It just means that some people don't agree with the consensus. But the fact that there is dissent from the consensus doesn't negate the consensus opinion - it just means that most opinions are not monolithic.

There is an immature attitude in many discussions of taste and appeal that tends towards the iconoclastic - the notion that one must destroy all that one disagrees with. Hence the notion that, well, since I and a few others don't really like Mozart, he must be overrated. When you only seek out like-minded individuals, don't be surprised when you find your opinions are out of step with the consensus. It is very similar to the attitude of many New York City liberals following the landslide election in 1980 where Ronald Reagan thoroughly defeated Jimmy Carter - those individuals were so confused that Reagan won, because they didn't know a single person who had voted for him.

Ultimately, who cares if a composer is over or underrated. If you like the composer, who cares? If you want to discuss the composer, I have no doubt you will find like-minded individuals on here who will be happy to share in that conversation.


----------



## Guest

No! Not at all, my mind takes ease at knowing atleast _someone_ agrees with me. But ofcourse, if people mistaken what i have to say and decide to ignore me then perhaps i shouldn't attempt to get their attention.

Mozart may be a genius but i don't see it _yet_


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> I don't understand the concept of over-rated. That seems to be more of a pop art/music phenomenon. In classical music circles, it seems that various works are rated fairly accurately. Now, you may argue over/under exposed, but that is a different matter. On here, the degree to which a work is esteemed seems to be based on exposure to the work. For the most part, when we say we enjoy a piece, it is because we have listened to it and rated it in our own minds. The same goes with composers in general. Mozart is highly rated around here because a majority, or at least a plurality, of individuals have listened to enough of his works to be convinced in their minds that he is a great composer. The fact that a minority dissents from that opinion is irrelevant, and does not make the composer "overrated." It just means that some people don't agree with the consensus. But the fact that there is dissent from the consensus doesn't negate the consensus opinion - it just means that most opinions are not monolithic.
> 
> There is an immature attitude in many discussions of taste and appeal that tends towards the iconoclastic - the notion that one must destroy all that one disagrees with. Hence the notion that, well, since I and a few others don't really like Mozart, he must be overrated. When you only seek out like-minded individuals, don't be surprised when you find your opinions are out of step with the consensus. It is very similar to the attitude of many New York City liberals following the landslide election in 1980 where Ronald Reagan thoroughly defeated Jimmy Carter - those individuals were so confused that Reagan won, because they didn't know a single person who had voted for him.
> 
> Ultimately, who cares if a composer is over or underrated. If you like the composer, who cares? If you want to discuss the composer, I have no doubt you will find like-minded individuals on here who will be happy to share in that conversation.


Thank you, Dr. Mike. _THIS_ was the response which i needed. Simply because we don't agree with your opinion doesn't make us some sorta hobo in the classical music community.


----------



## Guest

karajan said:


> No! Not at all, my mind takes ease at knowing atleast _someone_ agrees with me. But ofcourse, if people mistaken what i have to say and decide to ignore me then perhaps i shouldn't attempt to get their attention.
> 
> *Mozart may be a genius but i don't see it yet*


And the big point to take from that is . . . that is just fine. Nobody says you have to like what everybody else likes. I readily recognize that Wagner's operas are recognized as greats, and Wagner is a great composer, very highly rated. But I have never really enjoyed his works, and don't care to hear them. I don't think he is overrated. I just think I don't see what others do. The same goes for Handel - apart from his Messiah, nothing else by him moves me. Ditto for Liszt.

And who cares?


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> And the big point to take from that is . . . that is just fine.


This statement is typical of a current of thought in our society that stresses tolerance of almost anything. But do we tolerate theft or murder? No we don't. And why? Because of the corrosive effects these have on society and our lives.

The same is true of music. We all know Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out good." If we tolerate bad music, gradually the good music will disappear and we'll be left with nothing but a toxic sea of sound.

So a misguided policy of tolerance of bad music will have the same effect on our lives as tolerating any other form of undesirable behavior. We must act NOW to save our musical environment. From recent posts here, it seems we might start by banning the music of both Mozart and Wagner.


----------



## moody

karajan said:


> No! Not at all, my mind takes ease at knowing atleast _someone_ agrees with me. But ofcourse, if people mistaken what i have to say and decide to ignore me then perhaps i shouldn't attempt to get their attention.
> 
> Mozart may be a genius but i don't see it _yet_


Nobody has to like a particular composer and all that needs saying is exactly that.
But a teenager doing his GCSE's doesn't hold that much credence when he stares that he finds Mozart OVERRATED.
I don't much like Bach but wouldn't even dare say that I consider him as overrated.


----------



## Marisol

Perhaps I do not understand the term "Overrated" but in the context of this discussion I think of people who constantly praise Mozart to the sky, biggest genius ever lived, best composer ever, raise you IQ with Mozart, etc.

Sure I think Mozart is a great composer but I think some people exaggerate, thus I believe he is somewhat overrated.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> This statement is typical of a current of thought in our society that stresses tolerance of almost anything. But do we tolerate theft or murder? No we don't. And why? Because of the corrosive effects these have on society and our lives.
> 
> The same is true of music. We all know Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out good." If we tolerate bad music, gradually the good music will disappear and we'll be left with nothing but a toxic sea of sound.
> 
> So a misguided policy of tolerance of bad music will have the same effect on our lives as tolerating any other form of undesirable behavior. We must act NOW to save our musical environment. From recent posts here, it seems we might start by banning the music of both Mozart and Wagner.


Excuse me? Really? My saying that it is okay that he doesn't yet see the greatness in Mozart is tantamount to tolerating theft and murder, and sets us down the path to banning Mozart and Wagner? THAT is ridiculous. Besides, I said nothing of the kind. I merely said it was okay if he doesn't yet get Mozart. Liking and appreciating music are two different things. I can not like something, and yet still appreciate it for what it is. When you say "tolerate bad music," I wonder who you present as the arbiter that gets to decide what qualifies as good and bad? Yours seems to be the misguided policy - some group gets to decide what is good and bad in music, and allowing any measure of music deemed not good is going to unsettle our heritage of classical music as we know it.

And how is taste in music - which is totally personal preference - at all on a level with crimes like theft and murder? Our focus in this forum is primarily western classical music. But there is no doubt a rich heritage of music from other regions of the world, for which I have absolutely no appreciation whatsoever, primarily because I have not been exposed to it. Is that okay, or should I go out and immediately learn it all and appreciate it immediately, lest our society be plunged into a horrific armageddon where possession of Mozart and Wagner will lead to your murder?


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> Excuse me? Really?


My humble post was written in the spirit of Swift's "A Modest Proposal." Of course I lack his talent, but even his famous effort was misunderstood... :tiphat:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

There are many works by Mozart that are terribly underrated and even more that are overrated, but I rarely listen to Mozart anyway.


----------



## moody

Marisol said:


> Perhaps I do not understand the term "Overrated" but in the context of this discussion I think of people who constantly praise Mozart to the sky, biggest genius ever lived, best composer ever, raise you IQ with Mozart, etc.
> 
> Sure I think Mozart is a great composer but I think some people exaggerate, thus I believe he is somewhat overrated.


I think your choice of words is correct and explains why he's looked upon the way he is...who do you consider better ??


----------



## Sonata

I personally never understood the desire to spend time discussing composers or musicians, etc that don't appeal to me as much as others, the ones I'd consider "overrated" or other such terms. If I don't care for them, if I'm tired of hearing how highly others regard him, what use would I have to spend more of my time discussing them?


----------



## DavidA

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> but I rarely listen to Mozart anyway.


Give yourself a treat sometime then by listening to Cosi fan Tutte. The musical inspiration boggles the mind!


----------



## Marisol

moody said:


> I think your choice of words is correct and explains why he's looked upon the way he is...who do you consider better ??


Actually I like Mozart a lot and he is one of my favorites of the period.

Better? 
I look more at intrinsic value and likability than seeing it as some kind of a race with fixed rules.

How do you suggest how we rate a composer objectively? 
Certainly there are technical aspects of composition, ability to orchestrate well, adherence to or creation of (new) forms, harmonic and rhythmic treatment, even the handwriting of the scores may matter, but I think the most important aspect is creativity and that makes most composers unique and incomparable, at least in my opinion.

The 'genius' early Mozart may have gotten a lot of 'help' from his father and was he really the best orchestrator of his time? He is in my opinion very good on form and very creative, surprising and dramatic but never over the top, however he was not the champion of chromaticism and that sometimes makes his music predictable, again in my opinion.


----------



## DavidA

Marisol said:


> makes his music predictable,


Mature Mozart is predictable for its genius!


----------



## trazom

People only say Mozart's music is predictable, AFTER they've heard the piece. This is a perfect example of hindsight bias/Mozart duping the common listener(no difficult task).


----------



## deggial

Sonata said:


> If I don't care for them, if I'm tired of hearing how highly others regard him, what use would I have to spend more of my time discussing them?


winning the argument would be the reason


----------



## trazom

And here are the opinions of every major figure, both in music(musicians, composers, conductors) and in other fields, who would vote "No" if they could:

*Karl Barth*

It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart.

Mozart creates music from a mysterious center, and so knows the limits to the right and the left, above and below. He maintains moderation.

Mozart's music always sounds unburdened, effortless, and light. This is why it unburdens, releases, and liberates us.

Mozart's music is an invitation to the listener to venture just a little out of the sense of his own subjectivity.

Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it.

*Leonard Bernstein*

It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.

Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's - the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering - a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages.

Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.

*Charles Gounod*

Before Mozart, all ambition turns to despair.

Mozart, prodigal heaven gave thee everything, grace and strength, abundance and moderation, perfect equilibrium.

Who has reached the extreme limits of scale with the same infallible precision, equally guarded against the false refinement of artificial elegance and the roughness of spurious force? Who has better known how to breathe anguish and dread into the purest and most exquisite forms?

Mozart exists, and will exist, eternally; divine Mozart - less a name, more a soul descending to us from the heavens, who appeared on this earth, stayed for a little over thirty years, and left it all the more rejuvenated, richer and happier for his appearance.

As with all great artists, Mozart expressed not only the soul, the taste and the aroma of his epoch, but also the spiritual world of man-man for all ages, in all the complexity of his desires, his struggles and ambivalence. Some of us, who only identify in Mozart a certain aristocratic refinement, may find these words strange. Often we meet with a condescending attitude towards him, to his music, reminiscent of chiming bells in a music box! ...'It's very nice, but not for me' say such people, 'give me passion - Beethoven, Brahms, tragic, monumental...' Such comments only reveal one thing, these people don't know Mozart.

*George Szell*

21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece.

Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.

Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.

*Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky*

I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.

Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.

Mozart is the musical Christ.

*Others*

Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another. ~ Claudio Arrau

Most of all I admire Mozart's capacity to be both deep and rational, a combination often said to be impossible. ~ Allan Bloom

Mozart combined high formality and playfulness that delights as no other composition in any other medium does. ~ Roy Blount, Jr.

In my dreams of heaven, I always see the great Masters gathered in a huge hall in which they all reside. Only Mozart has his own suite. ~ Victor Borge

Together with the puzzle, Mozart gives you the solution. ~ Ferruccio Busoni

If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity. ~ Johannes Brahms

It is a real pleasure to see music so bright and spontaneous expressed with corresponding ease and grace. ~ Johannes Brahms

Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head. ~ Frédéric Chopin

Mozart tapped the source from which all music flows, expressing himself with a spontaneity and refinement and breathtaking rightness. ~ Aaron Copland

Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory. ~ Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf

Mozart is sweet sunshine. ~ Antonin Dvorak

Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it - that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed. ~ Albert Einstein

Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard. ~ Gabriel Fauré

There are three things in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni. ~ Gustave Flaubert

Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do. ~ André Gide

A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing. ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct. ~ Edvard Grieg

Mozart never did too little and never too much; he always attains but never exceeds his goal. ~ Franz Grillparzer

How can such a disproportionately large number of people have a definite, and unusually positive relationship to Mozart? ~ Wolfgang Hildesheimer

The riddle of Mozart is precisely that "the man" refuses to be a key for solving it. In death, as in life, he conceals himself behind his work. ~ Wolfgang Hildesheimer

Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life. ~ E.T.A. Hoffmann

 Mozart said profound things and at the same time remained flippant and lively. ~ Michael Kennedy

Mozart has reached the boundary gate of music and leaped over it, leaving behind the old masters and moderns, and posterity itself. ~ A. Hyatt King

Mozart's music is so beautiful as to entice angels down to earth. ~ Franz Alexander von Kleist

The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen. ~ Wanda Landowska

Mozart resolved his emotions on a level that transformed them into moods uncontaminated by mortal anguish, enabling him to express the angelic anguish that is so peculiarly his own. ~ Yehudi Menuhin

Mozart is happiness before it has gotten defined. ~ Arthur Miller

Mozart wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages. ~ Franz Niemetschek

There was nothing exceptional about the physical presence of this extraordinary man; he was small and his appearance gave no sign of his genius, apart from his large intense eyes. [...] But in this ungainly body there dwelt an artistic genius such as Nature rarely bestows even upon her most treasured darlings. ~ Franz Niemetschek

Mozart was able to do what he wished in music and he never wished to do what was beyond him. ~ Romain Rolland

Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day! ~ Gioacchino Rossini

Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece. ~ Camille Saint-Saëns

What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient. ''~ Camille Saint-Saëns

Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters. ~ Artur Schnabel

The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to play because of the quantity of notes; grown-ups avoid him because of the quality of notes. ~ Artur Schnabel

A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me. ~ Franz Schubert

A world that has produced a Mozart is a world worth saving. What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart! ~ Franz Schubert

Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them? ~ Robert Schumann

Designing an opera by Mozart is like doing something for God - it's a labor of love. ~ Maurice Sendak

Mozart's music represents neither the prolonged sigh of faith that characterizes so much of the music written before his time, nor the stormy idealism which cloaks most music after him. Rather he is that mercurial balance of the skeptic and the humane. Like him, and in him, we can always discover new worlds. ~ Joseph Solman

Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. ~ Georg Solti

Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy. ~ Stendhal

I listened to the pure crystalline notes of one of Mozart's concertos dropping at my feet like leaves from the trees. ~ Virgil Thomson

Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection. ~ Donald Francis Tovey

Mozart's mental grip never loosens; he never abandons himself to any one sense; even at his most ecstatic moments his mind is vigorous, alert, and on the wing. He dives unerringly on to his finest ideas like a bird of prey, and once an idea is seized he soars off again with an undiminished power. ~ Walter J. Turner

Mozart's music is very mysterious. ~ Walter J. Turner

The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. ~ Richard Wagner

I never heard so much content in so short a period. ~ Pinchas Zukerman

If any fault had to be found in Mozart, it could surely be only this: that such abundance of beauty almost tires the soul, and the effect of the whole is sometimes obscured thereby. But happy the artist whose only fault lies in all too great perfection. ~ unknown music reviewer


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> There are many works by Mozart that are terribly underrated and even more that are overrated, but I rarely listen to Mozart anyway.


Not anymore anyway


----------



## KenOC

trazom said:


> And here are the opinions of every major figure, both in music(musicians, composers, conductors) and in other fields, who would vote "No" if they could:


You left out the composer Leopold Kozeluch, on Mozart's death: "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There are many works by Mozart that are terribly underrated and even more that are overrated, but I rarely listen to Mozart anyway.

And is such a statement likely to make me think less of Mozart... or less of you?


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

trazom said:


> People only say Mozart's music is predictable, AFTER they've heard the piece. This is a perfect example of hindsight bias/Mozart duping the common listener(no difficult task).


I don't think this is really on point. When else are they going to say that the piece was predictable? _Before_ they've heard it? I would never interpret "predictable" in the context of listening to music as literally meaning "I foresaw each and every note correctly before the performer even started playing", which would be impossible. As I understand it, the term is used in a more figurative sense, in connection with notions of being boring or unexciting or lacking in drama.

For what it's worth, I have no great love for Mozart's music and don't listen regularly to any of it. I wouldn't say he was "overrated" though, and I'm not really sure how the concept is even meant to apply to composers. I probably enjoy Mozart's music much less than many if not most other people here - my taste is more in late Romantic symphonies - but I don't see a straight line from that premise to the conclusion that Mozart's music is "overrated" in any way. If people enjoy his music - on whatever grounds - then that's all there is to it. "Overrated" seems to imply a judgement that people shouldn't be enjoying his music so much.

(I am more sympathetic to the term "underrated", which carries connotations of being "underappreciated" or "not listened to enough".)


----------



## Marisol

"Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. ~ Georg Solti"

Talking about overrated and exaggerated nonsense....


----------



## trazom

CyrilWashbrook said:


> I don't think this is really on point. When else are they going to say that the piece was predictable? _Before_ they've heard it? I would never interpret "predictable" in the context of listening to music as literally meaning "I foresaw each and every note correctly before the performer even started playing", which would be impossible. As I understand it, the term is used in a more figurative sense, in connection with notions of being boring or unexciting or lacking in drama.


What else would they say? They could use the term correctly, for starters. Predictable: Knowing what should come next. Boring, unexciting, and lacking drama are possible responses to music, but that doesn't necessarily follow from music that's "predictable." Example: People also say "I could care less" to mean they don't care at all about something, but the statement doesn't make any sense in the context it's used.


----------



## trazom

Marisol said:


> "Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. ~ Georg Solti"
> 
> Talking about overrated and exaggerated nonsense....


Maybe it is a bit hyperbolic; but his opinion is more credible and worth consideration as he's speaking from knowledge and experience in music that you and the OP, mostly likely, don't have.


----------



## violadude

As long as we're talking about what other composers thought of Mozart, I'll just leave this informative little video here


----------



## Marisol

trazom said:


> Maybe it is a bit hyperbolic; but his opinion is more credible and worth consideration as he's speaking from knowledge and experience in music that you and the OP, mostly likely, don't have.


Seriously, you think this is a credible opinion and worth of consideration:

"Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces"

So we should now all believe in God because Solti said so.


----------



## Air

*A reminder from the forum staff...




Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.

[...]

Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with another forum member, but it does matters how you disagree.*


----------



## trazom

No, but I would consider his opinion longer than if someone on the street said that to me; and I didn't interpret his quote as saying everyone SHOULD now believe in God because of Mozart.


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

trazom said:


> What else would they say? They could use the term correctly, for starters. Predictable: Knowing what should come next. Boring, unexciting, and lacking drama are possible responses to music, but that doesn't necessarily follow from music that's "predictable." Example: People also say "I could care less" to mean they don't care at all about something, but the statement doesn't make any sense in the context it's used.


Words can bear figurative meanings and connotations that aren't captured by taking an approach that relies on pedantic parsing. But if you want to talk about "correctness", then your definition of "predictable" is off the mark. Predictable doesn't mean "knowing what should come next". It means "capable of being predicted". If I say "she is predictable", I mean that "she [in the sense of her actions, her nature or something about her] is capable of being predicted". The statement does not mean that "she knows what should come next".

It follows that the word "predictable", at least in my experience, is almost always - and necessarily - used after the fact. It's difficult to describe a person as predictable unless you know something about their nature or the way that they behave.

Whether you agree musically with the opinion or not, I think it's perfectly reasonable _from a language perspective_ for a person who prefers dramatic, Romantic-era music to look at (some of) Mozart's music and call it "predictable" in comparison.


----------



## Feathers

Marisol said:


> Seriously, you think this is a credible opinion and worth of consideration:
> 
> "Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces"
> 
> So we should now all believe in God because Solti said so.


I think you're over-analyzing Solti's quote in a way. Instead of considering whether you think Solti is right that one would believe in God because of Mozart, think about _why_ he would say such a thing.

He said it because (I'm going to borrow Kieran's words) Mozart is _really_ really good. That's it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Solti is simply suggesting that Mozart's achievements strike him as almost "super-human"... far beyond what we might reasonable expect from mere mortals. Similar things have been suggested of Bach, Shakespeare, Dante, Leonardo, Michelangelo, and even Picasso.


----------



## GreenMamba

> George Szell
> 21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece


This makes me want to change my vote to yes. I love Mozart, but I would say just his 41 symphonies alone contain more than a few non-masterpieces.

As with Solti's quote, it's exaggeration, fair enough. But it does suggest how overrated/underrated votes can be misleading.


----------



## ahammel

Marisol said:


> The 'genius' early Mozart may have gotten a lot of 'help' from his father and was he really the best orchestrator of his time?


I'm not sure who was better (Haydn, maybe). He did OK, considering orchestration wasn't really something that composers studied before the romantic era.



Marisol said:


> He is in my opinion very good on form and very creative, surprising and dramatic but never over the top, however he was not the champion of chromaticism and that sometimes makes his music predictable, again in my opinion.


It wasn't really the era for a champion of chromaticism. Still, Wolfie had his moments. The Dissonance quartet and the 40th symphony spring to mind.


----------



## handlebar

Not a bit overrated. Over played, possibly.


----------



## Marisol

ahammel said:


> I'm not sure who was better (Haydn, maybe). He did OK, considering orchestration wasn't really something that composers studied before the romantic era.


Haydn maybe, perhaps Gluck is a contestant as well?



ahammel said:


> It wasn't really the era for a champion of chromaticism.


I agree with that, but I think Haydn played more with it and makes his music a bit richer.


----------



## Guest

Yes, Haydn is leagues better than Mozart. After all, he was his *FRIEND*


----------



## moody

Sonata said:


> I personally never understood the desire to spend time discussing composers or musicians, etc that don't appeal to me as much as others, the ones I'd consider "overrated" or other such terms. If I don't care for them, if I'm tired of hearing how highly others regard him, what use would I have to spend more of my time discussing them?


Because if you spend your time discussing only the ones you do like your only comments would be:"Yes,you're right", "I agree completely","just what I always say","jolly good show !"
Bit boring don't you think ?


----------



## moody

Marisol said:


> Actually I like Mozart a lot and he is one of my favorites of the period.
> 
> Better?
> I look more at intrinsic value and likability than seeing it as some kind of a race with fixed rules.
> 
> How do you suggest how we rate a composer objectively?
> Certainly there are technical aspects of composition, ability to orchestrate well, adherence to or creation of (new) forms, harmonic and rhythmic treatment, even the handwriting of the scores may matter, but I think the most important aspect is creativity and that makes most composers unique and incomparable, at least in my opinion.
> 
> The 'genius' early Mozart may have gotten a lot of 'help' from his father and was he really the best orchestrator of his time? He is in my opinion very good on form and very creative, surprising and dramatic but never over the top, however he was not the champion of chromaticism and that sometimes makes his music predictable, again in my opinion.


Thank goodness you made your feelings plain,I'm sure you must be right.
But as you stated that some people exaggerate his greatness I thought it might be educational to hear who you might consider his superior could be.


----------



## RootRadix

The way I react to this supposed holy trinity Bach-Mozart-Beethoven is by liking them all a lot and still thinking that they are overrated. Their music is great, but this cottage industry of genius worshipping is somewhat off-putting to me. The important is not who is the best, the most influential and most played, but that we have a lot people creating their music their own way.


----------



## Skilmarilion

GreenMamba said:


> This makes me want to change my vote to yes. I love Mozart, but I would say just his 41 symphonies alone contain more than a few non-masterpieces.


The trouble lies in assessing Mozart's childhood compositions. He actually only composed ten symphonies (31-36, 38-41) after the age of 18, many of which are considered amongst the finest ever written. Mozart was a _Wunderkind_ and his early works are simply a testament to that.

Many will argue that Mozart's 'mature' output is, for the most part, consistently inventive and full of diverse masterpieces.


----------



## Ukko

RootRadix said:


> The way I react to this supposed holy trinity Bach-Mozart-Beethoven is by liking them all a lot and still thinking that they are overrated. Their music is great, but this cottage industry of genius worshipping is somewhat off-putting to me. The important is not who is the best, the most influential and most played, but that we have a lot people creating their music their own way.


But Sir or Madam, that appears to be an awkward way of saying that it isn't important that _certain_ people are making _good_ music, but that _lots_ of people are making music 'their own way'. Clearly you were never subjected to a Hilltroll Jewsharp Improv.


----------



## Sid James

I don't think he's overrated because he was a genius. I'd even say that about composer who I don't like, if I am in one of my lucid and more objective moments.

But I have 'issues' with Mozart Inc., the kind that results in Salzburg being like exactly that, the centre of an industry based on a guy who actually hated the place and thought of it as nothing much more than a backwater not really deserving of his many talents. Once he went freelance and went to Vienna and Prague, that all changed, he no longer had to work within the confines of the dictates layed down by the bishops of Salzburg (who Mozart no doubt thought to be tyrants and philistines). A quick googling found this quote which I don't remember reading before but I'm not surprised Wolfie wrote it. He was seen by his overlords there as a servant, not an artist:

“Salzburg is no place for my talents. In the first place, professional musicians there are not held in much consideration; and secondly, one hears nothing, there is no theatre, no opera; and even if they wanted one, who is there to sing?”

So what I'm saying is that many people probably forget this, that he struggled, that he was just as much shunned (or even more) as accepted. He might be overrated now, or seem to be, but back then I think its safe to say he was underrated. He found more success when he broke the shackles of servitude, those in the more liberal climate of Prague accepted his late operas (or whichever ones premiered there) with open arms. The more conservative Viennese where cooler in their reception, but there too he made a mark on the world stage, whereas the city of salt was a place Wolfie would rather forget. What would he think of it being made into a shrine for his honour? I think he'd laugh at this kind of idolisation, and maybe think something like "I wish they venerated me in my home town when I was alive, not after I kicked the bucket."


----------



## Sonata

moody said:


> Because if you spend your time discussing only the ones you do like your only comments would be:"Yes,you're right", "I agree completely","just what I always say","jolly good show !"
> Bit boring don't you think ?


I actually did not phrase that well and realized it after the fact. I think discussing composers we dislike or are lukewarm CAN be worthwhile. It can be interesting debate and one may come away with a better understanding for, if not increased liking, of said composer.

What I don't get is this particular type of conversation, is so and so overrated. It's so circular. Yes he is! No he isn't! What's the point? There is nothing NEW this kind of topic tends to bring the the table, at least from what I've seen. By discussing WHY said composer is overrated, tends to bring that much extra attention to the very composer that I would already think has too much attention!

Case in point: I don't care too much for Handel's works--at this point in time--I would prefer to listen to Mozart operas, Dvorak's stabat mater, Mendelssohn's concertos or Brahms chamber works. If I felt like debating Handel for the spirit of debate, ie the quality of his vocals vs Mozart opera vocals. I could come away enlightened or at least more knowledgeable.

But I don't get the point of IF I THINK Handel is OVERRATED and that's the main purpose for my discussion, then calling attention to him for the sake of calling him overrated is just bringing more attention to him.


----------



## moody

RootRadix said:


> The way I react to this supposed holy trinity Bach-Mozart-Beethoven is by liking them all a lot and still thinking that they are overrated. Their music is great, but this cottage industry of genius worshipping is somewhat off-putting to me. The important is not who is the best, the most influential and most played, but that we have a lot people creating their music their own way.


With respect this actually has nothing to do with the matter in hand.
If somebody comes out with a bald statement they should be willing to back it up or do we just post off nonsense e.g "Beethoven is the greatest","I hate Verdi","Down with Chopin" ???
A forum is a place for debate,not a wall for graffiti.


----------



## Ingélou

Feathers said:


> I think you're over-analyzing Solti's quote in a way. Instead of considering whether you think Solti is right that one would believe in God because of Mozart, think about _why_ he would say such a thing.
> 
> He said it because (I'm going to borrow Kieran's words) Mozart is _really_ really good. That's it.


Exactly. In the Bach vs Handel vs Vivaldi thread a poster said 'Handel is God' & I 'liked' it. I don't actually believe Handel is God but I do a) think he is a wonderful composer and b) think the poster made his point in a very witty way.


----------



## moody

Ingenue said:


> Exactly. In the Bach vs Handel vs Vivaldi thread a poster said 'Handel is God' & I 'liked' it. I don't actually believe Handel is God but I do a) think he is a wonderful composer and b) think the poster made his point in a very witty way.


I didn't even know that God composed anything.


----------



## Ingélou

moody said:


> I didn't even know that God composed anything.


Don't be daft. He composed *everything*.


----------



## starry

RootRadix said:


> The way I react to this supposed holy trinity Bach-Mozart-Beethoven is by liking them all a lot and still thinking that they are overrated. Their music is great, but this cottage industry of genius worshipping is somewhat off-putting to me. The important is not who is the best, the most influential and most played, but that we have a lot people creating their music their own way.


Or...variety if the spice of life.

I think what happens though is that there are some composers who more people have actually heard a lot of and therefore there can be more discussion on them. That can make it seem nobody is interested in anyone else, but really it's just fewer people have knowledge on other composers.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> I didn't even know that God composed anything.


The Music of the Spheres, original version.


----------



## Ingélou

Hilltroll72 said:


> The Music of the Spheres, original version.


Amazing, Hilltroll - you're civilised after all!


----------



## moody

Ingenue said:


> Don't be daft. He composed *everything*.


Wait a minute you don't believe in him.


----------



## moody

Ingenue said:


> Amazing, Hilltroll - you're civilised after all!


Who told you this, I certainly don't believe in that !!


----------



## Yardrax

Through complex statistical analysis of the average listeners perception of Mozart's music compared to a carefully devised metric of greatness measured up to Mozart's works we can conclude that the question in the OP is unanswerable in general and only really of value when discussing a specific evaluation of Mozart's work. Though I would guess that given the number of people who view Mozart mostly in terms of that music they play to their child because they think it will make them smarter, or just vaguely as that one guy who wrote music for posh people, it's probably fair to say that Wolfie, like most classical composers, is horribly underrated.


----------



## Marisol

Interesting subject, perhaps we should look at it a bit more objectively.

Not only do I think Mozart is somewhat overrated he is also made into a myth. As soon as people are using God, angels, genius and what have you things become suspect in my mind as to the objectivity of it.

How popular was Mozart's music during his lifetime? 
How come that this 'great genius of composition' was not recognized in his time? 
Are many of his early works actually from his father's hand and how great are these works anyway? 
We know that a lot of the KV works are not by his hand and the number is growing. 
How much did he take from (both Franz Joseph and Michael) Haydn and changed it a bit?

Mozart is a trademark nowadays and many forces try everything to blow up the stature.








_Mozart? Who is Mozart? 
Oh wait, I know, that is the guy they put on the chocolates!
_


----------



## moody

Marisol said:


> Interesting subject, perhaps we should look at it a bit more objectively.
> 
> Not only do I think Mozart is somewhat overrated he is also made into a myth. As soon as people are using God, angels, genius and what have you things become suspect in my mind as to the objectivity of it.
> 
> How popular was Mozart's music during his lifetime?
> How come that this 'great genius of composition' was not recognized in his time?
> Are many of his early works actually from his father's hand and how great are these works anyway?
> We know that a lot of the KV works are not by his hand and the number is growing.
> How much did he take from (both Franz Joseph and Michael) Haydn and changed it a bit?
> 
> Mozart is a trademark nowadays and many forces try everything to blow up the stature.
> 
> View attachment 18815
> 
> _Mozart? Who is Mozart?
> Oh wait, I know, that is the guy they put on the chocolates!
> _


Oh no, not another Doubting Thomas with quaint ideas.


----------



## DavidA

Marisol said:


> Interesting subject, perhaps we should look at it a bit more objectively.
> 
> Not only do I think Mozart is somewhat overrated he is also made into a myth. As soon as people are using God, angels, genius and what have you things become suspect in my mind as to the objectivity of it.
> 
> How popular was Mozart's music during his lifetime?
> How come that this 'great genius of composition' was not recognized in his time?
> Are many of his early works actually from his father's hand and how great are these works anyway?
> We know that a lot of the KV works are not by his hand and the number is growing.
> How much did he take from (both Franz Joseph and Michael) Haydn and changed it a bit?
> 
> Mozart is a trademark nowadays and many forces try everything to blow up the stature.
> 
> View attachment 18815
> 
> _Mozart? Who is Mozart?
> Oh wait, I know, that is the guy they put on the chocolates!
> _


It is certainly not Mozart's fault they have made an industry out of him. It is not his fault that some opera companies hire hack directors who impose their own mindless views on his operas. The genius remians.


----------



## deggial

moody said:


> Wait a minute you don't believe in him.


you don't have to believe in him to admit he was pretty original for his time.


----------



## deggial

Marisol said:


> Mozart is a trademark nowadays and many forces try everything to blow up the stature.


as they should, he was a runt...


----------



## KenOC

Marisol said:


> How popular was Mozart's music during his lifetime?
> How come that this 'great genius of composition' was not recognized in his time?
> Are many of his early works actually from his father's hand and how great are these works anyway?


1. Extremely.
2. He wasn't? That's news.
3. Works primarily by Papa are pretty well identified.

I won't bother with the rest, but some reading on the subject is clearly indicated. There are plenty of sources.


----------



## Marisol

KenOC said:


> I won't bother with the rest, but some reading on the subject is clearly indicated. There are plenty of sources.


Indeed there are.

Feel free to demonstrate with credible sources that he was extremely popular (as a composer) and that his compositions were recognized as genius in his time.


----------



## Ukko

Marisol said:


> Feel free to demonstrate with credible sources that he was extremely popular (as a composer) and that his compositions were recognized as genius in his time.


That wasn't your question.


----------



## KenOC

Marisol said:


> Feel free to demonstrate with credible sources that he was extremely popular (as a composer) and that his compositions were recognized as genius in his time.


Please do some reading on your own. Your ideas seem to be quite singular. Almost any source will provide the facts you apparently need. Meanwhile, I'll just repeat what Leopold Kozeluch, another composer, said to a friend upon Mozart's death:

"Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


----------



## Kieran

Marisol said:


> Indeed there are.
> 
> Feel free to demonstrate with credible sources that he was extremely popular (as a composer) and that his compositions were recognized as genius in his time.


Given that he only ever composed when given commissions, his output's quite huge. In his last six months *alone *he composed two operas, a string quintet, a funeral mass (unfinished), the ave verum Corpus, a clarinet concerto, a load of Freemason stuff, some marches, dances, and he was travelling between Vienna and Prague for the operas...I think he was as popular then as ever.

Only for about 3 or 4 years was he out of favour, but this is the razors-edge difficulty of genius: few people understand it and so it can fall into neglect...


----------



## Marisol

KenOC said:


> Please do some reading on your own. Your ideas seem to be quite singular.


You made the statement that he was "extremely popular" during his lifetime.

So instead of sneering that I need to read more perhaps you should back up these statements?

What did you read that made you conclude he was "extremely popular"?


----------



## Kieran

Marisol said:


> You made the statement that he was "extremely popular" during his lifetime.
> 
> So instead of sneering that I need to read more perhaps you should back up these statements?
> 
> What did you read that made you conclude he was "extremely popular"?


Marisol,

Just for the record, what difference would it make if he was unpopular or popular during his life? He happened to be both at different times, but what difference does that make to his music?

By the way, the sources I used are available to you in your local book shop: any book on Mozart will tell you that he was hugely popular, then he wasn't, then he was again.

But what difference does that make to his music?


----------



## deinoslogos

His music is pretty, accessible and elegant. It's emotive without ever being too intense. Combine that with his brilliance as a composer and his excellent sense of melody and then top that all off with an entrapping story of a prodigious childhood and an early death (whether it's rock, rap or classical, people love when musicians die young) and you have the perfect forumla for a hugely popular composer. Does that mean he's overrated? I don't think so; I think it just means his music and story resonante with a lot of people. That's certainly something special.

That said, I don't think his wide appeal makes him intrinsically better than other great composers and I do get annoyed by people who act as if there is some sort of scientific proof that Mozart is the greatest composer ever (an absurd notion in the first place!) However, that sort of blind positing of "greatest ever" status occurs within every art medium and two or three artists end up getting hyped to no end. People who are not dedicated to said artform are likely to latch on to that artist, further approrpiating the hype. While all of that can be extreme annoying it ultimately adds or subtracts nothing from the artist's greatness.


----------



## KenOC

Marisol said:


> So instead of sneering that I need to read more perhaps you should back up these statements?


Perhaps you'd also like me to prove, via credible sources, that things fall downward instead of upward? Since you are, by implication, making an extraordinary assertion, the burden of proof would seem to be on you.


----------



## moody

deggial said:


> you don't have to believe in him to admit he was pretty original for his time.


That was God we were talking of !!


----------



## Marisol

KenOC said:


> ... I'll just repeat what Leopold Kozeluch, another composer, said to a friend upon Mozart's death:
> 
> "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


First of all that quote is given at a funeral, not really the place for objective truths and second do you seriously agree with this quote?


----------



## Ingélou

Marisol said:


> First of all that quote is given at a funeral, not really the place for objective truths and second do you seriously agree with this quote?


Surely people usually praise the dead at funerals, whether it's a public eulogy or to fellow-guests at the reception. So if someone says something acid sotto voce in such a situation, it ought to be believed.


----------



## DavidA

Marisol said:


> First of all that quote is given at a funeral, not really the place for objective truths and second do you seriously agree with this quote?


History shows it was true even though Mozart did not live longer. Who remembers Kozeluch? No-one. Who remembers Mozart? Everyone who knows anything about music.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Who remembers Kozeluch? No-one.


Hey, I remember Kozeluch! He was quite an unpleasant fellow. Beethoven gave him the nickname "miserabilis."


----------



## Kieran

KenOC said:


> Hey, I remember Kozeluch! He was quite an unpleasant fellow. Beethoven gave him the nickname "miserabilis."


I think he was overrated, by the sounds of it...


----------



## DavidA

I'm just listening to Mozart's sonata K381 for 4 hands played by Argerich and Pires. The slow movement is utterly sublime. How anyone can say Mozart is overrated in the face of such genius is quite beyond me!


----------



## deggial

moody said:


> That was God we were talking of !!


God, Handel, Mozart, what's in a name?!


----------



## Novelette

Count Waldstein wrote to a young Beethoven, upon the latter's departure for Vienna:

"You are going to Vienna in fulfillment of your long-frustrated wishes. The Genius of Mozart is still mourning and weeping the death of her pupil. She found a refuge but no occupation within the inexhaustible Haydn; through him she wishes once more to form a union with another. With the help of assiduous labour you shall receive Mozart's spirit from Haydn's hand."

It seems clear not only that Mozart's name was recognizable to a young man--for why else would Count Waldstein reference a man whose neither reputation as a man was known nor music was familiar?--but that his music was respected and admired. That Count Waldstein would encourage a young Beethoven by stating, in indirect terms, that he was capable of becoming a great heir to Mozart's genius seems only to buttress the impression that there were, in fact, people who not only knew of Mozart as a composer, but who reckoned him indeed a genius.

There are analyses that attest to Beethoven's being influenced by Mozart.

And then there is Haydn's appraisal of Mozart:

"During his years in Vienna, Mozart also made the acquaintance of composer Franz Joseph Haydn. The two became close friends and the older composer's music had a profound influence on Mozart. Between 1782 and 1785, Mozart composed a series of six string quartets which he dedicated to Haydn. Upon playing through some of them together, Haydn said to Mozart's father, who was present, "Before God and as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer I know, either personally or by name.""

Given contemporary and nearly-contemporary appraisal, clearly he was well-known and appreciated by figures around him. And then there are reception histories of his operas, symphonies, and piano concerti. And then there is the praise of Rossini, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Cherubini, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Reger, etc., etc.


----------



## deggial

Novelette said:


> Count Waldstein wrote to a young Beethoven, upon the latter's departure for Vienna:
> 
> The Genius of Mozart is still mourning and weeping the death of her pupil. She found a refuge but no occupation within the inexhaustible Haydn; through him she wishes once more to form a union with another.


that's a really sweet thing to say but also sounds really funny. She found no occupation within Haydn!


----------



## Novelette

deggial said:


> that's a really sweet thing to say but also sounds really funny. She found no occupation within Haydn!


I know, poor Haydn. =(

Haydn had his own genius, too.


----------



## Novelette

KenOC said:


> Hey, I remember Kozeluch! He was quite an unpleasant fellow. Beethoven gave him the nickname "miserabilis."


He has sort of been the unofficial TC punchline, lately.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I didn't even know that God composed anything.

Don't be daft. He composed *everything*.

Actually, Bach never wrote an opera...


----------



## Marisol

Novelette said:


> It seems clear not only that Mozart's name was recognizable to a young man--for why else would Count Waldstein reference a man whose neither reputation as a man was known nor music was familiar?--but that his music was respected and admired.


Of course he was respected (musically that is, the person Mozart is something else) and admired but so was for instance Haydn or other composers.


----------



## ahammel

Marisol said:


> Of course he was respected (musically that is, the person Mozart is something else) and admired but so was for instance Haydn or other composers.


Well that certainly sinks the thesis that Mozart was the only respected composer between Josquin and Webern.


----------



## Marisol

DavidA said:


> I'm just listening to Mozart's sonata K381 for 4 hands played by Argerich and Pires. The slow movement is utterly sublime. How anyone can say Mozart is overrated in the face of such genius is quite beyond me!


I think it is a nice piece but nothing out of the ordinary.

Here is a performance of Kochel 381, I realize that Mozart preferred the fortepiano but it sounds pretty good on the harpsichord, after all nobody wants to romanticize Mozart right?






OK, "Wolfgang" and "Nannerl" having fun at it on the fortepiano:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Marisol-You made the statement that he was "extremely popular" during his lifetime.

So instead of sneering that I need to read more perhaps you should back up these statements?

It seems to me that you made the first statement suggesting that Mozart wasn't popular during his own lifetime. Considering that this is contrary to received common knowledge it would seem that it is you need to back up your statement... not the other way around. It is easy to say "Prove it" knowing that most aren't going to put forth the time and research to debate someone who clearly has made little if any historical research on his or her own... beyond, perhaps, the film _Amadeus_.

Still...

From 1782 to 1785 Mozart mounted concerts with himself as soloist, presenting three or four new piano concertos in each season. Since space in the theaters was scarce, he booked unconventional venues: a large room in the Trattnerhof (an apartment building), and the ballroom of the Mehlgrube (a restaurant). The concerts were very popular, and the concertos he premiered at them are still firm fixtures in the repertoire.

With substantial returns from his concerts and elsewhere, Mozart and his wife adopted a rather plush lifestyle. They moved to an expensive apartment, with a yearly rent of 460 florins. Mozart bought a fine fortepiano from Anton Walter for about 900 florins, and a billiard table for about 300. The Mozarts sent their son Karl Thomas to an expensive boarding school and kept servants.

Die Entführung aus dem Serail was a huge success. The first two performances brought in the large sum of 1200 florins, three times what Mozart's salary had been for his old job in Salzburg. The work was repeatedly performed in Vienna during Mozart's lifetime, and throughout German-speaking Europe. In 1787, Goethe wrote (concerning his own efforts as a librettist):

_All our endeavour ... to confine ourselves to what is simple and limited was lost when Mozart appeared. Die Entführung aus dem Serail conquered all, and our own carefully written piece has never been so much as mentioned in theater circles._

_Le nozze di Figaro_ was given eight performances following the debut... all in 1786. Although the total of nine performances was nothing like the frequency of performance of Mozart's later success _The Magic Flute_, which for months was performed roughly every other day, the premiere is generally judged to have been a success. The applause of the audience on the first night resulted in five numbers being encored.

The newspaper Wiener Realzeitung carried a review of the opera in its issue of 11 July 1786 reads: _it is true that the first performance was none of the best, owing to the difficulties of the composition. But now, after several performances, one would be subscribing either to the cabal or to tastelessness if one were to maintain that Herr Mozart's music is anything but a masterpiece of art. It contains so many beauties, and such a wealth of ideas, as can be drawn only from the source of innate genius."_

Joseph Haydn appreciated the opera greatly, writing to a friend that he heard it in his dreams.

_The Marriage of Figaro_, which premiered in Vienna, was produced in late 1786 in Prague with tremendous success. The reviewer for the Prague newspaper Oberpostamtzeitung wrote "No piece (so everyone here asserts) has ever caused such a sensation as the Italian opera _Die Hochzeit des Figaro_, which has already been given several times here with unlimited applause." The orchestra and some affiliated music lovers funded a personal visit by Mozart so he could hear the production. Mozart arrived on 11 January 1787 and was feted everywhere.

_Don Giovanni_ was first performed on October 29 in Prague under its full title of _Il Dissoluto Punito ossia il Don Giovanni Dramma giocoso in due atti._ The work was rapturously received, as was often true of Mozart's work in Prague.

The impresario, Johann Peter Salomon attempted to bring Mozart to London along with Haydn.

Scholar Maynard Solomon writes of _The Magic Flute_: "Although there were no reviews of the first performances, it was immediately evident that Mozart and Schikaneder had achieved a great success, the opera drawing immense crowds and reaching hundreds of performances during the 1790s."

Mozart wrote to his wife, Constanze, in October 1792: "I have this moment returned from the opera, which was as full as ever", he wrote on 7 October, listing the numbers that had to be encored."

The opera celebrated its 100th performance in November 1792.

These are but a few hints at Mozart's popularity during his own lifetime. He was recognized by discerning ears such as Joseph and Michael Haydn, Johann Christian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, Josef Mysliveček, the Accademia Filarmonica di Bologna, Baron Gottfried van Swieten, Antonio Salieri, Franz Xaver Süssmayr, etc...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think it is a nice piece but nothing out of the ordinary.

Yeah... you've probably written several that good over the past week.


----------



## Marisol

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yeah... you've probably written several that good over the past week.


I simply express my opinion about a piece of classical music that should not warrant a personal attack on me.


----------



## KenOC

StlukesguildOhio said:


> These are but a few hints at Mozart's popularity during his own lifetime. He was recognized by discerning ears such as Joseph and Michael Haydn, Johann Christian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, Josef Mysliveček, the Accademia Filarmonica di Bologna, Baron Gottfried van Swieten, Antonio Salieri, Franz Xaver Süssmayr, etc...


Great and detailed info, many thanks! Another indication of his popularity is the overwhelming number of variations on his opera arias, for every conceivable instrument and combination, seemingly written by everybody in sight. Demand was evidently huge! Some of these variations are still played and enjoyed.


----------



## trazom

Marisol said:


> Haydn maybe, perhaps Gluck is a contestant as well?
> 
> *I agree with that, but I think Haydn played more with it[chromaticism] *and makes his music a bit richer.


 This statement is utterly wrong. Haydn played more with chromaticism than Mozart-- night is also day, black is white, and pigs fly, too, I'll bet.


----------



## Marisol

trazom said:


> This statement is utterly wrong. Haydn played more with chromaticism than Mozart


I take it that you mean that you think the statement is false.
So what is it according to you: less or the same?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I simply express my opinion about a piece of classical music that should not warrant a personal attack on me.

It is easy for anyone to be flip in dismissing the achievements of any of the greatest artists in history... and that is allowable and to be not only expected, but embraced. But if the same sort of "judgments" were turned upon the individual making such statements... well that is an uncalled for personal attack?

I don't know your work... or even if you are a composer/musician... but quite honestly if I were a musician/composer I would be quick to make disparaging remarks about a figure such as Mozart. Personally, I am an artist/painter. There are artists/painters I like more and artists/painters I like less. However I wouldn't likely be making statements that Michelangelo or Rembrandt are overrated. This is not to say that such figures are above criticism. A great many of Mozart's compositions from his early years are minor works... but they are works that give us a fuller understanding of a musical artist that would later become the composer of _Don Giovanni_ and the Clarinet Quintet.


----------



## trazom

Here are some examples of Mozart's frequent use of chromaticism, besides obvious examples like quartet #19 and symphony #40:

String Quartet #23, skip to the minuet:






Quintet in g minor, first movement, especially at 6:50:






the minuet K.355

and finally, and probably the best example. the a minor rondo K.511:


----------



## Novelette

Marisol said:


> How come that this 'great genius of composition' *was not* recognized in his time?





Marisol said:


> Of course *he was* respected (musically that is, the person Mozart is something else) and admired but so was for instance Haydn or other composers.





Novelette said:


> Count Waldstein wrote to a young Beethoven, upon the latter's departure for Vienna:
> 
> "You are going to Vienna in fulfillment of your long-frustrated wishes. The *Genius of Mozart* is still mourning and weeping the death of her pupil. She found a refuge but no occupation within the inexhaustible Haydn; through him she wishes once more to form a union with another. With the help of assiduous labour you shall receive Mozart's spirit from Haydn's hand."
> 
> It seems clear not only that Mozart's name was recognizable to a young man--for why else would Count Waldstein reference a man whose neither reputation as a man was known nor music was familiar?--but that his music was respected and admired. That Count Waldstein would encourage a young Beethoven by stating, in indirect terms, that he was capable of becoming a great heir to Mozart's genius seems only to buttress the impression that there were, in fact, people who not only knew of Mozart as a composer, but who reckoned him indeed a genius.
> 
> There are analyses that attest to Beethoven's being influenced by Mozart.
> 
> And then there is Haydn's appraisal of Mozart:
> 
> "During his years in Vienna, Mozart also made the acquaintance of composer Franz Joseph Haydn. The two became close friends and the older composer's music had a profound influence on Mozart. Between 1782 and 1785, Mozart composed a series of six string quartets which he dedicated to Haydn. Upon playing through some of them together, *Haydn said* to Mozart's father, who was present, "Before God and as an honest man, *your son is the greatest composer I know, either personally or by name*.""
> 
> Given contemporary and nearly-contemporary appraisal, clearly he was well-known and appreciated by figures around him. And then there are reception histories of his operas, symphonies, and piano concerti. And then there is the praise of Rossini, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Cherubini, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Reger, etc., etc.


We do ultimately agree after all.


----------



## Novelette

KenOC, have you ever heard Liszt's Fantasie Über Themen Aus Figaro & Don Giovanni, S 697? 

It's an excellent fantasy on key themes from those operas! A joy to listen to!


----------



## KenOC

Novelette said:


> KenOC, have you ever heard Liszt's Fantasie Über Themen Aus Figaro & Don Giovanni, S 697? It's an excellent fantasy on key themes from those operas! A joy to listen to!


Never heard it, but I may have it somewhere. Will give it a spin, thanks!


----------



## Marisol

trazom said:


> Here are some examples of Mozart's frequent use of chromaticism, besides obvious examples like quartet #19 and symphony #40:
> 
> String Quartet #23, skip to the minuet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quintet in g minor, first movement, especially at 6:50:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the minuet K.355
> 
> and finally, and probably the best example. the a minor rondo K.511:


Thanks for sharing. 
Clearly Mozart uses chromaticism as well, but the question is more than Haydn?

So let me understand your position, Mozart in your opinion uses chromaticism more than Haydn?

I like KV 511, I think it is one of the better keyboard pieces.


----------



## ahammel

Marisol said:


> Clearly Mozart uses chromaticism as well, but the question is more than Haydn?


Care to share some chromatic Haydn examples?


----------



## Novelette

trazom said:


> This statement is utterly wrong. Haydn played more with chromaticism than Mozart-- night is also day, black is white, and pigs fly, too, I'll bet.


I've heard the vast majority of Haydn's output, but only about half of Mozart's. From what I know, it's fairly certain that Mozart employed chromaticism far more than Haydn.

Still, and this is only tangential, I've never ceased to be impressed by the expertly way Haydn integrates stark chromatic sentences in his music with almost no break in the music. The work that really stands out is the vivace finale [third movement] of Piano Trio #23 in D Minor, Hob. XV: 23. Arpeggiated, successive downward chromatic shifts. We hear it only three times [twice in the repeated exposition, and once in the recapitulation], but what impresses me is the incredibly graceful way he integrates this little section into the flow of the whole movement. I couldn't place a sharp edge between any two notes, it's just so good.

That said, Mozart's Modulating Prelude in F Major/E Minor, K Deest, is a chromatic experiment quite worthy of Bach. Also an impressive, but subtle, chromaticism in the Contredanse in C Minor, K 15z. Equally, the Fantasia in F Minor, K 608 for organ is almost like a majestic "hybrid" of Bach and Mozart.

It may be surprising that I actually like Haydn, Gluck, Wagenseil, etc. greater than Mozart, although Mozart is growing on me more and more. Haydn has been a companion of mine for years, and I know his works very well. As I've developed a particular taste for the Classical and Galante styles, I've developed a greater fondness for Mozart and have begun to recognize that which is great about him. Still, I prefer my Haydn. But I cannot deny Mozart's genius, especially in the face of his piano concerti and operas!


----------



## Marisol

Novelette said:


> We do ultimately agree after all.


Really?

"The Genius of Mozart is still mourning and weeping the death of her pupil. "

I do not have the original German of the letter, is Waldstein talking about the spirit of Mozart or literally referring to Mozart being a genius?


----------



## Novelette

Marisol said:


> Really?
> 
> "The Genius of Mozart is still mourning and weeping the death of her pupil. "
> 
> I do not have the original German of the letter, is Waldstein talking about the spirit of Mozart or literally referring to Mozart being a genius?


Poetic imagery. The "spirit" is a metaphor for his genius which utterly died with him [Mozart]. A genius is also commonly said to _possess_ genius [one of the many curious figures of language].

Great literature, especially the more poetic sort, abounds in this kind of figuration. Waldstein was obviously quite invested in the success of young Beethoven, and wreathed his words in dramatic and poetic language to accentuate the scope of the grand fate which he surmised [quite correctly!] to be Beethoven's lot.


----------



## Novelette

trazom said:


> Here are some examples of Mozart's frequent use of chromaticism, besides obvious examples like quartet #19 and symphony #40:
> 
> String Quartet #23, skip to the minuet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quintet in g minor, first movement, especially at 6:50:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the minuet K.355
> 
> and finally, and probably the best example. the a minor rondo K.511:


Another good, albeit brief, discussion of Mozart's use of chromaticism is here, in the paragraph that begins after the asterisks.


----------



## Ondine

Hey! Mozart can not be rated by any means. His music is beyond that.


----------



## DavidA

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think it is a nice piece but nothing out of the ordinary.
> 
> Yeah... you've probably written several that good over the past week.


This piece was nothing out of the ordinary - for Mozart!


----------



## trazom

That piece is great, this one's supposed to be his best(thought the G major is more popular), but I never see anyone discuss it:






and I recently discovered this extraordinary late piece that was, along with k.608, written for mechanical organ:


----------



## Kieran

Okay, so I just read the previous few pages. The argument against Mozart is...eh...uh...he uses less chromaticsim than Haydn...em...or he wasn't popular in his lifetime or he was popular...or his music is easy peasy, no big deal...or he eats too much cheese to be a truly great composer.

Actually, I'm not sure what the argument against Mozart is! I suggest a little more listening to his music is the argument for him...


----------



## Novelette

Kieran said:


> Okay, so I just read the previous few pages. The argument against Mozart is...eh...uh...he uses less chromaticsim than Haydn...em...or he wasn't popular in his lifetime or he was popular...or his music is easy peasy, no big deal...*or he eats too much cheese to be a truly great composer.*


I have to agree with that part, actually!


----------



## Kieran

Novelette said:


> I have to agree with that part, actually!


It's something we Mozart fans don't like to face up to, but there have been allegations by the usual alligators that he's cheesy!


----------



## Taggart

Kieran said:


> It's something we Mozart fans don't like to face up to, but there have been allegations by the usual alligators that he's cheesy!


One weeps crocodile tears at the thought.


----------



## Marisol

Kieran said:


> Okay, so I just read the previous few pages. The argument against Mozart is...eh...uh...he uses less chromaticsim than Haydn...em...or he wasn't popular in his lifetime or he was popular...or his music is easy peasy, no big deal...or he eats too much cheese to be a truly great composer.
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure what the argument against Mozart is! I suggest a little more listening to his music is the argument for him...


How did you get that impression? 
Against Mozart?

I have not seen anybody state that Mozart is a bad composer or even an average composer.

When I have the opinion he is overrated and mythologized does that imply I cannot find him a great composer and I have some arguments against him?

I get the impression that to some it is blasphemous to say anything about Mozart if it is not in terms like 'The greatest genius that walked the Earth' or 'A proof that God exists' or more of this nonsense.


----------



## moody

Novelette said:


> I have to agree with that part, actually!


But it all depends on what cheese.


----------



## Kieran

The thing, Marisol, is that if you read the last few pages you're not arguing that Mozart is overrated at all. You asked did he or the Haydns compose some of his music (based on what?), then you argued that he wasn't popular during his lifetime (based on what?) as if this even matters, then you went into a tangent about Haydn using more chromaticism in his music than Mozart (based on what?), none of which suggests he's overrated (which can be based on what?) or that you care for the chap.

An argument that he's overrated can only be based on a knowledge of what he's overrated _as_, or who he's overrated _in comparison to_. I haven't seen you make a case for either.

Personally speaking, I don't like the porcelain image Mozart any more than anyone else. If people think he is or isn't overrated is of no consequence to me. I listen and enjoy. I recommend this to others too...


----------



## deggial

Kieran said:


> none of which suggests he's overrated (which can be based on what?)


well, based on *this* poll, he's not. And as the sample of voters was taken from TC only, *this* is the only basis for judging his rating in this particular conversation.


----------



## Kieran

deggial said:


> well, based on *this* poll, he's not. And as the sample of voters was taken from TC only, *this* is the only basis for judging his rating in this particular conversation.


Well this is true, but it's possible to think that Wolfie is the greatest of all composers _and_ consider him overrated, at the same time.

How?

If you use words like _angelic_ and _divine_ but don't appreciate the flesh and blood hardworking man that he was, how he grappled and occasionally struggled with composition and had to actually engage with the procedure and fret over it like all composers do - as opposed to the sentimental notion of him being an ill-behaved hooligan who sat in a trance taking dictation directly from above.

That version of Mozart overrates him because it takes away the human and replaces it with a myth or a celestial power...


----------



## Mahlerian

Kieran said:


> Well this is true, but it's possible to think that Wolfie is the greatest of all composers _and_ consider him overrated, at the same time.
> 
> How?
> 
> If you use words like _angelic_ and _divine_ but don't appreciate the flesh and blood hardworking man that he was, how he grappled and occasionally struggled with composition and had to actually engage with the procedure and fret over it like all composers do - as opposed to the sentimental notion of him being an ill-behaved hooligan who sat in a trance taking dictation directly from above.
> 
> That version of Mozart overrates him because it takes away the human and replaces it with a myth or a celestial power...


In a way, you could also say it underrates his talent, as if he was merely a vessel for divine inspiration.


----------



## Kieran

Mahlerian said:


> In a way, you could also say it underrates his talent, as if he was merely a vessel for divine inspiration.


Exactly. And in neither example does it give him dignity as a workaholic composer who grappled mightily with the problems of his craft. That kind of thinking is a leftover from 19th century attempts to deal with Mozart as some proto-Romantic spirit who was out of time and struggling to be understood...


----------



## Marisol

deggial said:


> well, based on *this* poll, he's not. And as the sample of voters was taken from TC only, *this* is the only basis for judging his rating in this particular conversation.


Sorry but I think that is nonsense, there is more to the classical world than this forum. Or are you suggesting that the person creating the poll was only interested if Mozart is overrated exclusively on this forum?


----------



## Marisol

Kieran said:


> And in neither example does it give him dignity as a workaholic composer who grappled mightily with the problems of his craft.


In my opinion almost everything about Mozart was immature except for his compositions. I think the incentive to compose was mostly due to his pushy father during his early period and his massive debts during his later period.

This is probably going to be another heated discussion, I fear some people only want to hear that Mozart was a hardworking craftsman of impeccable morals who just wanted to create God sanctioned compositions. Truth must suffer to keep the myth high.



Kieran said:


> That kind of thinking is a leftover from 19th century attempts to deal with Mozart as some proto-Romantic spirit who was out of time and struggling to be understood...


I think he had serious mental issues. 
Did you ever read his letters?


----------



## Kieran

Marisol said:


> In my opinion almost everything about Mozart was immature except for his compositions. I think the incentive to compose was mostly due to his pushy father during his early period and his massive debts during his later period.


Not true, actually. There's no record of him ever feeling pushed in composition by his father. His debts only came late in his life when he fell out of favour in Vienna. Would it be asking too much for you to cite a source for any of this?



> This is probably going to be another heated discussion, I fear some people only want to hear that Mozart was a hardworking craftsman of impeccable morals who just wanted to create God sanctioned compositions. Truth must suffer to keep the myth high.


None of this refers to anything anyone has written in this thread. Can you cite a source for any of this? I highly doubt it, I think you'll even ignore the request.



> I think he had serious mental issues.
> Did you ever read his letters?


Yes, and I saw nothing that seemed untoward for a man of his genius. Are you qualified to diagnose somebody with a mental illness? If not, can you cite a source, etc..?


----------



## moody

Marisol said:


> In my opinion almost everything about Mozart was immature except for his compositions. I think the incentive to compose was mostly due to his pushy father during his early period and his massive debts during his later period.
> 
> This is probably going to be another heated discussion, I fear some people only want to hear that Mozart was a hardworking craftsman of impeccable morals who just wanted to create God sanctioned compositions. Truth must suffer to keep the myth high.
> 
> I think he had serious mental issues.
> Did you ever read his letters?


This thread is giving me mental issues. I have seldom seen such a collection of complete twaddle from some contributors.
There is no rhyme or reason behind most of it,of course there may well be a conspiracy to laud Mozart to the heavens but I've received no cash.
I prefer Beethoven but still have huge respect for Mozart--and altho' he was a scab he was also a genius.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In my opinion almost everything about Mozart was immature except for his compositions. I think the incentive to compose was mostly due to his pushy father during his early period and his massive debts during his later period.

I'm going to have to agree with Kieran in that this seems to have no basis in known fact. Mozart's father pushed him early on as a performer and a child prodigy. His father would have far more likely have liked to see Wolfie continue as a performer... primarily a violinist... ideally in the service of some court and teaching the children of the wealthy and the aristocrats on the side. Mozart senior was not likely to push Wolfie into composing operas or symphonies... and many other genre with limited means of making money.

It is certainly true that that is his later years Mozart took on commissions because of the need for money... but quite honestly, he simply wasn't a great businessman. He turned down lucrative commissions and spent money at a greater rate than he was earning it... in spite of the fact that his income was certainly not anywhere near poverty.

This is probably going to be another heated discussion, I fear some people only want to hear that Mozart was a hardworking craftsman of impeccable morals who just wanted to create God sanctioned compositions. Truth must suffer to keep the myth high.

I don't know anyone with such illusions. Quite honestly, I've seen such a fictive portrayal of the artist above any practical considerations... such as earning an income... applied to Beethoven far more often than Mozart. Personally, I don't see what that creating on demand for money in any way inherently undermines Art. That's just a naive Romantic ideal.


----------



## Marisol

StlukesguildOhio said:


> but quite honestly, he simply wasn't a great businessman.


That is putting to very mildly, I think he made a tremendous mess of his life.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I don't see what that creating on demand for money in any way inherently undermines Art.


Who is using the argument it is undermining art?


----------



## Kieran

Marisol said:


> That is putting to very mildly, I think he made a tremendous mess of his life.


I'm going to waste my time here, but willingly I'll do it: what evidence do you have that Mozart 'made a tremendous mess' of his life? He was happily married, hardworking and, from all accounts, an ordinary man with extraordinary gifts. I've read huge volumes on him and there are no records of him making a mess of his lufe.

Would you like to tell us why you write this? Or will you ignore this too, along with all the other requests for you to cite sources?


----------



## deggial

Marisol said:


> Or are you suggesting that the person creating the poll was only interested if Mozart is overrated exclusively on this forum?


yes! _be honest now_ gives his intention away.


----------



## Marisol

Kieran said:


> He was happily married, hardworking and, from all accounts, an ordinary man with extraordinary gifts.


When I read this the coffee almost spilled on my keyboard.

An ordinary man would write crap like this?
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/07/oh-my-***-burns-like-fire.html

Some excerpts:
_"I now wish you a good night, **** in your bed with all your might, sleep with peace on your mind, and try to kiss your own behind; I now go off to never-never land and sleep as much as I can stand."

"As I am in the middle of my best writing, I hear a noise in the street. I stop writing-get up, go to the window-and-the noise is gone-I sit down again, start writing once more-I have barely written ten words when I hear the noise again-I rise-but as I rise, I can still hear something but very faint-it smells like something burning-wherever I go it stinks, when I look out the window, the smell goes away, when I turn my head back to the room, the smell comes back-finally My Mama says to me: I bet you let one go?-I don't think so, Mama. yes, yes, I'm quite certain, I put it to the test, stick my finger in my ***, then put it to my nose, and-there is the proof! Mama was right! "_

Happily married?

He had to marry her!
And you read about Mozart and his infidelity never came up? He even admits his infidelity!

He made good money from his compositions and performances but still he managed to lose it all and leave his family in poverty, that to you is an indication of an ordinary and hardworking man?


----------



## deggial

Kieran said:


> That version of Mozart overrates him because it takes away the human and replaces it with a myth or a celestial power...


oh, I get what you're saying; I've seen his taste in wallpaper and I sighed. But I hope most people who used _angelic_ or such to describe him/his music are being metaphorical. It sounds lovely, therefore angels come to mind (haha!).


----------



## Kieran

What does it mean, "he had to marry her?"

I'd love a source where 'he admits his infidelity.' It doesn't actually exist. Will you add this request to all other requests for sources? Thanks.

*By the way, I know you won't report any sources because I know they don't exist.*

As for the letters, they were private and playful correspondence. You never display a sense of humour in your private moments with loved ones? And before you bring up how scatological the letters are, go back into your research: that was common back then. There is nothing in his letters that show Mozart as anything other than a witty young man who balanced his insane levels of genius with a great sense of humour...


----------



## Marisol

Kieran said:


> There is nothing in his letters that show Mozart as anything other than a witty young man who balanced his insane levels of genius with a great sense of humour...


Well, I disagree.



Kieran said:


> I'd love a source where 'he admits his infidelity.' It doesn't actually exist. Will you add this request to all other requests for sources? Thanks.
> 
> *By the way, I know you won't report any sources because I know they don't exist.*


http://books.google.com/books?id=Hi...hould have two hundred wives at least&f=false

"If I had to marry all those with whom I have jested I should have two hundred wives at least"


----------



## Kieran

Marisol, I'm amazed at how much you draw out of so little.

Where does this say that Mozart was unfaithful to his wife? It was written before he was married.

Does it suggest he didn't love Constance, or that he "had to marry her?" Of course not, he wrote it to placate his daddy. You're being a little prurient here, but you're also smearing the guy without any evidence. And without any reason too, since you're going off-topic.

This reflects your character more than his.

You want to do a feeble hatchet job on him? That's okay, but quote something of substance. Then answer this: _what does any of this have to do with Mozart as a composer?_

You're also not addressing the issues you raise, and this is because you have nothing. Leave them aside: what about addressing the notion he was overrated? Can you do this?

Or are you just a propagandist?


----------



## ahammel

For those keeping score at home, we've now had allegations that Mozart's music is too simple, that he wasn't popular in his time, that his music was financially unsuccessful, that his contemporaries didn't recognize him as a genius, that he was psychologically disturbed, and that he was unfaithful to Stanzi. 

Presumably some time in the next few pages we'll be hearing about Mozart the destitute tone-deaf schizophrenic Nazi arsonist.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> For those keeping score at home, we've now had allegations that Mozart's music is too simple, that he wasn't popular in his time, that his music was financially unsuccessful, that his contemporaries didn't recognize him as a genius, that he was psychologically disturbed, and that he was unfaithful to Stanzi.
> 
> Presumably some time in the next few pages we'll be hearing about Mozart the destitute tone-deaf schizophrenic Nazi *arsonist*.


Well, you know what they say about psychopaths....


----------



## deggial

ahammel said:


> For those keeping score at home, we've now had allegations that Mozart's music is too simple, that he wasn't popular in his time, that his music was financially unsuccessful, that his contemporaries didn't recognize him as a genius, that he was psychologically disturbed, and that he was unfaithful to Stanzi.
> 
> Presumably some time in the next few pages we'll be hearing about Mozart the destitute tone-deaf schizophrenic Nazi arsonist.


didn't a giant statue finally drag him to hell?!


----------



## DavidA

If you will pardon me saying this I think some people have been looking at a few too many movies - like Amadeus. 

We all know Mozart's letters were vulgar. So were his mother's to him. So what's new? Apparently it was in keeping with the humour of the times. There is no evidence he was unfaithful to his wife when they were married.

But in any case I cannot see what that has to do with his music. That is untouchable!


----------



## violadude

I could be completely wrong, but it sounds to me like Marisol is a little upset because Mozart wasn't the perfect image of a moral upstanding young 'Murican Christian gentleman. :lol:


----------



## Ondine

DavidA said:


> But in any case I cannot see what that has to do with his music. That is untouchable!


Yes, it's untouchable.

Also I adventure saying that there is no ''Mozart'' in Mozart's music. If one is looking at his drama in life, his music is not the place for that search.


----------



## Marisol

Kieran said:


> Where does this say that Mozart was unfaithful to his wife? It was written before he was married.


I see, so you think that right after his marriage he completely changed his ways?

http://www.aproposmozart.com/Stafford,Mozart & women 250209.pdf

_"[Constanze] attested after his death that his friendship with fair pupils or fair
singers sometimes led to infidelities which he at once confessed to her and which
she freely forgave."

- John Naglee Burk,Mozart and his Music (New York, 1959), 189 
_

Melograni writes :

_"He was recognized as being highly talented, he was esteemed, and he obtained striking successes with audiences, but in the musical hierarchy of Vienna he ranked much lower than our current estimation of his worth"

_http://books.google.com/books?id=Hi...ge&q="mozart did not have great luck"&f=false

But of course it must all be lies and slander, "the Devil's work", "Mozart would never do such a thing", "they must be jealous". 

To me it is an unfortunate aspect of human nature, the love of myths and the hate of those who want to break them with reason. Put me on the stake with slow fire you will be gratified!


----------



## ahammel

Marisol said:


> I see, so you think that right after his marriage he completely changed his ways?
> 
> http://www.aproposmozart.com/Stafford,Mozart & women 250209.pdf
> 
> _"[Constanze] attested after his death that his friendship with fair pupils or fair
> singers sometimes led to infidelities which he at once confessed to her and which
> she freely forgave."
> 
> - John Naglee Burk,Mozart and his Music (New York, 1959), 189
> _


Remind me again what Mozart's personal honour has to do with anything?


----------



## DavidA

Marisol said:


> I see, so you think that right after his marriage he completely changed his ways?
> 
> http://www.aproposmozart.com/Stafford,Mozart & women 250209.pdf
> 
> _"[Constanze] attested after his death that his friendship with fair pupils or fair
> singers sometimes led to infidelities which he at once confessed to her and which
> she freely forgave."
> 
> - John Naglee Burk,Mozart and his Music (New York, 1959), 189
> _
> 
> But of course it must all be lies and slander, "the Devil's work", "Mozart would never do such a thing".
> 
> To me it is an unfortunate aspect of human nature, the love of myths and the hate of those who want to break them with reason. Put me on the stake with slow fire!


You should read the whole the article you quote. It concludes:

When one contemplates all the legends about Mozart's extravagance, unreliability, tactlessness, drinking and womanizing, it is tempting to conclude that there is no smoke without fire. No doubt there was exaggeration, but a grain or two of truth must be at bottom of it all. But such a verdict is by no means secure. Here we have traced the history of some of these legends, showing how they grew. Very often a cloud of witnesses evaporates when it becomes plain that they have all plagiarized and embroidered upon a single original source, itself of doubtful validity. The legends are like inverted pyramids, vast superstructures resting on vanishing points. The most appropriate attitude towards them is one of skepticism

Let me say again that whatever the truth it makes no difference to the music.


----------



## Kieran

Marisol said:


> I see, so you think that right after his marriage he completely changed his ways?
> 
> http://www.aproposmozart.com/Stafford,Mozart & women 250209.pdf
> 
> _"[Constanze] attested after his death that his friendship with fair pupils or fair
> singers sometimes led to infidelities which he at once confessed to her and which
> she freely forgave."
> 
> - John Naglee Burk,Mozart and his Music (New York, 1959), 189
> _
> 
> Melograni writes :
> 
> _"He was recognized as being highly talented, he was esteemed, and he obtained striking successes with audiences, but in the musical hierarchy of Vienna he ranked much lower than our current estimation of his worth"
> 
> _http://books.google.com/books?id=Hi...ge&q="mozart did not have great luck"&f=false
> 
> But of course it must all be lies and slander, "the Devil's work", "Mozart would never do such a thing", "they must be jealous".
> 
> To me it is an unfortunate aspect of human nature, the love of myths and the hate of those who want to break them with reason. Put me on the stake with slow fire you will be gratified!


Marisol,

I don't mind to post once more because I'm sure you're replying from genuine purposes, but you're all over the place on this one. And nothing that you've posted has anything to do with Mozart as a composer - let alone Mozart as an overrated composer.

Do you have anything to say about the topic the OP raised? Or are you just going to post unsubstantial gossip?

Again, I'm not saying this to be mean or nasty, I just think _on this topic,_ you're fixated on stuff which is rumour and gossip and has nothing to do with the OP, or Mozart's music. He was *not *unfaithful, as far as reliable records attest (and this is none of mine or your business anyway) - but even if he was unfaithful every night of the week, it would mean nothing to the quality of his music.

Slandering a dead guy doesn't mean he was an overrated dead guy, you know?


----------



## Marisol

Kieran said:


> And nothing that you've posted has anything to do with Mozart as a composer - let alone Mozart as an overrated composer.


You challenged me to come with quotes as to Mozart's fidelity, which you were sure of did not exist. 
I provided them and now your response is: why do you bring this up?


----------



## millionrainbows

I think I've finally figured out why the OP, or anyone else, would think Mozart was overrated. In order to really see this clearly, we would need to compare Mozart side-by-side with a lesser, more mediocre composers (or not) from about that same period, like Boccherini, Clementi, Soler, Salieri, Gossec, Stamitz, Abel, C. P. E. Bach, and Gluck. Haydn, a master, can be used as a "prototype" figure for comparison as well.

How many listeners have explored all these lesser names? I admit I haven't, but here's the thinking: common practice tonality was rather bland during this classical period; the strange dissonances and off-beat accents of Romanticism and Beethoven, which are so much more distinct and memorable, had not yet emerged.

So how are we going to distinguish any features of Mozart from, say, Boccherini? By their respective handling of first-inversion "I" chords? I doubt it, but there it is.

For example, one of my favorite "Mozartisms" is the way he constructs irregular phrases with an "extra beat," as in the second _Minuetto - Trio_ of _Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331._ See what I mean? Does anybody even know what I'm talking about, other than maybe those who have actually played these sonatas? It goes right over my head as well, unless I'm counting or analyzing.


----------



## DavidA

Marisol said:


> You challenged me to come with quotes as to Mozart's fidelity, which you were sure of did not exist.
> I provided them and now your response is: why do you bring this up?


Yes, but the article you quoted itself throws doubt upon them.


----------



## Kieran

Marisol said:


> You challenged me to come with quotes as to Mozart's fidelity, which you were sure of did not exist.
> I provided them and now your response is: why do you bring this up?





DavidA said:


> Yes, but the article you quoted itself throws doubt upon them.


And Marisol, that was my response all along! *What's your point?*

You've brought up chromaticism, did the Haydn's compose his music, his popularity and then fidelity.

What have these to do with his music, and whether or not it's overrated?


----------



## Ukko

Kieran said:


> And Marisol, that was my response all along! *What's your point?*
> 
> You've brought up chromaticism, did the Haydn's compose his music, his popularity and then fidelity.
> 
> What have these to do with his music, and whether or not it's overrated?


_Marisol_'s working hypothesis _must_ be that Mozart was a sinner, therefor his music is irretrievably contaminated.


----------



## DavidA

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Marisol_'s working hypothesis _must_ be that Mozart was a sinner, therefor his music is irretrievably contaminated.


As that applies to every (almost) other composer then what are we contaminating our ears with?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I see, so you think that right after his marriage he completely changed his ways?

It does happen quite often that men will halt their womanizing after finding the right woman.

"[Constanze] attested after his death that his friendship with fair pupils or fair
singers sometimes led to infidelities which he at once confessed to her and which
she freely forgave."

Ultimately, it is irrelevant whether Mozart was a celibate or screwing everything in sight... including large farm animals. It has no bearing whatsoever upon the merits of his music.

"He was recognized as being highly talented, he was esteemed, and he obtained striking successes with audiences, but in the musical hierarchy of Vienna he ranked much lower than our current estimation of his worth"

No one has suggested that Mozart's popularity or reputation was the same during his lifetime as it is today. What major artist could claim as much? Maybe Goethe... Dickens... Rubens... Wagner? Certainly not Shakespeare, Beethoven, Dante, Homer, Leonardo, etc... Mozart struggled for recognition in Vienna... while he was something of a star in Prague.

Again... what has this to do with the merits of Mozart's music?


----------



## Ondine

StlukesguildOhio said:


> [...] screwing everything in sight... including large farm animals.


I was imagining that... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Novelette

Perhaps the next tangent will be that Mozart is not good because he didn't powder his wig often enough?

I think the issue has been settled. Whatever our personal opinions of Mozart's music, it is clear that:

_His art, the offspring of his genius [which was acclaimed and recognized as such by contemporaries and by latter-day men and women of high learning and taste], was an instrumental plinth upon which music has built and flourished._

The man's deficiencies do not affect his accomplishments; if we were to diminish the achievements of any man or woman because of his or her personal faults, whether real or imagined, then the list of accomplished people would be quite short. Beethoven's music must be without worth, on account of his personal failures. And then there's Bach! And Handel! And Mendelssohn! And my beloved Schumann!

And need I bring up the personal failures of John Milton? Lord Byron? Goethe? Thomas Jefferson? etc.?

Then are there even any accomplished people at all in the annals of human history, if we hold all to such a standard?


----------



## millionrainbows

Really, listen to the Symphony No. 40. We tend to take it for granted, but compared to all the music that surrounded it, it was definitely something special, or we wouldn't even remember it. I mean, how many themes by the other composers I mentioned do most people usually remember?


----------



## Marisol

millionrainbows said:


> Really, listen to the Symphony No. 40. We tend to take it for granted, but compared to all the music that surrounded it, it was definitely something special, or we wouldn't even remember it. I mean, how many themes by the other composers I mentioned do most people usually remember?


I think KV 550 is indeed something special, a masterpiece actually.


----------



## Ondine

Marisol said:


> I think KV 550 is indeed something special, a masterpiece actually.


Yes. And what about the trilogy Prague, Linz & Haffner? The first movements are unbelievable.


----------



## Geo Dude

Personally I feel that those who don't 'get' Mozart often have trouble because they're listening to the wrong interpretations. Many love the old-school, romantic interpretations from the 1940s, 50s, and 60s but others don't and find Mozart with a Brucknerian string section or a grand piano or an interpretation that reads him as Schumann rather than a classicist to not be to their taste. I had this problem with both Mozart and Haydn (and some Beethoven) until I checked out some HIP (and PI) recordings.

That said, as Novelette noted, I think the issue in regards to his quality has been settled. There are plenty of composers whose music is outside the lines of my personal taste (Bartok, Schoenberg to name two examples), but I don't claim that they're over-rated.


----------



## DaDirkNL

It's not that hard to be honest here:No. I just don't think it's possible to point out the greatest composer of all time. The three most mentioned composers(Bach,Mozart,Beethoven) all lived in a different era with different techniques and expressions. In my opinion it is quite clear that those three composers were the best in the era in wich they lived. I say no more.


----------



## Cheyenne

The only piece of critical 'analysis' regularly flung Mozart's way in a deprecating manner by his haters is that his works are but 'tuneful little trifles'. As it so happens, George Bernard Shaw wrote a piece with exactly that as title, only with a question-mark attached -- and how could it not?

_The Philharmonic, I am glad to say, rose the occasion on Thursday last, when it devoted its first concert of the season to the works of Mozart, whose bust, wreathed with laurel, had the same dissipated air which I remember seeing a lady instantaneously produce in the living Wagner by crowning him, too, with a wreath which had not been made for him. The concert was a great success. The music has been thoroughly rehearsed; the band was on its mettle, the strings going with extraordinary brilliancy and precision; and Mr Cowen did his very best. The results was one of those performances during which, if you happen to turn to the program of the next concert, as I did, and find that the symphony there announced is Beethoven's Seventh, you feel that you really cannot listen to such clumsy and obvious sensationalism after Mozart. For my part, I heartily wish that the Philharmonic Society would devote not merely one concert but a whole season the the commemoration, with a view to educating our London amateurs. These ladies and gentlemen, having for years known Mozart by vapid and superficial performances which were worse than complete neglect, or by the wretched attempts made to exploit Don Giovanni from time to time at our opera-houses, have hardly yet got out of the habit of regarding Mozart's compositions as tuneful little trifles fit only for persons of the simplest tastes. I have known people to talk in this fashion whilst they were running after every available repetition of the Walkürenritt, the Lohengrin bridal prelude, or the finale to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony - all of them glorified burst of rum-tum, which any donkey could take in at the first hearing - firmly believing them to be profound compositions, caviare to the general. Much as if a picture-fancier should consider Gustave Doré's and Leon Gallait's work finer and deeper than Carpaccio's, or a literay critic declare Victor Hugo the great master of masters, and Molière an obsoloete compiler of trivial farces. _


----------



## appoggiatura

Mozart is amazing. I used to dislike his music a lot. But then I started to listen more closely and now I absolutely adore it. 
Mozart is not so easy going as a lot of people seem to think. It can sound way too cheerful and superficial. 
Mozart is like wine. Search for the depth, the layers. Learn to appreciate and you'll love him.


----------



## Alydon

Mozart is not overrated, he is simply a greater composer than most. Like the case for Wagner which seems to always cause a rush of strong opinions on this site you may not personally like the man or the music but the staggering genius of mind, compositional skill and vision can not be disputed.


----------



## realdealblues

Do you think Mozart overrated?

Answer: No.


----------



## FatLord

I think Mr. Mozart, despite his incredible talent and work, gets too much credit comparing to Beethoven or Tchaikovsky. In my opinion, all composers should be the icon of the music history, not only "one" that everybody knows about. (Sorry for my bad english)


----------



## Xisten267

Interesting that about 1/4 of all TC members that voted here also think that Mozart is overrated or don't listen to his music at all. I wouldn't expect these results.


----------



## Rogerx

Allerius said:


> Interesting that about 1/4 of all TC members that voted here also think that Mozart is overrated or don't listen to his music at all. I wouldn't expect these results.


To be fair, poll dates from 2013


----------



## Xisten267

Rogerx said:


> To be fair, poll dates from 2013


So...?......................................


----------



## Rogerx

Allerius said:


> So...?......................................


Most of the voters are out / left, so make up your mats.


----------



## Xisten267

Rogerx said:


> Most of the voters are out / left, so make up your mats.


But they were members some day so I don't know why their votes shouldn't be considered as valid as mine or yours. Also, the poll is still open, what means that new members may still vote. And in my statement I referred to the "members that voted here" independent of when, so my statement is still valid.


----------



## Rogerx

Allerius said:


> But they were members some day so I don't know why their votes shouldn't be considered as valid as mine or yours. Also, the poll is still open, what means that new members may still vote.


Or you can start a new poll in


----------



## Guest002

I think people seem to be arguing about Mozart's worth as a composer, when the question posed was 'is he over-rated' which is actually a question about the people doing the rating, not about the ratee.

So I voted 'yes', even though I think on his OK days, Mozart was pretty wonderful. The reason I voted yes? Well, here's Peter Gammond (The Bluffer's Guide to Music) on the man:

_Everything he wrote is perfect with never a wrong note in it. The proper reaction to Mozart is to go glassy-eyed and full of inexpressible admiration. If you find Mozart's music boring, you had better keep this horrible fact to yourself: you might as well say that you don't like animals or can't see the point of cricket._

Now, Peter Gammond is taking the p*ss at this point, obviously. But he's also stating a truth: people, in general, tend to think Wolfgang was the second coming of Christ. Remember the bit in Amadeus when Salieri expresses astonishment that page after page of original scores was free of correction or evidence of drafting of any sort?! The film was as much an exaggeration as Peter Gammond's comment, of course: but lots of people do seem to overlook the pages and pages of crossings out in his scores, or the plentiful evidence of revision, or the fact that the stuff he was writing aged 5 wasn't very good, though the stuff he was writing at 30 was. (Messiahs shouldn't mature or show evidence of human growth or learning, after all!)

I don't think even Bach's most fervent admirers regard him as God incarnate; many of Mozart's seem to. So yeah, in my view, he's over-rated. But that's their fault, not his.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

No, Mozart is not overrated. In fact, here on TC I often find he is underrated by many. Mozart deserves his reputation as one of the greatest composers of all time alongside Bach and Beethoven (and, I would add, Brahms).


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Mozart wrote the greatest operas, chamber music, symphonies and concertos of his day - even better than Haydn's IMHO, and I love Haydn.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dizwell said:


> I don't think even Bach's most fervent admirers regard him as God incarnate; many of Mozart's seem to. So yeah, in my view, he's over-rated. But that's their fault, not his.


_"Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe."_


----------



## Guest002

Well, particle physicists are bound to go overboard about Bach: all that mathematics! :lol:

She also mispronounced 'quark'. It's not supposed to rhyme with 'Mark', despite the _Finnegan's Wake_ origins of the word! Pet hate of mine, sorry!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

dizwell said:


> She also mispronounced 'quark'. It's not supposed to rhyme with 'Mark', despite the _Finnegan's Wake_ origins of the word! Pet hate of mine, sorry!


Bit of an odd one, that, when we consider similar monosyllabic words: bark, dark, hark, lark, mark, nark, park, Sark/shark.


----------



## LarryShone

Absolutely not!


----------



## CnC Bartok

Is Mozart the greatest composer ever ever ever? My answer would be "no".
Is Mozart one of the greatest composers ever ever ever? My answer would be "yes"
Is Mozart one of your fave-ist composers ever ever ever? My answer would be "no".
Do you like Mozart's music? My answer would be "very much so"

I am not sure if that means I consider him over-rated or not......


----------



## Guest002

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Bit of an odd one, that, when we consider similar monosyllabic words: bark, dark, hark, lark, mark, nark, park, Sark/shark.


Not really. The word was made up by Murray Gell-Mann (who conceived of Quark theory around 1964). As he himself wrote, "In 1963, when I assigned the name "quark" to the fundamental constituents of the nucleon, I had the sound first, without the spelling, which could have been "kwork"".

So it's supposed to be pronounced "quawk", as in 'squawk', according to the man who named them.

He went on to admit that he realised the word is supposed to rhyme with 'Mark' as per James Joyce's original:
_
Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he hasn't got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark. _

...but decided that as the book represents the dream of a publican named Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker; and as phrases occur in the book that are partially determined by calls for drinks at the bar; then he could legitimately (?!) argue that perhaps the phrase had been triggered by calls for 'three quarts for Muster Mark', and therefore, 'quork' could rhyme with 'quart'.

Anyway. As I say, it's all a bit tenuous and doesn't really change anything, but I sometimes find it difficult not to be pedantic on the point: Murray Gell-Mann always was, apparently


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I think his canonical position as one of the "Big 3" is unwarranted. Obviously to say he's not one of the greatest composers is lunacy. But it took me a long time in my CM voyage to get Mozart. For more than a year I thought he was all cheesy nursery rhyme tunes and repetition. It was the Sinfonia Concertante that did it for me, and since then, he has been a top-10 composer, just not top 3 or 5 like he seems to be for most. What holds him back slightly is that he produced a large quantity of "trivial" music that doesn't seem as profound as his greatest masterpieces to me (serenades, a lot of concerti and chamber works, a few piano sonatas), and I really do think his operas and piano concerti are given a lot of undue praise. So yes, I have to admit I think he's overrated. But the C Minor Mass, Requiem, 4th String Quintet, Clarinet Quintet, Clarinet Concerto, Sinfonia Concertante, lots of string quartets and piano sonatas remain among my favorite all-time works. For me it's easy to tell when he was inspired and when he was not - his greatest music has a miraculous purity to it. Here's how I currently rank him in my top 10:

1. Bach
2. Brahms
3. Beethoven
4. Mahler
5. Schubert
6. Chopin
7. Mozart
8. Sibelius
9. Dvorak
10. Bruckner


----------



## Bwv 1080

Why do so many people waste time bitching about composers they dont like? Just STFU and listen to what you like, the negative energy is a waste. 

There is a lot of music I love now that I did not like at one time, but am glad I did troll message boards about it and then feel like I was committed to disliking it forever


----------



## hammeredklavier

.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dizwell said:


> I don't think even Bach's most fervent admirers regard him as God incarnate; many of Mozart's seem to. So yeah, in my view, he's over-rated. But that's their fault, not his.


Take a look at this documentary (7:48 ~ 12:02):





I can see your point, but most famous composers in history are "romanticized" like that. 
You know the phrase always said about Beethoven: _"How could a deaf man compose music like this!"_ (In reality, he became deaf slowly with age, and was never really completely deaf.) And no one ever talks of Chopin's antisemitism. (Even though in his letters he explicitly called his publishers antisemitic names for not giving him enough money)
If I ever hear Beethoven's late quartets are "Pinnacle of the Western Civilization" again, I think I'm going to barf. I mean, they're indeed great works, but the way some people describe them is too extreme (should I say 'cringey') to be honest.
There's also the 'propagandist' argument: "Beethoven is so individual he doesn't belong in any school (ie. Classical or Romantic)". I think this only serves to belittle and diminish other composers' creativity and individuality.



dizwell said:


> the fact that the stuff he was writing aged 5 wasn't very good, though the stuff he was writing at 30 was.


His early teenage works are still comparable to Mendelssohn's. That's what's important to me. (If you ask me)


----------



## trazom

dizwell said:


> I don't think even Bach's most fervent admirers regard him as God incarnate; many of Mozart's seem to. So yeah, in my view, he's over-rated. But that's their fault, not his.


I'm guessing you haven't read a lot of the comments on youtube videos with his music?

For instance, I only had to click on one video of the Saint Matthew Passion to come across comments like these....



> "...his Chorales are both Scientifically and Spiritually perfect, and his Choirs are even beyond"





> "When i listen to Bach's Matthewpassion's end, i understand those who committed suicide into eagerness for Heaven. "





> "This man had a direct line to God. And his music attests to that. And I am humbled."





> "The greatest musical achievement in human history!"


I'm sure there are examples of equally zealous and borderline psychotic fans of Beethoven, too, or any other composer with a large number of fans. Doesn't really mean their music is "overrated," either.



Bwv 1080 said:


> Why do so many people waste time bitching about composers they dont like? Just STFU and listen to what you like, the negative energy is a waste.
> 
> There is a lot of music I love now that I did not like at one time, but am glad I did troll message boards about it and then feel like I was committed to disliking it forever


I'm guessing because it's easier and feels better to claim music you don't like/don't get is not as great as other people think it is, (e.g."overrated") and find people to agree with you for validation. Isn't that what most of these polls are for?


----------



## pianozach

Mozart overrated? No. Genius-level stuff. An incomparable master.

From *The Guardian* https://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/jun/04/classicalmusicandopera :

*". . . 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"."*


----------



## Pawelec

Mozart? Please. The peak for every musician to climb. Let's see what others have said:



(not posted by but said by) Douglas Adams said:


> Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe.


And well, the universe is quite a heavy thing.



(not posted by but said by) Karl Barth said:


> Whether the angels play only Bach praising God, I am not quite sure. I am sure, however, that en famille they play Mozart.


Again, hits the same spot: Bach is quite stiff at times and if you prefer some more flexibility he is easily dethroned by Mozart. Bach weaves a tapestry, Mozart decorates a cake. While both indisputably yield masterpieces, Bach tends towards old-fashioned things to be hung on walls and sweep the dust off them so they don't deteriorate while Mozart provides a tempting treat with potential surprises inside, all of that enveloped in a work of art. Bach is just art and craftsmanship; Mozart is all that and also, to put it simply, quite a lot of fun.

Mozart is also much more expressive and playful than Haydn, who, quite frankly, falls mostly into the craftsmanship category in my opinion. Flawless technically, but rarely moving (with Cello Concerti, Sinfonia Concertante and the Nelson Mass being notable exceptions).

Sadly, J.S. Bach and The Deaf One tend to have awfully narrow-tasted, fanatic fanbases (I'd expect Wagnerists to be alike, there's an important pathos factor linking them all). I don't see it that often when it comes to the admirers of Vivaldi, Händel or Mozart. Cannot really tell much about fanbases beyond Mendelssohn-Bartholdy because I cannot stand most of Beethovenian and older music so I simply don't listen to it and in consequence I don't confront myself with them.

And if you want me to forge my own quote involving deities: If Bach gave us the words of God then Mozart skept the talking and went straight to the miracles.


----------



## Guest002

trazom said:


> I'm guessing you haven't read a lot of the comments on youtube videos with his music?
> 
> For instance, I only had to click on one video of the Saint Matthew Passion to come across comments like these....
> 
> "...his Chorales are both Scientifically and Spiritually perfect, and his Choirs are even beyond" "When i listen to Bach's Matthewpassion's end, i understand those who committed suicide into eagerness for Heaven. "
> 
> "This man had a direct line to God. And his music attests to that. And I am humbled."
> 
> "The greatest musical achievement in human history!"
> 
> I'm sure there are examples of equally zealous and borderline psychotic fans of Beethoven, too, or any other composer with a large number of fans. Doesn't really mean their music is "overrated," either.


Well, I think our definitions of 'fervent admirers' might be a bit off from each other. I don't regard people who comment on Youtube as particularly _knowledgeable_ admirers of anything, though fervent they usually are! Indeed, I find Youtube generally brings out the nutters (and the ignorant who are desperate not to appear so).

As ever, Peter Gammond got it right first: "Bach is not really a mere musical commodity at all, but a religion. He is adored by all intellectual virgins (male or female). Like cold showers and hot baths, Bach's music is an almost satisfactory substitute for sex. Its purity grips minds slightly too rareified to be properly religious. It must be ...discussed with an expression of ineluctable piety. ... Any suggestion that you can take Bach as good clean fun can earn you a very nasty reputation. You must take Bach seriously or not at all".

Mr. Gammond is taking the proverbial, but he captures a truth which your quotes from Youtube demonstrate quite nicely, I think!


----------



## Guest002

Pawelec said:


> Bach is quite stiff at times... Bach weaves a tapestry... Bach tends towards old-fashioned things to be hung on walls and sweep the dust off them so they don't deteriorate...


Blimey mate: get some new Bach recordings! The man has an uncanny ability to make people want to _dance_ (well, me, anyway. I try not to do it too much in public). Doesn't matter whether it's a holy bit of a cantata or a solemn bit in a Passion, there are dance rhythms aplenty! And a corresponding helping of sheer joy.

Of course, we are allowed our different reactions; but I confess never to having found Bach in the slightest "stiff" or "old-fashioned" or in any way "dusty"!


----------



## DavidA

dizwell said:


> Well, I think our definitions of 'fervent admirers' might be a bit off from each other. I don't regard people who comment on Youtube as particularly _knowledgeable_ admirers of anything, though fervent they usually are! Indeed, I find Youtube generally brings out the nutters (and the ignorant who are desperate not to appear so).
> 
> As ever, Peter Gammond got it right first: "Bach is not really a mere musical commodity at all, but a religion. He is adored by all intellectual virgins (male or female). Like cold showers and hot baths, Bach's music is an almost satisfactory substitute for sex. Its purity grips minds slightly too rareified to be properly religious. It must be ...discussed with an expression of ineluctable piety. ... Any suggestion that you can take Bach as good clean fun can earn you a very nasty reputation. You must take Bach seriously or not at all".
> 
> *Mr. Gammond* is taking the proverbial, but he captures a truth which your quotes from Youtube demonstrate quite nicely, I think!


For goodness sake! Mr Gammond is just being a bit of an idiot. I know plenty of Bach admirers and none of them are like that. Let's face it, having sired 20 kids, Bach obviously didn't feel his music was a substitute for sex! Nor was his piety so great that it stopped him having a punch-up with the verger. 'Too rarified to be properly religious'? What nonsense! We just know great music when we hear it. It was Brahms who said of the Chaconne that if he'd even have conceived on writing such a thing he'd have died of happiness. Same with Mozart. You listen and think, "How on earth did he do that?" The answer is sheer genius.
I did wonder, however, when we turned up for a concert to hear Angela Hewitt play part 2 a WTC complete as to what Bach would have thought of it, around 400 people sitting and listening to all these pieces he thought of as exercises in one go!


----------



## Guest002

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake! Mr Gammond is just being a bit of an idiot. I know plenty of Bach admirers and none of them are like that. Let's face it, having sired 20 kids, Bach obviously didn't feel his music was a substitute for sex! Nor was his piety so great that it stopped him having a punch-up with the verger. 'Too rarified to be properly religious'? What nonsense! We just know great music when we hear it. It was Brahms who said of the Chaconne that if he'd even have conceived on writing such a thing he'd have died of happiness. Same with Mozart. You listen and think, "How on earth did he do that?" The answer is sheer genius.
> I did wonder, however, when we turned up for a concert to hear Angela Hewitt play part 2 a WTC complete as to what Bach would have thought of it, around 400 people sitting and listening to all these pieces he thought of as exercises in one go!


I think you may have misplaced your sense of humour.

I already said, Mr Gammond was taking the proverbial... but he captures a truth. That's a truth about some of the people who _listen_ to Bach. Not about Bach himself (so your comment on the number of children he fathered or his propensity to resort to fisticuffs are irrelevant here).

Whether he was a genius or not is also irrelevant to the point I was actually making, which was a reply to a comment about how some of Bach's *admirers* rather go over the top in genius-worship.

So calm down a little and try to put things in context. I wasn't saying anything at all about Bach. Just about some of his admirers. As was Mr. Gammond. Your high dudgeon is misdirected.


----------



## Pawelec

@dizwell: dancing is a problematic subject because the palette of dances evolves rapidly. Practically nobody dances gigues, contredanses and minuets nowadays. It's not that dance music cannot be ingenious, quite the contrary, if we want a more modern example let's just examine Piazzolla's output. We consider tango a dance genre as of now but nobody can guarantee this will hold in the next 200 years.

So no, neither Bach nor Mozart makes me dance. And that's despite the fact Mozart composed about 200 AABA dances and according to surviving evidence was just as good at dancing minuets as he was at composing music for them.


----------



## Guest002

Pawelec said:


> @dizwell: dancing is a problematic subject because the palette of dances evolves rapidly. Practically nobody dances gigues, contredanses and minuets nowadays. It's not that dance music cannot be ingenious, quite the contrary, if we want a more modern example let's just examine Piazzolla's output. We consider tango a dance genre as of now but nobody can guarantee this will hold in the next 200 years.
> 
> So no, neither Bach nor Mozart makes me dance. And that's despite the fact Mozart composed about 200 AABA dances and according to surviving evidence was just as good at dancing minuets as he was at composing music for them.


In the comment to which you are referring, Dance = Tendency to tap one's feet and 'feel the rhythm', not to specifically move about a polished wooden floor performing formal dance moves of any particular description or specific form.

Specifically, *you* said you found Bach stiff at times. I'm merely saying exactly the opposite.
I find Bach full of rhythm, joy and sprightly flexibility, even in his most solemn works. 
The St. Matthew Passion ends in a sarabande rhythm, after all!

I do not now, nor ever had, have a tendency to don powdered wigs and dance the fandango (let alone the tango). It may help, from time to time, not to read things quite so literally, but to drive to the _gist_ of what a person says.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

All of the "Big 3" have groups of fanatical admirers, of which I am a Bach fanatic. I'm not ashamed to admit that - I'm not claiming he's objectively the "greatest." When I say that I hear the celestial spheres in his music, that I find the Goldberg Variations and Art of Fugue the most expressive, viscerally emotional music I know - I mean it, it's not just a figure of speech. There is something so special about his music that it ceases to become simply "music" for me - it becomes a part of life. I have a tough time empathizing with those who feel the same about other composers, but who am I to argue? For me the only composer who even comes close to Bach's level of mastery is Brahms with his sumptuously rich art. Beethoven is a towering revolutionary who wrote much music that goes directly to my soul. Mozart was a tremendous composer who wrote glorious tunes to beguile my ears. Sibelius is, I guess, my equivalent of what Britten is for dizwell...a composer who doesn't often make the upper tier of many, but who I connect with on an extremely intimate level. I am fascinated by the opinions of those who think Mozart's music is perfect and divine, because I don't hear that. I respect the beliefs of those who think Beethoven was the greatest - I can see their logic, but for me repeated listens of his music get boring since it seems like his substance is superficial (still a top 5 composer!) I want to learn to hear what they're hearing, so I pay attention and try to listen with an open mind and open ears. So, all I'm asking - don't mock those who have such superlative opinions about great composers, because most of the time they actually do feel that way rather than exaggerating. Art is very personal (though I do believe it has a certain objectivity when it comes to value, but that's a different conversation) and we're all here to share, discuss, and learn about the greatest music of all time. 

BTW, if you don't feel the urge to dance (or at least tap your feet) to Bach's Fugue for Organ in G major BWV 577, the first movement of the 5th Brandenburg Concerto, or the Gloria of the Mass in B Minor, well...I just don't know what to say!


----------



## Guest002

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Sibelius is, I guess, my equivalent of what Britten is for dizwell...a composer who doesn't often make the upper tier of many, but who I connect with on an extremely intimate level.


I feel that gets to the heart of things very well. Thanks for saying it like that.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> So, all I'm asking - don't mock those who have such superlative opinions about great composers, because most of the time they actually do feel that way rather than exaggerating.


I will take very slight issue with that. I don't think it's the people being mocked. And I don't think it's the genuine feelings they have that are being mocked. It is, rather, the un-restrained -dare one say, immature?- way in which their admiration is being expressed. It's fine to have a 'superlative opinion' about a composer if it's a superlatively _informed_ opinion. But an uninformed and early resort to superlatives might indicate a lack of _perspective_ about things, no matter how understandable a person's enthusiasm might be.

So when I (or Mr Gammond) mock the 'purity of mind' of Bach fans, or the 'glassy-eyed admiration' that beset Mozart fans, it's the lack of control or nuance associated with the enthusiasm for Bach or Mozart that is being mocked, I think, rather than the no-doubt-sincere feelings of admiration they feel, let alone the individuals doing the feeling.

I _want_ people to feel strongly about music; I just appreciate modulated opinion better than seemingly uncritical fan-dom.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> BTW, if you don't feel the urge to dance (or at least tap your feet) to Bach's Fugue for Organ in G major BWV 577, the first movement of the 5th Brandenburg Concerto, or the Gloria of the Mass in B Minor, well...I just don't know what to say!


Brilliant suggestions all three, and expertly highlights the foot-tapping potential of serious Bach! (_Especially_ that Glora)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

dizwell said:


> I will take very slight issue with that. I don't think it's the people being mocked. And I don't think it's the genuine feelings they have that are being mocked. It is, rather, the un-restrained -dare one say, immature?- way in which their admiration is being expressed. It's fine to have a 'superlative opinion' about a composer if it's a superlatively _informed_ opinion. But an uninformed and early resort to superlatives might indicate a lack of _perspective_ about things, no matter how understandable a person's enthusiasm might be.
> 
> So when I (or Mr Gammond) mock the 'purity of mind' of Bach fans, or the 'glassy-eyed admiration' that beset Mozart fans, it's the lack of control or nuance associated with the enthusiasm for Bach or Mozart that is being mocked, I think, rather than the no-doubt-sincere feelings of admiration they feel, let alone the individuals doing the feeling.


Yes, I totally agree with this. I think superlative opinions should be "modulated" (as you say so well) and informed not so much by our subjective experiences but the source material itself. If someone asked me why I love the Goldberg Variations so much, I wouldn't say "because they lift me to cosmic heights of musical inspiration and infinite expression," because obviously the person asking the question doesn't experience that and has no idea what I'm talking about. Instead, I would discuss the inexorable structure of the work, how Bach marries unity and diversity in perfect proportion, how the sparsely beautiful aria is transformed into an incredible variety of ideas, and by the time we hear it again at the end, it seems like Bach has only gotten started with the potentials of the theme. "Seemingly uncritical fandom" annoys me in everything (not just art criticism!), so your point is well-taken.

But then, there is the music (like Sibelius for me and Britten for you) that is so intensely personal, I don't really _know_ what it is about how the music is put together that affects me. If someone asked me why Sibelius 7 is one of my favorite pieces of music of all time, I would say honestly from the bottom of my heart, "because it brings me to the barren elements of nature, the raw beauty of whistling pine forests; clean, rarefied virgin air; the vibrant colors of the autumn woods, the northern bogs and wintery landscapes infused with the warmth of the sun on the first day of spring." I feel all that and more in this music (because what I just described is home to me), and it's incredibly personal. I can't tell you why, when the trombone theme appears out of nowhere in the final bars like a great mountain piercing a veil of fog, I am always moved to solemn tears no matter what the occasion. That's part of the beauty of art, and I hope that just by sharing what I experience, I can inspire others to forge their own connections with the music.


----------



## ZeR0

In a word: no. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## pianozach

Funny how a discussion of Mozart induces people to mention Beethoven and Bach.

As always there are those that are willing to insult them behind their Bachs. Except for Beethoven; you can insult him to his face, but _does he listen?_ No.

How about a WORST OF MOZART bottom 10 list. Oh, it's been done? Figures.

Let's see . . . 
*Eine Kleine Nachtmusik*? Overplayed
_*Piano Concerto No. 13 in C Major, III. Allegro*_? Contrived and kitschy.

This is fun . . . 
*BEETHOVEN*
*Wellington's Victory*? Memorable for the wrong reasons. Ham fisted and obnoxious. 
*Trio for Two Oboes and English Horn in C Major, Op. 87*? Harmonically stupid and melodically forgettable

*BACH*
*"Ich bin herrlich, ich bin schön", BWV 49* ("I am glorious, I am beautiful, to enflame my saviour"). There's just not happening anything in this aria.
*Chromatic Fantasia BWV 903*? Um . . . what the actual non-linear hell is this?


----------



## Flamme

A bit overrated yes.


----------



## mikeh375

I too think Mozart is overrated. Imv, he is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal. Don't shout at me though, I mean, I am an owner of the complete Phillips Edition. It's just that he is relegated these days to background whilst playing Scrabble in my household....uh oh.....sorry Mozart fans. 

OK maybe that's too harsh when I think of his perfection and some of his glorious work, so I'll rescind a little....


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

pianozach said:


> *Chromatic Fantasia BWV 903*? Um . . . what the actual non-linear hell is this?


Sorry to go off topic, but I didn't really get this until I heard Wanda Landowska's old recording. It almost gives you a heart attack with the suspense that she imbues it with! For those who think Bach is mechanical, this is the thing to hear.

Though I think Mozart is overrated, I believe my favorite works by him are _underrated_. The Clarinet Quintet, Sinfonia Concertante, the piano fantasias, Quintet for Piano and Winds, many of the string quartets besides the "Dissonance," are for me some of the pinnacles of his work but they're overshadowed by the late symphonies, piano concerti, and operas. Chamber is probably my favorite genre of his, and the 4th String Quintet just may be my favorite work from the Classical Period. I also think the 40th Symphony is better than the Jupiter, the 17th Piano Concerto is better than any of the concerti that came after it, and the Mass in C Minor is infinitely greater than the Requiem. I'm an oddball when it comes to my Mozart tastes.


----------



## Judith

Yes and no. Some of his works can be overrated but there are some underrated ones also and they are lovely


----------



## tdc

No, actually judging by what I've observed on this forum I think that Mozart is slightly underrated, at least on TC.


----------



## Rogerx

tdc said:


> No, actually judging by what I've observed on this forum I think that Mozart is slightly underrated, at least on TC.


No......................123.........................93%


----------



## tdc

Rogerx said:


> No......................123.........................93%


33 people said yes, 6 people don't listen to his music. 123 = 75% (ish) not 93%.

Mozart thus far has received less than half the votes of Beethoven here:

Favorite of the Big Three (poll)


----------



## haziz

No. I think Mozart and JS Bach were the two greatest musical geniuses of all time. Are they my two favorite composers? No! I am much more of a fan of Tchaikovsky and Beethoven, but then I tend to favor 19th century orchestral music, both classical and romantic over baroque and early classical. I do listen to Mozart's late piano concertos and his late symphonies and derive significant pleasure from them. Just not my favorites. In terms of raw, natural musical genius however, nobody can deny Mozart's talent.


----------



## ORigel

tdc said:


> 33 people said yes, 6 people don't listen to his music. 123 = 75% (ish) not 93%.
> 
> Mozart thus far has received less than half the votes of Beethoven here:
> 
> Favorite of the Big Three (poll)


For me, Mozart is in my top five, but Beethoven and Bach are way ahead of him. I suspect much of TC feels the same.


----------



## Rogerx

ORigel said:


> For me, Mozart is in my top five, but Beethoven and Bach are way ahead of him. I suspect much of TC feels the same.


Very dangerous to speculate.


----------



## MusicInTheAir

I don't think that Mozart is overrated. This isn't the first time I've come upon this opinion online. There was a poster on a previous site I used to go to, who tried to prove to me that Mozart was second rate in comparison to Haydn and Beethoven. Frankly, I think all three are equally great (as are others). Each composer offers different things. Perhaps some people are more receptive to what they get from Beethoven or Brahms than what they get from Mozart or possibly Schubert. But that doesn't mean that any of them are overrated. It just means that you connect to a particular way differently and more meaningfully than others. 

That some people use his music as background music is their personal choice, one I'm not going to judge. A famous musician, I'm forgetting who it was at the moment, said that Mozart was the most difficult composer to perform well, even though some of the notes may appear simple. And so I think it is with actually listening to his music and getting all the intricacies.


----------



## Handelian

MusicInTheAir said:


> I don't think that Mozart is overrated. This isn't the first time I've come upon this opinion online. There was a poster on a previous site I used to go to, who tried to prove to me that Mozart was second rate in comparison to Haydn and Beethoven. Frankly, I think all three are equally great (as are others). Each composer offers different things. Perhaps some people are more receptive to what they get from Beethoven or Brahms than what they get from Mozart or possibly Schubert. But that doesn't mean that any of them are overrated. It just means that you connect to a particular way differently and more meaningfully than others.
> 
> That some people use his music as background music is their personal choice, one I'm not going to judge. *A famous musician, I'm forgetting who it was at the moment, said that Mozart was the most difficult composer to perform well, even though some of the notes may appear simple.* And so I think it is with actually listening to his music and getting all the intricacies.


Schnabel. "The sonatas of Mozart are unique; they are too easy for children, and too difficult for artists."

It always amuses me when wiseacreas reckon Mozart is overrated especially when great musicians queue up to praise his music. The fact is they miss the genius of simplicity, the sublimity of art form. I used to reckon on someone like Wagner being greater becAuse of the noise but I grew out of that.


----------



## Agamenon

Ravndal said:


> If most people think he is the greatest composer of all, then yes - he is overrated to the skies. But I voted no. Even if I don't like his works, I can see that he is great. But far from the greatest.


Very good. To consider him as the greatest composer and one of the greatest human beings of all ages is pure hype.


----------



## Knight769

It is impossible for my favorite composer to be overrated. No composers touches me like Mozart!


----------



## Bwv 1080

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Sorry to go off topic, but I didn't really get this until I heard Wanda Landowska's old recording. It almost gives you a heart attack with the suspense that she imbues it with! For those who think Bach is mechanical, this is the thing to hear.
> 
> Though I think Mozart is overrated, I believe my favorite works by him are _underrated_. The Clarinet Quintet, Sinfonia Concertante, the piano fantasias, Quintet for Piano and Winds, many of the string quartets besides the "Dissonance," are for me some of the pinnacles of his work but they're overshadowed by the late symphonies, piano concerti, and operas. Chamber is probably my favorite genre of his, and the 4th String Quintet just may be my favorite work from the Classical Period. I also think the 40th Symphony is better than the Jupiter, the 17th Piano Concerto is better than any of the concerti that came after it, and the Mass in C Minor is infinitely greater than the Requiem. I'm an oddball when it comes to my Mozart tastes.


Those are among the most respected works of Mozart, how are they underrated? 
And whats wrong with the 'Dissonance' quartet?

Think the two piano quartets deserve to be in that list


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Bwv 1080 said:


> Those are among the most respected works of Mozart, how are they underrated?
> And whats wrong with the 'Dissonance' quartet?
> 
> Think the two piano quartets deserve to be in that list


I said that because I think chamber music was the pinnacle of Mozart's achievements, not operas and piano concerti like many people seem to think. I like the famous introduction and the Adagio of the "Dissonance" quartet but find the rest to be just OK. Since I wrote this I've come to more appreciate the operas, piano music, and some of the symphonies. But the popularity of some of his works, like the Requiem and the late piano concerti, still baffles me. I just have to be in a very certain mood to listen to Classical Period music.


----------



## EdwardBast

I'll distinguish between Mozart's music being overrated (I don't think it is) and Mozart the composer being overrated (I think this is plausible depending on what one means by rating.). Certainly there is a lot of silly mythology about Mozart that seeks to elevate him to godlike status — that he composed directly from his head to paper (he used a keyboard), that he didn't need to correct or sketch and revise his scores (this is wrong; most of his sketches were simply lost or used for kindling), that he composed his last three symphonies in six weeks (this does not hold up to scrutiny), that he transcribed Allegri's Miserere at one hearing (it required two hearings and an unknown amount of futzing about on a keyboard), etc. If one counts this mythologizing as a form of rating, then certainly Mozart the composer is overrated. I don't care about any of this mythologizing. His music stands on its own without such nonsense and if one needs the myths to prop up ones opinion of the composer, then one isn't giving the music itself its due. All that matters is the work.


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> I'll distinguish between Mozart's music being overrated (I don't think it is) and Mozart the composer being overrated (I think this is plausible depending on what one means by rating.). Certainly there is a lot of silly mythology about Mozart that seeks to elevate him to godlike status - that he composed directly from his head to paper (he used a keyboard), that he didn't need to correct or sketch and revise his scores (this is wrong; most of his sketches were simply lost or used for kindling), that he composed his last three symphonies in six weeks (this does not hold up to scrutiny), that he transcribed Allegri's Miserere at one hearing (it required two hearings and an unknown amount of futzing about on a keyboard), etc. If one counts this mythologizing as a form of rating, then certainly Mozart the composer is overrated. I don't care about any of this mythologizing. His music stands on its own without such nonsense and if one needs the myths to prop up ones opinion of the composer, then one isn't giving the music itself its due. All that matters is the work.


I agree with your separation of Mozart's music and his mythology. I have been indirectly told by a few music professors (through their students) that Mozart did compose his last 3 symphonies in roughly 6 weeks. I know that it's all too easy to read that account somewhere, assume it's true, and pass it on to others. Do you think those who have seriously investigated this account feel confident that it is false?


----------



## EdwardBast

mmsbls said:


> I agree with your separation of Mozart's music and his mythology. I have been indirectly told by a few music professors (through their students) that Mozart did compose his last 3 symphonies in roughly 6 weeks. I know that it's all too easy to read that account somewhere, assume it's true, and pass it on to others. Do you think those who have seriously investigated this account feel confident that it is false?


Yes. When Mozart used the verb komponieren and said he had completed the composition of a work, he didn't mean what we mean when we say "composed." Completing the composition for him meant having the full structure in short score with the essential lines in place, sometimes only the melody and bass (with figures when the harmony wasn't obvious). At that point he hadn't filled in the inner voices of the harmony or fully orchestrated the work. For the rest of the process, Mozart used the verb to write (schreiben), no doubt because he considered the part writing and final instrumentation decisions to be busy work. So when Mozart said he had composed a symphony in two weeks and only needed to do the writing, this likely meant another week or more of work was required to produce the completed score - that is, to finish the composition in the sense we use the term. So, roughly six weeks likely means nine or more weeks.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> I don't care about any of this mythologizing. His music stands on its own without such nonsense and if one needs the myths to prop up ones opinion of the composer, then one isn't giving the music itself its due. All that matters is the work.


I agree that the music itself is what matters the most. I listen to missa brevis K.65, miserere K.85 without really caring that much about the story of Mozart's transcription of the Allegri work. I like the chromatic part-writing of the benedictus:









About Mozart's "composing speeds" though, we must also consider the context and background in which Mozart wrote music - "professional" composers in those pre-Romantic times generally composed very fast. Consider how fast Handel wrote the Messiah, for example, or:

"The music collection of the Salzburg cathedral contains more sacred vocal music of the mid-18th century (ca. 1730-80) than any other period. An inventory of this large collection, recently undertaken by this writer at the request of Domkapellmeister Prof. Josef Messner, shows that Mozart's predecessors and colleagues in the archbishop's service are represented by an imposing amount of liturgical music. Among these musicians none seems to have been more industrious than *Johann Ernst Eberlin* (1702-62). There is evidence in the number of works preserved: a thematic catalog contains, so far, approximately 70 Masses, Mass fragments and Requiems, 160 motets and other smaller works, 37 litanies, 14 sequences and hymns, 35 settings of individual or grouped vesper psalms, and 3 Te Deum. This list does not include the large amount of sacred music in the vernacular. Aside from such first-hand evidence there is the well-known testimony of Eberlin's younger colleague, Leopold Mozart. In his report on the Salzburg musical establishment in 1757, the older Mozart singled out Eberlin for his industry and speed in composing, comparing him to Alessandro Scarlatti and Telemann. At the time of Leopold Mozart's writing Eberlin had risen, from the position of fourth organist in 1725, to the highest rank of Hof-und Domkapellmeister (1749) and had recently been granted the added honorary appointment of Titular-Truchsess.
Both Leopold and his son thought highly of Eberlin's ability; from their testimony and from other evidence it appears that Eberlin's reputation was primarily based on his contrapuntal works. Wolfgang Mozart's remarks are significant: while eventually he modified his high opinion of Eberlin's keyboard works (the only works to be published during the composer's lifetime) he continued to esteem his vocal writing."
<Johann Ernst Eberlin's Motets for Lent / Reinhard G. Pauly / Journal of the American Musicological Society (1962) 15 (2): 182-192.>


----------



## SanAntone

It doesn't matter if a composer worked for 9 days or 9 years to complete a work. What matters is the work itself: does it stand up, do you enjoy it, is it good? And works written faster are not "better" than those that took longer. In fact, I would sooner have more respect for a work that took careful revision and re-writing over time than one which "just fell out."

I am a big fan of the craft of musical composition much more so than the mythology of genius.


----------



## jim prideaux

Since listening to the Mackerras Scottish Linn recordings of the later symphonies I now get the fuss....and alongside the Piano Concertos I think there is a reasonable case to suggest the man was a half decent composer....


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> I don't care about any of this mythologizing.


Take a look at this documentary:




"This was actually a passage that was meant to be inserted earlier in the piece and then decided he didn't want that insertion after all. So it represents three if not more attempts to kind of go through the piece and decide what works and what doesn't."

*[ 27:17 ]*





*[ 6:53 ]*









"When he arrived at the projected A on beat 3 of the basses - it remains un-notated in the original bar - he will have realized that a presumably undesired 6-4 had been created. Also, as originally conceived, bar 30 does not provide an opportunity for a further 'Christe' entry, and would have brought to an end Mozart's alternate 'Kyrie' and 'Christe' entries at one bar intervals (bars 27, 28, 29). So, in changing the D minor 6-4 to F major 6-3, Mozart adapted the alto part, shortened the tenor 'Christe' entry that began in bar 28 by adding rests and introduced a further tenor 'Christe' entry on the third beat."
- Simon P. Keefe, Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion, p.128-129.









https://imslp.simssa.ca/files/imgln...Requiem_K626_-autograph_fragment-.pdf#page=14


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mozart wrote to his sister in April 1782: "My darling Constanze has at last summoned up courage to follow the impulse of her kind heart, and to write to you. If you are so good, dear sister, as to answer her, (which I hope you will, that I may see the joy in this dear creature's face,) I beg you will enclose your letter to me. I mention this as a precaution, to warn you that her mother and sisters are not aware that she has written to you. I enclose a prelude and a three-part fugue. The reason that I did not write to you before was not being able to finish the music sooner, owing to the great trouble of writing out such small notes. It is awkwardly done, for the prelude ought to come first and the fugue to follow; the cause being that I composed the fugue first, and while writing it out I devised the prelude. I only hope you may be able to read it, as it is written so very small, but above all that it may please you."


----------



## Eclipse Noire

You have to be aware that you're trying to judge composers by listening to modern interpretations of their work. Mostly performed with equal temperament and modern instruments. There were also instruments added and improvements done during the rewriting process. Therefore the modern performances will sound different than the original performances.


----------



## paragraph7

EdwardBast said:


> I'll distinguish between Mozart's music being overrated (I don't think it is) and Mozart the composer being overrated (I think this is plausible depending on what one means by rating.). Certainly there is a lot of silly mythology about Mozart that seeks to elevate him to godlike status - that he composed directly from his head to paper (he used a keyboard), that he didn't need to correct or sketch and revise his scores (this is wrong; most of his sketches were simply lost or used for kindling), that he composed his last three symphonies in six weeks (this does not hold up to scrutiny), that he transcribed Allegri's Miserere at one hearing (it required two hearings and an unknown amount of futzing about on a keyboard), etc. If one counts this mythologizing as a form of rating, then certainly Mozart the composer is overrated. I don't care about any of this mythologizing. His music stands on its own without such nonsense and if one needs the myths to prop up ones opinion of the composer, then one isn't giving the music itself its due. All that matters is the work.


That's interesting, although I always assumed some level of exaggeration to the stories. That being said, I think a mythology like that is often earned - it's not like people are telling stories like this about Dittersdorf and Clementi, even if they are fine composers. Not even Haydn (as far as I know). Then the question is whether you chalk it up to luck/happenstance - that his early death and legacy grew a mythology of it's own, which then, in contrast to his actual merits in his day, would be "undeserved". I don't believe that.

My first post here btw, just joined. Cheers.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

And a good one too, if I may say so. Welcome.


----------



## hammeredklavier

.


----------



## paragraph7

Animal the Drummer said:


> And a good one too, if I may say so. Welcome.


Thank you very much! To me Mozart is the peak of all musical creation and while I recognize the bias I thought this as good as a starting point as any!


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Mozart over-rated? Yes, probably is by some people, though not by me. To my uneducated ear, he did a lot with a narrow palate, a rather limited range of harmonies and motifs that he reshuffled skilfully into a substantial output. 
But that's my take. Others will hear more qualities in Mozart's music. And probably scoff in disbelief at my admiration of Moussorgsky's music!


----------



## cybernaut

ORigel said:


> For me, Mozart is in my top five, but Beethoven and Bach are way ahead of him. I suspect much of TC feels the same.


I prefer Mozart to Beethoven. But Bach is my #1.


----------



## Parley

Mozart? Over-rated? I always wonder why people say that in view of the opposing musical minds:

http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html


----------



## Xisten267

ORigel said:


> *For me, Mozart is in my top five, but Beethoven and Bach are way ahead of him.* I suspect much of TC feels the same.


We are in the same boat.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> For me, Mozart is in my top five, but Beethoven and Bach are way ahead of him. I suspect much of TC feels the same.


Mostly people who don't listen to the music of Bach and Mozart's contemporaries, I think; I hate to say it but I don't think they have what it takes to make reasonable comparisons. 



 For example, they claim that Mozart is "easy-listening" compared to Bach. But then aren't all of Mozart's contemporaries "easy-listening" compared to Bach's contemporaries (especially the ones stuck in the church), due to the "change of aesthetics" over time? How does this make a reasonable comparison between Bach and Mozart? (It just doesn't seem so "insightful" to me, in terms of the respective idiomatic contexts they both worked in.)

And I still stand by my "critique" on the Art of the fugue, from post [#267] for example (it's not about how densely contrapuntal it is). I think that, with certain late works of Bach, there's a bit too much "exaggeration" about how much Bach "chose by his own artist mindset" to be "avant-garde", when the truth was that he was "stuck in" the old aesthetics (The "Doctrine of the Affections" being one of them) and writing for the "pedagogy". I also remember that our wonderful member Allerius expressed similar sentiments (his criticism was on Bach's use of dynamics and rhythm) on many occasions.



hammeredklavier said:


> To me, the Art of the fugue is a masterpiece, but it also represents Bach being virtually "stuck in" the Baroque aesthetics. I have encountered so many people talking like this work is the "be-all and end-all", or the divine summit of all contrapuntal writing. I'm not saying it's not a masterpiece, it's just that there's "enough" of this "style of writing" in Bach already. (It's still good - just doesn't seem as "mind-blowing", after all the glories of the WTC). People shouldn't always be told they're unable to "understand" the "cerebral complexities of Bach", when they find these
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not any more striking than, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [[ "Although I consider Bach's contrapuntal mastery unsurpassed. I don't understand any of the arguments that criticize the alleged "repetition and lack of rhythmic variety" of Mozart in this thread.
> Take the C sharp minor from WTC I, for example. Once this subject enters, Bach has the phrase repeated practically every measure (in different registers).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " -hammeredklavier ]]
> 
> Also, some fugues from the Well-tempered clavier book 1 (frankly) sound like they would have been forgotten today if they were written by other composers as individual pieces (I'm not saying the C sharp minor is one of them), but we're told we're also supposed to worship them as "divinely complex counterpoint", the "Old Testament", (this 4 hour-long work is currently held up as "the most monumental piece of music ever written", in the TC rankings and polls; but can't we find 4~5 hours of music just as "good" in other composers, such as Beethoven's 9 symphonies?)


Bach was a very gifted contrapuntist. But the counterpoint of Bach is usually something "new-comers of classical music" would call "WOW!!! MIND-BLOWINGLY, DIVINELY COMPLEX!" I'm not saying he's flawed in any way; it's just that he's over-popular about the stuff. I know there are experienced classical music listeners who find it dazzling. I'm just speaking generally, from my experience participating in the google/youtube/reddit forums. (Some even believe Bach invented the fugue. Even on this forum, our honorable member "larold" once said that Bach did.) 
It is indeed masterful. But after getting to know about 18th century classical music history (such as the fact that Sechter wrote 5000 fugues, and Cherubini wrote a gigantic quadruple 8-voiced fugue, for example), it doesn't seem really that extremely mind-blowing or unreachably "God-like" any more, (in comparison to various composers). 
I'm not saying his counterpoint isn't masterful, but after a while your reaction to it goes from being "WOW!!!" to "Ok.." (I'm only talking about the counterpoint itself, not the whole artistry of his work)



hammeredklavier said:


> "Of the manuscript compositions by Herr Mozart (Leopold) which have become known, numerous contrapuntal and other church pieces are especially noteworthy."
> http://conquest.imslp.info/files/im...MLP169311-Litaniæ_de_Venerabili_C.pdf#page=42


And there's a certain truth to these as well:

https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"Preternaturally happy, cheerful, perfect, organized, clean, boring, popular: I guess the case I'm making is that the Goldbergs are the Martha Stewart of Variations. And like Martha Stewart, you don't totally absolutely mind if they end up going off for a little while to a very clean and nice prison (sorry Martha, I'm just following the metaphor, I don't really mean it) so you don't have to see them being perfectly organized all the time, making a mockery of your unclean life."

(but it's always Mozart who is criticized as "preternaturally happy, cheerful, perfect, organized, clean, boring, popular".)

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/12/20/bach-master-recycler/
"The Master Recycler"

https://www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
"Roland de Candé (Jean-Sébastien Bach - Seuil, Paris, 1984) presents the first performance of The San Matthiew Passion as a major event of our civilisation. He write also :
_"All the musical forms known in his time, except opera, were extraordinarly amplified by Bach and projected in the future."_ (p. 292)
Even the concerto - who was invented by Torelli, developed by Vivaldi, with the importance we know - has been extraordinarly amplified by Bach whose concertant works are essentially transcriptions or works of doubtful authenticity! Let's bet that if Bach would has composed an opera, he would be the best who were never writen."








hammeredklavier said:


> [[ "I am a huge Bach fan, too, however: Not all his work is pure genius, a lot is also "Gebrauchsmusik", with a lot of self-recycled material . No wonder if you have to churn out a new cantata for almost every week for years for your stingy and yet extremely demanding Leipzig employers. Besides, *a lot of the texts/lyrics he uses are third rate, mostly amateurish and sometimes involuntarily funny best enjoyed in German by non-German speakers.* I feel that a little less exposure to the duopoly of Bach/Händel and a bit more openness to Zelenka and many others would be healthy."
> -FastkeinBrahms ]]















And we're told that Beethoven admired Handel more than Bach simply because simply he didn't know the complete works of Bach**, and that Bach's cello suites are supposed to be considered "polyphonic"** even though they're *clearly monophonic* in texture; even a whole new term "implied polyphony" has been created from scratch to serve this purpose, (how convenient!) when the truth is that they're just typical Baroque-style monophonic suites, like Telemann's flute fantasies - I think these are all manifestations of people's *"unhealthy infatuation"* with all things in Bach they consider "divinely complex counterpoint". And believe me; TalkClassical wasn't even the first or the only place where I was told these things**. The constant attempt to make Bach seem like the "God of Counterpoint" and other composers like "mere mortals" - let's face it, it's there.

Please don't get me wrong; I DO consider Bach GREAT. It's just that I think people's belief in Bach's "infallibility" is not any less unreasonable than theirs in Mozart's.


----------



## RogerWaters

No offence, but this is ridiculous:



> Bach was a very gifted contrapuntist. But the counterpoint of Bach is usually something "new-comers of classical music" would call "WOW!!! MIND-BLOWINGLY, DIVINELY COMPLEX!" I'm not saying he's flawed in any way; it's just that he's over-popular about the stuff. I know there are experienced classical music listeners who find it dazzling. I'm just speaking generally, from my experience participating in the google/youtube/reddit forums.


----------



## RogerWaters

ORigel said:


> For me, Mozart is in my top five, but Beethoven and Bach are way ahead of him. I suspect much of TC feels the same.


I'm in this camp.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> No offence, but this is ridiculous:


Don't get me wrong; I did not say that Bach's mastery is not "dazzling". But from my experience in those communities, it's usually "new-comers" who excessively "fantasize" about it, make a huge "deal about it" as if Bach was really "special" for his time, (as if he's some kind of an "avant-gardist" of his time). It's understandable because it's something Bach is (frankly) "over-popular" for. Over time, you would still keep admiring it, but make less of a "fuss about it" once you find out about stuff like this, or this, (which take good things from the Baroque and even move beyond from that; away from the "Doctrine of the Affections") or this.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I know there are people who dislike the style of the late 18th century. But how can we compare the greatness of a late 18th century composer to that of a late 17th century or a late 19th century one. Is Wagner not great because there are actual concert-goers who dislike his style:


PlaySalieri said:


> http://operabase.com/top.cgi?lang=en
> figures for 2015/2016
> 1.Verdi
> 2. Mozart
> 3. Puccini
> 4. Rossini
> 5. Wagner


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Mostly people who don't listen to the music of Bach and Mozart's contemporaries, I think; I hate to say it but I don't think they have what it takes to make reasonable comparisons.


Why would anyone want to make comparisons with such different composers as Bach and Mozart. Both composers are firmly established in the "canon" and for very different reasons. The styles of each are so different that there can be no meaningful comparison.

And why bother? As I've said before: music is not a zero sum game. If someone prefers Bach it takes nothing away from Mozart, and vice versa.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Why would anyone want to make comparisons with such different composers as Bach and Mozart. Both composers are firmly established in the "canon" and for very different reasons. The styles of each are so different that there can be no meaningful comparison.
> And why bother? As I've said before: music is not a zero sum game. If someone prefers Bach it takes nothing away from Mozart, and vice versa.


I agree. I don't buy into the widespread idea that there is such a thing as the "Big Three" or "Big Five". 
It's all apples, oranges, bananas. I think some people here should ask themselves if they're too obsessed with the idea that they have to repeat themselves on certain related issues (as if anyone should care). _"Hey! Guess what -(drum rolls)- I still like Beethoven more than Mozart!"_


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

hammeredklavier said:


> I think some people here should ask themselves if they're too obsessed with the idea that they have to repeat themselves on certain related issues (as if anyone should care).[/I]


Bruh ..................


----------



## Kreisler jr

Many listeners actually do know at least some contemporaries of Bach or Mozart. Certainly Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, probably also some Telemann, Rameau, Boccherini. Sure, often these are not representative selections and biased. But especially the late baroque composers are much better known than e.g. Reicha or Hummel or other Beethoven contemporaries.


----------



## Kreisler jr

ORigel said:


> For me, Mozart is in my top five, but Beethoven and Bach are way ahead of him. I suspect much of TC feels the same.


This is because of the self segregation of opera buffs, almost all of which would vote Mozart way ahead of the two others.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Composers of Mozart's time generally wrote in many genres, since they were required to do so as professional craftsmen. The 19th century composers prided themselves on their individuality; one way they emphasized this was to focus on certain genres. Chopin, Wagner, Mahler are good examples; I think Mahler's symphonies are totally different creatures from Mozart's. Genre-to-genre comparisons between the two composers is meaningless. I don't even think there's a sure-fire way to compare Mozart and Beethoven in terms of greatness, because of this.
But some people somehow don't seem to think in this way.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Bruh ..................


What do you mean by "Bruh"? I still don't believe there is such a thing as the "summit of all music" or the "Big Three" (At least I don't think there's anything "divine" about them). Their significance in classical music today is only as significant as the "hits" in other genres such as jazz and rock are in their respective genres.
I usually repeat myself when I'm fighting against "history distortions".
https://www.talkclassical.com/71044-how-do-important-composers-3.html#post2081320
https://www.talkclassical.com/48400-beethoven-brahms-paradox-3.html#post2080152


----------



## mmsbls

Kreisler jr said:


> This is because of the self segregation of opera buffs, almost all of which would vote Mozart way ahead of the two others.


TC is somewhat segregated with those more interested in opera tending to focus on the opera sub-forum. I remember my wife, back when she was playing in an orchestra, told me of a poll of performers and conductors which placed Mozart first before Bach and Beethoven. Her understanding of why Mozart was first was because of opera adding to his other works.

I might place Mozart first without his opera works, but when I consider the opera, for me he stands alone.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Here's a piece frequently described as the "summit of all music"; Bach's B minor mass. 
Although it's a masterpiece with many sublime moments, I still have some "reservations" about;

the opening Kyrie, though sublime, goes on for 9 minutes with barely any change of mood (again, due to the "Doctrine of the Affections")
movements with only arias accompanied by early-18th century style instrumental basso continuo.
the way the trumpet "sticks out", especially in the Gloria and Sanctus (again, the orchestral style of the early-18th century. Sorry, I don't quite feel "elegance" from styles like: 



. I don't "dislike" them though).
choral fugues that strike me as slightly "mechanical", like the style of BWV80.
being a Baroque cantata-mass and one of Bach's late "encyclopedic projects" such as the Goldberg variations, the whole piece is long and might benefit from some editting (imv),
etc...

I simply accept that Bach was writing great music with the resources and the ideals of his own time. I acknowledge that other people admire his music without reservations for a good reason. I feel no need to point out that "Bach is not good enough for me", or to make claims that the music of the later periods is an "improvement" on his music. (Rather, I usually find that it's the avid Bach enthusiasts who tend to openly criticize the music of the later half of the century.)

"Wagner's life-long admiration included an encounter in the mid-to late 1820s that 'formed the starting point of my enthusiastic absorption in the works of that master [Mozart]' and contemplations of it late in life as well; Anton Rubinstein, Mahler Richard Strauss, Stanford and Rimsky-Korsakov all conducted it, Rimsky-Korsakov also quoting extensively from the Introit in the final section of Mozart and Salieri. Described in 1902 as one of Mozart's works that 'speaks persuadingly to every generation . . . [through which] Mozart's influence still persists and must be reckoned with as a factor in the complexus of forces which is moulding the music of the new century', it had similar exposure among twentieth century composers. Bartok used examples from the Requiem in his teaching; Szymanowski wrote of its 'divine grief', the most powerful 'eruption' of the 'grim, powerful call from a world beyond ours' in Mozart's late music; Janecek conducted a highly successful performance of it in Brno in the late 1870s and another in the memory of Smetana in Prague in 1916; the fifteen-year-old Walton sang a solo part in a performance at Christ Church, Oxford, in December 1917; Britten considered it an important historical precedent for the modern-day composer in writing his own War Requiem (1961-2), subsequently reacting profoundly to conducting Mozart's work (1971)."
< Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion / Simon P. Keefe / P. 6 >

Just cause Bach has more "fans" on some website today - he's not overrated, whereas Mozart is?
Aren't we accusing the idolatry of Mozart to encourage the idolatry of Bach?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Or they prefer a different forum. Of course many people enjoy both equally but in my experience there are significant subsets both of those people not at all interested in opera and those interested in opera above anything else. Sure,there are also those not caring a lot for music before beethoven and they will not prefer mozart even as opera buffs.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Internet fora show very distorted pictures because of nerdy segregation. Among the general population or rather people with a casual interest in classist and opera Mozart beats Beethoven and Beethoven beats Bach. The Beethoven anniversary was wrecked by Covid but it would not have been close to 1991, probably not to 2006 either. (And 1985 and 2000 were not such a big deal.) All Beethoven and Bach movies together are no match for Amadeus.
That's how one could get the impression of being overawed.


----------



## Xisten267

mmsbls said:


> TC is somewhat segregated with those more interested in opera tending to focus on the opera sub-forum. I remember my wife, back when she was playing in an orchestra, told me of a poll of performers and conductors which placed Mozart first before Bach and Beethoven. Her understanding of why Mozart was first was because of opera adding to his other works.
> 
> I might place Mozart first without his opera works, but when I consider the opera, for me he stands alone.


I don't think that even Mozart matches the expressivity of Bach or Beethoven, and this because he lacks a true late period (because he died so young). With opera or not, I don't place Mozart first, although he of course comes close.

And although overall I think that Mozart is rightly rated as one of the greatest of all times, I think that in opera he is, yes, overrated. Some people place his operas on par with those of Wagner or Verdi, what to me seems a bit extreme for collections of secco recitatives and three minute arias/duets/etc.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't find late Bach clearly separable and in any case far less expressive. Chromatic fantasy, St. JOHN, Kreuzstab cantata etc. None of them is late. The late stuff is either parodied from older works or theoretical like AoF.
I'd say if one as quoted above puts Mozart far below either of the others, that person does not much care for opera. Otherwise a no opera composer and one with a single rather untypical and not so popular one could not be far ahead.


----------



## Kreisler jr

You are grotesquely underrating Mozart operas.


----------



## Xisten267

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't find late Bach clearly separable and in any case far less expressive. Chromatic fantasy, St. JOHN, Kreuzstab cantata etc. None of them is late. The late stuff is either parodied from older works or theoretical like AoF.
> I'd say if one as quoted above puts Mozart far below either of the others, that person does not much care for opera. Otherwise a no opera composer and one with a single rather untypical and not so popular one could not be far ahead.


I enjoy opera, but I don't think that Mozart's are that much more special than Salieri's or Gluck's. Overall, I far prefer Mozart in his chamber, sacred and instrumental (including concertos) music.

The Mass in B minor, the St. Matthew Passion, the organ Trio Sonatas, the Goldberg variations, the Art of Fugue, the Musical Offering and the second book of the Well Tempered Clavier are all masterpieces and late works by Bach by the way (even if he started some of them earlier, they were all concluded in the last two decades of his life).



Kreisler jr said:


> You are grotesquely underrating Mozart operas.


Well, in my perspective it's you who are overrating them. Mozart's popularity has been greatly enhanced by the myth of genius infallibility propagated by the movie _Amadeus_, and I don't doubt that to this day there are people who, against any evidence, see for example the Commendatore in _Don Giovanni_ as portraying Mozart's father. Other composers didn't have the luck of having a first rate movie done by a successful cineast for them.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> I don't think that even Mozart matches the expressivity of Bach or Beethoven, and this because he lacks a true late period (because he died so young). With opera or not, I don't place Mozart first, although he of course comes close.


Late Beethoven is derivative of early/middle Beethoven. For example; 
The ending of his 9th symphony is derivative of that of his choral fantasie Op.80.
The slow movement of his Op.111 is derivative of his Op.77 fantasie.
There are also similarities of expression between certain moments of his variations:
sections of off-beat syncopations: Op.26 , Op.57 , Op.109 
sections of melodies with accompanied figures: Op.26 , Op.57 , Op.109

I don't see how this is "different" from how Mozart expands on the expression of an earlier work (the slow movement of the B flat major quintet, K.174) to write a late work (the slow movement of the G minor quintet, K.516).

As I pointed out in an earlier thread; the Art of the Fugue is very similar in texture with his WTC. Pick any page of it, compare with that of a fugue of WTC; you won't even tell the difference. The real difference is that the Art of the fugue demonstrates writing a variety of fugal processes with a single idea.

You're free to appreciate / advocate for whatever you want.
But I think all you're doing is just exaggerating the achievements of certain composers to trash/attack composers you hate. So, Mahler, Britten, Mozart.. who else don't fit your "criteria" and are "overrated"?



Allerius said:


> And although overall I think that Mozart is rightly rated as one of the greatest of all times, I think that in opera he is, yes, overrated. Some people place his operas on par with those of Wagner or Verdi, what to me seems a bit extreme for collections of secco recitatives and three minute arias/duets/etc.


There are plenty of people who find Wagner simply long-winded, bombastic, and megalomaniac. (Similar to how you view Mahler). 
Fidelio (a work I never criticized on this forum) is just as well-known as any Mozart opera, if it was written by a lesser-known composer, I cannot guarantee it would be as well-known as it is today. Hummel wrote 22 operas and singspiels, none of which gets any attention today. There are people who think Beethoven's use of harmony is not expressive. Is their opinion "Beethoven is overrated" also valid? 
(Btw, I've been telling them "Beethoven simply has a different style". Maybe you should be more generous about what you consider as "faults" in Mozart as well?)


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Fidelio (a work I never criticized on this forum) is just as well-known as any Mozart opera,


No, it isn't as well-known as Mozart's famous operas in terms of recorded legacy or opera hall performances.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. *Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread.* Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. *And sadly the majority of them are kids*


Beethoven's piano sonatas and Bach's WTC are regarded as the New and the Old Testaments of Music. None of Mozart's works are. At some point we have to say "enough is enough". 
Maybe we should ask ourselves to what extent "facts about Beethoven's deafness" affect our actual evaluation of his music. 









Maybe I should create a thread that I don't hear much difference between these; 
Op.77: 



Op.111/ii: 



but I won't. I respect people's appreciation for the music. But I would still want them to be "reasonable" and know the "limits".

There was a time I had arguments with people who were at the time Schubert-loving Mozart-haters (Ja***, NL***, Alleg***, aio***). In the <the greatest string quintet> poll, Schubert's C major quintet got more than 60% of the votes, while works by other composers each got less than 8%. I said that it was unreasonable. People at the time accused me of being biased against Schubert; but nowadays I find some are acting in the same way against Mozart. (Actually Beethoven enthusiasts have a long history of doing it, even on this forum).



Allerius said:


> The tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach sometimes can become a bit tedious to me.





Allerius said:


> the tick tock in Bach, for example in BWV 869.


Sometimes, Bach is a mere composer of "tick-tocks", 
but now he's a divinely-flawless, God-like being capable of so much depth, practically "untouchable" by Mozart. 
I see. Bach is a mere composer of "tick-tocks" only when he's compared to "the most DIVINE of them all"-Beethoven.



Allerius said:


> I enjoy opera, but I don't think that Mozart's are that much more special than Salieri's or Gluck's.






^Wow.. So "avant-garde", isn't it? (Or maybe it just sounds like Cherubini)


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven's piano sonatas and Bach's WTC are regarded as the Old Testament of Music. None of Mozart's works are.


What a weird thing to say. If those works are part of the Old Testament, so are Mozart's piano concerti, Da Ponte operas, Requiem, etc.

What point are you trying to make?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> What a weird thing to say. If those works are part of the Old Testament, so are Mozart's piano concerti, Da Ponte operas, Requiem, etc.


Well, Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas are called the New Testament, whereas Bach's WTC is called the Old Testament in classical music. It's a well-known fact, don't you know?


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas are called the New Testament, whereas Bach's WTC is called the Old Testament in classical music. It's a well-known fact, don't you know?


A well-known, but frivolous fact, don't you think? This kind of thumbnail hyperbole means very little, actually,


----------



## Xisten267

Impressive that, according to this poll, one in each five members of this community agree with me that Mozart is overrated to a certain extent, even if we agree that he was a great composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> St. Matthew Passion





Allerius said:


> what to me seems a bit extreme for collections of secco recitatives and three minute arias/duets/etc.


So you choose to exempt Bach's oratorios and cantatas from your criticism of secco-recitatives just for this thread. Ok..



hammeredklavier said:


> "Instead of the four long arias that, say, Handel would have given us, we hear, simultaneously, four voices blended, four characters in four different moods singing simultaneously: Idomeneo in despair over his rash vow; Idamante resolved to prove his manhood; Ilia comforting them both; and Elettra tormented by jealousy. Though there are similarly complex pages in Scarlatti and a few earlier composers, Mozart's is by common consent the first great ensemble in opera, a forerunner of the trio in Der Rosenkavalier, the quartet in Rigoletto, the quintet in Die Meistersinger.
> The other advances Mozart made in Idomeneo, over a century of earlier opere sere, are-I should say-three. First there is a new musical continuity. Previous operas had been rigidly sectioned off into arias in which the soloists were given ample opportunity for vocal display and even more ample opportunity to acknowledge applause. In Idomeneo, the first aria melts into the following recitative, even as the overture had melted easily into it. This is an anticipation of the techniques of Wagner, but that apostle of musical continuity was well into his forties when he decided that this was the right way to write overture and aria. Mozart knew as much early in his twenties.
> *The most famous of the Wagnerian methods of continuity is the leitmotif: the short recurrent theme that carries reminiscences and new implications with every new appearance. But a hundred years before Wagner's Tristan, Mozart, in Idomeneo, experimented with something quite similar*, our second new advance over earlier operatic writing: the brief, recurrent phrase pervading the score, changing its form, instrumentation, harmonization, and rhythm as it develops its ever new-associations. On the first page of the overture we hear of these. It is a five-note descending figure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It soon comes to dominate the overture, depicting the Sturm und Drang, the storm and stress of the sea-music. A few pages later, it reappears in the recitative, as Ilia remembers the fall of Troy, and it appears again in the accompaniment to the aria that follows. Then when Ilia's beloved, Idamante, tells her that he will make her forget her past sufferings, it appears again, much brighter in color. It recurs quietly when King Idomeneo comes safely to land, and a moment later it accompanies his realization that now he will have to keep his vow to the sea god, and sacrifice to him the first living thing he finds on shore. It recurs once again when he looks fatefully on that victim, his own son, and the son doesn't understand why his father tears himself away from his embrace.
> The English critic David Cairns has suggested that by this time the theme has come to bear associations both of nature's cruelty and of our own inner sufferings. In Act II it forms part of the musical line of the powerful aria "Fuor del mar," where Idomeneo sings of both the storm at sea and the storm within himself. It then hovers over the little duet of the two lovers in Act III. And it reappears when Idomeneo finally tells his subjects that he must sacrifice his own son. There it leads to a passage of more chromatic intensity than anyone had ever heard in an opera house before.
> And finally, our melodic fragment leads gently into the last recitative, when Idomeneo turns over the kingdom to his son. There it is stated four times over, canonically, by the four separate string sections of the orchestra.
> A third new element in Idomeneo is the wholly unprecedented attention to orchestral color. The young Mozart was excited that the finest orchestra in the world, the Mannheim ensemble, was following the elector to Munich for the premiere. It was a virtuoso ensemble. According to a description of the day, "Its piano was a vernal breath, its forte was thunder, its crescendo a cataract, its diminuendo a crystal stream murmuring as it evanesced into the distance." All of those effects Mozart wrote into Idomeneo, using muted tympani, muted trumpets, and massed trombones. The sea that surges and foams around the island of Crete is suggested, in the overture and the storm music, by swirling strings. The color conjured up in those passages is, for me, a kind of grayish green. But many more colors are suggested throughout the opera, especially by the woodwind writing. This was virtuoso music for its day, and music of a wholly new loveliness."
> < First Intermissions: Twenty-One Great Operas Explored, Explained, and Brought to Life from the Met / M. Owen Lee / P. 8~10 >
> 
> [ 8:00 ~ 12:00 ]
> [ 26:00 ~ 32:30 ]
> [ 1:23:30 ~ 1:28:30 ]
> [ 1:44:30 ~ 1:50:00 ]
> [ 2:01:00 ~ 2:06:00 ]
> [ 2:21:30 ~ 2:27:30 ]


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> The same inquisition has no problem trashing Haydn, Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Bruckner, Sibelius, Schumann and others when it fits their agenda.


Berlioz, Bruckner, Sibelius, Schumann; I don't remember criticizing these guys as much as you do Cage, Mozart, Mahler, Bach (who is always a composer of "tick-tocks" when compared with Beethoven).
I have praised Schumann's symphonies and piano sonata No.2. And with J. Haydn, I was mostly fighting the "history distortions".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Impressive that, according to this poll, one in each five members of this community agree with me that Mozart is overrated to a certain extent, even if we agree that he was a great composer.


Beethoven has a lot more "energetic fans" (like those of a sports team) on this forum, what's so impressive about that? (Somehow this doesn't lead to the conclusion "Beethoven is overrated").


----------



## hammeredklavier

Again, I've been trying to see various composers (including Beethoven) as positively as possible.


hammeredklavier said:


> I too think Beethoven has a unique harmonic sense. One only needs to listen to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just that he wasn't trained from youth in the same way as the "18th century church music composers" (ex. Bach, Mozart) were.





hammeredklavier said:


> It seems tdc has long been obsessed with the idea that "if you take individual elements of Beethoven separately, there's nobody". But I think, as others have said, there's more to Beethoven than just a combination of those elements. ... I don't think it's "weak", but rather "different".





hammeredklavier said:


> I personally feel that this is an area where Mozart gets a bit too much recognition. People constantly compare them to Beethoven's, but I don't find the comparison fair since I find his to be also quite unique from Mozart's, and decent in quality as well. (I don't approve of the "Mozartian" label people attach to his early works, especially Op.50.)


"hammeredklavier criticizes composers" shouldn't be an excuse for other people to condemn any other composers as "overrated" all they want. Let's be logical, and not blame on others.


----------



## Josquin13

His piano sonatas definitely get underrated. I've noticed they don't get advocated for or talked about nearly as much as Beethoven's (or maybe even Haydn's). Yet Beethoven's piano sonatas couldn't have been without Mozart's, and they are actually quite similar in many ways. So, how can anyone say they love Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, and not Mozart's? That doesn't make any sense. So too are Mozart's string quartets, string quintets, piano trios, violin sonatas, violin concerti, Sinfonia Concertante, choral music, and operas all underrated, in my view. Maybe his piano concertos, Requiem, and symphonies get fully appreciated--just an impression. 

If pressed, I'd personally rank Don Giovanni as the greatest opera ever written, and The Magic Flute not far behind it.

But over the years, I've noticed that mere mortals often under-appreciate super genius. I guess it all sounds more effortless and easy than it actually is.

Someone made an analogy to tennis player Roger Federer earlier in this thread, and I agree. Federer makes what is incredibly difficult look so easy and natural and effortless. Non-top tennis players have no idea how phenomenal Federer is on a tennis court. His resting heart beat is in the 30s, his hand eye coordination is beyond belief, and he's super quick and fast, with a massive forehand (& everything else, too, including a Pete Sampras-like vertical leap in his younger days--47-48"-which was on par with Michael Jordan's, btw). While throughout most of his career, not a hair would be out of place on Federer's head deep into a 5th set (that is, after four or five hours). He wouldn't even look like he was sweating or remotely tired. That's simply unbelievable (& freakish), to anyone that has actually played a grueling 5 set tennis match. Indeed, Federer makes it all look so easy that the average tennis viewer doesn't fully realize or appreciate that what Federer is doing is extremely difficult and rare, and not easy at all, in fact, just the opposite. 

& I think the same is true for Mozart, too. I expect top flight musicians know this. You can't play this music very well and not realize the super genius behind it; that is, unless you're Glenn Gould...

But that's just it, I'd say the piano concertos and symphonies get played consistently well, for the most part, but the same isn't as true for many of Mozart's other works. For example, I'm still waiting for a recording of Don Giovanni that truly does the score full justice.


----------



## RogerWaters

Josquin13 said:


> His piano sonatas definitely get underrated. I've noticed they don't get advocated for or talked about nearly as much as Beethoven's (or maybe even Haydn's). Yet Beethoven's piano sonatas couldn't have been without Mozart's, and they are actually quite similar in many ways. So, how can anyone say they love Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, and not Mozart's? That doesn't make any sense.


It makes complete sense. Beethoven wouldn't have existed without Gregorian Chant, but it is completely sensical to like Beethoven without liking Gregorian chant.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Josquin13 said:


> His piano sonatas definitely get underrated.






 (3:02~5:40)
I discussed the connection between K.533/ii and Wagner's Tristan prelude (I don't know if you've seen it): https://www.talkclassical.com/71040-how-much-theory-do-4.html#post2073361
and also take a look at One-movement Sonata Cycle, if you haven't already.
The outer movements of the duet sonata, K.497 are quite elaborate/expansive as well.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I personally don't care much for TC poll/game results, but here's something for us to think about:


BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Wagner competes with him for opera
> 
> 
> Allerius said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a poll on the "greatest opera composer" here at TC, and *Wagner is currently winning by a wide margin*, followed by Mozart and Verdi, that are technically tied. *Here's the link to it*.
Click to expand...




Allerius said:


> And although overall I think that Mozart is rightly rated as one of the greatest of all times, I think that in opera he is, yes, overrated. *Some people place his operas on par with those of Wagner*


In a poll/game,
When our favorite composers/works get many votes/points, we can use it as evidence to support any argument that they're GREAT. 
But,
When our non-favorite composers/works get many votes/points, we can use it as evidence to support any argument that they're OVERRATED?

I'm not saying we shouldn't use poll/game results in our arguments, but come on, -there shouldn't be any "double standards" in this.
If Wagner won against Mozart in one poll/game and lost in another poll/game; we can't use the poll/game where Wagner won as evidence for his greatness and at the same time use the poll/game where Mozart won as evidence for his overratedness, for example.
Either shun both polls/games OR treat them equally valid as "What TC Has Spoken".


----------



## Xisten267

karajan said:


> *Be Honest Here #4: Do you think Mozart overrated?*
> 
> Yes. Mozart is the next topic which i have picked upon in my Honest series [It's a series now ]
> 
> I have always found him both overrated and his works unlikable. So _simple_. Ofcourse, the age old argument... There is a _depth_ which i cannot hear. Fine! Regardless, i find his works simple. I do not find his symphonies or his piano concerti/sonatas appealing at all and so i dislike his works.
> 
> Now, overrated or dislike... I would like to group them so if you feel either of the two, click yes. It is not the most perfect decision but it is what it is.


Yes, I also think that Mozart is overrated. I've been listening to his operas in their entirety in the last weeks and I've never been so bored with this genre in all my life. They sound frivolous and formulaic to me, and some statue sending a guy to hell just because he's a libertine doesn't help. The morals of the stories sound trivial to me ("Such is the end of the evildoer: the death of a sinner always reflects his life" and "women are like that" are silly and retrograde if one asks me). Most arias are decent (despite being small and underdeveloped), but I don't think that they go much beyond that - there's nothing profound and transcendent as an _Erbarme dich_ to be found in the Mozart operas, or at least I don't hear it.

Mozart has dozens of symphonies, but most of them are rather small and fragmentary (some are more like overtures), and only the last six contain truly interesting material in my current opinion, contrary to Haydn, who has a sea of beautiful symphonic works (and with development sections that aren't lacking as those of Mozart). Mozart's solo keyboard works are pretty, but nothing compared to what came later or before (from Bach). And then there are the piano concertos - yes, they are beautiful, but already surpassed by the likes of Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Rachmaninoff and others. Mozart has quantity, but I don't think that quality is one of his strenghts (despite the so often talked harmonic hocus pocus, already surpassed by the chromaticism of Gesualdo, Bach, Wagner and others). Oh, there's also the Maurerische Trauermusik and the adagio and fugue for strings, but is there anyone who really pays attention to that stuff?

There's something in Mozart that also annoys me: it's everything too happy, pretty and fluffy in his music, even when he goes to minor keys it sounds forced and insincere to me. He's that kind of composer who had to repeat himself all the time, and that ultimately couldn't achieve new styles as his music matured: he's a musician of a single style (even if it is a blend of styles of his time). He composed too much and left and immense quantity of works of debatable quality, save some exceptions such as the requiem, the last mass, the late symphonies and his chamber music - that is interesting but no big deal compared to that of Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert or Brahms for example.

Of course, Mozart has the most annoying and dangerous fandom in the internet - they can't accept some contructive criticism without resorting to attack those who did it and the composers they like. This fandom was created partly due to the myth of infallibility perpetrated by his wife Constanze after his death and, much later, by the movie _Amadeus_, that romanticized Mozart's life and created a bubble for radicals from all over the world.

Is Mozart overrated? Yes, he is. Should we talk about this? Perhaps not, because there's always some weirdo around to distort what one is saying, and to attack him and the composers he enjoy in the process.


----------



## Xisten267

RogerWaters said:


> It makes complete sense. Beethoven wouldn't have existed without Gregorian Chant, but it is completely sensical to like Beethoven without liking Gregorian chant.


Exactly. Any composer has influences, but there's no need for one to enjoy any and every artist related to them. I enjoy Beethoven, who idolized Handel, but I don't feel the need to be totally enthusiastic about Georg Friedrich (although lately I've been much more in the mood for his music than for Mozart's).


----------



## Xisten267

.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Art Rock

*Given the tone of recent discussions, I'm closing the thread for about 12 hours as a cool down period.*


----------



## Art Rock

*The thread is re-opened. Please do not deviate too far from the thread's topic, and keep in mind:




Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive).

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Allerius said:


> And then there are the piano concertos - yes, they are beautiful, but already surpassed by the likes of Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Rachmaninoff and others.


Are you serious?


----------



## Kreisler jr

That Mozart symphonies and Mahler's are hardly the same genre seemed a bit exaggerated but it is a fair point that not all comparisons are plausible. However, when I thought this I immediately countered myself that we don't seem to have a problem comparing Mozart piano concertos with Rachmaninov''s or his operas with Puccini, so in these cases it seems still the same genre. This was before I read Allerius comment. I strongly disagree with the comment about the operas. I started a general thread about styles of opera in the opera section. But briefly to Mozart. Most of his fame after his death was based on his operas. With the possible exception of some Gluck, Figaro, Giovanni and Flute are the first operas that remained continously in the core repertoire sInce their premieres. I think they are still among the top 10 to 15 in performances worldwide and Cosi and Abduction not far behind. This has nothing to with the Amadeus movie as it has been like this since the 50s or so.


----------



## Kreisler jr

If we go by public performances or widespread knowledge of the core or a large number of pieces Bach only became a contender in the 70s or so (before this he was more admired that listened to although of course played by piano students more than in the concert hall) and certainly received a huge boost through recordings in the last decades. This is because almost 2/3 of his works are Lutheran church music and organ works that are with few exceptions like the Passions not so well suited for normal concerts. Again an example how many factors influence such things.


----------



## mmsbls

Allerius said:


> Yes, I also think that Mozart is overrated. I've been listening to his operas in their entirety in the last weeks and I've never been so bored with this genre in all my life. They sound frivolous and formulaic to me, and some statue sending a guy to hell just because he's a libertine doesn't help. The morals of the stories sound trivial to me ("Such is the end of the evildoer: the death of a sinner always reflects his life" and "women are like that" are silly and retrograde if one asks me). Most arias are decent (despite being small and underdeveloped), but I don't think that they go much beyond that - there's nothing profound and transcendent as an _Erbarme dich_ to be found in the Mozart operas, or at least I don't hear it.
> 
> Mozart has dozens of symphonies, but most of them are rather small and fragmentary (some are more like overtures), and only the last six contain truly interesting material in my current opinion, contrary to Haydn, who has a sea of beautiful symphonic works (and with development sections that aren't lacking as those of Mozart). Mozart's solo keyboard works are pretty, but nothing compared to what came later or before (from Bach). And then there are the piano concertos - yes, they are beautiful, but already surpassed by the likes of Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Rachmaninoff and others. Mozart has quantity, but I don't think that quality is one of his strenghts (despite the so often talked harmonic hocus pocus, already surpassed by the chromaticism of Gesualdo, Bach, Wagner and others). Oh, there's also the Maurerische Trauermusik and the adagio and fugue for strings, but is there anyone who really pays attention to that stuff?
> 
> There's something in Mozart that also annoys me: it's everything too happy, pretty and fluffy in his music, even when he goes to minor keys it sounds forced and insincere to me. He's that kind of composer who had to repeat himself all the time, and that ultimately couldn't achieve new styles as his music matured: he's a musician of a single style (even if it is a blend of styles of his time). He composed too much and left and immense quantity of works of debatable quality, save some exceptions such as the requiem, the last mass, the late symphonies and his chamber music - that is interesting but no big deal compared to that of Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert or Brahms for example.
> 
> Of course, Mozart has the most annoying and dangerous fandom in the internet - they can't accept some contructive criticism without resorting to attack those who did it and the composers they like. This fandom was created partly due to the myth of infallibility perpetrated by his wife Constanze after his death and, much later, by the movie _Amadeus_, that romanticized Mozart's life and created a bubble for radicals from all over the world.
> 
> Is Mozart overrated? Yes, he is. Should we talk about this? Perhaps not, because there's always some weirdo around to distort what one is saying, and to attack him and the composers he enjoy in the process.


I'm a little confused. Earlier in the thread you agreed that Mozart was in your top 5 composers. The above seems to argue otherwise unless you don't think highly of more than a few composers.


----------



## Parley

To say Mozart’s piano concertos have been surpassed when they are generally reckoned by musicians to be the most sublime set ever written in the genre appears to be somewhat presumptive.


----------



## Kreisler jr

From my anecdotal evidence the most annoying bunch of fans on the Internet are the Bachians.
(I have never read anyone claim that Mozart would have been a great composer of sacred oratorios but how many times inconsistent rants that Bach would have been a great opera composer and the Passions were quasi operas and far better than any baroque opera anyway.)

Whereas the heighday of Mozart and Beethoven fandom seems ages ago. By distancing yourself from the most popular Mozart and Beethoven you show sophistication but not adoring Bach is like doubting physics...


----------



## Xisten267

I ask the other members to please disregard what I wrote in posts #289, #292 and #308. They are very unkind to Mozart and do not represent what I really think of his music. His operas, piano sonatas, concertos and other works are of course hallmarks of the repertoire and achievements of genius. I had some personal problems some days ago, was not in the best state of my mind and, feeling provoked by a certain other member (perhaps without reason), wrote all that nonsense in the said posts. I'm not in my best moment and intend to give a break from TC for some time.

Mozart is of course one the greatest composers of all times and will always be.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think one area in early Mozart where his sense and skill at through-composition and development are underrated is his Catholic music. For some reason, they don't get mentioned as often as his secular instrumental music from the same period; but I actually find them to be more significant than his early symphonies.
K.192: 



 (~14:35) {development @ 10:07}
K.257: 



 (~13:39) {development @ 7:18}

K.243
"transition" across movements:








"recapitulation" across movements:









Also, look at the idea of recapitulating with Minor doxology (_"Gloria patri"_) in each movement of Mozart's vespers (Rhythmically they share the common concept: one long (or multiple slurred) note(s) followed a shorter note, "Glo-ri-a..."):
K.321
Dixit dominus [ 2:51 ] / Confitebor tibi [ 8:14 ] / Beatus vir [ 13:03 ] / Laudate pueri [ 16:42 ] / Laudate dominum [ 20:09 ] / Magnificat anima [ 27:09 ]
K.339
Dixit dominus [ 2:54 ] / Confitebor tibi [ 7:27 ] / Beatus vir [ 12:09 ] / Laudate pueri [ 15:42 ] / Laudate dominum [ 19:19 ] / Magnificat anima [ 24:51 ]



Allerius said:


> I wrote all that nonsense in the said posts.


I actually think some of the things you said in those posts are valid as opinions; you're by all means entitled to them. There are people who detest Rococo aesthetics and would prefer Beethoven/Bach over Mozart any day; I totally understand that.


----------



## Parley

Kreisler jr said:


> From my anecdotal evidence the most annoying bunch of fans on the Internet are the Bachians.
> (I have never read anyone claim that Mozart would have been a great composer of sacred oratorios but how many times inconsistent rants that Bach would have been a great opera composer and the Passions were quasi operas and far better than any baroque opera anyway.)
> 
> Whereas the heighday of Mozart and Beethoven fandom seems ages ago. By distancing yourself from the most popular Mozart and Beethoven you show sophistication but not adoring Bach is like doubting physics...


As a lover of JSB I have never 'ranted' that he would've been a great composer of opera as he did not care for the genre. He also did not travel as Handel did and imbibe the Italian operatic culture . So the question is quite hypothetical.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm glad we don't have threads called "Be honest ..." any more. Why would anyone be dishonest? For me Mozart holds a place in the top 3 and might even be the top one. His mature symphonies, concertos, quartets and piano sonatas are all as good as their genres get and led the way. His operas clinch it for me.


----------



## pianozach

Mozart is great.

Beethoven is great.

I love 'em both. Mozart wrote some very deep works, and also some simplistic works.

Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory. His vocal works can sometimes be a bit clunky yet remain impressive in spite of that.

But I can find more to exalt both of them than I can to knock them.


----------



## fbjim

Kreisler jr said:


> Internet fora show very distorted pictures because of nerdy segregation. Among the general population or rather people with a casual interest in classist and opera Mozart beats Beethoven and Beethoven beats Bach. The Beethoven anniversary was wrecked by Covid but it would not have been close to 1991, probably not to 2006 either. (And 1985 and 2000 were not such a big deal.) All Beethoven and Bach movies together are no match for Amadeus.
> That's how one could get the impression of being overawed.


This is going back a bit but from what I gather, a lot of this is due to the state of the classical music recording industry in the early 90s (where everything was going out on disc) compared to now.


----------



## Parley

fbjim said:


> This is going back a bit but from what I gather, a lot of this is due to the state of the classical music recording industry in the early 90s (where everything was going out on disc) compared to now.


There is a whole stack of Mozart music on disk which is perfectly good music, usually from his earlier years, but it is not the works of supreme genius that he wrote when he was a developed artist. Of course much of it was published to show the young boy's remarkable facility. But we shouldn't judge Mozart's genius on it as that came out later. Would that he had given us another 10 years ago even five years


----------



## golfer72

Allerius said:


> I ask the other members to please disregard what I wrote in posts #289, #292 and #308. They are very unkind to Mozart and do not represent what I really think of his music. His operas, piano sonatas, concertos and other works are of course hallmarks of the repertoire and achievements of genius. I had some personal problems some days ago, was not in the best state of my mind and, feeling provoked by a certain other member (perhaps without reason), wrote all that nonsense in the said posts. I'm not in my best moment and intend to give a break from TC for some time.
> 
> Mozart is of course one the greatest composers of all times and will always be.


Wow are you kidding? Perhaps you should have taken your animosity out on the person who provoked you rather than a composer who cant defend himself. Having said that you may have a future as a debater! You had me going there for awhile! Note to self. Always read entire post before commenting


----------



## Dizzy J

No, he is not overrated.

If you look at just about each major instrument in the orchestra -- and then list the top concertos for that particular instrument -- I suspect all those lists would include a concerto by Mozart. 

And then there are the symphonies, the operas, the chamber music, the other pieces.


----------



## Symphonic

There are many ways to judge whether a composer is overrated. I think the most honest way is to compare that composer to his or her contemporaries. 

If one were to deem Mozart overrated, they would be suggesting that from 1756 - 1791, there are large number of contemporaries with a more credible output than his. And that is certainly not the case. 

Credible could mean many things : Breadth of works (different genres/forces within their catalogue), emotional intensity, craftmanship, innovation, and so on. 

Any thoughts otherwise is contrarian for the sake of furthering scholarship - which is certainly still valuable thing. It is good to challenge ideas regardless of how firmly established they are. 
Though ironically, in rare cases like that of Mozart, subsequent discussions about whether Mozart is overrated will likely further add ratings to the composer.


----------



## pianozach

Dizzy J said:


> No, he is not overrated.
> 
> If you look at just about each major instrument in the orchestra -- and then list the top concertos for that particular instrument -- I suspect all those lists would include a concerto by Mozart.
> 
> And then there are the symphonies, the operas, the chamber music, the other pieces.


I'm still sore that Mozart never wrote a saxophone concerto.


----------



## pianozach

Symphonic said:


> There are many ways to judge whether a composer is overrated. I think the most honest way is to compare that composer to his or her contemporaries.
> 
> If one were to deem Mozart overrated, they would be suggesting that from 1756 - 1791, there are large number of contemporaries with a more credible output than his. And that is certainly not the case.
> 
> Credible could mean many things : Breadth of works (different genres/forces within their catalogue), emotional intensity, craftmanship, innovation, and so on.
> 
> Any thoughts otherwise is contrarian for the sake of furthering scholarship - which is certainly still valuable thing. It is good to challenge ideas regardless of how firmly established they are.
> Though ironically, in rare cases like that of Mozart, subsequent discussions about whether Mozart is overrated will likely further add ratings to the composer.


Indeed. When listing Mozart's contemporaries, the lack of really great composers is notable.

Haydn
Clementi
Franz Krommer
Luigi Boccherini

The quality really drops off from there

Salieri
Stamitz
Michael Haydn
Leopold Mozart
Carlos Bauer
Joseph Ignaz Peyel
Johann Baptist Vanhal

If it were the *Theme to Gilligan's Island*, every one else would be the line "and the rest" (0:53).

Pichl
Kozeluch
Gyrowetz
William Herschel
Samuel Sebastian Wesley
Paul Wranitzky
Franz Xaver Richter
John Marsh


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Chopin Fangirl

.


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure Joseph Haydn is only just popular or he's really superior to his brother in terms of compositional sense and skill.
> I acknowledge that he's good at making "pompous" sounds with rhythm, timber, and dynamics (and rhythmically "rustic" sounds in string quartets). But when it comes to harmony and counterpoint, stuff his brother does is way above his pay-grade. I don't consider Joseph's melodic prowess really that great compared to his brother's either. Due to all these reasons, I hate to say; quite a number of those 100+ symphonies and 70+ string quartets have "forgettably trivial, petty" qualities about them; they're a "chore" to go through.
> So far, I haven't heard any plausible argument refuting this other than "Our textbooks and school teachers have always told us "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart"- So that's just the way it is." Fabulin really sounds like someone who've seriously listened to both composers, and not "biased" toward either one of them.
> And Joseph's capabilities at "motivic development" is quite exaggerated, tbh.
> Cases in point:
> 
> ^(if you would like to discuss further, let's do it in one of these threads)


I've gotten myself into a heated discussion about Haydn in a Facebook Classical Music Group page. It started with someone saying the Beethoven's 3rd Symphony was basically overrated.

I put my 2¢ in stating that it's likely the winner of all the Symphony Death Matches.

Someone else mentioned that any one of Haydn's Symphonies are better than the Eroica.

I love me some Haydn, especially his piano sonatas, and a lot of his Symphonies are top notch. HOWEVER, there's some real duds among the 100+ Symphonies he's written.


----------



## pianozach

Chopin Fangirl said:


> Okay... so I don't listen to a ton of Mozart, but here are my thoughts -
> 
> 1. His music is often quite simplistic in nature (at least that's how I, the amateur in listening, see it), so I do think that he is quite overrated in that regard. However, many people like simple-ish music and find it refreshing or wonderful, so for them it probably isn't.
> 
> 2. His Requiem is INSANELY GOOD. Like, the first point is almost pointless (heh, "pun" intended), given the harmonies in the Requiem. Perhaps some parts are "simple-seeming" (stylistically... again I have no clue about harmonically or theoretically), but they fit very well and carry a lot of musical meaning, to me at least.
> 
> 3. His music is very fun to play (piano). I'm not just talking about the delightful runs, but also the harmony in the development sections... for me, learning a piece really reveals parts of it that you take for granted when listening to it. And tying in with the second point, when I play music by Mozart, I often discover that it's not as "clear and straightforward" as I thought it was.
> 
> And really, I haven't heard most of Mozart's greatest works, probably. So, in conclusion, I think he is not really overrated... and perhaps even underrated amongst listeners like me...?


1. His music is often quite simplistic in nature (at least that's how I, the amateur in listening, see it), so I do think that he is quite overrated in that regard. However, many people like simple-ish music and find it refreshing or wonderful, so for them it probably isn't.

*Mozart took the Classical age of Classical music almost as far as it could go. He had an "accepted" framework in which to work, and stretched the envelope. I don't find his music "simple". I think it's quite clever, interesting, and often astonishing.
*
2. His Requiem is INSANELY GOOD. Like, the first point is almost pointless (heh, "pun" intended), given the harmonies in the Requiem. Perhaps some parts are "simple-seeming" (stylistically... again I have no clue about harmonically or theoretically), but they fit very well and carry a lot of musical meaning, to me at least.

*I think most folks think Mozart's Requiem is pretty damned great. Then they point out that he didn't actually complete it himself; he had some posthumous help.*

3. His music is very fun to play (piano). I'm not just talking about the delightful runs, but also the harmony in the development sections... for me, learning a piece really reveals parts of it that you take for granted when listening to it. And tying in with the second point, when I play music by Mozart, I often discover that it's not as "clear and straightforward" as I thought it was.

*Here, here! Yes, I get a great deal of enjoyment playing his piano sonatas. They're fun, clever, sassy, full of humor, and a real harmonic joy.
*


----------



## Kreisler jr

fbjim said:


> This is going back a bit but from what I gather, a lot of this is due to the state of the classical music recording industry in the early 90s (where everything was going out on disc) compared to now.


True. But I read years ago that the "Complete Mozart edition" was a huge risk, more of a prestige/vanity project and hardly anyone expected it to do as incredibly well as it actually did. It was a combination of several factors; I have nostalgia tinged glasses but the late 1980s and early 1990s were in many ways such a great time, the last really optimistic (political, societal, technological) time in the West, I think, and one could even be betrayed into thinking that consumerist lifestyle, technology and high culture could all come together by listening to Neville Marriner conducting Mozart on shiny silvery high tech devices 
But 2000 (Bach year) was still in the age of compact disc and it probably was a reasonably big deal and reasonably good business. For some reason I don't remember this as well as the early 1990s.


----------



## Parley

*


pianozach said:



1. His music is often quite simplistic in nature (at least that's how I, the amateur in listening, see it), so I do think that he is quite overrated in that regard. However, many people like simple-ish music and find it refreshing or wonderful, so for them it probably isn't

Click to expand...

*


pianozach said:


> .
> 
> *Mozart took the Classical age of Classical music almost as far as it could go. He had an "accepted" framework in which to work, and stretched the envelope. I don't find his music "simple". I think it's quite clever, interesting, and often astonishing.
> *
> 2. His Requiem is INSANELY GOOD. Like, the first point is almost pointless (heh, "pun" intended), given the harmonies in the Requiem. Perhaps some parts are "simple-seeming" (stylistically... again I have no clue about harmonically or theoretically), but they fit very well and carry a lot of musical meaning, to me at least.
> 
> *I think most folks think Mozart's Requiem is pretty damned great. Then they point out that he didn't actually complete it himself; he had some posthumous help.*
> 
> 3. His music is very fun to play (piano). I'm not just talking about the delightful runs, but also the harmony in the development sections... for me, learning a piece really reveals parts of it that you take for granted when listening to it. And tying in with the second point, when I play music by Mozart, I often discover that it's not as "clear and straightforward" as I thought it was.
> 
> *Here, here! Yes, I get a great deal of enjoyment playing his piano sonatas. They're fun, clever, sassy, full of humor, and a real harmonic joy.
> *


Those who are fooled into thinking that simplicity and profundity are exclusive are referred to Schnabel and a host of other great musician's quotes on Mozart.


----------



## Enthusiast

pianozach said:


> 1. His music is often quite simplistic in nature (at least that's how I, the amateur in listening, see it), so I do think that he is quite overrated in that regard. However, many people like simple-ish music and find it refreshing or wonderful, so for them it probably isn't.
> 
> *Mozart took the Classical age of Classical music almost as far as it could go. He had an "accepted" framework in which to work, and stretched the envelope. I don't find his music "simple". I think it's quite clever, interesting, and often astonishing.
> *


Yes, indeed. I'm glad you answered as the rather superior language of the post got up my nose!

There is nothing simple about it! Anyone who thinks it is simple has probably not listened to much of his mature music or any of his operas. I say this as someone who enjoys quite a lot of the more complicated contemporary music - Ferneyhough etc - as well as much that came between the two. Mozart's music goes as deep as anyone's and is incredibly and fluently inventive.


----------



## Dimace

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, indeed. I'm glad you answered as the rather superior language of the post got up my nose!
> 
> There is nothing simple about it! Anyone who thinks it is simple has probably not listened to much of* his mature music* or any of his operas. I say this as someone who enjoys quite a lot of the more complicated contemporary music - Ferneyhough etc - as well as much that came between the two. Mozart's music goes as deep as anyone's and is incredibly and fluently inventive.


Mozart's late works (piano sonatas, piano concertos, symphonies & The Requiem, for the other I'm not very familiar) are of the highest possible level. The Requiem, especially, has not been written in this world, the same for some symphonies, which are simply so perfect that my mind can not completely understand how he managed to compose them. I'm NOT Mozart's biggest fan, but the truth must be said.


----------



## SanAntone

*Do you think Mozart overrated?*

No. But I rarely listen to his music; only the operas interest me anymore. But he was a force of nature, impossible to overrate, IMO.


----------



## Highwayman

I voted "yes" but it`s not the whole truth regarding my thoughts on Mozart. Although I was always aware of his merits as a composer, his music never really clicked with me. Initially I thought maybe I didn`t like Mozart but now after years of expansive listening I`ve come to the conclusion that what I don`t like is actually Mozart`s era not Mozart`s music per se. 

To me he is the best composer of the worst era of the Western Art Music tradition. I think it might be somehow connected to the whole "Age of Reason/Sensibility" thing. I also don`t like Augustan Literature and Neoclassical Art particularly so I think there is some kind of a pattern here. I don`t have the energy to try to make a comprehensive sociological analysis but I believe the social/cultural emphasis on the notions like reason, logic, seriousness etc. influenced artists, musicians etc. to favour form and formality over emotions which were then renounced because of all those sexist nonsensical stereotypes of the time. Of course I`m not claiming that Mozart`s music is not emotional, he displays quite a range of emotions in his sacred works (in which it was okay to be emotional I assume) or in things like Fantasias which have pseudo-Romantic expressions all over them. The problem I feel with Mozart is the emotions are often suppressed and they are either eclipsed by formal intricacies or spoiled by many sugarcoated Rondos. :lol:

Imo, Mozart appropriately embraced his sensibility over his sensitivity which made him an exemplary artist for the Classical era, but it also made him a reserved, restrained composer to my Postmodern ears. 

Perhaps calling him overrated is unfair considering his unparalleled versatility as a composer but I believe he is at least indirectly overrated because of the overrated era for which he has been widely considered as a standard-bearer.


----------



## JohnP

Umm, no. Don Giovanni, Symphony No. 41, Piano Concerto No. 24, Divertimento for String Trio K.563--there's just too much evidence.


----------



## fbjim

I think Mozart suffers from some light ridicule for things which aren't at all his fault - first, he became a pop culture figure in a way that was highly unusual for classical musicians well after his death, and secondly, a big anniversary year for him occurred during one of the peak times for the classical record labels to be putting out ridiculous amounts of recordings, resulting in Mozart recordings practically flooding CD stores at some point. I think this gave him a slightly unfair rap as a overrecorded composer and made it difficult for some people in the era where that happened to fairly judge him.


----------



## Kreisler jr

This is a good point. Mozart was of course a very famous and popular composer before but the combination of Forman's "Amadeus" and the years leading up to the 1991 anniversary probably gained him a lot of fans but also a few people might have put off by that circus. I liked Mozart's music too much from the beginning but when I recall how quick I was to "put behind" Tchaikovsky and other very popular music I had loved as an absolute beginner I can easily imagine a similar situation with Mozart. Cg. #338 I still think that the CD boom in the late 1980s and 1990s was a mixed blessing for CM because the bust that followed was partly created by the unrealistic expectations and saturation of the time before. (Popular music was hit maybe worse though because another few years later downloads and napster became a problem for them.)


----------



## Michael Diemer

Mozart was probably the most gifted musician who ever lived. And he developed those gifts to their highest level. While it is foolish to speculate who was the greatest of all time (in sports terminology, the GOAT), I think that Mozart's incredible genius, along with the very hard work he put in to develop it (contrary to popular belief, he did have to work very hard to do what he did, something he himself stated); and the results, which speak for themselves, would have made him, at the very least, unsurpassed in whatever era he lived in.

No, not over-rated, except perhaps in his own time. Although Papa Haydn once told Papa Leopold that his son was the greatest living composer. Something Papa Haydn knew a thing or two about. If my memory serves me, I believe Wolfgang was about 17 when that statement was made...


----------



## fluteman

karajan said:


> Yes. Mozart is the next topic which i have picked upon in my Honest series [It's a series now ]
> 
> I have always found him both overrated and his works unlikable. So _simple_. Ofcourse, the age old argument... There is a _depth_ which i cannot hear. Fine! Regardless, i find his works simple. I do not find his symphonies or his piano concerti/sonatas appealing at all and so i dislike his works.
> 
> Now, overrated or dislike... I would like to group them so if you feel either of the two, click yes. It is not the most perfect decision but it is what it is.


I wish I could answer this, but I've never heard any of Mozart's music. Could you recommend a typical piece of his?


----------



## Forster

I like the notion that a Forum might have among its membership, some who need to be encouraged to be 'honest'. Generally speaking, members usually have no difficulty in saying _exactly _what they think!

Having said that, there are always lurkers who choose to say nothing at all; and the verbose who post so much, but actually say little (that might be me at times).

Listening to M's last three symphonies at the Proms on Sunday (BBC 4, still available on iPlayer for those that can access it) and yesterday, a piano concerto (I forget which), I was struck by how easy it all was to listen to. I was already familiar with the 40th and 41st, but still find them uninvolving. The 39th piqued my interest slightly, but perhaps only because I'd not heard it before.

It's not for me to stick a spanner in the works of musical reputations. WAM won't be harmed by what I think about him. So all I'd say is he doesn't do it for me, though plainly he does for many others. That's fine. But if anyone comes near me and tries to convince me that I'm either 'wrong' or 'inexperienced', then I'd argue that they were overrating him.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I like the notion that a Forum might have among its membership, some who need to be encouraged to be 'honest'. Generally speaking, members usually have no difficulty in saying _exactly _what they think!
> 
> Having said that, there are always lurkers who choose to say nothing at all; and the verbose who post so much, but actually say little (that might be me at times).
> 
> Listening to M's last three symphonies at the Proms on Sunday (BBC 4, still available on iPlayer for those that can access it) and yesterday, a piano concerto (I forget which), I was struck by how easy it all was to listen to. I was already familiar with the 40th and 41st, but still find them uninvolving. The 39th piqued my interest slightly, but perhaps only because I'd not heard it before.
> 
> It's not for me to stick a spanner in the works of musical reputations. WAM won't be harmed by what I think about him. So all I'd say is he doesn't do it for me, though plainly he does for many others. That's fine. But if anyone comes near me and tries to convince me that I'm either 'wrong' or 'inexperienced', then I'd argue that they were overrating him.


OK, I'll try to take this topic a little more seriously. This question, i.e., is Mozart overrated?, comes up here with some regularity. This puzzled me at first, but eventually I saw that the subtlety and sophistication of Mozart's music either eludes some listeners or fails to impress them, much as some prefer bangers and mash to boeuf bourguignon, or Elvis on velvet to Vermeer's The Allegory of Painting. In the end, you have to enter Mozart's aesthetic world and accept the premises and principles of The Classical Style, as Charles Rosen calls it in his book of that name, to appreciate Mozart's skills in working in that particular style.

If you don't, it doesn't mean you are wrong or a tone deaf fool, but it does mean debating the issue with you is useless. Many famous classical artists, Mozart included, developed a high level of skill in a very specialized context. If that context isn't meaningful to you, there is no point in discussing it further with you.


----------



## Forster

I assume you meant



fluteman said:


> If that context isn't meaningful to one, there is no point in discussing it further with one.


Or were you addressing me specifically? If so...

There is nothing wrong with my tastes (but I would say that, wouldn't I?) I like bangers and mash and boeuf bourguignon. I like the Old Masters and Young Pretenders. I like Haydn's symphonies too, but perhaps you wouldn't regard them as exhibiting subtlety and sophistication.

But I agree that Mozart explores a particular sound world that isn't meaningful to me, and my response to the question posed is as legitimate as from one who does find meaning in WAM's universe.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I assume you meant
> 
> Or were you addressing me specifically? If so...
> 
> There is nothing wrong with my tastes (but I would say that, wouldn't I?) I like bangers and mash and boeuf bourguignon. I like the Old Masters and Young Pretenders. I like Haydn's symphonies too, but perhaps you wouldn't regard them as exhibiting subtlety and sophistication.
> 
> But I agree that Mozart explores a particular sound world that isn't meaningful to me, and my response to the question posed is as legitimate as from one who does find meaning in WAM's universe.


Right, there is nothing wrong with your tastes. But the question, Is Mozart Overrated? is meaningless unless considered in the specific context of his aesthetic style. Within that relatively narrow and specific context, it's hard not to concede that he was the ultimate master, all but impossible to overrate. (By the way, that was Haydn's opinion.) Aside from his extraordinary skills, he held himself to such a high standard he ended up making far less money than he might have made, and died almost in poverty. Vermeer, the Dutch painter I mentioned, had a similar problem. Another perfectionist unwilling to churn out less than his best work to pay the bills.


----------



## Enthusiast

"Mozart is overrated" and "I don't greatly like Mozart" are two very different positions. It seems simplistic to say that not liking Mozart so much must mean that he is overrated. Isn't it possible to dislike a composer while recognising that his high reputation is deserved? And isn't it possible to like a composer while recognising (or merely believing) that his reputation is higher than it should be? For example, I don't greatly care for Liszt but believe his reputation is deserved and I like Shostakovich while feeling that he is more highly reputed than he should be!


----------



## Kreisler jr

Sure. Although it is obviously quite difficult for many listeners (myself included) to abstract from personal preferences. I can hardly think of an example for a composer I find overrated despite being a personal favorite; it's usually those (like for me also Shostakovich among others) who I find rather uneven with lots of pieces I love and others I do not care about. Maybe Bruckner and Mahler would be examples for me because I quite like them (and except for a bit of earlier Bruckner I like almost all of their works) but think that they have become overrated after having been underrated until ca. the 1970s.

I actually think that composers can be overrated and underrated at the same time, if one looks at particular pieces, clichées or comparison with others. As soon as one goes beyond the most famous and popular 20 or so composers it also becomes a bit difficult to get the "rating" correctly. I could try to look into some statistics but I have no sufficiently clear idea of the popularity of e.g. Janacek or Rimsky-Korsakov to say if they are overrated or underrated ("Sheherazade" definitely is overrated, though  and "Antar" probably underrated).

I also think that "underrated" is frequently exaggerated. To claim that J. Haydn or Schumann are underrated seems a bit silly (although some of their works might be).


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> OK, I'll try to take this topic a little more seriously. This question, i.e., is Mozart overrated?, comes up here with some regularity. This puzzled me at first, but eventually I saw that the subtlety and sophistication of Mozart's music either eludes some listeners or fails to impress them, much as some prefer bangers and mash to boeuf bourguignon, or Elvis on velvet to Vermeer's The Allegory of Painting. In the end, you have to enter Mozart's aesthetic world and accept the premises and principles of The Classical Style, as Charles Rosen calls it in his book of that name, to appreciate Mozart's skills in working in that particular style.
> 
> If you don't, it doesn't mean you are wrong or a tone deaf fool, but it does mean debating the issue with you is useless. Many famous classical artists, Mozart included, developed a high level of skill in a very specialized context. If that context isn't meaningful to you, there is no point in discussing it further with you.


IMO, a lot of the "over-rated" thing is a product of over saturation in the modern age. We've heard that Mozart is a Great Composer, a Genius, a Prodigy, so often that there may have been a backlash - especially if we don't connect to his style.

But no serious listener of Classical music could deny Mozart's deserved place among the pantheon of composers, even (as is the case with me) we hardly listen to his music anymore.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Michael Diemer said:


> Although Papa Haydn once told Papa Leopold that his son was the greatest living composer. Something Papa Haydn knew a thing or two about. If my memory serves me, I believe Wolfgang was about 17 when that statement was made...


No. Haydn said this when Leopold visited Wolfgang in Vienna in early 1785 and one or more of the quartets dedicated to Haydn were played. So Mozart had turned 29 a few weeks before that incident. It was clearly referring to a mature Wolfgang at the peak of his abilities, not to the prodigy in the early/mid 1770s.


----------



## mikeh375

Mozart from a purely musical and technical pov is not overrated imv. To achieve the inevitability he does in his work and the economy of means is something to be aspired to, even with 21stC ears.


----------



## Ice Berg

I think this perception comes from the fact that it seems like a small handful of Mozart pieces are played repeatedly and to no end in recitals. Mozart was undeniably a genius, but it's difficult to get a real sense of why and how without exposure to a wide range of his work.

I'm not personally a big fan, but there's some of him I enjoy. I think he is overrated but only in the most technical sense: he is not, to me, a top three composer, but top 10 or 20, objectively.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Highwayman said:


> *I think it might be somehow connected to the whole "Age of Reason/Sensibility" thing.* I also don`t like Augustan Literature and Neoclassical Art particularly so I think there is some kind of a pattern here. I don`t have the energy to try to make a comprehensive sociological analysis but I believe the social/cultural emphasis on the notions like reason, logic, seriousness etc.


I remember that you had Bach in place 1 or 2 in your "list of greatest composers", but what do you make of stuff like this:

https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations

"I often talk about Bach as a great humanist, as having an empathy for the whole range of human emotion. (Rather than the cerebral, fugal stereotype.) I love the way his music seems to look down on the whole human deal, but not condescendingly, with (now I'm letting myself rhapsodize subjectively) a kind of benevolent understanding. He does not look down bitterly (like Shostakovich, for instance), saying look at this terrible empty comedy of human emotion. Nor is he himself the emoter, like Beethoven; but he is not distanced, either. He has hit a sweet spot. Perhaps the most serious complaint you could make about Bach is that he has every quality of humanity except imperfection."

"All of which is to say that the Goldbergs are genetically predisposed to be boring, and they cannot totally elude the trap set for them by their premise. To be fair, Bach charges at this fact with full foreknowledge, even brazenly. He says, in effect, _yes this is bound to be boring but I am going to be so masterful that you will be in awe and not care even if you will be bored._"

"Preternaturally happy, cheerful, perfect, organized, clean, boring, popular: I guess the case I'm making is that the Goldbergs are the Martha Stewart of Variations. And like Martha Stewart, you don't totally absolutely mind if they end up going off for a little while to a very clean and nice prison (sorry Martha, I'm just following the metaphor, I don't really mean it) so you don't have to see them being perfectly organized all the time, making a mockery of your unclean life."



Highwayman said:


> To me he is the best composer of the worst era of the Western Art Music tradition.


"I know everyone discusses the Goldbergs as if born from the mind of God in some beautiful Olympian harmony-paradise. But here's another way to frame it: Bach set out to write something less boring than one of the most boring pieces ever written. And he succeeded. If the Handel Variations are Last Year at Marienbad, the Goldbergs are Die Hard."


----------



## Kreisler jr

Ice Berg said:


> I think this perception comes from the fact that it seems like a small handful of Mozart pieces are played repeatedly and to no end in recitals. Mozart was undeniably a genius, but it's difficult to get a real sense of why and how without exposure to a wide range of his work.


This depends. If one has only heard Eine kleine Nachtmusik or even the Clarinet concerto one gets a rather lopsided view. If one has heard and absorbed any of the Da Ponte operas or The Magic Flute (although people struggle with it because of the fairy tale elements) or the last three symphonies or 3-5 popular piano concertos, one could get a fair impression. And that's not so different with many other composers. 
If one goes beyond "Mozart for my Baby" or "Schubert for lovers", even a small anthology of real, complete works will usually give a fair impression of a composer. And a very skewed view like one could from these Candlelight anthologies is also possible for most composers.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Ice Berg said:


> I think this perception comes from the fact that it seems like a small handful of Mozart pieces are played repeatedly and to no end in recitals. Mozart was undeniably a genius, but it's difficult to get a real sense of why and how without exposure to a wide range of his work.


This depends. If one has only heard Eine kleine Nachtmusik or even the Clarinet concerto one gets a rather lopsided view. If one has heard and absorbed any of the Da Ponte operas or The Magic Flute (although people struggle with it because of the fairy tale elements) or the last three symphonies or 3-5 popular piano concertos, one could get a fair impression. And that's not so different with many other composers. 
If one goes beyond "Mozart for my Baby" or "Schubert for lovers", even a small anthology of real, complete works will usually give a fair impression of a composer. And a very skewed view like one could from these Candlelight anthologies is also possible for most composers.


----------



## Enthusiast

Not to mention many of the quartets, the string quintets and, actually, I would go back at least as far as the Haffner in a list of his greatest symphonies. I also believe that many of his piano sonatas are great works and that La Clemenza di Tito and Idomeneo belong among Mozart's great operas.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> I remember that you had Bach in place 1 or 2 in your "list of greatest composers", but what do you make of stuff like this:
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
> 
> "I often talk about Bach as a great humanist, as having an empathy for the whole range of human emotion. (Rather than the cerebral, fugal stereotype.) I love the way his music seems to look down on the whole human deal, but not condescendingly, with (now I'm letting myself rhapsodize subjectively) a kind of benevolent understanding. He does not look down bitterly (like Shostakovich, for instance), saying look at this terrible empty comedy of human emotion. Nor is he himself the emoter, like Beethoven; but he is not distanced, either. He has hit a sweet spot. Perhaps the most serious complaint you could make about Bach is that he has every quality of humanity except imperfection."
> 
> "All of which is to say that the Goldbergs are genetically predisposed to be boring, and they cannot totally elude the trap set for them by their premise. To be fair, Bach charges at this fact with full foreknowledge, even brazenly. He says, in effect, _yes this is bound to be boring but I am going to be so masterful that you will be in awe and not care even if you will be bored._"
> 
> "Preternaturally happy, cheerful, perfect, organized, clean, boring, popular: I guess the case I'm making is that the Goldbergs are the Martha Stewart of Variations. And like Martha Stewart, you don't totally absolutely mind if they end up going off for a little while to a very clean and nice prison (sorry Martha, I'm just following the metaphor, I don't really mean it) so you don't have to see them being perfectly organized all the time, making a mockery of your unclean life."
> 
> "I know everyone discusses the Goldbergs as if born from the mind of God in some beautiful Olympian harmony-paradise. But here's another way to frame it: Bach set out to write something less boring than one of the most boring pieces ever written. And he succeeded. If the Handel Variations are Last Year at Marienbad, the Goldbergs are Die Hard."


I still don't understand why you quote this. I've pointed out to you twice that it's clearly satirical. I don't think Denk would bother recording the variations and releasing a series of videos and articles breaking them down if he really "hated" them.


----------



## JoachimBlas26

That is a great analogy, I also often compare him to Messi in football, because Messi plays elegantly, it seems that everything he does is easy, he only does what is necessary to reach the goal without doing unnecessary skills such as Neymar or Ronaldo.


----------



## JoachimBlas26

Novelette said:


> Much of Mozart's output, not unlike most composers, is bland and fairly uninteresting
> 
> To me is just the opposite of that. Every single work i hear from of him is interesting, full of turns and hidden surprises, but always keeping the clarity and the "simplicity" of the music. Listen for example the String Quartet in Eb Major K428, the String Quintet in G Minor K516, or the finale of the A Minor Sonata K310. In my humble opinion those works aren't simple but have a gigantic intellectual and emotional complexity.
> 
> There is a quote that I can't remember from whom that says that "Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters".


----------



## Enthusiast

^ That was Artur Schnabel I think. But I do think there is a case that says that Mozart's mature output was of mixed value. Some was toweringly great while some was merely good. This was probably no more than any of the other greats but with Mozart the "not quite so great" pieces can be in a genre or series that we have learned to expect would contain the major works. An example might be the violin concertos. Lovely works to be sure but not a place to send someone who needs to be convinced of Mozart's genius.


----------



## Bulldog

Enthusiast said:


> An example might be the violin concertos. Lovely works to be sure but not a place to send someone who needs to be convinced of Mozart's genius.


What do you want from the man? He wrote those concertos before his 20th birthday, and I'd say that they reveal his musical genius quite well.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes, OK. And they are fine works. But there has always been a regular trickle of posts from people who listened to them apparently expecting them to be major works (in the way that the Bach and other violin concertos are for their composers) and arriving at a conclusion that Mozart may be overrated.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't think Mozart's 3rd and 5th violin concertos are lesser works than Bach's violin concertos.


----------



## Livly_Station

I wouldn't put Mozart in my top 10 nowadays (below his usual dominance of rankings), but I can only see him going up in my preference as I discover more of his works. 

Mozart charms me the most with his chambre music, especially his works for winds -- always lovely, always fun, always seamless. Btw, some of his organ works have beautiful transcriptions for chambre ensembles. Besides that, I also take great joy in Mozart's concerti, for any instrument, but especially piano, and his serenades and divertimenti are delightful too. 

I'm not as amazed by the rest of Mozart's oeuvre. Some of his piano sonatas are very good, but not what I look for in music for solo piano -- I guess due to the nature of the fortepianos of his time. His symphonies don't speak so much to my heart, but I like Nos. 38 and 40 enough to care. I'm not very familiar with Mozart's sacred music, but I do like his Requiem. Finally, I'm not into Opera, so...

What's funny is that, to me, Mozart succeeds where romantic music fails and vice-versa -- he excels at genres that I usually dislike in romantic composers (chambre, concerti), but doesn't do as well with symphonies and piano music.


----------



## Merl

Pah, sooooo overrated. He'll be as forgotten as the Goombay Dance Band by next week.


----------



## Art Rock

Merl said:


> He'll be as forgotten as the Goombay Dance Band by next week.


Sun of Jamaica... that one is actually on our car MP3 stick.


----------



## Kreisler jr

You guys reveal your age... 
Even I know that song although I was a child when it came out and only encountered it years later at some "campy" parties ironically consuming older hits...


----------



## Highwayman

hammeredklavier said:


> I remember that you had Bach in place 1 or 2 in your "list of greatest composers", but what do you make of stuff like this:
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations


I think it`s hilarious. :lol:



> "Perhaps the most serious complaint you could make about Bach is that he has every quality of humanity except imperfection."


I agree that Bach lacks imperfection. That`s why I place him 2nd after Brahms who is perfectly imperfect.


----------



## trazom

Forster said:


> It's not for me to stick a spanner in the works of musical reputations. WAM won't be harmed by what I think about him. So all I'd say is he doesn't do it for me, though plainly he does for many others. That's fine. But if anyone comes near me and tries to convince me that I'm either 'wrong' or 'inexperienced', then I'd argue that they were overrating him.


I was curious if you meant "inexperienced" in terms of being familiar with Mozart's music or with the classical music repertoire? Because if someone told me they only just heard Mozart's 39th symphony--one of his more famous works--for the first time, I would also wonder how much of his output they were familiar with in general.


----------



## 1846

My answer to the poll question is "NO," followed by seven exclamation points.


----------



## alvaro

Not overrated, he's really great! But maybe overhyped, as someone said at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## musicrom

I voted yes, but that doesn't mean he's not a great composer. Mozart generally seems to be considered either "the greatest" composer of all-time, or at least in the top three, but I have him ranked at #10 in my list. So technically I have to say he's overrated, but that shouldn't be taken as an insult.


----------

