Sometimes, nothing but Mozart

[Chaszz]

Today I was tuning around some of my favorite classical music streaming stations on the web, and every one of them had on something by Mozart. I have nothing against Mozart, except that his frequent prettiness is sometimes a little cloying to me. But what is this relentless preoccupation with his music by so many scheduling people, both on radio and in Mozart festivals - when there are so many other great composers, and at least two or three who are up there at the pinnacle along with him ? Is it possibly because he is the greatest composer who is frequently pretty, and therefore accessible to the large mass of people who only like classical music if it's not too demanding? Or is he just simply the greatest  composer? 

[Gurn Blanston]

I was tempted to choose the 3rd option except that his chronological age really doesn't enter into it. He wrote plenty of music that wasn't 'pretty'. I would mention the later string quintets and quartets, the late concertos too. And the string trio K 563. These are substantial pieces of music by anyone's standards. The entire concept of Mozart's 'prettiness' is yet another invention of the 19th century which thrived on drama, nasty ugly drama, and so music that didn't express their limited viewpoint became, in this case,  'Rococo bon-bons'.

I don't think Mozart was the 'greatest composer', whatever the hell that is, I think in terms of interesting works of subtle genius, Haydn quite surpasses him (and most others) on the basis of originality alone if in no other way. I do think Mozart was the finest composer of opera after Gluck's time, and that he could manipulate any genre of instrumental work to fit his conceptions of art. I think his use of the long melodic line is unsurpassed by any composer any time.

It is very likely indeed that as he got older he would have continued down the more serious road that his later music took, but he was already on that road, so this wouldn't have represented any sort of major change.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I've never heard a single note from Mozart which I'd consider saccharine. And I'd wager many more hear it the same way, which is where his popularity comes from.

His music may indeed be accessible but it has timing, pulse, rhythm, unpredictability, originality, spice, graciousness, presence, fundamentals, depth, etc... If AFTER all this we find prettiness then, well, time to give Mozart a pat on the back.

[Szykneij]

The fact that he wrote so much great music might factor into it.

[jochanaan]

Mozart's fame has built on itself over the centuries to the point where, along with Bach and Beethoven, he's simply the most recognizable name in "our music."  We all probably remember hearing about "The Mozart Effect."  And because his music is so much "prettier" than most modern music, people who don't yet know classical music in depth think it was all about prettiness.  But those who know in depth understand how much genius is there--especially those of us who sometimes try to play the stuff!

[Pat B]

I don't think any of the choices is quite right. There are lots of composers who wrote accessible music. Mozart's music is not just "pretty." It also rewards careful and repeated listening. I wouldn't say there is one greatest composer, but Mozart's popularity is well-deserved.

I'd say the same about Beethoven.

[Karl Henning]

Option by option:

His music is pretty and draws in many listeners who can only take classical music if it's lovely and undemanding

Tendentious and false.

He is simply the greatest composer

Gurn is right, this is an impossible question (of course, many a thread at GMG winds around that topic)

Had he lived to old age, his music would have become somewhat more weighty and less precoccupied with prettiness

Speculation, and (to my mind) pointless.  Either the music he wrote is great (and it has given general satisfaction), or it isn't.  The music which he actually wrote is not great by virtue of speculation on how he might have written music at a later age, had he survived.

This pollster does not understand Mozart

I have no opinion.

[Chaszz]

Most of the posters seem to think I said Mozart wrote only pretty music and no serious music. I said "I have nothing against Mozart, except that his frequent prettiness is sometimes a little cloying to me." Sometimes.  A little. Of course I know that he also wrote music which is complex, deep and subtle. And I wouldn't have put in the choice about his music growing more serious as he got older if I didn't hear it already to starting to happen in his later works.

[Chaszz]

... The entire concept of Mozart's 'prettiness' is yet another invention of the 19th century which thrived on drama, nasty ugly drama, and so music that didn't express their limited viewpoint became, in this case,  'Rococo bon-bons'...

IMO, this is a very limited understanding of 19th century music.

[Bogey]

I just think it is a shame that many folks (outside of the hardcore classical listening bunch) do not explore ALL his music.  They tend to get trapped in the hits and leave so much behind.  Too bad.  If they just took the time then Wolfie would not be so underrated. 

[Karl Henning]

Most of the posters seem to think I said Mozart wrote only pretty music and no serious music. I said "I have nothing against Mozart, except that his frequent prettiness is sometimes a little cloying to me."

Well, but (as I cited) the first option in the poll is baldly an invitation to dismiss the work, in a body, as pretty, and further to dismiss the listeners who find the music engaging. There is no seem to think involved there.

[Mandryka]

What Mozart seems to be about is something to do with love, mutual understanding, talking to each other, being sympathetic to each other, forgiving each other. That's the vision age I get from the operas anyway.

Do people believe in that now? Don't we now think that the countess should just slap Almaviva and get a divorce? Don't we now think that being successful is about exerting the same sort of power to influence events that the Don had? Don't we now think that Leporrello was just a stupid fool for not finding a better job? That Don Alfonso was right?

My thought is that Mozart's music has become an elegant and intelligent diversion, an interesting historical cultural object, and that it doesn't have anything important left to say. We've moved on. The scales have fallen from our eyes.

[Karl Henning]

My thought is that Mozart's music has become an elegant and intelligent diversion, an interesting historical cultural object, and that it doesn't have anything important left to say. We've moved on. The scales have fallen from our eyes.

That, you will pardon me, is nonsense. In fact, in the context of this thread, it is worth pointing out that Mozart's music has more things to say, and says it better, than do your posts, sirrah. You've moved on. Laughable.

[Octave]

I am guessing that Mandryka's post partakes of some irony, no?  Are you not being a bit harsh, Karl?

[Octave]

I was reading out of Mandryka's post the idea that a 'domesticated' or 'sterilized' Mozart---porcelain doll music?---is presented as a haughty modern's condescension to 'genius', to 'inspiration'.  A possible ethics neutralized by turning it into a cool parlor trick.  Something 'edifying', 'charming', effete.   I mean a 'modern' perspective on the music, not necessarily one or several interpretations.
The lines you quoted, the objectionable ones, seem to describe a situation and an attitude both repugnant and accurate, by my lights.  I do think Mandryka's talking about the world we live in.

I'm reminded (movies on the brain) of the U.S. State Department goon/technocrat in Billy Wilder's AVANTI: "Ben Franklin.  A good man for his time.  Of course, today I'm not sure...he could pass the security check."

[mc ukrneal]

Without examples, this conversation is like one big stereotype. In order to understand Mozart, we first need to understand his place in history. If you look at what comes before, he clearly is an extension of the music being composed in the classical period. It seems to me that the description of 'pretty' is more apt for the period (which is how I have sometimes heard it characterized) rather than just Mozart. Of course, I believe this is an incorrect description, but many people call the classical period many names. It can be lighter music, but lighter music is not inherently inferior or worse. This is a judgment (subjective) call, which is why posters were writing about how 19th century composers sometimes characterized the music. So if one looks at the early symphonies, for example, one might come to the wrong (or incomplete) conclusion because this ignores the later syphonies.

Let me give you another example - Marriage of Figaro. The last 20 minutes or so of Act II are possibly some of the best music ever written. If you are familiar with this section, you will know that the buildup of bigger and bigger force and the brilliance of the music and plot building seemleesly together show a complex understanding of music that cannot simply be 'called' pretty. The clincher for me is that pieces like the Requiem, although beautiful, are not 'pretty' in the sense being referred to here.

'Pretty' music is not inherently less interesting than 'weightier' music (whatever that means to you), so I think you start from a flawed premise.

[Karl Henning]

I am guessing that Mandryka's post partakes of some irony, no?

In toto?  "What Mozart seems to be about is something to do with love, mutual understanding, talking to each other, being sympathetic to each other, forgiving each other. That's the vision age I get from the operas anyway." This is something which takes, basically, the libretti of the operas, and takes it as somehow characteristic of an entire body of music.  There is probably irony here, but I doubt it is intentional.

[Mandryka]

No irony at all.

I like listening to Mozart's music. It's very pleasant.  I just think that it's basically not really in sync with the spirit of the times. That we live in an age where Mozartian values aren't valued highly. But the music remains nice to listen to.

I think this is a widespread problem with old music, by the way. Not just Mozart, but Beethoven too, for example. Modern composers maybe  have filled the gap, but who listens?

[Pat B]

I like listening to Mozart's music. It's very pleasant.  I just think that it's basically not really in sync with the spirit of the times. That we live in an age where Mozartian values aren't valued highly. But the music remains nice to listen to.

Recently I was reading a very old thread where somebody was explaining that composer A was better than composer B because A's music is more complex (he also provided a very elaborate and basically nonsensical definition of complexity, but that's beside the point). I do think, in many cases, it is possible to say A is more complex than B, but that doesn't make A better than B.

Likewise, we can say A is more relevant to current times than B, but that also doesn't make A better than B.

Aside from that, when you (or the OP) says that Mozart's music is "pleasant," "nice," or "pretty," that comes across as damnation by faint praise. I can buy that for some of his works but definitely not all. We judge most composers by their greatest works, not by their least.

[jochanaan]

Recently I was reading a very old thread where somebody was explaining that composer A was better than composer B because A's music is more complex (he also provided a very elaborate and basically nonsensical definition of complexity, but that's beside the point). I do think, in many cases, it is possible to say A is more complex than B, but that doesn't make A better than B.

Likewise, we can say A is more relevant to current times than B, but that also doesn't make A better than B.

Aside from that, when you (or the OP) says that Mozart's music is "pleasant," "nice," or "pretty," that comes across as damnation by faint praise. I can buy that for some of his works but definitely not all. We judge most composers by their greatest works, not by their least.

Agreed.  To paraphrase Alan Hovhaness, "Interesting is easy.  Beautiful is hard."

Yet I would disagree that the values of "togetherness and love and understanding" are undervalued today.  What I see rather is that they are valued and desired as much or more in their absence as in their presence (where they are often taken for granted).  Perhaps that's why so many like Mozart's music--although if that's all they see in his music, they are only "listening on the surface."