You are here:   Anniversary > The Mozart Delusion
The Mozart Delusion
January/February 2013

Enough anniversaries already: Mozart, aged seven, painted in 1763

It dawned on me with great relief the other day that, unless I’m still writing strong in my nineties, I will never have to observe or partake of another Mozart anniversary so long as I live. Yippee!

I say that not to disparage anniversaries or, indeed, Mozart. Both have a recognised stall in the marketplace and neither is likely ever to be dislodged. However, each has the power to distort mass taste. Put together, they can—and do—wreak untold harm on the world’s cultural values.

The Nazis understood this all too well when, in 1941, they launched a jamboree in the 150th year after Mozart’s death and his nameless burial in Vienna. “A nation that forgets its great sons does not deserve to own them,” cried Joseph Goebbels, claiming that Mozart’s music embodied the supreme German quality of relentless clarity (and we all remember the consequences of relentless clarity).

The 1941 fest was, as Erik Levi points out in his book Mozart and the Nazis (Yale, 2010), organised and financed by the Reich with a view to establishing Mozart’s Aryan supremacy and their own cultural legitimacy. In the lands under German occupation, Mozart was the imposed sound of music, odious and ineluctable.

The next significant date, the 1956 bicentenary of his birth, saw the rehabilitation of the composer’s native Salzburg as the Bethlehem of an immaculate godchild, free of political contention. This was, to a degree, the Mozart that had been promulgated by war- time Allied media as a counterweight to Nazi propaganda. It was also the Mozart borne into exile by his greatest experts and interpreters, from Alfred Einstein to Bruno Walter, men who preached that every note of Mozart was an ineffable, celestial perfection: from Moses to Mozart, there was none like Mozart.

View Full Article
April 11th, 2019
4:04 AM JOHANNES BRAHMS: " I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto {the Third Piano Concerto} much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant! I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies—these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission—his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works. "

June 30th, 2014
12:06 PM
· Does Mr. Lebrecht know that great modern composers such as, Stravinsky, who certainly employed controversial musical ideas and ample use of dissonances. acknowledged Mozart's mastery of the formal elements of music, including his use of dissonance, and that Stravinsky borrowed /learned this very issue from Mozart? · Does the writer even know that Mozart wrote a piece called the 'Dissonance Quartet', for Haydn? This piece was probably about 40 or more years ahead of its time. · Does the writer know that Joseph Haydn himself stated that he considered Mozart to be the greatest composer known to him by person or name, and that Mozart had the most profound knowledge of composition? Hmmm. Maybe Joseph Haydn did not know what he was talking about. · Does your writer of music know that Mozart's music was viewed often as having so much complexity and dissonance in his music that his listeners in his day and age were 'perturbed' and preferred much simpler music? Mozart, by the way, could have written more 'popular' music and pandered to his audiences but refused in the main to do so. · Does the writer know that Beethoven himself acknowledged that he probably would never write anything as beautiful as Mozart's C minor piano concerto. K491? · Does the writer know that nearly all composers since Mozart's time, even into modern day, consider him to be the supreme master in all the musical genres of his day and age? Let's say that again. Supreme master in all the genres. Please, I need not go down the list, but Mr. Lebrecht should do some checking for himself. · Not just composers-----Nearly all great philosophers, writers, poets, musicologists, consider Mozart to be the greatest musical genius that ever lived. That does not just mean that Mozart was a prodigy, which he was. Or virtuoso which he was. It means, in plain English, that his music is deep, both musically, technically and spiritually. Kierkegaard, Stendhal, Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, etc, etc and on down the list have argued such. Have Mr. Lebrecht check into some of this. · Does the writer realize that Mozart's popularity today, 250 years after his birth, might possibly have something to do with recognition of that genius? Or does he believe that people should not like 'Don Giovanni, The Marriage of Figaro, The 40th Symphony, The Requiem, The D minor Piano Concerto (way ahead of its time), the Quintet in G minor (K516), also way ahead of its time, 'Ave Verum Corpus, The Magic Flute, the C minor Mass, and so on... · Does the writer realize that Mozart practically invented various forms of music including the piano quintet? He revolutionized various forms of music and put unusual combinations of instruments together. I guess none of this matters. · Does your writer know that Mozart virtually changed as well pianistic music well on into the future? That Beethoven, Chopin, and others who were great pianists were great admirers of Mozart? · Does your writer realize that Alfred Brendel, the great pianist, said that Mozart's Adagio in B minor for piano is the greatest piece of music ever written for solo piano? If Mr. Lebrecht wants to hear some dissonance, let him try this one. · Does your writer realize that Mozart was probably the greatest improviser on the piano, ever? Does he think that improvisation was a silly, trivial art form? Even after his death, Mozart's improvisations were hailed as works of such artistry that people wrote about them long afterwards · Does the writer know that on one occasion Mozart's music was returned to him by a patron, because it contained 'wrong' (dissonant) notes? Mozart's music was often considered unplayable, because it was too difficult for singers and instrumentalists alike. · The greatest wind music in the world was written by Mozart, witness K361. Wind music takes incredible skill to write. Some of the most poignant and spiritually deep moments in Mozart occur in his wind music. I refer your writer as well to K388, a Serenade for winds in C minor. · And, finally, speaking of Shostakovich. The Russian Conservatories today which produce most of the world's great pianists, say that it is Mozart that stands at the peak, that great pianists must learn to play Mozart well. Not Rachmaninoff (their own), not Chopin, very difficult, not Tchaikovsky (one of their own AND very difficult), but MOZART. Yes, his music sounds simple, but it is anything but that. A sophisticated musical ear understands this concept. Also important: does Mr. Lebrecht realize that Mozart was the first great artist to break free from the feudal system in which composers worked for nobles and were not free to compose music for themselves, and that Mozart become a free lance artist in 1781 to do more of precisely that? This was prior to the French Revolution, by the way. Mozart abruptly left service from the Archbishop of Salzburg to be more free to compose as he wanted. That took enormous courage, and was viewed as a bold move. To a great extent, Mozart helped to pave the way for Beethoven and others, making their careers more smooth. Does your writer know that Mozart took the libretto from Beaumarchais' play which had been banned in France and turned it into an opera, The Marriage of Figaro? And that this opera contains revolutionary messages? Do you think that Mozart would have done this if he were content to write music that was 'humdrum'? Of, how about the fact that Mozart was a prominent mason, and that he continued as a mason even after many others in his day and age left the craft when it became somewhat politically untenable to do so? Do you think someone such as this would write 'superficial music'? No, it requires a great deal of skill to learn the musical language of Mozart. But its beauty is that it can be appreciated on many levels. Those who appreciate its revolutionary aspects, as well as those who appreciate its melodic or thematic beauty. Your writer mentions Mozart's language. Too bad he has no sense of humor. Again, he shows no understanding of the issue. That region of what is today Austria used various forms of language employing scatological terms much more frequently than today. In Mozart's time, this was not so unnatural, and the letters have been misunderstood. Even Mozart's mother used some of these same phrases. Let your writer read Mozart's elegant letters to his father and others to show the complexity of Mozart's language styles. Many prominent academicians have translated the actual meaning of many of these terms and their usages into messages as they would have been understood in Mozart's era. After all, Mozart does not live in the 21st century. Mozart 'played' with language to confuse, astound and shock. To him, it was a game. About Mozart's career: Mozart made extremely large sums of money and shortly before he died had offers from England, Hungary and Holland. He made the equivalent about $100,000 in his successful years. Mozart suffered from ill health and eventually was taken over by acute rheumatic fever. He wrote nearly 800 works in 35 short years. He had withstood the ravages of many diseases throughout his life and it is quite amazing that he lived even as long as he did given his history of fairly serious diseases. Mozart's simple burial was not that of a pauper, but was the customary funeral at the time of Joseph II in Austria for people of his station in life. Okay. Good heavens! Could you please let Mr. Lebrecht know how many incorrect notions are contained in his article....? Thank you. In short, I am angered by Mr. Lebrecht's article: his extremely poor level of knowledge of Mozart and his era is alarming. Of course, he wants probably to write the contrarian view to attract readership. Ah yes, I am familiar with this strategy. If this is the point, its poorly done because there are so many factual errors. Otherwise, I regret to say that you should consider firing him. Sure he is entitled to his opinion. But let's have one based on some facts, not myths!

March 30th, 2013
3:03 PM
How odd to decry the 'popularisation' of Mozart, whilst praising the tedious Schoenberg, who owes his career and fame entirely to having a chum in the BBC.

March 16th, 2013
12:03 AM
When I was 18 I told te very musical mother of a friend of mine, somewhat shamefacedly, that I didn't much like Mpzart. She smiled knowingly and told to wait as I would come to like him. I am now nearly 60 and glad to say she was right - and I didn't even have to try very hard.

March 7th, 2013
10:03 AM
A foolish article. First of all, there’s the quite gratuitous linking of Mozart with Nazism, solely on the grounds that the Nazis had tried to promote Mozart. How embarrassingly puerile. And then the equally gratuitous & foolish linkage with Lebrecht’s great bogeyman, Karajan – presumably on the grounds that anyone with the slightest connection with Karajan, no matter how tenuous, must be dodgy in some way. (Karajan isn’t particularly renowned for his Mozart.) Once again, how embarrassingly puerile. Then, all those instances of Mozart being commercialised: name me any major composer who hasn’t been commercialised! Then, the complete works of Mozart have been released on CD. So have the complete works of Bach, of Beethoven, of Verdi, even of Mahler… what exactly is Mr Lebrecht’s point? “Mozart for Babies”, we may agree, is silly; but this silliness does not detract from Mozart’s achievement any more than the silliness of “Mahler: The Peoples’ Edition” detracts from Mahler’s. The main question raised by this article is how such hard-of-thinking childishness can pass for serious commentary.

February 26th, 2013
9:02 PM
Mr. Lebrecht is far from saving Mozart, since Mozart doesn't need to be saved. If anything, he is doing the opposite. Also, his poor analysis clearly shows his inability to grasp all that is Mozart-beyond mere music. Too bad Mr. Lebrecht has authority to write nonsense.

January 7th, 2013
1:01 AM
I understand the author's point, but calling Mozart "conformist to a fault, a conservative composer" is going too far. First of all, Mozart was only 35 years old when he died. Take a listen to his last 3 symphonies and tell me that he wasn't going to continue to develop as a composer. Listen to the last movement of his last symphony, the 41st and you'll hear a section in the development and recapitulation that has harmonies that vault straight into the 20th Century. Haydn never composed a section of music like that. I do share the author's view that all the Mozart Effect stuff is nonsense. But, Mozart is supremely great because he expresses everything about being human: joy, sorrow, silliness.

January 6th, 2013
11:01 PM
Since someone mentioned Milos Foreman's Amadeus--I suspect that (along with the play it is based on, though I've only seen the film and not the stage version) is a major contributor, as well, to contemporary adulation of Mozart. In Amadeus, Mozart is portrayed as a composer without peer, one who is "touched by God" and whose manuscripts contain no errors or erasures, as though he were simply taking dictation from the Almighty; and poor Antonio Salieri, regarded by his peers as fine composer in his own right, is reduced to a jealous mediocrity. The film also portrays Mozart as something of an avant-garde musical rebel who refuses to cater to popular tastes (the whole "too many notes" bit), whereas Salieri is shown as a hack who "likes to give 'em a good bang". Of course, opera was a popular art form, and even works commissioned by the Court were generally expected to make money, so the notion that Mozart was somehow the Frank Zappa of his day is ridiculous. That said, he was a damn fine composer, and withdrawal of excess adulation should not turn into condemnation.

January 2nd, 2013
7:01 PM
In my opinion, however much adulation is showered upon Mozart, he deserves even more.Just listen and be transfixed. Do you feel the need to claim your superiority by putting down Mozart? You just wind up looking like a fool. His music and his listeners laugh at you. Haydn was right, no one, not even Beethoven or Bach was better than him.

January 2nd, 2013
5:01 PM
Did the author have a stomach ache when he wrote this? Hope he feels better soon!

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.