GMG Classical Music Forum

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? 

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.

8)

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.

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

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! :o ;D

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.

Option by option:

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

Tendentious and false.

QuoteHe is simply the greatest composer

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

QuoteHad 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.

QuoteThis pollster does not understand Mozart

I have no opinion.

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.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 04, 2014, 11:02:45 AM

... 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'...


8)

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

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.  >:D

Quote from: Chaszz on January 04, 2014, 07:20:44 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 05, 2014, 01:10:45 AM
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.

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

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."

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.

Quote from: Octave on January 05, 2014, 03:25:57 AM
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.

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?

Quote from: Mandryka on January 05, 2014, 04:11:28 AM
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.

Quote from: Pat B on January 05, 2014, 07:17:44 AM
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." 

Quote from: Mandryka on January 05, 2014, 04:11:28 AM
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.

I think you're missing the boat here.  The greatest composers of the past (Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) are revered primarily for how well they tapped into the human condition and all the emotions therein.  We don't move on from any of that. 

Gurn, it may be time for a complete overview (including the fragments that I have) of his music.  Did it once before, as I believe you have (multiple times) and the journey was fantastic.  Do you know of a decent check off list besides the one we used in the past?

http://www.mozartproject.org/compositions/ko_61_65.html

The above may work.  What do you think of their listings, Gurn?

Quote from: Bogey on January 05, 2014, 01:34:01 PM
http://www.mozartproject.org/compositions/ko_61_65.html

The above may work.  What do you think of their listings, Gurn?

That seems like a very handy timeline, if you dig in there you find a nice chronology. I made one of those for Haydn to help me get started with my blog. It's a lot of work!! 

8)

Sometimes, nothing but Mozart will do!  :)

You'd the man, Ray and thanks, Gurn.

Starting the overview using the above resource and will post my listening here seeing the name of the thread contains "nothing but Mozart". ;D  I will post my listening here so folks can help out when things get tight or indefinable at my end.  A heads up when I omit a composition would be most appreciated and please throw in any bio nuggets that you might have for each piece.   The Brilliant Brick will do most of the work.  :

Keyboard Works
KV 1a-1f
Guy Penson: Clavichord
Almost Renaissance like at times.  Pretty straight forward and repetitive. 

Violin Sonatas
KV 6-7
Pieter-Jan Belder: Harpsichord
Remy Baudet: Baroque Violin (1706)
These were quite nice.  I am guessing that they do not find their way on to too many cds.

Keyboard Works
KV 2-5 and 5a
Guy Penson: Harpsichord
Same as the above, but the harpsichord definitely added some body and brightness to the works.

Violin Sonatas
KV 8-9
Pieter-Jan Belder: Harpsichord
Remy Baudet: Baroque Violin (1706)
These also seem to have a bit more behind them, but I could be swayed by the Paris luv! :D

Actually the violin sonatas take quite a leap from these early keyboard works if you just consider the length.   On to some flute sonatas tomorrow.

Musicians like playing Mozart because he had a fundamental understanding of and affinity with instruments (the same is true of Haydn)—the second violin part in a Mozart string quartet is often as or more enjoyable for the performer than the first violin part in a Beethoven string quartet (Beethoven wrote great music, of course, but was unmerciful in his demands on performers).

For some listeners (especially the more educated ones) the music of Mozart and Haydn is not "pretty" but rather among the most powerful and dramatic ever composed. Charles Rosen's The Classical Style is a good introduction to this sort of viewpoint; look it up in your local library. (That and The Romantic Generation are both worthwhile reads.)

For the executives of the classical music industry there is no such thing as an intelligent listener, and the only reason anyone tunes into a classical radio station is to have "something pleasant for the background". Turns out Mozart is also pretty good at that, if you don't turn the volume up too high.

Mozart has also become a symbol of the elite and powerful, which is why it is played in tube stations and carparks and so forth to keep out the lower classes; synonymous with a policeman's nightstick.

Quote from: amw on January 06, 2014, 11:09:31 AM
...For the executives of the classical music industry there is no such thing as an intelligent listener, and the only reason anyone tunes into a classical radio station is to have "something pleasant for the background". Turns out Mozart is also pretty good at that, if you don't turn the volume up too high...

Or listen too closely.  Some of the dissonances in, say, the second movement of Piano Concerto #21 ("Elvira Madigan") are almost at 20th-century level! :)

Quote from: amw on January 06, 2014, 11:09:31 AM
Mozart has also become a symbol of the elite and powerful, which is why it is played in tube stations and carparks and so forth to keep out the lower classes; synonymous with a policeman's nightstick.

How does that work exactly?  Do Britain's homeless have a visceral aversion to Alberti bass?

Quote from: Chaszz on January 04, 2014, 10:22:36 AM
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.

Cloying in bad performances, the likes of Ushida.

Quote from: amw on January 06, 2014, 11:09:31 AM
Mozart has also become a symbol of the elite and powerful, which is why it is played in tube stations and carparks and so forth to keep out the lower classes; synonymous with a policeman's nightstick.

I think the price of things like the underground keeps people out, not that I would want to breathe the air down there anyway.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 05, 2014, 12:48:28 AM
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.

Agreed. The first option is poorly worded and incomplete, and should have indicated prettiness was neither his only mode nor prevalent everywhere in his works. And suggested that the pretty aspects are what draw in a large number of listeners who come to classical music mostly for prettiness, and thus avoid a lot of it. I would rewrite it now and pack all that into one sentence, albeit with a lot of effort - but that would invalidate the votes of those who have voted already.

Quote from: James on January 05, 2014, 07:59:39 AM
... Then again, the very finest of things, those rarefied things in life - are usually always truly appreciated, absorbed & understood by a small minority who make the time and put in an effort. The truly passionate. And this is typically the pattern across most areas of human endeavour...

This is an overgeneralization. Some artists who express the spirit of their times are appreciated during their lifetimes by a large number of people, not all of whom are connoisseurs or intellectuals. Good examples are Handel, Haydn, Mozart himself who made a good living as a free-lancer, not easy at all in those days when most composers sought court or church positions. Brahms earned enough from composing to retire from conducting.  Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Titian and Rubens were all more or less instant successes. Phidias, Praxiteles, Polykleitos. Shakespeare had aristocrats and intellectuals in the expensive seats and the lower classes in the pit. Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky sold well.  Picasso, Stravinsky and T.S. Eliot all produced serious and difficult work which radically altered their art forms but all of them had widespread appreciation before middle age. During the several centuries when opera filled the role as a popular art that movies and TV do today, many ordinary people attended. Who is to say some or perhaps many of them did not appreciate the music deeply for what it was? 

It's true that most average people today more or less ignore the art of the past, but some of what they like instead may be of equivalent value. IMO some  rock and roll may survive into posterity, as well as some of the multi-season TV dramatic series that are popular now. Some, not all. Who can say with certainty what will survive? Japanese prints were enjoyed by lower-class people and considered insignificant and vulgar by the upper classes when they were made. Since the nineteenth century they have been widely appreciated all over the world, while the more refined art of their era has faded into the background or been forgotten. 

Today some flute sonatas, KV 10-15.
Grauwels: Flute
Penson: Pianoforte/Harpsichord
Sciffer: Cello

Most were somewhat choppy at moments, but the harpsichord added a baroqueness that helped carry them through.  I did find the KV12 to be worth a second spin, even though it only lasted 9+ minutes.


Moving on to some symphony action tomorrow.

Quote from: Chaszz on January 06, 2014, 07:08:00 PM
It's true that most average people today more or less ignore the art of the past, but some of what they like instead may be of equivalent value.

I don't believe that.  People are probably more knowledgable about about older art and classical music than newer.  And I don't see the point in comparing it to the completely different genre of popular music, where older stuff is also more familiar to many people than recent things.  Most people are actually completely preoccupied with the past now, so I disagree with you totally.

Quote from: Sammy on January 05, 2014, 08:39:07 AM
I think you're missing the boat here.  The greatest composers of the past (Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) are revered primarily for how well they tapped into the human condition and all the emotions therein.  We don't move on from any of that.

I like and agree with what you wrote there, but it makes the OP's case even more curious. In the OP's location and experience there is an overabundance of Mozart music relative to the other Greats, it appears to be an unexplained imbalance. I don't think we have the same imbalance problem, the orchestras here are more likely to do a Beethoven festival, Mahler, Brahms, or Sibelius cycle.

Quote from: starrynight on January 07, 2014, 12:38:02 AM
I don't believe that.  People are probably more knowledgable about about older art and classical music than newer.  And I don't see the point in comparing it to the completely different genre of popular music, where older stuff is also more familiar to many people than recent things.  Most people are actually completely preoccupied with the past now, so I disagree with you totally.

You make some good points. But it's not as simple as saying 'most people.' People who listen to old classical music may be a majority of classical music listeners, but all classical music listeners are a minority compared to those who follow popular art forms like TV, movies and pop music. To them the past is much more immediate. To older people who listen to rock, the past is the 1960s or 70s, not the eighteenth century. They listen to what they grew up with and are preoccupied with their own youthful past, not the cultural past. (Among them, the specialists who listen, beyond their own youth, to the slightly older past like Sinatra and swing bands are most likely a minority next to the Springsteen, Dylan, Beatles and Grateful Dead listeners.) Then, there are the large masses of young listeners to current rap, rock and bubble gum soul and pop. They are not interested in any past. We could put them outside the pale and say what they listen to is junk, and much of it probably is, but I'd be very wary of saying none of it has lasting value. That would put me in the category of most older people throughout the ages who rejected new art in favor of established art.

So "most people are preoccupied with the past now'' has a several important qualifiers and subsets, and when considering the young, is not even true. Plus the overall situation is not just of now, but was more or less true at any point in cultural history, with the new replacing the old and its hangers-on, and perhaps a specialist minority interested in the even older old.   

Quote from: amw on January 06, 2014, 11:09:31 AM

Mozart has also become a symbol of the elite and powerful, which is why it is played in tube stations and carparks and so forth to keep out the lower classes; synonymous with a policeman's nightstick.

I think that this is interesting and I'd like to explore the idea. Is there any academic litereature? Did  Foucault write about music, or influence any writing about it?

Quote from: Beale on January 07, 2014, 02:03:03 AM
...I don't think we have the same imbalance problem, the orchestras here are more likely to do a Beethoven festival, Mahler, Brahms, or Sibelius cycle.

That's orchestra programming for live concerts, not broadcasting--two very different animals.

Quote from: jochanaan on January 07, 2014, 09:19:57 AM
That's orchestra programming for live concerts, not broadcasting--two very different animals.

That is correct. On our radio station Mozart is played regularly but not relentlessly. This is despite his Clarinet Concert voted one of the audience's most loved piece of music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_100_Countdowns_(ABC)).

Quote from: Chaszz on January 07, 2014, 04:19:15 AM
You make some good points. But it's not as simple as saying 'most people.' People who listen to old classical music may be a majority of classical music listeners, but all classical music listeners are a minority compared to those who follow popular art forms like TV, movies and pop music. To them the past is much more immediate. To older people who listen to rock, the past is the 1960s or 70s, not the eighteenth century. They listen to what they grew up with and are preoccupied with their own youthful past, not the cultural past. (Among them, the specialists who listen, beyond their own youth, to the slightly older past like Sinatra and swing bands are most likely a minority next to the Springsteen, Dylan, Beatles and Grateful Dead listeners.) Then, there are the large masses of young listeners to current rap, rock and bubble gum soul and pop. They are not interested in any past. We could put them outside the pale and say what they listen to is junk, and much of it probably is, but I'd be very wary of saying none of it has lasting value. That would put me in the category of most older people throughout the ages who rejected new art in favor of established art.

So "most people are preoccupied with the past now'' has a several important qualifiers and subsets, and when considering the young, is not even true. Plus the overall situation is not just of now, but was more or less true at any point in cultural history, with the new replacing the old and its hangers-on, and perhaps a specialist minority interested in the even older old.

Well obviously there wasn't popular music as we know it in the 18th century, so people couldn't go to that anyway.  However I agree that people have nostalgia for that music that was produced in their earlier years, such as their teens.  But looking at now I don't think there is the same amount of agreement with popular music as their used to be, people are much more diverse, so I'm not sure the popular music of now has as big an impact.  And I know there is good music now as I've heard loads, just like there can be good in contemporary classical music too.  But it is very little known.  The hyped stuff is often not that great at all.  So in that sense the best music of our time now is passing people by, and the music that is good and that gets acclaim still is more older music.

Quote from: starrynight on January 07, 2014, 01:45:22 PM
Well obviously there wasn't popular music as we know it in the 18th century, so people couldn't go to that anyway...

Actually, there was.  :) It's called folk music, and some folk songs were sung in every tavern between St. Petersburg and Lisbon.  Catches, glees and other sung forms were also very popular in homes, pubs etc.  (There is one from the 18th century called, or rather known as, "Zounds, what a long pr*ck!"  Not exactly concert material. :o ;D)

Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2014, 10:42:01 AM
There is one from the 18th century called, or rather known as, "Zounds, what a long pr*ck!"  Not exactly concert material. :o ;D

Just sing it in a language the audience doesn't know. It will sound dignified or at least exotic. ;)

Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2014, 10:42:01 AM
Actually, there was.  :) It's called folk music, and some folk songs were sung in every tavern between St. Petersburg and Lisbon.  Catches, glees and other sung forms were also very popular in homes, pubs etc.  (There is one from the 18th century called, or rather known as, "Zounds, what a long pr*ck!"  Not exactly concert material. :o ;D)

Yeh but not really popular music as most people know it now.  Even though popular music really does develop from folk music (as opposed to classical perhaps, though I know folk elements can be imported in).

Quote from: Pat B on January 08, 2014, 11:02:54 AM
Just sing it in a language the audience doesn't know. It will sound dignified or at least exotic. ;)

Case in point: Carmina Burana. ;D

Quote from: starrynight on January 08, 2014, 12:16:17 PM
Yeh but not really popular music as most people know it now.  Even though popular music really does develop from folk music (as opposed to classical perhaps, though I know folk elements can be imported in).

I think some aspects of pop music developed out of classical music. The contrasting themes of ragtime, usually three in one composition, seem to me to have developed out of classical sonata form with its two contrasting themes. Ragtime was one of the contributors to jazz. Also the typical AABA form of much 1910-1950 "Great American Songbook" pop (Gershwin, Porter, Berlin, etc.), where the B section is quite different from the three A sections, I think also came from that aspect of sonata form. (Even some rock continues the AABA form, especially many of Bob Dylan's songs.) Most folk music doesn't have a B section. Where it does, in the chorus which comes after one or several verses, the chorus is not contrasting so much as an emotional climax to and further melodic development of the verse(s).

The composers of 20th c. pop music, as Gershwin etc. above, were frequently classically trained. Also a large number of early- and mid-20th C. black jazz soloists and composers came from middle class, not poor, homes and studied classical music in their youth. The great soloist Louis Armstrong was a poor street boy, but was taken in and informally adopted by a Jewish family, where he heard and loved opera records. So all in all I think classical was one of the ingredients of pop, along with folk.

The genres are constantly interfacing. That's why Duke Ellington--also classically trained, I believe--could say, "Only two kinds of music, good and bad." :)

Quote from: Sammy on January 05, 2014, 08:39:07 AM
I think you're missing the boat here.  The greatest composers of the past (Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) are revered primarily for how well they tapped into the human condition and all the emotions therein.  We don't move on from any of that.

Sorry for not responding. I only just saw this. Here's my thinking about the point you raise.

Of course people are moved by the emotional meaning of performances of music by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven etc. No argument there.

The emotional content varies from one performance to another. The truths about  "human condition and all the emotions therein" that (e.g.) Klemperer finds in the Gran Partita aren't at all the same as those in a performance by Nachtmusque . The meaning of the performance isn't contained in the composition. If Bach, Mozart etc had ideas about the human condition in mind, they're pretty obscure now and anyway, only historians care.

That makes me think that the reason why these composers are great is that their compositions can be used as a vehicle by interpreters -- it's the interpreters who use the music to say things about the condition of humans.  The human condition changes, and performances change too, to reflect that. The truth in the performance  transcends any ideas that the composer may have had. It's not that Mozart "tapped into the human condition" It's that (e.g.) Harnoncourt tapped into the human condition now and used Mozart's music to express what he saw, to make Mozart out contemporary.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 12, 2014, 11:07:14 AM
That makes me think that the reason why these composers are great is that their compositions can be used as a vehicle by interpreters -- it's the interpreters who use the music to say things about the condition of humans.  The human condition changes, and performances change too, to reflect that. The truth in the performance  transcends any ideas that the composer may have had. It's not that Mozart "tapped into the human condition" It's that (e.g.) Harnoncourt tapped into the human condition now and used Mozart's music to express what he saw, to make Mozart out contemporary.

Strictly speaking music can not express anything by itself. It is only our acquired habitual emotional reflexes which determine our way of reacting to certain elements in the music (rhythm, harmony et.c.). And composers have known this from the beginning and used these elements to express the emotions we relate to them. Of course an interpreter may be more or less emotionally involved and have a more or less nuanced view upon some music than other interpreters, but his point of departure is the composer´s score with its combination of musical elements. When I read a score I am perfectly able to become emotionally moved, even if I in my head hear nothing but my own idea of the music. You may claim that I am moved by my own idea of the music and not by the music as such, but it is obvious to me, that the music contains elements, which decisively determines my idea of it. So I think an emotionally rich performance is the result of the combination of the emotional content of the music and the interpreters idea of the music, and that it is not exclusively the interpreters merit.

Quote from: (: premont :) on January 12, 2014, 01:04:36 PM
...So I think an emotionally rich performance is the result of the combination of the emotional content of the music and the interpreters idea of the music, and that it is not exclusively the interpreters merit.

Speaking as a performer, this is so obvious it hardly needs saying.  We either look at the piece and find it emotionally moving enough to practice, or we begin to enter an emotional state as we prepare it--and the emotion is at least a little different for every piece, so it can't be just us! ;D Every successful performance is a collaboration between composer, performer(s) and audience (unless one or more of those elements are combined, as composer and performer).

Quote from: karlhenning on January 05, 2014, 03:24:30 AM
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.

Why are you habitually so nasty? Christ. No reason to jump down the guy's throat.

He's not the only person who feels that too much Mozart = obnoxious.

http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/020612-NL-mozart.html

Quote from: Chaszz on January 04, 2014, 07:20:44 PM
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.

See the above post. I cherish a significant portion of the composer's mature works but cannot endure listening to him at long stretches. I can see why someone who has the urge the change the station after some Mozart might be put off by stumbling into more Mozart in a way they wouldn't be put off by stumbling into more Schubert/Bach/Beethoven after hearing a work or two by those composers.

Quote from: Chaszz on January 09, 2014, 08:15:19 PM
I think some aspects of pop music developed out of classical music. The contrasting themes of ragtime, usually three in one composition, seem to me to have developed out of classical sonata form with its two contrasting themes. Ragtime was one of the contributors to jazz. Also the typical AABA form of much 1910-1950 "Great American Songbook" pop (Gershwin, Porter, Berlin, etc.), where the B section is quite different from the three A sections, I think also came from that aspect of sonata form. (Even some rock continues the AABA form, especially many of Bob Dylan's songs.) Most folk music doesn't have a B section. Where it does, in the chorus which comes after one or several verses, the chorus is not contrasting so much as an emotional climax to and further melodic development of the verse(s).

The composers of 20th c. pop music, as Gershwin etc. above, were frequently classically trained. Also a large number of early- and mid-20th C. black jazz soloists and composers came from middle class, not poor, homes and studied classical music in their youth. The great soloist Louis Armstrong was a poor street boy, but was taken in and informally adopted by a Jewish family, where he heard and loved opera records. So all in all I think classical was one of the ingredients of pop, along with folk.

Yes, I think I was thinking in terms of the origins of classical and popular.  Classical may have had it's origins more from formal religious music and popular more from folk.  Earlier modern popular music grew with the musical which was like a popular counterpart to operetta, though the folk influence probably reasserted itself later in the century.

Quote from: -abe- on January 13, 2014, 07:46:33 PM
Why are you habitually so nasty? Christ. No reason to jump down the guy's throat.

He's not the only person who feels that too much Mozart = obnoxious.

http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/020612-NL-mozart.html

Mr Lebrecht seems to commit the false-consensus error with quite a bit of regularity. I think even he is aware that while you and a few others may agree with him, the vast majority of musicians, listeners and critics do not -- thus his little swipes at that majority, dismissing them as not "true" music lovers or aesthetes. I also like his claim to understand Mozart better than Schnabel or Brendel did, and the unstated assumption that of course they would agree with him if they were as enlightened.

I'm just pointing these things out for anyone who might question why I find NL among the most disreputable, unscrupulous and generally unpleasant writers on music nowadays. That article is hardly the worst example out there, either.

Quote from: amw on January 13, 2014, 11:12:14 PM
Mr Lebrecht seems to commit the false-consensus error with quite a bit of regularity. I think even he is aware that while you and a few others may agree with him, the vast majority of musicians, listeners and critics do not -- thus his little swipes at that majority, dismissing them as not "true" music lovers or aesthetes. I also like his claim to understand Mozart better than Schnabel or Brendel did, and the unstated assumption that of course they would agree with him if they were as enlightened.

I'm just pointing these things out for anyone who might question why I find NL among the most disreputable, unscrupulous and generally unpleasant writers on music nowadays. That article is hardly the worst example out there, either.

Yes, yes, indeed.  Lebrecht is the personification of "junk musicology" (to adapt the term "junk science"). [ Taking Lebrecht's "journalism" seriously ] = confirmation bias  ;)

Anyone who finds too much Mozart obnoxious, can simply supplement by listening to any of a hundred other composers.  It's a win-win, because one's ear does not tire of Mozart, and Mozart does not at all suffer in the comparison.

Quote from: (: premont :) on January 12, 2014, 01:04:36 PM
Strictly speaking music can not express anything by itself. It is only our acquired habitual emotional reflexes which determine our way of reacting to certain elements in the music (rhythm, harmony et.c.). And composers have known this from the beginning and used these elements to express the emotions we relate to them. Of course an interpreter may be more or less emotionally involved and have a more or less nuanced view upon some music than other interpreters, but his point of departure is the composer´s score with its combination of musical elements. When I read a score I am perfectly able to become emotionally moved, even if I in my head hear nothing but my own idea of the music. You may claim that I am moved by my own idea of the music and not by the music as such, but it is obvious to me, that the music contains elements, which decisively determines my idea of it. So I think an emotionally rich performance is the result of the combination of the emotional content of the music and the interpreters idea of the music, and that it is not exclusively the interpreters merit.

I remember you once arguing that when something's in French ouverture form it should be regally played. I thought of this when I was exploring CU 3 recently because BWV 681 is a French Ouverture, and true to form, there are some very good regal performances (Astronio's for example, and Hans Otto)

But it was Kåre Nordstoga's gentle melancholy account which made me see that there was a better way, not the one on her complete CU3 record, but rather the one on a disc which includes Bach corales and Norwegian folk hymns. But best of all Hans Fagius, because of the sweet emotional depth that he finds in it. My bet is that Fagius sees the music as a commentary on the second verse of the hymn, a meditation of Jesus, the dramatic dissonant chords towards the end a representation of his crucifixion, followed by the glory of his rising.

I'm posting this because the most satisfying performances may not base the emotions they find in the music on the music itself, in my opinion.

But your last sentence may well be true for music which isn't grounded in a text.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 15, 2014, 08:11:12 AM...
But it was Kåre Nordstoga's gentle melancholy account which made me see that there was a better way, not the one on her complete CU3 record, but rather the one on a disc which includes Bach corales and Norwegian folk hymns. But best of all Hans Fagius, because of the sweet emotional depth that he finds in it. My bet is that Fagius sees the music as a commentary on the second verse of the hymn, a meditation of Jesus, the dramatic dissonant chords towards the end a representation of his crucifixion, followed by the glory of his rising.

I'm posting this because the most satisfying performances may not base the emotions they find in the music on the music itself, in my opinion.

But your last sentence may well be true for music which isn't grounded in a text.

Well, Bach's music, and Mozart's, is great enough to sustain diverse readings. And even in music with a sung text, different performers find different readings are effective. As long as it's not too far from what the composer wrote, it's all good.

Quote from: jochanaan on January 15, 2014, 06:16:23 PM
Well, Bach's music, and Mozart's, is great enough to sustain diverse readings. And even in music with a sung text, different performers find different readings are effective. As long as it's not too far from what the composer wrote, it's all good.

In a word, the performer should engage with the composer, not disregard him/her.

I voted for answer c, but prettiness is also a quality!

Quote from: Henk on January 16, 2014, 03:34:03 AM
[....]prettiness is also a quality!

Definitely.

And it's underrated sometimes.

I.c. Mozart's (so-called) prettiness: it moves and touches me.
More than many of the pretty compositions of many of his contemporaries.

Like the Cherubino songs in Figaro, or the duetto Ah perdona al primo affetto (Annio, Servilia) in Tito, or Là ci darem la mano in Don Giovanni, or the slow movement of KV 467, or .... (endless list).

EDIT:
2 of my fave sopranos singing the 'Tito duetto'.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Hx1Esy_jE_A&

Quote from: karlhenning on January 16, 2014, 03:28:39 AM
In a word, the performer should engage with the composer, not disregard him/her.

Word. ;D

If Mozart just sounds 'pretty' it's probably a problem with the performance in most cases.  And really most music tries to sound pretty and well crafted anyway, music is about order rather than chaos.

Quote from: amw on January 06, 2014, 11:09:31 AM
Mozart has also become a symbol of the elite and powerful, which is why it is played in tube stations and carparks and so forth to keep out the lower classes; synonymous with a policeman's nightstick.

That's a whole load of crap!

+ 1

Quote from: starrynight on January 17, 2014, 03:29:57 AM
If Mozart just sounds 'pretty' it's probably a problem with the performance in most cases. 

+1

>>Why is Mozart scheduled so relentlessly on classical music radio stations and in Mozart music festivals??<<

My simple answer would be:
His music is highly intelligent, supremely crafted, infectiously melodious, and easy on the ear.  All at the same time.

But what do I know?  Therefore, I searched the internet for an answer and found the perfect explanation on Ask.com:

Answer
Mozart was so famous because he composed over 600 musical pieces. His works included compositions in symphony, operatic, chamber, piano and choral, among others. He was 5 inches tall.

Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2014, 04:55:50 AM
That's a whole load of crap!

I don't think that's quite fair.


For many people in the UK at least, music is very strongly linked to identity. The music you listen to, like your clothes, your argot, your accent, partly constitutes who you are.

Piped classical music, Mozart included (Mozart especially) is known to be an effective means of crowd control, it repels crowds of teenagers who may be up to no good in public spaces. And my guess is that it works partly because their identity is strongly opposed to the music's social dimension. The music makes them feel in the wrong place.

I don't know if Mozart is such a good repellent because it's "a symbol of the elite and powerful", as amw wrote, that's why I asked him of there was any literature on this, but it sounds quite possible to me.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 15, 2014, 08:11:12 AM
I remember you once arguing that when something's in French ouverture form it should be regally played. I thought of this when I was exploring CU 3 recently because BWV 681 is a French Ouverture, and true to form, there are some very good regal performances (Astronio's for example, and Hans Otto)

But it was Kåre Nordstoga's gentle melancholy account which made me see that there was a better way, not the one on her complete CU3 record, but rather the one on a disc which includes Bach corales and Norwegian folk hymns. But best of all Hans Fagius, because of the sweet emotional depth that he finds in it. My bet is that Fagius sees the music as a commentary on the second verse of the hymn, a meditation of Jesus, the dramatic dissonant chords towards the end a representation of his crucifixion, followed by the glory of his rising.

I'm posting this because the most satisfying performances may not base the emotions they find in the music on the music itself, in my opinion.

But your last sentence may well be true for music which isn't grounded in a text.

Trying to deduce a musician's interpretation of a choral prelude from parts of the hymn text often proves to be more confusing than instructive, so I think that one should only refer to the overall affect of the text, in order not to overinterprete the composers intention.

So I maintain that BWV 681 (Wir glauben all an einen Gott = CREDO) should be played in a regal way and not in a gentle melancolic way, so much more as the music from a formal consideration is cast in the style of a French ouverture. I suppose Bach had his own reasons.

Quote from: amw on January 13, 2014, 11:12:14 PM
Mr Lebrecht seems to commit the false-consensus error with quite a bit of regularity. I think even he is aware that while you and a few others may agree with him, the vast majority of musicians, listeners and critics do not -- thus his little swipes at that majority, dismissing them as not "true" music lovers or aesthetes. I also like his claim to understand Mozart better than Schnabel or Brendel did, and the unstated assumption that of course they would agree with him if they were as enlightened.

I'm just pointing these things out for anyone who might question why I find NL among the most disreputable, unscrupulous and generally unpleasant writers on music nowadays. That article is hardly the worst example out there, either.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 14, 2014, 01:39:08 AM
Yes, yes, indeed.  Lebrecht is the personification of "junk musicology" (to adapt the term "junk science"). [ Taking Lebrecht's "journalism" seriously ] = confirmation bias  ;)

Anyone who finds too much Mozart obnoxious, can simply supplement by listening to any of a hundred other composers.  It's a win-win, because one's ear does not tire of Mozart, and Mozart does not at all suffer in the comparison.

I'm not familiar with Mr. Lebrecht's writing in general, and it looks to me like it's meant to be taken more on the level of entertainment than serious musicology or journalism.  That being said, I noticed an interesting tension in the essay--on the one hand, he sometimes seems to be criticizing Mozart very harshly, especially in comparison to Beethoven; on the other, by the conclusion, he is back to talking about Mozart in terms of genius, which I think is meant to suggest that overexposure to ANY artist, even a genius, can result in the kind of cranky reaction that he may be exaggerating for effect in the "offending" parts of the essay.  In the end, his essay is not the critique of Mozart that it initially appears to be, but a critique of unimaginative radio and festival programmers who do a disservice to Mozart's art more than anything else in their alleged relentlessness in programming it in wall-to-wall fashion.

Perhaps I give the essay author credit for a subtlety that further exposure would cause me to re-evaluate; nonetheless, I do think that what I have described is closer to this thread's original poster's intent than some have been implying.  The critique is not of Mozart's "prettiness," but of the radio programmers and audiences that he feels overexpose Mozart.  His question was not whether Mozart's music was in fact "too pretty," but whether that prettiness is the characteristic that causes the popular "Mostly Mozart" phenomenon that may bother fans of Mozart just as much as detractors.

In the spirit of full disclosure, my own reaction to Mozart was initially not far from what Lebrecht describes in his more cantankerous paragraphs, but after listening to some very impressive performances of the piano concertos, my appreciation of his music is beginning to develop considerably (and to be sure, I always suspected that would happen).  I have some sympathy for what I take to be Lebrecht's (and the OP's) position here, in that I feel the sheer (and yes, unrelenting) ubiquity of Mozart's music may have had an effect on my initially (and unfairly) negative response to 18th century music in general.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 19, 2014, 09:33:03 AM
For many people in the UK at least, music is very strongly linked to identity. The music you listen to, like your clothes, your argot, your accent, partly constitutes who you are.

Get outta here, man!  :D Are you going to tell me seriously that. musically speaking, the whole British society is strictly compartmentalized in rigid, tightly insulated boxes without any intercommunication whatsoever, and that somebody listening to Mozart cannot possibly listen to hard rock or pop, and viceversa?

Quote
Piped classical music, Mozart included (Mozart especially) is known to be an effective means of crowd control, it repels crowds of teenagers who may be up to no good in public spaces.

Get outta here, man!  :D Are you going to tell me seriously that suddenly playing Mozart in a mall is guaranteed to make teenagers run like hell and never come back? Or that playing Mozart in a parking is the surest way to prevent the blue-collars from using it?

Quote
And my guess is that it works partly because their identity is strongly opposed to the music's social dimension. The music makes them feel in the wrong place.

"Their identity", hmmmm... Who are "they"? And what is their "identity"? And, above all, what is the social dimension of Mozart's music? Are you going to try selling me the tired cliche of classical music as a bourgeois, or even aristocratic, affair that has nothing to do with the common man in the street? Sorry, I don't buy it --- for the simple reason that the vast majority of musicians, composers and performers alike, were never ever either aristocrats or bourgeois. (Not that I fault anyone for being aristocrat or bourgeois; not what someone is, but what someone does is by far the most important criterion).  ;D

Quote
I don't know if Mozart is such a good repellent because it's "a symbol of the elite and powerful", as amw wrote, that's why I asked him of there was any literature on this, but it sounds quite possible to me.

Poor Mozart... All his life was a battle against snobbery, proper or reverse, and he didn't have much use for "the elite and powerful' as such, yet now he is their symbol and their gendarme. And according to you, it's all the fault of the UK-ers.  ;D ;D ;D

For those of us who do appreciate Mozart, there's some great stuff here. The last video, "Mozart on Mozart's Own Instrument" is fascinating.

http://www.wgbh.org/articles/Celebrate-Mozart-8954 (http://www.wgbh.org/articles/Celebrate-Mozart-8954)