Mozart - a genius or...?

[lisztener]

Hi!
I'm about to write something that will upset a lot of you.. 

Was Mozart a genius or just a wonderchild that produced crap?   I know that he was very talented when he was a child, but did he ever become a great composer as an adult?

When I listen to his pieces,  I always get that feeling of knowing what the next few bars will sound like. And he always used the same drills and the same boring endings (as all of the composers of his time). So did he make great music that was innovative and progressing, or did he just "go with the flow" and more or less copied the other composers? And because of his (IMO aswell) incredibly talented childhood-musicianship - managed to get a reputation that still lasts?
When it comes to classical music, there is always some kind of hidden "poshyness" - which means that if music is difficult and very dissonant, it is great music.  Even though the music is UNBARE-A-BLE to listen to!!  It's like the HC Andersen story "The new clothes of the emperor" (Or whatever it's called in english).  All the people agree and love the music even though they really don't like it...

However, it might just aswell be me not apreciating the baroque music...  But am I the only one feeling this way??

Sure he did some mediocre music that doesn't suck, but I really think that he's a bit overestimated.  And his music is so predictable!

I think the reason to his popularity nowadays is just a habit that hasn't ceised..
Honestley, do you really think that Mozart would be as popular I he would have lived today instead...?    All opinions are welcome, and I can handle criticism

Have a blast     / listener

[lisztener]

By the way, don't get me wrong - I know that Mozart didn't make dissonant music, but the rule can be applied to Mozart aswell...

[thalbergmad]

As far as the Sonatas are concerned, I would agree with predictable.

[Kassaa]

Mozart is genius.

[AvoidedCadence]

I am of two minds concerning Mozart.

i) He was a true genius, a master of logical composition.  Many of his themes are extended in brilliant fashion from only a few notes, using devices such as repetition, inversion, etc.  At the same time his music preserves a wonderful simplicity and a clear relation to vocal music.

ii) At the same time, some of his themes are TOO simple.  (Notable example: the finale of K576, which I dislike.) Also, his brilliant economy of composition, while lending a unified feel to the various parts of his works, can sometimes make material sound too extended.

That said, I find that he has produced a vast number of masterpieces.  At the moment, my favourites are his piano solos and vocal works.  I've never taken a close enough listen to his concerti, symphonies, or chamber works to really appreciate them.  I also find that his style is more suited to the two genres I have mentioned.  His Fantasies, Sonatas, and Adagios are masterful, as are his songs and choral works.

I hope someday to be a good enough pianist to play some of his works - it's been far too long since I seriously studied any of his music.  I find when listening to Mozart recordings, that a single wrong note, wrong articulation, or even improper, "un-vocal" treatment of a two-note slur or phrase ending destroys the divine effect.

[Skeptopotamus]

I don't personally like Mozart but he was definitely a musical genius.  His Operas, some of which were written later in life, are some of the best ever written.  He wrote ALOT, and alot of it is pretty crappy, but alot of it is also really great.  And as for his music being predictable, he was confined to the rules of Classical so I don't know how much we can blame him for that.

[dikai_yang]

i went through this doubt before...
personal experience, after you go through all the most difficult pieces in the post romantic period or later, you'll soon find them lacking something...
at that time, you'll start to appreciate just how good mozart is...
---
also, this may sound weird, but making a ball out of a ball-making machine, is not nearly as impressive as making the ball-making machine!!  see... mozart is like a revolutionary in that sense, wouldn't you agree??
---
he's the kinda guy like bach, a genius, the music is already in his head, he just needs to spend sometime to write them out...
---
however, the cold fact is... pretty much all the composers back then composed music to make a living, more money = better composition...
it's the same today... think about all the theme music for movies, if these composers are not paid, such beautiful music will never be heard
it's very cruel, but it's quite true

[pita bread]

His music is far too simple and predictable for my tastes.

[happyface94]

His requiem is not to be forgotten.

[alzado]

Lisztener--

Hey, I don't want to offend you, but your posting falls into a type one might call, "debunk the giant."

In the last two weeks -- on either this forum or another, similar one -- I read one posting insisting that Beethoven was vastly overrated and not very good.  And another posting stating that Chopin was really a rather poor composer, vastly overrated, and really, not very original.  As I recall, the Chopin posting even went so far as to say, "if he had never lived, what would we have lost?"

In your posting here, as well as the two others I've mentioned, one sees respondents who fully agree with the criticism -- perhaps with tongue in cheek?  Oh, sure-- Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin --weak, overrated, contributed little.  And of course, in every case some people become rather indignant.

In my own personal judgment, I believe Mozart soared highest in his operas.  However, in all of his major compositions, I sense genius.

But hey, if you don't particularly care for his compositions, there's nothing wrong with that.

As for the one poster who wrote, "I hope someday to be a good enough pianist to play some of his works" -- Mozart wrote a number of simple pieces that are in third-level books -- such as Minuet in G.  So this poster can probably play Mozart any time.

Interesting post--  good luck!

[Siberian Husky]

with every genre of music and every style ever made at the convience of our fingertips..we are exposed to new music everyday..romantic..barque..20th century..new age..from gregorian chants to rach 3...i will agree with you on the fact that its hard to find beauty in music when compared to something else..and really what your primary post is..your indirectly comparing mozart's classical music to big dogs like rach beethoven even showpan or sorajbi..with the flare, dissonance, unpredicability, vast tone color and emotion...

to truly appreciate mozart and his music you must relaly take it upon yourself to dive into the classical scene...his music was not only appropriate, but also innovative *in his time*...and this is where i dont understand alot of people on this forum...

this is a different breed of the same species of category that creates these "whos the better composer" thread..and in reality simply speaking it truly is a matter of comparing apples to oranges...you simply cant...not even in an objective manner..because objectivity has never been..and will never be the underlying foundation for music..as mathematically inclined as Bach was...there was still that IMPORTANT pinch of artistic creativity..and even emotion in his music..we all know it..if we can identify emotion and art in music..it is there..this notion thus eliminated the possibility of firmly and justifiably puttingtwo composers of obvious differences in background and origin back to back and seeing who is taller...

and i really cant understand what this trend is of calling mozart's music mediocre...i believe it takes a really delicate and beautiful ear to relaly pinpoint, identify, and *APPRECIATE* subtle changes in mozart's seemingly "redundant" melodies, endings, and or musical profiles...i believe people are caught up in the gymnastic portion of piano..and people forget that piano, as technically stressed as it is today, isnt a pissing contest..this goes for all music..people are so inclined on becoming a virtuoso to a degree and really lose focus on whats really important...

i personally appreciate bernhard's post on "easy yet beautiful pieces," because its nice to kmnow that people really appreciate a collection of sound in form of art regardless of its mechanical or technical superiority, if any...that thread got very little posts...

yet a thread on which concerto is better..harder..o who plays the hardest biggest longest repertoire will get several posts and sometimes turn into a heated argument as people are passionate about their opinion on difficulty levels..or their abilities...

i really love mozart's ,music..along with chopins music..beethovens..brahms...vivaldi..bach...it doesnt matter to me..i favor some composers over other of course..but i wouldnt dare point fingers and call anyones music
mediocre...every piece of music has an origin..a meaning..and if one cant identify with it due to lack of understanding..then this should not give a reason to bash the music..people can find music boring..if it doesnt suit your taste..so be it...but ask yourself..WHY doesnt it suit your taste..and if you cant come up with an answer more than simply "its too boring".."its too simple".."its too redundant" for my tastes..then you should probably remeasure the depth of your musical worth...

Cheers   

[dikai_yang]

i think there's this mechanical limitation...
because i think the harpsicore back then are definitely not as strong as any piano today... the strings, the soundboard (if it actually was called a soundboard) and etc...
so lots of modern things are not meant to be played on that kind of instruments...
that's why say hyden.... his concertos are as big as they can be at that time...
----
music progresses along with the advance in instruments...
for example, the emergence of the soft pedal and sus. pedal....
and in say new age music, exists because there's an electronic keyboard that can bring in interesting effects on the sound that it produces...
---
so i think we're always experimenting with creating music that may have completely different effects on us

[prometheus]

Probably both.

It is really amazing how he wrote and played at such a young age. But I personally do not find him music really appealing. But it may be the style of the period he lived in that puts a block inbetween me and his music. I am going to look into the structure of his concerto's and sonata's so maybe I will start to like it after a while.

[lisztener]

Thanks for all of your replies!  I still don't like Mozart :p, but I've really gotten more thoughts about why I don't like his music. Maybe it's because I don't like the classical era too much at all...   

But I really want to comment a few of your statements:


[Q]i personally appreciate bernhard's post on "easy yet beautiful pieces," because its nice to kmnow that people really appreciate a collection of sound in form of art regardless of its mechanical or technical superiority, if any...that thread got very little posts...
[/Q]

I really agree that music is supposed to be beautiful, and that it doesn't have to be difficult to play. You're right, it isn't a competition.   But my point was that Mozarts music doesn't differ too much from the rest of the composers of his time, so was he really a genious or a stereotype? Anyway...

[Q]..and in reality simply speaking it truly is a matter of comparing apples to oranges...you simply cant[/Q]

Good point. I really agree with you

[Q]..WHY doesnt it suit your taste..and if you cant come up with an answer more than simply "its too boring".."its too simple".."its too redundant" for my tastes..then you should probably remeasure the depth of your musical worth...[/Q]

When it comes to personal opinions, I really don't agree with this thread. How can anybody give himself the right to judge some motives as better or worse? If I don't like a piece, it doesn't matter WHAT makes me "unlike" it, right??  All reasons are equal if you truly feel that way I think.   I think many pieces are boring and because of that I don't like them. That doesn't say anything about my musical depth in any way.

Have a blast /lisztener

[yamagal]

No question, a genius.  So much of his works attest to that - ITA that the operas do, also Requiem, his symphonies, etc.  I have an album of a sacred singspiel he wrote when he was eleven and it is sublime.  Astonishingly beautiful and well-rounded.

Also, my little ones definitely prefer listening to his music over listening to Beethoven, Chopin or Rachmaninoff.  They also prefer Bach to the romantic composers.  I imagine they'll like Scarlatti as well (thanks to Bernhard, I'm ordering some Scarlatti sheet music and recordings...)   

[happyface94]

Has anyone heard Glenn Gould's recording of some of Mozart's piece? It's painful for the ears. According to him : Mozart died too late. Hilarious :p

[stormx]

Mozart was a genius, and his music is wonderful. 

It is nowadays a cliche in this site to criticise the BIG names in music. Of course, we all have our personal preferences, but to dismiss Chopin, Beethoven or Mozart is just ridiculous.
It is perfectly right, for instance, to prefer Debussy or Rachmaninov over Mozart. But to DISQUALIFY Mozart's music only shows ignorance, in my opinion.

[nanabush]

I greatly appreciate the composer and his music and what he has done.... but I personally do not like to play his music.  I appreciate it, but I would rather learn a beethoven sonata any day.

[Dazzer]

its the samewith allclassical. all of which i refrain from playing.

[apion]

OMG!  Mozart is one of the top half-dozen musical geniuses of all time.

[musik_man]

I think that you can't appreciate Mozart if you have the wrong mindset.  If all you listen to is 19th and 20th century stuff, then Mozart is going to seem boring harmonically.  In all honesty, Mozart is much simpler harmonically than most composers (seeing as how classical music was supposed to be simple as people were tired of the complexity of Baroque music.)  This isn't really a bad thing though.  Romantic music is much simpler rhythmically than Jazz.  Does that mean you can't listen to Romantic music?  What you need to do is listen to Mozart as a classical composer.  If you do that, you can appreciate him.


BTW if you listen to Die Zauberfloete or Don Giovanni and don't love them, you have something seriously wrong with you.

[jehangircama]

As Horowitz once said: Mozart is simple for beginers and extremely difficult for performers.
mozart was a genius whatever anyone might say. and remember that he produced all his music within a 32 year life. that takes some doing

[AvoidedCadence]

I think that you can't appreciate Mozart if you have the wrong mindset.  If all you listen to is 19th and 20th century stuff, then Mozart is going to seem boring harmonically.  In all honesty, Mozart is much simpler harmonically than most composers (seeing as how classical music was supposed to be simple as people were tired of the complexity of Baroque music.)  This isn't really a bad thing though.  Romantic music is much simpler rhythmically than Jazz.  Does that mean you can't listen to Romantic music?  What you need to do is listen to Mozart as a classical composer.  If you do that, you can appreciate him.

For sure.  I think there was a discussion about this topic (harmonic complexity vs. piece quality) in the post comparing Beethoven's last sonata with Liszt's b minor.  I'll bring up a point made there:  look at Rachmaninoff's Op 32 no 10.  Harmonically mostly very simple, yet one of the greatest of his pieces.  Mozart spoke a limited, undeveloped language, yet he was still one of its greatest poets.

BTW if you listen to Die Zauberfloete or Don Giovanni and don't love them, you have something seriously wrong with you.

I agree.

As for the one poster who wrote, "I hope someday to be a good enough pianist to play some of his works" -- Mozart wrote a number of simple pieces that are in third-level books -- such as Minuet in G.  So this poster can probably play Mozart any time.

I wasn't so much referring to the gymnastic aspects of his pieces - I have played several of his works as a kid, back before I had any understanding of them.  I simply can't stand Mozart played with anything less than total musical, tonal, and emotional mastery.  A single note out of place or wrong sentiment destroys his music.  Here he is like late Beethoven, and Schubert.  I am very cautious about playing these three composers, because they had artistic integrity, intelligence, and emotional depths which completely outstrip anything I might bring to bear on the music.  I just listen to a Richter or an Uchida playing Mozart sonatas and simultaneously am filled with a deep longing to learn them and a great fear of desecrating them.  My fear has so far won out.

As Horowitz once said: Mozart is simple for beginers and extremely difficult for performers.
mozart was a genius whatever anyone might say. and remember that he produced all his music within a 32 year life. that takes some doing

As Charles Rosen (I think) said: Imagine what Beethoven's Ninth would have sounded like if Mozart had written a 60th symphony.

[sharon_f]

Was Mozart a genius .... ?

Yes.

did he ever become a great composer as an adult?

Considering he wrote the following during the last 5 years of his life:
The last five piano concertos
Le nozze di Figaro
Eine kleine Nachtmusik
last four symphonies
Don Giovanni
Clarinet Quintet
Cosě fan tutte
Ave verum Corpus
the Clarinet concerto
Die Zauberflöte
Requiem

I would answer, once again, yes.

[Teddybear]

I suggest that you keep in mind that his astounding talent aroused a lot of hate and envy and that he was at the mercy of those who agreed to order compositions from him (who weren't necessarily people with deep musical understanding or appreciation). This may have resulted in some amount of mediocre chamber music.

T

[lisztener]

I think that you can't appreciate Mozart if you have the wrong mindset.

One question:   WHY?
A lot of composers do a lot of difficult music that sounds like s**t. Obviousely Mozart produced simple music instead..

 ..  that still sounds like crap!!
And that is IMO not any better than the previous example.

BTW if you listen to Die Zauberfloete or Don Giovanni and don't love them, you have something seriously wrong with you.

I don't think I've heard these pieces, but either way I'm allowed - like all of us - to have an own opinion.  If you like Mozart fine, but - so far - I don't.

I'm not sure if you are totally serious with your statements, but I assume you do (I have got a sense of humor, just so you know)

[luc]

All I can say is that most (not all!) compositions by Mozart are simply perfect.

[Bouter Boogie]

He's a genius

After watching Amadeus I also thought he was a freak, though But he's still a genius!

[perfect_pitch]

The only thing I can say in Defence of Mozart is that your forgetting that he died in 1791, at the age of 35... the 1790's hadn't seen Beethoven yet who took music into more unpredictable paths. It was the late 18th Century - Music hadn't reached it's full potential yet. It took Liszt and Chopin and Rachmaninoff to make and discover more out of music.

I believe you can't possibly say that Mozart is Boring and predicable, without saying everyone before him was predictable and boring as well, INCLUDING Bach.

[prometheus]

By no means Mozart had the imagination and skill Bach had. If you look at his fugue No.12 and 24 from book one you will see why.

Bach was way ahead of everything Mozart was going to do when he died.

[musicsdarkangel]

Mozart was a genius.


And the more I play his music, the more I understand it.

Just imagine if you were alive during his time...... what would you listen to?


I've realized what kind of color is held within his sonatas, and concertos.

I used to hate Mozart, but now I just kind of dislike some of it.

And the more I play it, the more I will like it still. 

If I was alive back then, I'd be listening to Mozart and Bach.  He was great for his time.

[viking]

In my opinion, if he had lived in the romantic era, he would be much more appreciated.  The thing is, generally pianists enjoy more modern or romantic music, and for this reason mozart is underappreciated.  I dont think there should be any doubt of his compositional talent as he was able to produce OODLES of music, that also has survived to the present day.  Some may think his melodies are too simple and predictable,and lots of them are.  If all you knew and heard was Bach, Telemann, Scarlatti, etc.. you probably wouldnt write anything close to Rachmaninoff or Chopin, which is generally better liked today.  He was simply writing music appropriate of the musical needs of that time.
SAM

[Floristan]

The concerti from #18 on are pure genius.  If only he had lived another 30 years!

[whynot]

I love Bach and Mozart, and while of course there are innumerable differences between them, there is one difference in particular that I think speaks to this conversation.  I believe that Bach's music can withstand almost any treatment and still be Bach.  Not that I don't care how it's played!  I care very much and have strong opinions about how it should be performed.  But the essence and specialness of it tend to survive bizarre, uninformed and unskilled performance.  Not so with Mozart!  Mozart must be played with great understanding in order to be played well, and if the performer doesn't get it, neither will the listeners.  At least, listeners who are musicians will not find it satisfying.  One of the most popular Mozart conductors of our time is AWFUL, in my opinion.  No names, because he is well loved, and I don't wish to offend, but I can spot him on the radio without fail even without hearing the pre-announcement because I always think, "Gee, this sounds like Mozart, except it's really dull and I hate it... must be So-and-So conducting," and it ALWAYS is.  Talk about a signature style.

Mozart wrote many times in his letters that he composed for both the general public and the educated musicians-- that there were specific elements to satisfy both types of listeners.  The qualities that appeal to people who know less about music will come through if the music is played basically correctly.  But the qualities that musicians need to feel satisfied are more hidden, they must be found and skillfully brought out by the performer.  Much of the greatness of Mozart is buried treasure deep inside the score.  It's there, but to find it requires excavation.  I have no problem with anyone not willing to do this; I'm not willing to do it with some composers myself.  But I think it's important to distinguish between a deeply informed like/dislike of a composer or a genre, and a lack of experience with the best that it has to offer.  In other words, I wouldn't argue someone hating Mozart who has heard it really correctly (a bold word!) played or taught.  But since that is rarely the case (just my opinion! I haven't heard everyone!), I can't rule out the possibility that those statements reflect the playing or interpretation, rather than the music. 

[prometheus]

You are saying no one can correctly not like Mozart?

[whynot]

I'm afraid I haven't expressed myself well, because that is the opposite of what I was trying to convey!  I said that I would NOT argue with anyone disliking it (or anything else), if he had heard it done at its best.  My followup sentence was meant to convey that I believe many people have not heard this music done at its best, or anywhere near it, so that if someone said he didn't like it, I wouldn't rule out the POSSIBILITY that that was the reason.  I guess it's difficult to share a perfect understanding in words like this, instead of being face to face.  I didn't mean to convey that if someone disagrees with my taste, their taste is incorrect!  I certainly don't believe that.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.     

[m1469]

I very much appreciate your posts here, whynot.  I don't know that I could ever explain exactly what it is that I find so special about Mozart, I just know his music lives somewhere deep (and always growing) within me.  It is like he has his very own and very special room within my own self.

Btw, I think you have expressed yourself quite beautifully, actually.  You said what I only wish I could have.

m1469 

[silverpeal]

I think Mozart is a genius.   Does simplicity necessarily indicate lack of depth and intricacy?  He could take a very simple melody and weave it into a myriad of conceptions and possibilities.  I think in many ways he is like a very graceful ice skater who skates with such purity and precision that we forget all of the complexity and intelligence behind the artistry.
He's that extraordinary.

From a singer's perspective, I could not ask for a composer who wrote for and understood the voice better.  (Handel, I think, is the only one who equals him in this regard.)  Among singers, Mozart is considered one of the most difficult composers to master due to the very simplicity of many of his vocal lines.  The voice is often left very exposed.  With piano too, his music requires, I think, a very special kind of interpretation.

Some of his compositions are just utterly flawless.  The finale from "Le Nozze di Figaro," for example.  It's perfect.  That alone for me gives him the title of genius.

Just my personal opinion; but do I think he is overrated?

No.  Not by a long shot.

[maxy]

He was a genius.  Anyone that says otherwise is simply wrong.

[danyal]

Mozart was one of the worlds greatest genius ever to have lived. If you are just listening to how "mechanical" and "predictable" it is, then you are not hearing or feeling the absolute heart-wretching music within. He had the ability to reach deep into ones being and touch the very heart of ones soul. If you cannot comprehend this you are not mature enough to understand it or appreciate it in its absolute ingeniousness and soul. I suggest you seriously consider your place in music.

As for its predictability, he was just following musical forms and structures taught to him by his father and from what he had learned from previous composers. Had he lived today he wouldve not composed the same music, because he would've lived in different circumstances, and, most obviously, different times.

[freddychopin]

OK I hate his music, but he was a true genius. He brought Vienna on the musical map for the first time. (R Strauss was second)

[aqu01rius]

Obviously Mozart is a musical genius that remains top for centuries.
He just happened to be born in the wrong period of time.

[Aziel]

Genius.  Pure Genius.

[kelly_kelly]

I think that it is completely stupid to even debate over whether Mozart was a genius or not. Look at the sheer amount that he composed, and the early age at which he started. That he was a genius is patently obvious. However, that is not to say that everyone must enjoy his music. Although I do enjoy Mozart's music, I firmly disagree with the claims that people who do not love Mozart do not appreciate music. Everyone has a right to their own taste.

[perfect_pitch]

By no means Mozart had the imagination and skill Bach had. If you look at his fugue No.12 and 24 from book one you will see why.

Bach was way ahead of everything Mozart was going to do when he died.

NO WAY - You listen to Mozarts Piano Concertos (All of them) and you will see the brilliance of what he did (which wasn't bad seeing as it was only the late 1700's). He really was fantastic... and could have achieved more if he was alive longer... Remember that he died at 35. Bach was 65 when he died.

[arensky]

with every genre of music and every style ever made at the convience of our fingertips..we are exposed to new music everyday..romantic..barque..20th century..new age..from gregorian chants to rach 3...i will agree with you on the fact that its hard to find beauty in music when compared to something else..and really what your primary post is..your indirectly comparing mozart's classical music to big dogs like rach beethoven even showpan or sorajbi..with the flare, dissonance, unpredicability, vast tone color and emotion...

to truly appreciate mozart and his music you must relaly take it upon yourself to dive into the classical scene...his music was not only appropriate, but also innovative *in his time*...and this is where i dont understand alot of people on this forum.

this is a different breed of the same species of category that creates these "whos the better composer" thread..and in reality simply speaking it truly is a matter of comparing apples to oranges...you simply cant...not even in an objective manner..because objectivity has never been..and will never be the underlying foundation for music..as mathematically inclined as Bach was...there was still that IMPORTANT pinch of artistic creativity..and even emotion in his music..we all know it..if we can identify emotion and art in music..it is there..this notion thus eliminated the possibility of firmly and justifiably puttingtwo composers of obvious differences in background and origin back to back and seeing who is taller...

and i really cant understand what this trend is of calling mozart's music mediocre...i believe it takes a really delicate and beautiful ear to relaly pinpoint, identify, and *APPRECIATE* subtle changes in mozart's seemingly "redundant" melodies, endings, and or musical profiles...i believe people are caught up in the gymnastic portion of piano..and people forget that piano, as technically stressed as it is today, isnt a pissing contest..this goes for all music..people are so inclined on becoming a virtuoso to a degree and really lose focus on whats really important...

i personally appreciate bernhard's post on "easy yet beautiful pieces," because its nice to kmnow that people really appreciate a collection of sound in form of art regardless of its mechanical or technical superiority, if any...that thread got very little posts...

yet a thread on which concerto is better..harder..o who plays the hardest biggest longest repertoire will get several posts and sometimes turn into a heated argument as people are passionate about their opinion on difficulty levels..or their abilities...

i really love mozart's ,music..along with chopins music..beethovens..brahms...vivaldi..bach...it doesnt matter to me..i favor some composers over other of course..but i wouldnt dare point fingers and call anyones music
mediocre...every piece of music has an origin..a meaning..and if one cant identify with it due to lack of understanding..then this should not give a reason to bash the music..people can find music boring..if it doesnt suit your taste..so be it...but ask yourself..WHY doesnt it suit your taste..and if you cant come up with an answer more than simply "its too boring".."its too simple".."its too redundant" for my tastes..then you should probably remeasure the depth of your musical worth...

Cheers   

Thank you Husky, you said it all for me.

[prometheus]

NO WAY - You listen to Mozarts Piano Concertos (All of them) and you will see the brilliance of what he did (which wasn't bad seeing as it was only the late 1700's). He really was fantastic... and could have achieved more if he was alive longer... Remember that he died at 35. Bach was 65 when he died.

Sure, Mozart did a lot to develop concerto form and style. I was merely talking about harmonic language. Yeah, Mozart died too early. And it seems to me he was just pumping out music subconsciously. If he had learned to control his gift and lived longer I would probably like him a lot more. I think that post was a reply to someone saying that if I thought that Mozart was too old and dated that Bach would be even more so.