I think the debate about Mozart's reputation as a composer is begining to
draw to a close.  Some final thoughts though.  Peter Goldstein writes:

>...  Dr Akima is judging Mozart by Haydn's standards.  If you try to find
>Haydn in Mozart, you will fail, as I failed when I first approached Mozart.
>For the most part, Mozart does not try to "develop" in the same way Haydn
>does, nor are his works "arguments." He cannot provide the same kind of
>purely intellectual pleasure.

I should in fact say that in judging Mozart I judge him by the standards
I judge ALL composers.  Nor do I consider intellect and emotion to be
mutually exclusive.  To quote Boulez, the imagination must always be rooted
in intellect as much as imagination must always inspire the intellect.  I
do not see Haydn as a purely cerebral composer, any more than say, Bach.

My last critical statement in this matter is that I think Mozart, towards
the end of his career, was just beginning to show greater talent in
achieving greater structural cohesion so that with time he may have come to
rival or even surpass Haydn and Beethoven (look at the finale of symphony
Nr 38!  or for that matter that of Nr 41).  THAT is why I consider his
death to have been all the more premature.

However I have written enough criticism of Mozart.  'O Freunde!  Nicht
diese Toene, sondern lass uns angenehmerer anstimmen und freudevollerer!'
as LvB would say.  But amongst all of the often admirably PASSIONATE
defenses of Mozart I have elicited I am surprised that NOBODY managed to
point out the fact that none of my criticisms of Mozart have been in the
least bit original.  They are all 'rehashes' of arguments that have been
repeated again and again over the centuries.  Most of them are at present
highly unfashionable so that those unfamiliar with them found them to be
scandalous.  But they will continue to plague this composer's reputation
long after I am dead.

Micheal Cooper reminds us of what Beethoven said:

>Handel is the greatest of us all.  I would uncover my head and kneel at
>his tomb

I once came across something written by the man the German literature still
refers to as 'der Wiener Musikpapst', the Vienese musical pope:  Eduard
von Hanslick.  Writing after recent performances of Handel's Messiah and
Beethoven's Missa Solemnis he concluded the Messiah to be unquestionably
vastly superior.  He was merely reflecting an attitude still prevalent
amongst many arch convervatives of his times, who continued to prostrate
themselves before Handel much as Beethoven before them.  Fashion has
changed and today Handel is rarely so revered (hmmm ...  is someone out
there willing to try to resurrect this one?).  Following the modern trend
I personally prefer Beethoven here.  But I imagine that had I questioned
Hanslick's better judgement in his times I would have stirred up an equally
angry nest of hornets then as I have during my Mozart critiques in my own!

In the latter half of the twentieth century there has been more
unconditional praised lavished on Mozart than on any other composer.  It
is clear that those who have reacted most violently to my having DARED to
bring this position into question have been those who have grown up in this
environment.  Let me make one last thing clear though, were fashion to move
on and cruelly leave Mozart behind I shall be the first to campaign ...
on his behalf!

Satoshi Akima
Sydney