GMG Classical Music Forum

Ahhh, Mozart!  :)

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 02, 2008, 07:14:52 AM
Ahhh, Mozart!  :)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, Mozart!!!  :o :'(

Operas, Piano Concertos, Simfonia Concertante for Violin, Viola and Orchestra, Piano Sonatas, Clarinet Concerto, String Quintets, String Quartets, Piano Sonatas, Violin and Piano Sonatas, Gran Partita, Posthorn-Serenade...  :D :D :D

Symphonies and SQ. $:)

Define genius?

Quote from: karlhenning on April 02, 2008, 07:32:42 AM
Define genius?

As it pertains to Mozart's creativity, orginality.

If only two categories allowed, the operas and the piano concerti.

Piano Concertos made me understand Mozart's greatness.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 02, 2008, 07:32:42 AM
Define genius?

Elgar  ;)

Quote from: Sforzando on April 02, 2008, 08:12:25 AM
If only two categories allowed, the operas and the piano concerti.

That was my vote also.

Ditto

If only one example I go with the C-minor Fantasy, K475, which would be what? Others?

Really? You want one example? Then I go for the Sinfonia Concertante - it contains almost everything which makes Mozart great.

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 02, 2008, 09:00:19 AM
If only one example I go with the C-minor Fantasy, K475, which would be what? Others?

I added an "Other" category.  :)

Quote from: Sforzando on April 02, 2008, 08:12:25 AM
If only two categories allowed, the operas and the piano concerti.

Same here.  They are the two categories where I feel Mozart surpasses all others.

Quote from: Sforzando on April 02, 2008, 08:12:25 AM
If only two categories allowed, the operas and the piano concerti.

Of course! It's what I picked, and everyone else also.

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 02, 2008, 08:06:47 AM
As it pertains to Mozart's creativity, orginality.

I question the enterprise (defining genius).

Carry on . . . .

i choose not to vote. Too little votes, too many categories.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 02, 2008, 09:49:59 AM
I question the enterprise (defining genius).

Carry on . . . .

So........which ones did you vote for?  :D

I chose "Symphonies" solely for the fugal ending of the 41st Symphony. If that isn't genius...

My other answer is Opera.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 09:43:07 AM
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.

I think critical opinion goes against this. Not enough to time to go into it, but Mozart's piano concerti (much more than his other concerti) are formal marvels which entirely, repeatedly and ever-differently, overcome the problems inherent in the form and are practically unique in doing so.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 09:43:07 AMWith 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!)

And that's not true of Bach? I mean the use in adverts, not the lack of substance, but you can't make the argument for one without implying it for the other... ;)

(As a Brit, I can't see this logo

(http://www.sterlingtimes.org/black_horse.jpg)

without the strains of Wachet Auf running through my mind....!)

Apart from opera:  PC's and symphonies ........

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 10:33:56 AM
Aside from his formal innnovation, the nuts & bolts & essence of it is a simplification and not that interesting for my tastes. His music is mostly rather light, and requires little 'active' involvement to obtain enough effective content. It's textures & verticals are salon polite and tend not to intrude into the foreground of consciousness, where they may detract from the sale/corporate message for which they are so often being put to use. They might almost have been designed with such utility in mind. In fact much of his music is advertising something in itself : it has the feel of music that is looking at itself in the mirror ... admiring it's costume & finery. I find it repetitive & a bit puffed up.  :-X

Yeah, I used to feel that way when I was young. I was quite belligerent about it. Then as I matured I realised that those polite surfaces of Mozart are only that - there is a whole ultra-subtle and profound play of proportion and motive going on which requires those surfaces in order to function. The much maligned 'cliche-ed' aspects of Mozart (and Beethoven), especially their cadential passages, are absolutely necessary to create formal balance; what is more, once this is appreciated, they become as beautifully cathartic as the more obviously melting moments in the music. That's why such a simple thing as a subdominant inflection - which is a point of harmonic balance in Bach but not often more than that - can become so much more in Mozart. Form, harmony and motive become linked in the most sophisitcated ways. Bach and Mozart - two different styles, two entirely different ways of writing, two 'realisations' of Music from first principles - and neither of these ways better than the other.

I'm not pretending that Mozart's wide popularity is based on an appreciation of these subtleties - I'm sure that, as you suggest, that popularity is due much more to his pretty, polite surfaces. But that's by the by - it is in these miraculously balanced structures that Mozart's genius lies.

In short, I'm still trying to live down my youthful dismissal of Mozart in my family - ironically enough, I'm fairly sure most of them loved Mozart for those surfaces, and not for the subtleties.  ;D

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 02, 2008, 11:03:02 AM
I'm not pretending that Mozart's wide popularity is based on an appreciation of these subtleties - I'm sure that, as you suggest, that popularity is due much more to his pretty, polite surfaces. But that's by the by - it is in these miraculously balanced structures that Mozart's genius lies.

Apparently artless ease on the surface; chewy caramel centres.  Mozart the Polyvalent.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 10:33:56 AM
It's textures & verticals are salon polite and tend not to intrude into the foreground of consciousness, where they may detract from the sale/corporate message for which they are so often being put to use. They might almost have been designed with such utility in mind. . . .Mozart has sold a shit-load more Mercedes & Audi's than Bach could ever dream of.

Then surely to have had the prescience in the 1780s to sell "a shit-load of Mercedes & Audi's" is in itself a sign of only the greatest genius.

Bach can still salvage the situation. Maybe the St Matthew Passion can peddle the Honda Element.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
In a generalised description I think Mozart's music was far more surface orientated ... in harmonic terms it was conceived in the vertical ... to be experienced vertically, but with a strong emphasis on top line melody to replace interest potentially lost through it's much simplified horizontal aspects. It aspired to a lighter and more vivacious effect than Bach's - at which of course it succeeds ... and it is much enjoyed by people who like that sort of thing. Mozart was in awe of Bach, and loved some of what he heard - his quotes about Bach indicate this. However, Bach would probably have disliked Mozart's music ... because despite it's evident melodious euphony, he may well have found it repetitive and a bit puffed up.

Surface beauty & glitter & charm were his aspiration. It is not surprising it is easily adapted to corporate use, in adverts etc used to suggest to the suggestible / social climber / business person a perception or veneer of what they should think is civilised, rarified, up-market ... in order to sell products. It might be indirect PR, but that is PR for a dead (overrated) composer ... in a very real and all too effective way I'm afraid.

Conclusion - Bach was vertically challenged.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
However, Bach would probably have disliked Mozart's music ... because despite it's evident melodious euphony, he may well have found it repetitive and a bit puffed up.

Wow - word for word the same as you describe your reaction, in fact. What a coincidence! A case of ascribing your own tastes to those of your favourites, I suspect.

As I said - Bach and Mozart, the Baroque aesthetic and the Classical, are two entirely different things and one must be careful about describing one from the POV of the other. Where to one person Mozart seems repetitive, to another Bach seems samey, lacking in contrast. But Classical form is built on the idea of repetition and balance; and Baroque style on through-composed melody, unified texture, undramatised form. Both approaches produce wondrous music, but procede from differing points.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:45:16 AM
After Bach & the Baroque era, things went downhill for quite awhile IMO... :)

Yeah, things went downhill up until Elgar came along .......

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:45:16 AM
After Bach & the Baroque era, things went downhill for quite awhile IMO... :)

Good thing for music that so few share your opinion... :)

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
However, Bach would probably have disliked Mozart's music ... because despite it's evident melodious euphony, he may well have found it repetitive and a bit puffed up.

I can't imagine Bach not liking Mozart's music, even if he found it lacking in profundity.  Bach knew great music when he heard it.

Quote from: Don on April 02, 2008, 12:24:43 PM
I can't imagine Bach not liking Mozart's music, even if he found it lacking in profundity.  Bach knew great music when he heard it.

"I got yer profundity..." Mozart said to Bach.

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 02, 2008, 08:06:47 AM
As it pertains to Mozart's creativity, orginality.

Eeeee....that's where it gets tricky.

Originality: I can't really say on that one. I'd assert that Mozart perfected the Concerto, Opera, Symphony, String Quintet, and Sonata forms of his time. However, Haydn's String Quartets and Symphonies (both i]pre[/i]-mortem Mozart) were far more original than probably anything Mozart ever did.

On a creative level, again I'm hard pressed. See above.

On the level of amazing compositional craftmanship, borderline supernaturally-inspired-sounding melodies, and astounding virtuosic musicianship, Mozart is the quintessence.

Quote from: MN Dave on April 02, 2008, 12:27:11 PM
"I got yer profundity..." Mozart said to Bach.

The string quartet in G minor.
The G minor Symphony.
"Ach, ich fuhls..."
The Requiem
The whole of Don Giovanni
The Mass in C minor
k466

Anyone care to add?

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
Bach would probably have disliked Mozart's music ... because despite it's evident melodious euphony, he may well have found it repetitive and a bit puffed up.

James, Bach repeated himself. Quite a bit in fact.

I voted "Blech, don't like Mozart".  I don't know why, I just don't. ???  I find it difficult, often impossible, to listen to a complete performance of one of his works.  Whew, I'm glad I finally got that off my chest! 0:)  I do hope that someday I will appreciate the genius that so many claim he possessed, just as I finally "got" Bruckner.  :)

FWIW, the canine to the left most prefers Mozart's Clarinet Concerto.

Quote from: Don on April 02, 2008, 12:43:45 PM
FWIW, the canine to the left most prefers Mozart's Clarinet Concerto.

"Jest a good ole dawwwg..."

Quote from: Keemun on April 02, 2008, 12:43:27 PM
I voted "Blech, don't like Mozart".  I don't know why, I just don't. ???  I find it difficult, often impossible, to listen to a complete performance of one of his works. 

Even the Mass in C minor?

  Easy enough the operas and piano concertos of course- those piano concertos are remarkable aren't they!

  marvin

Quote from: Don on April 02, 2008, 12:45:36 PM
Even the Mass in C minor?

A bit hard to do, as that work was left incomplete.

Quote from: Don on April 02, 2008, 12:45:36 PM
FWIW, the canine to the left most prefers Mozart's Clarinet Concerto.

My right incisor has a thing for the A minor rondo.

Quote from: Sforzando on April 02, 2008, 12:56:51 PM
A bit hard to do, as that work was left incomplete.

Point taken, but it's still of major length.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 02:02:50 PM


For me, things start to perk up a bit with glorious late-Wagner & Brahms things...

Sigh. Sometimes you do put things so well, James  :).

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
In a generalised description I think Mozart's music was far more surface orientated ... in harmonic terms it was conceived in the vertical ... to be experienced vertically, but with a strong emphasis on top line melody to replace interest potentially lost through it's much simplified horizontal aspects. It aspired to a lighter and more vivacious effect than Bach's - at which of course it succeeds ... and it is much enjoyed by people who like that sort of thing. Mozart was in awe of Bach, and loved some of what he heard - his quotes about Bach indicate this. However, Bach would probably have disliked Mozart's music ... because despite it's evident melodious euphony, he may well have found it repetitive and a bit puffed up.

Surface beauty & glitter & charm were his aspiration. It is not surprising it is easily adapted to corporate use, in adverts etc used to suggest to the suggestible / social climber / business person a perception or veneer of what they should think is civilised, rarified, up-market ... in order to sell products. It might be indirect PR, but that is PR for a dead (overrated) composer ... in a very real and all too effective way I'm afraid.

Now hold on juuuuuuusssssst one second...

Yeah it's fun to imagine sometimes, but if it's imagination with lewd and insidious intentions - that is, it seeks to thump someone - there better be something somewhere that has a solid grounding in truth. Something...

Sorry to be boogyman but the above simply goes too far. Yes, it might've been fun to imagine such a scenario as Bach - who never heard Mozart - actually scolding "Wolfie" for his "surfaceness"...but it's worth mentioning as my very own counter-fantasy Bach actually LOVING Mozart - for his depth and subtlety! - and consequently starting the very first Mozart Fan Club - which hopefully would've been carried on to this day. What history... Its members would no doubt have included such luminaries as Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, and Wagner - to name just a few...all of whom are on record as greatly ADMIRING Mozart.

Anyway, as you can see one good fantasy deserves another. At least mine doesn't seek to needlessly thump anyone.... ;) 

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
Surface beauty & glitter & charm were his aspiration.

I presume he wrote you a letter about his aesthetic ideal...

My choice went for the operas and piano concerti. But Mozart's chamber music is extraordinary, in special the 4 last string Quintets, the clarinet Quintet, the 6 Quartets dedicated to Haydn, the 2 piano Quartets and the sublime string Trio. Not forgetting the wind Serenades K 361, 375 and 388.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 02:02:50 PM


For me, things start to perk up a bit with glorious late-Wagner & Brahms things...

  Perk up  a bit  :o James! Just a bit??  I'd say late-Wagner (most notably the 4 operas of the  Ring Cycle, Tristan und Isolde, Parsifal and Die Meistersinger) are among the highest points in all of classical music!  My God those operas form the spine of my classical music collection!

  marvin

Am i the only one who thinks that his Requiem is a mighty work of art?

When i listen to this, i have the most wonderful feeling i can possibly have when i'm listening to music; the feeling that the existence of a work seems completely obvious, like an eternal part of the world, like it had to be.

This may be a straw man, but Bach had an extra 30 years that Mozart didn't. Imagine how much you could get done in 30 years. I thought everyone was aware of how clichéd the "Mozart is shallow" argument is.  ::) (http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z245/tapiola/yawn.gif)

Quote from: Corey on April 03, 2008, 05:21:20 AM
This may be a straw man, but Bach had an extra 30 years that Mozart didn't. Imagine how much you could get done in 30 years.

And, imagine what our evaluation of Bach would be, if he had died in 1720, and all that was written after that date, did not exist.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 03, 2008, 05:31:56 AM
And, imagine what our evaluation of Bach would be, if he had died in 1720, and all that was written after that date, did not exist.

This is a very provocative idea.

The unique thing about Mozart is that he was superior in every type of composition he composed: opera, symphony, concerto, chamber music, you name it. In each category he wrote a number of really phenomenal works which just blow everyone else's efforts out of the water.

The downside of Mozart is that he started composing so young, and died so young, that a large percentage of his output is juvenalia. This is the music that gets the bum rap. He mastered the polished surface very quickly, and didn't much go for depth of content until the last 10 years or so of his life. But he still wrote a phenomenal amount of music in those last 10 years.

Quote from: Don on April 02, 2008, 12:45:36 PM
Even the Mass in C minor?

I've not heard the Mass in C minor.  Perhaps that will be the work that "clicks" for me?  :)

Quote from: Keemun on April 03, 2008, 06:30:28 AM
I've not heard the Mass in C minor.  Perhaps that will be the work that "clicks" for me?  :)

Might I also recommend Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto in d minor ......... as well as his Requiem in d minor .........

Quote from: Keemun on April 03, 2008, 06:30:28 AM
I've not heard the Mass in C minor.  Perhaps that will be the work that "clicks" for me?  :)

Well, it did "click" for me!  ;)

Quote from: Keemun on April 03, 2008, 06:30:28 AM
I've not heard the Mass in C minor.  Perhaps that will be the work that "clicks" for me?  :)

The C minor mass (or more properly, as much of it as Mozart completed) is a work of tremendous seriousness and power. (Pssstt - don't tell James!!) I would turn to it any time over the Requiem, which was "completed" after a fashion by Mozart's pupil Süssmayr, but which was botched to the point that a number of alternative solutions have been attempted by modern scholars. (One example often cited is how Süssmayr continues the solo trombone far longer than is called for by the text of the Tuba Mirum.) As there's no way of knowing what Mozart would have done with a lot of the material had he lived to finish the work, I can never listen to it without a certain degree of frustration.

That settles it, I'm off to listen to the Mass in C minor!  0:)

Quote from: Dm on April 03, 2008, 06:35:55 AM
Might I also recommend Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto in d minor ......... as well as his Requiem in d minor .........

His Requiem and piano concerti haven't done it for me so far, but thanks for the recommendations.  :)

Quote from: Keemun on April 03, 2008, 07:22:02 AM
That settles it, I'm off to listen to the Mass in C minor!  0:)

His Requiem and piano concerti haven't done it for me so far, but thanks for the recommendations.  :)

Keemun,

How about some of the later symphonies?  Late string quartets?  String Quintets?  Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet?  :)

Have you listened to any of these?

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 03, 2008, 07:25:09 AM
Keemun,

How about some of the later symphonies?  Late string quartets?  String Quintets?  Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet?  :)

Have you listened to any of these?

If you'd like to hear some masterpieces played with more power than usual (some would say too much power) get this recording:

My first impression of the Mass in C minor is that it is a fine work.  I will listen to it some more and see where it leads me.   This is the version I acquired:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XMJM2PWPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I really like Herreweghe's Bach: Mass in B Minor and Brahms: German Requiem, and I read a good review of it, so I figured it was a good place to start.  :)

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 03, 2008, 07:25:09 AM
Keemun,

How about some of the later symphonies?  Late string quartets?  String Quintets?  Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet?  :)

Have you listened to any of these?

I've listened to a few of the late symphonies recorded by Klemperer/Philharmonia Orchestra and New Philharmonia Orchestra.  I do have his String Quintet No. 4 (Lindsays) but I don't recall if I made it all the way through it, and the Clarinet Concerto (Martin Frost) which was okay.  I've not heard any of the Late String Quartets or Clarinet Quintet. 

Quote from: Keemun on April 03, 2008, 12:54:42 PM
My first impression of the Mass in C minor is that it is a fine work.  I will listen to it some more and see where it leads me.   This is the version I acquired:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XMJM2PWPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I really like Herreweghe's Bach: Mass in B Minor and Brahms: German Requiem, and I read a good review of it, so I figured it was a good place to start.  :)
 

I would figure the same thing, but I would be wrong.  Herreweghe's Great Mass is much less compelling than his Bach.  It's a very light performance except for the last two movements.  Better to go with just about any other recording with Leppard, Davis and Gardiner leading the pack.

Quote from: Don on April 03, 2008, 02:05:40 PM
I would figure the same thing, but I would be wrong.  Herreweghe's Great Mass is much less compelling than his Bach.  It's a very light performance except for the last two movements.  Better to go with just about any other recording with Leppard, Davis and Gardiner leading the pack.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind if I get another version.  For now, it'll have to be Herreweghe.  :)

I voted Opera, though I'm not an opera fan.
I would have loved to choose simply "concerti". I've chosen Horn concerti because I have a special taste for one of them, but I think he was simply a master of the concerto genre.
But sorry, Haydn's 2nd Cello concerto remains my favourite of that period.  ;)

Mozart was much more than the surface James is talking about.
The problem is that many people won't go under the surface when the surface is great.

Quote from: James on April 03, 2008, 10:26:58 AM
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. Surface beauty & glitter & charm was more it. And of course it's completely irrelevant how 'advanced' he was at an early age, and how many pieces he could compose while putting his make-up on or whatever  ;D

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Quote from: donwyn on April 03, 2008, 04:22:40 PM
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Donwyn - 1, James - 0 ;D

Quote from: Corey on April 03, 2008, 04:32:32 PM
Donwyn - 1, James - 0 ;D

Why, thank you kind sir! ;D

Quote from: James on April 03, 2008, 10:26:58 AM
intensity was not his thing. Surface beauty & glitter & charm was more it.

I'm sorry but you begin to sound like a scratched CD that keeps repeating the same bars.

Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 03, 2008, 02:51:42 PM
The problem is that many people won't go under the surface when the surface is great.

Good point!  :)

Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 03, 2008, 02:51:42 PM
I would have loved to choose simply "concerti". I've chosen Horn concerti because I have a special taste for one of them, but I think he was simply a master of the concerto genre.

*Chuckles*.  Yup, looking back now, I think that's why I had set it up with several different concerti groups (because he was such a master, as you say).  I absolutely adore the Horn Concerti.  I could have lumped concerti into one category.

Mozart....Genius? ....I really don't like this term..but...i understand what you're asking....

Any case in which mozart wrote for voice, is absolutely astounding!!

The creativity and diversity in all his operas is completely unbelievable, and is worthy of such great merit!!

The Abduction from the Seraglio is perhaps my favourite, along with The Magic Flute and Don Giovanni.

His Requiem is very entrancing and the Karl Bohm, Vienna phil recording really captures the emotions and elements that a good Requiem should have! The Sanctus stands out the most, the way in which it is performed so stately, with such a slow tempo! The three Holy chords are the three best chords on record!!

As for Mozart's other works....his piano is boring....I much prefer Haydn....and then Beethoven.....but Mozart in the middle there does nothing for me.....as for his other works...several of them come to mind...but nothing really noteworthy...a few divertimenti perhaps..horn concerti..

Anyway, enough of my rambling....

-LB

Quote from: Florestan on April 03, 2008, 11:20:11 PM
I'm sorry but you begin to sound like a scratched CD that keeps repeating the same bars.

Maybe more scratched than you think.

Quote from: James on May 25, 2007, 09:18:31 AM
In a generalised description I think Mozart's music was far more surface orientated ... in harmonic terms it was conceived in the vertical ... to be experienced vertically, but with a strong emphasis on top line melody to replace interest potentially lost through it's much simplified horizontal aspects.
It aspired to a lighter and more vivacious effect than Bach's - at which of course it succeeds ... and it is much enjoyed by people who like that sort of thing.

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.

Surface beauty & glitter & charm were his aspiration. Not with Bach. (name me a JSB piece that is Haffner)

It is not surprising that Mozart is easily adapted to corporate use, in adverts etc: In fact much of his music is advertising something in itself : it has the feel of music that is looking at itself in the mirror ... admiring it's costume & finery. Many people like exactly this quality in it ... the lifestyle choice ... the sense of self ... the effervescent gaeity. 

Operas and piano concertos.

About the rest-- James is an idiot, ignore him.  Only an idiot would rank some of Bach's minor outputs (yes the keyboard concertos are fun but nowhere near the quality of his other works) above Mozart's major works.

Quote from: James on April 03, 2008, 10:26:58 AM
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. Surface beauty & glitter & charm was more it.

"It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances."
- Oscar Wilde

Quote from: Corey on April 04, 2008, 04:33:11 AM
Maybe more scratched than you think.

Wow.

Quote from: DavidW on April 04, 2008, 04:58:46 AM
Operas and piano concertos.

For once, we agree wholeheartedly.   :-*

Quote from: Corey on April 04, 2008, 04:33:11 AM
Maybe more scratched than you think.

Quote from: James' signature on April 03, 2008, 10:26:58 AM
"A mind is like a parachute. It doesnt work if it's not open." - Zappa

You're not the first to noticed the amusing difference between James's professed open mind and his very closed list of 'great composers'.

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 03, 2008, 07:25:09 AM
Keemun,

How about some of the later symphonies?  Late string quartets?  String Quintets?  Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet?  :)

Have you listened to any of these?

Which of the String Quartets are considered to be the "Late" ones?  Unlike Beethoven, Mozart's quartets don't appear to be categorized into Early, Middle and Late.  HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#String_quartets) is a list I found but I wasn't sure where to draw the line for the Late String Quartets.  Thanks.  :)

Quote from: Keemun on April 04, 2008, 07:02:54 AM
Which of the String Quartets are considered to be the "Late" ones?

I should think the 'Haydn' and the 'Prussian' quartets.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 04, 2008, 07:03:58 AM
I should think the 'Haydn' and the 'Prussian' quartets.

Yes, the final 10 quartets, including the above and the lone Hoffmeister.

Thanks, guys.  :)

Quote from: James on April 04, 2008, 09:17:20 AM
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.

Quote from: James on April 04, 2008, 09:17:20 AM
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.

Quote from: James on April 04, 2008, 11:09:08 AM
Now there is a truly great composer who deserves A LOT more attention.  8)

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

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.

Quote from: James on April 03, 2008, 10:26:58 AM
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.

Quote from: James on April 04, 2008, 02:01:04 PM
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

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.

Quote from: James on April 04, 2008, 09:17:20 AM
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?

Quote from: James on April 05, 2008, 04:10:11 AM
I'm not afraid say what's on my mind

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

Quote from: DavidRoss on April 04, 2008, 09:45:10 PM
???
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.

Quote from: James on April 05, 2008, 04:10:11 AM
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)?

Quote from: James on April 04, 2008, 02:01:04 PM
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.  8)

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.

Quote from: Sforzando on April 05, 2008, 06:33:37 AM
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.

Quote from: James on April 02, 2008, 09:43:07 AM
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.

Quote from: James on April 05, 2008, 07:16:56 AM
Haffner I think your musical diet would quickly give me wind or worse.  >:D

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

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.

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on April 11, 2008, 09:57:12 AM
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.

Quote from: Haffner on April 11, 2008, 12:37:07 PM



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

Or its scatalogical potential

Quote from: bwv 1080 on April 11, 2008, 12:48:34 PM
Or its scatalogical potential

(laughing)

Quote from: James on April 04, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
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

As much as I love all Mozart music, I agree with the consideration of his operas and piano concerti as his most important output.

Vitamins that have made music grow ever since.