Thoughts on W.A. Mozart?

[guiller]

INo.40 in G minor, as mentioned earlier ('net issues are preventing me from finding the post) , is a very forward thinking piece. Perhaps even more so than No.38.

Definitely, no question about that. I was just adding # 38 to the lot of the last three, because this is not what people usually do. Besides the clean, crisp articulation, the novelty of # 38 goes into the sonata form, as it has no slow movement really (an Andante instead of a traditional Adagio). Regarding the last three masterpieces, # 39 is a sort of Cinderella among the lost -but championed by titans like Erich Kleiber. The Finale of # 41 could be considered as the best symphonic movement written by Mozart and certainly one of the best ever.

 

[Infinitoid]

Infinitoid if you would hear the french horn played to its utmost I can recommend an Angel recording of the WAM four horn concerti by Denis Brain. Sadly he died in a car accident at the height of his powers, possibly one of the finest players of that instrument.

Sadly I don't have that recording so I usually make do with this one:

Barry Tuckwell, Neville Mariner, and the Academy do Mozart proud.

 

[merrylander]

Sadly I don't have that recording so I usually make do with this one:

Barry Tuckwell, Neville Mariner, and the Academy do Mozart proud.

Tuckwell is no slouch with the horn, Heinz Holigger is another fine player.

 

[guiller]

Heinz Holigger is another fine player.

I am confused by your comment: did you really mean the oboe player?

 

[merrylander]

I am confused by your comment: did you really mean the oboe player?

I am mis-remembering his name then, there is a family of horn players I thought are the holiger brothers. Ah, CRS went away Hermann Baumann is who I was trying to remember. Does he not also have one or more brothers who play?:scratch2:

Holigger disproved the old saw about the oboe - "The ill wind that nobody blows good."

 

[Infinitoid]

I totally agree with this sentiment. As for the popularity thing, it's like Telemann and Bach. A lot of people have never even heard of Telemann, most have heard of Bach, yet the former was more famous and well-liked in his lifetime.

Haydn is way up there on my list of favorite composers. In the end I'd probably even say I do like his music better than Mozart's.

This regarding popularity of Mozart vs. Haydn and my own observations based upon anecdotal conversations with credible musicians who have performed both that Haydn was more fun to play.

After listening to about 65 Haydn symphonies in the last few months I will say this: Haydn was probably much more daring than Mozart. Screech French horn is not Mozart. Beginning symphonies with persistent percussion is not Mozart. Haydn is, IMHO, more adept at development. In conclusion it is my considered opinion that Mozart was a melodist who could also write very nice symphonies. Haydn was a symphonist who often wrote very nice melodies. Some of which seem to sound much like Mahler.

YMMV.

 

[js1138]

My college music professor said you had to be 35 or 40 before you realized that Mozart was the greatest composer.

I can't remember that far back.

 

[Infinitoid]

My college music professor said you had to be 35 or 40 before you realized that Mozart was the greatest composer.

I can't remember that far back.

I'm 62 and still can't, won't, and will probably never accept it.

 

[davidro]

I'm 62 and still can't, won't, and will probably never accept it.

If my vague memory is correct Bruno Walter was one conductor who confessed to have come to appreciate Mozart at around or past your age

 

[GuyK]

...After listening to about 65 Haydn symphonies in the last few months I will say this: Haydn was probably much more daring than Mozart. Screech French horn is not Mozart. Beginning symphonies with persistent percussion is not Mozart. Haydn is, IMHO, more adept at development. In conclusion it is my considered opinion that Mozart was a melodist who could also write very nice symphonies. Haydn was a symphonist who often wrote very nice melodies. Some of which seem to sound much like Mahler...

Interesting hypothesis. Which symphonies by Haydn are you referring to? I would like to listen to them (if I have not already) that I may further my education. Also, since Haydn was Mahler's predecessor, could you mean that some of Mahler's works seem to sound like Haydn's?

If my vague memory is correct Bruno Walter was one conductor who confessed to have come to appreciate Mozart at around or past your age

Actually davidro, it appears Mr. Walter's appreciation started much earlier. From an essay he published in January, 1956:

"The thought of the imminent celebration of the bicentenary of Mozart's birth has brought home to me my obligation to acknowledge, for once in writing, the genius whom, as a musician, I have endeavored to serve all my life..." (italics are mine)

 

[davidro]

Actually davidro, it appears Mr. Walter's appreciation started much earlier. From an essay he published in January, 1956:

"The thought of the imminent celebration of the bicentenary of Mozart's birth has brought home to me my obligation to acknowledge, for once in writing, the genius whom, as a musician, I have endeavored to serve all my life..." (italics are mine)

Word.

I just vaguely recalled an interview where he was asked why he started to conduct Mozart more often in his late years. His answer was something like one gets to appreciate Mozart better as he gets older. I may be wrong.

 

[Mr. Lin]

This regarding popularity of Mozart vs. Haydn and my own observations based upon anecdotal conversations with credible musicians who have performed both that Haydn was more fun to play.

After listening to about 65 Haydn symphonies in the last few months I will say this: Haydn was probably much more daring than Mozart. Screech French horn is not Mozart. Beginning symphonies with persistent percussion is not Mozart. Haydn is, IMHO, more adept at development. In conclusion it is my considered opinion that Mozart was a melodist who could also write very nice symphonies. Haydn was a symphonist who often wrote very nice melodies. Some of which seem to sound much like Mahler.

YMMV.

Although I've said I ultimately prefer Haydn's music to Mozart's, I'm still convinced the latter was a musical genius, someone with natural abilities far exceeding those of the average person. This may seem like a somewhat contradictory statement, but it is just my opinion, after all.

My college music professor said you had to be 35 or 40 before you realized that Mozart was the greatest composer.

I can't remember that far back.

Lol! Well I'm 30 and I think J.S. Bach was the greatest composer - so maybe I'll grow out of it?

 

[Infinitoid]

I can't quote everybody so here's my take:

I appreciate Mozart and his music. His genius cannot be denied. That he was the greatest composer ever is IMHO doubtful.

I'll have to check on the numbers regarding the Haydn symphony that has prolonged and impressive high horn parts as well as the one that begins with tympani and bass drum. As far as Mahler is concerned I was casually listening last night and heard a trumpet call very much like the one that start M5.

I think all great composers are musical genii with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

 

[GuyK]

...I appreciate Mozart and his music. His genius cannot be denied. That he was the greatest composer ever is IMHO doubtful...

I think all great composers are musical genii with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

I completely concur with the above statements. The latter need not be explained. I think the former needs to be expanded slightly, as I believe there can be no single greatest composer. Whose definition of greatest? The great ones - the Bachs, the Haydns, the Mozarts, Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler, and a myriad others are beyond this type of categorization. Even among themselves there was no consensus. Often there was a certain respect among themselves, but just as often not. Time has told us, if not them, whose works will endure. Perhaps the greatest is yet to be ...

 

[merrylander]

The comments I got were that if you didn't have the melody you had boredom. Apparently Haydn had the foresight to keep the musicians awake by writing non-melodic parts in a way to keep the performers involved. Then again composers back then often weren't the orchestrators. They would compose, give indications of instrumentation, and fire the work off to copyists, who would often complete the score and parts minutes before the rehearsal/performance.

Music is as much about the performers as the performance. The audience is only half of the equation. Both must be satisfied. That's one thing Mahler did so well. Sorry for sneaking that in.

Indeed, much as I listen to the music, whenever I see Great Performances I take as much pleasure in watching the musicisns.

 

[62caddy]

Please permit me to pose a question.
I just got back from visiting with some out of town family, and am somewhat confused. At some point the discussion got around to music, and I learned my aunt is very fond of Beethoven, & my cousin of J.S.Bach. When I revealed my sentiment for Mozart, my cousin was incredulous. She says “... he has no emotion, and it took a fear or death for him to get some soul. Only with his Requiem did he …”. I don’t see this. Certainly, not all of Mozart’s compositions are very deep, but lacking in emotion and soul? So my question is this: is my cousins opinion common?

With all due respect to your cousin, she is either highly misinformed or equally unfamiliar with the majority of W. A. Mozart's colossal musical catalogue. Quite simply, there never was, is and probably will never be another composer that ranks with the likes of Mozart. That is not to say no other composer equalled Mozart in artistic musical quality, it is simply that no one single composer ever came close to to the sheer volume of work that tackled near as many forms ie: operas, concertos, symphonies, quartets, sonatas as did Mozart- with as high of percentage classified as masterpieces, as Mozart. Mozart's skill to communicate through music is unparalleled. Mozart had an incredibly acute understanding of humanity and all the dynamics and complexities that all play a role in the human condition. Examples are simply to numerous to count however I would cite Piano Concerto No. 21, 2nd movement as the single best reply to the utterly absurd statement that "Mozart's music lacks soul". In fact, the audience was moved to tears on the occasion of its premiere. Some of the most acute observations about humanity come across in arias from his operas that have ever been communicated musically. His music never ceases to be the subject of highly intellectual study and analysis from among the top musicologists all over the world. It has been said that the two highest IQs of all time were those of Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. To your cousin, if she has a genuine interest in learning more, I would suggest a good starting point would be to go to the library and rent a copy of Amadeus and then listen to the soundtrack separately. It will expose her to an excellent cross section of the music which is the genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

 

[GuyK]

With all due respect to your cousin, she is either highly misinformed or equally unfamiliar with the majority of W. A. Mozart's colossal musical catalogue. Quite simply, there never was, is and probably will never be another composer that ranks with the likes of Mozart. That is not to say no other composer equalled Mozart in artistic musical quality, it is simply that no one single composer ever came close to to the sheer volume of work that tackled near as many forms ie: operas, concertos, symphonies, quartets, sonatas as did Mozart- with as high of percentage classified as masterpieces, as Mozart. Mozart's skill to communicate through music is unparalleled. Mozart had an incredibly acute understanding of humanity and all the dynamics and complexities that all play a role in the human condition. Examples are simply to numerous to count however I would cite Piano Concerto No. 21, 2nd movement as the single best reply to the utterly absurd statement that "Mozart's music lacks soul". In fact, the audience was moved to tears on the occasion of its premiere. Some of the most acute observations about humanity come across in arias from his operas that have ever been communicated musically. His music never ceases to be the subject of highly intellectual study and analysis from among the top musicologists all over the world. It has been said that the two highest IQs of all time were those of Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. To your cousin, if she has a genuine interest in learning more, I would suggest a good starting point would be to go to the library and rent a copy of Amadeus and then listen to the soundtrack separately. It will expose her to an excellent cross section of the music which is the genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Slight further conversation has revealed my cousin to be largely unfamiliar with W.A.M., and to have listened to the soundtrack you mentioned. And while this person does enjoy music, it is not a large part of their life, so continued rigorous conversation along these lines is not worth pursuing.

I hesitantly submit that Schubert's catalog is at least as large as Mozart's, perhaps larger,though maybe not as varied, and he died even younger. J.S.Bach's catalog must have been even larger considering how much has been lost, and though it is considerably varied, much is not of a secular nature, as is W.A.M.

Yes, Mozart is considered a genius, and rightly so. However, I still cannot place him in league with I.Newton, C.F.Gauss, Einstein...

I am most certainly not trying to provoke argument, but am decidedly trying to promote intellectual discourse.

Thanks for all the replies everybody. It has been interesting (and fun) reading.

 

[Elfasto]

Well, I've listened to classical music for some time. Here's my 2¢:

Mozart has alot of emotion, but not a huge amount of depth. He's very easy to listen to, great for dinner music, playing quietly in the background as you entertain guests, read, do your chores, etc. I wouldn't say he's the Britney Spears of classical music (Britney is a talentless skank IMHO), but there are many other composers that have greater depth, content, and with critical listening, much more enjoyable.

But, Wolfgang will still be played alot on my system. I like his stuff.

 

[Infinitoid]

Even among themselves there was no consensus. Often there was a certain respect among themselves, but just as often not. Time has told us, if not them, whose works will endure. Perhaps the greatest is yet to be ...

From about 1825 onward music became a war game with competing camps vying for the "European Idol" trophy. Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, (Mahler was a Johnny come lately - though equally scorned) and scores of lesser wannabes (some of whom wrote very memorable music, just not a lot of it) were all aiming at the throne. Actually it wasn't them so much as their acolytes and followers who fanned the flames of controversy and yes, hatred. And by my being most emotionally and intellectually stimulated by the music of Gustav Mahler I keep hoping and praying that the next greatest will arrive before my demise.

 

[62caddy]

Well, I've listened to classical music for some time. Here's my 2¢:

Mozart has alot of emotion, but not a huge amount of depth. He's very easy to listen to, great for dinner music, playing quietly in the background as you entertain guests, read, do your chores, etc. I wouldn't say he's the Britney Spears of classical music (Britney is a talentless skank IMHO), but there are many other composers that have greater depth, content, and with critical listening, much more enjoyable.

But, Wolfgang will still be played alot on my system. I like his stuff.

I'm glad to hear you say you enjoy Mozart. However, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that Mozart's music lacks depth. I would add though, the line between "emotion" and "depth" can be difficult to ascertain, musically and this is where our individual perceptions enter which makes this a highly debatable point. Generally speaking, Mozart's music has a "flow" which may seem "trite" to some listeners. And I would agree that much of Mozart's music is suitable for background music (during dinner etc.) as I have done myself on such occasions. However, when we turn our attention to his operas, there is considerable "depth" IMHO. The great "Jupiter" Symphony No. 41 is incredibly complex and detailed and would never play such a piece over dinner. Nor would I ever think of using Don Giovanni as "background music". It would never work; the pieces demand attention. The Piano Concertos Nos. 9 and 27, the Great Mass in C-minor, the Symphonia Concertante K. 346 to name a few, are incredibly inspirational (to me) and are as worthy as anything in my library for critical listening. The greatness of such works could never be fully appreciated were they merely relegated to the task of filler between dialogue. Keep in mind I count Haydn, Vivaldi, Hummel, von Weber, Beethoven, Bach, Krommer, Handel, Mendelssohn, Bizet, Crusell, Schumann, Grieg, Strauss, Schubert, Chopin, Rossini, Donizetti and many others among my listening collection. I have been listening to classical music for 40 years, since I was six years old and honestly could never say that Mozart lacked "depth" on any level IMHO. But if you find more of what you're looking for in terms of "depth" from other composers, that's fair.