Mozart 225

[JRJoseph]

I am about 40% through this gigantic box and as a lifelong Mozart music lover, I have heard some great music I have not ever heard before.  This includes some of the divertimentos for eight winds, some quartets, piano music, etc.  Even the music written when a child seems quite interesting.  Some people seem to think that his music sounds bland and boring but he wrote at times extremely dramatic music as Mozart people know.  This box has wonderful performances with mostly good to excellent audio.  Anybody else out there a super Mozart music lover?

[Gurn Blanston]

I am about 40% through this gigantic box and as a lifelong Mozart music lover, I have heard some great music I have not ever heard before.  This includes some of the divertimentos for eight winds, some quartets, piano music, etc.  Even the music written when a child seems quite interesting.  Some people seem to think that his music sounds bland and boring but he wrote at times extremely dramatic music as Mozart people know.  This box has wonderful performances with mostly good to excellent audio.  Anybody else out there a super Mozart music lover?

I confess. I don't have that box, but I have recordings (mostly period instruments) of every work Mozart wrote which has been recorded (there are still a few (very few) that aren't). I never heard anything bland by Mozart, but Classic Era music in general is a specialized taste, and those who savor Romantic Era music because of its more obvious drama seem to have a harder time grasping music which was clearly not written in the same way with the same goals. I'm good with that, there is really nothing after the death of Schubert that I can't live without.   

[Monsieur Croche]

As Gurn has said, classical era (and earlier) are not the most 'common' classical fan's taste.  The larger majority of classical fandom is for the romantic era works.

That said, there are very few composers, indeed, especially those who composed in their earliest childhood years, where the perfection of the craft and their fluidity with it are compelling enough to keep your attention, and Mozart is certainly one (if not the only one) in that category.


Best regards

[Mahlerian]

Some people seem to think that his music sounds bland and boring but he wrote at times extremely dramatic music as Mozart people know.

Mozart is very frequently misunderstood or underestimated by those who expect his music to be simplistic and get bored by simply hearing the surface (which is variegated enough!), ignoring everything that's really going on underneath.

[mc ukrneal]

Mozart is very frequently misunderstood or underestimated by those who expect his music to be simplistic and get bored by simply hearing the surface (which is variegated enough!), ignoring everything that's really going on underneath.

He makes it all seem so effortless and he has such a fine gloss on most everything - I think that sometimes works against him, though that may seem odd to us.

[Karl Henning]

A child prodigy who followed through, and mightily.

[aligreto]

A child prodigy who followed through, and mightily.

Well put and I would agree. I have always been a fan of his music.

[Florestan]

I can't think of any "Your Top 3 Composers" combination without Mozart being one of them.

And I'd say that love for Mozart does not in any way preclude love for the Romantics, or viceversa. On the contrary, the two can enhance and illuminate each other.

[Monsieur Croche]

He makes it all seem so effortless and he has such a fine gloss on most everything - I think that sometimes works against him, though that may seem odd to us.

highly sophisticated music that sounds as if it were for the composer who wrote it as natural and unthinking an act as breathing -- Mozart, and Schubert.  I really can not think of any others, as great as they may be, whose music has this quality.

[kishnevi]

I can't think of any "Your Top 3 Composers" combination without Mozart being one of them.

And I'd say that love for Mozart does not in any way preclude love for the Romantics, or viceversa. On the contrary, the two can enhance and illuminate each other.

I can, easily.  For me Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, and Mahler easily outrank him.  Also Vivaldi and Wagner.

But I can think of nothing by Mozart which I would not gladly hear at anytime, something that can not be said of the others.

[Florestan]

I can, easily.  For me Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, and Mahler easily outrank him.  Also Vivaldi and Wagner.

For all their indisputable greatness, none of them was as equally succesful in each and every genre of their time as Mozart, who is arguably the most versatile and multi-faceted musical genius ever.

[Karl Henning]

Mind you, Jeffrey did write for me.

The contrarian will argue that successful in each and every genre of their time is a box-ticking exercise.  Was Haydn not equally successful in such a way?  Certainly he did not enjoy a comparable popular success in either opera or the concerto;  I should write that down to the circumstances of his life, more than his musical capacity.  Bach did not have occasion to write opera, &c.

It is, then, a singular observation to make of Mozart, and admirable.  To make that the yardstick by which he "surpasses" Haydn or Bach, arguably mere snobbism  0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

For all their indisputable greatness, none of them was as equally succesful in each and every genre of their time as Mozart, who is arguably the most versatile and multi-faceted musical genius ever.

Yes, but your claim of 'successful' is completely retrospective, he was not successful in his own time, only a few of his contemporaries were far enough out on the cutting edge to appreciate him. He was really quite dead by the time that changed. This is not true for any of the others which Jeffrey lists. I'm not entirely sure where that line of argument would go (although I know you are), but I am equally very sure that Mozart was not intending to write for the future, he was trying to support his family first and foremost. And in this, he was only a marginal success. More than the mythmakers would admit, but less than his goal of having them live comfortably.

[Spineur]

From the point of view of statistics Mozart and Beethoven are the most performed composers today (they alternate depending of the year).  Bach always comes third.  This will probably be very different in 50 years, but most of us wont be there to witness.

[Karl Henning]

Yes, but your claim of 'successful' is completely retrospective, he was not successful in his own time, only a few of his contemporaries were far enough out on the cutting edge to appreciate him. He was really quite dead by the time that changed. This is not true for any of the others which Jeffrey lists. I'm not entirely sure where that line of argument would go (although I know you are), but I am equally very sure that Mozart was not intending to write for the future, he was trying to support his family first and foremost. And in this, he was only a marginal success. More than the mythmakers would admit, but less than his goal of having them live comfortably.

I won't say I don't wrestle with this sort of question.

[Mahlerian]

Yes, but your claim of 'successful' is completely retrospective, he was not successful in his own time, only a few of his contemporaries were far enough out on the cutting edge to appreciate him. He was really quite dead by the time that changed. This is not true for any of the others which Jeffrey lists. I'm not entirely sure where that line of argument would go (although I know you are), but I am equally very sure that Mozart was not intending to write for the future, he was trying to support his family first and foremost. And in this, he was only a marginal success. More than the mythmakers would admit, but less than his goal of having them live comfortably.

Mahler was not successful as a composer.  He never received any commissions and his works were only rarely played by others during his lifetime.  Most of the obituaries which followed his death spoke of him as a conductor first and foremost and a composer only secondarily; some of them were extremely dismissive of his music and one even claimed that it would very obviously not outlive him.

The "Mahler revival" didn't really hit until the late 1950s.  Even a current warhorse like the Second actually took nearly 80 years to establish itself in the repertoire.  So Mahler lived quite comfortably indeed, but not because of anything he composed.

[Gurn Blanston]

I won't say I don't wrestle with this sort of question.

I'm sure you do. The idea of 'writing for the future' has come a long way since Mozart's time. Which is to say, it has gone from non-existent to 'normal', it seems. Taking the long view is more easily done when you can appreciate what the long view entails. 

[Karl Henning]

I'm sure you do. The idea of 'writing for the future' has come a long way since Mozart's time. Which is to say, it has gone from non-existent to 'normal', it seems. Taking the long view is more easily done when you can appreciate what the long view entails. 

Oh, I meant more, supporting the family     Although it is not the question I wrestle with (which may have misled you), but the execution.

[Gurn Blanston]

Mahler was not successful as a composer.  He never received any commissions and his works were only rarely played by others during his lifetime.  Most of the obituaries which followed his death spoke of him as a conductor first and foremost and a composer only secondarily; some of them were extremely dismissive of his music and one even claimed that it would very obviously not outlive him.

The "Mahler revival" didn't really hit until the late 1950s.  Even a current warhorse like the Second actually took nearly 80 years to establish itself in the repertoire.  So Mahler lived quite comfortably indeed, but not because of anything he composed.

True. I knew that and should have specified where has musical success came from. But nearly all of Mozart's success within his own lifetime were purely ephemeral. He was known more as an outstanding piano player than as a composer, his works were 'overly rich' by and large. If you look, and I really have, Haydn was almost the only person who wrote anything unreservedly positive, and I think it was because the music was simply too complex for the times. Haydn mastered the art of making complex things sound simple, Mozart, perversely, made simple things sound complex. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Oh, I meant more, supporting the family     Although it is not the question I wrestle with (which may have misled you), but the execution.

I was tip-toeing... but I do get you, for sure.