« What is America's largest inland port? | Main | Should we fear the proposed Iranian oil bourse? »
Can too much Mozart make you sick?
The past ain't what is used to be. Norman Lebrecht, a fuddy-duddy if there ever was one, writes:
The key test of any composer's importance is the extent to which he reshaped the art. Mozart, it is safe to say, failed to take music one step forward. Unlike Bach and Handel who inherited a dying legacy and vitalised it beyond recognition, unlike Haydn who invented the sonata form without which music would never have acquired its classical dimension, Mozart merely filled the space between staves with chords that he knew would gratify a pampered audience. He was a provider of easy listening, a progenitor of Muzak.
Lebrecht, well-known for his argument that classical music is dead, perhaps never thought it was alive in the first place. Here is one good response. I'll offer more on the importance of Mozart next week; you'll get Mozart blogging (but not just) up through his 250th birthday on the 27th [corrected from before]. I urge other bloggers to devote at least one post next week to Mozart; surely he has played some role in your life.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 20, 2006 at 06:26 AM in Music | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e550979c098834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can too much Mozart make you sick?:
» Remembering Shostakovich from The Filter^
People may be banging on about Mozart's 250th anniversary this year, but for me (and I feel, for The Filter^ readers), there's an even more significant milestone in the form of 100 years since the birth of Dimitri Shostakovich (1906-1975) [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 20, 2006 2:27:02 PM
» And for my next trick… from Division of Labour
After joining the DoL gang late last November, I quickly went on a 40+ day hiatus to travel and hang out with my fiancée in Texas. Now that the semester brings me back to reality (and, perhaps mutually exclusively, to... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 22, 2006 7:11:28 PM
» Mozart: An Ultimate Resource from EconLog
Tyler Cowen has urged all bloggers to give Mozart his props this week. Here goes: Dear Wolfgang: I am very... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 25, 2006 9:18:52 PM
» Mozart from EclectEcon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born 250 years ago day. While musicologists might debate the power and importance of Mozart's music and his contribution to the history, growth, and popularity of music , I just pl... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 10:03:27 AM
» Mozart from EclectEcon
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born 250 years ago Friday. While musicologists might debate the power and importa... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 10:28:05 AM
» Mozart: An Ultimate Resource from EconLog
Tyler Cowen has urged all bloggers to give Mozart his props this week. Here goes: Dear Wolfgang: I am very... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 18, 2006 7:45:16 AM
Comments
That was just silly.
Posted by: joshg at Jan 20, 2006 8:43:03 AM
But it reflects a silliness that plagues many modern critics -- the idea that "newness" is a crucial component of greatness.
Frankly, I'd rather listen to a first rate pastiche of Mozart than most of the "cutting-edge" music at the end of the twentieth century. My hope is that the 21st century will see people realize that "good" is more important than "new."
Posted by: anon at Jan 20, 2006 8:53:57 AM
Sorta always thought that myself--especially like the recognition of Haydn.
Posted by: Roland at Jan 20, 2006 9:46:12 AM
I am fairly sure that Lebrecht hates contemporary classical music as much as you do, anon.
Posted by: gundryggia at Jan 20, 2006 9:55:07 AM
I agree with Lebrecht. I prefer Haydn, Boccherini, Cherubini and always felt Mozart to be insubstantial, sentimental and tiresome. With the possible exception of the operas. Sorry.
Posted by: bob mcmanus at Jan 20, 2006 10:05:23 AM
Isn't Mozart's birthday the 27th?
(Since it's also mine, I've got a stake in this
question...been dining out on that connection for
decades.)
Posted by: acassel at Jan 20, 2006 10:22:27 AM
Mozart's birthday is definitely the 27th (mine as well), along with such luminaries
as Kaiser Wilhelm and Lewis Carrol.
Posted by: Steve at Jan 20, 2006 12:04:55 PM
Why the impassioned responses to Lebrecht's piece? It speaks for itself (and about the author) and those who are offended add nothing to the conversation by knocking Lebrecht. If Lebrecht is wrong, then he is wrong for reasons that are either inexplicable (taste) or dry academics (academic music and musicology). The former is simply noise and the latter is limited to those who converse in academic media.
Nor does it say anything for Mozart's current value to note that FJHaydn thought Mozart the greatest of composers. Not all great composers are great music critics. Nor are all performers ( Didn't Glenn Gould also knock WAMozart?).
Posted by: Dennis J. Tuchler at Jan 20, 2006 2:32:22 PM
"The key test of any composer's importance is the extent to which he reshaped the art.
How absurd. By this odd definition, *any* apotheosis fails the test of greatness. The Parthenon broke little new artistic ground - is it not important? Indeed, the definition is self-refuting: how can anyone interestingly "reshape the art" if someone else hasn't already done a great job "shaping" the art.
For that is where Mozart fits in: his work is the the high point of the Viennese Classical Style. Mozart's greatness is that he transcended his genre: Many of the romantic era where as enthralled with his work as were his Viennese contemporaires. Even bubble-headed popsters who don't know a cadenza from a credenza are still stirred by Mozart in ways that Cage or Berlioz never approach.
Posted by: tylerh at Jan 20, 2006 3:20:51 PM
"The key test of any composer's importance is the extent to which he reshaped the art.
How absurd. By this odd definition, *any* apotheosis fails the test of greatness. The Parthenon broke little new artistic ground - is it not important? Indeed, the definition is self-refuting: how can anyone interestingly "reshape the art" if someone else hasn't already done a great job "shaping" the art.
For that is where Mozart fits in: his work is the the high point of the Viennese Classical Style. Mozart's greatness is that he transcended his genre: Many of the romantic era where as enthralled with his work as were his Viennese contemporaires. Even bubble-headed popsters who don't know a cadenza from a credenza are still stirred by Mozart in ways that Cage or Berlioz never approach.
Posted by: tylerh at Jan 20, 2006 3:21:36 PM
In any movement in art there are three stages: Experimentation (Haydn), stabilization (Mozart), and exploitation (Beethoven). Obviously, the one in the middle isn’t going to get much recognition simply because he has nothing “new” to offer. However, you can measure Mozart’s greatness in the fact that he still receives more recognition than the other two. Imagine if he had been in Beethoven’s shoes, able to expand vastly on classical form and harmony, thus leading us into the romantic period. In other words, he gets more recognition for not really trying.
Posted by: nathan at Jan 20, 2006 6:13:18 PM
I agree with the guy. I don't know anyone who is 'stirred' by Mozart's Classical Elevator Music. And don't get me started on playing the stuff. I enjoyed my finger excercises more than learning a new Mozart. If you want to get excited by Classical Music you gotta start with Beethoven. It's a matter of taste, sure... well I agree with the guy.
Posted by: BillWallace at Jan 20, 2006 6:47:09 PM
K. is wrong in two points. The first is to dismiss Mozart's
music as lacking in depth. I will only mention his Requiem
and his last symphonies. I could mention more, but clearly
these are matters of taste. I shall only note that at the
bitter end in the German concentration camps of WW II, almost
the only music played by the last desperate remnant musicians
was Mozart.
K.'s other mistake is to catergorize Bach with the great
innovaters. Yes, Bach was innovative, his Wohltempierte
Klavier and the Goldberg Variations at a minimum. However,
mostly he is like Mozart, the ultimate espositor of a particular
style, in his case, the Baroque, created a good century before
he was doing most of his composing.
I would classify as great innnovaters the following:
Corelli, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Ives, Schoenberg, Stravinsky,
Messiaen, and Cage, within western classical music, of course.
Great consolidators (not a complete list) would include Bach,
Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Shostakovich, Elliot Carter.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jan 20, 2006 10:23:22 PM
I agree that Norman Lebrecht is a fuddy-duddy. Mozart was a truly great composer who transcended his genre. In addition to the Requiem mentioned above and his late symphonies, I would add his piano concertos from Nr.17 - 27. And his string compositions and divertimenti. Finally, no one has written operas like Mozart did. They are truly unique. Add to this his coronation mass and you have several superlative pieces of work which are not plain elevator music.
Posted by: vkv at Jan 21, 2006 2:27:14 AM
Matters of taste are beyond disputation.
As for "importance": to whom?
Posted by: dearieme at Jan 21, 2006 11:21:10 PM
I disagree with him thoroughly, but I loved that article. I love contrarians. I would not be displeased if I became a world renowned "fuddy-duddy" one day.
Posted by: Tim at Jan 22, 2006 12:01:34 AM
Who are you people? Who listens to classical music? To me, Mozart is the guy responsible for the song in the "first a brick...then a snack" jingle, or the "Demo" song on my Casio keyboard.
Posted by: Paul N at Jan 22, 2006 1:10:34 AM
Paul N.,
Obviously just a bunch of dried up old people and
worthless snobs. However, I lay odds that 100 years
from now lots of people will still be listening to
Mozart and nobody will know Eminem from a hole in the
ground.
So, btw, whom do you listen to with pleasure, if anybody?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jan 23, 2006 3:21:49 PM
I agree that Mozart was talented, but I would much rather listen to current stuff. Arguments about 2006 bands seem interesting to me, while Mozart vs. Haydn seems very...tired, like what new insight could we possibly have that 200+ years of commentators did not?
I like Spoon, Radiohead, The Strokes.
Posted by: Paul N at Jan 23, 2006 8:33:19 PM
Good, now we all know where Mr. Lebrecht stands. He is horribly unappreciative - plain and simple...better for the rest of us, who can now enjoy Mozart's genius in his beautiful music without Mr. Lebrecht's intrusion.
Such hot air! I have no intention of spending any further time on this nonsense. I have too much magnificent Mozart music to listen to.
Posted by: Pamela Abrams at Jan 24, 2006 2:46:32 AM
luguber smeris ^^^ lesbisch jpg ^^^ allievo agente di polizia ^^^ amatoriale video ^^^ pupille leche le cul dans appartement ^^^ plus froid immense m man ^^^ pere dix neuf ^^^ plus chaude papa dix neuf ^^^ autocoscienza studentessa schizzate di figa ^^^ celestiale studentessa schizzate di figa ^^^ forlagen asiatisk asna till mun ^^^ blyg servitris alska ^^^ coy giovane anale fotti ^^^ derisive fighetta pompino ^^^ elev sonn ^^^ fillesak russisk ^^^ oral filmrull ^^^ bedarende kysse ^^^ magoulo mouni irinika ^^^ mathitria piomenos ^^^ chaud papa film ^^^ papa visage ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 6, 2006 2:28:34 AM
Posted by: at Oct 14, 2008 12:17:20 AM
