Very good and pointed examples from Mr. Gould, musically I agree with him, Mozart's earlier works are more satisfying. However, for me my two favorites are G.F. Handel, and J.S. Bach.

The Fantasia in F minor, K. 608, is an astounding work that should easily rank among the best Baroque examples in the form, among many other works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jgo8uyfbcU

MJO

I am not trying to convince you of anything... just presenting food for thought on matters musical. I am sure you and many will always love Mozart and continue to perform and listen to his works and those of his contemporaries. More power to you.

I haven't watched the 38 minute clip yet, but I love the hilarious comments of others under the clip! Of all the things I missed most this past summer, it was not being able to hear the Boston Symphony play Mozart at Tanglewood. I know it sounds "very upcrust" which I am not, but it is true. The opening bass run of the Jupiter is so thrilling!

Francis, I tinck a tcertain doctor I know might be able to help you witt zat problem uff yours.

If purely harmonic interest is all you are looking for in Mozart, then certainly look elsewhere

Yes... I am always looking elsewhere...

...and for me, you have to add in melody too. The constant running up and down the scales with chromatic appogiaturas to add interest is like smelling common perfume. Once you leave the immediate sense, there is nothing that remains.

As per form, from my vantage point, Mozart is akin to staring at a simple musical "cube". It holds no interest for me whatsoever. I guess the element of predictability is the falling off for me.

Later music? There is no later music that interests me except for perhaps a few... Stravinsky, Faure, Debussy, Poulenc and Barber. Maybe a bit of Copland, but not much. Glass' later works are intriguing to me, even though they are quite minimalist. I think it is the trance aspect that I click into. Really like Holst planets!

I have an extremely narrow taste in music I suppose. Just being honest.

@Richard Mix

Listen to 40:00 - 42:00 for about ten times in a row.

@sdtalley3

for me my two favorites are G.F. Handel, and J.S. Bach.

Baroque... the height of musical dev, then down the hill we went.

Preeictable?These color changes? Really?

I absolutely love counterpoint and cannot get enough of it. There's something that really intrigues me in the interaction of individual voices/melodies working together to bring out a work of art that makes my brain work.

There's a video on Youtube of the Sanctus form Palestrina's "Missa ut re mi fa sol" done by the Cambridge Singers, an absolute piece of art in performance, but in the comments section, some person remarked about how boring such pieces were...Maybe they missed the point of such musical writing, but it was something commonly understood back in that century.

I always thought the greater part of Mozart's work revolved about the intricacies of formal and thematic, rather than harmonic or contrapuntal, structure.

In particular, Mozart has always seemed to me able to retire compelling thematic / melodic material before it becomes stale.

And then, of course, his vivid power of invention and imagination. His one-offs often easily surpass lesser composers' studied efforts. As, for example, the unexpected couplets in the Rondeau I linked above. As a friend of mine once put it in a way that the often rudely humorous composer might have appreciated, examples of Mozart "mooning [us] with his talent."

And of the period generally -- by fully abstracting harmony from its occurrence in contrapuntal lines (a process that had been in progress through the Baroque, where we see the very deliberate harmonic rhythm of 18c. counterpoint and the consequences of figured bass), it lays the groundwork for compellingly different approaches to music.

Ultimately, too, I think this abstraction lays the groundwork for one of the more enriching musical experiences of liturgy: properly accompanied chant. The harmonic structures that were discovered and arose from what was initially a polyphonic treatment of the plainsong melodies can now be applied by an instrumentalist, in this case an organist, in a way that completely respects the rhythmic and melodic integrity of the chant line, yielding the very best of genitoris and geniti alike.

MJO

The problem is the periods BEFORE the classical were filled with the wonder and intricacy of the height of musical development in my mind, and it seems that music went backwards once the baroque period had ended... perhaps music going forward is more built on emotion and feeling than intellect and introspective meditation, and the incredible beauty of contrapuntal devices. I guess you could use the word boring, but I just consider it to be utterly simple. Perhaps its all about melody with an accompaniment to which NihilNominis alludes.

Baroque form was very local though, and did not really permit coherent individual movements of longer than six or seven minutes. The Classical conception of form as a harmonic and thematic, rather than mainly contrapuntal, idea is what permitted the 20–30-minute movements of Brahms and Bruckner (to say nothing of Beethoven)

I agree that the galant period was a great blow to quality music—how fortunate, then, that Haydn was mostly isolated from its pettiness and Mozart availed himself of all the Bach he could get his hands on.

Francis, as to your opening post, I agree that Mozart doesn't need to be heard. I would argue that no composer's music needs to be heard. But IMHO, if it is music, then it ought to be heard, if only for the perspective of another soul's having given it breath. It is art, and music is one of the many voices through which God speaks most profoundly to me. Our tastes are influenced by what we hear. In your case, Mozart doesn't thrill you and that's okay. In my case, some music doesn't do it for me, but depending on my mood, I am willing to try almost anything. I enjoy most everything including my own output. I enjoyed the Glen Gould video very much. Thanks for beginning this conversation.

one has comprehended with utter thoroughness the harmonic vocabulary and formal procedures of a given epoch or composer all (if that is all one looks for in musci) is as predictable (and, therefore, as boring) as your estimation of Moazrt's music. (How unfortunate!)

I guess your perspective of unfortunate says that I have missed something valuable or desirable. Perhaps you can enlighten me further since you embrace it. I am always open minded and willing to hear other perspectives. So far this thread has not convinced me of anything different than I already perceive.

One you-tuber put it well:

Glenn gould: created clickbait before the USB mouse was invented.

If I wish to provoke I'd prefer to stand up for someone like Gounod. Blind spots I find more embarrassing, whether in others or myself: a big one for me has been Handel, though having conducted 14 Messiahs I should probably finally turn in my bah humbug card.
S. Richter stated his guiding principle as the more the listener is surprised, the better. If Mozart can't surprise you, we can still be friends but must regard each other as a bit peculiar.

Peculiars, indeed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4ZKQu6SsMs&list=PL_ylV_znAs4D1QxBJeoxYp1qpqfBNmlcm&index=186

Charles, I've watched this multiple times and really enjoy it! But then again, I probably qualify for peculiar!

My daughter read the book, left it where my father could get it, and, despite being diagnosed with dementia, he seemed to read about 30 pages of it intently

Amen to that, Greg -
For me, whoever is the greatest depends on the day, week, or month in which I am moved toward this or that composer or period. My first love, though, was Mozart. The first time I heard no. 29 in A changed my brain and my life. I could whistle, hum, or sing most any instrumental part of most of his (and Beethoven's) greater symphonies before I went to university. My first concerto was the highly innovative and fascinating no. 24 in d-minor. As for the Sanctus of the Requiem, there has never been its equal as evocative of the heavens opening up to reveal the heavenly host in unbounded praise, splendour, and ecstacy while bathed in the Eternal Light. And, in all of musicdom there is no utter poetic charm such as what Mozart does with an oboe in a slow movement (though Brahms would be a close runner up).
I must admit, though, that Mozart's Ave Verum, gem that it is, is overdone, over marveled at, and doesn't hold a candle to Byrd's.
And, while Gould's playing is fascinating and ingenious, it is highly subjective and idiosyncratic, and is neither Bach nor any of the others whom he played. He was a marvel all unto himself. And, yes, his writings are most stimulating and thought provoking.

OK... I don't ever listen to his music, but had to go hear this since you mentioned it.

https://youtu.be/YuBeBjqKSGQ

or perhaps this version?

https://youtu.be/pZcaf9GfyWs

text

Hell's vengeance boils in my heart,
Death and despair blaze about me!
If Sarastro does not through you feel the pains of death,
Then you will be, no!, my daughter nevermore:

Disowned be you forever,
Abandoned be you forever,
Destroyed be forever
All the bonds of nature.

If not through you Sarastro will turn pale!
Hear, gods of revenge, hear the mother's oath!

ouch!

I think so, too. All the ticket sales revenue was donated to charity. Like she said, "they may say I couldn't sing, but they can't say I didn't sing."

Words would be the only claim to anything religious.

Given that Mozart formed a style in Salzburg and moved later to Vienna, it would be less implausible to assert that Der Hölle Rache is only faking theatricality.
To compare apples to pears and oranges to tangarines, it's more instructive to put the sternflammende Königin side by side with Dies irae, or
the confident opening of Exsultate next to a display of rejoicing in a benevolent secular lord Almaviva.

Well, "I've heard" the earth is flat, but will you at least allow us to consider a source?

Seems a bit like making plains (not mountains) out of molehills.