What was so great about Mozart?

Great Debates
21

If you can listen to “Moonlight Sonata” and not hear the joy and pain of unrequited love, you’re either deaf or dead.

If you can listen to the 1812 Overture and not think of heroism and victory, your speakers are busted. You want emotion? A pop song that says “i love you please screw me” does not quite compare to a piece of music that is screaming “GOD HIMSELF HAS SAVED RUSSIA!”

Hell, listen to John Williams’s “Imperial March” from Star Wars. That’s orchestral music. Who hears that and DOESN’T think of Darth Vader and Imperial Star Destroyers chasing the Millennium Falcon around?

22

Another important reason the composers are on such a high pedestal is the fact that without the use of recording equipment or collaboration they were able to write complex music with little more than a quill and a piano (harpsichord
etc).
Even a simple quartet or duet was a large undertaking requiring years of study and talent. Look at the arrangement for a full symphony and you have to be impressed. Even the Beatles (WHO I LOVE) needed the help of Martin to put together their more complex pieces.

Some people have thought Mozart over rated but you can not deny the incredible talent this youngster had that he could write directly from his head to the paper with little changes or corrections.

Lets face it the modern musicians have so many extra tools at their disposal that it is had to compare the two.

I’m also surprised that the OP and follow up refers to a lack of emotion in classical music. I love all kinds of music but find I’m more emotionally charged listening to a complex classical piece. The Ode to Joy, always gives me a rush.

23

Yeah… it was only a matter of time til someone brought up britney spears or a “teen sensation.”
(Kicking myself for using the words ‘popular music’ instead of being more specific).

And of course I must be a teenager who has such ‘naive’ opinions… give me a break.

I’m 23. I was “raised” on alternative in the U.S. and I agree, 90% of the crap out there, ESPECIALLY what has been released in the last 3 or 4 years is complete garbage.

I absolutely love Brit-rock music, especially through the 90’s… I know someone brought up “Bittersweet Symphony” by the Verve earlier, but just because a song has strings in it doesn’t make it classical.

I would consider my musical tastes ecclectic… I love (recent) stuff like Oasis and Blur to Air, Stereolab, Sigur Ros… etc. and older stuff like a lot of Dylan and Beatles but to this point have not found any truly great classical or orchestral work, IMHO.

I generally like music that has some social commentary aspect to it, with a great melody, and excellent lyrics I can identify with. That is all I ask for:>

I will give a try to some of the aforementioned pieces and give it a shot.

Also, another thought: maybe the reason classical music is thought of as ‘old’ is because a decent composer hasn’t come along in what, say 85 years?! (I’m thinking Gershwin, could be way off). Where is the original material?

The hey-day of classical music was in the 1800’s (correct me if I’m wrong). So what has happened since then? If it is so good at identifying with its audience, why no new material? Is the format dead? Where along the line did it die? I’m thinkin’ in the 1950’s…

Why isn’t it popular with the young people of today, or their parents? And just acknowledge that it isn’t popular… (if it was it wouldn’t be stuck on the radio station that barely comes in.)

Hijacking my own thread, now:
You can say “oh society today just sucks and everyone wants three minute easily digestable pop candy dumb music” and you may be right. But here is something else to consider:

Is the relative popularity of, <cringe>, popular music a sign of the return to “the lowest common denominator” or the latest craze in musical evolution?

24

I’m not sure how Oasis manage ‘social commentary’ (and I have nothing against them).

Hrm. Does Oasis/Beatles and Blur/Kinks ring any bells? Even ‘Bittersweet Symphony’ is based on a Rolling Stones song. I don’t think you can claim a lack of original material in classical music without looking foolish.

And if you mean new pieces, have you even looked for recent classical releases? Yes, there’s a lot of rehashing, but new classical music is released all the time. I think your obvious dislike of it is blinding you to the facts, mate. You say there’s nothing new, but I bet you aren’t looking that hard for it. As you’ve made clear, it’s not your cup of tea.

True. Are you now saying that popular = good? I don’t know about the US, but singles sales in the UK have been declining for many years now, and many suspect that it’s because ‘popular’ music just isn’t as popular as record companies would like you to believe. Just because a radio station plays non-stop Britney, Ricky Martin, Backstreet Boys and so on, that doesn’t make it better music or even (necessarily) more popular. It just means that that music has the backing of large amounts of money.

I’m sure if EMI thought they could flog CDs, T-shirts and fan clubs for Mozart they’d be investing a lot more heavily in it. As was said above, people our age (well, I’m rougly the same age as you) have been brought up on a diet of three/four-minute fast-paced songs.

25

A quick thought: McDonald’s is a popular place to eat. Does that make it good food?

26

It seems to me that the OP is setting up a false distinction between pop and orchestral music. You can find classical influences on pop (“Yesterday” by the Beatles) and you can find pop influence on orchestral compositions
(Philip Glass and Steven Reich). Heck, look at Frank Zappa, who turned out finely crafted 3 minute pop tunes AND was a prolific composer of orchestral music. Danny Elfman, the former front man for Oingo Boingo, creates orchestral soundtracks for TV and movies. Listen with your eyes closed to the opening of “The Simpsons”–that’s a short but excellent orchestral composition, a symphony in miniature that takes a simple theme and plays with it in different ways for 60 seconds.

I fail to understand the OP’s insistence that pop music is more emotionally expressive than classical. Do you really think that Britney or Destiny’s Child can express longing and desire more poignantly than Wagner did in the Liebestod from “Tristan und Isolde”? If you saw Baz Luhrman’s “Romeo and Juliet” with Leonardo De Caprio, the Liebestod is the last bit of music played when De Caprio and Clare Danes die.

My onw opinion is that modern teen pop like N’ Sync and Britney Spears can be linked to the infantilization of popular culture in America. Youths used to aspire to adulthood and maturity in our culture; now, adults are aping the kids, and correspondingly pop music has become shallower and less mature.

27

Good point Mattk I’m glad you brought it up. (the mc’d example) because it hits indirectly on the last point I made in my thread.

McD’s is not good for you physically, (it causes heart disease, weight problems) but it is good for you if you need something to eat NOW because you won’t have the energy or time or money to fix yourself something ‘good for you’ when you get home. Evidently, this was a common issue, which McD filled the evolutionary niche for.

Is music different?

I’m not saying popular=good necessarily, however if you consider the popularity of music in strictly evolutionary terms (as I did McD’s above), it is hard to deny.

So called popular music of today may be the lowest common denominator which (most) everyone can agree on or relate to.

Which is it? Or is it both?

28

What does evolution have to do with it? Fast food is not required by humans, and it’s only convenient because of other changes in society (work pressures and the like). That still doesn’t make it ‘good’.

Huh? Music isn’t a living, evolving organism, so the analogy doesn’t fit. If you’re saying that music has, like McDonald’s, changed to fit the different societal pressures of modern urban life, then I agree. That has nothing to do with it being good or bad, however. I could argue equally that ‘disposable’ pop music is linked to the growth of capitalism in the 20th century, and that it’s driven by a desire to make money for big companies. Does that make it good?

But this is blatantly untrue. When chart sales are declining and there appears (to me, at least) to be an increasing sense of being targeted and marketed to in music, then it can’t be a lowest common denominator.

Just because a band sells lots of records, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s because they’re particularly good or even particularly popular (although this is obviously the case for some bands). Advertising, a lack of exposure to alternative musical genres or bands, the difficulty in breaking into a business dominated by large corporations; all of these factors play a hugely important role.

29

Look - this isn’t what I wanted to turn this thread into.

But, Mattk how can you not equate popular=good to some degree?
Evolutionary pressures exist in a marketplace. Yes the music marketplace too. If something was successful (which pop music was) then it will fill the new niche to support the consumers demand for it. According to you, the niche which pop music is filling (in your opinion) is shrinking. (BTW: I don’t notice classical music albums flying off the shelves in their stead though.)

And the backing of giant corporations has absolutely nothing to do with it. Are they forcing consumers to buy pop records? The classical music is sitting there in the back… if they wanted to, they could go buy the latest interpretation of Bach. But they don’t! Both pop music and classical music are both represented in the marketplace of ideas, and pop music is more readily chosen. Period.

You said that just because a band sells a lot of records does not necessarily mean they are popular.

How the hell could this be?!

Do you think people are gonna fork over $16.95 for a cd if they don’t think the music is good? I don’t.

As far as breaking into the music business goes, you don’t think the record exec’s have a keen ear for what the public will buy? That’s their job… and if they have so much money to throw around to keep excellent musicians and musical genres down, they must be doing something right. Right?

I hate to think that I am supporting horrible pop queen atrocities, but they are good at what they do, which makes makes them popular. As I stated earlier, just because teen queens swamp all the media doesn’t turn me into a record-buying zombie.

I’m being as objective as possible.

30

Acco40 - I agree with one of your points 100%.

No, not at all. To fully appreciate classical music, you need to go to it, and work, and learn. To fully appreciate popular music, you have to do nothing. It comes to you, is deliberately uncomplicated, and does not last long enough to bore you. With that paragraph, you have summed up popular music. Nothing wrong with it, of course, as it has it’s place, but if you are prepared to work at it, more challenging pieces of music are ultimately many times more rewarding. Hope this helps…

31

Of course popular doesn’t = good. You said it yourself, with your “lowest common denominator” phrase. Again, absolutely spot on.

Selling loads of records means good salesmanship. That’s all. I could sell loads of records if I was backed by a big media campaign, a few great promotions, and some free concerts.

The reason young people always dislike classical music (yet many grow to like it years later) is because of the reason stated in my previous post. They haven’t got time to waste on learning stuff, and having to work to achieve enjoyment/fulfillment/etc. They want it now, and they want it easily. Popular music achieves these two objectives, and is why style wins over substance until the person has had enough of easy short thrills and has realised that they’re all the same. Only then will they work to try and achieve a more satisfying, longer, different thrill. Give it a serious go, you might like it.

32

Mattk said “just because a band sells a lot of records doesn’t mean they’re good, or even popular.” The first part is undoubtedly true; the second part has got to be a mistake. Selling records is the definition of popular–unless the record companies are holding guns to the heads of consumers. But there is no correlation between quality (a totally unmeasurable value, that can only be guaged over time and through a consensus of informed opinion) and number of records sold.

A further thought on the classical genre: it’s my personal opinion that the genre reached it’s peak 200 years ago, and so there isn’t much that was written in the 20th century that’s worth listening to. We, as a culture, have lost the ability to write orchestral music. This isn’t exactly unprecedented–western civilization forgot how to sculpt in marble for 1500 years, between the Romans and Michelangelo.

33

Of course popular doesn’t = good. You said it yourself, with your “lowest common denominator” phrase. Again, absolutely spot on.

Selling loads of records means good salesmanship. That’s all. I could sell loads of records if I was backed by a big media campaign, a few great promotions, and some free concerts.

The reason young people always dislike classical music (yet many grow to like it years later) is because of the reason stated in my previous post. They haven’t got time to waste on learning stuff, and having to work to achieve enjoyment/fulfillment/etc. They want it now, and they want it easily. Popular music achieves these two objectives, and is why style wins over substance until the person has had enough of easy short thrills and has realised that they’re all the same. Only then will they work to try and achieve a more satisfying, longer, different thrill. Give it a serious go, you might like it.

As for a recommendation, my favourite piece of classical music is probably Mozart’s Requiem (overrated my arse!) If you want to attach some relevance to it, watch the film “Amadeus” first (stars Tom Hulce, if that helps in tracking it down). It’s an enjoyable film, and while the murderous storyline is guesswork, now thought untrue, it sets the scene, gives you some background as to the life and times of the composer, and will hopefully give you some initial interest in the piece. If you like the film, listen to the Requiem loud all the way through (at night), and if it has the same effect on you as it did on me, you won’t find classical music boring any more.

34

Regarding the question why we haven’t had any good classical* music written this century. We’ve been spoilt, pure and simple. Why the hell should we expect to have anyone as good as Beethoven ever again? Or Mozart? Or Haydn? Or Bach?

The fact that these guys all came together in the space of a few hundred years is staggering, and may never be achieved again. In fact, the odds are surely unbelievably stacked against it. Maybe it was a product of the times, but I doubt if Beethoven was reborn today he would have the opportunity to do what he did. Sad but true.

  • Sorry, classical sums up the whole genre, the same as pop sums up popular music, yet if you delve into the pop genre, pop is also a sub-genre, along with many other types. Orchestral is not necessarily what I’m talking about, as there are many great classical pieces that are not covered by the term “orchestral”. Chopin and Debussy wrote some amazing classical music, but their orchestral music largely sucked.
35

I believe there are some good modern, classical composers still around. You have to watch the movies to hear them though.

I hate to admit it but some John Williams pieces are quite enjoyable. Just think of the theme from Superman or Starwars without the movie.
As for Movies, I’ll take Immortal beloved over Amadeus. Many of the scenes were actually paced to the music used in the background. (watch the opening and the scene using Ode to Joy)

36

20th century composers?

Rimsky-Korsakov
Prokofiev
Debussy
Shostakovich

37

Yeah, but you must admit there’s been a definite slide in the past 70 years or so.

So I’ll amend my rash statement (that we can’t write orchestral music anymore): there are many fine composer writing wonderful orchestral scores–for the movies. But it’s been a while since anyone has written a symphony or a concerto that anyone else wants to hear.

38

If you must insist on a link, remember even Paul McCartney from The Beatles wrote “classical” music - Liverpool Oratorio.

Esprix

39

Um, yes. Let me clarify: what I was trying, poorly, to say was that some of these bands are popular for ‘artificial’ reasons: the mass media exposure, the revenues spent on advertising, the lack of exposure given to any other bands or genres.

Please, are you saying that every band or genre is given equal weighting in the market? I agree that classical music isn’t as popular as any other (no argument there) at the moment, but to me that has very little to do with the relative quality of those genres. It’s as much about the style of music people are brought up to believe is the norm and the amount of exposure given those styles as anything else.

40

I remember wandering around my university’s music building a few years ago. There was, in a display case, a clipping of an article from sometime in the 1940s or 1950s. It described a school official that wasn’t going to let a band perform on campus because he felt the type of music wasn’t sufficiently serious.

He was talking about jazz.

Nowadays, of course, jazz is regarded as a very serious form of music. I would imagine most any college will teach classes about jazz. But here was this school official, dismissing it with the same kind of sneering that has been leveled at modern music in this thread.

Don’t worry, Acco40 – you might live long enough to see Radiohead classes being taught.