Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 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.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:
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.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: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

Dubious wrote: 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.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: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.

Dubious wrote:
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 wrote:

Dubious wrote:
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.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: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

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:
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!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
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.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: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 wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
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.

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:
...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.