Classical Music Forum banner

Is Mozart Overrated?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 58 20.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 215 76.2%
  • I do not listen to the works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

    Votes: 9 3.2%

Be Honest Here #4: Do you think Mozart overrated?

60K views 377 replies 104 participants last post by  musicrom 
G
#1 ·
Yes. Mozart is the next topic which i have picked upon in my Honest series [It's a series now :D]

I have always found him both overrated and his works unlikable. So simple. Ofcourse, the age old argument... There is a depth which i cannot hear. Fine! Regardless, i find his works simple. I do not find his symphonies or his piano concerti/sonatas appealing at all and so i dislike his works.

Now, overrated or dislike... I would like to group them so if you feel either of the two, click yes. It is not the most perfect decision but it is what it is.
 
#247 ·
No. I think Mozart and JS Bach were the two greatest musical geniuses of all time. Are they my two favorite composers? No! I am much more of a fan of Tchaikovsky and Beethoven, but then I tend to favor 19th century orchestral music, both classical and romantic over baroque and early classical. I do listen to Mozart's late piano concertos and his late symphonies and derive significant pleasure from them. Just not my favorites. In terms of raw, natural musical genius however, nobody can deny Mozart's talent.
 
#250 · (Edited)
I don't think that Mozart is overrated. This isn't the first time I've come upon this opinion online. There was a poster on a previous site I used to go to, who tried to prove to me that Mozart was second rate in comparison to Haydn and Beethoven. Frankly, I think all three are equally great (as are others). Each composer offers different things. Perhaps some people are more receptive to what they get from Beethoven or Brahms than what they get from Mozart or possibly Schubert. But that doesn't mean that any of them are overrated. It just means that you connect to a particular way differently and more meaningfully than others.

That some people use his music as background music is their personal choice, one I'm not going to judge. A famous musician, I'm forgetting who it was at the moment, said that Mozart was the most difficult composer to perform well, even though some of the notes may appear simple. And so I think it is with actually listening to his music and getting all the intricacies.
 
#251 ·
I don't think that Mozart is overrated. This isn't the first time I've come upon this opinion online. There was a poster on a previous site I used to go to, who tried to prove to me that Mozart was second rate in comparison to Haydn and Beethoven. Frankly, I think all three are equally great (as are others). Each composer offers different things. Perhaps some people are more receptive to what they get from Beethoven or Brahms than what they get from Mozart or possibly Schubert. But that doesn't mean that any of them are overrated. It just means that you connect to a particular way differently and more meaningfully than others.

That some people use his music as background music is their personal choice, one I'm not going to judge. A famous musician, I'm forgetting who it was at the moment, said that Mozart was the most difficult composer to perform well, even though some of the notes may appear simple. And so I think it is with actually listening to his music and getting all the intricacies.
Schnabel. "The sonatas of Mozart are unique; they are too easy for children, and too difficult for artists."

It always amuses me when wiseacreas reckon Mozart is overrated especially when great musicians queue up to praise his music. The fact is they miss the genius of simplicity, the sublimity of art form. I used to reckon on someone like Wagner being greater becAuse of the noise but I grew out of that.
 
#256 ·
I'll distinguish between Mozart's music being overrated (I don't think it is) and Mozart the composer being overrated (I think this is plausible depending on what one means by rating.). Certainly there is a lot of silly mythology about Mozart that seeks to elevate him to godlike status — that he composed directly from his head to paper (he used a keyboard), that he didn't need to correct or sketch and revise his scores (this is wrong; most of his sketches were simply lost or used for kindling), that he composed his last three symphonies in six weeks (this does not hold up to scrutiny), that he transcribed Allegri's Miserere at one hearing (it required two hearings and an unknown amount of futzing about on a keyboard), etc. If one counts this mythologizing as a form of rating, then certainly Mozart the composer is overrated. I don't care about any of this mythologizing. His music stands on its own without such nonsense and if one needs the myths to prop up ones opinion of the composer, then one isn't giving the music itself its due. All that matters is the work.
 
#257 ·
I'll distinguish between Mozart's music being overrated (I don't think it is) and Mozart the composer being overrated (I think this is plausible depending on what one means by rating.). Certainly there is a lot of silly mythology about Mozart that seeks to elevate him to godlike status - that he composed directly from his head to paper (he used a keyboard), that he didn't need to correct or sketch and revise his scores (this is wrong; most of his sketches were simply lost or used for kindling), that he composed his last three symphonies in six weeks (this does not hold up to scrutiny), that he transcribed Allegri's Miserere at one hearing (it required two hearings and an unknown amount of futzing about on a keyboard), etc. If one counts this mythologizing as a form of rating, then certainly Mozart the composer is overrated. I don't care about any of this mythologizing. His music stands on its own without such nonsense and if one needs the myths to prop up ones opinion of the composer, then one isn't giving the music itself its due. All that matters is the work.
I agree with your separation of Mozart's music and his mythology. I have been indirectly told by a few music professors (through their students) that Mozart did compose his last 3 symphonies in roughly 6 weeks. I know that it's all too easy to read that account somewhere, assume it's true, and pass it on to others. Do you think those who have seriously investigated this account feel confident that it is false?
 
#260 ·
It doesn't matter if a composer worked for 9 days or 9 years to complete a work. What matters is the work itself: does it stand up, do you enjoy it, is it good? And works written faster are not "better" than those that took longer. In fact, I would sooner have more respect for a work that took careful revision and re-writing over time than one which "just fell out."

I am a big fan of the craft of musical composition much more so than the mythology of genius.
 
#261 ·
Since listening to the Mackerras Scottish Linn recordings of the later symphonies I now get the fuss....and alongside the Piano Concertos I think there is a reasonable case to suggest the man was a half decent composer....
 
#263 ·

Mozart wrote to his sister in April 1782: "My darling Constanze has at last summoned up courage to follow the impulse of her kind heart, and to write to you. If you are so good, dear sister, as to answer her, (which I hope you will, that I may see the joy in this dear creature's face,) I beg you will enclose your letter to me. I mention this as a precaution, to warn you that her mother and sisters are not aware that she has written to you. I enclose a prelude and a three-part fugue. The reason that I did not write to you before was not being able to finish the music sooner, owing to the great trouble of writing out such small notes. It is awkwardly done, for the prelude ought to come first and the fugue to follow; the cause being that I composed the fugue first, and while writing it out I devised the prelude. I only hope you may be able to read it, as it is written so very small, but above all that it may please you."
 
#264 ·
You have to be aware that you're trying to judge composers by listening to modern interpretations of their work. Mostly performed with equal temperament and modern instruments. There were also instruments added and improvements done during the rewriting process. Therefore the modern performances will sound different than the original performances.
 
#269 ·
Mozart over-rated? Yes, probably is by some people, though not by me. To my uneducated ear, he did a lot with a narrow palate, a rather limited range of harmonies and motifs that he reshuffled skilfully into a substantial output.
But that's my take. Others will hear more qualities in Mozart's music. And probably scoff in disbelief at my admiration of Moussorgsky's music!
 
#274 ·
No offence, but this is ridiculous:

Bach was a very gifted contrapuntist. But the counterpoint of Bach is usually something "new-comers of classical music" would call "WOW!!! MIND-BLOWINGLY, DIVINELY COMPLEX!" I'm not saying he's flawed in any way; it's just that he's over-popular about the stuff. I know there are experienced classical music listeners who find it dazzling. I'm just speaking generally, from my experience participating in the google/youtube/reddit forums.
 
#276 · (Edited)
Don't get me wrong; I did not say that Bach's mastery is not "dazzling". But from my experience in those communities, it's usually "new-comers" who excessively "fantasize" about it, make a huge "deal about it" as if Bach was really "special" for his time, (as if he's some kind of an "avant-gardist" of his time). It's understandable because it's something Bach is (frankly) "over-popular" for. Over time, you would still keep admiring it, but make less of a "fuss about it" once you find out about stuff like this, or this, (which take good things from the Baroque and even move beyond from that; away from the "Doctrine of the Affections") or this.
 
#277 · (Edited)
#281 ·
Many listeners actually do know at least some contemporaries of Bach or Mozart. Certainly Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, probably also some Telemann, Rameau, Boccherini. Sure, often these are not representative selections and biased. But especially the late baroque composers are much better known than e.g. Reicha or Hummel or other Beethoven contemporaries.
 
#283 · (Edited)
Composers of Mozart's time generally wrote in many genres, since they were required to do so as professional craftsmen. The 19th century composers prided themselves on their individuality; one way they emphasized this was to focus on certain genres. Chopin, Wagner, Mahler are good examples; I think Mahler's symphonies are totally different creatures from Mozart's. Genre-to-genre comparisons between the two composers is meaningless. I don't even think there's a sure-fire way to compare Mozart and Beethoven in terms of greatness, because of this.
But some people somehow don't seem to think in this way.
 
#286 · (Edited)
Here's a piece frequently described as the "summit of all music"; Bach's B minor mass.
Although it's a masterpiece with many sublime moments, I still have some "reservations" about;
  • the opening Kyrie, though sublime, goes on for 9 minutes with barely any change of mood (again, due to the "Doctrine of the Affections")
  • movements with only arias accompanied by early-18th century style instrumental basso continuo.
  • the way the trumpet "sticks out", especially in the Gloria and Sanctus (again, the orchestral style of the early-18th century. Sorry, I don't quite feel "elegance" from styles like: . I don't "dislike" them though).
  • choral fugues that strike me as slightly "mechanical", like the style of BWV80.
  • being a Baroque cantata-mass and one of Bach's late "encyclopedic projects" such as the Goldberg variations, the whole piece is long and might benefit from some editting (imv),

etc...

I simply accept that Bach was writing great music with the resources and the ideals of his own time. I acknowledge that other people admire his music without reservations for a good reason. I feel no need to point out that "Bach is not good enough for me", or to make claims that the music of the later periods is an "improvement" on his music. (Rather, I usually find that it's the avid Bach enthusiasts who tend to openly criticize the music of the later half of the century.)

"Wagner's life-long admiration included an encounter in the mid-to late 1820s that 'formed the starting point of my enthusiastic absorption in the works of that master [Mozart]' and contemplations of it late in life as well; Anton Rubinstein, Mahler Richard Strauss, Stanford and Rimsky-Korsakov all conducted it, Rimsky-Korsakov also quoting extensively from the Introit in the final section of Mozart and Salieri. Described in 1902 as one of Mozart's works that 'speaks persuadingly to every generation . . . [through which] Mozart's influence still persists and must be reckoned with as a factor in the complexus of forces which is moulding the music of the new century', it had similar exposure among twentieth century composers. Bartok used examples from the Requiem in his teaching; Szymanowski wrote of its 'divine grief', the most powerful 'eruption' of the 'grim, powerful call from a world beyond ours' in Mozart's late music; Janecek conducted a highly successful performance of it in Brno in the late 1870s and another in the memory of Smetana in Prague in 1916; the fifteen-year-old Walton sang a solo part in a performance at Christ Church, Oxford, in December 1917; Britten considered it an important historical precedent for the modern-day composer in writing his own War Requiem (1961-2), subsequently reacting profoundly to conducting Mozart's work (1971)."
< Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion / Simon P. Keefe / P. 6 >

Just cause Bach has more "fans" on some website today - he's not overrated, whereas Mozart is?
Aren't we accusing the idolatry of Mozart to encourage the idolatry of Bach?
 
#287 ·
Or they prefer a different forum. Of course many people enjoy both equally but in my experience there are significant subsets both of those people not at all interested in opera and those interested in opera above anything else. Sure,there are also those not caring a lot for music before beethoven and they will not prefer mozart even as opera buffs.
 
#288 ·
Internet fora show very distorted pictures because of nerdy segregation. Among the general population or rather people with a casual interest in classist and opera Mozart beats Beethoven and Beethoven beats Bach. The Beethoven anniversary was wrecked by Covid but it would not have been close to 1991, probably not to 2006 either. (And 1985 and 2000 were not such a big deal.) All Beethoven and Bach movies together are no match for Amadeus.
That's how one could get the impression of being overawed.
 
#290 ·
I don't find late Bach clearly separable and in any case far less expressive. Chromatic fantasy, St. JOHN, Kreuzstab cantata etc. None of them is late. The late stuff is either parodied from older works or theoretical like AoF.
I'd say if one as quoted above puts Mozart far below either of the others, that person does not much care for opera. Otherwise a no opera composer and one with a single rather untypical and not so popular one could not be far ahead.
 
#292 · (Edited)
I enjoy opera, but I don't think that Mozart's are that much more special than Salieri's or Gluck's. Overall, I far prefer Mozart in his chamber, sacred and instrumental (including concertos) music.

The Mass in B minor, the St. Matthew Passion, the organ Trio Sonatas, the Goldberg variations, the Art of Fugue, the Musical Offering and the second book of the Well Tempered Clavier are all masterpieces and late works by Bach by the way (even if he started some of them earlier, they were all concluded in the last two decades of his life).

You are grotesquely underrating Mozart operas.
Well, in my perspective it's you who are overrating them. Mozart's popularity has been greatly enhanced by the myth of genius infallibility propagated by the movie Amadeus, and I don't doubt that to this day there are people who, against any evidence, see for example the Commendatore in Don Giovanni as portraying Mozart's father. Other composers didn't have the luck of having a first rate movie done by a successful cineast for them.
 
#295 · (Edited)
Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids
Beethoven's piano sonatas and Bach's WTC are regarded as the New and the Old Testaments of Music. None of Mozart's works are. At some point we have to say "enough is enough".
Maybe we should ask ourselves to what extent "facts about Beethoven's deafness" affect our actual evaluation of his music.


Maybe I should create a thread that I don't hear much difference between these;
Op.77:
Op.111/ii:
but I won't. I respect people's appreciation for the music. But I would still want them to be "reasonable" and know the "limits".

There was a time I had arguments with people who were at the time Schubert-loving Mozart-haters (Ja***, NL***, Alleg***, aio***). In the <the greatest string quintet> poll, Schubert's C major quintet got more than 60% of the votes, while works by other composers each got less than 8%. I said that it was unreasonable. People at the time accused me of being biased against Schubert; but nowadays I find some are acting in the same way against Mozart. (Actually Beethoven enthusiasts have a long history of doing it, even on this forum).

The tick-tock rhythms of J.S. Bach sometimes can become a bit tedious to me.
the tick tock in Bach, for example in BWV 869.
Sometimes, Bach is a mere composer of "tick-tocks",
but now he's a divinely-flawless, God-like being capable of so much depth, practically "untouchable" by Mozart.
I see. Bach is a mere composer of "tick-tocks" only when he's compared to "the most DIVINE of them all"-Beethoven.

I enjoy opera, but I don't think that Mozart's are that much more special than Salieri's or Gluck's.

^Wow.. So "avant-garde", isn't it? (Or maybe it just sounds like Cherubini)
 
#301 · (Edited)
The same inquisition has no problem trashing Haydn, Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Bruckner, Sibelius, Schumann and others when it fits their agenda.
Berlioz, Bruckner, Sibelius, Schumann; I don't remember criticizing these guys as much as you do Cage, Mozart, Mahler, Bach (who is always a composer of "tick-tocks" when compared with Beethoven).
I have praised Schumann's symphonies and piano sonata No.2. And with J. Haydn, I was mostly fighting the "history distortions".
 
#303 · (Edited)
Again, I've been trying to see various composers (including Beethoven) as positively as possible.
I too think Beethoven has a unique harmonic sense. One only needs to listen to:

It's just that he wasn't trained from youth in the same way as the "18th century church music composers" (ex. Bach, Mozart) were.
It seems tdc has long been obsessed with the idea that "if you take individual elements of Beethoven separately, there's nobody". But I think, as others have said, there's more to Beethoven than just a combination of those elements. ... I don't think it's "weak", but rather "different".
I personally feel that this is an area where Mozart gets a bit too much recognition. People constantly compare them to Beethoven's, but I don't find the comparison fair since I find his to be also quite unique from Mozart's, and decent in quality as well. (I don't approve of the "Mozartian" label people attach to his early works, especially Op.50.)
"hammeredklavier criticizes composers" shouldn't be an excuse for other people to condemn any other composers as "overrated" all they want. Let's be logical, and not blame on others.
 
#304 · (Edited)
His piano sonatas definitely get underrated. I've noticed they don't get advocated for or talked about nearly as much as Beethoven's (or maybe even Haydn's). Yet Beethoven's piano sonatas couldn't have been without Mozart's, and they are actually quite similar in many ways. So, how can anyone say they love Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, and not Mozart's? That doesn't make any sense. So too are Mozart's string quartets, string quintets, piano trios, violin sonatas, violin concerti, Sinfonia Concertante, choral music, and operas all underrated, in my view. Maybe his piano concertos, Requiem, and symphonies get fully appreciated--just an impression.

If pressed, I'd personally rank Don Giovanni as the greatest opera ever written, and The Magic Flute not far behind it.

But over the years, I've noticed that mere mortals often under-appreciate super genius. I guess it all sounds more effortless and easy than it actually is.

Someone made an analogy to tennis player Roger Federer earlier in this thread, and I agree. Federer makes what is incredibly difficult look so easy and natural and effortless. Non-top tennis players have no idea how phenomenal Federer is on a tennis court. His resting heart beat is in the 30s, his hand eye coordination is beyond belief, and he's super quick and fast, with a massive forehand (& everything else, too, including a Pete Sampras-like vertical leap in his younger days--47-48"-which was on par with Michael Jordan's, btw). While throughout most of his career, not a hair would be out of place on Federer's head deep into a 5th set (that is, after four or five hours). He wouldn't even look like he was sweating or remotely tired. That's simply unbelievable (& freakish), to anyone that has actually played a grueling 5 set tennis match. Indeed, Federer makes it all look so easy that the average tennis viewer doesn't fully realize or appreciate that what Federer is doing is extremely difficult and rare, and not easy at all, in fact, just the opposite.

& I think the same is true for Mozart, too. I expect top flight musicians know this. You can't play this music very well and not realize the super genius behind it; that is, unless you're Glenn Gould...

But that's just it, I'd say the piano concertos and symphonies get played consistently well, for the most part, but the same isn't as true for many of Mozart's other works. For example, I'm still waiting for a recording of Don Giovanni that truly does the score full justice.
 
#305 ·
His piano sonatas definitely get underrated. I've noticed they don't get advocated for or talked about nearly as much as Beethoven's (or maybe even Haydn's). Yet Beethoven's piano sonatas couldn't have been without Mozart's, and they are actually quite similar in many ways. So, how can anyone say they love Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, and not Mozart's? That doesn't make any sense.
It makes complete sense. Beethoven wouldn't have existed without Gregorian Chant, but it is completely sensical to like Beethoven without liking Gregorian chant.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top