Overated Composers?

[MatsudaMan]

BRUCKNER. So overated. He was an organist. Nuff said.

 

[MatsudaMan]

You know what? Even though I don't like Bruckner, I'm now kind of ashamed of even posting anything. I'm a real lover of classical music. I play it for a living and even when I'm playing Bruckner 7 and thinking, "When is this piece going to end", it is still heaven. Heaven because if Bruckner was the only music in the world it would still make it a better place. Yeah, it's pretty korny. But, isn't it kind of true? Those of you arguing about which composer is better should just stop wasting time and start enjoying the music.

 

[MatsudaMan]

it's hard to sea beauty in the world we live in

 

[majid]

Since I voted for Mozart as overrated twice, I guess I should pick up the gauntlet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGhostWhoWalks The most amazing thing about Mozart to me was how COMPLETE of a composer he was at such a young age. There wasn't one form that he didn't excell in. Which was a rarity even among the absolute best composers.

He was precocious, to be sure, but I fail to see how that is relevant to the quality of his work and whether he is over or underrated.

Quote:

Piano Music? His Piano Concertos stand alone among THE greatest works in all of Western music.

That's your opinion, and I respect it, but conversely you can't assume it is universal or objective. I have the Pinnock/Bilson complete edition, and I can't stand most of them, with the possible exception of No. 23. I can think of over a dozen composers whose piano concerti are indiscutably superior (in my opinion, of course): Bach, Bartók, Beethoven, Brahms, Britten, Chopin, Grieg, Liszt, Martinů, Mendelssohn, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Saint-Saëns, Schumann, Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky.

Quote:

Not to mention his Piano Sonatas which are so overlooked as well. As Artur Schnabel said of them "Children are given Mozart's sonatas to play because of the quantity of the notes. Adults avoid them because of the quality."

If they are overlooked, they can hardly count towards overrated or overexposed, then.

Quote:

Symphonies? His last 6 symphonies are among the greatest ever written. Up there with Beethoven's, Brahms's and Mahler's best. His 41st can very much lay claim to being THE best (whether it is or not is another matter.)

Apart from 40 and 41, which are good, most of them can't hold a candle to any of those written since the 19th century. Or even in comparison to Haydn, for that matter.

Quote:

Serenades? Mozart's Ace in the hole was his serenades. The Gran Partita, The Posthorn, the Haffner, and, yes, even Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, in all its overplayed genius, it's still a fantastic work brimming with brilliance that it makes me sick to think of how much tv and movies and the general public have ruined such an amazing piece of music.

Dvořak, Elgar, Britten, Tchaikovsky. Enough said.

Quote:

Concertos? There was none better than Mozart. You name the instrument, he wrote an amazing concerto for it. His clarinet is the best ever written for the instrument.

Either Nielsen's Clarinet Concerto or Stravinsky's Ebony Concerto are superior in my opinion. I don't expect you to share it, but don't expect me to share yours either.

Quote:

Then there's the horn and violin concertos

As far as I am concerned, pretty much every violin concerto ever written is better than any of Mozart's. Not to repeat Leporello's air of the catalogue: Adams, Bach, Barber, Bartók, Beethoven, Berg, Brahms, Britten, Bruch, Dvořak, Khachaturian, Korngold, Mendelssohn, Nielsen, Paganini, Prokofiev, Saint-Saëns, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Suk, Szymanowski, Tchaikovsky or Vivaldi.

Quote:

, flute, flute and harp, oboe, bassoon, several sinfonia concertantes (the one for violin and viola stands out though).

I won't go over the tedious repetition. The sinfonia concertante is good, though.

Quote:

Chamber Music? Without his innovations who knows what Beethoven would've done. His String Quartets and Quintets are still among my absolute favorites in the genre. Not to mention his Quintet for piano and winds.

And completely effete and insignificant compared to the works of Janáček or Shostakovich.

Quote:

I actually own the Philips Complete Mozart Edition. Yep, everything Mozart ever did, I own. I've listened to just about all of it and all of the major works. I know that if most REAL classical fans would listen to what I've been listening to there would be no way they'd EVER think one of, if not THE greatest composer of all time is over-rated.

He wouldn't even make my top ten, let alone my top three. All I have to go are symphonies 40 and 41, piano concerto 23, the Requiem, the Sinfonia Concertante and the operas. That's a little bit thin for someone who would lay claim to the title of all-time greatest composer.

I have been a little bit harsh, and my aim is not to impose my tastes on you. It would be absurd in any case. It is just to illustrate that what seems to you utterly self-evident is just a matter of personal taste, and that there is a significant contingent of people who don't specially care for Mozart, not out of philistinism, but just because our tastes are not aligned with his output.

We resent the constant shoving of his syrupy and shallow works down our throats by timid classical programmers, compared to the much more substantial work of, say, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Britten or Nielsen (just to mention my personal favorites). The fact that Mozart was singled out as over-rated far more often than, say, Bach or Beethoven, should in itself tell you something.

 

[calaf]

finally the gloves went off! That was the idea since the beginning. Let's see if I can keep up with it

Quote:

We resent the constant shoving of his syrupy and shallow works down our throats by timid classical programmers, compared to the much more substantial work of, say, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Britten or Nielsen (just to mention my personal favorites). The fact that Mozart was singled out as over-rated far more often than, say, Bach or Beethoven, should in itself tell you something.

Britten?? Compared to Mozart??? You gotta be kidding (perhaps you are, that would be very much in the spirit of the thread

)! Britten (rest in peace) was a honest journeyman but do you really think that, English musical press hype aside, he was cut from the same cloth of composers like Shosta or Prokoviev or (heaven forfends) Mozart?

 

[Ferbose]

I like Mozart a lot, and I think he is a great composer.
I know quite a few classical aficionados who don't really appreciate Mozart, so it is just a matter of preference.

Looking at it objectively though, Mozart's influence is enormous, defintely up there in the top five.

I notice that when great musicians of our day are asked about the composers that influence them most, Mozart's name gets mentioned more frequently than basically anyone else but Bach. Often these great performers would say Mozart's works are easy to play but so hard to play well. They often say learning to interpret Mozart is a life-long journey. If a composer can make great musicians born centuries later ponder about his work for the lifetime, there is no doubt in my mind this composer has achieved the highest artistry. If you believe composer X is more significant than Mozart, look around and see if there are more prodigious musicians musing over Mr. X's opuses than Mozart's. Except for Bach, or maybe Beethoven, who could that Mr. X be?

Some think Mozart's music is somewhat shallow, and that is a mistake IMO. Many profound musicians and artists over the centuries have treated Mozart's work with all the seriousness in the world. If someone's work has been taken so seriously by so many profound minds, how can they be shallow? His music may not be exciting to some people, and that is normal, but it is a mistake to call it shallow just because it happens to be melodious and popular.

 

[dhp]

Shostakovich>Mozart??

No comment.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid We resent the constant shoving of his syrupy and shallow works down our throats by timid classical programmers, compared to the much more substantial work of, say, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Britten or Nielsen (just to mention my personal favorites). The fact that Mozart was singled out as over-rated far more often than, say, Bach or Beethoven, should in itself tell you something.

Obviously, you do not like Mozart. I can understand that. There are a lot of things in the world I don't care for either. I also can appreciate how you might be bored with the classical programming that goes on nowadays. However, assuming that because he has been commercialized and you find him unappealing means that the quality of his work is inferior is presumptuous. No one is asking you to like him, just to respect his body of work. Although some of his works are overexposed and exploited that does not mean he is an overrated composer. No one considering the body of his work could ever seriously say that! While it is true that he is so easy to appreciate that anyone, even a baby derives pleasure from listening to his music it doesn't mean that the works he produced are lower in quality than any of the composers you mentioned. Everyone in the world looks at the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci and finds them sublimely beautiful but thankfully, no one has suggested that The Last Supper and La Gioconda are less important than Picasso's Guernica or any of his portraits of Marie-Therèse Walter.

Mozart's works are first and foremost sublimely beautiful, and I don't understand why that is frequently given as the reason that they are "second rate!" Then again, there seems to be a school of thought that supposes that anything gained without pain is valueless. There are also people who blame his music for the 20th century commercialization of his music on the composer! There also seems to be a trend that says that Mozart's music has no relevance to the modern (read 20th - 21st century) experience. I would say, now more than ever in a world where we are flooded with images of mass disasters, war, terrorist acts, pandemics, hemorhhagic fevers, environmental poisonings, etc. we need the calm beauty of Mozart's vision more than ever.

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears However, assuming that because he has been commercialized and you find him unappealing means that the quality of his work is inferior is presumptuous. No one is asking you to like him, just to respect his body of work.

Judging the "quality" or a composer's work is in itself a subjective judgement. Just because there is majority opinion in favor does not prove anything - C.P.E Bach was considered far superior to Johann Sebastian until Mendelssohn and Mahler.

Quote:

No one considering the body of his work could ever seriously say that!

Well, I am considering his body of work and seriously saying that, so the statement above is demonstrably incorrect. What you really mean is: "I can't take seriously anything said on classical music by someone who thinks Mozart is overrated", which is perfectly fine, but still subjective.

Other examples: to quote Glenn Gould (who recorded a complete set of Mozart's Piano Sonatas, albeit in a highly unconventional way): "Mozart! Bah! Nothing but 1-4-5!". Charles Ives is also famous for his contempt of Mozart.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...

Quote:

While it is true that he is so easy to appreciate that anyone, even a baby derives pleasure from listening to his music it doesn't mean that the works he produced are lower in quality than any of the composers you mentioned. ... Mozart's works are first and foremost sublimely beautiful, and I don't understand why that is frequently given as the reason that they are "second rate!" Then again, there seems to be a school of thought that supposes that anything gained without pain is valueless.

I'm not a goth, if that's what you mean. I don't dislike Mozart's music because it is beautiful (I don't find it to be in most cases, merely cloying). Vaughan-Williams "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis" or "The Lark Ascending" are beautiful, and I do like them.

I dislike Mozart's music because I find it bland and boring, not beautiful.

Quote:

There are also people who blame his music for the 20th century commercialization of his music on the composer!

Vivaldi, Bach and Beethoven are at least as commercialized, but I have no quibbles with them.

Quote:

There also seems to be a trend that says that Mozart's music has no relevance to the modern (read 20th - 21st century) experience. I would say, now more than ever in a world where we are flooded with images of mass disasters, war, terrorist acts, pandemics, hemorhhagic fevers, environmental poisonings, etc. we need the calm beauty of Mozart's vision more than ever.

Most Americans' direct experience is a life of relative material abundance and physical safety, exceptions like 9/11 or New Orleans notwithstanding, and catastrophes are mostly experienced vicariously through the TV set. Perhaps what we need is more empathy for the plight of those less fortunate. The Requiem or "Ave Verum Corpus" would fit the bill, but they are far from typical of Mozart's work.

 

[Doc Sarvis]

Hard to believe this thread is still hangin' on...

It is of course an absurd premise to begin with. Nothing that has the mettle to survive for generations can possibly be "overrated".

This thread should have been called: "Composers which are too often cited by lay listeners in attempts to sound intelligent, and composers which experienced listeners embrace, often at the exclusion of other worthy but lesser known composers". That would have been truer to its intent, but not catchy enough I suppose.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Ok, everyone here who thinks Mozart is overrated, second rate, bad, simple, shallow music, etc. [size=x-large]IS WRONG.[/size]

I'm going to do my best to objectively disprove any notion of these things right now in as well thought out a manner as I can. Hopefully someone will get something from this, if not I'm wasting alot of time, but this is something I happen to feel strongly about.

First I want to say that I have passively studied music for years. Mostly through active listening than through traditional studies. Most of my knowledge comes from my own general curiosity than from a formal education but I imagine that I know more about the inner workings of music than a great many popular musicans do (and that's a very sad thing to say if you think about it). Not that I could win a debate on music theory with any professional classical violinist or most classical musicians, but I can and do compose music myself and play piano and guitar.

Ok, getting that out of the way, onto Mozart: The word "genius" gets thrown around so much that so many just accept it when it's overrused on any given person but so few could actually explain WHY that person was a genius in their field. With some scientist's it's easy, but it gets hard when it comes to musicians and artists, for art is art and such a subjective thing. But there are those composers that were true, profound, and utter geniuses. Masters in their field. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart - these three men still stand as the pinnacle of Western music. It's not my opinion, time has proven it for me and WILL continue to prove it for me.

A huge amount of what makes those three great is that they were so different in their approaches to music - each of them were so unique in their voices and their gifts and what they brought to music. But they all three shared something in common - when they left, music was never the same again. To call men who changed the face of Western music "overrated" is like calling Tomas Edison "overrated" or Lincoln "overrated". And for those who have real respect for music you will never hear the names "Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart" and the word "overrated" in the same sentenced.

As for Mozart specifically, what he did was take the classical form, fuse it with every single musical idea that was around at the time - so seamlessly and effortlessly - and essentially perfect what was the classical form of music. He brought in influences from all his travels and fused these influences with traditional classical music to create a perfect form of classical. Mozart's biggest innovations outside of opera was in his perfection of mthe classical form.

If you pay attention to each era of classical music, you realize that each was focused on something different. Baroque was focused on harmony and rhythm, classical was focused on melody and form, and Romantic was focused on movement and overral structure. Even modern classical is focused on tones and sound. Each era has had different goals with what they wanted to achieve with their music.

Bach essentially perfected the Baroque form - there had never been a better composer harmonically speaking than Bach. Mozart perfected the classical form, and because of that Beethoven was able to move music OUT of the classical era into the Romantic. People like to think of Beethoven as the man who freed music but it's Mozart who freed Beethoven to do what he did. And whithout Mozart's last 10 years worth of contributions in each field of works, Beethoven WOULD NOT have been able to make the strides in music he did so quickly.


The problem in this thread is people have no sense of historical context. You can't judge a classical era composer on the same standards you judge a Romantic era composer. That's like me comparing Led Zeppelin to The Beatles. Well, I think Led Zeppelin were, musically, the superior band. But without The Beatles there would BE no Zeppelin.

You HAVE to put music in its historical context to fully appreciate it. If you want to correctly judge Mozart then compare him to all the composers from his time like Haydn and... well, there weren't many classical composers that are still remembered (which is telling about how hard of a form it was to compose in).

Beyond even historical context, those who think Mozart's music is simple, shallow, etc. are just ignorant (and there's no other way to put it). I've said on other message boards that Mozart had this unique ability of wrapping complexity in simplicity in sublimity. Mozart said as much in his letters to his father that he wanted to make music so that regular people could enjoy them but the music scholars could too - and that's exactly what he did. All of Mozart's most complex music is always so cleverly disguised beneath a veil of simplistic beauty that fools people into thinking all their hearing is beautiful music not realizing the subtle complexity that's going on underneath at all. If nothing else Mozart was a master at subtleties - even more surprising considering his age. Subtlety was something Haydn never mastered and Beethoven very rarely used. But Mozart used it to perfection.

The thing is, Mozart used SO MUCH subtle complexity that your average classical fan - who really doesn't know anything about music itslef - will only pick up on that outter shell of melody and beauty that Mozart intended for the regular people and interpret that a "simple and shallow" and completely miss all the complexities going on underneath.

But even beyond all of this, to really appreciate music is not to say "well, what do I like? I don't like so and so, and they're hugely popular and over exposed so they're overrated." I would think that real classical fans should realize that Mozart's popularity is not a fluke. He was immensely popular long before movies and Mozart for the Baby Effect ever came around and made him a household name.

I think Ferbose nailed part of it on the head. Many (most, actually) of the greatest classical musicians of all time have at one time or another played Mozart. And what still boggles my mind is how so few can play him well. Even Neville Merriner who has practically devoted his whole life to interpreting Mozart is not the best out there - that right there gives you a clue to the depth of Mozart's work. I think Karl Bohm as come very close to figuring Mozart out. I think he's one of the few who totally gets the subtle beauty and complexities. And even though Mozart no doubt liked his music to be played fast, I love the fact that Bohm lets Mozart's melodies breathe. If you haven't, pick up some of Bohm's Mozart - like his recordings of Mozart's late symphonies it's a revelation. I still remember listening to those for the first time and thinking "So THAT'S what Mozart's was saying..."




For those of you that really haven't taken the time to get to know Mozart's music - I mean REALLY sit down and REALLY listened and have ONLY heard some of his works from the radio or from friends or some other second hand way, I'm begging that you give him a fair chance. There is honestly few times in my daily life when I feel happier than when I'm listening to Mozart (of course I could really say this for any music when I'm in the mood, but Mozart holds a very special place in my heart). A few suggestions:

Mozart Collection - This is an unbeatable starter set if you want to spring for it. Caiman has it for $160 and if I already didn't have most of the recordings on here I'd get it myself.

Symphonies no. 35-40 cond. by Karl Bohm - No doubt one of the best recordings of any music ever. This is a CD that is meant to be listened to again and again - savored like a fine meal. I swear I hear new things every time I listen to these symphonies.

The Great Piano Concertos Vol. 1 cond. by Neville Marriner with Alfred Brendel - Even though I slightly prefer most of Uchida's interpretations to Brendel's (he's a little too cold sometimes - but this comes from training in the classical style), he's still very good and I prefer both of these volumes as a starter set. If you want the whole she-bang, get the Uchida complete Mozart piano concertos.

Great Piano Concertos Vol. 2 - vol. 2 of above.

Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet with Gerard Schwarz - Two of Mozart's most sublime works. He must've had a real affinity for the clarinet.

String Quintets with Talich Quintet - Mozart's best chamber music IMHO. Even better than his Haydn Quartets. These are just superb in every way.

Horn Concertos cond. by Herbert von Karajan - Not among Mozart's most complex, deep works, but certainly among his most enjoyable.

Violin Concertos and Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola cond. by Neville Marriner - These are really a personal favorites of mine. The last three violin concertos are still a mystery to musicologists as to their sudden leap in complexity (they were all supposedly written around the same time). I love them for their lyrical beauty. The sinfonia concertante is still one of Mozart's most beautiful and, still, subtly complex works. For violin/viola fans it's a real treat.

The Great Serenades cond. by Neville Marriner - Another great collection from from Phillips and Marriner. Even though Nachtmusik has been been butt raped by tv and movies of whatever beauty, perfection, and dignity it might've had, the rest of Mozart's serenades are still wonderful.

Serenade no. 10 for 13 Wind Instruments "Gran Partita" - I hate this isn't sold with many collections, but it's so good I have to list it. This work really marked a turning point in Mozart's life. It really was the moment he went from a child prodigy to a serious, adult composer. The maturity and simplistic beauty and artistic depth shown in this piece just has to be marveled at. To think that someone that young could write something like this just boggles the mind.

Le Nozze di Fiagro cond. by Rene Jacobs - Perhaps the most perfect opera ever written from beginning to end. Just brimming with brilliance. How anyone could listen to this and then call Mozart "overrated" is beyond me. This opera alone pretty much changed opera as we know it. BTW There's so many damn recordings of this, but this one was a bresh of fresh air upon its release. I still reach for it much more so than most of my others. Bohm is a great choice as well though.

Dong Giovanni cond. by Carlo MariaGiulini - Mozart's most powerful opera and one of the most powerful operas I've heard period - despite its age. "The greatest recording of the greatest opera of all time" it's been called. Well, I don't know about that, but it's awfully good. It's still the best I've heard, and I've heard alot.

Requiem cond. by Neville Marriner - No doubt one of the best choral works of all time. The fact that Mozart died before completing is even more haunting.

Mass in C Minor cond. by Diana Montague - Both this and the one by Marriner are fantastic. I actually even prefer this to the Requiem. Once again, Mozart's master of subtlety in full effect.

I've yet to mention his string quartets, piano sonatas, Cosi fan Tutti, Die Zauberflote, and several of his amazing conertos... There's just too much. Not to mention all the hidden gems among his early work (and there's alot). But if anyone's interested, just start with the top of this list and work your way down. Or, preferably, get the set listed at the top. Many of my selections are included in that set actually. At $160 for 20 cds it really is a steal.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid Since I voted for Mozart as overrated twice, I guess I should pick up the gauntlet. He was precocious, to be sure, but I fail to see how that is relevant to the quality of his work and whether he is over or underrated. That's your opinion, and I respect it, but conversely you can't assume it is universal or objective. I have the Pinnock/Bilson complete edition, and I can't stand most of them, with the possible exception of No. 23. I can think of over a dozen composers whose piano concerti are indiscutably superior (in my opinion, of course): Bach, Bartók, Beethoven, Brahms, Britten, Chopin, Grieg, Liszt, Martinů, Mendelssohn, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Saint-Saëns, Schumann, Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky. If they are overlooked, they can hardly count towards overrated or overexposed, then. Apart from 40 and 41, which are good, most of them can't hold a candle to any of those written since the 19th century. Or even in comparison to Haydn, for that matter. Dvořak, Elgar, Britten, Tchaikovsky. Enough said. Either Nielsen's Clarinet Concerto or Stravinsky's Ebony Concerto are superior in my opinion. I don't expect you to share it, but don't expect me to share yours either. As far as I am concerned, pretty much every violin concerto ever written is better than any of Mozart's. Not to repeat Leporello's air of the catalogue: Adams, Bach, Barber, Bartók, Beethoven, Berg, Brahms, Britten, Bruch, Dvořak, Khachaturian, Korngold, Mendelssohn, Nielsen, Paganini, Prokofiev, Saint-Saëns, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Suk, Szymanowski, Tchaikovsky or Vivaldi. I won't go over the tedious repetition. The sinfonia concertante is good, though. And completely effete and insignificant compared to the works of Janáček or Shostakovich. He wouldn't even make my top ten, let alone my top three. All I have to go are symphonies 40 and 41, piano concerto 23, the Requiem, the Sinfonia Concertante and the operas. That's a little bit thin for someone who would lay claim to the title of all-time greatest composer. I have been a little bit harsh, and my aim is not to impose my tastes on you. It would be absurd in any case. It is just to illustrate that what seems to you utterly self-evident is just a matter of personal taste, and that there is a significant contingent of people who don't specially care for Mozart, not out of philistinism, but just because our tastes are not aligned with his output. We resent the constant shoving of his syrupy and shallow works down our throats by timid classical programmers, compared to the much more substantial work of, say, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Britten or Nielsen (just to mention my personal favorites). The fact that Mozart was singled out as over-rated far more often than, say, Bach or Beethoven, should in itself tell you something.

I think I covered most of your post in mine above. As to your last statement:

Mozart has been singled out BECAUSE of the over exposure. Amadeus, Mozart for the Baby effect. Add that to the fact that he came from an era that was not as focused on obvious complexities like Beethoven and Bach. Anyone who called Beethoven's or Bach's music shallow or simple would be considered a fool - and rightly so - because it's so OBVIOUS their works are brimming with complexities.

That's only because they wrote music that was complex on the surface. Mozart wrote music that was complex under the surface - beneath the ears of anyone else besides those of the very discerning. I'm not going to claim that I can pick up on every thing that he's doing. Much of it I can recoginize without having a proper name for it.

But, yes, Mozart is getting singled out because it's "cool" (even in classical circles) to go with the cook kids and be anti-popular, so to speak. Mozart is popular, ergo, it's "cool" to not like Mozart - no matter how good or bad his music is. I would love for someone here to give me an objective musical criticism of his music without using broad terms like "his 21st piano concerto is simple and shallow and bad." is not proving anything other than that you're an idiot.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis Hard to believe this thread is still hangin' on... It is of course an absurd premise to begin with. Nothing that has the mettle to survive for generations can possibly be "overrated". This thread should have been called: "Composers which are too often cited by lay listeners in attempts to sound intelligent, and composers which experienced listeners embrace, often at the exclusion of other worthy but lesser known composers". That would have been truer to its intent, but not catchy enough I suppose.

A thousand times, thank you. I only mention "the big three" so much because of what you so brilliantly summed up for me in your second sentence. Please do not think my classical collection is that shallow. I was actually listening to some Telemann the other day and thinking how underrated he his. I think too many of the really good pre-Romantic period composers have been overlooked and forgotten these days.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid Judging the "quality" or a composer's work is in itself a subjective judgement. Just because there is majority opinion in favor does not prove anything - C.P.E Bach was considered far superior to Johann Sebastian until Mendelssohn and Mahler. Well, I am considering his body of work and seriously saying that, so the statement above is demonstrably incorrect. What you really mean is: "I can't take seriously anything said on classical music by someone who thinks Mozart is overrated", which is perfectly fine, but still subjective. Other examples: to quote Glenn Gould (who recorded a complete set of Mozart's Piano Sonatas, albeit in a highly unconventional way): "Mozart! Bah! Nothing but 1-4-5!". Charles Ives is also famous for his contempt of Mozart. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... I'm not a goth, if that's what you mean. I don't dislike Mozart's music because it is beautiful (I don't find it to be in most cases, merely cloying). Vaughan-Williams "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis" or "The Lark Ascending" are beautiful, and I do like them. I dislike Mozart's music because I find it bland and boring, not beautiful. Vivaldi, Bach and Beethoven are at least as commercialized, but I have no quibbles with them. Most Americans' direct experience is a life of relative material abundance and physical safety, exceptions like 9/11 or New Orleans notwithstanding, and catastrophes are mostly experienced vicariously through the TV set. Perhaps what we need is more empathy for the plight of those less fortunate. The Requiem or "Ave Verum Corpus" would fit the bill, but they are far from typical of Mozart's work.

You don't like Mozart. We get the picture. We don't expect you to like Mozart. end of discussion.

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis Hard to believe this thread is still hangin' on... It is of course an absurd premise to begin with. Nothing that has the mettle to survive for generations can possibly be "overrated". This thread should have been called: "Composers which are too often cited by lay listeners in attempts to sound intelligent, and composers which experienced listeners embrace, often at the exclusion of other worthy but lesser known composers". That would have been truer to its intent, but not catchy enough I suppose.

Frankly, I'd much rather listen to Mozart (or Mahler, or any of the "overrated" greats) than discuss how overrated he is. If one doesn't like Mozart, I don't hold that against them. I don't like every composer, and I dislike some fairly popular ones.