Well, he doesn't suck, I just don't enjoy his music very much.
If you've ever been in my presence when someone goes off on how wonderful Mozart is, you may be aware that I usually react with a groan, a negative rebuff, or some other dismissal of the man.
Mozart was a great composer, a musical genius, and few composers will ever possess the pure raw talent that he did. I occasionally (read: rarely) enjoy playing his string quartets - they're light and fun. But the fact of the matter is that from a musical standpoint, Mozart is simply boring.
Mozart mastered the style and form of pre-Beethoven classical music perfectly. However, unlike Beethoven who followed, he did little by way of innovation. Obviously in some pieces of music this just isn't true, but they're very few and far between. It's all very pleasant to listen to, but for me, it lacks substance, and that's something I really enjoy about music, something Beethoven and some of those that followed him did wonderfully.
You may undoubtedly be saying, "Hey, I know for a fact you love Rachmaninoff! That guy composed in a style that was outdated in his time and did nothing innovative whatsoever. Why is he better than Mozart?" Answer is that I don't think Rachmaninoff was necessarily "better" than Mozart, I just enjoy his work a lot more. The emotion that Mozart failed to instill in his music is present in Rachmaninoff, but both composers lack the innovation of a Beethoven, a Berlioz or a Mahler.
Obviously there is a lot to learn from studying Mozart's music; this is merely the best way I know how to explain why I personally don't like his music.
Also his cello parts are boring as hell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fair enough--God knows I despise playing Mozart myself, but I think that has a lot to do with my own lack of maturity as a musician than it does with Mozart's boring-ness. From what I've gleaned from struggling through various sonatas, there's a lot of emotion and substance going on in there that Mozart hid within his seemingly happy/simple pieces that take a far wiser and more experienced pianist than I to unpack. I can hear it on certain recordings some times, but hell if I can actually reproduce it when I look at the notes on the page. Of course, I can't actually back this up with any specific theoretical knowledge, because I'm the worst theoretician ever, but from what I remember of various teachers despairing of my inability to properly recognize said emotions and bring them out, the point stands.
ReplyDeleteI believe it was Rubenstein who said that he didn't "get" Mozart until he was in his sixties. So while I totally understand your feelings--hell, I share them most of the time--I think that our dislike stems not from Mozart being boring, but from our frame of reference as young artists who would much rather enjoy throwing ourselves into the rapture of the accessible awesome of Rachmaninov.
Also, haha you're stuck with the bass-line, nyah nyah.
Your article speaks for itself. Zero.
ReplyDeleteYeah this all comes down to personal taste-- for me, Rachmaninoff is often too cheesy. I think that Mozart's String Quartets are not the most innovative pieces-- these are probably written for courts, so they should have been light and simple. It's probably not fair to judge his innovative ideas based on his string quartets. I think Mozart's requiem and symphonies show his innovation however, using lots of fugal texture and imitative entries that were almost forgotten in the Classical period. There is also a String Quartet and a minuet for piano both nicknamed "dissonant". I think those are mind-blowing.
ReplyDeleteOverture to Magic Flute? probably one of the best overtures in the history of opera. His Clarinet concerto as well, probably the best Clarinet concerto ever in the history, with the very low notes that you require special clarinets for it. I don't know if there was even a well known Clarinet concerto before Mozart's.
Listen to Mozart's Requiem (1st, 5th, 8th movements), his Great Mass in C minor, and Don Giovanni (Act II). These are absolutely beautiful works. Very dissimilar to his earlier lighter "happy-go-lucky" works. You should educate yourself a little more on Mozart before you make such a claim. With Mozart, it's a lot deeper than one can usually pick up on the first hearing. One must take the time and effort to listen to the music over and over and over until you hear every nuance of every instrument and the deep talent becomes obvious. Mozart expressed the inexpressible. He truly did. I know what you mean by being turned off to naive too-happy sounding music. But Mozart's music is deeper than it sounds at first. I would encourage you to take some time to really listen to his Requiem and Mass in C minor. Once that has settled with you, then maybe his Jupiter Symphony 4th movement. I did not like this movement at first, but after about the 10th hearing I couldn't get enough of it. It's absolutely brilliant in every way. Mozart will live on, because Mozart's music is the sound of uncut raw human emotion..the sound of our triumphs, our woes, and the beauty of life and death. Mozart illustrated a beauty with his music that cannot be seen on earth. His music is like a multi-faceted God-like beauty..the beauty of heaven, a blinding white light which warms the coldest of hearts. Mozart created some of the best works of art known to man. You just have to listen :)
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree. Mozart, to me, generally sounds soulless. I feel like Mozart was mostly a "music-writing machine" - prolific, but it all sounds like notes, not music, and it's generally uninspired.
ReplyDeleteNow contrast that to Bach, who wrote in a time that, even more than Mozart's, was seemingly dedicated to extravagant ornamentation and pizazz, and yet quite frequently you can still hear the "soul" behind Bach's music.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, obviously, and some people apparently feel very strongly about Mozart. For my part, though, he embodies everything I find to be so often "wrong" in the world of music.
I played a lot of Mozart's piano music as a child, but I now play classical works that I enjoy. As a result I rarely play Mozart anymore. I tend to find Mozart boring, repetitive and un-emotional.
ReplyDeleteOther musicians often call me a Philistine for being truthful and admitting that I don't enjoy this great musician's work. However, they never seem to have any qualms about criticising Bach, Debussy, Ravel and Delius, who happen to be four of my favourite composers.
I can't understand why I am not allowed to have an opinion about the subject.
Mozart always sounded like a child playing with a piano. People brag about how he learn to play piano when he was 3, how he wrote his first Symphony when he was 8, Etc. But the fact is, that it sounds exactly like something a child would write. Simply endless repetition a few notes, simply played on a scale. Back and forth.
ReplyDelete