"What would it take to surpass The Great Beethoven?"

[18-ceo]

Originally posted by Alex OV:

Originally posted by robert newman:

'Beethoven's ok- but he's no Mozart. He's not even a Michael Haydn!

The above statement appears in a Mozart website and was posted only a few days ago. Perhaps the best proof this is wrong is that I'm one of millions of people who've escaped from making Mozart the centre of my musical universe. In fact, it seems few people arrive at Mozart. It's generally where they begin.

Such a thing is not bad. Primary schools have their place, after all. But the sophistication of a Mozart work almost never transcends the form and the conventions within which it is set. The 'safeness' of Mozart is a music in thermaldahide. Beethoven's talent erupted and completely transformed music. I personally believe that Beethoven is by any fair reckoning the greater composer than either Michael Haydn or Mozart.

Can someone please tell me who is Michael Haydn? When I was growing up, we were taught about the great Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and JOSEPH Haydn. Who is Michael Haydn?

Hold the Phone!!!!!!

Now I can't argue about the works of two great minds, but I can give you an idea on what set the to part. First Bach is the inventor of the Lydian interval and we can call him the, "the fire and wood". Then comes Mozart who studies Bach and futhers the works, we'll call him "Coal". Then you have a young man around the same time as Mozart and has the quality of music that purifies the soul, we will call him "Fusion". So we have the qualities of power to burn energy, wood/Bach, Mozart/coal, Fusion power/Beethoven!

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

The above statement appears in a Mozart website and was posted only a few days ago. Perhaps the best proof this is wrong is that I'm one of millions of people who've escaped from making Mozart the centre of my musical universe. In fact, it seems few people arrive at Mozart. It's generally where they begin.


Was your tongue in your cheek here? If not, I must disagree with what you write.

In my first posting on this forum – Genius, or not? – I asked two questions the second of which was:

Given your definition [of genius], is Beethoven a genius? And what about Mozart, (JS) Bach, Schubert? Other major composers?

While my own definition of genius would only include Beethoven and J S Bach from the list above, I would argue strongly that Mozart is probably the most superbly talented (western) composer ever, bar none and if, for some superb talent = genius then he, too, is a genius.

The old comment too easy for children and too difficult for adults (Artur Schnabel on Mozart’s Piano Sonatas, I think) seems to me to be spot on.

So, people may ‘begin’ with Mozart but, if they have any degree of musical sensitivity, they will never leave him.

But, as I say, perhaps your tongue was in your cheek.

Euan

[Rod]

Genius can take many forms, one could say Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest all-round genius history has persented us with. To focus on the art of music I am continually drawm to a quote from Thomas Carlyle found in one of my Beethoven books, namely that genius is the 'transcendent capacity of taking trouble, first of all'. Nobody fits this criteria better than Beethoven.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Michael]

Originally posted by Rod:
Genius can take many forms, one could say Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest all-round genius history has persented us with. To focus on the art of music I am continually drawm to a quote from Thomas Carlyle found in one of my Beethoven books, namely that genius is the 'transcendent capacity of taking trouble, first of all'. Nobody fits this criteria better than Beethoven.

Is that quote from the Denis Matthews book, Rod? If so, I am fairly sure there is another quote in it from Sibelius. I can't remember it word for word, but Sibelius is reported to have said that Beethoven was not the most naturally talented of the great composers, but by sheer force of his will and by constant hard work turned himself into the greatest of all.
(I don't agree with the "not most naturally talented" bit!)

Michael

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

In reply to the question of whether Mozart was a genius of the sort that was, say, a Beethoven or a Bach I must answer 'no'. Why so ? Well, I think the Pauline statement that 'when I was a child, I thought as a child ....but when I became a man I put away childish things' may be appropriate.

Mozart is (to me at least) certainly a musical genius in a certain sense. He was in my view a genius for being the greatest arranger/orchestrator in the entire history of music. But he was definitely not, I believe, the great pianist that was, say, Beethoven. Nor was he the composer of a mountain of works today attributed to him. And yet it cannot be denied the innocent ear is seduced by Mozart, that one can find oneself captured, creatively, by the sheer beauty of his style. Isn't such a thing the musical equivalent of a ship in classical Greece being wrecked on the rocks by the singing of the Sirens. I do not believe that Mozart has anything to provide beyond eloquence. Musical sophistry.

Mozart, musically, leads us nowhere and, to be fair, he was at no time the writer of music that pretended otherwise.

There are perhaps 50 or maybe 60 works on which the entire colossal stature of Mozart is really based. Virtually all of them can be argued as having been written by others. It seems to me that the time must arrive when we are honest in assessing the legacy of the Mozart 'industry' - an 'industry' which has constructed hundreds of works which he simply never wrote. What bearing does this fact have on our subject ? Does it have any ? At all ?

Well, I speak as someone who has known and loved Mozart's music since my youth. I think I know him and his music as well as most people. And of his life and career perhaps better than most. My view is that Mozart was the musical 'Adidas' or 'Nike' of his time - a style developed by a whole group of musicians from which he, Mozart, was willing to be the figurehead. To write a symphony in the style of Mozart is, perhaps, among the most simple of all requests that could be made. If I was to ask someone to do the same of, say, Schubert, or Schumann, would this be more or less easier ? So, whilst I'm very respectful of the body of music that is 'Mozart', and consider it to be lovely, beautiful and highly seductive, I must decline from ranking it amongst the great musical geniuses that are JS Bach or Beethoven.

Have I changed my thinking on this subject ? Certainly. Seems to me that certain facts forced the issue. Am I open to rehabilitation from the 'Mozart world'? Certainly.

Lately I've started to admire Handel more and more.

Regards

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Well, I see your tongue was not in your cheek.

Nor was [Mozart] the composer of a mountain of works today attributed to him. […] There are perhaps 50 or maybe 60 works on which the entire colossal stature of Mozart is really based. Virtually all of them can be argued as having been written by others. It seems to me that the time must arrive when we are honest in assessing the legacy of the Mozart 'industry' - an 'industry' which has constructed hundreds of works which he simply never wrote.

Although new to this site, I have skimmed some of the earlier threads. Also I am a regular ‘guest’ – never a member - at the MozartForum (MF). Thus I am well aware that you have rather ‘controversial’ views on who composed the 600+ works that are normally catalogued as Mozart’s. I am also aware that these views got you banned from MF and have caused some heated debate here.

I don’t want to resurrect or enter that debate Robert so, for our purposes here, I want to define the 600+ works above as Mozart-Music (MM) and not argue about who composed them but, instead, and in order to progress with the thread here, I hope you will agree to assume a single composer of MM, a composer we will call X. (If you wish X to be a group of composers, simply change the grammar – singular to plural - as appropriate.)

With that definition and that simplifying assumption, I will re-quote the initial comment you made that caused me to question you and see if we now agree or disagree.

You wrote:

… I'm one of millions of people who've escaped from making Mozart the centre of my musical universe. In fact, it seems few people arrive at Mozart. It's generally where they begin.

Which I will now re-quote as:

… I'm one of millions of people who've escaped from making MM [written by] X the centre of my musical universe. In fact, it seems few people arrive at X. It's generally where they begin.

Would you still write this? Or, now that we have separated the person of Mozart from the works generally assigned to him, do you still feel X is merely a composer where one ‘begins’?

Euan

[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-21-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-21-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Michael:
Is that quote from the Denis Matthews book, Rod? If so, I am fairly sure there is another quote in it from Sibelius. I can't remember it word for word, but Sibelius is reported to have said that Beethoven was not the most naturally talented of the great composers, but by sheer force of his will and by constant hard work turned himself into the greatest of all.
(I don't agree with the "not most naturally talented" bit!)

Michael

Yes it is the Matthews book, my first Beethoven read and excellent as such. This book by now is so ingrained in my mind I often find myself quoting from it subconciously. There are a few quotes in there relating to Beethoven, not all of them complimentary.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-21-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:


So, people may ‘begin’ with Mozart but, if they have any degree of musical sensitivity, they will never leave him.

Euan

Very well put I think Euan.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

Peter,

Why should you write 'begin' with Mozart, rather than begin with Mozart ? I think the huge hype that surrounds Mozart has to be tackled critically before we can fairly judge his true musically stature. That hype began in his childhood. It continued in to his youth. We have from his childhood and youth alone literally dozens and dozens of works which he never actually composed. Of which composer can we say this ? And if we look at the period from, say, 1776 until say, 1781, we find the very same thing. Once again we have dozens and dozens of works attributed to him (by the 'Mozart industry') which are not, in fact, works by Mozart. I must again ask at what point such facts have any bearing on our assessment of this man's actual life and career ? In struggling to bring fairness to this most unfair situation let us suppose we were not talking about Mozart but about some other composer. Composer 'x'. Would you not, knowing as you do, regard this as a case with virtually no precedent in the entire history of music ? But who says such things within the 'Mozart industry'.

If we come to Mozart's adult career - that he lived in Vienna, does this disturbing trend of huge misattribution end ? No, it just contunues. The man dies - and his Requiem (again not a work of his) becomes the last 'Mozart' work - a fitting conclusion, is it not (?) to a quite astonishing career in terms of what he wrote and what he did not.

That Mozart was, throughout his entire musical life, receiving from others works which were attributed to him wrongly, seems to me a plain fact. That Mozart is after his death attributed far more works seems to me also a plain fact. It seems to me that when we say we love Mozart we mean that we love a style of music that is distinctively the one he was associated with. But even this style had its inventor, and it was not Mozart who invented it.

I do not doubt that in his official works are many which are very, very beautiful. But if we are talking about Mozart himself, I do believe we are dealing here with a career that has largely been manufactured - for reasons that need discussion elsewhere.

[euphony131]

Originally posted by robert newman:

There are perhaps 50 or maybe 60 works on which the entire colossal stature of Mozart is really based. Virtually all of them can be argued as having been written by others.
...whilst I'm very respectful of the body of music that is 'Mozart', and consider it to be lovely, beautiful and highly seductive, I must decline from ranking it amongst the great musical geniuses that are JS Bach or Beethoven.
Lately I've started to admire Handel more and more.

Okay, I don't mean to stir up a hornet's next here, but I gotta agree with Robert -- Mozart is not in same league as LvB and Bach.

I didn't know though that most of M's best works were written by others. Does that include his Adagio from Piano Concerto No. 23? That's probably the greatest thing he ever did.

As for Handel -- there's certainly a revival going on as we speak. They say he's becoming for the 21st century what Bach was for the 20th.

[Agnes Selby]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]
Peter,

Why should you write 'begin' with Mozart, rather than begin with Mozart ? I think the huge hype that surrounds Mozart has to be tackled critically before we can fairly judge his true musically stature.
-----------------

Robert,

These are your opinions which need to be substantiated before they are "tackled critically".

You have been on your "I hate Mozart Hobby Horse" for almost a decade. During this time, you have produced absolutely no evidence to support your claims.

Agnes Selby.

[Rod]

Originally posted by euphony131:

As for Handel -- there's certainly a revival going on as we speak. They say he's becoming for the 21st century what Bach was for the 20th.

It's true for me, a few years ago I hardly ever even thought about Handel but thanks to the authentic instrument movement I feel totally different. Beethoven got it right about Handel but the musical establishment for the last 100 years or more put him forever in the shadow of JS Bach, or rather forever until now. My Handel CD collection now outstrips my Beethoven by a factor of 4 to 1. I've stated before to my mind Handel is for sure the King of theatre music.

Concerning Haydn and Mozart (whoever wrote their music Robert!), I too lean on the side that M is a little overated, only a few pieces of his here and there I like, and I like hardly any of his vocal compositions which sound more neutral. Haydn is too dry, again lacking the 'personal stamp'. JS Bach too restricted. I suggest Beethoven and Handel have the best all-round musical solutions.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-22-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

With respect, you have not answered my simple question. Instead you have returned to your theory that Mozart did not compose most of Mozart (for my view on that see footnote).

My question was:

“ …now that we have separated the person of Mozart from the works generally assigned to him, do you still feel X is merely a composer where one ‘begins’?”

I should be grateful if you would take a moment or two to address that very simple question. Thank you for your time.

Euan

Footnote: As I said in my earlier posting, I do not want to get into the argument of whether Mozart composed most of Mozart. I have no emotional attachment to the name or person of Mozart (unlike some others) and have a completely open mind on the points you raise. However, I’m with Agnes on this: until and unless you produce some hard, rigorous evidence for your views, I shall continue to assume that Mozart did in fact write the vast quantity of the work widely attributed to him.

[Agnes Selby]

I would venture to say that if people begin
to appreciate Mozart at an early age, that is to say they begin with Mozart, they continue to enjoy his music until they are old and they hair turns grey. I would like to bring your attention, Robert, to the many grey heads at Mozart concerts.

I am speaking here from experience, not only as a concert goer but as the person
who organised concerts at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania for 6 years. Concerts featuring Mozart and Beethoven were the concerts which were always fully attended. We kept this in mind as we had to finance the concerts from ticket sales and subscriptions. Young and old, those who began enjoying Mozart and those who were still enjoying his music in old age were the audiences who favoured our Mozart and Beethoven concerts.

The same applies to my daughter, Kathryn Selby's Trio, Macquarie Trio Australia,
resident artists at Macquarie University in Sydney. Mozart never fails to attract
audiences, young and old, beginners and
older people who enjoy his music in great numbers.

Its not a Mozartean "industry" that brings people to concerts featuring Mozart's music but a love and appreciation of his compositions. This also applies to his operas.

Agnes Selby.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

In reply to your assertion that I 'hate' Mozart and am crusading against him and his music for almost 10 years (a claim you make, the truth is that I love and have always loved many works that are today attributed to Mozart. Mozart's music astonished me when I first discovered music and it was one of the many beautiful reasons to study the subject of music in depth -as I still try to do. I don't 'hate' Mozart. In fact, I've spent years of my life trying to establish (often against criticism from conservatives) exactly what Mozart IS - whether he/it is actually a brand name or a real person who wrote the 626 works attributed to him in the Koechel list. This pursuit of the real Mozart (and my personal discovery that he was as great an arranger of other people's music) runs completely contrary to the hype that surrounds him and his legacy. But this you know very well.

I entirely agree that Mozart is generally music of great and seductive beauty. To me, the issue is whether this beauty is that of a woman who is kind, helpful and relevant to us who would study/write music in our time. It's my personal view that the actual musical value of Mozart is far less than that of, say, Johann Sebastian Bach and also of Beethoven. I compare it to a politician blessed with great eloquence but who, at the end of the day, has melted my heart without actually succeeding in changing the world. Mozart is of course the Kugeln of music.

Best wishes

Robert