Mozart Overrated?

[j***@yahoo.com]

No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.

What do you guys think?

Jimmy Boy

[Oude Zeur]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?

I hate to admit this, in the light of some of your earlier postings, but
I quite agree with all of this. Except that I think there is also some
merit in Don Giovanni.

[j***@yahoo.com]

Post by Oude Zeur

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?

I hate to admit this, in the light of some of your earlier postings, but
I quite agree with all of this. Except that I think there is also some
merit in Don Giovanni.
--

You and I are on the same page. DG kicks butt!

Jimmy Boy

[Charles]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

Agreed, but somewhat less overrated than Beethoven, IMO. Weren't those
parts of the Requiem written by someone else, BTW?


Regards
Charles

[j***@yahoo.com]

Post by Charles

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

Agreed, but somewhat less overrated than Beethoven, IMO. Weren't those
parts of the Requiem written by someone else, BTW?

I only like the parts Mozart actually finished. Sussrmayer completed
the unfinished Requiem using sketches provided by Constanze Weber
Mozart - the widow.

Jimmy Boy

[Arthur Ness]

http://mozartforum.com/Library%20Articles/Library_72_Notable_quotes_about_Mozart.htm

=========================================

Post by Charles

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

Agreed, but somewhat less overrated than Beethoven, IMO. Weren't those
parts of the Requiem written by someone else, BTW?

I only like the parts Mozart actually finished. Sussrmayer completed
the unfinished Requiem using sketches provided by Constanze Weber
Mozart - the widow.

Jimmy Boy

[Margaret Mikulska]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
I only like the parts Mozart actually finished. Sussrmayer completed
the unfinished Requiem using sketches provided by Constanze Weber
Mozart - the widow.

Whether Süssmayr had any Mozart's sketches to work with on the
completion of the Requiem is not known. One leaf is preserved, but
whether Süssmayr saw it reminds unknown. Furthermore, Mozart's sketches
are extremely difficult to read and they weren't meant to be read by
anybody but Mozart himself.

And Mozart got sick pretty suddenly and probably didn't get to sketch
the rest of the Requiem. Nor did he realize how sick he was, so he had
no chance to write any sketches for Süssmayr.

-MM

[Ioannis]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?

Agreed.

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Jimmy Boy

[Arthur Ness]

By the way, today (1/27) is Mozart's Semiquincentennial, if you were wondering.

I forgot to post this.There is so much perfect music from Mozart's pen, surely he is the greatest composer ever to have lived (imo). That Piano Concerto K 488 cited by Ioannis is a perfect piece of music, especially the first movment. Every note's where it belongs.

http://mozartforum.com/Library%20Articles/Library_72_Notable_quotes_about_Mozart.htm

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?

Agreed.

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Jimmy Boy

--
Ioannis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/

[John Mauel]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

With the caveat that I know exactly nothing about music (I wouldn't know a C
minor above middle sharp if it came up and bit me) I am immediately
suspicious of anything that no-one dislikes (or is allowed to dislike).
WAM's music is one of those things.

And as a quick side note (heh) and again, as someone who knows beans about
music, I'll just say that (scattered snarkiness aside) the discussions in
this NG about HIP, choir sizes, composing techniques etc is fascinating.
Even if there are no definitive 'correct answers' (maybe that's the lesson)
I'm always glad to lurk and listen in on discussions by 'grown-ups' and
people who know so much more than I.

John M.
dilettante

[Ioannis]

"John Mauel" <***@SPAMtelusplanet.net> wrote in message news:hgjxf.76958$***@edtnps84...
[snip]

Post by John Mauel
With the caveat that I know exactly nothing about music (I wouldn't know a C
minor above middle sharp if it came up and bit me) I am immediately
suspicious of anything that no-one dislikes (or is allowed to dislike).
WAM's music is one of those things.

The characterization I think was a bit general. WAM tends to be more deep in
larger and later works. There are many works by him which are of exceptional
beauty. Besides the Requiem which other have mentioned, I'll mention two
more:

The violin & Piano Sonata in E minor (Allegro & Tempo di Minuetto) K 304

Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No. 23 in A major K 488.

Although a strict Bach fan, I consider these two amongst the most beautiful
works ever written.

Post by John Mauel
And as a quick side note (heh) and again, as someone who knows beans about
music, I'll just say that (scattered snarkiness aside) the discussions in
this NG about HIP, choir sizes, composing techniques etc is fascinating.

I find them boring. I'd rather see the arguing parties provide links to
THEIR Bach playing, which is the only objective way to judge how well they
"understand" Bach's music.

Post by John Mauel
Even if there are no definitive 'correct answers' (maybe that's the lesson)
I'm always glad to lurk and listen in on discussions by 'grown-ups' and
people who know so much more than I.
John M.
dilettante

[j***@yahoo.com]

[snip].
I find them boring. I'd rather see the arguing parties provide links to
THEIR Bach playing, which is the only objective way to judge how well they
"understand" Bach's music.

I can program my computer to play Bach. I think the only objective way
to judge how well you "understand" Bach's music is how well you compose
music in the style of Bach.

Jimmy Boy

P.S. I don't have a great understanding of Bach's music.

[Ioannis]

Post by j***@yahoo.com

[snip].
I find them boring. I'd rather see the arguing parties provide links to
THEIR Bach playing, which is the only objective way to judge how well they
"understand" Bach's music.

I can program my computer to play Bach.

I think before we start discussing sequencers and computers, you ought to
take a look at what "programming a computer to play Bach" means:

http://www.pianosociety.com/index.php?id=98

and

http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=21331

[snip]

[John L. Grant]

Post by Ioannis
[snip]

Post by John Mauel
With the caveat that I know exactly nothing about music (I wouldn't know a

C

Post by John Mauel
minor above middle sharp if it came up and bit me) I am immediately
suspicious of anything that no-one dislikes (or is allowed to dislike).
WAM's music is one of those things.

The characterization I think was a bit general. WAM tends to be more deep in
larger and later works. There are many works by him which are of exceptional
beauty. Besides the Requiem which other have mentioned, I'll mention two
The violin & Piano Sonata in E minor (Allegro & Tempo di Minuetto) K 304
Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No. 23 in A major K 488.
Although a strict Bach fan, I consider these two amongst the most beautiful
works ever written.

Post by John Mauel
And as a quick side note (heh) and again, as someone who knows beans about
music, I'll just say that (scattered snarkiness aside) the discussions in
this NG about HIP, choir sizes, composing techniques etc is fascinating.

I find them boring. I'd rather see the arguing parties provide links to
THEIR Bach playing, which is the only objective way to judge how well they
"understand" Bach's music.

Post by John Mauel
Even if there are no definitive 'correct answers' (maybe that's the

lesson)

Post by John Mauel
I'm always glad to lurk and listen in on discussions by 'grown-ups' and
people who know so much more than I.
John M.
dilettante

--
Ioannis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/

I concur where pc23 is concerned. I loved WAM piano music as a child
and a teen, but later in life I began to much prefer the violin
concerti to the piano con.. I prefer Mozart Opera to others, but I am
not a great opera fan.

JG

[Sybrand Bakker]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

Not agreed.
He was very unconventional compared to his contemporaries, and his
music was constantly labeled as 'too many notes' (Emperor Joseph II),
and as 'too difficult' (contemporary opinion on K478 and K493).
I would advise you too listen to Martin Y Solers opera 'Una cosa rara'
compared to Le Nozze di Figaro. Una cosa rara was way more popular in
18th century Vienna than Le Nozze. However, it is really school boys
work. If you want to call music conventional, you should call 'Una
cosa rara' conventional. There is really musically nothing unexpected,
and I literally fell asleep while listening too it.

I don't agree with the Swiss theologian Karl Barth though, who stated
Mozart comes from heaven.
In an interview he said the following:
'I don't know for sure whether the angels play Bach in the presence of
God. But I do know for sure they play Mozart when they are on their
own. Mozart, der ist von dort!'


Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[zeina.kayali]

Why are we speaking about Mozart ? This is a forum dedicated to Bach !!!!!

Post by Sybrand Bakker

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

Not agreed.
He was very unconventional compared to his contemporaries, and his
music was constantly labeled as 'too many notes' (Emperor Joseph II),
and as 'too difficult' (contemporary opinion on K478 and K493).
I would advise you too listen to Martin Y Solers opera 'Una cosa rara'
compared to Le Nozze di Figaro. Una cosa rara was way more popular in
18th century Vienna than Le Nozze. However, it is really school boys
work. If you want to call music conventional, you should call 'Una
cosa rara' conventional. There is really musically nothing unexpected,
and I literally fell asleep while listening too it.
I don't agree with the Swiss theologian Karl Barth though, who stated
Mozart comes from heaven.
'I don't know for sure whether the angels play Bach in the presence of
God. But I do know for sure they play Mozart when they are on their
own. Mozart, der ist von dort!'
Sybrand Bakker
anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres

[Vitek_Baisa]

Hi. As for conventionality: everybody was conventional in 18th century.
Every great composer of this time wrote a lot of very primitive and
simple music. But when we are speaking about Mozart, we must remember
his greatest works (e.g. Requiem, Great Mass and so on...). If Mozart
composed just these works, he would become remarkable man too. We can
find empty works without idea and sense in work of all composer. And
what is the result? Mozart isn´t overrated. He deserves admire :-)

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

[Brian Gilmark]

I agree re much of Mozart's music, but think he was developing richly
at the end of his shortened life. The last piano concertos, the Requiem
and the final three symphonies show a new tragic depth which is
unheralded in his earlier music. With the counterpoint finale of the
41st (called the "Jupiter") Symphony, he ascends to a new plateau of
musical understanding and greatness. Had he lived a normal life-span, I
think that many of the objections to the saccharine sweetness and
precitability of much of his more youthful music would be moot, and his
admirers would be universal.( As it is now, although he is presumed to
be universally popular, there are many CM fans who do not like him).

Post by j***@yahoo.com
No one has been called stupid lately, so I decided to start this
thread. I like Mozart. He certainly has a ear for melody, but I can't
help but feel he might be a little overrated. In my opinion he lacks
depth. This is not to mean he doesn't have his moments( part of the
Requiem are marvelous ) but he was very conventional.
What do you guys think?
Jimmy Boy

[Sandy]

Post by Brian Gilmark
unheralded in his earlier music. With the counterpoint finale of the
41st (called the "Jupiter") Symphony, he ascends to a new plateau of
musical understanding and greatness. Had he lived a normal life-span, I
think that many of the objections to the saccharine sweetness and
precitability of much of his more youthful music would be moot, and his

Year after year after fiscal, never take a risk all year...

...Present company excepted, Mozart's father was a modern monster, a
self-absorbed ogre; his son was his trained seal, his golden goose on a
leash. When Mozart, seeking for an escape, a bigger _something_ to the
world, joined the Freemasons, what does his father do? He joins the
Freemasons too -- the very same lodge. As Gene Wilder says in "The
Producers", "No way out, no way out".

When I heard the Requiem for the first time, I could not dare to
believe it was Mozart. Written after his father had died, his very last
work, it is from the start -- like Shostakovich's work -- openly
personal; you hear all the terrible pain and suffering, resentment and
forgiveness that Mozart had to go through. It's so moving and full of
love and bitter-sweet forgiveness and acceptance, it catches your
breath. The full tragedy of his fate, present company excepted, comes
home to you. From then on you forgive him and feel drawn nearer to him,
as you hear yet again one of those timpy-tuddle-tumpy famous pieces --
all the years of twee candy floss he was compelled to compose.

And when I'm introduced to one, I wish I thought, "what jolly fun".

Prozac vioxx,

Sandy