[Brahmsianhorn]

There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?

 

[Allegro Con Brio]

There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?

Certainly the entire opening sequence is masterful and riveting, but I usually lose interest after the Dies Irae. I prefer the Great Mass in C Minor.

 

[Unkadunk]

"Me So Horny." The title says it all.

 

[hammeredklavier]

There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?

I have certain reservations, especially for the parts "butchered" by Sussmayr. They just feel so "wrong". The Lacrimosa (and Concerto for flute and harp K.299) gets my vote for Mozart's most overrated work. The sanctus and benedictus should contain more darker moods, like Michael Haydn's.

• The best part of the Mozart requiem is the Domine jesu, where its three fugues, "ne absorbeat eas", "sed signifer sanctus", "quam olim Abrahae" don't combine in the way subjects of a normal triple fugue would, but rather exist in a sort of "free fantasia".
  
• Sussmayr's completion of the requiem is rather disappointing.

I find the way to expand the Lacrimosa too artificially "melodramatic" (feels rather 'devoid' of the sense of control and intricacies of chromatic part-writing we would expect from Mozart), and the Agnus dei too "static". The concluding fugue in the sanctus and benedictus is disproportionately short with respect to the size of the mass. (compare K.192, K.194 with K.167, K.262, you'll see what I mean). I think Levin did a great job fixing it, and developing on the Amen sketch in a way that resembles K.222.

The beginning of "Agnus dei" is pretty much "qui tollis peccata mundi" from K.220 and K.66 and string figures of K.341 mixed together.
And from there, it seems as though Sussmayr doesn't quite know how to continue on , so it gets static:

I think these are way better than that cheap "melodrama":
9:20 , 21:10 , 22:30
7:30 , 13:50 , 14:30

 

[consuono]

I don't think it's all about opinion and taste. I think some things can be objectively better than one's favorites. ...

If you know that such-and-such is objectively greater than your favorite, then why isn't such-and-such your favorite? I also believe there is an objective greatness in art -- whether I can easily define it or not -- and those things that I think are in some way objectively great I would never call "overrated". As for "objective greatness" I'll paraphrase something Northrop Frye once wrote: when we hear Schumann or Tchaikovsky we hear the usually satisfying work of a craftsman; but when we hear the Kyries of Bach's B minor Mass or Mozart's Requiem, a certain impersonal element appears, as if this is the thing music exists to say.

 

[AeolianStrains]

If you know that such-and-such is objectively greater than your favorite, then why isn't such-and-such your favorite? I also believe there is an objective greatness in art, and those things that I think are in some way objectively great I would never call "overrated".

I literally answered your question in the very same post you quote. I have no idea why you decided to cut out that part.

 

[Ethereality]

If you know that such-and-such is objectively greater than your favorite, then why isn't such-and-such your favorite? When we hear Schumann or Tchaikovsky we hear the usually satisfying work of a craftsman; but when we hear the Kyries of Bach's B minor Mass or Mozart's Requiem, a certain impersonal element appears, as if this is the thing music exists to say.

The greatest music is my favorite. I just don't call it 'objectively great', because some people may enjoy the pieces you quote instead. For some reason you write 'we' know they're greater than a Schumann concerto, a Tchaikovsky symphony, or 'insert x', as though people will have to agree with you. People may never agree with that.

It's fun finding our similarities, but most of the time the reason why Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are considered great is because they wrote a lot of diverse music that may appeal at a level to people; it was the time period to explore a lot of genres. It's best not to overpraise one of their works as 'greatest', but rather, more popular to be liked in some capacity by people. Most people would not say they're 'greater' than their favorite works, sorry. More people would say it's 'good' compared to less popular composers.

 

[consuono]

I literally answered your question in the very same post you quote. I have no idea why you decided to cut out that part.

But...you really didn't. I can say I like this or that but then I really wouldn't say it's "overrated". On the other hand there are things that are usually praised to the skies that I just don't like very much and *will* call "overrated". It's taste and perception, which doesn't mean it's totally subjective.

And for some reason you say 'we' know they're greater than Schumann, Tchaikovsky or 'insert x', as though people have to agree with you.

It's not really about forcing anybody to agree with me or not. That's irrelevant. The agreement usually is there anyway despite dissent here and there. The fact that an individual, or several individuals, say that the B Minor Mass is third rate changes *nothing* about the B Minor Mass. By the same token, no amount of rhetoric is going to make Schumann's Symphonic Etudes or Tchaikovsky's complete piano works the exact artistic equivalent of the Goldberg Variations.

 

[Ethereality]

I feel I answered your misrepresentation of these works in my next paragraph above. A lot of people will just never agree with your point even though we may like a lot of Bach. Some of us may even have a Bach or Mozart work in our Top 5 if only we're unbiased in our listening and ranking of other composers. Unfortunately however, people overpraise certain works of Bach, Mozart, as #1 not realizing they have plenty enough of their oeuvre in their top. It's natural to want to diminish other composers more than necessary, there's a reason why certain composers have 1 hit wonders: other composers have much greater works than we account for.

 

[consuono]

I feel I answered your misrepresentation of these works in my next paragraph.

Misrepresentation of what works?

Most people would not say they're 'greater' than their favorite works, sorry. More people would say it's 'good' compared to less popular composers.

"Good compared to less popular composers" is imposing another hierarchy apparently using objective criteria. It's not completely subjective.

It's best not to overpraise one of their works as 'greatest', but rather, more popular to be liked in some capacity by people.

There's a circularity in there. *Why* are they "more popular"? *Why* are the Bach or Mozart masses valued more highly than, say, Bruckner's? Or are Bruckner's of exactly the same "value" or "quality"?

Unfortunately however, people overpraise certain works of Bach, Mozart, as #1 not realizing they have plenty enough of their oeuvre in their top.

Maybe this or the work *is* #1. And maybe the rest of their oeuvre actually *is* greater than the best of the rest. There's no quota system that says we have to include mediocrity just to be fair.

 

[Brahmsianhorn]

Certainly the entire opening sequence is masterful and riveting, but I usually lose interest after the Dies Irae. I prefer the Great Mass in C Minor.

The Confutatis and Lacrymosa are the highlights of the work for me, among the highlights of all choral literature.

 

[Ethereality]

There's a circularity in there. *Why* are they "more popular"? *Why* are the Bach or Mozart masses valued more highly than, say, Bruckner's? Or are Bruckner's of exactly the same "value" or "quality"?

I already answered this, but I'll give a clear example. The trends of this forums' listening compared to popular Classical statistics have demonstrated in full to me how underrated certain works by less popular composers are. Incredibly. People will gravitate to the popular first. It turns out the more experienced you are as a listener, the more likely you'd safely say when comparing Mahler to Bach, that the former wrote the greater work, and when comparing Bruckner to Mozart, the former also wrote the greater work. I mean, this is proven... What I don't like is saying these works are objectively greater, or that Bach and Mozart's masses are objectively greater because they're more popular. Every experienced listener, it doesn't matter how experienced you are, has quite different tastes. I feel that a lot of pretentious say certain works are objectively great, for example, those who happen to love the most popular composers the most. I mean, your popular backing fools less people with brains. We will decide for ourselves what's great, as greatness is a relative concept in the mind. To answer your question, is Bach the greatest composer? Yes. To a group of people, sure. Tell me something I will care about with more interest.

 

[consuono]

I already answered this, but I'll give a clear example. The trends of this forums' listening compared to popular Classical statistics have demonstrated in full to me how underrated certain works by less popular composers are. Incredibly. People will gravitate to the popular first. It turns out the more experienced you are as a listener, the more likely you'd safely say when comparing Mahler to Bach, that the former wrote the greater work, and when comparing Bruckner to Mozart, the former also wrote the greater work. I mean, this is proven... What I don't like is saying these works are objectively greater, or that Bach and Mozart's masses are objectively greater because they're more popular. ...

The circularity is still there. You say that Bach and Mozart are more "popular" but don't give a reason for that "popularity". (Tchaikovsky may actually be more *popular* than Bach, btw.) There's also a contradiction. The more experienced you are, the more you realize that Bach and Mozart are "greater" than Mahler and Bruckner, but yet there's not supposed to be any objective standards for determining that. The gist of a lot of your comments would seem to indicate that your gripe may be that our admiring the work of Bach et al is somehow slighting some relative unknown past or present. If the work of that relative unknown is that good, then the work will speak for itself, one way or another.

 

[Woodduck]

People who think that judgments of musical quality are purely subjective - whether personally or collectively subjective - really should offer no opinions on the quality of any music, much less on how "overrated" or "underrated" it is. They should be content to say "I prefer..." and then quietly go their way.

 

[Ethereality]

The gist of the above two comments from my determination, is a redefinition of the word great to mean 'objectively great.' I don't know any realist (who has a good enough understanding of practical philosophy) who uses the term in this capacity. It's essentially counter-intuitive. You may as well redefine the word objective to mean something else that it doesn't mean. I don't see an effort to understand either of these experiences or the way famous (and more importantly, eccentric) artists understand them. If we seek to understand the whole of a situation, we can't start and end with our own hypothesis. Start with what you can reasonably argue using the correct words, ie. The Big 3 are popular in the Classical community. If I had a nickel for every artist who wanted to imitate the thought process of Beethoven or Bach, I'd be very poor.

 

[Rogerx]

There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?

Yes. I do hope it's not a problem.

 

[Woodduck]

There are actually people who don't like Mozart's Requiem?

The B-minor Mass leaves it in the dust.

 

[Ethereality]

As long as we're speaking of the qualities and merits of the Big 2 (Mahler and Bruckner, not Bach and Mozart) be sure you're objectively correct first, or at least falsely confident.

 

[Sequentia]

those musicians who denigrate JS Bach

Care to provide some names?

 

[consuono]

As long as we're speaking of the qualities and merits of the Big 2 (Mahler and Bruckner, not Bach and Mozart) be sure you're objectively correct first, or at least falsely confident.

Well then give us a reason for the greater "popularity" of the other Big 2 (and I don't know if even that is objectively true...Mahler and Bruckner seem pretty popular on orchestra programs). You just pull "popularity" out of the air as if it's something that was somehow unfairly bestowed on the traditional biggies. But then which is more popular, the 1812 Overture or the Musical Offering?