Mozart

Hello,

I personally love Mozart, and I can't think of any other composer I could listen to non-stop other than Handel.

But I do realize that I am in the minority.

So my question is: What does everybody think about Mozart?

Not a composer. A brilliant improviser and transcriber.

A true genius of improvisation. Excellent orchestrator. As much as i love his music, it all starts to sound the same after you've heard as much of it as i have.

As wrong as I may be, I now tend to see most people who listen almost exclusively to Mozart as immature. Because his music is mostly sweet and lighthearted, with a special kind of depth, extremely different from romantic or modern music.

As wrong as I may be, I now tend to see most people who listen almost exclusively to Mozart as immature. Because his music is mostly sweet and lighthearted, with a special kind of depth, extremely different from romantic or modern music.

I do not exclusively listen to Mozart. I currently have several cd's of Shostakovich and Beethoven, and Schubert, and a bunch of others.

I love Mozart, His melodic genius is unsurpassed. One of the main points about Mozart's music that sticks out is its very enjoyable to play. Playing his clarinet concerto is a joy (and difficult).

People mostly seem to like Mozart for his beautiful melodies.

I think though, that he is one of the greatest composers to have lived, more because of his mastery of large scale form and large scale harmony.

His melodies are usually beautiful, and sometimes really excellent (Beethoven is famously quoted as saying that the theme from the 24th piano concerto allegro could never be surpassed by him.), but it is the other things which make him a great composer. I've only mentioned form and melodies, but he was pretty much the best at every other aspect of composing.

Very true. He created a mass amount of large scale works from operas to symphonies (the first of which he wrote at 12). He's the sort of character that every composer envies. :P

Not a composer. A brilliant improviser and transcriber.

I'm probably being naive or ignorant in some way here, but could you explain why you claimed that Mozart was not a composer?

This may help... I don't know how though:

A composer is a person who writes music. The term refers particularly to someone who writes music in some type of musical notation, thus allowing others to perform the music. This distinguishes the composer from a musician who improvises or plays an instrument. However, a person may be called a composer without creating music in documentary form, since not all musical genres rely on written notation. In this context, the composer is the originator of the music, and usually its first performer. Later performers then repeat the musical composition they have heard.

The level of distinction between composers and other musicians also varies, which affects issues such as copyright and the deference given to individual interpretations of a particular piece of music. For example, in the development of classical music in Europe, the function of composing music initially had no greater importance than the function of performing music. The preservation of individual compositions received little attention, and musicians generally had no qualms about modifying compositions for performance. Over time, however, the written notation of the composer has come to be treated as strict instructions, from which performers should not deviate without good reason. This notion is often seen as a purist one.

The term "composer" is often used specifically to mean a composer in the Western tradition of classical music. In popular and folk music, the composer is typically called a songwriter (since the music generally takes the form of a song.)

..(Beethoven is famously quoted as saying that the theme from the 24th piano concerto allegro could never be surpassed by him.)...

Silly old Beety. Must 'ahve been on crack!

I'm probably being naive or ignorant in some way here, but could you explain why you claimed that Mozart was not a composer?

Composers have one common quality - the composition. This means the erasures, rewrites, edits, etc. Mozarts scores have none of these. Mozart was a genius for being able to notate exactly what he heard in his head without needing to work it out on paper. Therefore, Mozart never composed, because he never had to. I'm just distinguishing between "writing music" and "composing."

Beethoven's scores were often written out of order, or parts were erased and rewritten, or footnotes direct where a passage goes in the music.

Many stories exist of Mozart being able to play a symphony, song, aria, sonata, often in reduction, on the piano before it was even written. That is in improvisatory technique, not a compositional one. Sure, composers often engage in improvisation to build ideas. But it's rare that one is able to perfectly notate one's improvisations to the point that it becomes a stand-alone piece of music.

I see...that's interesting, thanks for the explanation.

However, are we able to rule out the possibility of erasures, edits etc. in Mozart's head, if not on paper? Perhaps he toiled over certain passages just as much as Beethoven, Liszt etc., but didn't do so on paper, rather within the confines of his imagination.

Of course, the fact that his memory had the capacity to hold such information is testament to his astonishing genius in itself, letalone the resulting music.

Mozart was a genius for being able to notate exactly what he heard in his head without needing to work it out on paper. Therefore, Mozart never composed, because he never had to. I'm just distinguishing between "writing music" and "composing."

This is a little bit of an exaggeration I think. My personal opinion is that while Mozart had an excellent memory and could certainly write music "like he was taking dictation" - the maturity of his later work compared to his earlier work bears witness to the fact that he "worked at it".

Also:

1) I recently veiwed a documenatary on Mozart where he describes, in a letter, a set of quartets that Haydn is to hear as "very difficult works" to compose. This sort of negates that everything was perfectly formed in his head.

2) I have in my hand K427 (C minor Mass) where, in the pre-score text, a brief history is given and a short section is given to the work's "sketches". In this, we find :

Although the extant sketches have not been included in our new edition, their existence is important. The following are known today (Kochel 3rd edition): Laudamus - 4 pages, Veste Kobrug, 12-stave, oblong format, 2 pages fillin; beginning with bar 131 and continuing 33 bars (Kochel, p.525). Cum Sancto - 2 pages (one sheet), Berlin Staatsbibliotheck, 12-stave, oblong format, 1 page filled in; included among 3 other sheets with 2 written pages, small oblong format, 10-stave, with contrapuntal exercises on this and other themes, and with the sketch of the theme for variations in B flat(Kochel, p526). The theme is slightly different from the final version, and the sketch was formerly K. Anh. 32a(now placed as K. 417a Anhang).....

Contrapuntal excersises on themes and sketches mean that prior to publishing a piece of music, he experimented and worked at it. Perhaps Beethoven was simply more lax in this area(saving his compositional discards), which is why he has the reputation of being a sweating compositional giant.

Edit: On topic. I listen to Mozart's music more than any other, especially the piano concertos, many of which I adore and can listen to again and again without getting bored. When I do get bored and move on, I come back to them later and enjoy them again, even though I'm aware of every note. Mozart certainly ranks up there as one of my favourite composers.

Yes, to me it seems a bit ignorant to say that Mozart's music came to him without any work at all. First of all, of course, he studied music intensly all throughout his life. He himself (supposedly) said,

People make a mistake who think my art has come easily to me. Nobody has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I. There is not a famous master whose music I have not studied over and over.

Even if he didn't actually say that, it's true that he incredibly hard on composition and studying music.

Second, as Paul said, Mozart didn't just notate what was in his head. He could come up with the ideas, like any composer (though perhaps a little bit more thoroughly :)) but would then have to work at them to get it right. Some of the times, though, for simpler pieces (like, say, piano pieces) he could probably have composed the whole piece in his head. Which is still composing, just in one's head :D. Of course, I'm not siting anything here, as I don't have the time, but if you were to read about Mozart I'm pretty sure you'd find I'm right....I hope :).

Finally....actually, I need to go, but I'll come back and give my views on Mozart's music when I return ;).

It's an incorrect myth that Mozart didn't correct his works. His early drafts have dozens of corrections on them. Either way, compsing and revising in your head doesn't mean you're not a composer, it means you have a good enough memory that you don't need paper to compose.

I don't like Mozart as much as some other composers because he seems to spend too little time on one melody, developing it, and too much time coming up with new material, which is less interesting. I also prefer polyphonic works like what Bach wrote over homophonic music.

Yes, that is perhaps his one flaw, that he has TOO much inspiration ;). Here's a famous quote relating to that:

Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath' date=' 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.[/quote']

I disagree, the way he developed themes was perfectly balanced. He didn't overuse them but made good use of them.

And to Nico, I don't think his music's nothing but an easy listen. He has as much depth as any romantic composer, perhaps more, but in a different way. That's where the Divine of him comes in.

Mozart was a genius for being able to notate exactly what he heard in his head without needing to work it out on paper. Therefore, Mozart never composed, because he never had to. I'm just distinguishing between "writing music" and "composing."

He still composed whether you like it or not. Whether it's a conscious process or not, which it still definitely is, the writing of that music has come from nowhere else but his own brain. His brain formulated such music.. he heard this music being played in his head. It is still composition. If you don't believe me, you're just jealous of his abilities.

I'm not particularly fond of his music outside of the operas and occasional stuff outside. Perhaps he would have tickled me more if he were his talent in another time period. The aesthetic of the classical period just doesn't mesh with me all that well.

to me i tihnk his music sounds very similar, the only exception being the requiem (WHICH I LOVE!!!) but i cant honestly listen to any of his other pieces, as 'M is D' said his muisc is all too often very lighthearted and joyous, i prefer dark and brooding, such as rachmaninov, stravinsky, prokofiev, etc

to me i tihnk his music sounds very similar, the only exception being the requiem (WHICH I LOVE!!!) but i cant honestly listen to any of his other pieces, as 'M is D' said his muisc is all too often very lighthearted and joyous, i prefer dark and brooding, such as rachmaninov, stravinsky, prokofiev, etc

Mozart could write some heart-wrenching melodies too. His music does use a lot of the same forms and such, but if took time to listen to a lot of his music you could really hear that all of his music is different.

He still composed whether you like it or not. Whether it's a conscious process or not, which it still definitely is, the writing of that music has come from nowhere else but his own brain. His brain formulated such music.. he heard this music being played in his head. It is still composition. If you don't believe me, you're just jealous of his abilities.

yea, i sort of am jealous of Mozart. How could you not? All his music is nice, but when it comes to the requiems, he is drop dead admazing. I have all his requiems on my ipod, and listen to them quite frequently. When it comes to full orchestras, I definetly like mahler and some others

yea, i sort of am jealous of Mozart. How could you not? All his music is nice, but when it comes to the requiems, he is drop dead admazing. I have all his requiems on my ipod, and listen to them quite frequently. When it comes to full orchestras, I definetly like mahler and some others

He only wrote ONE Requiem.

perhaps Kranz meant different recordings of the same requiem?

I think Mozart was one of the greatest composers that have or will ever live. But, I am not fond of all Mozart. Some symphonies, concerti and sonatas I absolutely love, and always touch me very deeply. Others seem very dull to me, and although they contain all the same elements as his greatest compositions, they seem to lack that spark, and to me, sound like they were composed on a whim - as if Mozart just kept going with the flow, finished the piece, and decided it was completed. Even in some of his pieces that I love, I feel that there are small sections that perhaps don't quite mesh, and are part of the 'going with the flow' composition process.. but hey, that's just me, who am I to tell Mozart what to do, right?

I don't find him to be the most revolutionary composer, I think Beethoven and Chopin wrote much more original ideas with genius melody and harmony (and with much variety too!)