Music

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Beethoven of course. A lot of people say they don't like him too. I don't necessarily agree with everything Glenn Gould did or supposedly said. I've listened to some of his Mozart and it's pretty awful.

Glenn Gould was a loud mouth who made himself into an authority on everything. He couldn't keep his mouth shut even while performing. His performances of Mozart's piano sonatas were purposely played badly to prove that Mozart was a bad composer. Had he performed Beethoven that way he would have "proven" that he too was a bad composer. If Gould had lived 100 years, it wouldn't have amounted to ONE day in the life of Mozart.

I do not care for your character assassination of Gould. It's not even relevant.
I was simply reacting to your absurd comment ". He's only universally accepted as one of the three greatest of the great."
Which is utterly ridiculous. There are many great composers, musicians, and conductors who consider Mozart to be populist and very overrated.
Far from being "universally" accepted as a great, Mozart would have to line up by a dozen or more greater composers his fame being mainly due to his youth and early death.

Much of his music is what I would characterise as 'easy listening'; unchallenging and like sticky-buns far too easy to have enough after very little.

I wish you would read the posts properly. Dubious said that about Gould. I imagine you are probably a Wagner man. Good for you. This 'argument' is pointless.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Glenn Gould was a loud mouth who made himself into an authority on everything. He couldn't keep his mouth shut even while performing. His performances of Mozart's piano sonatas were purposely played badly to prove that Mozart was a bad composer. Had he performed Beethoven that way he would have "proven" that he too was a bad composer. If Gould had lived 100 years, it wouldn't have amounted to ONE day in the life of Mozart.

I do not care for your character assassination of Gould. It's not even relevant.
I was simply reacting to your absurd comment ". He's only universally accepted as one of the three greatest of the great."
Which is utterly ridiculous. There are many great composers, musicians, and conductors who consider Mozart to be populist and very overrated.
Far from being "universally" accepted as a great, Mozart would have to line up by a dozen or more greater composers his fame being mainly due to his youth and early death.

Much of his music is what I would characterise as 'easy listening'; unchallenging and like sticky-buns far too easy to have enough after very little.

I wish you would read the posts properly. Dubious said that about Gould. I imagine you are probably a Wagner man. Good for you. This 'argument' is pointless.

Why would you take me for a Wagner man?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And the fact that Bach is considered probably the greatest of all three has nothing to do with whether or not I like him (although part of the reason he's up there is because of the fact that he seemed incapable of composing ANYTHING that wasn't glorious to listen to).

Interesting article on Mozart (they call Mozart 'the greatest' but that's not my opinion).
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/moz ... ser-of-all

[Hobbes' Choice]

And the fact that Bach is considered probably the greatest of all three has nothing to do with whether or not I like him (although part of the reason he's up there is because of the fact that he seemed incapable of composing ANYTHING that wasn't glorious to listen to).

Interesting article on Mozart (they call Mozart 'the greatest' but that's not my opinion).
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/moz ... ser-of-all

I did not take you for an objectivist, especially on matters of art which are so clearly matter of taste and value.

[Hobbes' Choice]

http://www.submediant.com/2015/10/27/we ... -telemann/

opinion, opinion, opinion.

You can call me ridiculous. I just think Mozart is chintzy.

[Dubious]

Glenn Gould was a loud mouth who made himself into an authority on everything. He couldn't keep his mouth shut even while performing. His performances of Mozart's piano sonatas were purposely played badly to prove that Mozart was a bad composer. Had he performed Beethoven that way he would have "proven" that he too was a bad composer. If Gould had lived 100 years, it wouldn't have amounted to ONE day in the life of Mozart.

I do not care for your character assassination of Gould. It's not even relevant.
I was simply reacting to your absurd comment ". He's only universally accepted as one of the three greatest of the great."
Which is utterly ridiculous. There are many great composers, musicians, and conductors who consider Mozart to be populist and very overrated.
Far from being "universally" accepted as a great, Mozart would have to line up by a dozen or more greater composers his fame being mainly due to his youth and early death.

Much of his music is what I would characterise as 'easy listening'; unchallenging and like sticky-buns far too easy to have enough after very little.

What I wrote wasn't addressed to you.

As for Gould he was a self-absorbed little twit who had no inhibitions when it comes to saying anything stupid.

Re Mozart. You haven't got a clue. Beethoven, who could easily lose it if you said the wrong thing, would hit you over the head with his cello with such an ignoramus assessment of Mozart. It's much more likely that Mozart's music is simply beyond you or Gould's comprehension.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Re Mozart. You haven't got a clue. Beethoven, who could easily lose it if you said the wrong thing, would hit you over the head with his cello with such an ignoramus assessment of Mozart. It's much more likely that Mozart's music is simply beyond you or Gould's comprehension.

They play Mozart to babies because it is for simpletons.

[Dubious]

Re Mozart. You haven't got a clue. Beethoven, who could easily lose it if you said the wrong thing, would hit you over the head with his cello with such an ignoramus assessment of Mozart. It's much more likely that Mozart's music is simply beyond you or Gould's comprehension.

They play Mozart to babies because it is for simpletons.

...so by their regard for Mozart's music, simpleton would also describe Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, etc.

But Hey! If you say so!

[Dubious]

And the fact that Bach is considered probably the greatest of all three has nothing to do with whether or not I like him (although part of the reason he's up there is because of the fact that he seemed incapable of composing ANYTHING that wasn't glorious to listen to).

Interesting article on Mozart (they call Mozart 'the greatest' but that's not my opinion).
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/moz ... ser-of-all

...excellent article, btw! Mozart must have been one hell of a con artist to fool all of these "simpletons!"

[Hobbes' Choice]

Re Mozart. You haven't got a clue. Beethoven, who could easily lose it if you said the wrong thing, would hit you over the head with his cello with such an ignoramus assessment of Mozart. It's much more likely that Mozart's music is simply beyond you or Gould's comprehension.

They play Mozart to babies because it is for simpletons.

...so by their regard for Mozart's music, simpleton would also describe Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, etc.

But Hey! If you say so!

No.
Mozart is simple because he was a pampered biy that never grew up and did young.
Your inference is false.

[Dubious]

They play Mozart to babies because it is for simpletons.

...so by their regard for Mozart's music, simpleton would also describe Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, etc.

But Hey! If you say so!

No.
Mozart is simple because he was a pampered biy that never grew up and did young.

...beats going prematurely brain-dead.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And the fact that Bach is considered probably the greatest of all three has nothing to do with whether or not I like him (although part of the reason he's up there is because of the fact that he seemed incapable of composing ANYTHING that wasn't glorious to listen to).

Interesting article on Mozart (they call Mozart 'the greatest' but that's not my opinion).
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/moz ... ser-of-all

I did not take you for an objectivist, especially on matters of art which are so clearly matter of taste and value.

It has nothing to do with being an 'objectivist'. Musical taste is 'subjective', (although that can sometimes be only a matter of a lack of education or exposure). Their greatness isn't based on personal taste, it's based on their body of work, their skill, their ability to create melody after melody that is so distinctive, and so beautiful that it is remembered for hundreds of years--even by people who claim to 'hate classical music', their contribution to the evolution of music (for good or bad).... There are certain universal standards of excellence in any field. That's just part of being human.
Bach even sounds great when 'jazzed up'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xng_QbhHGY

[Hobbes' Choice]

They play Mozart to babies because it is for simpletons.

...so by their regard for Mozart's music, simpleton would also describe Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, etc.

But Hey! If you say so!

No.
Mozart is simple because he was a pampered buy that never grew up and died young.
Your inference is false.

[Hobbes' Choice]

...so by their regard for Mozart's music, simpleton would also describe Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, etc.

But Hey! If you say so!

No.
Mozart is simple because he was a pampered biy that never grew up and did young.

...beats going prematurely brain-dead.

Or typing until the point you are falling asleep at the keys..

[Hobbes' Choice]

To conclude:
I find Mozart dull and boring. He is unchallenging and soporific. Occasionally he writes a good catchy tune, but I could never listen to it again for at least another couple of months, and the memory of it would cause boredom, as in "oh not this one again"

Many people like him. Many people like MacDonalds. And many people like Andy Warhol. Like Warhol, Mozart reduced his art by pandering to popular opinion. Why since he had the greats to follow such as Pachelbel and Purcell did he not build on their art? Who knows.

I need something with better taste, and bigger balls. I prefer Beethoven and regard him as unsurpassed. Its the same reason I prefer Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd to Abba. Abba knew how to write a great tune, but in the same way that Mozart is too accessible, so too is Abba, and their songs might be catchy, but not demanding.

So I don't like Mozart, and don't give a rat's arse if a million people think he is better than anyone else. So bite me!