Although I will mention some compelling discussions from grad school about beauty vs. sublimity. I found these quite interesting, as the "sublime" is not a category I've ever considered (or understood).

In short, the philosophical distinction made was that "beauty" is consonance and eupony. It's a major triad, a natural text-setting, a predictable periodic phrase structure. "Sublimity" is mystery, majesty, and shock. Sudden changes, dramatic effect, unexpected stasis.

I dare to say that chant has a combination of these qualities, though I find it more sublime than beautiful. Beauty is not mysterious; it is simple and perfect.

As fascinated as I am by musical philosophical discussion, I find it quite useless in the real world. If someone likes "On Eagle's Wings", I don't engage that person in a philosophical discussion. I just say, "That's garbage music," and refuse to do it.

I think that "goodness of form" is a sine qua non of the Beautiful. Thanks for bringing that into the discussion!

If someone likes "On Eagle's Wings", I don't engage that person in a philosophical discussion. I just say, "That's garbage music," and refuse to do it.

Well, I agree with you, although your methodology is....ahhh........less than diplomatic. Say you're having that discussion with a friend, then respond. Iggle's--to me--is "pretty," rather than Beautiful.

In a (very) charitable moment one might say that the paintings of Kinkaid are pretty, as opposed to those of Monet (or....), which are beautiful. On some days I am even almost tempted to regard the work of Watteau as pretty rather than beautiful. Beauty, in fact, may be not at all pretty; for instance, Goya's illustrations of the horrors of the Napoleonic occupation of Spain. Pretty somehow manages to stay just on the right side of the good-bad taste line, most often, just barely. Pretty's appeal is to surface emotion, rarely to the intellect, and it has no intellectual substance. Beauty is like an icon: it speaks of more than meets the eye.

Doily music. Interesting analogy. I wouldn't, though, agree that Mozart is doily music. Thinking that there isn't genuine substance even to Eine kleine... would be to dismiss what merely appears to be purely surface content. Mozart, in contrast to lesser clacissists, is very deep, often profound, and never just pretty.
But, back to doily music. Let's see: I don't think that we could call the sacro-pop idiom so prevalent in our churches either pretty, or doily music... maybe, um, oil cloth???

Ernest Hello, the sadly unknown French philosopher and theologian argues that Beauty possesses of itself Truth beyond its present moment.

My .02

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Mystery, majesty, purity, simplicity = Beauty (Gregorian chant falls into this category)

appealing to a nostalgic sense and emotional without substance?= Pretty. (Eagles wings)

I just say, "That's garbage music," and refuse to do it."

Golly, I just can't figure out why people think CMAA'ers are snobs! Surely no one could be insulted by such a comment.

Charles -
In your zeal to scuttle whatever paltry value there might have been in my above remarks, you, yourself, have provided a telling example of the perils of mistaking appearance for the substance of beauty, which is, in addition, evidence that real beauty is not always 'pretty'. You allude to two women: the actress Elizabeth Taylor, and the noted Helen Keller. One of these women (you can decide which) was considered by quite a few to be 'beautiful'. The other was not at all pretty or 'beautiful'. The first was, though, not at all a very beautiful person (she actually chalked up almost as many husbands as Henry VIIIth had wives!), while the second was, by a higher standard of judgment, quite beautiful in the many ways that really matter. You have, perhaps not unwittingly (?), provided us with a pungent example of true beauty! Further, I did not equate artistic beauty only with art of earlier times. You are quite right: the XXth century has, in its revolutionary way, given us much beauty (as well as much over-rated pop-art rubish - you mention Warhol, for instance) in the works of quite a number of modern artists whose work (Klee, Miro, Matisse, Chagal, for instance, not to mention the great PP) has defined the art of our two centuries; and which, lest one be deceived or patently incorrect, has surprising antecedents and inspirations in our great art of past epochs.
Best regards -
Jackson

And, back to Mozart. It would seem to me that his music may be a case of surface beauty being so utterly scintillating, so extraordinarily, delightfully pleasurable both to intellect and emotion that one may, while entranced with this mantle of exquisite perfection, be led prematurely to conclude that there is nothing more. Of course, if this does not lead one to apprehend that there is much more in daring of form, tonality, rhythm, dynamic, and every measure of profound musical creative genius characteristic of the late XVIIIth century in substantial organic unity with the captivating outer garment, which is but the radiance of the inner reality, then one has, indeed, mistaken the raiment for the even more gorgeous entity beneath it. One cannot but admit that some of his very early work is, in a word, 'child's play'. But not much time had elapsed to reveal him to be a rare poet, an unparalleled master of musical craft, and a innovator who opened the door to Beethoven - though, one hastens to add: his greatness was not that he opened doors through which for giants to enter, but it was, indeed, sui generis, self-evident, and self-sufficient. It is well known that Brahms wrote some less than perfect things and destroyed them all, leaving us nothing but masterpieces. Mozart, on the other hand, had no need to destroy anything: it was all pretty much perfect. Scratching below the surface will reveal this. (Still, I like his masses only as sacred musical works, as Geistliche konzerten - pardon my German - not as liturgy.)

Dad29: oddly enough, the three pieces you cite are three of the pieces by Mozart I actually enjoy listening to - add to that list Cosi, Figaro and the missae brevis, and you have Mozart 'likes'. Oh, and add Clarinet Quintet & Clarinet Concerto.

So what we are saying is that Mozart does or does not exemplify beauty! I am confused.

Not related to any particular comments as of yet, but just to add to the discussion: I have come to believe that one with some true ability in music (or this can also be extended to any art) should - if they are as skilled as they claim - be able to find beauty even in a work they don't particularly like or enjoy.

If I remember properly, Charles is an oboist so there might be some bias there (for me with the clar concerto, there definitely is! *purple bold, can't really do that with my phone*

Thank you. I feel better now.