Im sick of the Mozart bashing

[arensky]

Ah...*** you arensky! 

**** you too, **** 

[arensky]

Making a sculpture of Ronald McDonald out of raw cookie dough might be tough as hell but... mmm, raw cookie dough...

Cookie dough is delicious, especially when its homemade.  The best is feasting off the spoon used to stir the pot of cookie dough.  I don't really like the artificial stuff.  One has to be weary of the quantity consumed since the raw eggs apparently can give you salmonella.  Becoming morbidly obese is also a concern.  In small amounts, though, cookie dough is ecstacy.

Oh yeah, and Mozart sucks balls.

You are pitiful, Paul...

[arensky]

I think Mozart is exactly where he belongs in the popular mindset. I cannot love most of his works but I respect all of them. I guess my main problem with Mozart is not that his music is not "difficult" to play or something, but that 1) it's so ingenious that a lot seems too quickly conceived and contrived in final form and 2) I rarely hear anything daring in it. I've heard that Mozart could write whole symphonies in four days and while that is amazing, it seems as though he would not stop and think "Now, what are alternate ways that I could phrase this that haven't been done before and that would be even more powerful?" because he already knew what it would sound like with tried-and-true techniques and was dead-set on using them. Beethoven, in the second movement of Sonata Pathetique, had the right hand doing part of the texture as well as the melody, something that hadn't been done before. If Mozart had composed the same movement, he probably would have come up with the whole concept in a matter of hours, such was his genius, but he would have missed that little example of the avant-garde that Beethoven used. He probably would have had the right hand playing straight melody and the left hand playing straight accompaniment. That's what a lot of his music sounds like to me. It seems to be so ingeniously caught up in practices of the time, and contrived so fast, that there's not really enough to distinguish one work from another in terms of texture or layout.

You seem to have a misinformed historical/timeline reference, you seem to not know that Mozart composed his last works while Beethoven was still basically wet behind the ears. You hear nothing daring in his music; you have obviously never heard any music by Stamitz, Vanhal, Dittersdorf and a host of other mediocrities. Mozart was considered daring and dissonant and even bizarre during his life, hence the Emperor's remark "too many notes, Mozart". Mozart is Beethoven's departure point, he was the only model an angry young composer could have in 1790. Yes Beethoven is more unconventional than Mozart, but he had to be. NOTHING new could be done with the 18th Century classical style after Mozart, he was it's final product. Now before you go calling Mozart "caught up in the practices of the time" and "contrived", go listen to some Stamitz and Micheal Haydn, THEN listen to the g minor Symphony, A Major Concerto K.488 and the Requiem. Then reply back here, I'll be interested to see if your reaction to Mozart is the same. 

[arensky]

If a robot composed music it would sound just like Mozart's piano sonatas.

You have to be mature enough to appreciate Mozart's music?  Please, if maturity is what it takes to prefer a tesselation to a wonderfully organic painting then I don't want any of your brand of maturity.

Please explain how the c minor Piano Concerto K.491 or the A Major Piano Concerto K.488 is not organic and like a tesselation. I am curious...

[bearzinthehood]

Please explain how the c minor Piano Concerto K.491 or the A Major Piano Concerto K.488 is not organic and like a tesselation. I am curious...

His concertos, I agree, are better than his sonatas.  I am familiar with both concertos, K.488 is meh and K. 491 is decent.  Honestly, in Mozart I hear exactly what I expected to hear which is why I used the tesselation analogy  Sorry. =/

[rc]

I've gotta say that my tastes have changed over the years in ways I wouldn't have expected. First getting into classical music, I used to go to the CD store and pick out Beethoven CD's based on how many minor-key compositions were on the disk . I'd hear Haydn or Mozart on the radio and eagerly wait for it to finish, "what's up with all this boring fairy-music?".

Last year I somehow became a fan of Haydn, and now I'm becoming very curious about Mozart. More and more, whenever some Mozart comes on the radio, I stop and listen. It seems to me that as I come along, the subtleties become more impressive, and when I look under the surface I hear some impressive music in Mozart. I'll be checking out more Mozart in the very near future.

It probably is a maturity thing. Valuable comments like "Mozart sucks balls" supports this .

[bearzinthehood]

The minor key thing is silly.  There are just as many compositions in major keys that I enjoy as there are compositions in minor keys, if not more.  In fact, come to think of it, pretty much all my favorites from Beethoven are in major keys (piano sonata Op. 109, 6th symphony, 4th piano concerto).

If you think your musical tastes are more mature because you enjoy Mozart more than other people then it just makes you a closed minded elitist.  A mature opinion is one which one that acknowledges differences in the aesthetic appeal of a given composer amongst different individuals.

[arensky]

His concertos, I agree, are better than his sonatas.  I am familiar with both concertos, K.488 is meh and K. 491 is decent.  Honestly, in Mozart I hear exactly what I expected to hear which is why I used the tesselation analogy  Sorry. =/

It's okay now you're talking sense, not lashing out.  But a tesselation can be unpredictable and organic too. Bach's music is very tesselated IMO, but it is also organic. Mozart's music only seems predictable to us because we have Brahms and Stravinsky and Shostakovich and Jazz and Led Zeppelin and other stuff stuck in out head; Mozart resembles popular music (simplistic and uncomplicated to most of us "experts") because his harmonic language is familiar to our ears, and because most capable pianists (again most of us here) can sightread it. I guess ease and familiarity breed contempt. But it's what he does with the language; un****ing believable. Listen to the fugal finale of the "Jupiter" Symphony #41, or the  Act I Finale of "Cosi fan Tutte". It's nothing a robot could write, Yes a robot could write the first Piano Sonata in C major...maybe...

[rc]

If you think your musical tastes are more mature because you enjoy Mozart more than other people then it just makes you a closed minded elitist.

You know me so well

Doesn't change the fact that I disliked Mozart then, but am growing to like it now. It seems to be a common enough theme. Regardless of what other people think, it takes time for me to get into certain music. I'm even starting to like vocal music I would call it maturing.

haha, I once thought Iron Maiden was the pinnacle of music

(...Now I know it for a fact)

[bearzinthehood]

Listen to the fugal finale of the "Jupiter" Symphony #41, or the  Act I Finale of "Cosi fan Tutte".

You know it's silly I haven't listened to Symphony #41 in over a decade.  I will visit my library...

[arensky]

I've gotta say that my tastes have changed over the years in ways I wouldn't have expected. First getting into classical music, I used to go to the CD store and pick out Beethoven CD's based on how many minor-key compositions were on the disk . I'd hear Haydn or Mozart on the radio and eagerly wait for it to finish, "what's up with all this boring fairy-music?".

Last year I somehow became a fan of Haydn, and now I'm becoming very curious about Mozart. More and more, whenever some Mozart comes on the radio, I stop and listen. It seems to me that as I come along, the subtleties become more impressive, and when I look under the surface I hear some impressive music in Mozart. I'll be checking out more Mozart in the very near future.

It probably is a maturity thing. Valuable comments like "Mozart sucks balls" supports this .

Next thing you know you will be wearing a powdered wig!   I've always loved Mozart and Haydn, the only composers I've ever had a problem with were Bach and Beethoven, and that was probably because they were always foisted on me as required material, that old "eat all your vegetables arensky they're good for you" crapoo. Bach finally grokked for me about 15 years ago, with the e minor Toccata. I realized that I was trying to interpret it, instead of just playing it. Beethoven was never an object of disdain for me but rather discomfort, I've always found his piano music very uncomfortable to play. I finally just decided to go with it; I'm currently relearning the "Tempest" Sonata, and I listened to several recordings, Schnabel, Gould, Grimaud, Gulda (lotta G's there) all very different pianists and I noticed that the same things I get frustrated with in this piece, namely keeping all the soft passages in the outer movements quiet, they seem to have that problem too (except for Schnabel). So it wasn't me, it was the piece itself. But this a Mozart thread. What I mean is the meaning of a work of art or of a certain artist's ouevre may not be immediately apparent to an individual, somethings take time to understand or appreciate, and it's not nessacarily a matter of maturity. Just where we're at at a given point in our lives, some kinds of music provide the nessacary catharsis at times and others don't. Later on different music will provide a catharsis where it didn't before...

[panic]

Your basically true statement that the 18th century classical style was worn out after Mozart is essentially why I can never get the sort of enjoyment out of his works as I can Beethoven's or Bruckner's or Mahler's. From the first notes of a Mozart work, I know that what I am going to hear is undisputed genius and awesome handling of orchestral texture (despite an overinflated emphasis on strings). But I can also basically know that sometime within the first two and a half or three minutes I'm going to hear the orchestra come to a semi-halt and a half cadence, and then assume the dominant for the remainder of the exposition (usually taken up at first by strings), whether I'm listening to a symphony in the single digit numbers or the 30s. And as much as I can't blame Mozart for doing that, it's like climbing a new mountain yet knowing what's on the other side. It gets kind of redundant, despite all the brilliance with which it is moulded. I almost knew you would cite the Requiem Mass, and indeed that is an example of originality. But I will give the G minor symphony and the A major concerto a listen and if the symphony does not assume a string-played B flat major within two minutes or so, and the concerto does not assume E major, I will be very, very surprised and pleasantly so. And from what you've stated in above posts, clearly there can be a lot of great invention and originality before and after that happens. But it's like being at a restaurant where all the various dishes are served to you in little white 3x3 square bowls. You start noticing after a while.

[arensky]

But I will give the G minor symphony and the A major concerto a listen and if the symphony does not assume a string-played B flat major within two minutes or so, and the concerto does not assume E major, I will be very, very surprised and pleasantly so. And from what you've stated in above posts, clearly there can be a lot of great invention and originality before and after that happens. But it's like being at a restaurant where all the various dishes are served to you in little white 3x3 square bowls. You start noticing after a while.

They do and will. Listen to the developments of these pieces, see where they take you, I don't remember offhand  with the Concerto...but it is unusual.

[panic]

They do and will.

 

Well, I'm not a Mozart basher. Just a Beethoven lover.

[rc]

Next thing you know you will be wearing a powdered wig!   I've always loved Mozart and Haydn, the only composers I've ever had a problem with were Bach and Beethoven, and that was probably because they were always foisted on me as required material, that old "eat all your vegetables arensky they're good for you" crapoo. Bach finally grokked for me about 15 years ago, with the e minor Toccata. I realized that I was trying to interpret it, instead of just playing it. Beethoven was never an object of disdain for me but rather discomfort, I've always found his piano music very uncomfortable to play. I finally just decided to go with it; I'm currently relearning the "Tempest" Sonata, and I listened to several recordings, Schnabel, Gould, Grimaud, Gulda (lotta G's there) all very different pianists and I noticed that the same things I get frustrated with in this piece, namely keeping all the soft passages in the outer movements quiet, they seem to have that problem too (except for Schnabel). So it wasn't me, it was the piece itself. But this a Mozart thread. What I mean is the meaning of a work of art or of a certain artist's ouevre may not be immediately apparent to an individual, somethings take time to understand or appreciate, and it's not nessacarily a matter of maturity. Just where we're at at a given point in our lives, some kinds of music provide the nessacary catharsis at times and others don't. Later on different music will provide a catharsis where it didn't before...

Agreed, but what's wrong with calling that maturing?

Speaking of Bach, at first I found his music to be very difficult to listen to. It wasn't until I learned a piece by Bach that I started to like it. Though I'm still not too fond of hearing 7 consecutive movements in the same key, I wouldn't subject any of my friends to an entire suite.

...and I am wearing a powdered wig

[arensky]

Agreed, but what's wrong with calling that maturing?

Nothing. I thought about that before I posted it. I didn't want to offend the immature people here...

Speaking of Bach, at first I found his music to be very difficult to listen to. It wasn't until I learned a piece by Bach that I started to like it. Though I'm still not too fond of hearing 7 consecutive movements in the same key, I wouldn't subject any of my friends to an entire suite.

Me too, I've always found him to be rather cryptic. Hey they go to relative minor! I guess you're supposed to get into the different dance grooves. I prefer the Inventions and Preludes and Fugues to the Suites...

...and I am wearing a powdered wig

Don't inhale, the lead isn't uh, exactly healthy...

[bearzinthehood]

Agreed, but what's wrong with calling that maturing?

The problem is that you presume that the natural order of events is to go from a state of not liking Mozart to a state of liking Mozart, and furthermore you presume that liking Mozart is a universally desireable state.

Let me illustrate with a ridiculous example.  Suppose I told you that I liked eating feces.  All through my youth, I disliked eating feces, but one day I tried it and I really liked it.  Now, having gone from a state of not liking feces to liking feces, and given that my years of not liking feces occured during my youth, I have concluded that eating feces is simply a result of the maturation process.  Therefore, it stands to reason then that your palate is immature because you do not like to eat feces.

Ridiculous, isn't it?  No, I'm not saying that listening to the music of Mozart is like eating feces.  However, your logic parallels my example.  Stating that having a mature taste in music requires one to enjoy Mozart simply because in your case, your appreciation of Mozart increased with age is generalizing based on the experience of one individual.  Perhaps there are those who enjoyed Mozart in their youth that no longer do so currently.  To them a mature musical palate is one that precludes the enjoyment of Mozart.

Furthermore, using the term maturation implies that the state of "enjoying Mozart" is a desireable.  However, you do not substatiate this, it is simply assumed.  Why does enjoying Mozart imply a greater musical understanding than enjoying music from other composers?  What is it about entering the state of "enjoying Mozart" that implies a progression in taste as opposed to a regression?

Finally, let me just say that I do not hate Mozart.  It definately has some negative qualities that detract from my enjoyment of it, and I have already stated what these qualities are in other posts.  It is however, also true that there are many other composers that I enjoy listening to much more than Mozart.

[ahmedito]

who pulled out this old thing?

By the way, I stand by my statement that Mozart seems to come with age. At least the realisation of a lot of the depth and difficulty of Mozarts music. Its simply experience. Ive seen lots and lots of musicians who didnt appreciate Mozart until they were a lot older. Seems like they went from Lizt-Rachmaninoff to Mozart. That doesnt mean one is better than the other.

Your feces analogy is pure bullshit though. There are simply things in Mozart which are easier to appreciate when you are much more experienced. A person who has been playing the piano for 2 or 3 years will cream his pants the first time he listens to the Rachmaninoff third, or Chopin first Ballade, or a nocturne. In my experience, it is much less common for that same person to listen to a Mozart sonata (especially and andante movement) and have the same reaction, however well its played. As you grow older, you listen to a Mozart andante played by a master and it will bring about a different appreciation, which will be completely wasted on someone less experienced. Of course, its also a matter of taste. I mean, Mozart is one of the most beloved composers for a reason. Along with Vivaldi, he's one of the "pop" classical composers.

[bearzinthehood]

I said it was an intentionally ridiculous example to illustrate his faulty logic.  Read carefully.

[ahmedito]

Great, you agree. Its INTENTIONAL bullshit then.

[bearzinthehood]

Great, you agree. Its INTENTIONAL bullshit then.

It was there to prove a point.  If you don't get the point then there's no point in discussing it further.  It's not like we can have a yelling contest over the internet. 

[ahmedito]

 

So, back to Mozart? Or will this thread die again? (hopefully)

[pita bread]

You know, I hadn't seen much Mozart bashing around here until I saw this thread.

Keep it up guys, this might begin to rival "the word association thread" in replies.

[punch]

... unless you want to hear my whole life story,

Alright then, let's hear it...

[lisztisforkids]

Whoa..... Everybody just take a deep breath. 

[arensky]

who pulled out this old thing?

Me. I was browsing and I read something and got really ******* angry and went to search mode to find information to counter it and I found "this old thing" whose title really captured how I felt. Here it is, coming back up like a bad clam. You feel passionately about the lion and the midgets. You also feel passionately about this, as do I. To not care for Mozart and to prefer other composers is fine, but this composer is the subject of much dismissal and scorn, often put very meanly, often by individuals here who purport to be serious musicians and artists. I've had enough of it. I will discuss this topic, because I'm curious about how any EDUCATED and KNOWLEDGABLE musician can dismiss a genius like this. Now bearzinthehood  and panic have made their positions and feelings clear, and I respect them.

I am sick of people, particularly young people who shoot their mouths off without thinking, who base their whole esthetic concept of what is good music solely ON WHAT THEY LIKE, and feel they must denigrate other music and composers AND pianists they do not care for. It is the worst sort of 7th grade bulll****. I like to spend time here and ooh and ahh over my Helene Grimaud pics  and be silly and put up turtle pics and debate the martial attributes of the midgets and the lions BUT when it comes around to art, I think some respect and considered thought is in order, not just this "I don't like this, so it sux!" ******* ******** !!! 

So let's grow up where we should grow up, while always remembering, as Mozart did, how to be a child at heart and have fun. 

[musik_man]

Anyone who says anything to the effect of 'Mozart sucks' is immature.  Not because disliking Mozart is childish, but because thinking that anything you don't like now sucks is immature.  The one thing I've discovered about my tastes is that they change and evolve.  Stuff I didn't like two years ago, I love now.  I try not to badmouth any music(except 12 tone crap) because I never know if I might grow to like it, and would regret my words later on.

As for Mozart's music...  I'm gonna disagree with the Mozart lovers who think their is some sort of hidden anguish in his music.  His music is happy and that's why I love it.  If I had to compare Mozart to anyone, it would be the Beatles.  In both cases, the music's deepness is not why I like it.  Both wrote simple music, but both wrote that music extremely well.  There are more complex band/composers but their music doesn't necesarily gain anything for that complexity.  True musical maturity is being able to love good music without regard to its style.  A mature musician can appreciate something as dense and long winded as Mahler and also like something as childish as Mozart.

[lisztisforkids]

 I dont really like the music of Mozart, But I understand the genius he possesed of so many levels, and respect his music damm well.

[arensky]

I dont really like the music of Mozart, But I understand the genius he possesed of so many levels, and respect his music damm well.

You ******* better.

[lisztisforkids]

You ******* better.

 
   

[JCarey]

Anyone who says anything to the effect of 'Mozart sucks' is immature.  Not because disliking Mozart is childish, but because thinking that anything you don't like now sucks is immature.  The one thing I've discovered about my tastes is that they change and evolve.  Stuff I didn't like two years ago, I love now.  I try not to badmouth any music(except 12 tone crap) because I never know if I might grow to like it, and would regret my words later on.

Hypocrite.

People here need to grow up a bit...

[musik_man]

Hypocrite.

People here need to grow up a bit...

12 tone music creates music that doesn't correspond to how our brain interprets sound(consonance versus dissonance.)  That's why I bash it, because I know I can never like it.  It's unlikable.  It's not my fault Schoenberg held faulty views on the subject.  I appreciate music of people like Bartok, Scriabin, and early Schoenberg who stretch and twist tonality(tonality is meant in the very broadest sense possible.)

And the bashing rule isn't a fixed principle for all music.  I mainly apply it to music that is respected.  I still am not crazy about Beethoven's Late Quartets, but I know that I'll probably grow to like them over time, so I don't make stupid comments about them.  Sibelius's music doesn't do anything for me, but I don't comment 'Sibelius suxors.'  I don't have any problem though, saying that 50 cent or Kenny G suck.

BTW the 12 tone comment was meant to be a bit toungue in cheek/hypocritical anyway.   It's hard to convey one's meaning without you guys hearing how I would inflect those words.  Just need to remember to use more smilies.

[rc]

The problem is that you presume that the natural order of events is to go from a state of not liking Mozart to a state of liking Mozart, and furthermore you presume that liking Mozart is a universally desireable state.

Certainly, why not? It makes sense that being able to enjoy Mozart is better than not being able to. I believe that certain music is just so good that there's no refuting it and the only factor is whether or not a given listener is able to get into it. Enough people love jazz that I know there must be something very enjoyable about it, but I haven't yet grown to like a lot of it myself, I'm certain that if I give it a chance there will come a time where I 'get' jazz.

Let me illustrate with a ridiculous example.  Suppose I told you that I liked eating feces.  All through my youth, I disliked eating feces, but one day I tried it and I really liked it.  Now, having gone from a state of not liking feces to liking feces, and given that my years of not liking feces occured during my youth, I have concluded that eating feces is simply a result of the maturation process.  Therefore, it stands to reason then that your palate is immature because you do not like to eat feces.

For all I know, feces is delicious.

Ridiculous, isn't it?  No, I'm not saying that listening to the music of Mozart is like eating feces.  However, your logic parallels my example.  Stating that having a mature taste in music requires one to enjoy Mozart simply because in your case, your appreciation of Mozart increased with age is generalizing based on the experience of one individual.  Perhaps there are those who enjoyed Mozart in their youth that no longer do so currently.  To them a mature musical palate is one that precludes the enjoyment of Mozart.

Sure, I only truely know my own case. But judging by a lot of the responses here I'm not the only one, and where are the people who've grown to dislike Mozart? I have a suspicion that the people who have such a problem with the idea of musical maturity are in fact, young .

I don't see why anyone should take such personal offense to this. Maybe you've noticed I'm not taking the whole issue entirely seriously?

Furthermore, using the term maturation implies that the state of "enjoying Mozart" is a desireable.  However, you do not substatiate this, it is simply assumed.  Why does enjoying Mozart imply a greater musical understanding than enjoying music from other composers?  What is it about entering the state of "enjoying Mozart" that implies a progression in taste as opposed to a regression?

Finally, let me just say that I do not hate Mozart.  It definately has some negative qualities that detract from my enjoyment of it, and I have already stated what these qualities are in other posts.  It is however, also true that there are many other composers that I enjoy listening to much more than Mozart.

I'm not sure how tastes can regress, stagnate maybe.

Anways, there's no need to get wound up over a different opinion. You've found all kinds of offense from my posts that I never knew was there

People here need to grow up a bit...

Actually, since we can't decide who's mature and who's immature, I think people just need to chill out.

[lourak]

I don’t mean to intrude, but, here is the final word on Mozart.  Everyone – please read carefully – and consider what you say before rushing to prose…

Karl Barth
•   It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart.
•   Mozart creates music from a mysterious center, and so knows the limits to the right and the left, above and below. He maintains moderation.
•   Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it.

Leonard Bernstein
•   It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.
•   Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's — the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering — a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages.

Charles Gounod
•   Mozart, prodigal heaven gave thee everything, grace and strength, abundance and moderation, perfect equilibrium.
•   Who has reached the extreme limits of scale with the same infallible precision, equally guarded against the false refinement of artificial elegance and the roughness of spurious force? Who has better known how to breathe anguish and dread into the purest and most exquisite forms?
•   Mozart exists, and will exist, eternally; divine Mozart - less a name, more a soul descending to us from the heavens, who appeared on this earth, stayed for a little over thirty years, and left it all the more rejuvenated, richer and happier for his appearance
•   As with all great artists, Mozart expressed not only the soul, the taste and the aroma of his epoch, but also the spiritual world of man-man for all ages, in all the complexity of his desires, his struggles and ambivalence. Some of us, who only identify in Mozart a certain aristocratic refinement, may find these words strange. Often we meet with a condescending attitude towards him, to his music, reminiscent of chiming bells in a music box! ...'It's very nice, but not for me' say such people, 'give me passion - Beethoven, Brahms, tragic, monumental...' Such comments only reveal one thing, these people don't know Mozart

George Szell
•   Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.
•   Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
•   I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.
•   Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.


Others

•   Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another. ~ Claudio Arrau

•   In my dreams of heaven, I always see the great Masters gathered in a huge hall in which they all reside. Only Mozart has his own suite. ~ Victor Borge

•   Together with the puzzle, Mozart gives you the solution. ~ Ferruccio Busoni

•   If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity. ~ Johannes Brahms

•   Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head. ~ Frédéric Chopin

•   Mozart tapped the source from which all music flows, expressing himself with a spontaneity and refinement and breathtaking rightness. ~ Aaron Copland

•   Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory. ~ Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf

•   Mozart is sweet sunshine. ~ Antonin Dvorak

•   Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it — that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed. ~ Albert Einstein

•   Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard. ~ Gabriel Fauré

•   There are three things in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni. ~ Gustave Flaubert

•   Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do. ~ André Gide

•   A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing. ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

•   In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct. ~ Edvard Grieg

•   Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life. ~ E.T.A. Hoffmann

•   The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen. ~ Wanda Landowska

•   Mozart resolved his emotions on a level that transformed them into moods uncontaminated by mortal anguish, enabling him to express the angelic anguish that is so peculiarly his own. ~ Yehudi Menuhin

•   Mozart was able to do what he wished in music and he never wished to do what was beyond him. ~ Romain Rolland

•   Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day! ~ Gioacchino Rossini

•   What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient. ''~ Camille Saint-Saëns

•   The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to play because of the quantity of notes; grown-ups avoid him because of the quality of notes. ~ Artur Schnabel

•   A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me. ~ Franz Schubert
•   A world that has produced a Mozart is a world worth saving. What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart! ~ Franz Schubert

•   Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them? ~ Robert Schumann

•   Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. ~ Georg Solti

•   Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy. ~ Stendhal

•   I listened to the pure crystalline notes of one of Mozart's concertos dropping at my feet like leaves from the trees. ~ Virgil Thomson

•   Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection. ~ Donald Francis Tovey

•   The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. ~ Richard Wagner

•   I never heard so much content in so short a period. ~ Pinchas Zukerman

[cfortunato]

1)  I never in my entire life dreamed I would ever read a reference to something called "Mozart-bashing."  

Maybe it's a pianostreet.com thing, and I wouldn't understand, but the very CONCEPT of "Mozart-bashing" strikes me as bizarre.  I mean, of all the things in the world to bash...

2) I also find music of that style growing on me with age.  Especially Haydn, whom I used to regard as kind of classical pop music.  The stuff is fun.  What's wrong with fun?

3) Tell you what, those of you who give concerts.  Next time you give one, play Mozart's Facile Sonata in C - K 545.  And watch the grins break out on the audience's face.  How much is THAT worth?

If The Who ever played Mozart, THAT concert would end with Mozart bashing.  Other than that, I can't imagine why anyone would do such a thing.

[arensky]

1)  I never in my entire life dreamed I would ever read a reference to something called "Mozart-bashing."  

Welcome to modern times.    We must bash back! 

[apion]

To put this into context:

There are only 3 composers who could conceivably outrank Johannes Brahms:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Bach

IOW, Mozart is a top dog.

[bearzinthehood]

Certainly, why not? It makes sense that being able to enjoy Mozart is better than not being able to. I believe that certain music is just so good that there's no refuting it and the only factor is whether or not a given listener is able to get into it. Enough people love jazz that I know there must be something very enjoyable about it, but I haven't yet grown to like a lot of it myself, I'm certain that if I give it a chance there will come a time where I 'get' jazz.

A lot of people like Britney Spears, there must be something enjoyable about it.  Frankly I don't care if a lot of people listen to whatever happens to be the rage, and this whole discussion is making my opinion of Mozart take a dive.

Sure, I only truely know my own case. But judging by a lot of the responses here I'm not the only one, and where are the people who've grown to dislike Mozart? I have a suspicion that the people who have such a problem with the idea of musical maturity are in fact, young .

I'm older than you, I've played for nearly 2 decades.  I was probably playing Mozart before you ever learned to play, unless you happened to learn at age one.

Arensky's opinion I respect because I presume he is an experienced professional, but baseless and elitist comments like yours are very effectively transforming my opinion of Mozart from indifference to hatred.  Maybe that's not rational, but aesthetics aren't based in reason anyways, and thanks to people like you I want to be a Mozart fan about as much as I want to be an emo kid.

PS - I like jazz, that must mean I'm better than you.

[rc]

A lot of people like Britney Spears, there must be something enjoyable about it.  Frankly I don't care if a lot of people listen to whatever happens to be the rage, and this whole discussion is making my opinion of Mozart take a dive.

I'm older than you, I've played for nearly 2 decades.  I was probably playing Mozart before you ever learned to play, unless you happened to learn at age one.

Arensky's opinion I respect because I presume he is an experienced professional, but baseless and elitist comments like yours are very effectively transforming my opinion of Mozart from indifference to hatred.  Maybe that's not rational, but aesthetics aren't based in reason anyways, and thanks to people like you I want to be a Mozart fan about as much as I want to be an emo kid.

PS - I like jazz, that must mean I'm better than you.

Well Bearz, I was hoping to continue to discuss this, because I did find it interesting, despite my jokes and lightheartedness, I stick by my assertion, and to be honest I don't think you're seeing my point.

This discussion is no longer productive nor fun, so I want to try and clear a few things up.

(this is the most important) In any given discussion, I am only seriously talking about ideas. I don't take myself, nor yourself too seriously. I know and try to make my own limitations clear, and I did, and my intention is to discuss the ideas. Whether or not my opinions are valid, what I hope to do is learn something.

Now I never intended to hurt anyone, and I hope you can forgive me if I have. But, again in all honesty, I really think your offense was due to your own interpretation of my words, because I never once attacked anyone. You don't seem to be discussing the ideas, but becoming defensive and actually attacking me.

It is one of my pet-peeves about the internet that people always seem to have to be politically correct and put some sort of disclaimer ("the following is only an opinion and actually means nothing...") before anything they say... and I did deliberately phrase my words to provoke controversy. Partly because I wanted to see if anyone would get upset over it, and partly to actually discuss the topic directly without beating around the bush.

Bearz, in the end we're both just unknown monikers on a computer screen who disappear as soon as the computer is turned off. It doesn't matter if you like me or think I'm some ignorant elitist. What's sad is that something like this could affect your opinion of music that has nothing to do with me. If what I say bothers you so much, I recommend you never read another word I post, goodbye.

[bearzinthehood]

I'm fine with discussing things, as long as people are aware that:

1)  Music has a form and structure and historical relevence that is apparent to those who analyze it, and an aesthetic appeal to those who listen to it.  While there can certainly be rational, scientific discussion about how a certain piece of music is well constructed or historically important, there is no reason to expect the same piece of music to have the same aesthetic impact on everyone.

2)  The aesthetic impact of any piece of art is relative, and therefore there is not one correct viewpoint.  Anyone who insists that his own viewpoint is necessarily correct is, in my opinion, arguing a point that cannot be substantiated through any form of rational discussion.

If our goal is rational discussion the we should refrain from ridiculous statements on both ends of the spectrum.  The claim that Mozart is for the mature musical palate is in my opinion just as ridiculous as the claim that Mozart sucks balls.

[rc]

I'm fine with discussing things, as long as people are aware that:

1)  Music has a form and structure and historical relevence that is apparent to those who analyze it, and an aesthetic appeal to those who listen to it.  While there can certainly be rational, scientific discussion about how a certain piece of music is well constructed or historically important, there is no reason to expect the same piece of music to have the same aesthetic impact on everyone.

2)  The aesthetic impact of any piece of art is relative, and therefore there is not one correct viewpoint.  Anyone who insists that his own viewpoint is necessarily correct is, in my opinion, arguing a point that cannot be substantiated through any form of rational discussion.

If our goal is rational discussion the we should refrain from ridiculous statements on both ends of the spectrum.  The claim that Mozart is for the mature musical palate is in my opinion just as ridiculous as the claim that Mozart sucks balls.

Ok, let me ask if I'm getting the right meaning of this, that it could be boiled down to the fact that musical enjoyment is subjective.

But I don't find it useful at all in any discussion, because it's such an opinion-killer. Any arguement could be nullified by calling it subjective.

Here is where I think we disagree:

I believe that certain music is just so good that there's no refuting it and the only factor is whether or not a given listener is able to get into it.

So I say, subjectivity aside, there are some universal aesthetic traits. That it's not entirely relative, and if a listener 'gets it', the music is irrefutably good.

I also stand by my point that it's more mature to be able to enjoy Mozart than not to. Which goes for any music, including Britney Spears.

[bearzinthehood]

Ok, let me ask if I'm getting the right meaning of this, that it could be boiled down to the fact that musical enjoyment is subjective.

Why do you need to ask?  This is obvious.

But I don't find it useful at all in any discussion, because it's such an opinion-killer.

You don't find it useful because you're here to get a rise out of people.

Any arguement could be nullified by calling it subjective.

Give me a break.  I'll argue that 2 + 2 = 4, are going to call that subjective?

So I say, subjectivity aside, there are some universal aesthetic traits.

Great, you say this.  The proof?  Nonexistent.  Any reason why this might be the case?  Not listed.

That it's not entirely relative, and if a listener 'gets it', the music is irrefutably good.

Good means what, that I prefer it to other composers?  Tell me what's universally better about Mozart than Bach and Beethoven.

I also stand by my point that it's more mature to be able to enjoy Mozart than not to.

Cool, another point with no evidence to back it up.  I laid out an argument against it, you chose to ignore it.  Instead you keep repeating the same thing.

Please, go join the Republican party.  I hear they have openings for the logically impaired.

[arensky]

A lot of people like Britney Spears, there must be something enjoyable about it. 

I don't think it's the music......

Frankly I don't care if a lot of people listen to whatever happens to be the rage, and this whole discussion is making my opinion of Mozart take a dive.

Hey don't blame Mozart! He has arranged for Britney to fly away as the dragon in "The Magic Flute"; Tamino will take care of her!


]

[rc]

Why do you need to ask?  This is obvious.

Because there are all kinds of obvious things being missed. Looks like we're done talking like people and are now splitting hairs.

You don't find it useful because you're here to get a rise out of people.

You don't get it. I'll explain it to you when you're a little older

Give me a break.  I'll argue that 2 + 2 = 4, are going to call that subjective?

Please, enough with the tasty poop analogies, not my thing.

Great, you say this.  The proof?  Nonexistent.  Any reason why this might be the case?  Not listed.

Good means what, that I prefer it to other composers?  Tell me what's universally better about Mozart than Bach and Beethoven.

Here try this: "Music has a form and structure and historical relevence that is apparent to those who analyze it, and an aesthetic appeal to those who listen to it.  While there can certainly be rational, scientific discussion about how a certain piece of music is well constructed or historically important"

I won't spell it out for you, but why do you think all these structural, analytic things are so desirable in the first place?

Cool, another point with no evidence to back it up.  I laid out an argument against it, you chose to ignore it.  Instead you keep repeating the same thing.

Please, go join the Republican party.  I hear they have openings for the logically impaired.

...Republican? Where did that come from...

After two tries, you don't have to worry about me repeating it again.

Take 'er easy little fella

[arensky]

Give me a break.  I'll argue that 2 + 2 = 4, are going to call that subjective?

Good means what, that I prefer it to other composers?  Tell me what's universally better about Mozart than Bach and Beethoven.

What's subjective is "taste". Yes, 2+2 = 4, "but I don't like it." That is bogus.

And so for you who don't like that we have 2 x 2 = 4, or 3 + 1 =4. Or 1+1+1+1=4.

Different minds work in different ways. Mathematics are an absolute. 2x2=4. End of subject. Deal with it. Love it? Good for you! Sucks balls? Better enjoy, there's no way out.   .

Hate Mozart (1+2=3) ? Is it bad? NO. It just is. Do you like it ( yeah you Bearz) ? Bearz says "NO!" Does Bearz recognize the validity and importance of Mozart(1+2=3) ? Yes. Bearz is an intelligent and thinking member of society, and we need more of those!  And so for Bearz we have Beethoven (2+2=4) He likes this better, and that is fine, as long as he understands that Mozart ( **** it's that ******* (1+2=3) Mozart fool again! I hate that equation, I won't do it anymore!   ) is an important part of our world, and a a valid and irrefutable one.

RC really worries about his buddy Bearz, because he's missing out on the beauty and sublimity of Mozart (1+2=3), just like he did for so many years. Well RC, you can't do anything about that. He will come around or he won't. But he isn't tellling us we suck balls. And he certainly isn't immature, like Mozart !   Now I want you guys to shake hands have a beer and get over it. Arensky has arranged a night out on the town for you two with Helene Grimaud and Britney Spears! No fighting over who can't stand Britney! If you are immature enough (like me   ) you will find the esthetic beauty in ALL things...

BTW Mozart would have loved this; "eating feces", "sucking balls"....right up his alley, read his letters and his "scatological" song texts ! You boyz have done him proud!  

[rc]

lol!

You're right Arensky, look at what it's come to... math *shakes head*. There's no sense in getting our powdered wigs in a tizzy.

Bearz, there's no way out of it, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[bearzinthehood]

I don't think it's the music......

Hotzor 

[contrapunctus]

Different minds work in different ways. Mathematics are an absolute. 2x2=4. End of subject. Deal with it. Love it? Good for you! Sucks balls? Better enjoy, there's no way out.   .

In base three 2x2=11.


Have you people never heard about an opinion before? Guess not.

The greatest composer can only be determined by opinion since there are not set guidelines.
Same goes for the opposite.

[arensky]

In base three 2x2=11.


Have you people never heard about an opinion before? Guess not.

The greatest composer can only be determined by opinion since there are not set guidelines.
Same goes for the opposite.

Base three is just like base 10 if you're missing 7 fingers! 

Yes it is subjective BUT some composers are obviously better than others. And opinion is not the way to go in determining who is a better composer, and who is not. Many factors must be taken into account, stylistic differences, the composer's background and training, the venues the composer was writing for, the time frame and period of history the composer was writing in. These are only some of the things we must consider before forming an EDUCATED opinion about a composer's body of work. Of course you can shoot your mouth off like an ignoramus and say "I don't like that! It sux balls!" This path of intellectual discourse does not prove anything, or advance the intellects or curiosity of the participants. In other words, I"M SICK OF ALL THE IGNORANT SELF OPINIONATED BS!!! This is a PIANO FORUM, this is a SERIOUS PERFORMING ART and as long as we're here roasting our retinas we should expand our minds when we're not having fun and posting pics of turtles and cruisers and Helene and Britney .... :

Don't you agree? Aren't you sick of all the Glenn Gould bashing?......

[leahcim]

In base three 2x2=11.

11₃ = 4.

It depends what you're trying to say. 2x2 = 11 in base 3 (or better perhaps 2₃ x 2₃ = 11₃) is either saying exactly the same thing and thus doesn't negate the original statement at all. Or it's completely wrong because it might suggest that 2x2 is eleven, which of course it isn't.

[There are some who really get their knickers in a twist saying things like "in base pi, pi is 10" and conclude from that that it isn't irrational]

Have you people never heard about an opinion before? Guess not.

Someone's already mentioned Gould. I wasted a cup of a coffee and have a screen to clean now, but I haven't laughed so much for a while. Keep it up.