What was so great about Mozart?

Great Debates
61

Granted, I’m getting my information from a movie, but have you seen “Amadeus”? If I recall correctly, Mozart was approached to compose “The Magic Flute” (my personal favorite) for the more “common folk”. It was lots of fun, a little silly. Certainly not “heavy” or “elite”. Rent the Ingmar Bergman film sometime - you’ll see what I mean. It’s a delight. I don’t know if the film “Amadeus” portrayed the creation of “The Magic Flute” accurately or not, but I suspect there is some truth to it. “The Magic Flute” has too many dragons and bird men and fun stuff to be just for the “elite”.

Amen brother!

I got (and still get) all sorts of “snobbery” from the popular music crowd. They seem to not be able to comprehend that not everyone wants to listen to the Top 40 exclusively.

I grew up in a blue-collar working family, in a poor neighborhood. Not exactly “elite” - more like “peasants”! :smiley: My dad, a postal worker, LOVED (LOVED) Classical music. Was obsessed with it, you might say. Especially crazy about Sibelius, Bruckner, Mahler, and many more - had thousands of classical albums in his collection. My mom is from a poor farm family, but also very musical - singing and piano, loved Classical as well. Our family got treated to all sorts of “snobbery” from our peers and neighbors because of our musical tastes. I was constantly pestered, and occasionally berated at school, for my “weird” tastes. Kids just couldn’t let it go - they wanted to “deprogram” me away from Classical. I guess people around us thought we were “puttin’ on airs”. I still occasionally get mocked, or get “what went wrong with you?” looks when people find out I almost exclusively listen to Classical/orchestral music.

I have never seen any “classical music snobs” in action. (Though I know they exist.) I sure have encountered plenty of “popular music snobs”, though.

62

**Acco40 wrote:

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?**

You’ve never heard of Chip Davis and Manneheim Steamroller, then? The Fresh Aire series is a delightful collection of music done in a “classical” style.

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.)

It is popular. You’re just not listening to the right stations to hear it. Also, you mentioned you’re 23, so you probably never heard the Hook on Classics series that was very popular in the early '80s.

I know, I know, I hear all the groans from the dedicated classical music enthusiasts out there! Bear with me a moment. Essentially, this one fellow, who’s name I forget, conducted the London Symphony Orchestra and pasted together several pieces of classical music. Then in the post-production area, he added a snappy 2/4 beat against it and released it. It was very popular on radio, particularly on the Top 40 stations.

So, classical music can be popular. Agreed, it was editted and re-formatted for the time, but I can’t help but wonder how many people were exposed to music they’d never heard before and were intrigued and explored more of the “classical” music world.

63

Perhaps also, those “Hooked on the Classics” can get people more interested in classical music.

Plus, it’s more versatil. YOu can maybe only hear one version of a popular song-maybe a few remakes. But there are so many interpretations of a certain piece.

64

And don’t underestimate the power and popularity of film music. I know some Classical “purists” roll their eyes at it as well, but phooey. What did Copland and Prokofiev and Vaughan-Williams do? Occasionally, film music. It has its place. And it also provides a great “gateway” to hardcore Classical listening.

My dad, the ultimate Classical purist, tried to rag on my film music tastes, but he didn’t fool me. I know he was elated and proud that I appreciated and reveled in the evocative power of orchestral music. He could have had my sisters and me blaring out AC-DC on our stereos - instead, he got John Williams, John Barry, Jerry Goldsmith, Ennio Morricone - all who have written some sublime stuff. (Ever hear “Days of Heaven” or “The Mission” by Morricone? To die for!) So I know he was secretly relieved, and pleased by my music tastes.

A lot of people who don’t consider themselves “classical” fans are big soundtrack fans. They collect James Horner (he did some of the Star Trek films) and Hans Zimmer (he’s done a lot of Disney Musicals, and just recently, “Gladiator” and “Pearl Harbor”.) Of course there’s Danny Elfman, who has a great style all his own. And I’ve already gone on about Williams and Goldsmith, both who have fervent and devoted followings among people of all ages - particularly younger people who are film buffs.

A lot of these film music fans have already discovered Classical, others haven’t yet. But if you are a film music fan, you are essentially a classical music fan.

65

There have been several posts about the “elite” qualities of classical music, including my own, as well as the idea that it may require effort to understand. On the other hand, many enjoy classical music without having to work at it or without higher education or training.

Thinking out loud…

Like a spoken language, “classical” musical language can be comprehensible and meaningful to people from any class or with any educational level. MY WAG is that it is either due to a greater facility for understanding certain aspects of musical language – like harmony, polyphony, formal organization – or from having grown up with it, or both. My parents (also descended from the working or peasant class :)) put me to sleep as a toddler with the Mozart’s Greatest Hits album and other classical music. So I was “educated” to understand the subtleties of the music without ever trying. I wonder, though, what it would be like for someone who was not exposed to classical forms, but rather to music that (like popular music) relies primarily on the effect of melody and lyrics. Would such a person be able to even “hear” certain effects that make classical music so moving to others?

It reminds me of fellow students who were trying to learn German and simply could not distinguish or reproduce “umlaut” sounds. Their adult (college age) brains had not developed the ability to comprehend those sounds and even with a lot of effort and repetition their German remained heavily accented. Others were more gifted in language and though they had never spoken German they heard it and learned it easily.

My experience with Indian ragas, for another example, has made it pretty clear that I lack the ability to comprehend much of the intricacy of those melodies. So, for me, they tend to be confusing and don’t move me as much as Western music. But I would hardly go around claiming that it wasn’t effective music just because I don’t get it.

Anyway, I wonder if part of the reason why Acco40 and many others who do like some kinds of music but don’t appreciate the efforts of Mozart and other classical composers is that they have an inability to hear certain things in the musical language, whether through a lack of exposure at the right time in life or due to a lack of natural ability (whatever that might be).

Granted, much of it has to do with taste (which is hard to account for) and the great variety of human experience. But maybe some of it has to do with the ability to hear and process musical language.

rivulus

66

You’re right about The Magic Flute, which is an example of Singspiel, a kind of musical drama that, among other things, had spoken text and a more popular appeal than the more “elite” forms such as opera, symphonic or chamber music. (I referred to that genre in my earlier post but didn’t take the time to give an example, sorry.) However, his Singspiels, pieces like the German dances, a few of the Lieder and other odds and ends, which are more “common” in style, are a relatively small part of Mozart’s output. So, in general, Mozart’s music was composed for the more wealthy or educated listeners.

Just wanted to clarify that.

rivulus

67

Mebbe so, but I’m still doubtful. My point was that most people were illiterate farmers. Even lower-class city people especially 100 yrs. ago had it over them (although I’m not sure when large-scale urbanization began). And in any case, history was written by the elites. Even if they tell us the unwashed all loved Mozart, we can’t be sure. Maybe it was just the elites who loved Mozart, and wanted to believe that anyone could.

Yes, I should’ve mentioned the pop music snobs. But as many of the comments about pop music in this thread show, there are aesthetic cliques even within pop music who turn up their noses at other pop music.

Far be it from me to attack your ancestry as not being “peasant” enough :eek:, but by comparison with the uneducated rural people of the old days, he was fairly well educated. Even if he never even finished primary school.

There are aesthetic cliques everywhere. When I told someone (French, naturally) that I was more of the Romantic composers than the more recent ones, he told me I was <<bourgeois>> (typical French intello leftist snobbery–grr).

68

Oh, I’m sure you’re right - we’re not “peasant” enough! :smiley:

I think my point was, my dad was just as “peasant” as all his blue-collar peers, and yet he decided to get into Classical when he was a kid. His sisters teased him about it, they had little interest. He alone got into it, for some reason. He wasn’t “elite” in any other way! :wink: He also got “pop music” snobbery all the time for it, because he had the nerve to go against the flow and listen to something different.

I think people have far more opportunity to be exposed to Classical nowadays, if they want to. So even if it was written for more of the “elite” originally, it is quite accessable to even us “peasants” of today. Also, as mentioned before, I think film music offers a great “gateway” to get people to appreciate Classical music, thus opening the genre to movie buffs as well. And many of us are movie buffs!

I suspect that a lot of “popular music” snobs squelch the interest of Classical music among some of us. Just judging from the treatment I got, anyway. Had I possessed a different temperament, I would have been cowed into listening to less of it when I was a kid. I can imagine that someone (especially a younger person) who is beginning to dabble in Classical could really get swayed away from it, if they were surrounded by aggressive pop music snobs. (And they sure exist - they sure tried to work on me!)

As far as music clique snobs - oh my gosh. Do I know about those! The ones that eschew Country, or certain types of Rock, whatever. Give me a break. Whatever anyone likes is fine. As long as they don’t show such immense ignorance as to try to dissuade others from listening to what they enjoy, and as long as they are open-minded enough to try to understand new genres. I can’t understand the classical snobs in particular. I figured, after all the crap I had endured from “popular music snobs”, that all us Classical fans should stick together. But apparently I would get crap from some of them for my film music tastes, or for my enjoyment of Romantic? Phooey on that!

69

D’oh! My point was already stated.

Anyhoo, Yosemite, I’m listening to James Horner right now-Titanic…actually. Yes, I love the Titanic soundtrack, right down to the annoying, cloying, sappy Celine Dion song. But the Celtic music…the flute and the instrumental parts are out of this world…

70

Just to throw in one tidbit: If you want to hear orchestral music that’s gritty and raw, go get Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring.”

That is all.

71

At the first Paris performance of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, at the beginning of the fourth movement with its tremendous crescendo fanfare, a Frenchman was overwhelmed with political emotion and cried out, "C’est l’empéreur! Vive l’empéreur!"

A performance of Aaron Copland’s Lincoln Portrait was credited with sparking the popular uprising that overthrew a South American dictator (I think it was Juan Perón). The dictator himself was attending the concert. The narrator was a fiery Argentine actress. When she reached the peroration at the end, “that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth” the audience stood and began cheering and yelling. That was the first public demonstration that caused the fall of the dictator a few months later.

72

Handel’s Water Music was considered quite risque and politically racy at the time, IIRC.

Esprix

73

Rivulus brought up a couple good points a couple of posts ago that got me thinking.

He (or she) said that perhaps many of us “pop” music fans may have not been exposed to classical music as youngsters, or may not possess the facility to understand some of the inner workings of classical music that make it so enjoyable for others.

This may be true. I NEVER was exposed to classical music as a youngster… was raised on 80’s pop radio. (That may explain a lot.)

As far as the facility aspect to it, this may be true also. However, I do understand the basics of music theory. I play guitar all the time, too - so I can at least grasp the ideas of music, and can try to explain it. But I came across this book over the weekend that said that there are four aspects to (classical) music to consider. They are:

  1. Rhythm
  2. Melody
  3. Tone
  4. Harmony

According to the author, these are the criteria for judging music.

I really started to think about the role of each of these elements in either type of music (popular and classical).

It seems to me that where classical music balances (or attempts to balance) all four aspects of music, popular music stresses rhythm and melody above tone and harmony.

Pop music’s percussion beat, the drums, is overpowering in the music, and generally speaking, pop music features melody-soaked songs as a matter of form… at least more so than classical.

The other two are back-seat entities. Harmony is still important, but usually isn’t imperative to the success of a song. (Many bands get away with using no backup singing.) I guess the lead guitar may play on harmonics in the music, but again, this adds to the song; it doesn’t MAKE IT.
Tone in popular music is limited because of the narrow selection of instumentation. In classical music, it’s wide open, and very necessary to the balance of the piece.

Now, when I listen to classical I pick up the melody (which isn’t as digestible as pop music melody), but there is no percussive beat.
Furthermore, maybe my ear hasn’t been “taught” to appreciate the intricies of tone and harmonics. Note: I can hear them; it’s just that I don’t hold them in the same esteem as melody and rhythm.

I seriously JUST thought about this so, if I’ve left some obvious aspect to this out, bring it in!

BTW: I got “jupiter” and no.35 by mozart over the weekend. I’m starting to use it as bedtime music and I really appreciate the rhythm aspect to it, so there may still be hope for me yet!

74

I’d just like to say, Acco40, that my respect for you in this discussion is growing rapidly. After a rather argumentative (and some would say close-minded) first few posts, the amount of time and attention you’ve shown yourself as willing to devote to this question is very, very impressive.

And I’ll mention Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” again; it features: Occasionally very heavy percussion and rhythms. (It’s a pagan celebration, after all.) Inelegant, sometimes strident, harmonies. A totally different sense of construction from the “true Classical” work of Mozart et al.; not so much interest in careful thematic parallels and reflections. Just pure, driving, raw energy. Put it on headphones, and play it LOUD.

75

:eek: You have a cite for that?
I always thought that the Water Music was commissioned by King George I himself, for a party given on a barge on the Thames. Doesn’t seem like Handel would jeopardize royal patronage by composing something politically risky.

76

I have to say, my father LOVES Handel’s Water Music and the Messiah. They even had one piece from Water Music in their wedding (my parents, that is).
I grew up on Handel and church music. However, my tastes run to Tchaikovsky, Rimsk-Korsakov, Prokofiev, Strauss, Debussy and Borodin. Go figure.

77

I’m glad my ramblings made some sense. They were off the top of my head. (I’m a “she”, by the way)

I will echo Cervaise and add my kudos to you for taking the time to consider what people have said, listen to pieces, look things up and think about them.

I would add one more to these criteria: form. I use the acronym SHMRF to remember them. Sound (tone or timbre), harmony, melody, rhythm, form. Form or structure plays a big part in creating a sense of growth or drama, particularly in common practice classical music. The form of a symphony is quite a different thing from a song form with verses and chorus, just to compare two examples. Having a understanding of form makes a big difference when you are trying to get a sense of how a piece works.

Those are good observations and I think you’re right about the relative balances of the elements. Admittedly, classical music has tended to be rather conservative (some might say dull) rhythmically. At least since the 14th century, when there was pretty complicated rhythmic experimentation going on. And, yeah, drums have been noticeably absent so you don’t get quite the same (strongly visceral, IMO) feeling of beat and drive as in popular music.

Harmony, on the other hand, has been highly developed. Actually, in much of classical music it seems to be primarily the (tonal) harmony that creates a sense of foundation and “drive” – rather than a drum beat. It’s the harmonic rhythm and shape that move you.

Personally, both classical and popular music are moving to me, but in different ways. The way I experience music with a strong drum beat and powerful rhythm is as a direct physical sensation, a gut reaction, which may or may not move me emotionally or stimulate me mentally. The way I experience classical music is usually as something more emotional and thoughtful, which may or may not produce a deep gut feeling. In general, as I listen to a classical piece more and more, developing a deeper understanding, the more powerful the physical reaction. Popular music tends to have the opposite effect for me, so that repeated listening lessens my physical response. But that’s just me. YMMV

OK, you say you can hear the harmonic intricacies and I would like to believe you, but I still would suggest (tentatively) that the fact that you don’t esteem them as much could have something to do with not being able to “hear” them. I don’t mean physically hearing them, but in the sense of processing the sounds in your mind. It’s not just the individual sounds themselves but how they interact and the way your mind interprets the meaning of the sounds and how they combine that matter.

I’ve been through a process myself where I had to learn to appreciate certain harmonic effects and in teaching music history and theory I’ve seen students struggle with this. I don’t know quite how to explain or show what I mean on a message board. (frustrating!) In class I’ll play a chord on the piano and most students can tell me whether its a minor or major chord (or whatever), so I know they can hear it, distinguish certain qualities, but then if I play the chord in a passage of music and ask what it’s doing, where it’s going or how it’s functioning, I get blank looks from much of the class (and these are music majors). They hear the sound, but they don’t understand what it means in the context of the piece and the way functional harmony works. With some exposure to the classical repertoire and some ear training most of them start to grasp it. That’s what I mean about having to learn to hear things in music.

Clear as mud?

rivulus

78

If it does, like somebody else said on this thread, it is a better comparison to pop music(mostly songs) than symphonies, etudes, poetic symphonies, etc.(mostly instrumental). So…not just listen to the instrumental things! Try hearing some songs from different operas.

On another note about how classical(this time operas) music can have a political meaning and popular feeling, try this link:

http://www.edinboro.edu/cwis/music/cordell/comp-verdi.html

It is a biography of Verdi, a great composer of operas. One of them, Nabucco, contains a song that was sung by the patriots of Verdi’s time, who were fighting for a unified Italy under King Victor Emmanuel.

I’ll check if I can find anything else.