The Greatest Symphony and the Greatest Violin Concerto

Ugh. Don't you get it?! In the classical period, there were a select group of composers who worked off each other's forms and what came before them! There was no such thing as "Sonata Form" and so forth in the 1700s; those terms were given by theorists many decades later. They all wrote what they thought was the "right way of doing things" and that was the classical sonata form. It took many years for someone like Beethoven to come and shake the trees a little and break away from it all. Mozart was not original, he was just working off of the music that came before him and the music around him. He was not an inovator, not impressive in his day (some would say not even today), and, in my book, not worth listening to with the same banal music over, and over, and over, and over again. It's nausiating, just like your constant defence of Mozart. Tell me honestly, have you ever listened to a Mahler Symphony, or even a Tchaikovsky symphony all the way through in one sitting? It's a true shame if you haven't.

Ah. I watched that Bernstein video and he's trying to Romanticize Mozart. It's awful. He's explaining stuff that Bach did long before Mozart ever did. I hear a lot that "circle of fifths" stuff in Bach's fugues and so forth, and Handel's chord progressions are based on the same principles as Mozart's Symphonies. It's all related. And unoriginal.

A musical form gives you (at best) a skeletal structure but the notes don't write themselves. The melody, the counterpoint, the chord progressions, transitions, etc.... and how they all tie together comes entirely from ones imagination. If this was all so simple and "automatic" then anyone could have written the first movement of the 40th symphony or the last movement of the 41st. The fact is, no one has. Haydn spent his remaining years trying and failing.

Cadences write themselves. The Vienna Classic period specially has a lot of stylistic rules that dictate what sort of suspensions should be used, how cadences and modulations should be approached and how to handle motive contrasts and such. There's also a big importance on balance and compensation. All these things together, plus the forms developed and copied and traditional progressions and chord usage leads you to, well, not a lot of options to be very "creative."

Nevermind that for orchestra there are set rules for orchestration and group handling specific to the Vienna classic. Those rules, in fact, also apply to the solo piano works for example. The change of registers in a section or use of different voicing and distribution are controlled by the form (new form section, different arrangement of voices, register, etc.)

Plus there's the good'ol Alberti bass figure and the fact that the whole lot of the Vienna classic harmony is entirely based on primary triads (T-S-D) and its very style dictates that harmonic clarity should be the objective of every modulation and cadence.

As for "counterpoint" it's very lame to bring counterpoint into the subject when talking about the majority of the work in the Vienna Classic period. If anything, it's a jump even further away from the polyphonic traditions of the late 18th century and a refinement of the Galant style. There's also no attention paid to baroque affects (save for some special instances by Mozart later on) and certainly the compositions were thought out in harmony rather than in melody (vertical rather than horizontal) as the melodies themselves are constructed based on harmonic parameters.

So really. It's pretty easy to just sum up the entire Vienna Classic into a set of rules and compose pretty much like Mozart or Haydn, which is why there are books about it and it's generally taught that way. Sure there's no replacement for actually studying the music itself, but if you go in informed it's only that much easier to see how it's all composed and how simple it is to copy it.

But haha, no matter what, the result is purely subjective. The only thing anyone can judge objectively is how accurate the style is to how it was back then, and that's it. And for that, there's plenty of books and analysis and etc etc etc to look at and really understand what's going on.

Eehh. Why do I bother.

A musical form gives you (at best) a skeletal structure but the notes don't write themselves. The melody, the counterpoint, the chord progressions, transitions, etc.... and how they all tie together comes entirely from ones imagination. If this was all so simple and "automatic" then anyone could have written the first movement of the 40th symphony or the last movement of the 41st. The fact is, no one has. Haydn spent his remaining years trying and failing.

Here, you are so incredibly full of "it".

Your bias is showing, and you are really committing a cardinal sin of musicology: letting personal preference overshadow an objective study.

Of course, as a musicologist, YOU would "fail", as Haydn's final works are widely reognized as masterpieces.

Ah. I watched that Bernstein video and he's trying to Romanticize Mozart. It's awful. He's explaining stuff that Bach did long before Mozart ever did. I hear a lot that "circle of fifths" stuff in Bach's fugues and so forth, and Handel's chord progressions are based on the same principles as Mozart's Symphonies. It's all related. And unoriginal.

You misunderstand Bernstein. The circle of fifths was a constraint, not an innovation. His point was that within that constraint Mozart did amazing things.

Ugh. Don't you get it?! In the classical period, there were a select group of composers who worked off each other's forms and what came before them! There was no such thing as "Sonata Form" and so forth in the 1700s; those terms were given by theorists many decades later. They all wrote what they thought was the "right way of doing things" and that was the classical sonata form. It took many years for someone like Beethoven to come and shake the trees a little and break away from it all. Mozart was not original, he was just working off of the music that came before him and the music around him. He was not an inovator, not impressive in his day (some would say not even today), and, in my book, not worth listening to with the same banal music over, and over, and over, and over again. It's nausiating, just like your constant defence of Mozart. Tell me honestly, have you ever listened to a Mahler Symphony, or even a Tchaikovsky symphony all the way through in one sitting? It's a true shame if you haven't.

You have no clue what you're talking about my friend. Bernstein has conducted all those composers and his opinion of Mozart is almost exactly the opposite of yours.

You have no clue what you're talking about my friend. Bernstein has conducted all those composers and his opinion of Mozart is almost exactly the opposite of yours.

actually, you know, there might be reason to believe that Bernstein isn't exactly the best source for infallible wisdom here. He wasn't a musicologist. He was a musical vulgariser. his job was making music understood by the hoi polloi.

What he did was not amazing! It's an old technique that flourished during the Baroque era. You need to stop being corrupted by Bernstein's over-romantizing of music. Call me a cynic, but not all music is as expansive in technique that he says. That's a real reason why I've come to hate Bernstein's characterization of composers.

actually, you know, there might be reason to believe that Bernstein isn't exactly the best source for infallible wisdom here. He wasn't a musicologist. He was a musical vulgariser. his job was making music understood by the hoi polloi.

Well said!!!! That's the most profound statement on this thread so far. Well done!

So really. It's pretty easy to just sum up the entire Vienna Classic into a set of rules and compose pretty much like Mozart or Haydn

Pretty much like? Are you kidding? Composing in the same style isnt the same as writing music of the same quality.

Listen to the Robert Levin completion of the Mozart Requiem.

Now you officially have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm not your friend.

Here, you are so incredibly full of "it".

Your bias is showing, and you are really committing a cardinal sin of musicology: letting personal preference overshadow an objective study.

Of course, as a musicologist, YOU would "fail", as Haydn's final works are widely reognized as masterpieces.

1) You're claiming that I'm biased simply because my opinion differs from yours (you've been doing this in multiple threads) despite the fact that I provide supporting information while you simply make broad claims.

2) You've ignored the fact that although, as you say, Haydn's final symphonies are widely recognized as "masterpieces," that Mozart's last symphonies are just as widely recognized as the greatest of the pre-beethoven era.

Let's try to stick to discussing music and keep ego out of it because every one of your posts to me so far have reeked of hurt ego.

Now you officially have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm not your friend.

Right. And 80% of the requiem was written by who?

What he did was not amazing! It's an old technique that flourished during the Baroque era. You need to stop being corrupted by Bernstein's over-romantizing of music. Call me a cynic, but not all music is as expansive in technique that he says. That's a real reason why I've come to hate Bernstein's characterization of composers.

What was an old technique? You're still confused.

Right. And 80% of the requiem was written by who?

Franz Xaver S

actually, you know, there might be reason to believe that Bernstein isn't exactly the best source for infallible wisdom here. He wasn't a musicologist. He was a musical vulgariser. his job was making music understood by the hoi polloi.

I agree that Bernstein had a vulgar streak but it mainly came from being one hell of an opportunist and too-slick salesman . Everything he said and did was to try and make himself look better. However, he was also an extraordinarily intelligent man, and his lectures at Harvard are renowned for their quality.

And I assume you liken yourself to Bernstein's intelegence then, do you?

Franz Xaver S

And I assume you liken yourself to Bernstein's intelegence then, do you?

Well if IQ tests are something to go (I can't say I have total faith in them) then I'd say he's pretty close.

Let's try to stick to discussing music and keep ego out of it because every one of your posts to me so far have reeked of hurt ego.

Ok. Now I am officially rolling on the floor laughing!!! :D :D :D

Ok. Now I am officially rolling on the floor laughing!!! :D :D :D

Another post about ego than about music.

Wiki has let you down again. Sussmayr did not write 80% of the requiem.

Prove it then. If you're so determined to disprove history.

And just to prove that I don't use Wikipedia only...

The Mozart Project: K. 626

Mozart

The Mozart Requiem

A history of the Mozart Requiem

Opus Ultimum: The Story of the Mozart Requiem - Daniel N. Leeson - from Leeson Books

etc. etc. etc.

Should I Google some more sites?

Another post about ego than about music.

Yes. A post about your ego.

Seraphim should just change his name to "thread locker" :/

This is ridiculous.

Where is this so called "objective" proof that Mozart was indeed the best composer in all-recorded history? I contend that Debussy was a far more original and interesting composer. Try to prove me wrong while being "objective".