Mozart's genius is best defined by his....?

[karlhenning]

I have heard plenty of Mozart, PLENTY....and even like a little of it, but he is grossly overestimated

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Haffner]

I have heard plenty of Mozart, PLENTY....and even like a little of it, but he is grossly overestimated and I just dont care for how his music sounds. 

That's certainly more than adequate reasoning. I've never been particularly wild about Stravinsky. But I'm weird anyhoo.

[karlhenning]

Now there is a truly great composer who deserves A LOT more attention. 

And one who, BTW, found a great deal of vitamins value in Mozart.

[lukeottevanger]

Love Stravinsky though I do, it's not hard to track down quite a number of pieces which seem to be mostly concerned with 'charm', 'surface' or 'glitter'*. Now if James finds this trait acceptable in Stravinsky, why does he not find it so in Mozart? OTOH, if James sees some deeper 'explanation' for Stravinsky's concern with surface which allows him still to see Igor as a great composer, why doesn't he accept that there could be a similar 'explanantion' for Mozart's ditto, and that he simply hasn't seen it yet?

*Personally, I don't think this is a problem, and I don't like the way James has turned words like 'charm' into, at best, daming-with-faint-praise. The joy of Mozart is (partly) the sublime combination of surface ease with miraculous balance, intricate motivic play and, very often, those 'profound' undertones which James seems to prize above all else.

[Don]

I have heard Mozart's larger religious works, but I am unaware of him being able to express himself with the transcendant intensity that Bach was so uniquely capable ... but then intensity was not his thing.

I don't understand why you keep comparing Bach to Mozart.  Since Bach is my favorite composer by a large distance, no other composer will stand up well to him on comparison - there's just no point in these comparisons. 

I take Mozart on his own terms.  For what Mozart offers, he's the best as far as I'm concerned.

[matti]

It's just when I heard Mozart (music of the classical era) after experiencing Bach how I felt about it, it's no big deal. I credit Mozart  (& Haydn & Beethoven) for their formal innovations/expansions but the music leaves me cold (& is lacking) for my own personal tastes.

I sympathize with you, but still can't help wondering how this could leave anyone cold, even when sung by the leading fridge, freezer even, of the classical music scene! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OAtyQIeVic

[Bogey]

K 285 Flute Quartet and K 170 SQ are enough for me.  Throw in Symph. 39-41 as safety valves and I believe we can move on.

[DavidRoss]

he is grossly overestimated

Have you never heard the adage that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?

[Florestan]

I'm not afraid say what's on my mind

It seems that all that's on your mind is surface beauty & glitter & charm...

[MN Dave]

Have you never heard the adage that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?

I've always liked that one.

[DavidRoss]

Nah...that's a crock, I'm not afraid say what's on my mind and I stand by what I said. You can disagree, that's fine.

Disagreement is fine.  Disagreement makes for lively discussion and the opportunity to learn something.  But don't you realize that by presenting such utterly asinine statements (i.e. "[Mozart] is grossly overestimated") as fact rather than opinion, you betray ignorance proclaiming that you have nothing of merit to contribute to such discussions, coupled with arrogance that denies you can be educated (except perhaps with a judiciously aimed two-by-four)?

[(poco) Sforzando]

It's just when I heard Mozart (music of the classical era) after experiencing Bach how I felt about it, it's no big deal. I credit Mozart  (& Haydn & Beethoven) for their formal innovations/expansions but the music leaves me cold (& is lacking) for my own personal tastes. I feel that there are far greater composers, like Stravinsky for instance. And curiously when Stravinsky wrote his concerti he seemed to favor the deeper, richer & more musically integrated Bachian Baroque model. Love it. 

Though I can't deny that one of my favorite pieces of all-time Igor's Mass was partly-inspired by Mozart...

"My Mass was partly provoked by some Masses of Mozart that I found at a secondhand store in Los Angeles in 1942 or 1943. As I played through these rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin, I knew I had to write a Mass of my own, but a real one." -Igor Stravinsky to Robert Craft

Stravinsky also loved Cosi fan Tutte, and admitted that Mozart's opera was the work most on his mind while composing The Rake's Progress: "The Rake is deeply involved in Cosi." And since you're crapping on Beethoven, too, remember that towards the end of his life the late Beethoven quartets were the music Stravinsky most admired.

[Haffner]

Stravinsky also loved Cosi fan Tutte, and admitted that Mozart's opera was the work most on his mind while composing The Rake's Progress: "The Rake is deeply involved in Cosi." And since you're crapping on Beethoven, too, remember that towards the end of his life the late Beethoven quartets were the music Stravinsky most admired.

Those are staggeringly brilliant compositions. It's just my opinion, but I don't think Stravinsky's work as a whole quite matched Cosi..., much less awe-inspiring, Mystical Majesty of the late LvB quartets.

[Bunny]

I prefer Bach's keyboard concertos to Mozart's varied, rather light, non-intrusive and less interesting/meaty batch, and there are several piano concertos after Wolfie that are much greater and more interesting IMO. With Mozart, both his good and bad pieces (and inbetween) are both lucid and elegant, i.e. the perfection of style is always there, but not always the substance. (this is perhaps why he is susceptible to being treated as musak in adverts!) Mozart's greatest area was Opera (which I personally loathe), but he churned out a few notable works in all areas. I like the Wind Serenade K.388, the 3rd & 4th String Quintets, the Dissonance Quartet, and the Clarinet Concerto more than any PC or Opera he ever did.

Condemning Mozart's music for its beauty is like condemning the Parthenon for it's seeming simplicity.  The greatest thing about Mozart's music is it's seeming lack of complexity as well as its transcendent beauty.  Every note fits in its place perfectly and it's all so beautiful, completely friendly to the senses.  You don't have to work to enjoy Mozart and that's probably why so many people think he's overrated.  You have to work to understand such perfection.  Just as the Parthenon has its secrets, so does Mozart.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Haffner I think your musical diet would quickly give me wind or worse. 

There are remedies for that; you may wish to consult your proctologist.

[Mark G. Simon]

It's unfortunate that a lot of people blame Mozart for the corporate exploitation of his works, as if Mozart were somehow responsible for having his image stamped on chocolate balls.

[Haffner]

It's unfortunate that a lot of people blame Mozart for the corporate exploitation of his works, as if Mozart were somehow responsible for having his image stamped on chocolate balls.

Or that he would fail to see the irony and humor in it.

[bwv 1080]

Or that he would fail to see the irony and humor in it.

Or its scatalogical potential

[Haffner]

Or its scatalogical potential

(laughing)

[bwv 1080]

When I listen to that my mind harkens back & is reminded of how much greater, deeper and more serious Bach was...I can't help it.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2uppzm7dPE   

Overrated? Oh yeah, well all I have to say to that is:

http://www.youtube.com/v/SHIw-ZfbDSQ