Mozart

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.

This is a very interesting semantical and philosophical point - something I'd never really considered before.

Still, there is evidence that Mozart laboured intensely on some of his work - I remember reading that he agonized over the six string quartets dedicated to Haydn and said so in his letters - so he was at least sometimes a composer in the sense referred to here.

I think it's risky to make a distinction between the mental processes that go into putting music down on paper and hammering a finished product out of it, and improvising a wonderfully wrought piece of music on the fly. Having done a small bit of improvisation in my time (and inasmuch as I write a good deal of my music as Mozart did) it seems to me that though the technique of improvisation manifests itself differently than composition does, the same creative synapses fire in both processes - only much faster in improvisation.

I think Horowitz said it pretty well.

"Mozart is number one for me."

I've always enjoyed Mozart's music more than most other classical composers. He and beethoven were the real masters of classical style. Haydn was a close third.

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

Nothing more dark and brooding than Mozart. I get depressed from the boredom and get temporomandibular syndrome from the yawning. ;) Excellent orchestrator, though!

Nothing more dark and brooding than Mozart. I get depressed from the boredom and get temporomandibular syndrome from the yawning.

LOL! I guess we all get our jollies in different ways. Personally, I'd rather listen to nothing but Mozart's complete catalogue 24/7 for a month than sit through a single hour of John Cage...nothing more dull and lifeless in all the world. Cage makes Mozart look like a nuclear war.

He and beethoven were the real masters of classical style.

I'm having a love affair of unaccustomed passion at the moment with Beethoven...well, his music anyway. I'm trying to write a piano trio (so far only in my head...too busy to write), so I'm studying his Opus 1 trios. Amazing...at 25, having only written two previous piano trios he never published, he completely re-invented the genre. I'm in awe.

Mozart was the best and will always be the best composer to have ever walked this earth. Enough said. :)

PS. He totally owns Beethoven in the face

Mozart was the best and will always be the best composer to have ever walked this earth. Enough said. :D

__________________

-William

Mozart is good, but Schubert is better! :)

Age: 14

Enough said.

Nothing more dark and brooding than Mozart. I get depressed from the boredom and get temporomandibular syndrome from the yawning. :) Excellent orchestrator, though!

Mozart is cool. I cannot understand why some people(not you) say that he really wasn't a composer. Just because it didn't take him as long to write a piece as it does the rest of us, means that he wasn't a composer?

Mozart was the best and will always be the best composer to have ever walked this earth. Enough said. :)

PS. He totally owns Beethoven in the face

You hit the nail on the head.

Mozart is cool.

He is indeed a great composer. And my dentist agrees with you. :thumbsup:

PS. He totally owns Beethoven in the face

Please justify this. If you're not willing to then my answer to you is something along these lines: fuc..err, bugger off. :D

Seriously though, they can't be compared - beety's is a very different kind of music, despite the shared aesthetic.. My subjective opinion is that Mozart is miles behind Beethoven as far as musicality is concerned. :thumbsup: (oh dear, another disputed term!!)

Mozart was the best and will always be the best composer to have ever walked this earth. Enough said. :thumbsup:

PS. He totally owns Beethoven in the face

T

It seems we have differences in temperament. Personally, I love Mozart's concertos. His symphonies are nice, but fairly similar to one another in my mind. I may be a tad biased, though, after having played four Mozart symphonies and the Magic Flute overture in two concerts.

I like the concertos because they are so incredibly joyous. Restrained? Yes. Boring? Perhaps so... but I am a lover of beauty within strict limitations. There is a certain formality in Mozart that I adore.

Of course, he's a bugger to play. And he's not as impressive a concerto writer as say, Bruch or Tchaikovsky - his music, if done well, sounds like the easiest thing in the world, when in fact the technique offers challenges comparable to the difficulty of the notes in the Romantic concertos. To me, that simplicity gives the music much of its charm. Unfortunately for Mozart, though, the Romantic concertos sound impressive even in the easy spots, and a large number of players (violinists, at least) ignore him completely. Which is unfortunate, because few other composers will improve a violinist's technique as rapidly.

Basically he has his merits, even if you don't like him. Heh.

Unfortunately for Mozart, though, the Romantic concertos sound impressive even in the easy spots, and a large number of players (violinists, at least) ignore him completely. Which is unfortunate, because few other composers will improve a violinist's technique as rapidly.

I love Mozart! And I'm a violinist. If I could make a living playing Mozart that'd be fine.

It seems we have differences in temperament. Personally, I love Mozart's concertos. His symphonies are nice, but fairly similar to one another in my mind. I may be a tad biased, though, after having played four Mozart symphonies and the Magic Flute overture in two concerts.

I like the concertos because they are so incredibly joyous. Restrained? Yes. Boring? Perhaps so... but I am a lover of beauty within strict limitations. There is a certain formality in Mozart that I adore.

Of course, he's a bugger to play. And he's not as impressive a concerto writer as say, Bruch or Tchaikovsky - his music, if done well, sounds like the easiest thing in the world, when in fact the technique offers challenges comparable to the difficulty of the notes in the Romantic concertos. To me, that simplicity gives the music much of its charm. Unfortunately for Mozart, though, the Romantic concertos sound impressive even in the easy spots, and a large number of players (violinists, at least) ignore him completely. Which is unfortunate, because few other composers will improve a violinist's technique as rapidly.

Basically he has his merits, even if you don't like him. Heh.

Reminds me of this quote:

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.

Mozart is good, but Schubert is better!

I'm flattered!

I'm flattered!

Quite, you!

Quite, you!

And, thank you!

And, thank you!

HAhahahaha. Enough spam.

Spam.

enough spam.

Mozart is indeed good at improvisation and contrapuntal. From his letters you could see that he could easily improvise a fugue by a given subject and play it instantly and he he usually improvises pieces on the keyboard as a kind of entertainment for people, either his friends, noblemen or such.

and i remember my clarinet teacher saying that he has already have his piece in mind, he just can't write it out fast enough.

and also, from a children's guide to classical music CD (naxos, music for kids or something), i remember the narrator saying that "Mozart's music is just ...right."

Yes, he is just ...right.

. . . and i remember my clarinet teacher saying that he has already have his piece in mind, he just can't write it out fast enough.

This is a myth probably started from Amadeus, (in the movie, he says the music is all in his "noodle," referring to Die Zauberfl

I agree with some of what you say, but he almost certainly could hold entire pieces note for note in his head, for a large deal of time. And also compose with another piece in his head etc. etc.

Overture to Don Giovanni is a great example of this.

We all know he had it already composed, and only wrote it out the night before the first performance in the space of 2 hours. (composed the overture last)

But he had had the overture composed in his head, before he even wrote the penultimate scene where Don Giovanni descends to hell, as evidenced by the music of that scene... and that scene was written considerably before the first performance.

for me, its almost impossible to "get tired" of mozart's music because it just never makes you uncomfortable. i would go listen to other composers' music once in a while, but in the end, i always go back to listening to mozart. i have to feel like it when i listen to other composers' music, but i can listen to mozart ANYTIME and still not get annoyed.

I agree with some of what you say, but he almost certainly could hold entire pieces note for note in his head, for a large deal of time. And also compose with another piece in his head etc. etc.

Overture to Don Giovanni is a great example of this.

We all know he had it already composed, and only wrote it out the night before the first performance in the space of 2 hours. (composed the overture last)

But he had had the overture composed in his head, before he even wrote the penultimate scene where Don Giovanni descends to hell, as evidenced by the music of that scene... and that scene was written considerably before the first performance.

Well, an ability to memorize whole pieces doesn't mean you have remember every note. Mozart was surrounded by music of a specific style his whole life and knew all the rules, common phrases, figurations, forms etc. Learning a "standard" classical sonata by heart isn't very hard, as you already know the form beforehand, including a rough harmonic overview, the common melodical phrases and the types of accompaniment (like Alberti bass, triplets, repeated chords). You don't have to remember each note, you just have to remember which "brick" comes where and where notable exceptions were.

Of course the late Mozart went quite a bit past this simple ordering of standard bricks, but it's where he (and probably most composers) first came from. (Just look at the piano pieces he wrote as a child. They are a nice catalogue of the most typical classical phrases strung together, sometimes a little awkwardly of course, but he was a kid after all.)

So yes, he might have "had a piece in his head", but that doesn't mean he had it note for note. He probably knew the motives, structures and any special ideas he might have had and then simply wrote them down applying the technical knowledge of classical composition he had to fill in the details.

I don't think it's possible to determine whether he had the overture of Don Giovanni in mind with all its notes beforehand, but he might have had in mind enough to be able to "craft" it very quickly when it was needed. (But as CreationArtist already mentioned, it's a myth that this kind of composing was typical for Mozart. It's known that he made drafts and sketches for his pieces, tried out stuff, discarded it again and worked on it. It's just that not many of his sketches still exist and that they weren't known at all for quite some time.)

Well it's not a myth. You missed what I was saying with this:

I don't think it's possible to determine whether he had the overture of Don Giovanni in mind with all its notes beforehand, but he might have had in mind enough to be able to "craft" it very quickly when it was needed.

See he wrote the penultimate scene in which the overture is recalled, dramatically, before he wrote the overture itself; therefore the overture must already have been composed in his head. We know that he only wrote out the overture the night before the first performance.

It makes sense if you know Don Giovanni.