Mozart
Dave Dalle
I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music that was simply pretty, and
lacking intelligence, power and imaginativeness. I may be speaking from
limited experience, but when I listen to Mozart I do not hear simply
pretty music devoid of intelligence and power.
Any comments?
Dave
post-classical mailing list wrote on 17 August 1994:
> Yes the beauty of classical music is the most apparent facet of it today.
> "intelligence", "power", and "imaginativeness" are all very much a
> part of the music as well, but it's not all so apparent today.
Mozart's music? What pieces are you thinking of? What's an example of
a piece that's as intelligent as any of Beethoven's late quartets (or
any of Bach's fugues, for that matter), or that's as powerful as
Wagner or Mahler, or that's as imaginative as Cage?
To
> ascertain this in a certain composer, you have to know the music that was
> there before, the music of his contemporaries and the music which came
> after. Hard to do when the composer lived 200 years ago.
Not all that hard, given the number of recordings that are available.
The period 1750-1850 is *very* well covered. I'm reasonably familiar
with Mozart's contemporaries and immediate predecessors, which is why
I know he was a relatively conservative composer. Haydn was far more
original and correspondingly more influential.
> You comaparison of Beethoven and Mozart goes against accepted
> theory.
Actually, I almost apologized for the conventionality of what I said.
It's almost too typical to describe Mozart as light, Beethoven as
profound or Mozart as a composer of beautiful music and Beethoven as a
composer of deep music.
> While Beethoven was the first composer to really infuse the music with
> emotion.
I think perhaps you don't know late Beethoven well; or perhaps you
know the symphonies but not the chamber music. Listen to Mozart's
string quartets, then listen to Beethoven's.
As for emotion, there's plenty in Machaut's plaints from the 14th
century.
> and experimentation. John Cage said that he deliberately tried to
> eliminate emotion in his music. Mozart didn't make any deliberately try
> to do anything, all he did was compose, and that's what makes Mozart the
> unsurpassable genius that he was.
Cage didn't really say that directly, I was interpolating :) Beauty
was the real enemy. Either way, you've effectively said that because
Mozart's aesthetic is devoid of intellectual ideas, this makes him a
"genius". I don't see it. What this makes him is a composer of pretty,
sometimes quite beautiful tunes; a very good contrapuntalist; and a
better than average orchestrator. No more no less.
--
True connoisseurs of poetry have been at all times and in all places
exactly so rare as true poets themselves. -Lessing
In the trees, the smoke, and the fire, my time alive is almost over, and
the demon took him, not me, not me! the Demon...is coming...
Vance Maverick
> I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
> list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
> that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music that was simply pretty, and
> lacking intelligence, power and imaginativeness.
While it's not hard to make the case for Mozart's music as being
inventive, intelligent, powerful, &c, &c, I think the essential
problem is that your friend undervalues the quality of prettiness, and
underestimates the subtlety and hard work which go into the
achievement of music an inattentive ear may find *merely* pretty.
Take the first movement of K. 515 -- is there a more inventively,
delicately built long movement anywhere? But if we identify the
quality achieved as prettiness, your friend will dismiss it.
Enormous, overwhelming, harrowing prettiness -- "So what?", he says.
But some of us like it, a lot.
Vance
Jeff_Harrington
Vance is right on the money with this! In fact we were having a
discussion the other day about how many people seem to find "prettiness"
revolting! We tried to track the moment down when a shift occured and
"voila" (big deal :) we decided on WWII.
In fact, some of us were actually saying that many people blame WWII
on "beauty" or "prettiness" - in the way that it represents a frivolous
kind of thinking linked with the past and with artistocratic ideals, etc...
Pretty weird...
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*)IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV (*) idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org (*) For more info(*)
(*)ftp quartz.rutgers.edu /pub/subgenius/Ideal-Order (*) Harrington Scores(*)
(*) ftp.gmd.de /music/scores/harrington (*)(*)(*)(*) Elsie Russell GIF's (*)
(*)(*) sunsite.unc.edu /pub/multimedia/pictures/OTIS/MASS/PRE/er*.gif (*)(*)
Michael Whincop
> I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
>list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
>that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music that was simply pretty, and
>lacking intelligence, power and imaginativeness. I may be speaking from
>limited experience, but when I listen to Mozart I do not hear simply
>pretty music devoid of intelligence and power.
>Any comments?
Tell your correspondent to get some ears! A brain might assist him/her, as
well. Anyone who thinks Mozart frivolous is a bloody idiot.
_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Whincop - Law, Griffith Uni, Aust. M.Wh...@law.gu.edu.au
"The Queen of Silence bids me be silent. I grasp what she has concealed;
I conceal what she cannot grasp______________________________________
S. LaBonne
Dave Dalle <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
> I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
>list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
>that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music that was simply pretty, and
>lacking intelligence, power and imaginativeness. I may be speaking from
>limited experience, but when I listen to Mozart I do not hear simply
>pretty music devoid of intelligence and power.
>
>I think perhaps you don't know late Beethoven well; or perhaps you
>know the symphonies but not the chamber music. Listen to Mozart's
>string quartets, then listen to Beethoven's.
Mon dieu, where to start!! Just to limit it to quartets, has your
friend ever actually heard the d minor quartet from the "Haydn"
set? Or to allow other chamber works into the comparison, what about the
g minor quintet! I won't bother continuing to list the works that
900,000 other posters will now jump in to add. (Just to be clear, I
love the late Beethoven quartets more than anything on earth except
my wife and kid!)
--
Steve LaBonne (labo...@csc.albany.edu)
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
POSITIVE, adj. Mistaken at the top of one's voice. -Bierce
David M. Cook
> I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
>list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
>that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music
[...]
After you tell him that he's an idiot tell him to listen to Furtwaengler
conducting the last act of Don Giovanni.
That he thinks that Mozart is merely pretty indicates that he is just
listening to the surfaces anyway.
This may be a lost cause.
Dave Cook
Roger Lustig
> I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
>list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
>that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music that was simply pretty, and
>lacking intelligence, power and imaginativeness. I may be speaking from
>limited experience, but when I listen to Mozart I do not hear simply
>pretty music devoid of intelligence and power.
>Any comments?
Sure: don't argue with fools. Observers may not be able to tell the difference.
Of course, this is the internet, so nobody holds to that rule.
Why not ask the guy which pieces of Mozart he knows? Ask him specifically
about the C minor fantasy for piano, the C major string quintet, the piano
quartet in G minor and its companion in E flat, the Jupiter symphony
and the G minor and the Prague (D major), Don Giovanni, Figaro, and The
Magic Flute. Ask him how many of those pieces he knows, and whether he
considers them lightweight; if so, in what sense.
[Note: you will do well to know the pieces yourself...but that's hardly
an onerous task.]
Here's an attempt at a response. I assume you're > >, and that he's >.
>post-classical mailing list wrote on 17 August 1994:
> > Yes the beauty of classical music is the most apparent facet of it today.
> > "intelligence", "power", and "imaginativeness" are all very much a
> > part of the music as well, but it's not all so apparent today.
>Mozart's music? What pieces are you thinking of? What's an example of
>a piece that's as intelligent as any of Beethoven's late quartets (or
>any of Bach's fugues, for that matter), or that's as powerful as
>Wagner or Mahler, or that's as imaginative as Cage?
See above. The Jupiter finale is all those things.
> To
> > ascertain this in a certain composer, you have to know the music that was
> > there before, the music of his contemporaries and the music which came
> > after. Hard to do when the composer lived 200 years ago.
>Not all that hard, given the number of recordings that are available.
>The period 1750-1850 is *very* well covered. I'm reasonably familiar
>with Mozart's contemporaries and immediate predecessors, which is why
>I know he was a relatively conservative composer. Haydn was far more
>original and correspondingly more influential.
That's not necessarily true; Mozart was plenty influential, and more
of his music was known to people in the 19thC (and the 10th). Mozart
was hardly "conservative"--Haydn may have developed the genres of the
string quartet and symphony to something far beyond what they were
before, but Mozart can make the same claim wrt. the piano concerto
and the comic opera--a genre that, for our purposes, he basically
invented. Mozart's use of tonality, while not often as dazzling on the
surface as Haydn's, is quite progressive for his time; his use of
subdominant and submediant relations clearly had a decisive influence
on Beethoven and on many other composers thereafter.
> > You comaparison of Beethoven and Mozart goes against accepted
> > theory.
>Actually, I almost apologized for the conventionality of what I said.
>It's almost too typical to describe Mozart as light, Beethoven as
>profound or Mozart as a composer of beautiful music and Beethoven as a
>composer of deep music.
Typical? Who says that? The "demonic" aspect of Mozart has been
commented upon so extensively in the last 75 years or so that it's
practically a commonplace. Can you find me one post-WW-I writer
who describes Mozart as "light" without also noting his profound side?
> > While Beethoven was the first composer to really infuse the music with
> > emotion.
>I think perhaps you don't know late Beethoven well; or perhaps you
>know the symphonies but not the chamber music. Listen to Mozart's
>string quartets, then listen to Beethoven's.
Indeed; Mozart's string quartets include many "emotional" movements;
consider the first movement of the D minor, K.421, the intro to the
Dissonance Quartet, the slow movement of K.387. Check out the
string quintets, too.
>As for emotion, there's plenty in Machaut's plaints from the 14th
>century.
True enough.
> > and experimentation. John Cage said that he deliberately tried to
> > eliminate emotion in his music. Mozart didn't make any deliberately try
> > to do anything, all he did was compose, and that's what makes Mozart the
> > unsurpassable genius that he was.
>Cage didn't really say that directly, I was interpolating :) Beauty
>was the real enemy. Either way, you've effectively said that because
>Mozart's aesthetic is devoid of intellectual ideas, this makes him a
>"genius".
No, he's saying nothing of the sort. (Keep in mind that the concept
of an "esthetic" didn't even exist in Mozart's day.) Mozart certainly
had intellectual ideas, in a musical sense; but ideas don't make music
anyway. Morton Feldman told us that.
>I don't see it. What this makes him is a composer of pretty,
>sometimes quite beautiful tunes; a very good contrapuntalist; and a
>better than average orchestrator. No more no less.
A complete master of form. A musical dramatist who has at most two
or three rivals in all of musical history. An instrumental innovator.
A developer of genres. A composer with an identifiable harmonic and
voice-leading style that had far-reaching influence on composers for
a century after.
And there's more. No less, certainly.
Do you *know* Mozart's music?
Roger
Tom Wood
> I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
> list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
> that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music that was simply pretty, and
> lacking intelligence, power and imaginativeness. I may be speaking from
> limited experience, but when I listen to Mozart I do not hear simply
> pretty music devoid of intelligence and power.
> Any comments?
> Dave
This opens a large and squirming can of aesthetic worms. Since Beethoven
and the Romantic era, western music has subscribed to the theory that
Great Music must touch on the Sublime: it must sound Serious; it must be
in minor keys to be Serious; the more instruments you use, the more
Serious it is; it must do Serious things in regards to form; it
must do more than just have pretty tunes; in fact, pretty tunes
are proof that the composer is not Serious.
So: orchestral pieces are valued over chamber music; pieces in minor
keys are valued over those in major keys; music that is original,
breaks new ground formally or stylistically, is valued over music
that is accessible, simple, or tuneful.
So, we came to value Beethoven's Fifth Symphony over the Eighth; we
came to value Beethoven over Rossini; we came to value symphonies
over suites. This aesthetic is so persuasive, that it colors our
approach to pre-Romantic composers. We point to Mozart's relatively
few pieces in minor keys as proof he could be "serious." But did
Mozart and his contemporaries think pieces in minor keys were
"better" than those in major keys? I doubt it.
But this attitude is not an absolute: it's a historical and cultural
bias. In actuality, does Mahler's "Tragic" Symphony show more
intelligence, ingenuity, or "feeling" than Mozart's "Hunt"
quartet? Are only violent, dark, negative emotions of value or
interest? Does Mahler "say more" than Mozart? (He certainly takes
longer).
So, which is a greater piece of art, a Mahler symphony or a Mozart
quartet? Which has more "feeling"? Which is more "important"?
Which is of more "value"? That's the can of worms.... If you think the
answer is easy, then you haven't thought about it enough. I don't
know the answer, either.
--
....Thomas Wood..............................
........Springfield, Illinois USA............
............wood@eagle.sangamon.edu..........
chr...@acfcluster.nyu.edu
even the most doubtful that Mozart was and will be the most important composer
of our lifetime and possibly of many next generations, When I was in my teens
and early 20's, I felt as many in this letter did-- Moozart was too light,
simple,shallow,easy aand was convinced i was right. As I grew older and had my
fling with the romantics,and even the impressionists and then an avid affair
with Vivaldi, I returned to Mozart in the late 30's of my life. There I found
a serene, (puer)purely simple, beautiful, soulful music which I now was ready to
appreciate. Why must something or someone be dark, mysterious, deep and
complicated to be beautiful. Sometimes the artist who potrays his or her work
as seemingly simple and easy to perform is in fact a true creator of beauty and has reached
their artistic zenith(t). Nature is a perfect example.
RVpiano
I'm not sure if the "defenders" of Mozart in this thread have not done him
as much disservice as the simple-minded attacker.
To call Mozart's music "simple" is not to understand the very essence of
music.
Not to mention the piano concertos even once in this thread is
unimaginable.
What Mozart achieved in his "simplicity," is what every composer strives
for in his search for communication. The love and awe of Mozart by
virtually all composers speaks for itself.
James C Liu
>This opens a large and squirming can of aesthetic worms. Since Beethoven
>and the Romantic era, western music has subscribed to the theory that
>Great Music must touch on the Sublime: it must sound Serious; it must be
>in minor keys to be Serious; the more instruments you use, the more
>Serious it is; it must do Serious things in regards to form; it
>must do more than just have pretty tunes; in fact, pretty tunes
>are proof that the composer is not Serious.
While I agree with many of these statements, I think any veteran of
listening to the late quartets of Shostakovich and Beethoven, the
Hammerklavier Sonata, and the last chamber music and piano sonatas of
Schubert knows that you can be Serious and Sublime without having
Excessively Rich Orchestration.
>So: orchestral pieces are valued over chamber music; pieces in minor
>keys are valued over those in major keys; music that is original,
>breaks new ground formally or stylistically, is valued over music
>that is accessible, simple, or tuneful.
... though, in the end, it's often the music that is accessible,
simple, or tuneful that sells more records ...
>But this attitude is not an absolute: it's a historical and cultural
>bias. In actuality, does Mahler's "Tragic" Symphony show more
>intelligence, ingenuity, or "feeling" than Mozart's "Hunt"
>quartet? Are only violent, dark, negative emotions of value or
>interest? Does Mahler "say more" than Mozart? (He certainly takes
>longer).
>So, which is a greater piece of art, a Mahler symphony or a Mozart
>quartet? Which has more "feeling"? Which is more "important"?
>Which is of more "value"? That's the can of worms.... If you think the
>answer is easy, then you haven't thought about it enough. I don't
>know the answer, either.
I dunno, I kind of think that assigning relative priorities of greatness
to bundles of apples and oranges like Mahler and Mozart suggest someone who
thinks about these questions too much; they're both great, albeit in
different ways.
--
/James C.S. Liu, MD "The best cure for insomnia is to get
jl...@world.std.com a lot of sleep."
Department of Medicine -- W. C. Fields
New England Med Ctr, Boston MA
Tom Wood
> >This opens a large and squirming can of aesthetic worms. Since Beethoven
> >and the Romantic era, western music has subscribed to the theory that
> >Great Music must touch on the Sublime: it must sound Serious; it must be
> >in minor keys to be Serious; the more instruments you use, the more
> >Serious it is; it must do Serious things in regards to form; it
> >must do more than just have pretty tunes; in fact, pretty tunes
> >are proof that the composer is not Serious.
> While I agree with many of these statements, I think any veteran of
> listening to the late quartets of Shostakovich and Beethoven, the
> Hammerklavier Sonata, and the last chamber music and piano sonatas of
> Schubert knows that you can be Serious and Sublime without having
> Excessively Rich Orchestration.
I didn't say *I* believed this stuff about Serious Music: I intended
this to be a statement of a traditional "Music Appreciation"
stance.
> >So: orchestral pieces are valued over chamber music; pieces in minor
> >keys are valued over those in major keys; music that is original,
> >breaks new ground formally or stylistically, is valued over music
> >that is accessible, simple, or tuneful.
> ... though, in the end, it's often the music that is accessible,
> simple, or tuneful that sells more records ...
But of course.
[some of my earlier blather deleted]
> >So, which is a greater piece of art, a Mahler symphony or a Mozart
> >quartet? Which has more "feeling"? Which is more "important"?
> >Which is of more "value"? That's the can of worms.... If you think the
> >answer is easy, then you haven't thought about it enough. I don't
> >know the answer, either.
> I dunno, I kind of think that assigning relative priorities of greatness
> to bundles of apples and oranges like Mahler and Mozart suggest someone who
> thinks about these questions too much; they're both great, albeit in
> different ways.
> --
But of course. But there are lots of people out there who think Mahler
is intrinsically superior to Mozart, because Gustav writes with "more
feeling" or "more soul." And that Mozart's C minor piano concerto
is "better" than a C major piano concerto because it has more
"passion" -- as if that were automatically a sign of superior inspiration.
Some people like Mozart most when he most sounds like Beethoven: I'm
perfectly happy for Mozart to sound like Mozart. People who dismiss
pre-Romantic music as lacking feeling and being pure "workmanship"
are often really saying: "I don't like pre-Romantic music because
it doesn't sound like Romantic music." I think that's misguided.
As I think you'd agree, music from different periods should be
appreciated on their own terms.
Mario Taboada
<<But of course. But there are lots of people out there who think Mahler
is intrinsically superior to Mozart, because Gustav writes with "more
feeling" or "more soul.">>
Who are these people? I have never met anyone who claimed that
Mahler was the equal of Mozart, let alone "intrinsically superior".
Surely you must be talking about appallingly misinformed listeners -
or at least listeners who have no appreciation for anything but
symphonies (this leaves out most of Mozart's great works). If Mozart had
composed no symphonies, he would be no lesser a composer, whereas....
This supposed Mozart-bashing which requires him to be "defended"
sounds mighty suspicious to me. Maybe I'm out of touch, but
I have never heard anything like it.
Best regards,
Mario Taboada (who has no practice defending Mozart)
Los Angeles
Len Reed
>Dave Dalle <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>> I have been having this discussion on my post-classical mailing
>>list, I have been trying to defend Mozart against someone who believes
>>that Mozart was a compoaser of "light" music
>
>conducting the last act of Don Giovanni.
>
>That he thinks that Mozart is merely pretty indicates that he is just
>listening to the surfaces anyway.
>
>This may be a lost cause.
And then again, maybe not. Twenty years ago I had much the same opinion
of Mozart. Of course, I had never heard his operas and didn't like
opera in general. I was completely unfamiliar with his quartets.
I certainly hadn't heard the two big unfinished masses. I hadn't
really *listened* to the late piano concerti, and had never even heard
the D minor. I had formed my opinion of Mozart based upon limited
hearings of his music on the radio: in other words, it was an opinion
formed almost wholly from ignorance.
All that's needed to correct ignorance is time, patience, knowledge,
and maybe work. And in this case the work is execeedly pleasant
and rewarding. OTOH, if you're up against stupidity.....
Len Reed
>Indeed; Mozart's string quartets include many "emotional" movements;
Gee, not just the first movement, Roger. The coda at the end rips your heart
out. (Ditto at the end of the A minor Rondo.)
Roger Lustig
>wo...@eagle.sangamon.edu (Tom Wood) writes:
>>This opens a large and squirming can of aesthetic worms. Since Beethoven
>>and the Romantic era, western music has subscribed to the theory that
>>Great Music must touch on the Sublime: it must sound Serious; it must be
>>in minor keys to be Serious; the more instruments you use, the more
>>Serious it is; it must do Serious things in regards to form; it
>>must do more than just have pretty tunes; in fact, pretty tunes
>>are proof that the composer is not Serious.
> While I agree with many of these statements, I think any veteran of
>listening to the late quartets of Shostakovich and Beethoven, the
>Hammerklavier Sonata, and the last chamber music and piano sonatas of
>Schubert knows that you can be Serious and Sublime without having
>Excessively Rich Orchestration.
The "more instruments" thing is simply wrong, imho. The symphony has had
a place of honor since the beginning of the 19thC as Most Serious Genre,
but since the 1860's or 70's, the string quartet became at least as
Serious, more esoteric, in fact; after all, one needed to get closer
to the music, couldn't hear it well in huge halls, and, if really
talented, could play it oneself with three profoundly sympathetic
friends.
Note that the pieces mentioned here (Aside from Shost.) were all
basically unknown until the latter part of the 19thC...
>>So: orchestral pieces are valued over chamber music; pieces in minor
>>keys are valued over those in major keys; music that is original,
>>breaks new ground formally or stylistically, is valued over music
>>that is accessible, simple, or tuneful.
> ... though, in the end, it's often the music that is accessible,
>simple, or tuneful that sells more records ...
But to *whom*? Not to the serious tastemakers. (Also, the major/minor
thing is overdone; the Hammerklavier and Great Fugue are in B flat,
no less.
>>But this attitude is not an absolute: it's a historical and cultural
>>bias. In actuality, does Mahler's "Tragic" Symphony show more
>>intelligence, ingenuity, or "feeling" than Mozart's "Hunt"
>>quartet? Are only violent, dark, negative emotions of value or
>>interest? Does Mahler "say more" than Mozart? (He certainly takes
>>longer).
>>So, which is a greater piece of art, a Mahler symphony or a Mozart
>>quartet? Which has more "feeling"? Which is more "important"?
>>Which is of more "value"? That's the can of worms.... If you think the
>>answer is easy, then you haven't thought about it enough. I don't
>>know the answer, either.
> I dunno, I kind of think that assigning relative priorities of greatness
>to bundles of apples and oranges like Mahler and Mozart suggest someone who
>thinks about these questions too much; they're both great, albeit in
>different ways.
More to the point, note what *Mahler* said about it, even his dying words...
Roger
Tom Wood
> In article <CuxyE...@world.std.com> jl...@world.std.com (James C Liu) writes:
> >wo...@eagle.sangamon.edu (Tom Wood) writes:
> >>This opens a large and squirming can of aesthetic worms. Since Beethoven
> >>and the Romantic era, western music has subscribed to the theory that
> >>Great Music must touch on the Sublime: it must sound Serious; it must be
> >>in minor keys to be Serious; the more instruments you use, the more
> >>Serious it is; it must do Serious things in regards to form; it
> >>must do more than just have pretty tunes; in fact, pretty tunes
> >>are proof that the composer is not Serious.
> The "more instruments" thing is simply wrong, imho. The symphony has had
> a place of honor since the beginning of the 19thC as Most Serious Genre,
> but since the 1860's or 70's, the string quartet became at least as
> Serious, more esoteric, in fact; after all, one needed to get closer
> to the music, couldn't hear it well in huge halls, and, if really
> talented, could play it oneself with three profoundly sympathetic
> friends.
I agree...I'm not summarizing my own opinions. See below.
> Note that the pieces mentioned here (Aside from Shost.) were all
> basically unknown until the latter part of the 19thC...
> >>So: orchestral pieces are valued over chamber music; pieces in minor
> >>keys are valued over those in major keys; music that is original,
> >>breaks new ground formally or stylistically, is valued over music
> >>that is accessible, simple, or tuneful.
> > ... though, in the end, it's often the music that is accessible,
> >simple, or tuneful that sells more records ...
> But to *whom*? Not to the serious tastemakers. (Also, the major/minor
> thing is overdone; the Hammerklavier and Great Fugue are in B flat,
> no less.
I'm not talking about the "serious tastemakers." I'm actually talking
about the "popular tastemakers" -- the writers of program notes,
some authors of music appreciation books, the teachers of "Music
Appreciation 201," the Sigmund Spaeths of the world. The people
who say "Mozart's C minor piano concerto is his greatest, because
it almost sounds like Beethoven." Or the people, like the guy described
in the original post that started all this, who seems to feel Mahler
is somehow *clearly* superior to Mozart, because G.M. has more "passion"
and "feeling." Maybe y'all don't see and hear these opinions, but
I (a layman) do.
[yada yada yada]
> > I dunno, I kind of think that assigning relative priorities of greatness
> >to bundles of apples and oranges like Mahler and Mozart suggest someone who
> >thinks about these questions too much; they're both great, albeit in
> >different ways.
> More to the point, note what *Mahler* said about it, even his dying words...
> Roger
Cool! What DID Mahler say about it?
David M. Cook
Tom Wood <wo...@eagle.sangamon.edu> wrote:
>Roger Lustig (ro...@faust.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>> More to the point, note what *Mahler* said about it, even his dying words...
>Cool! What DID Mahler say about it?
"Mozart."
Dave Cook
Asim Choudhri
[stuff deleted]
: >So: orchestral pieces are valued over chamber music; pieces in minor
: >keys are valued over those in major keys; music that is original,
: >breaks new ground formally or stylistically, is valued over music
: >that is accessible, simple, or tuneful.
: ... though, in the end, it's often the music that is accessible,
: simple, or tuneful that sells more records ...
well, i agree that tuneful accessible music can be much more significant than
your average "deep" serious work, but before we outright defend tuneful music
(which in a sense was the goal of many composers), we must make sure we are
not defending anything we don't want to support.
by this i mean that there are yanni fans that would claim their "yukki" is
as good as these guys we have been mentioning because while his work does not
necessarily follow the general format of other classical music (because there
are those ignorants who consider yukki "music" as classical), it is very
tuneful and accessible thus he has accomplished a major goal which most people
expect out of music.
now, here are my thoughts on the subject... consider the world of painters
while mahler may have painted beautiful paintings which contain numerous
subtle messages inside, each of them supporting and building off of each
other. mozart also painted similar pictures, but the mozart pictures
are slightly less cluttered and it is easier to see the beauty in his
paintings right away, while mahler paintings take some time and thought to
fully appreciate. the decision as to which is a better painter, while
seemingly obvious to me, is left as a decision to each individual art
critic.
yanni, on the other hand, buys those paint-by-number kits. granted, he
is rather skillful at what he tries to do (in the analogy, he stays within
the lines very well). there is no doubt that yanni can paint-by-numbers
better than most of us can, but i can not see how a paint-by-numbers
product can compete with the unbridled genious of the mozarts and such
who did not adhere to any boundaries except those which they defined
for themselves.
we all know that stravinsky was a close friend of picasso, and many of the
experimentations stravinsky used in his work paralleled picasso's experiment-
ations into cubism. the link between impressionism in the painting and
music world is even better known.
now, i just hope i never hear someone try claiming that if yukki was born
80-100 years earlier he would have been considered an impressionist. you
may laugh at this, but recently i was volunteering in a local emergency
room, and was talking with one of the nurses about the upcoming rolling
stones concert which she was going to for free since she was working at the
first-aid station. i asked her if she liked the rolling stones, and she
replied that she didn't, she really liked classical music. she proceeded
to tell me that she loves the harpsichord, and her favorite composer is
probably telemann. at this point another nurse commented that she should
try listening to yukki, beginning to claim how he is the modern day
beethoven or mozart. she said how he starts with a piano and builds his
"compositions" around the central piano theme, and so on...
_
just thought i'd add my $0.019 worth... not that it means much, though...
i am only a biochemistry student, and have no formal musical training beyond
this group, some classical music magazines, library books, and the liner
notes to my classical cd collection.
any thoughts?
asim choudhri
internet: li...@picard.cs.wisc.edu, as...@macc.wisc.edu
snail-mail: asim_c...@309tarrant.1520tripp_cir.madison_wi.53706_1282
James Kahn
>> I dunno, I kind of think that assigning relative priorities of greatness
>>to bundles of apples and oranges like Mahler and Mozart suggest someone who
>>thinks about these questions too much; they're both great, albeit in
>>different ways.
>More to the point, note what *Mahler* said about it, even his dying words...
I've seen references to this, but what exactly did Mahler say about Mozart
in his dying words?
--Jim
--
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu |
ka...@weiss1.wharton.upenn.edu|
(215) 898-4254 |
|
Carol McAlpine
asim choudhri writes -
<<at this point another nurse commented that she should
try listening to yukki, beginning to claim how he is the modern day
beethoven or mozart. she said how he starts with a piano and builds his
"compositions" around the central piano theme, and so on...
_
just thought i'd add my $0.019 worth... not that it means much, though...
i am only a biochemistry student, and have no formal musical training
beyond
this group, some classical music magazines, library books, and the liner
notes to my classical cd collection.>>
Have you gotten a look at this Yanni? (Please forgive me for not knowing
if you're male or female.) Better yet, if you're a man, get a woman
(heterosexual variety) to take a look at this Yanni guy. I'll bet a large
part of his appeal is right there. He's got the soft, unthreatening music,
the drop-dead good looks, the "spiritual" persona, etc etc. The music itself
is pure pap.
Carol McAlpine
James C Liu
>: ... though, in the end, it's often the music that is accessible,
>: simple, or tuneful that sells more records ...
>well, i agree that tuneful accessible music can be much more significant than
>your average "deep" serious work, but before we outright defend tuneful music
>(which in a sense was the goal of many composers), we must make sure we are
>not defending anything we don't want to support.
I wasn't saying anything about a defense of tonality or tunefulness.
Nor would I ever imply that how many records one sells indicates how great
the music is. And "Jingle Bells" is tuneful and accessible, but a world
apart from Mahler or Mozart.
>by this i mean that there are yanni fans that would claim their "yukki" is
>as good as these guys we have been mentioning because while his work does not
>necessarily follow the general format of other classical music (because there
>are those ignorants who consider yukki "music" as classical), it is very
>tuneful and accessible thus he has accomplished a major goal which most people
>expect out of music.
You've gotta be kidding me.
> now, i just hope i never hear someone try claiming that if yukki was born
> 80-100 years earlier he would have been considered an impressionist. you
> may laugh at this, but recently i was volunteering in a local emergency
> room, and was talking with one of the nurses about the upcoming rolling
> stones concert which she was going to for free since she was working at the
> first-aid station. i asked her if she liked the rolling stones, and she
> replied that she didn't, she really liked classical music. she proceeded
> to tell me that she loves the harpsichord, and her favorite composer is
> probably telemann. at this point another nurse commented that she should
> try listening to yukki, beginning to claim how he is the modern day
> beethoven or mozart. she said how he starts with a piano and builds his
> "compositions" around the central piano theme, and so on...
Posting to r.m.c to debunk Yawni is kinda like preaching to the choir.
You might want to post this to rec.music.boring if you really want an
interesting response.
Or is it rec.music.new.age? I always get those two terms confused ...
though I never confuse Yawni with Beethoven or Mozart. B-)
> just thought i'd add my $0.019 worth... not that it means much, though...
> i am only a biochemistry student, and have no formal musical training beyond
> this group, some classical music magazines, library books, and the liner
> notes to my classical cd collection.
Well, I've sung in a bunch of choirs and taken two semesters of music
theory while earning my biochem degree, and listened to tons of stuff while
working at the college radio station. So my experience is not much greater
than yours.
(As he waits for the posts asking so why he doesn't shut up ...)
Carol McAlpine
<<>part of his appeal is right there. He's got the soft, unthreatening
music,
>the drop-dead good looks, the "spiritual" persona, etc etc. The music
itself
>is pure pap. >>
Jim Clow answered -
<<Make that unmitigated. 'Pure' connotes something positive.>>
Aha! Not a Nick Lowe fan. You don't remember Nick Lowe's record "Pure Pop for
Now People." I don't know what he's doing these days, since I finally
stopped listening to rock something like three years ago, but I'd love to
hear what Lowe has to say about Yanni. Not that it'd be printable in a
family sig <g>. If there were more rockers like Lowe, Dave Edmunds, et al, I
might still be listening.
Carol McAlpine
Jim Clow
>
>
>Have you gotten a look at this Yanni? (Please forgive me for not knowing
>if you're male or female.) Better yet, if you're a man, get a woman
>(heterosexual variety) to take a look at this Yanni guy. I'll bet a large
>part of his appeal is right there. He's got the soft, unthreatening music,
>the drop-dead good looks, the "spiritual" persona, etc etc. The music itself
>is pure pap.
Make that unmitigated. 'Pure' connotes something positive.
Jim Clow
Asim Choudhri
: Have you gotten a look at this Yanni? (Please forgive me for not knowing
: if you're male or female.) Better yet, if you're a man, get a woman
: (heterosexual variety) to take a look at this Yanni guy. I'll bet a large
: part of his appeal is right there. He's got the soft, unthreatening music,
: the drop-dead good looks, the "spiritual" persona, etc etc.
so are you saying that something as superficial as the looks of a musician
carries over into his/her music? if a guy said that about a female musician
we would be run into the ground with nasty remarks of sexism and such. were
mozart's face mangled in a childhood accident, would this make his music any
worse? who can say? i just don't think that you should consider such things
when evaluating a piece of music. if you used this logic in everyday life
(no flames from those who say 'music is life' ;) it would be considered
irrational, so why shouldn't that be the case with music. in my mind it is.
and the only reason his music is 'unthreatening' is because there's absolutely
nothing to it... if it were a gun it would be unloaded because it packs no
punch, has no power (does that mean 'yawni' is impotent? ;) i know just
as many guys as girls who seem to enjoy his music, and the same goes for those
who despise his noise.
asim choudhri
ps: and if looking like yanni (a greek toad, as a friend puts it) is what
women consider 'drop-dead good looks' then that explains my 'luck' with
them ;) ... or should that be :(
internet: li...@picard.cs.wisc.edu, as...@macc.wisc.edu
snail-mail: 309tarrant.1520tripp_cir.madison_wi.53706_1282
Carol McAlpine
<<so are you saying that something as superficial as the looks of a musician
carries over into his/her music?>>
Dunno about the actual music itself - probably not. But it sure does affect
the fans of the music and make whatever music he does (which isn't much) a
great deal more appealing to his fans.
<<and the only reason his music is 'unthreatening' is because there's
absolutely
nothing to it... if it were a gun it would be unloaded because it packs no
punch, has no power >>
Oh absolutely !
FWIW - his looks aren't to my taste either, but a lot of women think he is
GORGEOUS. But then, the Las Vegas personality Englebert Humperdinck has a
big following too. Strange things out there in this universe.
Carol McAlpine
Dick Wisan
> Carol McAlpine (cmca...@delphi.com) wrote:
>
> : Have you gotten a look at this Yanni? (Please forgive me for not knowing
> : if you're male or female.) Better yet, if you're a man, get a woman
> : (heterosexual variety) to take a look at this Yanni guy. I'll bet a large
> : part of his appeal is right there. He's got the soft, unthreatening music,
> : the drop-dead good looks, the "spiritual" persona, etc etc.
>
> so are you saying that something as superficial as the looks of a musician
> carries over into his/her music?
> i just don't think that you should consider such things
> when evaluating a piece of music. if you used this logic in everyday life
> (no flames from those who say 'music is life' ;) it would be considered
> irrational, so why shouldn't that be the case with music. in my mind it is.
I dunno. They say people come to look like their dogs, or is it the other
way round? Anyway, why shouldn't the same thing be true of their music?
But, lay that aside, this lady is onto something bigger. With all the
talk about Elvis being sighted here and there... Are you sure this isn't
Liberace?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Carol McAlpine
Regarding Yanni, Dick Wisan wrote
<<But, lay that aside, this lady is onto something bigger. With all the
talk about Elvis being sighted here and there... Are you sure this isn't
Liberace?>>
By George, I think you've got it!
Carol McAlpine