Page 50 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4046474849505152 LastLast
Results 736 to 750 of 770

Thread: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

  1. #736
    Banned (Temporarily)
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    985
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeh375 View Post
    and Mozart of course will never ever be the composer Boulez was....just sayin"
    What delusion you're prepared to endure.

  2. #737
    Senior Member Luchesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdc View Post
    Well, its an imaginary situation but even so I have to disagree here, I think it would be more of a mutual exchange of information. Much has been lost and forgotten about music of the past over the years too, there would likely be a good deal of questions Boulez would have as well.
    We all admire Mozart and Newton and Einstein. We get ridiculous with our admiration. They would have little chance of understanding and conversing in a subject which was developed for so many years after they died. They wouldn't know about the discoveries and the progress and the depth of the modern subjects.

    Is Newton going to talk about QM or even relativity? Is Einstein going to be able to talk about quantum loop gravity when he had no idea about it or exposure to the rationale for it? Its predictions?

    Boulez has taken all the music theory classes and worked professionally with modern harmony and the evolution of modern music for many decades. Mozart wouldn’t know the terms or definitions or the developmental logic.
    Last edited by Luchesi; Jun-03-2020 at 01:54.

  3. #738
    Banned (Temporarily)
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    985
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    We all admire Mozart and Newton and Einstein. We get ridiculous with our admiration. They would have little chance of understanding and conversing in a subject which was developed for so many years after they died. They wouldn't know about the discoveries and the progress and the depth of the modern subjects.

    Is Newton going to talk about QM or even relativity? Is Einstein going to be able to talk about quantum loop gravity when he had no idea about it or exposure to the rationale for it? Its predictions?

    Boulez has taken all the music theory classes and worked professionally with modern harmony and the evolution of modern music for many decades. Mozart wouldn’t know the terms or definitions or the developmental logic.
    It's all nonsense that produces unlistenable music.

    Mozart had all the necessary tools to produce the best music ever crafted - in all ways of judging - even purely intellectuallly. Boulez or any other modernist wouldn't dream of writing something as complex as the Jupiter symphony.

    That's what's so sad about them, they dedicate all their effort to complexity to such an extreme that it costs the music all sense of aesthetic, yet still can't get near the complexity of Mozart - even though his primary concern was beauty.

  4. Likes hammeredklavier liked this post
  5. #739
    Senior Member Luchesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1996D View Post
    It's all nonsense that produces unlistenable music.

    Mozart had all the necessary tools to produce the best music ever crafted - in all ways of judging - even purely intellectuallly. Boulez or any other modernist wouldn't dream of writing something as complex as the Jupiter symphony.

    That's what's so sad about them, they dedicate all their effort to complexity to such an extreme that it costs the music all sense of aesthetic, yet still can't get near the complexity of Mozart - even though his primary concern was beauty.
    Modern music is the artist's concept of the modern world. It can't be too 'listenable', if I understand what you mean.

    Yes, good compliments for Mozart, but none of it addresses or changes my points. The very definition of a fanboy.
    Last edited by Luchesi; Jun-03-2020 at 02:52.

  6. #740
    Banned (Temporarily)
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    985
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    Modern music is the artist's concept of the modern world. It can't be too 'listenable', if I understand what you mean.

    Yes, good compliments for Mozart, but none of it addresses or changes my points. The very definition of a fanboy.
    Not at all, you just don't see the deterioration of art and of its standards, while tdc and myself do. Man doesn't celebrate decay, therefore it's appropriate that music of that style isn't celebrated.

    If Schoenberg looked to the future with his music, and we proceed to do the same with the music of today, then it simply can't be of the same style. The future, 30-50 years from now will be what the music of today projects, that's what I'm trying to get across.

  7. #741
    Senior Member Luchesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1996D View Post
    Not at all, you just don't see the deterioration of art and of its standards, while tdc and myself do. Man doesn't celebrate decay, therefore it's appropriate that music of that style isn't celebrated.

    If Schoenberg looked to the future with his music, and we proceed to do the same with the music of today, then it simply can't be of the same style. The future, 30-50 years from now will be what the music of today projects, that's what I'm trying to get across.
    I don't expect that you can convince people working in the field to go backward in musical history. Art isn't about liking, it's about educated and personal expression/representations.
    Last edited by Luchesi; Jun-03-2020 at 03:49.

  8. #742
    Banned (Temporarily)
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    985
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    I don't expect that you can convince people working in the field to go backward in musical history. Art isn't about liking, it's about educated and personal expression/representations.
    Tonality isn't backwards, the future is tonal.

  9. #743
    Senior Member tdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    7,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    We all admire Mozart and Newton and Einstein. We get ridiculous with our admiration. They would have little chance of understanding and conversing in a subject which was developed for so many years after they died. They wouldn't know about the discoveries and the progress and the depth of the modern subjects.

    Is Newton going to talk about QM or even relativity? Is Einstein going to be able to talk about quantum loop gravity when he had no idea about it or exposure to the rationale for it? Its predictions?

    Boulez has taken all the music theory classes and worked professionally with modern harmony and the evolution of modern music for many decades. Mozart wouldn’t know the terms or definitions or the developmental logic.
    I think you have a false notion that progress is always linear. There is nothing new under the sun, as has been said. We have actually had a similar discussion before. There is plenty of evidence that people were more advanced in the past. We cannot scientifically give an adequate explanation of the pyramids, we do not have composers as prolific and brilliant as in the past or the polymaths today as we did some centuries ago. The technologies we are using are a disgrace. True high technology exists and we wouldn't recognize it, because it is technology that works with natural principles, not the synthetic garbage we have been given. The reason our world has become so retarded is because certain people have decided to hold back real science and truth, because they would have to sacrifice their power. This was predicted in Huxley's Brave New World, and it is happening today. Only technologies that can be used to continually keep people enslaved are released. So in other words 'science' today is in many respects a lie, and it has purposely been made overly complex and convoluted so that few can understand it, as a way to create the perception and illusion that the real world is too complex for regular people to understand. Therefore the average person should leave the ruling of the world to those 'other people' who understand it.

    Only 'science' that supports the agenda of the elite class is tolerated by big tech companies like facebook and google. We are seeing this unfold in real time today with their rampant censorship on topics that do not fit their narrative. If they could actually win the debates with real science they would not be concerned with limiting free speech. My guess is much of what Boulez knew would not be of much interest to Mozart, he would probably see it as a bunch of nonsense, and he would be right.

  10. Likes hammeredklavier liked this post
  11. #744
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,901
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    If you have spent enough time observing Luchesi on this forum, you'll know. He always wants to prove that music continually improves over time in terms of harmony and style. The newer, the better. Older styles keep getting surpassed by newer styles. Hence "Chopin's harmony and style are more objectively effective than Mozart's (and Bach's)" — is LuChesI's LogIC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    It's more objective. I'm thinking that the findings of evolutionary psychology indicate that the harmony of Chopin is more effective than the harmony of Mozart's time. The harmonies alone, not what he did with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    OK, not just harmony, style. Chopin, Schumann, Liszt and Berlioz only composed in the Romantic style. They admired Mozart, but for the expression of their time and setting and outlooks - that style had been surpassed by the new style. How do you explain what happened?
    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    Harmony had moved on. As I see it, the large steps, from Byrd to Mozart, and again from Hummel to Schumann, and then Liszt to Mahler, in each comparable interval of time in music history the earlier harmony had been surpassed (for human expression, not for listening and modern day collecting).
    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    Yes, if you're a pianist Mozart is Mozart, older - simpler sounds, but you look to Schubert and Chopin for the expressive, experimental new ideas. The miniatures are often full of the new, and the drama and cleverness packed into short forms.
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-03-2020 at 20:22.

  12. #745
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,901
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil loves classical View Post
    You hear that Hammerklavier?
    You mean the Hammerklavier? Yes, I have heard it. It's a good sonata

    Can art & music be approached "objectively?"-hammerklavier-png
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-03-2020 at 13:18.

  13. #746
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,901
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Take a look at the top-rated comments in this video:


    "No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure." -OÄKTA DOPBOK
    "If you make a mistake on this sonata, it's called "improvisation"" -vesteel





    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-03-2020 at 10:09.

  14. #747
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,901
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1996D View Post
    That's what's so sad about them, they dedicate all their effort to complexity to such an extreme that it costs the music all sense of aesthetic, yet still can't get near the complexity of Mozart - even though his primary concern was beauty.
    To me, the problem with contemporary classical music like Boulez and Stockhausen's isn't the "ugliness". I just don't feel "genius" in it. Why don't I just watch a good horror movie rather than sit at home listening to a Boulez piece wondering what he's trying to say through his music. I think watching a good horror movie will give me a better contemporary classical music listening experience. The common practice masters' use of dissonance in their formal structure and voice leading richness just seems more striking. Whereas the contemporary guys' like Boulez's endless use of unresolved dissonances strikes me as "spammy". He uses them for the sake of using them, with the "the-more-you-spam-the-better" mentality. It always ends up sounding like a child who keeps bitching endlessly no matter how hard you try to babysit him. I find it one-dimensional and lacking in mood contrast and spacial depth. Life isn't all about suffering, grief. There has to be a lot of other feelings, like joy, happiness, longing, love, hatred, hope, awe, amusement, serenity, working in harmony with "suffering and grief" in an up-and-down fashion organically and naturally, like how an organism breathes in and out. I just don't hear that kind of natural variety and "sense of balance" and "contrast of color" in the musical language of Boulez and Stockhausen. Only funny sound effects. I think it's only good as soundtrack for horror films. I don't admire them the same way I don't admire today's composers of horror film music effects. You can only hear random unresolved dissonance spam for so long. It gets stale at some point, starts to not sound striking any more.
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-03-2020 at 13:30.

  15. #748
    Senior Member JAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post
    I don't expect that you can convince people working in the field to go backward in musical history. Art isn't about liking, it's about educated and personal expression/representations.
    It can be as long as you don't need an audience. The use of "backwards" is, I think, the error here. If you are headed from New York to Iowa, driving on to Alaska is no longer progress, and you had better turn back. Too often, mere movement is mistaken for progress.

  16. #749
    Senior Member flamencosketches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    the Deep South
    Posts
    5,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Will everyone STFU about Boulez? This thread is about Mozart. There is absolutely no need to trash another composer (a great composer in my book, if not yours—I do not care what you think) to enjoy Mozart. The fact that you lot think there is need for that betrays a lot of insecurity.
    Last edited by flamencosketches; Jun-03-2020 at 22:15.

  17. Likes Allegro Con Brio, Janspe liked this post
  18. #750
    Senior Member Phil loves classical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Ford Nation
    Posts
    4,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdc View Post
    I think you have a false notion that progress is always linear. There is nothing new under the sun, as has been said. We have actually had a similar discussion before. There is plenty of evidence that people were more advanced in the past. We cannot scientifically give an adequate explanation of the pyramids, we do not have composers as prolific and brilliant as in the past or the polymaths today as we did some centuries ago. The technologies we are using are a disgrace. True high technology exists and we wouldn't recognize it, because it is technology that works with natural principles, not the synthetic garbage we have been given. The reason our world has become so retarded is because certain people have decided to hold back real science and truth, because they would have to sacrifice their power. This was predicted in Huxley's Brave New World, and it is happening today. Only technologies that can be used to continually keep people enslaved are released. So in other words 'science' today is in many respects a lie, and it has purposely been made overly complex and convoluted so that few can understand it, as a way to create the perception and illusion that the real world is too complex for regular people to understand. Therefore the average person should leave the ruling of the world to those 'other people' who understand it.

    Only 'science' that supports the agenda of the elite class is tolerated by big tech companies like facebook and google. We are seeing this unfold in real time today with their rampant censorship on topics that do not fit their narrative. If they could actually win the debates with real science they would not be concerned with limiting free speech. My guess is much of what Boulez knew would not be of much interest to Mozart, he would probably see it as a bunch of nonsense, and he would be right.
    I agree with Luchesi. And the pyramids is not a good analogy since it used technology/technique that was not documented. Music are well-documented with scores and techniques that have evolved. So Boulez knows all the techniques that Mozart employed, which was really nothing new since Bach and Haydn. Before Hammeredklavier goes to misinterpret what I'm saying, Mozart's genius can't be replicated. He was wired in a way to create what is great that others can't in the same way, even given the same tools. Mozart was a progressive as evidenced by his music, he would have been interested in how the boundaries of music were extended, which can be only in one direction over time, even if he didn't particularly like the music, or felt it was excessive, or imbalanced from Classical aethestics. But it is definitely not nonsense, if others can respond to the music (which is ultimately a medium for conveying expressions).

    The same way some don't respond to Mozart like Janxharris, who hears a lot of cliches, some (ok a lot more) don't respond to Boulez. The same way you might view someone who doesn't get the genius of Mozart, others might view those the same way who doesn't get the genius of Boulez.
    "Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart

Similar Threads

  1. Two Operas Falsely Attributed to Mozart 1/2
    By robert newman in forum Opera
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Apr-04-2012, 16:01
  2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 170xCD boxset question
    By Iron_Fist in forum Recorded Music and Publications
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Oct-07-2009, 03:26
  3. Mozart, Ignorance and Education
    By colleengail726 in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Aug-05-2007, 13:52
  4. Why Are They 'Attacking' Our Mozart ?
    By colleengail726 in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Aug-04-2007, 18:10
  5. 'The Best Work I Ever Composed' - Mozart
    By robert newman in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Jun-16-2007, 10:50

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •