December 5, 1791

Donald Isler · Post by **Donald Isler** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:29 am

A really tragic day in the history of music with the death of Mozart at just 35. What would he have done with twice that much time, with 70 not even considered a very long life by our standards today?

Also, another opportunity to remind people of the contributions to Mozart scholarship by our member, Agnes Selby, via her book "Constanze, Mozart's Beloved" which gives a new, and very different picture of Mozart's wife from that by which she is often remembered.

John F · Post by **John F** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:36 pm

A sad anniversary indeed.

This prompted me to try to find out whether it was all that abnormal to die in one's mid-30s, in Europe in the late 18th century. If there are precise actuarial tables for 1790s Vienna, I haven't found them. But according to http://www.spiritus-temporis.com, citing the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1961, life expectancy at birth at the "End of 18th Century" was 37, and http://www.infoplease.com cites census records for white males in Massachussetts in 1850 to give their life expectancy at birth as 38.3. 70 may not be considered a very long life by 21st century American standards, but in Mozart's day his lifespan apparently wasn't much below the average. If he'd lived just 2-3 years more, imagine what he might have done in that much time!

Infant mortality was much higher then, of course, just one of many factors that brought the average down. And you'd expect Mozart's comfortable and mostly prosperous lifestyle to have added years to his life. It was his bad luck to have gotten an life-threatening illness at a time when it couldn't even be diagnosed properly, let alone treated and cured. His wife was luckier - she survived giving birth to 6 children in 6 years during her 20s and was 80 years old when she died, outliving even Haydn by 3 years. But there you are.

ContrapunctusIX · Post by **ContrapunctusIX** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:02 pm

Somewhere up there, Mozart and Bach are probably having an improvisational keyboard duel as we speak. Here's to the memory of one of the great masters.

When one considers the profundity he produced during his all too short mature period, it's jawdropping to think about what might have been.

James · Post by **James** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:21 pm

A very very over-rated 'dead' composer & "in heaven" Mozart couldn't & wouldn't be-able to hang with a genius like JS Bach, other than perhaps being a student. He would be way out of his depth.

Fergus · Post by **Fergus** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:20 pm

I think that Mozart was a great genius and the world of music was robbed of a real talent by his early death.

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:46 pm

James wrote:A very very over-rated 'dead' composer & "in heaven" Mozart couldn't & wouldn't be-able to hang with a genius like JS Bach, other than perhaps being a student. He would be way out of his depth.

Yeah right!

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:46 pm

Fergus wrote:I think that Mozart was a great genius and the world of music was robbed of a real talent by his early death.

I agree.

Teresa B · Post by **Teresa B** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:47 pm

James wrote:A very very over-rated 'dead' composer & "in heaven" Mozart couldn't & wouldn't be-able to hang with a genius like JS Bach, other than perhaps being a student. He would be way out of his depth.

Them's fightin' words around here, mister.

Teresa

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:27 pm

The first things I thought of were the Requiem and the Mass in C minor.

One can only speculate concerning the possibilities in parallel universes etc. 20 more years (1811) and who knows what influences back and forth could have occurred?

ContrapunctusIX · Post by **ContrapunctusIX** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:57 pm

James wrote:A very very over-rated 'dead' composer & "in heaven" Mozart couldn't & wouldn't be-able to hang with a genius like JS Bach, other than perhaps being a student. He would be way out of his depth.

Just because you don't like him doesn't make him overrated. Are you going to start this song and dance every time Mozart is mentioned?

Imperfect Pitch · Post by **Imperfect Pitch** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:37 pm

If I could listen to only one composer for the rest of my life, it would be Mozart.

And somehow, I have a hunch his legacy will survive stray comments by CMG trolls :-)

James · Post by **James** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:05 am

Mozart is such a little lightweight next to a genius of Bach's stature and he knew and realized that himself.
His music is all surface glitter & charm, effeminate, safe, polite and simple - if that's your kind-of thing more power to you!

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:07 am

If you perceive no further depth that others have seen and written about lucidly for centuries, perhaps the lack is yours.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:19 am

PERHAPS, Brendan?

James · Post by **James** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:23 am

Brendan wrote:If you perceive no further depth ...

I really don't, and I've heard loads of it - it doesn't measure up or compare AT ALL to the real intensity and depth of JS Bach.
But then again, intensity wasn't Mozart's thing afterall - simplicity, surface glitter and charm was.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:59 am

Werner wrote:PERHAPS, Brendan?

You're right: the lack is definitely his.

It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart.
Karl Barth

Post by **Lance** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:20 am

James, I am surprised at you for making such a statement. You MUST realize you are in the distinct minority.

James wrote:A very very over-rated 'dead' composer & "in heaven" Mozart couldn't & wouldn't be-able to hang with a genius like JS Bach, other than perhaps being a student. He would be way out of his depth.

JackC · Post by **JackC** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:35 am

Most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that they are just not able to appreciate Mozart, and see it as saying something about them and their musical tastes, not Mozart. It takes a special menality indeed to conclude that all the great composers and musicians over the last 200 years who have found Mozart to be as deep and intense as anyones are all just wrong.

Beethoven was with a student and heard a performance of Mozart's c minor piano concerto. Beethoven said- "Cramer, we shall never be able to compose anything like that."

But hey, what should Beethoven know, he was deaf after all.

John F · Post by **John F** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:29 am

James wrote:His music is all surface glitter & charm, effeminate, safe, polite and simple

As with the "Dies Irae" in the Requiem, the first movement of the piano concerto in D minor, the opening of the "Dissonant" quartet, much of "Don Giovanni"? Strange to come across such an old-fashioned view, which is a throwback to the 19th century when the range of Mozart's music and indeed much of the music itself was little known, and people were impressed - perhaps overimpressed - by the violence and eccentricity that had come into the new music of their time. But that was generations ago. We know better now - or most of us do.

mikealdren · Post by **mikealdren** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:22 am

Mozart is one of the great 'what ifs'. After all, if Beethoven had died at 35 he would have premiered the Eroica and the triple concerto. Would we have considered him a great composer? What else would Mozart have given us given a few more years.

Of course composers who died younger still are even more tantalising. If Mozart had died as young as Schubert we would have had nothing beyond about K525 (Eine Kleine) and those last 100 works contain so most of his greatest music. Judged in these terms, Schubert excelled them all.

Mike

Teresa B · Post by **Teresa B** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:02 am

JackC wrote: It takes a special menality indeed to conclude that all the great composers and musicians over the last 200 years who have found Mozart to be as deep and intense as anyones are all just wrong.

Got to agree with you here (assuming you meant "mentality"); what your special mentality misses is the truth that dense counterpoint is not the only way to express depth and complexity.

That said, your comments strike me as either tongue-in-cheek, or deliberately designed to annoy the majority of us who appreciate Mozart (and don't particularly like to have our mentalities demeaned by someone who happens to have a different preference)--if you prefer Bach, fine, quit with the buzzing about and go listen to the B-minor Mass or something.

Teresa

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:41 am

Teresa B wrote:
James wrote:A very very over-rated 'dead' composer & "in heaven" Mozart couldn't & wouldn't be-able to hang with a genius like JS Bach, other than perhaps being a student. He would be way out of his depth.
Them's fightin' words around here, mister.

Teresa

En garde!

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:50 am

Teresa B wrote:Got to agree with you here (assuming you meant "mentality"); what your special mentality misses is the truth that dense counterpoint is not the only way to express depth and complexity.

QFT

Cheers,
~Karl

Imperfect Pitch · Post by **Imperfect Pitch** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:51 am

James wrote:Mozart is such a little lightweight next to a genius of Bach's stature and he knew and realized that himself.
His music is all surface glitter & charm, effeminate, safe, polite and simple - if that's your kind-of thing more power to you! :?

Come to think of it, I encounter lots of people in daily life who cannot appreciate Mozart for whatever reason. So, in that sense you are in good company.

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:34 am

Teresa B wrote:
JackC wrote: It takes a special menality indeed to conclude that all the great composers and musicians over the last 200 years who have found Mozart to be as deep and intense as anyones are all just wrong.
Got to agree with you here (assuming you meant "mentality"); what your special mentality misses is the truth that dense counterpoint is not the only way to express depth and complexity.

Teresa

Not being argumentative but... this site has led me to certain questions, one of which is how does (or can) music express depth and complexity? is it just belief in the words of citics.

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:40 am

Here James goes again . . . .

James wrote:His music is all surface glitter & charm, effeminate, safe, polite and simple

1. It is a superficial listener who dismisses [mature] Mozart as "all surface glitter."

2. Charm is actually a virtue. Possibly you disregard it, because you are in possession of so very little.

3. "Effeminate"? (a) In the first place, I defy you to quantify "effeminacy" in music; (b) so this item just boils down to James pouring scorn. La di da.

4. "Safe" and "polite" are, firstly, at best relative labels referring to any composer's given context: in our day, all Bach (as well as all Mozart) is "safe" and "polite." In their own day, I think you'll find that Bach played it both safer and politer than Mozart; Bach was famous as a stodgy reactionary in his own lifetime, nor do you get any politer (musically speaking, I mean) than a church organist. Mozart scarcely 'played it safe' with the 'Haydn' quartets, whose publisher would find that the pieces were a good deal too hard for most of his market. As to your blinkered prejudice of Mozart supposedly 'playing it safe', again, in his day Beaumarchais' play The Marriage of Figaro had been banned in Vienna for its satire on the aristocracy. Where Bach just trundled out his tidy cantatas, week after week ; )

5. "Simple" is not a negative criticism of music, James. It's quite pronouncedly thick of you not to get this. Composers themselves, over the centuries, strove to do Simple so that the result is also Beautiful; it is a great challenge, because when the piece is simple, there's no place to hide. Hence Tolstoy's remark: Genius expresses itself in simplicity.

The bottom line, James, is that the people who refuse (or who are unable) to listen to a given composer with the empathy which is necessary to fair evaluation, aren't the ones who get to pass sentence. Which is a principle you (BTW) are happy to invoke when it comes to Stockhausen (e.g.)

(Just above the bottom line, of course, is the observation that when you turn your Scorn switch on, your bulb gets noticeably dimmer.)

Cheers,
~Karl

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:52 am

Lance wrote:James, I am surprised at you for making such a statement. You MUST realize you are in the distinct minority. :shock:

Well, to be in the minority is not necessarily to be wrong.

In this case, though, James is clearly, bull-headedly wrong ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:53 am

The bottom line, James, is that the people who refuse (or who are unable) to listen to a given composer with the empathy which is necessary to fair evaluation, aren't the ones who get to pass sentence.

Nonsense. That's why Bruckner's reception came so late. I've read many comments from critics who have no empathy with the works they are criticising and they're the ones who often pass sentence. And programme controllers, impresarios etc.

James · Post by **James** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:25 pm

karlhenning wrote:Mozart as "all surface glitter."

...and the charm. The charm is superficial too.

3. "Effeminate"? (a) In the first place, I defy you to quantify "effeminacy" in music;

Look up the word - it sums up the gist of Mozart's soundworld perfectly.

nor do you get any politer (musically speaking, I mean) than a church organist.

One who used to upset the congregation by improvising and greatly embellishing standard hymn tunes while playing ?

Mozart scarcely 'played it safe'[/b]

Scarcely? His music is the epitome of safe & polite. Get a grip...

5. "Simple" is not a negative criticism of music, James. Composers themselves, over the centuries, strove to do Simple so that the result is also Beautiful; it is a great challenge, because when the piece is simple, there's no place to hide.

Considering what came before, things went downhill for quite awhile...Mozart's simplicity is boring & immensely over-rated.

ContrapunctusIX · Post by **ContrapunctusIX** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:47 pm

Your shtick is tired, James. Go listen to some Berg why don't you...unlike you while Berg is not my favorite I still make the effort to listen to his music and try to better understand why people like you worship at his altar and the rest of his ilk.

You would do well to follow the advice of your signature.

James · Post by **James** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:11 pm

ContrapunctusIX wrote:Your shtick is tired, James. Go listen to some Berg why don't you...unlike you while Berg is not my favorite I still make the effort to listen to his music and try to better understand why people like you worship at his altar and the rest of his ilk.

You would do well to follow the advice of your signature.

Well, JS Bach is my favorite musician/composer. And I'd prefer to listen to him. But I'd definitely take the best of the 2nd Viennese School (especially Anton Webern) over over-rated bores like Mozart & Beethoven anyday.

JackC · Post by **JackC** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:51 pm

James wrote:
ContrapunctusIX wrote:Your shtick is tired, James. Go listen to some Berg why don't you...unlike you while Berg is not my favorite I still make the effort to listen to his music and try to better understand why people like you worship at his altar and the rest of his ilk.

You would do well to follow the advice of your signature.
Well, JS Bach is my favorite musician/composer. And I'd prefer to listen to him. But I'd definitely take the best of the 2nd Viennese School (especially Anton Webern) over over-rated bores like Mozart & Beethoven anyday.

OK, so now not just one, but two of the principal divinities of western culture, Mozart and Beethoven, are now "over-rated bores."

Are you in a contest with yourself to see just how stupid a remark you can make??

NancyElla · Post by **NancyElla** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:38 pm

James wrote:A very very over-rated 'dead' composer & "in heaven" Mozart couldn't & wouldn't be-able to hang with a genius like JS Bach, other than perhaps being a student. He would be way out of his depth.

There is as little point in arguing about this, I suppose, as there ever is in arguing matters of taste. But for the record, I offer the viewpoints of two distinguished Mozart fans who see Mozart's relative value very differently than you--

The theologian Karl Barth is quoted as saying that if he ever got to heaven, he would "first of all seek out Mozart and only then inquire after Augustine, St. Thomas, Luther, Calvin, and Schliermacher," because in Mozart, more than anyone else, one can perceive an "art of playing" which presupposes a "childlike awareness of the essence or center--as also the beginning and end--of all things." Barth is also quoted as saying that although he is not absolutely certain "that when when the angels go about their task of praising God, they play only Bach," but he is sure "that when they are together en famille, they play Mozart and that then too the good God listens with special pleasure."

No less a music critic than George Bernard Shaw said that Mozart's music is "the only music yet written that would not sound out of place in the mouth of God."

I am genuinely sorry for you that all you can perceive of Mozart's music is "surface charm and glitter." Your love of Bach is sufficient proof that you are neither tone deaf nor completely lacking in appreciation of beauty, but perhaps you suffer from the aural equivalent of color blindness that unfortunately affects your ability to appreciate other music, including that of Mozart. I constantly thank whatever gods there be that I was born after Mozart lived.

James · Post by **James** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:40 pm

JackC wrote:OK, so now not just one, but two of the principal divinities of western culture, Mozart and Beethoven, are now "over-rated bores."

Are you in a contest with yourself to see just how stupid a remark you can make??

Reading stuff like this (& other things you've written in the past) - you being the contests creator take 1st prize in stupidity without a doubt.

JackC · Post by **JackC** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:13 pm

James wrote:
JackC wrote:OK, so now not just one, but two of the principal divinities of western culture, Mozart and Beethoven, are now "over-rated bores."

Are you in a contest with yourself to see just how stupid a remark you can make??

Reading stuff like this (& other things you've written in the past) - you being the contests creator take 1st prize in stupidity without a doubt.

OK, you've trashed Mozart AND Beethoven as "over-rated bores". No one with any musical knowledge, taste, understanding or culture would do this. Too bad for you. But please spare those of us who are not clueless from your stupid remarks.

James · Post by **James** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:26 pm

JackC wrote: OK, you've trashed Mozart AND Beethoven as "over-rated bores". No one with any musical knowledge, taste, understanding or culture would do this. Too bad for you.

You just trumped your last masterpiece of mindless sputtering. Your prize is well deserved.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:28 pm

Perhaps James is a master of reverse psychology. I've been on a Mozart binge since the infantile tirade began. Now I get to switch to Beethoven.

From http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=1382

Karl Barth was no less refreshing yesterday as he deftly described the total receptivity and objectivity of the artist he loves, to whose music he listens daily. He rejoiced that in Mozart’s music “the sun shines, but without burning or weighing upon the earth” and “the earth also stays in its place, remains itself, without feeling that it must therefore rise in titanic revolt against the heavens.” He bowed before an art in which “the laugh is never without tears, tears are never unrelieved by laughter.” He honored Mozart who, though Roman Catholic and yet a Freemason, was utterly free of all institutional deformations, whether ecclesiastical or political. He confessed the reality and the peace he finds in an art which embraces nature, man and God, which is as true to life as it is to death.

And some folk wonder why ACers have such a bad rep.

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:38 pm

Donald Isler wrote:A really tragic day in the history of music with the death of Mozart at just 35. What would he have done with twice that much time, with 70 not even considered a very long life by our standards today?

Didn't he want to become organist of the Stephansdom?
He loved the intrument, but did not compose a lot for it.
But, given the high quality of lots of his compositions of 1790/1791, I'd love to assume that he would have been able to write great music for organ.

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:55 pm

I can't help admire James' courage, flying in the face of the orthodoxy - because that's what it is. The Bluffer's Guide says that there are four composers beyond criticism: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Your Particular Favourite. It says "There is no need to say that you admire Beethoven or Mozart because that is assumed."

and, "...for everything he wrote is perfect with never a wrong note in it. The proper reaction to Mozart is to go glassy-eyed and full of inexpressible admiration.......you can be absolutely certain that 95% of Mozart performances are unsatisfactory - so do not hesitate to say so. As the ideal seems to be an orchestra of angels with St Peter conducting and with Mozart himself playing the piano it is quite clear why mere mortals fail."

The last para says, "If you find Mozart's music boring you had better keep this horrible fact to yourself. You might as well go round proclaiming yourself a communist. Cultivate a natural admiration and a mathematical memory, even take your Koechel catalogue to a party but don't be surprised if nobody asks you to read it."

I don't exactly find it boring but I can't seem to get into it except when I need to relax with no demands made. I suppose the Oboe Quartet gets me on the edge of my seat. He was a genius all right, had a natural knack with tonality and seemed to know what he was doing for the stage. The most popular classical composer.

Sooner Mozart than Haydn, though.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:28 pm

Straw man. No one here said everything he wrote was prefect without a wrong note and many have commented negatively on the quality of his juvenile works if not many others.

95% of internet statistics are made up anyway.

Courage? It's just deliberately stirring tempers in order to be annoying. On a classical board - guess what!?! - there might be an admirer of actual classical music or two! What a shock!

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:58 pm

To me, Mozart was an opera man.
With a growing interest (maybe) in church music.

And he was still developing himself.
His last year was a great year, with a.o. the Concertos KV 595 and 622, his string quintet KV 614, his two great operas and the unfinished Requiem.
I think, had he gotten more involved with the Stephansdom, he would have produced a lot of impressive choral & organ works.

Well, it's time for bed here.

At least now I'll have something to dream about. Let's start in Vienna, december 6th 1791, and Mozart is Alive & Kicking ..... sigh.

JackC · Post by **JackC** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:00 pm

Brendan wrote:Straw man. No one here said everything he wrote was prefect without a wrong note and many have commented negatively on the quality of his juvenile works if not many others.

95% of internet statistics are made up anyway.

Courage? It's just deliberately stirring tempers in order to be annoying. On a classical board - guess what!?! - there might be an admirer of actual classical music or two! What a shock!

Well said.

According to James, Bach is great, but Mozart and Beethoven are over-rated bores. Well since Mozart and Beethoven are soooo different, one can't help but wonder if James considers ALL the other recoginzed giants from the classical and romantic period to be over-rated bores as well.

So what about Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms, Dvorak, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler?? Were any of them great? Or were they ALL over-rated bores - until Schoenberg??

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:54 pm

James wrote:
karlhenning wrote:Mozart as "all surface glitter."
...and the charm. The charm is superficial too.

3. "Effeminate"? (a) In the first place, I defy you to quantify "effeminacy" in music;

Look up the word - it sums up the gist of Mozart's soundworld perfectly.

nor do you get any politer (musically speaking, I mean) than a church organist.

One who used to upset the congregation by improvising and greatly embellishing standard hymn tunes while playing ?

Mozart scarcely 'played it safe'[/b]
Scarcely? His music is the epitome of safe & polite. Get a grip...

5. "Simple" is not a negative criticism of music, James. Composers themselves, over the centuries, strove to do Simple so that the result is also Beautiful; it is a great challenge, because when the piece is simple, there's no place to hide.
Considering what came before, things went downhill for quite awhile...Mozart's simplicity is boring & immensely over-rated.

Thank you for your complete failure to address any of my points.

Of especially notable impotence is the "look up the word" wheeze.

Cheers,
~Karl

Imperfect Pitch · Post by **Imperfect Pitch** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:14 pm

absinthe wrote:I can't help admire James' courage, flying in the face of the orthodoxy - because that's what it is. The Bluffer's Guide says that there are four composers beyond criticism: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Your Particular Favourite.

What a great website - thanks for the tip. I can already tell it will come in handy. But, ever hear the saying: "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"? Well, in the same vein: just because it's in the Bluffer's Guide, doesn't mean it ain't true :-)

Also, expressing an opinion about Mozart on a chat forum when there is no downside to speak of - is hardly a sign of courage! It is no easier or harder, more courageous or more cowardly, than crafting a message that says just the opposite.

James · Post by **James** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:39 pm

karlhenning wrote: Thank you for your complete failure to address any of my points.

Of especially notable impotence is the "look up the word" wheeze.

Cheers,
~Karl[/color]

Well, your post was wordy fluff not saying much, like most of them - i tried my best.

Brendan · Post by **Brendan** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:46 pm

Yes - and we've seen how inadequate and ignorant your best truly is.

You are even lousy at the insults. Do you get your jollies from folk despising you or something?

Imperfect Pitch · Post by **Imperfect Pitch** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:49 pm

James wrote:
karlhenning wrote: Thank you for your complete failure to address any of my points.

Of especially notable impotence is the "look up the word" wheeze.

Cheers,
~Karl[/color]
Well, your post was wordy fluff not saying much, like most of them - i tried my best. :lol:

Wordy fluff?? Karl, I believe this places you on par with Mozart in our colleague's estimation - so take the compliment and run :-)

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:52 pm

Imperfect Pitch wrote:Wordy fluff?? Karl, I believe this places you on par with Mozart in our colleague's estimation - so take the compliment and run :-)

Indeed! ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:49 pm

karlhenning wrote:
Teresa B wrote:Got to agree with you here (assuming you meant "mentality"); what your special mentality misses is the truth that dense counterpoint is not the only way to express depth and complexity.
QFT

Cheers,
~Karl

I'll add my "amen." Though the style and texture of a Bach fugue and a Mozart sonata-form movement are very different, they are both realizations of a multi-voice "composing out" (Auskomponierung, to use a term of Heinrich Schenker) of a structure based on elaborations of the tonic-dominant relationship that governs tonal music (and distinguishes it from, for instance, Renaissance music). Mozart and Bach are in the same league in achieving a richness of inventiveness, complexity, economy, elegance in the sense that mathematicians use the term, and mastery of subordinate structures that explains in part (but never totally, for who can explain all of how we experience art?) their accomplishment. It is perfectly legitimate to have an exclusive preference for one composer over the other if one's criteria are in fact purely stylistic. If, however, one is concerned with artistry (an artistry that in this case, as it is not in many others, is to a great extent anyway analytically demonstrable and not entirely subjective), then a dismissal of Mozart without throwing all of classical music out the window at the same time would in my opinion constitute, at best, a sign of immaturity in listening.

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:59 am

James wrote:
karlhenning wrote: Thank you for your complete failure to address any of my points.

Of especially notable impotence is the "look up the word" wheeze.

Cheers,
~Karl[/color]
Well, your post was wordy fluff not saying much, like most of them - i tried my best.

I've attended management meetings and often wondered where all that vacuous verbiage sucked out by the extractor fans ends up.

Who is online