The great thing about the music of Mozart is that not only is it often beautiful, but it is simultaneously logical - nothing is ever out of place, nothing ever jars, every note makes sense and belongs as part of a rational, coherent whole. And all this on top of his seemingly boundless creativity. This is why he is considered by so many as the epitome of the Classical composer.

J.F., you truly are a master of irony.

Daniel - Thanks...I think...but did you mean irony ?

If so, what's ironic in bringing the beautiful music of Mozart to the attention of the good people here at PW? This is a bafflement and you could be in danger of being labeled a master of obfuscation .

Or are you saying - indirectly and deviously - that you don't find his music beautiful? If so, this would certainly not reflect an advanced level of discriminating discernment in matters musical - or so some Mozartians would say

JF

Yes, J.F. and thanks for correcting my typo.

I really thought you were jesting. Come now, he was good, but not that good !

Jesting about Mozart? Never! No one jests about Mozart - we are all too awestruck. May the Almighty rip out my tongue if ever...




No, not that good - much better even! I'm afraid I did this phenominal genius a great disservice by grossly understating his incredible capabilities and achievements...

Before you incur the wrath of the more overzealous devotees of Mozart in residence here at PW perhaps a refresher course auditioning his wonderful music might be in order - there are over 600 possibilities...

JF

I'm on JF's side. Anyone here who's attempted to play Mozart and compared the amateur/student to a pro recording would know that Mozart's piano works appear at best "cute" to the uninitiated, sounds simple enough to the beginner, but is truly complicated and difficult to master.

Even the "beginner" Sonata in C is not as easy as you think! Try playing it as well as Mitsuko Uchida does... Mozart's music is just so near perfect that it takes near-perfect pianists to do it right.

"Gould called Mozart a bad composer (and devoted an entire radio show to proving it). He claimed to like only the early sonatas, condemning the rest as empty theatrical gestures The Glenn Gould Edition: Mozart and Haydnand cliches of self-parody." --Peter Gutmann on Glen Gould.

Haa Haa Haaa! You've gotta love Glenn. I do. While I don't actually agree with his views on Mozart, they certainly give me pause to reconsider my own view.

--Rich

Gould was far too eccentric and illogical to fully appreciate the intricate internal beauty/logic complex of Mozart - he was too interested in gimmicks to develope his interpretive skills to their highest level - isn't it just human nature then to condemn that which one can't understand/master?

You were wise to allow Gould's opinion of Mozart to give you pause - Gould finding him "lacking" is like the average weekend duffer finding Tiger Woods lacking (before the eruption of the infamous bimbo stories, that is)

JF

Ha! I knew you were very wise the moment I read the above.

And then you verified your wisdom by saying this: .

Does anyone remember the scene from The In-Laws (1979 movie) where the general/dictator is discussing his art collection?

I think Gould just like to cause trouble and stir people up. I'd be willing to bet in his heart of hearts he knew what a master Mozart was. How could anyone not?

For me there are a few composers that were as close to the God of music as possible without just dissolving into light. Bach, Mozart and Chopin.

J.F., You say it yourself in your opening statement: his music is often beautiful. When you compose 600 pieces, I should hope you get a few right; one could hardly say that makes you great.

His music is logical - nothing out of place, rational, coherent, whole. But never do you say its stirs profound emotions as so many other composers can and as great music should.

It is one thing to compose cute musir, however intricate and logical; it is another to compose great music, that leaves an indelible emotional inprint on the receptive listener.

I may be an ignoramus, but I don't find Mozart's music moving.

Peyton - you're a genius to make such an obvious and indisputable observation - Beethoven "thundered" like a god (often angry), but it was Mozart more than the others who achieved a near-divine state with his heavenly music - in fact, there are those who claim (not without reason or solid justification) that he was the god of music come to earth to show men the ultimate in musical enlightenment and creativity. I don't go quite that far, and yet...

JF

P.S. which Bach?

Daniel - but Mozart's great music has done all that, and for many millions of listeners, from all corners of the globe, for well over two centuries.

Of course, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion in these matters and I'll be in the frontlines of those defending your unalienable right to it - no matter how "misconcieved" or "ill-advised" it might be...

JF

I loathed Mozart for many years -- it was too orderly and pretty-sounding for my tastes. I used to quip that I loved classical music, just so long as it wasn't composed between eras of Bach & Bartok. From the time I was young, I loved Baroque music (I was a math geek), and found most 20-th century-ish musica interesting & amusing, but the stuff in between seemed either predictable & overly pretty (Mozart, Haydn), bombastic (Beethoven), or full of whiny drama-queens (Romantic).

Do note, these were the sentiments of my teen to 20-something self. I now find Mozart beautiful, like some Beethoven string quartets, and am beginning to make some inroads some inroads with the Romantics (still need conscious work on that one, tho ). But my main classical loves are still Baroque & 20th century music.

But when looking at all the music in the world, my true favorites are the products of traditional acoustic regional folk music culture, stuff which is relatively uncontaminated by what I call "the creeping sameness", the worldwide metastasizing of a certain ubiquitous predictable tonal structure and pop sound. What really lights my fire is music that uses tones and rhythms that make me sit up and think, "WTF was that?" I like how it expands my musical boundaries.

Anyone who hears Mozart only as "cute", "rational", "pretty" etc is listening to a performer who has not even started to explore the depths of Mozart's emotional soul. True, it is not Tchaikovsky and it is subtle but Mozart plumbed the depths of human emotion. Not all the time, I grant you. His ability to suddenly switch to a deep reflective melancholy in the midst of a joyous finale for example and then move seamlessly back to joy.
Mozart is pure feeling within a conventional wrapping of classical form. You need to unwrap him.

Mozart, of course, is more - much more - than his piano music. To hear the aforementioned "plumbing" one needs only to attend (or listen to the music from) his marvelous operas - this is superlative emotional stuff!



Well stated

JF

A recovering anti-Mozartian! For some with age and maturity comes much wisdom...

JF

Was Mozart a Great Composer? Sounds like the title of a doctoral thesis. Of course this has so many levels and variables that need to be touched upon. Obviously he was a musical genius. Don't think so? Try writing one piece of music that's good and people will be playing centuries from now. I agree a lot of his pieces sound similar, using similar themes and structure, but there are many that are so popular and well written that stand out above his many works that qualify him as great. He was adept at all forms, from solo piano to opera, something not found in Chopin or Liszt to name a few. Remember, he was writing mostly for the Kings of the day, and in the classical style. People today have been exposed to all styles of music, from early chants to Lady Gaga. Back then the only music his audience was familiar with was basically Baroque, and mostly heard in the churches and royal halls of the day. Plus music was a luxury that couldn't be enjoyed with the push of a play button. We can listen to music for hours a day anytime we want, not so back then. Classical was fairly new, and it would have been difficult to really push the envelope with his audiences. He still managed to create new and great works within this confined structure, remember, he had to make money this way, turning off patrons didn't pay the bills. I agree that his music generally is very upbeat, and lacks the passion and emotion of Beethoven, Chopin, Lizst, Brahams, et al that came after, but he was the beginning of all that. He elevated the classical form and showed some very early romantic undertones in his work. Perhaps he was too musically gifted, in that it seems like the music just flowed from his brain to paper. There is little strife or darkness to his music, little conflict with the whole process. I am sure his life wasn't all sunshine and roses, but the style of the day shaped his works to a good degree. Today we enjoy conflict and strife, and dynamics, back then, I'm not so sure. I would love to go back in time with a full Ipod of the great music that was written after his death and see his opinion of it and of course it would probably influence his future music. Many of the great composers that came after Mozart were working in a much different musical environment. Sure they had their commissions and patronage, but there was a growing market with the general public as well. Tastes were changing as well, and continued to do so to present day.

Sounds like the most obvious of all possible rhetorical questions, sort of like asking if the Pope is Catholic, or if Donald Trump wears a really lousey hairpiece...




Upbeat, of course, but lacking in passion and emotion? Obviously you've never listened to his opera music, or some of the most delightful and joyous music of any kind ever compsed: his Serenades and Divertimenti for small chamber orchesta.




Well, yes - but this is one of the sources of it's greatness - who the hell needs stife, angst, darkness and conflict? There's more than enough of that in the world - we don't need it in our art, and especially not in our music.

JF

Listen to Don Giovanni, or the C minor or D minor Piano Concertos. Beethoven found the D minor frightening.

I actually don't think he wears a hairpiece, it's just a terrible comb-over.




OK, I'll give you Opera, but since Opera involves so much more than just music, it's essentially the movies of the era, it is somewhat in its own category. Yes there are delightful, joyous works, but again, a lot of them come from the same mold, and have a robotic feel to them. Obviously this isn't the case for all his works, but on the whole...



So all art should be rainbows and kittens? "We don't need it in our art, especially our music?" Are you serious? Do you even like any of the arts? If this is how you feel about art then there is no point in having a discussion with you about any of the arts.

I am coming a bit late to this discussion, but I'd like to point out something: there are written records of people "swooning in the aisles" upon hearing Mozart play his music. I think this is something we should consider - why doesn't anyone swoon to his music anymore?

I woudl contend that is because so few are playing Mozart the way he would have played him. It tends to over-simplify, and while we can still glimpse the mastery of Mozart's compositional skills, we still lose the expression in the translation.

I'll probably get reamed for this, but listen to this recording and make note that I do not believe there are many notated (if any) rolled chords in the score:

http://instrumentgallery.keithhillharpsichords.com/downloads/Carl_Reineke--Mozart-Concerto__26_D.mp3

Now, before people go off the handle, it is a player piano recording, however I've heard player piano recordings and they certainly can play notes simultaneously. This was played this way on purpose.

"This is an extremely interesting and important performance of a reduction of Mozart's Coronation Concerto. The performer is CARL REINEKE. The recording is not even of a person playing!! It is a player piano!! This marvelous recording was made in 1905 and finally put on CD by the Welte Mignon Museum in Frieburg, Germany a few years ago.

Carl Reineke was born in 1824!!!!!! Three years before Beethoven died. His way of playing was very likely learned by the time he was 13 years old as he was a child prodigy and a mature pianist on a level with Liszt, Thalberg, and Clara Schumann. He was a lifelong personal friend of the Schumanns. So he knew exactly what he was doing when he recorded this piece at the Welte Factory on their recording Steinway (the same one restored and used on this recording). Interestingly, he left off a career as a concert pianist to conduct Gewandhous Orchestra and compose.

This recording is not merely an historical curiosity. It is one of the most communicative and musical performances in existance. Reineke sings through his instrument like a great artist singer...a way of playing that Bach was described as using by his great grand student, Griepenkerl." Keith Hill

Wow, there's a *lot* of darkness in many of Mozart's works, especially later. What about his Requiem? And you find it in his Sonata in A minor or the D minor Fantasy?

Well, I think "a lot of darkness" is somewhat of a of exaggeration, although the examples given above are good ones of the "darker" side of Mozart - but these are rare exceptions in the complete catalog of his over 600 works, and the exceptions prove the rule: that the vast majority of his compositions are filled with creative inventiveness, feel-good emotion and non-contradictory internal logic - in a word, the very essence of great art at the highest level.

JF

I spoke mainly about his later pieces. I do listen a lot to his operas, too, and they are evenly balanced between happier and darker emotions. To state that it's all one or the other I think is too simplistic. And one can be creative and inventive with darker emotions. What amazes me most about Mozart is how very difficult his music is to play, an dhow very chromatic it is, while remaining tonal. He never repeats anything the same way twice, there's always a change the 2nd time around! A true master of composition, indeed!

Say what? Are you serious?

Because I prefer art to be joyous and inspiring and uplifting and delightful and positive this is a sure sign that I don't like art, and there's no point in discussing it futher?

Huh? If I don't agree with you then you won't talk to me anymore about art? I don't think Mozart would approve of your opinion of his music or your general approach to a mature, rational discussion of the arts

JF

Trump's problem is not with his hair, it's with the head under the hair.

The Reinecke Mozart recording was the subject of a fierce debate in the Pianist Corner forum a while back. I think it ended up being locked because of the level of vitriol.

Gee, imagine Mozart's "rainbows and kittens" inspiring otherwise rational people to go for each others' throats.

That's possible, I don't recall (that happens a lot on PC anyways :D). However, when I play Mozart in that particular fashion, people who don't 'know any better' enjoy it more than when I play it straight. Take that as you will...there's definitely no swooning going on these days.

I try not to swoon; otherwise I'll hit my head on the coffee table again.

LOL! Swooning is best done while reclining or within falling distance of a fainting couch:

Say what? Are you serious?



I think having a discussion with someone as closed minded and ignorant as yourself is pointless. Your statement

"Well, yes - but this is one of the sources of it's greatness - who the hell needs stife, angst, darkness and conflict? There's more than enough of that in the world - we don't need it in our art, and especially not in our music."

is ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, who are you to decide what WE need in our art and music? So we should just cut out all the works that don't fit into your happy little world? Art is a physical expression of the human condition and the world around us, this includes all emotions and states. Some of the greatest works throughout history were inspired by emotions other than happiness. Should we smash Michelangelo's Pieta? Burn Goya's "The Third of May, 1808", ban a good portion of Beethoven's works? The opening movement of his Moonlight Sonata is one of the most stirring things ever written. It's certainly not happy and upbeat, but I guess you wouldn't know since you don't listen to it. I think you have it backwards now that I think about it, the world doesn't need stife, angst, darkness and conflict, but art definitely does.

I think once the Sturm und Drang movement had subsided, composers became more interested in expressing the sentiments of the Enlightenment. Outside of opera, then, strife and darkness were replaced by repose, humor, and elegance. Voltaire and Beaumarchais instead of Schiller.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Now, this Statement is pretty dark and ladden with a fair amount of conflict (sort of like the kind of art you prefer) - and not very cordial or pleasant at all - in fact, some would say it's downright unproductive, and maybe even somewhat contentious. And the world (or PW for that matter) doesn't need this either

If you're right and I am close-minded and ignorant, then why are you engaging in a pointless discussion with me? (Be careful how you answer this - the moderator is lurking, just waiting for any excuse at all to shut down what had been a really enjoyable thread up to this point).




But, if the world doesn't need it, then why does art need it? If art can be good and joyous and inspiring without it why instill all that negativity into art at all? Ha! I dare you to answer this one

JF

I do think some strife makes the peace all the more appreciable. And Mozart is not all flowers and bunnies, either. Take a listen to Sonata K 332 at 0:30 he's already in a very dark and fiery theme. He weaves in and out seamlessly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmv9u9aULGo

No one is telling anyone what to like (right?), but if one makes a statement and then is given numerous examples showing that it's not necessarily as the person originally said, then one has to at least concede that point. It's OK not to like something, but to do so based on assumptions or skewing the facts is not really being honest.

Bach or Mozart.......It's all matter of taste of course.......but I agree with Tangleweeds.......indeed Mozart/Haydn......predictable and artificial pretty...

Best regards,

Johan B

Tangleweeds was writing in the past tense, however.

I see you ignored the main point I was trying to make as well as the examples in my post so you could play the victim. I couldn't care less if the moderator is lurking. I stand by what I wrote about you deciding what WE don't need in our art/music.

In regards to your last question, no the world doesn't NEED all that conflict, strife, anger etc, but to communicate human emotions and feelings art does. You've never been angry, or had your heart broken, lost a relative, or had a fight with someone? Ever hear Mozart's Masonic Funeral Music K. 477? This is one of my favorite Mozart pieces partly because it goes against his typical style and conveys the sadness typical of a funeral. I wish more of his works conveyed emotions and feelings such as that piece. I am not a Mozart hater, I enjoy many of his works, and my original post actually defended why I think a lot of his work is upbeat and similar in structure. You are the one who said "who the hell needs stife, angst, darkness and conflict? There's more than enough of that in the world - we don't need it in our art, and especially not in our music."

You mean like couples who deliberately fight just to enjoy the pleasures of making up?




Are you referring to some "one" in particular, or to any "one" in general?

JF

You wish more of his works conveyed the dreary, morbid and utterly sad emotions of a Funeral Dirge or March? Really? Now, that is sad. You should try to lighten up and cheer up. What the world needs is more funeral music like they play in New Orleans with the marching brass band playing a spirited version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" giving their loved one a rousing sendoff to that great "sweet by and by" in the sky!

JF

Hate to sound like the ignorant naysayer but a lot of Mozart's more popular stuff, and some of his less popular stuff, sounds like toy music to me and I don't really like it that much. This could just be conditioning from television and movies though, I guess.

However, the pieces you posted are fine.

I don't know if it's that you don't read my posts, or what, but I cleary said I wish more of his pieces showed more emotion and feeling such as K. 477. I doubt you have even heard it, because it is beautifully sad and poignant, not morbid and dreary. I also think it's funny that you think I need to lighten up and cheer up. You don't even know me. You are basing it on the fact that I appreciate a piece of music which you probably haven't even heard.

It's never helpful or encouraging when one sounds like that - but I understand - I get that way when I talk about our present administration and Congress in Washington However, one should never, ever say "nay" to Mozart's music, as this could be taken by some cynics as proof of your own assessment of the type or quality of your particular naysaying - and as far as TV/movie "conditioning" goes we all suffer from that moronic and hazardous influence to one degree or another, much to the detriment of our brain's proper functioning




Thanks - I thought so too - but the great thing is that there were numerous others (not quite an inexhaustible supply) to choose from.

JF

Of course it's all a matter of taste , but then there's good taste and there's not-so-good taste (a characteristic which some people, present company excepted, are all too eager to put on display)...and while it's certainly predictable that the vast majority of Mozart's works are highly creative and joyously uplifting and throughly listenable, I defy anyone to define the concept of "artificial prettiness' in any way that makes any rational sense at all...

JF

Ha! there's nothing more satisfying (or egotistical and arrogant ) than quoting oneself.

The reference above to some of Mozart's most delightful, joyous and listenable music that can be found in his wonderful Divertimenti and Serenades for small chamber orchestras (of various formations) inspired me to compile an abbreviated "listen-list" for those new to his great music (or those who are familiar with his piano and violin Concerti, the Symphonies, the piano Sonatas, etc., but who have never heard these marvelous works).

Check out these on CD by some world-class musical ensembles such as The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, The Academy of Ancient Music, The Academy of St. Martin-In-The-Fields, etc.

1. Divertimento in D, K.251 (highly recommended as a starting point)

2. Serenade in D, K.239 "Serenata Notturna"

3. Divertimento in F, K.248

4. Serenade in D, K.250 "Haffner"

5. Divertimento in B flat, K.361 "Gran Partita"

6. Serenade in D, K.320 "Posthorn"

7. Divertimento in D, K.247

8. Divertimento in D, K.205


Enjoy!

JF

And how could I forget probably the most well-known work in this category (although not necessarily the best):

9. Serenade in G, K.525 "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik"

JF

Here's another piece in this category that I forgot about that is well worth checking out:

10. Serenade in D, K.185 "Antretter"

JF

And for a wonderful introduction to Mozart's gorgeous opera music you can't beat one of my favorite CDs from one of the best sopranos ever:

Kiri Te Kanawa - Mozart Opera Arias

JF

And here's an outstanding 6 CD collection of the wonderful Divertimentos (very reasonably priced):

The Complete Mozart Divertimentos

JF

Hehe, this is fun .

This is a very subjective argument folks! Ofc, its still an interesting argument. That said, for me some of Mozart's songs are out of the world, including some of his concertos. But on a whole, I like Beethoven better, maybe because his music is a little more simpler to my ears. Maybe as I grow up (muscially), I'll start to appreciate Mozart, Bach and Chopin better.

But I've one question to JF. Lol, why pull Pachelbel? :P. Poor chap. Why cant they both be beautiful. Canon is THE MOST beautiful song for me. But again its very subjective.

@JF: Very nice phrasings everywhere . Loved reading ur comments .

Hi JF,
I just fell into this tread, and enjoyed your comments about Mozart What is the name of the Mozart work on your first post. Also, I do have to agree with Mohan, the Canon is a beautiful piece.
Dot

Isn't it interesting how we all have a tendency to "read into something" we hear or read what isn't really "in there" (even if we assume that it's implied) - if you'll notice I never said (or implied) that Pachelbel's "Canon" wasn't gorgeous or beautiful (I assure you that I think it is) - the title of this topic simply implied that in addition to Pachelbel there were the many beautiful works of Mozart - which, now that I think about it again, in totality far outweigh in significance or creative genius the "one-hit-wonder" that was Pachelbel.

JF

Thanks guys - me too

JF

If you mean the first one it's the 2nd movement from the Piano Concerto No.14 in Eb Major.

JF

In all fairness Johann Pachelbel (1653-1706) was much, much more than a "one-hit-wonder" - he was very popular in his own time and his music was widely played and critically acclaimed and consists of numerous instrumetal and vocal pieces in a number of different forms. In fact, the good old boy was rather prolific. Here's a "short" list:

Pachelbel's works

JF

I find it very interesting that - as of right now - there have been 2,323 hits on this thread - pleae feel free to provide any feedback you wish on any of the Mozart pieces I've recommended. Thanks.

JF

First mozart had to convince me as well, I mean he has SO MANY piano concerto's and symphonies, its hard to believe they could ever be worth very much. But after learning more of his music, just last monday I went to the KV219 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D6THFeEVJQ&feature=related its just breathtakingly beautiful and full of emotion, nothing artificial about it.

Listen @ 4:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrtVWKU7d5U

I loved it

But, why would one assume this? Quantity and quality are not necessarily mutually exclusive - especially when dealing with creative genius. In fact, it's one of it's defining characteristics, e.g., Shakespeare or Bach or Dickens or Rogers & Hammerstein.

Hence, Mozart and the amazing quality of the incredible quantity of his output.

JF

Noooooooo, DOWN with Pachelbel! I had to play that freaking canon 5 thousand billion times when I was in my school orchestra. In fact, it was instrumental in my decision to quit the said orchestra because we played it waaay too much. And I was a violinist, not a cellist. If I played cello, I would probably have skipped all the rehearsals and put a recording on my chair playing the same stupid eight notes over, and over, and over again.

My vote is Mozart: 1, Pachelbel -1000. Mozart is a pretty awesome composer. Because he started composing at such an early age, there are things of his you can play at all levels (it's probably how this "kids piano recital" image of his came about). There are great emotional depths that you can reach while playing his music too. For example, I recently learned his sonata in c minor (K457). The first movement is very strong and stately, the second is elegant and dreamy, and the third is frantic and dramatic. I definitely wouldn't describe it as cutesy music for kids.

chopin can kick mozart's ass anytime he want. : |

Pachelbel is an amazing composer and most definitely not a one hit wonder! he's the master of the organ. The chaconne in f minor is monumental.

John William's is more like a one hit wonder; after Shindler's List everything sounded like Dvorak! hahahaha i'm only joking.

Pun intended?

JF

While not a true statement, a more grammatical way to say this is: Anytime he wants to do it Chopin can kick Mozart's ass.

Of course, since they are both long since deceased any speculation about their relative abilities with regard to pugilistic endeavors is purely academic and hypothetical - but note that Chopin was constantly "whipped" by what's her name, George something-or-other .

JF

Here's a great Christmas present for the music lover on your list (which may be you) - a 170 CD Boxed Set!:

Mozart - The Complete Works

JF

I'd say there are 41 symphonies, 27 piano concerto's, 5 violin concerto's, 4 horn concerto's, 7 woodwind concerto's, 18 piano sonata's, 36 violin sonata's, 23 string quartet's, 6 string quintet's, 18 masses, 17 church sonata's and 23 opera's that would speak against that. And these are very successful works! There has never been (and probably will never be) a more successful composer on all fronts of music. Surely not to be compared by 4 ballade's, 27 etude's, 4 impromptu's, 49 mazurka's, 18 nocturne's, 15 polonaise's, 27 prelude's, 3 sonata's and 17 songs. Not that I want to start a whole composer war, but imo, if you take away the piano works of Chopin, what do you have left? I think alot of people on this PIANO forum are biased towards Chopin, because he wrote an amazing amound of very beautiful piano works. But in the grand scheme of things, you won't find many orchestra's perform Chopin, you won't find him in Opera, his songs aren't popular, and his works for other instruments than piano aren't popular either. I'm going to run away now....

Sounds like as good a reason as any to be biased in favor of a composer - but then again he did have for creative inspiration the love of his life, what was her name, George Sand? Or was it George Elliot? Why do I always get those two women confued?

JF

It was George Sand!!!

Yes, of course, George Sand. I knew that.

George Elliot was the pen name of the English novelist Mary Anne Evans ("Middlemarch", "Silas Marner", "The Mill on the Floss", etc.), who was Sand's contempoary.

This is just a small part of what Wikipdeia has to say about Sand (real name: Amantine Aurore Lucile Dupin) and Chopin:

...Sand conducted affairs of varying duration with Jules Sandeau (1831), Prosper Mérimée, Alfred de Musset (summer 1833 – March 1835), Louis-Chrystosome Michel, Pierre-François Bocage, Félicien Mallefille and Frédéric Chopin (1837–47 ). Later in life, she corresponded with Gustave Flaubert. Despite their obvious differences in temperament and aesthetic preference, they eventually became close friends.

She was engaged in an intimate friendship with actress Marie Dorval, which led to widespread but unconfirmed rumors of a lesbian affair.[6] Letters written by Sand to Dorval mentioned things like "wanting you either in your dressing room or in your bed."

In Majorca one can still visit the (then abandoned) Carthusian monastery of Valldemossa, where she spent the winter of 1838–39 with Chopin and her children. This trip to Majorca was described by her in Un Hiver à Majorque (A Winter in Majorca), published in 1855. Chopin was already ill with incipient tuberculosis (or, as has recently been suggested, cystic fibrosis) at the beginning of their relationship, and spending a winter in Majorca - where Sand and Chopin did not realize that winter was a time of rain and cold, and where they could not get proper lodgings - exacerbated his symptoms.

Sand was the author of almost 40 novels and 8 plays, which is a remarkable artistic output given the apparent time and energy she invested in affairs (so to speak) of the heart

JF

For your edification, reading pleasure, personal enrichment, musical enhancement and intellectual enlightenment:

Mozart Biographies at Amazon

JF

Tangleweeds: I'm in sort of the same position as you; the math geek loved the logic in J.S. Bach (didn't hear much from the others till adulthood), and the seeker in me responded to the unusual 20th C. stuff. However, the part of me that likes rock & roll (after the discovery of overdriven amps, anyway) also likes later romantic works.
With Mozart, I usually listen, even though with e.g. Haydn I change the program. I can only think that this is because Mozart's inner logic is strong enough to compel me.
Haydn is for me like Elton John: I can certainly appreciate the craft, but it doesn't quite emotionally connect.

Elton John's Levon and Border Song are amazing imo.

Be sure to check out Haydn's XVI 34 Hoboken Piano Sonata!!

I'm coming in late (WAY late!) here, but can't help but agree that music enjoyment is a matter of taste. Personally, I won't go to a movie that isn't fun, as I have enough strife in my life already I don't want to share anyone else's even if it is "only a movie." Different strokes and different times; what is ho-hum now was likely completely shocking (hence the swooning!) and new when it was written.

However, since the thread references Pachelbel, and Frozenicicles related his orchestral "Canon" story, I thought this might inject a lighter note into the post. Have you viewed Rob Paravonian's "Pachelbel Rant"?

There is much "inner logic" in the works of Haydn - and much enjoyable musical creativity of the highest order - to a large extent he was the inspiration for Mozart, his 'musical father" as it were - overall Haydn's output was prodgious and masterful, especially the later symphonies. Listen at length and in depth - you will be surprised and delighted.

JF

Thanks for bringing this back Jeanie - we've seen this at least several times here, but it's always welcome and amusing!

JF

Well stated!

JF

The initial premise of this thread might be a little tongue in cheek, nevertheless evaluating a composer on the basis of one short popular piece is silly. It's like saying Eine kleine Nachtmusik IS Mozart, the theme from the final movement of Beethoven's 9th IS Beethoven, Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No 1 IS Elgar.

I would guess that very few, if any, contributors to this thread have heard any Pachelbel apart from the Canon (and that piece is often heard in bastardized arrangements anyway).

Not at all - the tongue was firmly planted between the molars and the canines, I assure you...

JF

Earlier in this thread (a few pages and months ago) I recommended the Divertimento in D Major, K.251 as an excellent starting point for an at length and in depth immersion into the delightful realm of Mozart's somewhat lighter and more throughly listenable "chamber" pieces variously termed Divertimenti and Serenades .

This work was composed in July, 1776 (at the time of the greatest political event in world history) as a private entertainment piece for the celebration of his sister Nannerl's (Maria Anna, 1751-1829) name-day.

The Divertimento, K.251 (aka Divertimento No. 11) was composed for an ensemble of 2 violins, viola, double-bass, oboe and 2 horns (french) - although it is often performed by larger chamber orchestras.

It consists of the following 6 movements, being in structure more of a "suite" than any other classical form:

1. Molto allegro
2. Menuetto-Trio
3. Andantino
4. Menuetto (Tema con Variazioni I-III)
5. Rondo. Allegro assai
6. Marcia alla francese

The work is roughly 25 minutes in length and is as completely Mozartian and as immensely enjoyable as one would expect ot could hope for.

There are many fine recordings of this available. Here is one from the outstanding Orpheus Chamber Orchestra :


Serenades and Divertimenti

JF

What to suggest to the person who is always complaining that you're hard to buy for and they never know what to get you for Christmas (the price - even used -would seem somewhat prohibitive, but it's really so very little for so very much...or so you can say...)

Mozart: Complete Works

JF

I just bought Mozart: The Piano Concertos for myself.

Excellent choice MaryBee - you'll love it!

JF

P.S. a notable milestone has been reached with this thread with the 5,555th hit as of now.

You will also fully enjoy this 2 disc set from the world famous Academy of Ancient Music, known for playing on "authentic period instruments" - a very unique and delightful sound indeed:

Mozart - The Violin Concertos

JF

Mozart>>>>>>>>>>>>

my favorite composer of all time above beethoven and all of them

The fact that even after 200+ years from his lifetime, people still talk about his music (e.g., this thread), and of course still perform it, speaks for itself.

Your love of and devotion to Wolfgang is readily apparent - you actually capitalized his name!

JF

Yes, but some of us like to reiterate that to which itself speaks

JF

For your edification, encouragement, enlightenment and enrichment:

Mozart Biographies

Just listened to the "Posthorn" Serenade (K. 320) for the first time in awhile - this is on an early CD recorded in 1981 - it features the outstanding orchestra of the Academy of St. Martin-In-The-Fields under the direction of the distinguished conductor Neville Marriner.

This is a excellent rendition of this wonderful light-hearted and thoroughly entertaining and listenable Serenade, which consists of eight relatively short movements totaling just over 43 minutes.

I recommend it heartily for your listening, dining and - if you're creative - dancing pleasure

JF

I agree!
but [i]"Every difficulty slurred over will be a ghost to disturb your repose later on. Frederic Chopin"[/i]
means I'm in real trouble!!!

chrisbi - glad you agree -but no slurring allowed!

JF

Ha - yet another milestone for the thread - now over 8k hits!

So many tuning in to find out who and/or what is more gorgeous than old Pachelbel (or maybe who and/or what Pachelbel is/was in the first place ).

I can only imagine the extent and intensity of the collective delight when "who and/or what" is discovered...

JF

I'm late to this thread and maybe feeling like a bit of a rube, but my whole life I have thoroughly enjoyed the sparser, cheerful Mozart arrangements referred to by some posters as artificial or 'toy' music. Those more simple melodious works have to be crafted so perfectly to sound the way they do, and I both love the sound AND the compositional skill behind them. Spare is, in many ways, a very much more demanding type of score to master than a more rollicking or fierce piece.


So add me to the throng of Mozart fans. His music, performed well, makes my heart happy

Brilliantly stated AM You're obviously a person of the highest possible artistic standards, and your taste in music is impeccable!



Mine too - and makes my stomach growl (although that could be something else)

JF

Hey JF,
Thought you might be interested to see this:
autograph of Mozart's Minuet in G
Didn't you play this for one of the ABF recitals? And aren't you glad we have modern printed scores to work from now?

MaryBee - thanks very much! Fascinating to see that score - he was 5 years old when he composed this!

Yes, I did play it, but I think it was for one of the Piano Bars.

JF

Here's a Fun Mozart Fact - and this one recently surprised me.

Did you know that his official name is:

Johannes Christian Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart ?

Note that Wolfgang is his third given neme and that the often used name Amadeus is not included.

Amadeus is Latin (I believe) and means "loved of God", which is what Gottlieb (German) means. Mozart never used this name during his lifetime - it was added later by admirers and gradually became universally adopted.

JF

I didn't know that! What a fun factoid to bring up to a music lover sometime, if I have the opportunity.

You mean just like I did...


Here's another one: Mozart composed his first symphony (K.16) at the age of eight!

This was influenced by the work of a composer he admired greatly - Johann Christian (J.C.) Bach, the 11th son of J.S. Bach. J.C. was living in London then and was working under the auspices of King George III (who you might remember was soon to have some difficulty with his colonists in America ).

JF

Yet another FMF:

Mozart was not only a keyboard (harpsicord - the piano was fairly new at that time) prodigy but also a violin prodigy - at the age of 6 he was playing this instrument in the performance of string trios and quartets with highly accomplished and experienced adults.

JF

Even more FMF:

Mozart composed many of his works - even the larger ones like symphonies and concerti - in his head, and only later "copied them out" on paper - and when he did so he wrote out the individual instrumental parts separately before putting them together as a complete score - for this unique and "other-worldly" ability he was simultaneously credited with having divine inspiration and charged with being under the influence of the devil.

JF

Still more FMF:

Contrary to the play/movie "Amedeus" (which got a lot of things about Wolfy wrong) Mozart did not die (in 1791 at the age of 35) from poisoning at the hands of Antonio Salieri - it was more than likely a chronic subdural hematoma (slow leakage of blood into the space between the skull and the brain) complicated by a return of rheumatic fever (he had suffered from several bouts of this before) in combination with the medical proceedure that killed many more people than it ever saved - blood letting.

JF

And yet more FMFs:

Franz Joseph Haydn ("The Father of Classical Music") was the one composer living at the time whom Mozart greatly admired - even idolized. They eventually became good friends and played together several times in performances of both Haydn's and Mozart's String Quartets - in fact, Mozart dedicated 6 of his S.Q.s to Haydn, which are appropriately named "The Haydn Quartets". Haydn proclaimed Mozart the greatest of all composers, which to Mozart was the greatest possible compliment.

JF

For those of you who enjoy the violin - especially in the format of the orchestral concerto - here is one of the best collections of Mozart's Violin Concerti, performed by the world renowned Academy of Ancient Music on authentic period instruments in an historically accurate style:

Mozart Violin Concerti

Enjoy, TJ

TJ, you got me for a minute... I was wondering, who does this TrapperJohn guy think he is, taking over JF's thread?!

BTW, I love Mozart's violin concertos. I have a CD set with Itzhak Perlman on violin and James Levine conducting. It is breathtaking.

MaryBee - I appreciate your concern, but it's OK - I gave him permission to "oversee" the thread - but he's on strict probation and will be watched closely for his civility and congeniality - and for his advanced degree of adoration of Mozart

And still yet more FMFs:

It seems Wolfy was very fond of crude, graphic, bawdy, gutter-style, bathroom humor, which permeates many of his personal letters to friend and relatives - we can easily overlook this because of his unmatched genius - the same bad behavior from other mere mortals cannot be so easily tolerated - especially on public internet Forums!

Trap

Rising...

Coincidentally, as this thread was bumped, I just read a nice essay on Mozart in Roger Scruton's "Understanding Music". The essay (Chapter 7, "My Mozart") is reproduced in full in the Google Books preview, so you don't need to buy the book to read it. A quotation, about the simplicity of some of Mozart's ideas - "Anybody could do it. Nobody else could have done it".

It seems he was quite a study in contrasts. He could be an insensitive jerk sometimes, and yet he could be a generous friend. One of the stories related in a lecture series I'm listening to (Rober Greenberg's The Chamber Music of Mozart) tells of how he helped out his friend Michael Haydn (Joseph's brother and a very respected composer). Michael had a deadline for composing six violin and viola duets. After completing four of the six pieces, he fell very sick, couldn't complete the last two, and was in danger of losing his position. When Mozart discovered this, he wrote the last two duos in the style of Michael Haydn, passing them off as Haydn's work and saving his job.

MaryBee - excellent true life adventure tale about our "study in contrasts" boy genius! I had forgotten about that incident.

Robert Greenberg is quite a well-spoken authority on Classical music in general and Mozart in particular - I have his fascinating and highly informative CD course "Great Masters: Mozart-His Life and Music" which is also part of the "Great Courses" series from The Teaching Company, and from which I've taken many of the "factoids" about Wolfgang that I relate above.

Here's Amazon's offerings:

The Great Courses (Mozart)


Trap

I like some of Mozart all of the time and all of Mozart some of the time ...

and I've enjoyed this thread ... since to read it didn't take much time

Is this the same as saying, in effect, that you like all of Mozart all of the time? Awfully close...



We try to keep the conversation both stimulating and concise...in a word: "Pithy"...

Trap

Not so simple then - it takes a genius to make it look easy.

Trap

There have been long-standing rumors that he did much the same thing for the under-appreciated post-Baroque composer P.D.Q. Bach, a distant cousin of J.S and founder of the notorious "Frankfurt School", but these have remained unsubstantiated despite highly determined efforts of world-renowned musicologists for centuries...

Trap

Stumbled over this thread because it's so diligently bumped by its OP.

Over the last week, I've listened, amongst others, to my collection of Beethoven's Piano Concerti played by Murray Peraiah and the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra (Bernard Haitink), and these pieces are just a few examples of a richness, intensity, contrast, depth and "ballsiness" that I hardly ever hear when listening to Mozart. Images come to my mind of grape cordial vs. well-wooded red wine (or a kiss on the cheek vs. warm-blooded you-know-what) - but hey, let me not interrupt your flow here...

Anyway, if (only) those people who think that the sparse, cheerful Mozart is the best have "highest possible artistic standards" and "impeccable taste in music", then I'm out of here...

Ah yes - "ballsiness" - the ultimate artistic standard - well, if you haven't heard countless examples of those qualities (including tasteful and well-placed instances of ballsiness) in Mozart then you just haven't been giving him the time and attention he deserves (and you owe to yourself).




If Ludwig is a quick, slobbering jump in the backseat of an old Chevy then Wolfgang is a slow, easy "merger" on a warm, breezy beach at sunset - each has it's time and place and good points, but, after all, life is a beach...



Sorry to hear that and glad you stopped by - admittedly, Mozart isn't for everyone - there are standards of achievement to satisfy every taste, no matter how subpar or imperfect.

Trap