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

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

You write:

You have asked me a 'simple' question three times, each time in a form less simple than the first. I've answered you each time. (My emphasis)

With respect Robert, you have not answered my question. For the most part you have drifted off into the ‘Mozart-did-not-compose-Mozart’ argument. As I have already said, I am not in the slightest bit interested in that argument.

You continue:

Sorry you wish to withdraw - let me ask you one. I am not a philosopher. Is it possible that you can frame your questions in a way that does not make you withdraw when the answers you receive are not as clinical as you might need ?

OK, I will try one further time as you imply you wish me to. Here is the argument and hence the question I am trying to get you to respond to:

1. Your original and subsequent postings seemed to argue that the music normally attributed to Mozart is something that listeners start with before quickly moving on to something more substantial/demanding/rewarding like Beethoven.

2. However, I wondered if/suspected that your comments had more to do with your case about ‘Mozart’ than with the actual music itself.

3. Hence, I asked you if you would concentrate your reply entirely on the music of ‘Mozart’ (MM) and not the identity/person of the composer(s). I felt you did the reverse.

4. Let me reiterate what Peter said earlier: this thread is entitled “What would it take to surpass The Great Beethoven?". It was against this title that I found your initial remarks about MM interesting and, to me, ‘challenging’. Hence my question which (rephrased, as requested) is:

Do you still feel MM is where one ‘begins’ before moving on to music that is more substantial/demanding/rewarding?


Frankly, Robert, I do not feel that one has to be “a philosopher” to understand and hence respond to that question.

Euan

[18-ceo]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes the use of trills as a means of texture rather than decoration is quite characteristic of late Beethoven.

That I absolutly agree with, and I'm not an expert of the man either, but the charater of his personality I am! He had a mission in life, and most was percieved in the manifest of the music. This was a man who seen human beings as holding true creative talents in the image of the Creator and expressing those skills in an productive manner in to uplift the ignorance of society! You can get a sense of that, by his attempt to kill himself, he didn't because he know he possessed a Creative talent no man on Earth could produce, so to kill himself would have met cheating mankind!

[18-ceo]

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.

Da'Vinci and Beethoven for some reason has the universal quility of no other man I can think of, as of the moment. In a Plato dialogue, I think Timaus, but he said " The Creator, when creating the Universe must of struggled and wrestled together certain disonet elements. My point with these personalities like the genuises above have the two-fold likeness. Da'Vinci Beautiful at capturing Nature and all her wonders, but the mind of military inventor, mastering weaponary. Beethoven, Outstanding approach in capturing the human's "minds-eye", but developed an enraged side to him. But you have like a split-personality in the quality of the Charaters.

[18-ceo]

Originally posted by 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.

Wow, I don't know a ton about the history of Mozart, but if that's his history than the agruement is solved!

[18-ceo]

[quote]Originally posted by Agnes Selby:
[b]

Originally posted by 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.
-----------------

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.

To Agnes, I would beg to disagree. The fact of a man whom creates wonders as a soverign, and one who manifest from an "industry" is a big difference!

[18-ceo]

Originally posted by 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

That idea of blessed music but not changing the world, that was a profound idea my friend!

[Agnes Selby]

Agnes Selby. [/b][/QUOTE]To Agnes, I would beg to disagree. The fact of a man whom creates wonders as a soverign, and one who manifest from an "industry" is a big difference!

[/B][/QUOTE]

---------------

I am sorry, dear Sir, I do not understand what you mean. What sovereign and what industry are you referring to?

In my note I simply asked Mr. Newman for
references so that I could ascertain
his claims.

Agnes Selby.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

Since this thread is discussing what it would take to surpass the great Beethoven I will not answer your question in any detail here. Sufficient to say that until the editors of the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works finally delete many works there that are indisputably NOT by Mozart your easiest reference for persistent and false attribution to Mozart begins with that same catalogue and with versions that have appeared over the past 150 years or so. I find it deeply offensive that such misleading and inaccurate attributions should continue to appear on such a scale edition after edition of this same 'reference' catalogue. This is dishonest, misleading and completely unjustifiable and I am blowing the whistle on such a scam.

Robert

[Chris]

All right, I think this thread has run its course.