A lot of people feel that his compositions written for students were bad, but they miss the point that they weren’t written for virtuosos. Others falsely believe that his less popular works are also bad, but that’s also a bad way to think. Not everyone vibes with everything he’s written and while one can argue that younger Mozart works weren’t as developed, you can hardly fault a child/teenager for not being developed enough.
If you haven’t listened to A Musical Joke, you should! There are some fun videos with good explanations in them uploaded on YouTube as well.
Lots of Mozartologists and musicologists will say the harp and flute concerto is “bad”. Charles Rosen basically calls it tripe.
I think most listeners of Mozart, though, still like it a lot, myself included.
Thanks. That seems to me to smack of "if the common people like it, it must be bad" thinking, but hey, I'm not an "expert".
It was the first piece for harp that made me realize that harpists don't just do glissando and that the harp can be a kick-ass instrument in the hands of the right composer and the right harpist.
Of course, since then I've turned to **really** serious harp music, like that played by Harpo Marx.
Yes! Some sections of it also exhibited elements of polytonal music that would later become a strong part of 20th Century music. In Mozart’s case, it was written to be “bad” and humorous.
I won't dare say yes, because I'm not an expert, and basically I don't think so, but I admit I got to find his masonic music boring.
(I might be downvoted for this.)
(This doesn't include the Magic flute of course.)
I agree, but i also think the point of the Masonic music was to be very simple & easy to show how Masonry was a return to the more “Enlightened” state of nature
Yeah there are lots of so-called Mozart scholars who would talk about how the concerto for three pianos is “bad” or how the “Coronation” concerto is “bad”. Reading CM Girdlestone’s opinion of the latter is pretty hilarious because he’s so scathing. But it’s nonsense. So many of the things he complains about are actually _good_ things that he just doesn’t understand.
Did Mozart write anything that is somehow objectively bad? Well yes, some of the early stuff isn’t particularly interesting, but it was often written in the service of a patron who Mozart disliked. And some of the late stuff was written for cash (does anyone here _actually_ think they’d willingly listen to his various bundles of “German dances”?).
That's funny about the concerto for three pianos. I thought the consensus was that the third piano part was deliberately written as simple / simplistic because it was intended to be played by some member of the nobility who had commissioned the piece (or maybe just someone who helped Mozart out) and the idea was to make that person feel like (s)he was really taking part in a Mozart creation (alongside the two "genuine" pianists). If that story is true, it is only even further testimony to Mozart's genius.
I should indeed have also excluded in my original post any juvenilia (although don't most people say even "Bastien und Bastienne" was genius?).
Re: the concerto for three pianos, yes that’s definitely the story - I don’t think anyone doubts it, but some commentators seem to dislike the work on other grounds. IMO it’s perfectly fine, and certainly not “bad”.
Yes “Bastien & Bastienne” is often spoken of as one of his most impressive youthful works - and honestly there is so much very good and very clever stuff written in his teens (I just saw a performance of Il Re Pastore yesterday and it was great, some fabulous music in that). But sure, some of the early stuff isn’t at the same high level, and that’s kind of OK with me. He had to learn the rules first before he figured out how to bend/break them.
His flute concerto is absolutely garbage, throwaway nonsense, paint by numbers, and is just boring and unrewarding to play. If this concerto was found with the name Stamitz or Salieri on it, it would be forgotten and ignored, as it should be.
Ok thanks. Flute Concerto nr 2 (KV.285d) is an adaptation of KV 314, the oboe concerto, an absolute masterpiece. But you will probably know that.
He composed both Flute Concertos as an assignment for surgeon and flautist Ferdinand Dujean. (Who happens to be from my country)
Dujean had asked for four concertos but Mozart only delivered two, one of them being the adaptation of K314.
Dujean found out and refused to pay. Poor fellow is now mainly remembered as the "man who got mad at Mozart" even though he was a brilliant surgeon in his time, and I suppose quite musically skilled as well.
A lot of people feel that his compositions written for students were bad, but they miss the point that they weren’t written for virtuosos. Others falsely believe that his less popular works are also bad, but that’s also a bad way to think. Not everyone vibes with everything he’s written and while one can argue that younger Mozart works weren’t as developed, you can hardly fault a child/teenager for not being developed enough. If you haven’t listened to A Musical Joke, you should! There are some fun videos with good explanations in them uploaded on YouTube as well.
[This one](https://youtu.be/df3dr3cDOfo?si=nlGI9NaKAZotnH3x) goes into some great detail
Lots of Mozartologists and musicologists will say the harp and flute concerto is “bad”. Charles Rosen basically calls it tripe. I think most listeners of Mozart, though, still like it a lot, myself included.
WHAAAAT? It is one of my favorite ones!
That’s what I’m saying - “experts” say it’s bad - but most people - myself included - actually love it.
Thanks. That seems to me to smack of "if the common people like it, it must be bad" thinking, but hey, I'm not an "expert". It was the first piece for harp that made me realize that harpists don't just do glissando and that the harp can be a kick-ass instrument in the hands of the right composer and the right harpist. Of course, since then I've turned to **really** serious harp music, like that played by Harpo Marx.
I will throw hands. That was so much better than whatever garbage his flute concerto is.
"Ein musikalischer Spaß". But that was intentionally bad.
Yes! Some sections of it also exhibited elements of polytonal music that would later become a strong part of 20th Century music. In Mozart’s case, it was written to be “bad” and humorous.
Yes, and also the (for his time) weird rhythm and bar combination choices don't sound weird or unusual to modern ears anymore.
I won't dare say yes, because I'm not an expert, and basically I don't think so, but I admit I got to find his masonic music boring. (I might be downvoted for this.) (This doesn't include the Magic flute of course.)
I agree, but i also think the point of the Masonic music was to be very simple & easy to show how Masonry was a return to the more “Enlightened” state of nature
Yeah there are lots of so-called Mozart scholars who would talk about how the concerto for three pianos is “bad” or how the “Coronation” concerto is “bad”. Reading CM Girdlestone’s opinion of the latter is pretty hilarious because he’s so scathing. But it’s nonsense. So many of the things he complains about are actually _good_ things that he just doesn’t understand. Did Mozart write anything that is somehow objectively bad? Well yes, some of the early stuff isn’t particularly interesting, but it was often written in the service of a patron who Mozart disliked. And some of the late stuff was written for cash (does anyone here _actually_ think they’d willingly listen to his various bundles of “German dances”?).
That's funny about the concerto for three pianos. I thought the consensus was that the third piano part was deliberately written as simple / simplistic because it was intended to be played by some member of the nobility who had commissioned the piece (or maybe just someone who helped Mozart out) and the idea was to make that person feel like (s)he was really taking part in a Mozart creation (alongside the two "genuine" pianists). If that story is true, it is only even further testimony to Mozart's genius. I should indeed have also excluded in my original post any juvenilia (although don't most people say even "Bastien und Bastienne" was genius?).
Re: the concerto for three pianos, yes that’s definitely the story - I don’t think anyone doubts it, but some commentators seem to dislike the work on other grounds. IMO it’s perfectly fine, and certainly not “bad”. Yes “Bastien & Bastienne” is often spoken of as one of his most impressive youthful works - and honestly there is so much very good and very clever stuff written in his teens (I just saw a performance of Il Re Pastore yesterday and it was great, some fabulous music in that). But sure, some of the early stuff isn’t at the same high level, and that’s kind of OK with me. He had to learn the rules first before he figured out how to bend/break them.
The short answer is “no.”
His flute concerto is absolutely garbage, throwaway nonsense, paint by numbers, and is just boring and unrewarding to play. If this concerto was found with the name Stamitz or Salieri on it, it would be forgotten and ignored, as it should be.
Do you mean KV.285d? The story behind it is magnificent.
No I love the quartets. The Concerto is 313.
Ok thanks. Flute Concerto nr 2 (KV.285d) is an adaptation of KV 314, the oboe concerto, an absolute masterpiece. But you will probably know that. He composed both Flute Concertos as an assignment for surgeon and flautist Ferdinand Dujean. (Who happens to be from my country) Dujean had asked for four concertos but Mozart only delivered two, one of them being the adaptation of K314. Dujean found out and refused to pay. Poor fellow is now mainly remembered as the "man who got mad at Mozart" even though he was a brilliant surgeon in his time, and I suppose quite musically skilled as well.