Classical Music Forum banner

Late Mozart vs. Late Schubert

34K views 248 replies 32 participants last post by  Xisten267 
#1 · (Edited)
These are two of my very favorite composers who were at the respective polar sides of the Pre/Post Beethoven spectrum of the classical period. There are many parallels (and differences, especially in terms of lifetime recognition.) However, I think we can all agree that Mozart and Schubert are two of the supreme "natural" talents in music who were robbed from the world too soon.

In this thread, I'd like to delve into the artistic stages of maturity the two genius composers were at when they died. This is not speculation of what could've been, but more about what was. As a reference, here is their output in the (roughly speaking) last year of their lives.

The Mozart of 1790-91 produced:
The Requiem K 626 (of course)
The Magic Flute K 620
La Clemenza do Tito K 621
Clarinet Concerto K 622
Ave Verum Corpus K 618
The two "viola" quintets K 593 and 614
The B Flat Piano Concerto K 595
Other works the Prussian Quartets, Cosi Fan Tutte, and the Clarinet Quintet and *maybe* the final three symphonies (depends on one's definition of "late" Mozart)

And for the Schubert of 1827-28:
The Last Three Piano Sonatas D. 958-960
Schwanengesang D 957
The "Cello" Quintet D 956
Mass in E Flat D 950
Drei Klavierstucke D 946
"The Great" Symphony No.9 D 944
Fantasy in F minor D 940
Impromptus D 935
Fantasy in C D 934
Piano Trio no.2 D 929
And perhaps Die Winterreise for good measure.

So.

Obviously there are many wild differences here between the individual works (thanks Beethoven) but, generally speaking, where were they in terms of maturity? Did Mozart truly herald the arrival of "Romanticism" like some say or was he just ensconced in mere Classicism? Did Schubert find his own truly individual voice separate from Beethoven?
 
See less See more
#91 ·
This discussion seems to have shifted a bit. Where is the discussion on what the composers did in their last year and comparison.

what I would like to posit though - the possibility - that had Schubert had the 5 years extra life that Mozart had - he would have advanced more relative to where he was when he was 31 than Mozart did in the last 5 years of his life. This may well be that, as someone already pointed out - Mozart was more complete as a composer at 31 than Schubert - so was composing works equally impressive at 31 as those he composed at 36.
 
#100 · (Edited)
“ Yeah, that is what I'm saying. It is not as impressive as some make it out to be based on what they claim. I actually read some say that the "complexity" of the Coda is unmatched in all of Western music. It is not complex. Just great counterpoint nothing more, nothing less. Bach writes great counterpoint all the time. The greatness of the movement in Jupiter is from the development around the 5 themes, including their combination (which is only part of it).”

Regardless of what others have claimed about the counterpoint that Mozart wrote in the last movement of the Jupiter, for anyone to talk about it in such matter of fact terms is to diminish the accomplishment. It was more than just great counterpoint; it was an inspired accomplishment of counterpoint that no one has been capable of since, certainly not as memorably or impressively. I can see why some argue that it’s one of the great accomplishments in western civilization, whether one exactly agree with that or not. But for someone to come along and not sound impressed is not impressive. It sounds like hubris and the product of a strictly analytical mind not capable of pulling off such a feat. It’s a fantastic passage of music, one that interweaves five themes beautifully and effortlessly together where everything is heard in such a transparent orchestration and is worthy of the highest praise without reservation. If Bach had heard it, I believe he would have stood up and cheered at its inspired brilliance because he would have understood that it wasn’t just an intellectual accomplishment. It was like catching lightning in a bottle.
 
#101 ·
" Yeah, that is what I'm saying. It is not as impressive as some make it out to be based on what they claim. I actually read some say that the "complexity" of the Coda is unmatched in all of Western music. It is not complex. Just great counterpoint nothing more, nothing less. Bach writes great counterpoint all the time. The greatness of the movement in Jupiter is from the development around the 5 themes, including their combination (which is only part of it)."

Regardless of what others have claimed about the counterpoint that Mozart wrote in the last movement of the Jupiter, for anyone to talk about it in such matter of fact terms is to diminish the accomplishment. It was more than just great counterpoint; it was an inspired accomplishment of counterpoint that no one has been capable of since, certainly not as memorably or impressively. I can see why some argue that it's one of the great accomplishments in western civilization, whether one exactly agree with that or not. But for someone to come along and not sound impressed is not impressive. It sounds like hubris and the product of a strictly analytical mind not capable of pulling off such a feat. It's a fantastic passage of music, one that interweaves five themes beautifully and effortlessly where everything is heard in such a transparent orchestration and is worthy of the highest praise without reservation. If Bach had heard it, I believe he would have stood up and cheered at its inspired brilliance because he would have understood that it wasn't just an intellectual accomplishment. It was like catching lightning in a bottle.
What makes the counterpoint sound so brilliant is not merely the combining of themes but the dramatic structure of the movement, which is often called a fugue but is really a sonata-form narrative carried on in quasi-fugal terms. There were precedents for this in works of Joseph and Michael Haydn, but Mozart surpasses them.
 
#103 ·
I still find Phillovesclassical's claim in this thread extremely ridiculous. So the last movement of Mozart 41th is about contrapuntal combination of 5 subjects and that's it? Whatabout the use of dissonance at for example? Writing five subjects that combine is one thing, writing an entire contrapuntal movement based on them in such a way that everything sounds catchy under the rules of counterpoint is another. And also, what makes the 18th century masters so impressive is control and containment.
And I'm not sure why Phillovesclassical keeps going around saying he's a Mozart fan, but everytime he talks about Mozart, he talks about what he thinks as superiority of Liszt, Haydn, Faure, Gesualdo, Bach, Stravinsky, Hindemith etc etc over Mozart, or his preference for them over Mozart. (I actually do remember all those instances he did it.) I admit I sometimes do the same thing with Schubert, but at least I don't go around lying I'm a Schubert fan.
I actually do come across a lot of other people on other classical music communities (like Phil) who make a huge deal about the Rite of Spring. I've been listening to it and Petrushka, Firebird. Stravinsky still strikes me as a really good 20th century film score composer. (a lot of interesting sound effects)
If you think other people are unjustly insulting to a composer you love, is the best response to insult another renowned composer? Stravinsky is much more than a "film-score composer" and a creator of "interesting sound effects." And I can say that while being no great fan of Stravinsky.

No wonder you think David Wright is a respectable music critic.
 
#104 · (Edited)
"Yeah, that is what I'm saying. It is not as impressive as some make it out to be based on what they claim. I actually read some say that the "complexity" of the Coda is unmatched in all of Western music. It is not complex. Just great counterpoint nothing more, nothing less. Bach writes great counterpoint all the time. The greatness of the movement in Jupiter is from the development around the 5 themes, including their combination (which is only part of it)." [Phillovesclassical]

[Lark:] Regardless of what others have claimed about the counterpoint that Mozart wrote in the last movement of the Jupiter, for anyone to talk about it in such matter of fact terms is to diminish the accomplishment. It was more than just great counterpoint; it was an inspired accomplishment of counterpoint that no one has been capable of since, certainly not as memorably or impressively. I can see why some argue that it's one of the great accomplishments in western civilization, whether one exactly agree with that or not. But for someone to come along and not sound impressed is not impressive. It sounds like hubris and the product of a strictly analytical mind not capable of pulling off such a feat. It's a fantastic passage of music, one that interweaves five themes beautifully and effortlessly together where everything is heard in such a transparent orchestration and is worthy of the highest praise without reservation. If Bach had heard it, I believe he would have stood up and cheered at its inspired brilliance because he would have understood that it wasn't just an intellectual accomplishment. It was like catching lightning in a bottle.[/quotes]

Just wanted to clarify that the first paragraph in quotes was not by me but by phillovesclassical. I do not view him as an insightful nor understanding Mozart listener. There are the usual reservations and half-hearted praise including on the last movement of Mozart's inspired counterpoint in the Jupiter.
 
#108 ·
I think there is about the same difference in artistic quality between late Schubert and late Mozart as there is if we compare the output in general of Vivaldi and Bach.

In other words, the Schubert is inspired and beautiful, but relatively simple and repetitive. The music is not on the same level in terms of musical structure or brilliance in my view.
 
#111 · (Edited)
Interesting that you feel this way. I find Schubert particularly advanced in his use of harmony - more than Mozart. And if he can be repetitive sometimes, the same can be said about Wolfgang - think in the Haffner symphony or in the Posthorn serenade for example, which have many repeats. Mozart even tends to ask for repeats for the development and recapitulation sections of many of his movements in sonata form, something that is not so frequent in Schubert.

Also, Schubert expanded the texts that could be used in songs, and has a vast and sophisticated repertoire in that field. Mozart's lieder look amateurish in comparison.

...

About the Vivaldi and Bach comparison: I also prefer the latter (almost everybody here at TC does according to the polls), but at least in terms of rhythms I favour the italian and perhaps Rameau. Bach tends to use few types of musical notes for his accompaniments, what for me can be a bit too regular and even monotonous a few times, while Vivaldi seems more fluent in his (then) innovative use of forceful and syncopated rhythms.

Compare the rhythms:



 
#109 ·
^ I don't think that catches it at all. Vivaldi did produce some wonderful music but he also produced a lot of hack work. And he lived to a ripe age. Much of what we know of Schubert was written when he was very young. He was prolific without resorting to hack work. What we know as the later works - written at a age when many composers had barely got started - is that they were a string of masterpieces quite unlike anything that had come before them. They are so great that they secure his position among the top ten composers ever. Who knows what he might have gone on to do. To make him Vivaldi to Mozart's Bach shows a deep misunderstanding of either Vivaldi or Schubert. Nor was Schubert a contemporary of Mozart. His late works are gems of the Romantic just as Mozart's are gems of the Classical.
 
#138 · (Edited)
First off your claim about 'hack work' is nothing but subjective and you do not back it up with any examples of this alleged 'hack work'. As you can see there are individuals here who consider some of Schubert's compositions 'hack work', but I have never made that claim. However they provided examples and reasons for why they consider the music to be of lesser quality, you have provided nothing but an opinion. Your comments about 'masterpieces' also lacks any technical insight into why you think those works are masterpieces, you seem to just be rehashing what you perceive to be common consensus. Vivaldi is often also placed in top ten lists, and his music is perhaps heard on classical radio stations as much or more than any composer. I think it is you who has a lack of understanding here, this is further revealed when you describe Schubert's late works as romantic gems, when it was in Schubert's late works that he (like Beethoven) reverted closer to classical forms. The truth is he is a transitional composer not fully romantic or classical. He was in fact closest to romanticism in earlier works like the Trout Quintet. Rosen has also referred to some of Mozart's works (such as piano concerto 26) as 'Romantic'. Therefore both composers have romantic and classicist tendencies and a comparison between these two is not as different as the Bach/Vivaldi as you are suggesting.

I was under the impression what tdc meant, by "repetitive," was how Schubert presented and developed his melodic material and not the use of repeat signs which may be followed or ignored by the performer. He of course and can jump in and clarify if he meant something else. Mozart's recaps of his main themes tended to be more literal than Haydn's might but he would usually alter the rhythmic values of the main theme to add interest or new details via different ornamentation and the development might involve the combination of two themes in counterpoint or the presentation of an entirely new theme. That's different than the more literal repetition of the primary themes that Schubert would typically use.

I also don't get the use of the Haffner symphony as an example of "repetitiveness" via repeat signs for the exposition and recap. The first and last movements don't have any repeat signs.:confused:
Thank you, you are correct and understand that my point about repetitiveness has nothing to do with repeat signs.

Interesting that you feel this way. I find Schubert particularly advanced in his use of harmony - more than Mozart.
This comment I feel shows you have an equal lack of understanding about my points regarding harmony as you do about repetition. Schubert's innovations regarding harmony are connected to the fact that he modulated at times to keys not commonly used in sonata form. While this is an important innovation, (and I'm not even claiming Schubert was weak in harmony). It is not the same as Mozart's consistently sublime use of harmony in the vertical, horizontal and contrapuntal sense. The two composers are not in the same league in this area.
 
#110 ·
Perhaps the forty years between Mozart and Schubert is the crux of it - many of Schubert's later chamber works are great but the templates for trio, quartet and quintet had already been set by others. I think comparisons are more fair if the composers in question are from the same era.
 
#115 ·
Where? In Schubert, I only hear amateurism and pedantic-ness. So where does Schubert use sophisticated use of harmony? I see the introduction and the slow movement of the C major Quintet as a badly watered-down version of Mozart's Dissonance K465.

Schubert is not just amateurish. He's A REAL AMATEUR. I think it's a complete joke he's placed alongside today with the real greats, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Hummel, CPE Bach, just cause he was a good melodist and a songwriter.

https://www.talkclassical.com/19670-most-repetitive-composers-7.html#post1709393
"Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between "being repetitive just to fill bars" and "building form through repeititions".

2:29 "Repetition is what gives form to music".

[video=youtube;auv6hekutube.com/watch?v=auv6hek8QIY[/video]

David C F Wright might be an idiot as everyone says, but at least he understands the difference properly.

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
"As a composer, Schubert was very inadequate. He had little or no sense of form or structure and his music is so repetitive as to be often downright boring and tedious. He could not develop his material as could great composers such as Haydn, Mozart and particularly Beethoven...

...Let me quote one example. Take the A flat Impromptu, the second of the set known as D935. He writes a tune of about eight bars then repeats it an octave higher. Then he repeats the theme and the octave higher version and so we have the tune four times in succession all in the same key. Then he has about 13 bars of chords which go nowhere and what does he then do? Repeat the tune and then again the same tune an octave higher. He repeats the bars of chords and the tune another twice. So the main tune comes eight times in three minutes. It is all the same and tedious and the tune is not varied rhythmically nor is there a change of key or any development.

There follows a trio section of 12 bars of nothing but broken chords. What does he do next? Repeat the 12 bars of broken chords. Another 34 bars of boring broken chords continues the piece. What follows that? Those 34 bars of broken chords again followed by eight bars of....broken chords. The tune in A flat returns and is immediately repeated an octave higher. There follows those bars of purposeless chords and the tune again and yet again that slight tune an octave higher. The tune is still in the same key and rhythmically the same. The music is so tame; it shows no invention, skill or development. There are no interesting harmonies or development. It is all so bland as well as being painfully boring and monotonous, and it is so juvenile and undeniably amateur! And do you really want to hear 90 odd bars of broken chords?

There are so many other examples which will prove the point! Schubert may have written some pretty tunes but nothing else, said Hans Keller.

Study his songs and notice that most of the time the piano part is merely vamping, merely common chords repeated. Vamp, vamp, vamp. In one extended passage in the Piano Trio in E flat the left hand of the piano part has only three notes which appear and appear and appear. Some of his songs are really dreadful. Look at the piano part of Death and the Maiden for example. It is so sterile, unimaginative and, frankly, very poor.""


[video=youtucom/watch?v=V0z7mUV5rSc[/video]
If you play the impromptu you'll hear and you'll feel its potential for expression. That's what I look for in a short piece.

If you're looking for clever innovations in forms you won't find them in impromptus. Nor a development section. It's an artistic sequence of sound ideas for the performer.
 
#117 · (Edited)
Where? In Schubert, I only hear amateurism and pedantic-ness. So where does Schubert use sophisticated use of harmony? I see the introduction and the slow movement of the C major Quintet as a badly watered-down version of Mozart's Dissonance K465.
Here, I suggest you to buy this book, published by the Cambridge University Press, to discover: Harmony in Schubert: "One of Western music's great harmonists, Franz Schubert created a wondrous and treasured body of music that has retained its fascination to this day. His innovative harmonic practice has been a topic of lively discussion among analysts for generations. Harmony in Schubert presents a fresh approach, yielding insightful readings of a large and varied range of excerpts, as well as readings of fifteen complete movements spanning Schubert's chamber, choral, orchestral, piano, and vocal output."

According to the book "Music: The Definitive Visual History", "Schubert made no significant alterations to Classical forms inherited from Joseph Haydn, but did introduce a hallmark harmonic device - a temporary shift downwards by a major third while retaining a common note - which created an effect of tranquility. (...) The four-movement structure [of D944] is familiar, but the large scale of the piece was new at the time, as was it's harmonic invention."

I'm also baffled why some people would accuse Mozart (out of all composers) for "repeat signs", which was customary for a lot of common practice music in instrumental genres.
Yes, Classical period composers use a lot of repetitions. Therefore, if Schubert can be accused of being repetitive, so can Mozart.
 
#241 · (Edited)
I ask you that you kindly do not remove content from the phrases you quote from me in a next time. I said that in my opinion there's an overuse of repeats in the Classical period, a relative, not absolute, statement.
I saw fit to remove the "in my opinion" phrase in your sentence because this is something we can discuss objectively. It didn't matter to me if you said "in my opinon" in that sentence or not, in that particular case. We're not talking about subjective concepts like "emotional depth" for example.

This can be corrobored by the fact that a good deal of my listening experience of the period is focused in instrumental pieces (don't tell me to forget the Mozart symphonies and chamber music, please), .
That's not good enough for an excuse. ;) So in Chopin, if I only listen to stuff like Grande Valse Brillante Op.18, or Scherzo in B flat minor Op.31, can I say Chopin is too full of "repeats"? (Not "repetitions"). But I know people like you would object by saying: "Are you kidding me? Whatabout the Ballades?", right?
So I'm telling you: "Are you kidding me? Whatabout Mozart's operas, concertos, liturgical works?"
You've often discussed the subject of Bach vs Mozart vs Beethoven in the many threads and posts and you even talked about "variety" in them as if you know and listen to all they wrote on regular basis. And I have discussed the merit of the Mozart works in many threads now. (Don't tell me you never saw any one of them, please. ;))
Now you're telling me, with Mozart, you only know and listen to his instrumental pieces? Ok.. Then with Chopin, if I only know and listen to Grande Valse Brillante Op.18, Scherzo in B flat minor Op.31, Mazurka Op.33 No.2 in D major, would you allow me to say "Chopin is too full of repeats, in my humble opinion"?

that tend to have repeat signs due to formal aspects, and that I find it a bit tiresome to keep removing some of them. I don't have problems with repeats overall, but I have my own ideas of when I want to listen to them and when not, and usually I don't want to listen to entire development sections plus recapitulations twice, something that happens somewhat frequently (in relative terms) in the Classical period of Mozart (his symphonies with Levine were the examples I cited on this thread) but not in the romanticism of, say, Chopin, a composer whose music for piano I admire for example because of what I perceive as a fluency in form. Hence the criticism. Relative to my perspective, and I stress this because it's important to me.
Perhaps, but many conductors tend to perform them, so I think that it could be argued that these repeats may be mandatory to be performed at least in their perspective. Could you provide me some reliable source (something from some authority of our century, not from some long dead composer, please) that enforces this idea of yours of "skipping repeat signs whenever one feels like it" as the correct way of listening to the music of the 18th century?
By saying "maybe you're listening in the wrong way," I'm not trying to impose my way of listening on you. I'm simply suggesting. I'm saying maybe you shouldn't feel so obligated to listen from start to finish for every piece.
For pieces that I already know, I rarely listen to them in full from start to finish (unless I'm attending a concert). Have you ever had urge to listen to, just one movement, or just a section of a movement? In fact I do all the time. There are different parts of Beethoven Grosse Fuge (for example) that I want to listen to at different times.
You sound so frustrated with your own listening habits with 18th century music, so I'm only suggesting a different way. Or shouldn't you only listen to recordings that don't repeat development-recapitulation?



And in addition to the description by EdwardBast, I would like to add that, the precursor to the symphony was the Italian overture. From what I understand, people at the time played best hit overtures from operas as encores, so eventually they became standalone works, and that's how the symphony came into being. Initially, they were like JC Bach, CPE Bach, Myslivecek's symphonies.
And so, there are overture-like symphonies in Mozart that don't have repeat signs in them and the movements are "connected" by transitions. 23rd, 26th symphonies, for example. Yes, these are early/lesser works of his not many people listen to, but the 23rd was the first piece that sparked interest in me of Mozart long ago. (I find 21th also memorable. There was something that made him special from the galant style composers of his time.)



I hope that you're not including me in this, for I never said that.
I hate to say, but sometimes you sound "a bit" like them. ;)

Thank you for posting these beautiful Chopin pieces! Such a master of the piano. I bet that Mozart would have respected his music, very advanced for his time in terms of harmony, melody, rhythms and even counterpoint (according to Rosen), had they ever met.
I wasn't really talking about the quality of the Chopin pieces.
 
#242 · (Edited)
I saw fit to remove the "in my opinion" phrase in your sentence because this is something we can discuss objectively. It didn't matter to me if you said "in my opinon" in that sentence or not, in that particular case. We're not talking about subjective concepts like "emotional depth" for example.
I don't think that we can discuss in absolute terms something that is based in a particular person's way of listening. I don't want to generalize some of my assumptions as if they were a truth for everybody else.

That's not good enough for an excuse. ;) So in Chopin, if I only listen to stuff like Grande Valse Brillante Op.18, or Scherzo in B flat minor Op.31, can I say Chopin is too full of "repeats"? (Not "repetitions"). But I know people like you would object by saying: "Are you kidding me? Whatabout the Ballades?", right?
So I'm telling you: "Are you kidding me? Whatabout Mozart's operas, concertos, liturgical works?"
Chopin tend to not repeat large sections of music like Mozart in his development/recapitulation repeats. To my ears his repeats do not compromise the flowing of the music, what to me seems to sometimes be the case with the composer of the Haffner symphony.

You've often discussed the subject of Bach vs Mozart vs Beethoven in the many threads and posts and you even talked about "variety" in them as if you know and listen to all they wrote on regular basis. And I have discussed the merit of the Mozart works in many threads now. (Don't tell me you never saw any one of them, please. ;))
Now you're telling me, with Mozart, you only know and listen to his instrumental pieces? Ok.. Then with Chopin, if I only know and listen to Grande Valse Brillante Op.18, Scherzo in B flat minor Op.31, Mazurka Op.33 No.2 in D major, would you allow me to say "Chopin is too full of repeats, in my humble opinion"?
Whatever. I didn't say that I "only know and listen to his instrumental pieces". I said that they are the focus of my listening experience, this is, I listen more to them. And when you see Chopin sistematically repeating very long sections of music without any purpose other than to fill in some aesthetic formula you come here saying that he is full of repeats.

By saying "maybe you're listening in the wrong way," I'm not trying to impose my way of listening on you. I'm simply suggesting. I'm saying maybe you shouldn't feel so obligated to listen from start to finish for every piece.
I don't, and if you've read my other posts on this thread you already realized this. But I'm still curious to know what basis you have to assume that listening to all the repeats in the 18th century music is absolutely the "wrong way" of doing so, for some other people may prefer this way.

But you know that nowhere in that random post you quoted from me here I said that Mozart and Haydn only composed piano sonatas, symphonies and string quartets, right? ;)

I wasn't really talking about the quality of the Chopin pieces.
Oh, really? How so? It's known that you love his music and would never, never want to annoyingly keep trashing it... :rolleyes:
 
#116 · (Edited)
I’ve finally accepted the truth about Schubert. He was an incompetent amateur whose only talent was in churning out dull, lifeless tunes to be repeated ad nauseam. A compositional nullity if there ever was one.

It only took 885 posts of the same exact criticisms, repeated incessantly, without much variation (not unlike the first movement of D.960, come to think of it), before this great truth revealed itself to me.
 
#126 · (Edited)
Surely, Mr. Allerius, you find nothing wrong with this?
Even a blind worshipper of Schubert such as Dvorak admitted that Schubert is technically worse than Mendelssohn
https://books.google.ca/books?id=iMdZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA343#v=onepage&q&f=false

View attachment 126171
Schubert lived only 31 years, and he didn't have the luck of having a professional musician father devoted to teach music to him using an original and efficient method (like Mozart) or of having been born in a wealthy family that cultivated the arts and could pay the best professionals around to teach him (like Mendelssohn). Considering this, even if he didn't master counterpoint like Mendelssohn and Mozart, I think that he has as much merit, if not more, for being able to produce so many great masterpieces to us.
 
#122 · (Edited)
Hammeredklavier and David Wright's pitifly shortsighted criticisms of Schubert have long outstayed their welcomed and pale in the face of a work such as this that is beyond price:



Schubert was far more than the insulting description of being a talented amateur, especially when audiences the world over have paid to hear him played by the greatest musicians in the world, whether it's his piano music, his lieder, or many of his works for orchestras. He was harmonically gifted and I've never heard a bad chord progressions despite some of Schuberts repeated figures that could indeed be heard. But they don't necessarily spoil the beauty and purity of his ideas. It's time to take this shortsighted vendetta elsewhere... It's become sickening because his inspired melodic genius is passed over without understanding that Schubert was a great inspiration to Schumann, Brahms, Franz Liszt, Bruckner and many others. Schubert was so inspired and prolific that he didn't even have the chance to hear everything that he wrote. That was left to posterity and he has been greatly appreciated as having a unique and pure voice instantly recognizable by just about anyone. If one wants to talk about amateur efforts, then hammeredklavier and David's Wright's cheap shortsighted criticism fit the bill perfectly because they fail to understand and appreciate Schubert's great harmonic and melodic strengths. The redundancy of that vendetta has become tiresome, as if Mozart's genius can only be appreciated by a misguided comparison of geniues. Both are considered immortals except by a vocal minority. After weeks upon weeks of this one-sided, shortsighted nonsense, it's time to take these tiresome criticisms elsewhere because they do not fully explain the man nor the music. In fact, it's just the opposite by replacing the focus on his weaknesses rather than his strengths which can be found in abundance. Today, Schubert is ranked among the greatest composers of Western classical music and his music continues to be popular.
 
#134 · (Edited)
This would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic. On one side, generations of music lovers who have placed Schubert’s best music at the very center of the classical repertoire. In the 1820s, not yet 30 for the most part, Schubert wrote music that earns as much respect, and possibly more love, than Beethoven’s, even though that composer was at the top of his form.

On the other side, a gaseous nonentity claiming to know about music with evidently a bedraggled acolyte here and there.

Overall, a waste of perfectly good electrons and a useless contribution to the heat-death of the universe.
 
#141 · (Edited)
Originally posted by hammeredklavier
"Other people still argue Schubert's work has some merit, in the form of lyricism or something like that..."
---
As insensitive as ever. Of course it has merit!-because it has great depth of feeling, poetry and emotion that you cannot sense or feel because you don't care for anything that's not of the intellect... You understand nothing about him. Why don't you tell us why Alfred Brendel still played Schubert, or Richter his late sonatas, or why Johannes Brahms still edited his symphonies as worthwhile, or why Robert Schumann was still inspired by his works, or why Liszt still arranged some of his lyrically inspired lieder despite all Schubert's supposed shortcomings that you and your condescending cohorts never tire of going over and over and over because you are a Mozart fanatic… Why don't you explain why Thomas Hampson still sings his Winterreise. You can't because you have a blind spot when it comes to Schubert and the most limited emotional range of any critic I have ever read except for the equally shortsighted and judgmental David Wright. You think it matters whether Schubert was as technically advanced as Mozart when it doesn't matter. He's accepted despite his shortcomings and that's what you fail to understand. He's a beloved composer and his accomplishments are not in competition with Mozart's except in a foolish comparison such as this. Schubert had great individuality, a poetic nature, purity of spirit, suspense, drama, sensitivity, imagination, lyriciism, harmonic and lyrical genius and he was just starting to take off when he died, which is another factor that you and his other critics discount or ignore. Like it or not he's considered one of the immortals and he wrote so much that there's plenty to choose from that's well worth hearing. It's truly disgusting to read what's been said about him when he continues to be played by the world's top orchestras and musicians, which you have no explanation for because you don't understand him nor have a feel for him. I believe that even Mozart would have been disgusted at what you have said about him and Mozart is your hero. He's my hero too but not in competition with Schubert. They both have earned their own rightful place in the pantheon. What a great privilege to speak on behalf of Schubert, whose life ended all too soon and he was so gifted and inspired. A Schubert work is easily identifiable whereas the ones by Mozart and Haydn are often confused. He had great individuality and that's something for which he continues to be appreciated.

 
#154 · (Edited)
The styles and personalities of Mozart and Schubert are so different that it does a great injustice to compare them beyond a certain point. They cannot be adequately compared except if one takes the heart out of both. Each clearly has his own reason for being and for Schubert it was his incredibly fertile imagination and gift for melody and song. He was not in competition with Mozart, and Beethoven thought highly of him without the need of comparing him with Mozart. Both were miracles in their own right and most people understand this without these academic and counterproductive comparisons that try to prove one wrong and the other right and entirely miss the point of each when many listeners enjoy both.

'During Beethoven's last illness, a collection of Schubert's songs was placed in his hands, and after examining them, he exclaimed: "Truly, Schubert possesses the divine fire." Schubert stood with many others for a long while around Beethoven's deathbed. The invalid was told the names of his visitors, and made feeble signs to them with his hands. Of Schubert he said: "Franz has my soul."'

https://www.wrti.org/post/whats-so-great-about-franz-schubert-gregg-whiteside-knows

'Liszt called Schubert "the most poetical musician that ever was." Schumann was equally complimentary, saying that "Schubert's pencil was dipped in moonbeams and in the flame of the sun."'

I can understand how they feel because music is more than an academic and intellectual exercise driven by a bunch of egos who want to objectively prove one right over the other when there are the intangibles of these composers that cannot be exactly weighed and measured.
 
#168 ·
I've noticed in a spreadsheet that the last years of Bach were about 40 years before the last years of Mozart.

...the last years of Mozart were about 40 years before the last years of Schubert.

...the last years of Chopin were about 40 years before the last years of Brahms.

40 years is a long time for people who have devoted their lives to creating works of art. Human outlooks progress by leaps and plateaus and then more leaps.
 
#212 ·
Generally speaking, no research is needed. Most "modernists" like me agree that music and art "evolved" as it progressed through history; most "traditionalists" reject this idea.
 
#213 · (Edited)
It evolves to a degree, but it will inevitably lose some attributes as it takes on others. It cannot be everything at once. If it really evolved in the sense you are suggesting the harmonies Luchesi referred to as more 'effective' would be ubiquitous in all new music rendering all old styles obsolete. It would then at a certain point likely become completely static unable to be improved on.

But obviously art does not progress this way. As Beethoven said "Art demands from us, always something new."
 
#215 · (Edited)
There are variations in the meaning of the word ‘evolve’. As someone who I’m sure is labeled as a traditionalist, I would be willing to agree that in the 20th century CM evolved insofar as it changed into something else and, to some extent, became more complex. But evolving doesn’t always infer changing for the better. Without getting into the same old discussion we’ve had before, I’ll just say that this traditionalist was quite happy with the evolution of CM over 350 years, but was dismayed to see it then, in the last century, splinter into several categories, some so obscure that they have removed melody, harmony and have little in the way of structure so as to be unrecognizable from any CM that preceded them.
 
#216 ·
There are variations in the meaning of the word 'evolve'. As someone who I'm sure is labeled as a traditionalist, I would be willing to agree that in the 20th century CM evolved insofar as it changed into something else and, to some extent, became more complex. But evolving doesn't always infer changing for the better. Without getting into the same old discussion we've had before, I'll just say that this traditionalist was quite happy with the evolution of CM over 350 years, but was dismayed to see it then, in the last century, splinter into several categories, some so obscure that they have removed melody, harmony and little in the way of structure so as to be unrecognizable from any CM that preceded it.
What? You don't understand that the grand principle of evolution, eternally working its teleological wisdom, brought us from this



to this?



If this proof of the ineluctable advance in mankind's spiritual comprehension doesn't fill you with joy, you just haven't read enough in evolutionary psychology. Or so we've been told.
 
#218 · (Edited)
I have not realized until recently Luchesi has had this level of blind cultism for Chopin.
Since he doesn't answer my question "Was Chopin surpassed by Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Scriabin?",
and he even said something to the effect once that Schumann was too little a musical mind to understand Chopin:

Did Schumann even understand all of Beethoven?
As you know, you can't appreciate Op61 unless you've memorized it and made it your own. Chopin's mind was at an end.
Can we assume he's essentially saying:

1. Chopin surpassed all composers before him
2. No contemporaries of Chopin surpassed him
3. No composes after Chopin surpassed him

I remember writing about the Chopin cultists once. I have to say Luchesi is one of the worst I've ever met.

A few months ago, TwoSetViolin (a massive fan-based youtube channel run by two Asian guys who study violin to be classical musicians in Australia) uploaded a video wherein they discussed and ranked major classical composers based on their greatness by alphabetical letters, S, A, B, C, D.. In the video, the guys first ranked Chopin at C, and later moved him to B.
The comment section was completely full of angry comments, "how could you rank Chopin so low?" Eventually, TwoSetViolin had to take down the video. They ranked Paganini at D, but nobody complained about that.

Sorry I just can't take the general Chopin fandom seriously anymore. I'm amazed whenever I talk with those people:
Casual piano players who think the piano is the best instrument and think that Chopin is actually a Wagner-tier composer.
People who just came to know classical music through anime, thinking that Chopin Ballade No.1 in G minor is the best stuff there is, etc.
(I do not mean the kind of knowledgeable Chopin admirers we have here on TC)

I remember reading David C F Wright's essay on Chopin and getting upset a long time ago. I was upset because back then, I did not think this negatively about the general Chopin fandom. Nowadays I understand why Wright wrote the way he did.
Just look what's going on in the general classical music community. Johann Strauss II is regarded as "not being a serious composer" for writing Wo die Zitronen blühn op. 364. Chopin is regarded as the "Poet of the Piano" for writing Waltz in C sharp minor Op.64 No.2.
 
#220 · (Edited)
Instead of looking at random science papers that have nothing to do with Chopin whatsoever, why don't we look at actual things great masters through history have said about him:

"A composer for one right hand"
-Richard Wagner
https://books.google.ca/books?id=TgZADwAAQBAJ&pg=PT109

https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."

"Chopin's mazurkas are 'so mannered they are hard to stand'"
-Felix Mendelssohn
https://www.jstor.org/stable/936166?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

"A sickroom talent"
-John Field
Well, maybe Schumann was wrong! Jesus, they were both born in 1810 and in competition with each other and Chopin never exactly warmed up to Schumann's works. He said virtually nothing favorable about him, basically tried to be diplomatic but ignored him. But you... still on your anti-Chopin vendetta just because some listeners prefer him over Mozart. Such childishness to go on for weeks about it.

Both Chopin and Schumann were great composers for the piano, but Chopin is played more than Schumann and Schumann learned from him and not the other way around. Chopin remained Chopin and only improved with age for those with the ears to hear it. He was an absolutely brilliant composer for the piano and Schumann's works are not idiomatical for the piano and sound thick in texture by comparison. Chopin forgot more than Schumann ever knew about writing for the piano though Schumann understood a great deal after being influenced by Chopin and not the other way around. Schumann said, "Hats off, gentlemen, a genius-and he was right the first time.

You should be LEARNING from Chopin rather than constantly trying to drag him through the mud of your own 18th-century thinking and open your mind at least to the 19th-century. Then maybe you'll eventually understand something about the 20th. Such boring redundancy from you on Chopin and just about anyone else. The only reason you quote Schumann on Chopin is not because you like Schumann any more than you like Chopin or the Romantic era, but because he could be critical of Chopin who he never fully understood in the first place. Chopin was far in advance of Schumann melodically and harmonically. He was a genius in both categories and that's why virtually everything that Chopin wrote is still played today. You have NO IDEA why the greatest musicians of the past 150 years still play composers that you do not care for, and that's what's wrong with your arguments against them. You can't explain that because your ears can only hear Mozart though the evolution of music moved on more than 200 years ago. It's nothing to be proud of because you constantly mischaracterize musicians who move the music forward in its harmonic and melodic development-all that you still cannot understand or appreciate.
 
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