Mozart is overrated

[Lithorn]

Any thoughts?

 

[Sparrow]

Meh. He's okay. I don't really like any of his stuff.

 

[Anthile]

That's like how every film critic says Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made. After it reaches a critical mass, people just run with it.

My opinion towards Mozart is kinda indifferent. I neither really like nor hate his work and his personal life was rather uninteresting, despite being a wunderkind.

 

[cheese]

You have to place him in context. Relative to what preceded and surrounded him, he was brilliant and innovative. Of course much more has developed since then, but progress is built upon previous achievements (standing on the shoulders of giants and so on).
The volume speaks for something too, imo.

It's difficult to make absolute value judgements such as "world's greatest" as well, when comparing over multiple centuries, especially taking into account differences in taste. But when taking a detached (as far as possible) stance and considering skill, I think most (after in-depth study of contemporaries, musical theory and analysis of his works) would agree that he was very good.

 

[Lithorn]

You have to place him in context. Relative to what preceded and surrounded him, he was brilliant and innovative. Of course much more has developed since then, but progress is built upon previous achievements (standing on the shoulders of giants and so on).

But that's just the thing. Listening to his music, it's more like he just did what everyone else was doing, but with more technical skill. He really didn't make any great innovations, or do anything new. Not like say, Beethoven did.

In fact, the things he wrote which are furthest from the style of his time are actually just revivals of old Baroque ideas.

 

[pie]

I couldn't vote using the options. I don't think he is overrated, but I don't think he's the world's greatest composer, and I am not meh about him.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't even think he's the best Austrian composer. Haydn > Mozart. Schubert > Mozart.

 

[yes]

My thoughts, I love Mozart. I've got three of his operas on dvd and loads of his cd's. To me, he's the king of Music! My ears cant get enough.

 

[Words]

I don't know him well enough. <Because of that, he's overrated.

 

[RedLoki]

He's overrated because Tchaikovsky is underrated

 

[Lithorn]

Nice logic there.

 

[Jah]

How is Mozart rated, really ?

Mozart was a good composer, in that he created many hits and very good music, but in my eyes his modern equivalent musician is Michael Jackson, which should suit nicely with the whole wunderkind. (Mozart was very adept at turning out tons of good music, though not mind-blowing)
They both get much attention, both in their own time as well as post mortem.


I tried to imagine how Mozart would have been if he had been born after Beethoven.
After all, of the two, Beethoven was the one who broke the standards and brought music forwards. Mozart was just good at making good music based on the current standards.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Besides Bach, and maybe Beethoven, Mozart is without a doubt one of the world's greatest composers, if not the greatest composer who ever lived. His music is absolutely impressive. I love Mozart. So logical and symmetrically structured, all-the-while beautiful and melodious.

So, no—he's not overrated at all. He's just a bit over-exposed, in my opinion.
But with music so great, it's not surprising. Great music will be exposed to death.

 

[Lithorn]

Logical and symmetrically structured? How does that make it great music?

Using your definition I would say that Bach was the greatest composer because he's the one who perfected and standardized the classical theory that Mozart operates within.

 

[Architectonic]

Do you know what is really overrated? Pop music in general.

A rant about Mozart being overrated is silly.

 

[Lithorn]

Why? Everyone knows pop music is overrated, but very few know about Mozart. I need to spread the good word!:smiley_emoticons_mr

 

[Architectonic]

Mozart was pop music at one time.

 

[Puffy]

Music wasn't as widely listened to as it is today though.

 

[Jaico]

I'd have to say that Mozart is, as composers go, a tad overrated. To me, his music just seems so light, fluffy, and...inane. I mean, it's great/easy to listen to, but it always seems as if it's lacking something that other composers (not necessarily later ones) seem to bring to the table; recently, a group in my city did The Magic Flute - I went to see it, and enjoyed it...but everything about it was so simple and predictable. I find that Mozart's music is nice to listen to, but he's definitely overrated, in my opinion.

 

[TheHmmmm]

I don't know him well enough. <Because of that, he's overrated.

...wait. doesn't that make him underrated?

Personally, I think he deserves every ounce of credit he gets (and normally I'm quick to point out when something's overrated). I voted the best composer thing cuz it sounded closest to a "no", but that's not my opinion.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Logical and symmetrically structured? How does that make it great music?

Using your definition I would say that Bach was the greatest composer because he's the one who perfected and standardized the classical theory that Mozart operates within.

The main question here is: IS MOZART OVERRATED?, not WHO IS THE GREATEST COMPOSER OF ALL TIME? So, I don't get why we're asserting that Bach is the greatest?

I pretty much only said these things:

1. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are three great composers, in my opinion.
2. Mozart's music is logical and symmetrical (like the music of many other great composers).
3. Mozart's music is, along with being logical and symmetrical, melodic and beautiful.

Therefore, if you had any problem with the statements in my post, you would have to disagree with either of these three points.

1. How logical and symmetrical formations = great music is beside the point. I never initially asserted that only logical and symmetrical musical formations are great music. Hence, this is off topic.

2. Whether or not my description of Mozart's music can be applied to Bach is both irrelevant to the main topic at hand AND redundant, because I pretty much included Bach as a great composer in my first statement.

So how does your response make sense at all?

 

[Philosophyking87]

Why? Everyone knows pop music is overrated, but very few know about Mozart. I need to spread the good word!:smiley_emoticons_mr

Mozart isn't overrated, just over-exposed. He's definitely one of the great composers, with Bach and Beethoven. It's just the case that some people subjectively dislike his style of music, perhaps, and then fail to understand why so many music enthusiasts hold him in such high regard. His music is simply well-written.

 

[Philosophyking87]

...wait. doesn't that make him underrated?

Personally, I think he deserves every ounce of credit he gets (and normally I'm quick to point out when something's overrated). I voted the best composer thing cuz it sounded closest to a "no", but that's not my opinion.

Indeed. I think Mozart is highly regarded for a reason. Some people simply don't understand what makes his music so appealing, or how it could ever have possibly been well-written because they don't personally prefer his style of music.

This is just like The Beatles: they are highly regarded the world over, yet there are those who dislike The Beatles completely and don't understand why everyone loves their music. Hence, personal subjectivity, not enjoying the style of something, rather than objectively judging the material. In fact, many people have stated that The Beatles are also overrated, which is obvious nonsense.

Also, I've seen people who've watched Star Wars and gave it a low rating because "It's stupid kiddy fantasy." Hence, rather than reviewing the movie from a detached, objective standpoint, they gave it a bad rating because the overall subject matter wasn't really their cup of tea.

Thus, do people who think Mozart is overrated really have rational reasons for this belief, or are they merely judging on the basis of their subjective preferences? Is light, airy music just not your cup of tea? If so, what does that have to do with the value of Mozart's creativity and whether or not he's overrated as a composer?

I'd prefer substantial reasons to subjective impressions. Hence, if you feel Mozart is overrated, you're clearly carrying the burden. Substantiate why you hold it to be true that Mozart is overrated. I'd love to know why you guys think this.

 

[Jaico]

Something is defined as overrated when something is "given an undue amount of credit for quality or merit in a field" (thanks, wiktionary! )...which seems to be quite a subjective thing to me. What might be overrated to one person (see also: Nickelback) may be adored by millions upon millions of fans who enjoy the music that they produce. Furthermore, although you may claim that there are "objective" ways to judge a composer - by what standards? If you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you'll find that there's always going to be subjectivity involved with anything (especially something aesthetic, like music)...thus, I believe that the question of if something is overrated or not is intrinsically linked to a subjective evaluation of the "thing" being examined. As to the case of "who is the best composer"...since calling something overrated is a subjective statement, wouldn't it make sense that if a certain composer (let's say Composer A) wasn't as exposed/well known as another composer (Composer B) that you felt was inferior, you'd think that Composer B was overrated?

Just throwing my 2 cents in...

 

[Razare]

I totally agree about Mozart being overrated. Personally, I love Baroque music and despise the following period of Classical music. Often both periods are referred to as "Classical" when in actuality they're totally different.

For some reason whenever I listen to the local classical station and they play a collection of Baroque, they often throw in Mozart who is a classical artist, not a baroque one.

This is specifically why I do not like his work because I am forced to listen to something outside the genre that I enjoy. To me, classical music sounds childish while baroque is more structured while having complexity within that structure.

So his work was influential to the period but the period produced a poorer quality of music. I think during that period, music became less of passion of the upper crust of society and was put into the hands of the masses. And some of Mozart's pieces have simple melodies that can be recognizably played by one artist, instead of an orchestra of musicians.

 

[Words]

...wait. doesn't that make him underrated?

Hmmmm, I guess your right.

or we could follow question, "Why don't I know him well enough?". Because my opinion is "he's overrated.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Something is defined as overrated when something is "given an undue amount of credit for quality or merit in a field" (thanks, wiktionary! )...which seems to be quite a subjective thing to me. What might be overrated to one person (see also: Nickelback) may be adored by millions upon millions of fans who enjoy the music that they produce. Furthermore, although you may claim that there are "objective" ways to judge a composer - by what standards? If you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you'll find that there's always going to be subjectivity involved with anything (especially something aesthetic, like music)...thus, I believe that the question of if something is overrated or not is intrinsically linked to a subjective evaluation of the "thing" being examined. As to the case of "who is the best composer"...since calling something overrated is a subjective statement, wouldn't it make sense that if a certain composer (let's say Composer A) wasn't as exposed/well known as another composer (Composer B) that you felt was inferior, you'd think that Composer B was overrated?

Just throwing my 2 cents in...

2 cents well-taken. But I think there can be objective ways to actually judge artists and their works to some objective extent, without really boiling down a discussion to "It just sounds too powerful and serious!!!" or "It's too much like lullaby!"

For instance, when you actually major in Music Theory (which I was going to at one point), they teach you to analyze music intelligently. To me, that sounds a lot more like objectivity than subjectivity. You learn to evaluate music according to music terminology and structural composition. Subjective preference is still important, but you learn to actually think more in terms of detached analysis. Look at the structure, the composition, the way the notes were placed within the musical context, ect.

This is probably why Mozart is held in such high regard by music lovers all over the world, and why The Beatles' music is considered highly valuable. And people who think they are overrated probably just don't prefer their musical style, instead of having substantial reasons to say "It's garbage, horribly-written music that shouldn't be so popular!"

 

[Philosophyking87]

I totally agree about Mozart being overrated. Personally, I love Baroque music and despise the following period of Classical music. Often both periods are referred to as "Classical" when in actuality they're totally different.

For some reason whenever I listen to the local classical station and they play a collection of Baroque, they often throw in Mozart who is a classical artist, not a baroque one.

This is specifically why I do not like his work because I am forced to listen to something outside the genre that I enjoy. To me, classical music sounds childish while baroque is more structured while having complexity within that structure.

So his work was influential to the period but the period produced a poorer quality of music. I think during that period, music became less of passion of the upper crust of society and was put into the hands of the masses. And some of Mozart's pieces have simple melodies that can be recognizably played by one artist, instead of an orchestra of musicians.

Indeed. The Classical Period (Haydn/Mozart) is not the same as the Baroque Period (Vivaldi, Paganini, Bach), or the Romantic Period (Beethoven). Yet, they are all labeled under the umbrella term "Classical Music."

But, not liking someone's music because it's outside of your preferred genre doesn't seem so logical, in my opinion. Do you have any other reasons to feel that his music is overrated, other than you simply dislike the Classical genre?

And indeed, Classical (Mozart style) music can sound childish, but some people actually enjoy that type of sound (like me, for instance). But I don't enjoy Mozart merely because his music sounds child-like; I enjoy it because it's very creative and well-written, having lovely melodies at times, and it's very beautiful. So, again, this boils down to subjective preference. Do you have any other reason for disliking Mozart, other than because the music sounds childish?

 

[Razare]

I just don't like that style at all from the whole period. It's a subjective thing, but it sounds bad to my brain.

 

[nihilen.]

OPs' poll blows.

And it is ridiculous to prefer the baroque era over the classical era.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I just don't like that style at all from the whole period. It's a subjective thing, but it sounds bad to my brain.

Fair enough. If you don't like a genre, you don't like a genre.
But hopefully you don't think Mozart's overrated merely because he's of the Classical Period, which you don't find appealing. =p

 

[Philosophyking87]

OPs' poll blows.

And it is ridiculous to prefer the baroque era over the classical era.

I don't see a problem with preferences; but if someone starts claiming that one era is undoubtedly superior to another, that's another matter.

 

[noctilux]

Harrumph, stumbled upon this thread; it's old, but as a gigantic classical music nut who's listened to most of Mozart's works, I just really want to reply.

I want to thank Philosophyking87 for defending Mozart since he is also one of my favourite composers, among Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Strauss, Händel and Wagner.

The first thought I had was that most people probably haven't heard enough Mozart to judge him properly. Mozart equates too often to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, which I'm personally fed up with, and a few other pieces, perhaps Symphony No. 40. I think the former is a bit of an unfortunate piece to identify Mozart with, as I always found it to be a bit generic.

As with most great composers, there are more facets to him than those pieces, though: If you like Bach, try the Jupiter Symphony's last movement (Symphony No. 41), which is a massive fugue; if you don't like his enthusiastic playful, child-like music, you might enjoy the Commendatore Scene or the Overture of Don Giovanni, or parts of the Requiem and Great Mass in C Minor. Another of my favourites is the slow movement of Piano Concerto No. 23.

Although I have not studied music, I think Mozart is one of, if not the greatest inventor of melodies in the history of music. Among my favourite composers, only Strauss's Last Songs come close. Beethoven is the master of variation: he will mostly use only a few tunes and brilliantly present them; Schubert is similar. Mozart was not as skilled in variation, but could come up with new melodies seemingly at will.

If you think Mozart is generic, by the way, try to guess what comes next in a (good) piece you don't know. In my experience, and in stark contrast to contemporary composers like Salieri, you won't get far. Mozart's music is deceptively simple; many people, including great musicians, fall for it. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Friedrich Gulda, an Austrian world-famous pianist:

At the same time, these public concerts marked the beginning of a new-found love of Mozart. In an interview with the Munich Abendzeitung prior to his Munich appearances, Gulda declared that until then he had "misused Mozart by treating him as a pianist suitable only for warming up and for playing while latecomers are taking their seats. In my old age I have become conscious of this mortal sin - and have drawn the necessary consequences from it." Gulda immersed himself in Mozart in a way that he had never done before. "I've been preparing for this for a long time. I wanted to know how this music feels. I can now say that it feels marvellous. Stylistically speaking, there is no doubt about it." Until then, Beethoven and Bach had been central to his life. Now it was Mozart, with whom Gulda felt an increasing empathy. He spent his whole life working on this music. "Herr Mozart", as he affectionately called him, became his omnipresent model and guide. And towards the very end of his life, Gulda declared that when he was dead, there was nothing more he could wish than to play piano duets with Mozart on a pink cloud.

Also, in my experience, no other composer can convey joy and happiness as well as Mozart. Bach can sometimes come close. Beethoven is very motivational and powerful but not necessarily joyous, although he can be very humorous (try the 5th Piano Concerto, "Emperor", especially fun with Gulda).

Mozart deserves to be called one of the greatest composers, I think that is beyond doubt. He is more popular in the media than the other great ones, but seeing how superficial that fame is, I wonder whether that is really something to be annoyed about. It's also a bit unfortunate, I think, that Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is the single most exposed piece; Bach was luckier there with his Air, and Handel's Zadok the Priest (used for the Champion's League) is also of higher quality, in my opinion.

Had to get that off my chest! :-)

 

[ApostateAbe]

Mozart wrote a helluva lot of compositions, I have heard a lot of Mozart, and I haven't heard anything that I disliked. I can't say the same for any other composer out there. He wasn't just like any other composer of his time. With normal composers, you can only appreciate it after sitting through and listening to the whole of it. With Mozart, he gets your attention, he keeps it, and you love every second of it all of the way through, because every string of it can stand on its own as beautiful.

 

[5k17]

It's just the case that some people subjectively dislike his style of music, perhaps, and then fail to understand why so many music enthusiasts hold him in such high regard. His music is simply well-written.

"To Kill A Mockingbird" is well written, too, but does that stop it from thoroughly sucking? No, it does not.
S people generally tend to create works of art that may be technically great, but often fail to evoke any feelings in me (except aggression and disgust).

 

[Philosophyking87]

5k17: that's subjective. The entire point of that statement you quoted is that some people may simply dislike Mozart's music because it doesn't offer them particular preferred sounds. Perhaps it's just not their cup of tea, in terms of style and such (seeing as you prefer music which invokes certain feelings, as you say). However, great composers and musicians are great, not because their music is so good that everyone loves it, regardless of personal preferences and styles, but because it's well-written. And well-written music is often enjoyed by most people, even if there are some who dislike it in a subjective way. And I would say that most people who can appreciate classical music would agree that Mozart is a great composer, just as Bach or Beethoven. Those three composers clearly had musical talent and an ability to fashion a song in a very well-written manner.

Therefore, even if I perhaps prefer Mozart's cut and dry child-like melodies to Beethoven's overtly emotional romantic pieces, is that really enough reason for me to go around saying that Beethoven is overrated and probably isn't as great a composer as people think? Clearly, it is not. You don't claim that someone is or isn't great, based on subjectivity, because whether or not you personally like their music doesn't make it great or bad. And that's everyone's problem: everyone thinks they're a damn critic, but most people just have preferences and styles and don't entirely notice musical pieces as a form of art to be judged in terms of how it is written, not in terms of subjective preference.

So, since I wouldn't go around claiming that any composer who I don't personally enjoy is overrated, just because most people enjoy his/her well-written music, you guys should do the same. Look at things from a higher point of view. Don't think, "How does Mozart make ME feel?" Think, "Is this music fashioned in a creative, intelligent manner, according to the various theoretical constructions we've learned by studying music, such as form, rhythm, meter, pitch, and so on?" By looking at music from an intelligent point of view, rather than simply judging music based on how it subjectively makes you feel, you gain a more objective, intelligent appreciation for it. And I think most people who claim that Mozart is overrated probably don't have really profound, intelligent reasons for asserting this, but instead subjective preferences, because that's all I saw in this thread the whole time.

But, if someone steps up and writes a very nice mini-essay on how Mozart's music ISN'T well-written, by analytically evaluating his written material from a theoretical point of view, I'd be glad to hear what they have to say, because only then would they have taken the time to truly look at the music in terms of construction, rather than in terms of "Does this music make me feel good, or is it just poopy that I personally don't prefer?" -- because that is no way to judge a musician or artist.

 

[5k17]

I did not mean to say that Mozart is objectively bad. In fact, I think art cannot be objectively judged as good or bad. A piece of art may fail to express what it is meant to express, and everyone - including the artist - may see it as the worst work of art ever created, but that does not make it bad; the terms good and bad describe an object's suitability to fulfill an objectively and universally defined purpose, which does not exist for art.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I disagree. I think Music can be analyzed, like art, based on our intelligent understanding of the craft — forms, shapes, structures, placement, ect. Usually, there's a theoretical connection between what makes most sense to do in a piece of music and what is actually perceived as favorable to an audience. Hence, music theory/musicology. People essentially study music by looking at patterns and why some musical pieces are basically viewed as bad, while others are perceived as good. And I'm sure any music theorist would easily tell anyone who asks that there is clearly a connection between basic intellectual principles in music and whether or not a musical piece is considered well-written or not. Hence, whether or not a musical piece is actually well-written depends on its theoretical structure, and those which are usually perceived as well-written are usually well-received, while those which aren't well-received are usually views as theoretically not-so-well-written.

Obviously, this is merely humans attempting to make sense of music and how it's perceived (hence, music THEORY), but the connections do generally stand up well. Therefore, in some sense it's obvious that music interpretation is never completely objective. But intellectual, critical evaluative analysis of musical pieces is closer to objectivity than merely preferring highly emotional music to generally less-emotional music (which tends to be one of the largest subjective distinctions people make in judging different pieces of music). \\

Thus, I will say it now and one thousand times more for all eternity, so that even the deaf and dead may hear me: music such as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and The Beatles is universally well-written, from a theoretical point of view, and this explains why they are generally well enjoyed by the general masses the world over (even if many people don't prefer all of them, since preference has nothing to do with whether or not a piece is well-written, as I already said).

Therefore, anyone who feels that Mozart is overrated is simply expressing and projecting their personal, subjective impressions, most likely. Although, as I said, perhaps someone can argue that Mozart's music isn't well-written, from a theoretical point of view, which I'd love to hear. But I really doubt most people who feel that Mozart is overrated actually have such analysis at hand.

This entire "music can't be viewed objectively" stuff is just ignorance of music theory. Surely, music can't be interpreted entirely objectively, as I said; but that DOES NOT! mean that music interpretation is always limited to subjective preference, because that's entirely false.

Sure, we can argue that music is perceived differently according to culture, but that's a different matter. I'm clearly speaking from the Western tradition, in which case tonal music is generally preferred (and all of the essential aspects of music theory).

 

[soulrebel]

I hate Mozart. I know he was a genius and all but his music sounds all the same to me. He lacks everything I like about music. I find it unrealistically happy and boring.
I just hate that era with passion.

I've seen two of his operas (forced by my mother) both equally annoying and depressingly happy.
So yes he is overrated according to my taste in music.
Grieg is so much better!! yet few people know of him

 

[A22]

I like his music. I think Chopin is overrated. I don't have arguments like his notes are out of tune I just think his music isn't as good as Beethoven's, Bach's or even Mozart's.

 

[BigApplePi]

I don't think in terms of overrating or underrating. I just want to know what they are. Since I have never studied music all I have is a subjective impression.

Bach - some of his stuff has me feeling I died and went to heaven. I can't believe he does this.
Beethoven - I love the emotions he evokes and the drama he produces. How does he do that?
Mozart - My reaction is brilliance. He is brilliant.
Popular music - produces emotion but falls short in drama. Too often the meaning is handed to you.

 

[Xayna]

Personally, I think that Mozart is overrated. His music lacks the spark and feeling that other musicians capture so well. I think Mozart focused so intently on the technical aspect of his work, that he completely disregarded the emotional aspect. In my opinion, the only thing that makes Mozart great is the fact that he wrote so much. The quality of his work leaves much to be desired.

 

[Nocturne]

I'd say Mozart's music is too elegant and dainty. I naturally prefer Beethoven (his symphonies), Schumann, and Chopin's works.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Mozart makes too many fart jokes.

 

[Systems]

Too many notes..


On an more serious note, I find his works (what I've heard of it at least) beautiful. It touches upon something deep inside me.. It has that quality that, to me, only classical music can deliver. I also adore Chopin, Beethoven and Rachmaninoff. Although they all have a style very different to that of Mozarts', it is the feeling of the music, the breathtaking courage that it shows with its sincerity, that makes me a lover of such music.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I like his music. I think Chopin is overrated. I don't have arguments like his notes are out of tune I just think his music isn't as good as Beethoven's, Bach's or even Mozart's.

I only like a few of Chopin's songs, so I may agree with you slightly (even if I still think Chopin's few masterpieces may slightly justify his status). I just don't think Chopin is anywhere near the level of genius as the other great composers listed. Their music is much better crafted and generally enjoyable.

I don't think in terms of overrating or underrating. I just want to know what they are. Since I have never studied music all I have is a subjective impression.

Bach - some of his stuff has me feeling I died and went to heaven. I can't believe he does this.
Beethoven - I love the emotions he evokes and the drama he produces. How does he do that?
Mozart - My reaction is brilliance. He is brilliant.
Popular music - produces emotion but falls short in drama. Too often the meaning is handed to you.

Subjectivity is alright when it's straight-forward. It's only a problem when people assert it in some serious manner, so that the rest of us should seriously consider what's being said, as we if we're listening to actual arguments.

But ignoring that, I generally agree with your view of things. Bach seems very divine or esteemed (although Mozart almost makes me feel this way with his Lacrimosa - sounds like I'm listening to God [if there was one, as I'm an atheist]). I also somewhat enjoy Beethoven's depth of emotion; it's astounding. And yeah, Mozart is pure brilliance. Most people, even if they lived 1000 years or more, probably couldn't find even the smallest amount of genius required to place notes in an order Mozart was uniquely capable of generating.

And yeah, popular music does somewhat lack drama (but not always). Usually, the meaning is simply condensed and packaged, while with classical music, it's much more extended and outdrawn. Nice post. =p

I'd say Mozart's music is too elegant and dainty. I naturally prefer Beethoven (his symphonies), Schumann, and Chopin's works.

I agree that Mozart's music, like Bach's, is elegant. It's refined, polished, and pretty. Perfect word to choose. Although, while I enjoy Beethoven's dramatic emotional power, depth, even sensitivity at times, I generally prefer Mozart's flare, technicality, and precision (similar to Bach). Both are great.

 

[ideae]

His Requiem is astounding.

 

[nexion]

I am more partial to Beethoven, Vivaldi, Chopin, and Debussy, at least from what I have heard thus far.

 

[snafupants]

The Beatles and Bob Dylan are overrated too but they were the first to do many things.

Also, influential impact counts for something, although that's somewhat up in the air.

 

[fissionesque]

The thing about Mozart is that his music the epitome of classical perfection. Every note is placed exactly where it should be. His harmony is pretty simplistic compared to most modern composers. Even Bach exhibits more complex dissonance than Mozart ever did. But that's the beauty of it, love it or hate it (and there are plenty of musicians who dislike Mozart).

But don't be fooled. While many of his melodies may be simplistic to the naked ear, they're actually quite genius. He has a tendency to put the musician in many awkward positions trying to find the next note. Many of his piano Sonatas may start out simple enough, but morph into a great show of musical pyrotechnics. I'd also have to say that while on the surface, his music may sound happy, playful, childish, that is not always quite so true. If you really take a good listen to his fantasias, you'll find a really fucked up soul. But take a gander at this. It's really gorgeous rendition of his sonata no. 11 played by Ivo Pogorelich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FRO3nIFfCs

I only like a few of Chopin's songs, so I may agree with you slightly (even if I still think Chopin's few masterpieces may slightly justify his status). I just don't think Chopin is anywhere near the level of genius as the other great composers listed. Their music is much better crafted and generally enjoyable.

You had me for so long, until this. Chopin was quite the genius. His style was very innovative and further developed many different genres of pieces. For instance, he was the first to use ballades and scherzi as a standalone piece (which would definitely be included among his masterpieces. Aside from that, his harmonies were extremely innovative, but not so jarring due to his gift for melody. He was also very technically adept at the piano and introduced a lot of technique that was completely unheard of before its time (try his 10 etudes). I'm not trying to convince you to like Chopin, but I would just have to say that he was much more of a genius than some may give him credit for.