Mozart's music IS okay!

[Flowerboy]

If you guys keep talking about how Mozart wrote the same symphony or same concerto so many times, say that about Handel or worse yet, Vivaldi. Please dont rag on me when i write this. I heard Mozart the other day on the radio and it isnt that bad. It did click with me alot. Its easy for me to turn the car off when i need to when Beethoven's 9th or something is playing, but when Mozart is on, i just cant turn the car or radio off. Although not as varied as romantic composers, Mozart's music is very calming and relaxing, and is a little bit emotional in a way. I think Mozart is a refined version of Handel and Vivaldi. He took their monotonous music style and innovated it to something tolerable. I can tolerate Mozart, but i cant with Handel and Vivaldi (i did play Vivaldi's concerto for 2 trumpets in Bb with my friend and got perfect ratings in high school though). Mozart had that knack for keeping people alert with his music in a quiet way. All those little attention-getters in the music like as in changes from major to minor and some key changes, it really lights up the music. People i think criticize it because his music is not as creative and varied as like Beethoven, Mahler, etc. and he doesnt seem to have a distinguished style of his own. Yet there is something distinguishable in Mozart's music that i probably will continue to listen to the rest of my life. <BR>With respect to Wolfgang, <BR>Brandon G.<BR>(Flowerboy).

[shostakovich]

Hi Brandon. It was Stravinsky who said that Vivaldi wrote one concerto 600 times. No one can knock Mozart. It's just that his appeal to modern listeners is compromised by 200 years of intervening music. It's OUR environment that isn't conducive to appreciating Mozart. He's too "old-fashioned" for most people today. Yet, his music has survived 200 years of competition, deplorable 20th C mass taste, and STILL reaches some people deeply. That's a great achievement. I have the utmost respect for Mozart's music, although it's only about 1% of what I listen to.<P>One time on a radio program by a local station that used to set aside time for classics, but has since sold out, the narrator referred to The Lexicon of Musical Invective. It's the only time I heard about this book, and it was apparently a compilation of nasty reviews and comments. It may still be available. Anyway, the narrator said there was not one word in it about Mozart. That's quite an achievement, too.<P> Finally, not long ago, it was reported that 10 minutes of Mozart before a math test improved scores compared to those who took the test without benefit of Mozart. Since then I'm sure there have been many related studies, but no hard conclusions. My own thought on the subject is that no mind can be totally healthy without a shot of Mozart once in a while. Stay healthy, Brandon.<BR>Shos.

[serge urtizberea]

Surely you were referring to me in your above post, Brandon. I don't want to give the impression that Mozart was absolutely a poor composer. To those who admire the formal, button-down style of c.m. that the 'classical' era produced, Mozart is the master. <P>I think often is the case when someone will think something is the best simply because they've not experienced anything after it. A person's favorite movie might be anything with Mel Gibson until they discover Vince Vaughn's movies. Or someone will think Smirnoff's is the best until one day they try Grey Goose. For most people of the age, classical-era c.m. was the best music had to offer. It was the most artistically-advanced form of music yet achieved, and auidiences ate it up. Partially because it moved out of the Church, partially because it was more aimed at the performing public, and partially because it was more emotional than the previous baroque stylings. <BR>But if you arrive at an individual who can kickstart a whole new way of looking at music, that person demands attention. And for the 170 years following his death, seeing this person maintain that level of attention is beyond anything, really, that has yet to be matched in the world of music. <P>I am taken by this level of power that Ludwig could command. Right from the get-go, this man commanded the respect of his family, his teachers, his higher-status patrons, his publishers, his friends, his peers, his critics, and his following. In the past few months, talking with like-minded people on the net, my devotion to Ludwig only grew. The appeal of his productivity never waned. How could it, after all? The man was power personified.

[Peter]

The great tragedy with Mozart is that he died while still developing as a composer. We never got to hear his "late" period music. Also, he was always restricted by having to write to survive - he never had the artistic freedom which even Beethoven enjoyed.<P>I do not agree with the sentiment, but anyone claiming that Mozart is the greatest of all composers has my understanding. As with Schubert, Mendelssohn & others.......oh, what might have been.......

[Michael]

It is also a great tragedy that Beethoven died while he was still developing. I hope that doesn't sound like heresy so I'd better explain. We now look on the last five string quartets as the peak of his achievement, but I'm sure the man himself didn't consider them his last word. <BR>If Beethoven had died soon after completing the "Archduke" or the "Emperor", he could still possibly be regarded as the greatest of composers, and nobody could have guessed what his late period would be like. Well, couldn't he have had a late-late period that would have surpassed even his late works?<BR>Impossible? Well, nobody could outdo Beethoven except Beethoven! Am I making sense?<BR>Getting back to Mozart, his popularity is well-deserved and yet I am continually amazed by the number of people who don't like his music. He has everything - and, dare I say it, more instant appeal than Beethoven? Ludwig needs time to make his impact - even allowing for the Fifth Symphony, the Pastoral, the Emperor, etc.<BR>Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are today regarded as the supremely great composers. It is interesting that of all these, Beethoven is the one who has always been great to every generation since he started composing. Stravinsky and Benjamin Britten may have had a few adverse words to say about him, but his position has never been seriously threatened.<P>Michael

[Peter]

Yes, Michael, Stravinsky, Britten (spit).....& Tchaikovsky, who I think described the last 5 Beethoven quartets as "some semblance of melody, & then all is chaos."<P>With regards developing composers, I think we could number-crunch ages till we`re blue in the face. Of course, Beethoven was improving all the time - it is almost terrifying to think what his 14th symphony or opus 190 string quartet might have sounded like, but Mozart was never able to reflect on his successes, take a break to recharge his batteries, & then think about his next direction; it was all work, work, work.<P>It could even be argued that he hadn`t even reached his "middle period". There are certain parallels between Mozart`s & Beethoven`s development, except that, crucially, Mozart`s progress appears to have been accelerated due to his vast output in relation to his early death.<P>What if Beethoven had died at 35? We would only have the first 3 or 4 symphonies, only half of the middle period sonatas, & only the early quartets. Were that the case, then I should think that a drawing of lots would be needed to determine who was greater, some 200 years on. As we know, however, Beethoven outlived Mozart by 21 years, & although I agree with you when you say that we can only judge by what we have been left (which is fair comment), I will always sympathise with Mozart enthusiasts making a case for their man being overall no.1. <P>

[Adagio Appassionato]

Yeaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! YOU GO FLOWERBOY! RIGHT ON! MOZART RULES!

[serge urtizberea]

Cute. Anyway...<P>Mozart does have more instant appeal; you're right about that, Michael. How could it not? Reading the Coles Notes is also more appealing than reading the actual book. Who wants to work harder for something than they need to? The correlative, of course, is that if you spend a little extra effort, you get a lot more for it. Work a little harder at grasping the Beethoven, and you gain more appreciation for the art of music than you do from Mozart-- at least as far as I can tell. However, to all admirers of "Wolfie", Mozart was probably most influential in making Beethoven who he was. Call it stardom vicarious?...

[Flowerboy]

yeah! you go serge! woooo hoooooo!