Robert Lyman wrote:
>Frankly, I find this whole thread surprising! I love Mozart-------and
>Bach, and Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Handel, Debussy, Stravinsky, and yes
>Haydn, etc. Each and every great composer has written masterpeices and
>not-so-master pieces. We judge them by their best.
Is this really true though. Do people judge Micheal Haydn at his best
(Masses,concertos, serenade chamber works) or at his worst symphonies? As
I and others have sought to show recently there are countless lesser known
composers who are totally written off dispite having written one or two
masterpieces (I mentioned Nauman and Mozart's son as examples). Yet, again
as I've mentioned before, the cd store shelves are stacked with dozens of
versions of the Mozart sonatas and symphonies including his youthful works.
>I agree with Steve, the whole "greatest composer of all time" thing is
>meaningless. Who cares? The music is there for us to enjoy and to learn
>from. Mozart's music is so facile it can sometimes seem shallow when
>compared, for example, to the angst of Beethoven.
I agree too it is senseless to mention the greatest composer of all time.
But once again, there are still critics who are telling us it's Mozart.
And for reasons I've given before I believe this is damaging.
Of course a lot of this has to do with the record companies and commercial
interests. In 1991 the Mozart bicentenary the commercial clamour was
almost obscene. I remember Bayan Northcott (write/musicologist) expressing
disquiet about it at the time. Sadly his was a lonely voice.
However when the Haydn bicentenary comes around in 2009 the record
companies will probably change their tune as they'll have another
product to promote.
>However, no one ever (IMHO) wrote music that was more beautiful.
That's your view and I defend your right to hold it. I'd use a different
adjective.
Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]
|