Were Mozart und Beethoven that great? Or just really popular?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The title says it all.

I need the musically educated JWFan to provided objective analysis! Were they that great? How do they compare technically to their contemporaries, but also people who came much much later like Prokofiev or Stravinsky or John Williams?

[Henry B 50]

Yeah... yeah, they were.

[Brónach 1,302]

I can't get into Mozart.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Depends on what you listen from them. Most people know Mozart for his "happy" pieces and most know Beethoven for either his 5th Symphony of the 9th Symphony. And they like that stuff because it's easy to listen, it isn't really challenging.

However, when you listen to some true personal pieces by this two geniuses you realise that without them (and Bach, too) music as we know it wouldn't exist. Wheter you like them or not, they were ahead of its time.

Beethoven practically invented the Romanticism and Mozart's Requiem changed the whole music game around.

They are only over-rated in the sense that people know them and automatically assume they were great. It's like when people hear Williams most famous works (Jaws, Superman, Star Wars, Indy) and don't really explore further from that.

Sure, their popular works are great, but it's only when you hear, as I said, their true personal pieces that you realise that these guys were truly awesome.

Listen to Stravinksy, Profokiev, Mussorgsky, Wagner too... Those guys were true geniuses too.

[Richard Penna 3,683]

Classical has to (mostly) revolve around a theme or motif for me to enjoy it. There are exceptions, but generally I struggle to enjoy long drawn out pieces.

I have Mozart's Horn Concerto and Rondo Alla Turca.

The difference with film music being that there's an accompanying image or emotion for which the composer is under direction.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I can really get into Beethoven, some Mozart, but not much else.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The fact that their music has survived tell you something about how good they were.

If they were technically better then more modern composers in a stupid question.

[Brónach 1,302]

If they were technically better then more modern composers in a stupid question.

I disagree. You can't just start dimissing great composers just because they are more modern.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is that what I said?

[Brónach 1,302]

Wait, isn't it? I thought you were stating they where technically better than more modern composers, because, well... for some reason.

[Henry B 50]

I mean, the thing about Baroque and Classical composers is that, as film music fans, we tend to look for recognizable themes and leitmotifs. And there are few to be found. The real wonder of this music is in the details. Mozart's little two-bar melodies aren't interesting - the almost limitless ways in which he weaves them throughout his music are. Mozart was also a master dramatist; if you can get past the language barrier the operas are really fun.

[Joe Brausam 214]

As some people have said, nearly every Mozart composition is an opera unto itself, whether it be a real opera or a piano sonata. Each work has its own musical characters.

As for looking for themes in music, in a lot of ways, at least to me, the classical era was probably more thematic than our film scores! Themes and their development was so much a part of the structure of many works.

You can't compare them to composers of today because composition and what is accepted has changed so much since then. They were beyond many of their contemporaries and made contributions to the development of music that changed the course of musical history - without them it isn't a stretch to say that music really WOULD be different today. They're popular for a good reason.

[Thor 7,491]

I think some of you missed the point. It wasn't about whether or not we liked or disliked their output, but why they have become such cornerstones in musical history (which they still are, whether or not you like them).

I'm not a musicologist myself, but Mozart's legacy lies in many arenas - he popularized forms that had become somewhat archaic in the baroque era, for example, and inserted a wider emotional range into them. Beethoven, on his end, ushered in the era of romanticism. He also became more and more personal and more and more intellectual in his style as he grew older and as his personal issues (like deafness) took their hold.

As some have pointed out already, western art music wouldn't exist without these guys. And Bach.

I'm a fan of all, for different reasons.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wait, isn't it? I thought you were stating they where technically better than more modern composers, because, well... for some reason.

No, what I mean is that directly comparing modern composers from composers who lived hundreds of years ago is not really that bright.

It's like comparing apples with oranges.

[Brónach 1,302]

Wait, isn't it? I thought you were stating they where technically better than more modern composers, because, well... for some reason.

No, what I mean is that directly comparing modern composers from composers who lived hundreds of years ago is not really that bright.

It's like comparing apples with oranges.

I completeoy misunderstood you, then.

I thought the same. I wonder what would be Mozart's reaction to jazz music.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Wait, isn't it? I thought you were stating they where technically better than more modern composers, because, well... for some reason.

No, what I mean is that directly comparing modern composers from composers who lived hundreds of years ago is not really that bright.

It's like comparing apples with oranges.

So then I can't compare Hans Zimmer to Bernard Herrmann because they are from different periods?

What's the cut off for this? 50 years? 100 years? 200? HOW MANY YEARS DOES IT TAKE STEEFEN?!

[Sandor 797]

And music is still music. The modern composers we refer to even write for basically the same instruments. So yeah, there is definately a basis for comparison. It's not like we're comparing Mozart to GWAR...

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm not musically trained but my ear is. And it tells that Beethovan and Mozart wipe the floor with pretty much everyone ever since.

[Swordfish392 3]

Does anyone know mozarts "Dissonanzen-Quartett"?

This guy realy was ahead of his time.

But genius or not, at the end of the day I prefer listening to contempoary music...(however the classic stuff is realy great if not indispensable for study)

[Brónach 1,302]

I'm not musically trained but my ear is. And it tells that Beethovan and Mozart wipe the floor with pretty much everyone ever since.

And yet, they didn't write Close Encounters!

I know I know, maybe I'm being unfair there.

The thing is, I think people like Herrmann and Williams could write stuff kinda like Mozart if they wanted, but the comparison doesn't work the other way around.

[A24 4,331]

Everything from before the 20th century isn't all that interesting. Who's with me?

[Brónach 1,302]

Everything from before the 20th century isn't all that interesting. Who's with me?

As a long time listener os the 19th Russian composers I have to disagree!

[Josh500 1,615]

I am a big fan of Beethoven. Some of his pieces are mind-blowingly good, and not just the 5th and 9th symphonies. I like his sonatas and Piano Concertos as well.

However, out of the "classical" composers, I admire Chopin the most, though he composed mostly for the piano (not orchestra).

[Wojo 2,453]

If they were technically better then more modern composers IS a stupid question.

"Is," not "in." The sentence needed a verb, hence the confusion.

I thought you were stating they where technically better than more modern composers, because, well... for some reason.

No, what I mean is that directly comparing modern composers from composers who lived hundreds of years ago is not really that bright.

It's like comparing apples with oranges.

So then I can't compare Hans Zimmer to Bernard Herrmann because they are from different periods?

What's the cut off for this? 50 years? 100 years? 200? HOW MANY YEARS DOES IT TAKE STEEFEN?!

I think what Steef meant is something to the effect of "don't let all the cultural elitist snobs who only listen to classical music say that the classical composers are technically better than modern composers simply because their music is older and thus has stood the test of time."

It's a flawed argument because film music is so much newer than classical music, and has not become engrained into the culture the way classical music has. A few of the greatest film composers are still living, and those that aren't have been dead no more than a few decades. The greatest classical composers have been dead for at least a century, and their music has had so much longer to become accepted as some of the best music of all time. Classical music is still being performed by symphony orchestras and played on public radio and television, with Mozart and Beethoven easily serving as the metrics to which all other instrumental music of that type is compared.

There are certainly at least three camps. One group of people will only listen to classical music, and dismiss instrumental film music as being a sappy, trite knock-off. Another camp -- many people here -- need on themes to hold their attention, dismiss classical music as being too cerebral, and will only listen to film music.

It's the third camp that will shape the future: the "normal" people who don't use either as their primary source of musical enjoyment. These are the people who will someday, in a few generations when Williams and Morricone and the last few good film composers are gone, think of their music in the same breath as Mozart and Beethoven, just because it's all wordless. I'm sure it pained many composers and their hardcore critics to see ballet and opera music lumped in with more serious symphonic fare, and nowadays, the lines are blurred. In a century, instrumental film music will naturally fall into that category.

But here's another question. When Mozart and Beethoven were alive and still composing, who was their audience? Who could afford music? Before the radio and phonograph allowed the lower classes of people to enjoy music in their own homes, all they had were live performances. Certainly Williams and other film composers have been more accessible at the time of their composing with so many people having access to movies, TV, and CD shops, while Beethoven and Mozart wrote for the elite who could afford to visit the symphony. Probably the best exposure that the lower class got to "classical" music was Bach in church.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

The thing is, I think people like Herrmann and Williams could write stuff kinda like Mozart if they wanted, but the comparison doesn't work the other way around.

Not really a good comparison. Herrmann and Williams LEARND from Mozart. Of course they are able to build on what he came up with 200 years ago. And yet, I couldn't imagine either of them writing something like Figaro.

[Brónach 1,302]

The thing is, I think people like Herrmann and Williams could write stuff kinda like Mozart if they wanted, but the comparison doesn't work the other way around.

Not really a good comparison. Herrmann and Williams LEARND from Mozart. Of course they are able to build on what he came up with 200 years ago. And yet, I couldn't imagine either of them writing something like Figaro.

Ok, it's a bad comparison.

That's why I really don't find a way to compare them other than "I like this more than that!", because the modern have tools the old didn't have and have gone where the old wouldn't go, but the modern had actually to learn from the old and wouldn't exist without them.

[Score 770]

There are certainly at least three camps. One group of people will only listen to classical music, and dismiss instrumental film music as being a sappy, trite knock-off. Another camp -- many people here -- need on themes to hold their attention, dismiss classical music as being too cerebral, and will only listen to film music.

It's the third camp that will shape the future: the "normal" people who don't use either as their primary source of musical enjoyment. These are the people who will someday, in a few generations when Williams and Morricone and the last few good film composers are gone, think of their music in the same breath as Mozart and Beethoven, just because it's all wordless. I'm sure it pained many composers and their hardcore critics to see ballet and opera music lumped in with more serious symphonic fare, and nowadays, the lines are blurred. In a century, instrumental film music will naturally fall into that category.

I don't agree too much with this observation. "Themes" occur everywhere in classical music, this is not the point. The point is that classical music, in general, does not focus only on the themes themselves, but also on their development, which is done to achieve a coherent whole, able to convey some kind of message (which can also be the beauty of the themes itself). In other words, classical compositions generally rely a lot on the musical form. Beethoven was an extraordinary musical genius because he had a (probably) unsurpassed ability to develop simple themes into constructions of supreme greatness - in his music, the development is often more important than the themes.

In film music there is the important constriction dictated by the form of the movie. The form of the musical cue is not so important, as long as it goes well with the portion of film that it must score. Or, at least, the form is not the composer's primary focus. This can affect the qualities of film music: a nice theme could only benefit from a good formal treatment (in the classical sense), but the occasions to do this are quite rare, and this is probably the reason why many cues are not so interesting if separated from the movie. I'm quite sure that this is the reason why a part of the classically-trained musicians are not interested in this field.

When a film composer has the possibility (which depends on the film) and the ability and musical culture (which depend on him) to elaborate themes within an arc of one or more cues in a way such that their communicative possibilities are fully exploited, then the miracle happens and the film music "strikes" the attention of the listener, giving him a message. I think John Williams is great because he knows how to do that, and he does it when he is allowed.

The other aspect, of course, is related to the technical means used to convey the message: melody, harmony and orchestration. For these aspects, I am sure that no classically-trained musician can disagree on the fact that Williams, Goldsmith, Herrmann, Korngold, Rozsa, and others, are/were great masters. But comparing them to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven does not make sense, for the reasons that have already been reported. The latter worked in a completely different environment, with different musical means and different goals. The musical theory, the musical taste and even the musical instruments have evolved too much since their era. Thinking that the present masters are better because their orchestrations or their harmonies are more eleborated is not fair (and not true, in my opinion). It would be like thinking that an average contemporary physicist, since he knows quantum mechanics, is better than Newton, because he did know it, so he "knew less".

[Brónach 1,302]

The other aspect, of course, is related to the technical means used to convey the message: melody, harmony and orchestration. For these aspects, I am sure that no classically-trained musician can disagree on the fact that Williams, Goldsmith, Herrmann, Korngold, Rozsa, and others, are/were great masters. But comparing them to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven does not make sense, for the reasons that have already been reported. The latter worked in a completely different environment, with different musical means and different goals. The musical theory, the musical taste and even the musical instruments have evolved too much since their era. Thinking that the present masters are better because their orchestrations or their harmonies are more eleborated is not fair (and not true, in my opinion). It would be like thinking that an average contemporary physicist, since he knows quantum mechanics, is better than Newton, because he did know it, so he "knew less".

Ah! This! I was basically trying to say this. Great comparison.

[Wojo 2,453]

Thanks for totally misreading my post.

[Score 770]

Thanks for totally misreading my post.

Only the initial part of my reply was addressed to your post. I was only meaning that I don't think the difference between classical and film music is the occurrence of themes, which are present in both. From your post, I think you implied that people who listen only to film music ignore classical because there are less "themes". If you meant that in classical music themes are not always the main focus, then we agree. And I said that in my opinion people who listen only to classical music ignore film music because they often perceive the lack of form, which is different from what you said. The last part of my reply was just my opinion on the main subject of this thread, I thought it was clear.

However, there's no need to take things personally, it was just a comment

[Wojo 2,453]

Fair enough.

[Williamsfan301 11]

I think something to remember is what Mozart and Beethoven were in there time. The problem with Mozart is separating Amadeus the real person from Amadeus the movie. Mozart, although popular, was also really seen as a bit of a freak. Paraded around by his father to make the family money. When I teach the life of Mozart in my Music Survey classes, I often liken it to the life of Michael Jackson. They're pretty similar. And Mozart was popular, but only in Germany. Outside of Germany, his music was considered "barbarous" and "unrefined." And, even at that, he had a hard time making it in Vienna. He wanted the steady work and income a patronage job would have brought him, but he also desired great creative freedom, which the patronage system didn't bring.

Beethoven was hugely popular in his day - much more so that Mozart had been. But, so much of Beethoven was his own personality. Beethoven was able to get what Mozart couldn't - steady income, but not needing a patron to get it. But, again, so much of that was just because of his own personality, and his realization that the world had changed. By the time you get to Beethoven the middle class was well and truly rich enough that a composer didn't need a Duke or a Bishop to support you anymore. And, he wrote the emotional, powerful music that the people really wanted. Not the staid, elegant music that the gentry wanted.

When I compare the two - and this is nothing to take away from Mozart, because he was truly gifted - I always consider Beethoven the greater of the two. Mozart didn't change the world. Beethoven changed the world. The music industry as we know it is what it is because of him. Beethoven transcended everything!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I think something to remember is what Mozart and Beethoven were in there time. The problem with Mozart is separating Amadeus the real person from Amadeus the movie. Mozart, although popular, was also really seen as a bit of a freak. Paraded around by his father to make the family money. When I teach the life of Mozart in my Music Survey classes, I often liken it to the life of Michael Jackson. They're pretty similar. And Mozart was popular, but only in Germany. Outside of Germany, his music was considered "barbarous" and "unrefined." And, even at that, he had a hard time making it in Vienna. He wanted the steady work and income a patronage job would have brought him, but he also desired great creative freedom, which the patronage system didn't bring.

Beethoven was hugely popular in his day - much more so that Mozart had been. But, so much of Beethoven was his own personality. Beethoven was able to get what Mozart couldn't - steady income, but not needing a patron to get it. But, again, so much of that was just because of his own personality, and his realization that the world had changed. By the time you get to Beethoven the middle class was well and truly rich enough that a composer didn't need a Duke or a Bishop to support you anymore. And, he wrote the emotional, powerful music that the people really wanted. Not the staid, elegant music that the gentry wanted.

When I compare the two - and this is nothing to take away from Mozart, because he was truly gifted - I always consider Beethoven the greater of the two. Mozart didn't change the world. Beethoven changed the world. The music industry as we know it is what it is because of him. Beethoven transcended everything!

This is what I was thinking when I wrote up this thread. I would add to it that Mozart to me seems the musical equivalent of Charles Dickens. That's no small feat mind you, but Dickens at the end of the day wrote by the word for money. And while I would easily count Dickens (and by that token Mozart) as among the greats, within that exclusive group of greats, there's something more to the work of those who did not primarily write for money.

[Bespin 8,480]

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart have all that in common : they've taken the music "here" and bring it to "there".

Each representing a pinacle of their respective period : Bach for the baroque period, Mozart for the Classical period, and Beethoven for marking the end of classicism and the beginning of romantism.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's a very good way of putting it, actually.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

They were masters of their craft. I tend to avoid making comparisons based on anything else, really, because anything else is going to be very subjective, which is how it should be. But I doubt, whatever their tastes are, that anyone would dispute the pure craftsmanship present in the simplest piece by Beethoven, Mozart, or any of the other composers that are still remembered today. I think it's fair to say that barring unfortunate oversights, greatness is remembered. Which is why it's so pointless to try and decide what is truly "good" now.

I think it is worth noting, too, how different their crafts were. Mozart was infuriatingly good at just thinking up music. It flowed out of his brain and onto the page. Beethoven was the quintessential example of "suffering for art." Every new piece was a struggle to make something worthwhile. But the results of both are just as great.

Also, the point about them sort of "summing up" their eras is a good one. When you look at Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler... these are all guys who were wrapping up decades if not centuries of previous practice. Scarlatti, Haydn, Franck... those guys were more in the middle of things, and are less well remembered, but are no less important or great, necessarily.

[King Mark 3,631]

Beethoven's 6th symphony is the first piece of music that I loved as a kid. It got me into "orchestral music" and eventually film music

[Uni 306]

However, when you listen to some true personal pieces by this two geniuses you realise that without them (and Bach, too) music as we know it wouldn't exist. Wheter you like them or not, they were ahead of its time.

Beethoven practically invented the Romanticism and Mozart's Requiem changed the whole music game around.

Yes. If you like Williams and Goldsmith and Herrmann, you can thank Mozart, and particularly Beethoven, for it.

I mean, the thing about Baroque and Classical composers is that, as film music fans, we tend to look for recognizable themes and leitmotifs. And there are few to be found. The real wonder of this music is in the details. Mozart's little two-bar melodies aren't interesting - the almost limitless ways in which he weaves them throughout his music are. Mozart was also a master dramatist; if you can get past the language barrier the operas are really fun.

The greatness behind the legacy these guys left was the transitional nature of their music. Mozart was a critical figure in evolving Western music (through a broader expression of melody and dynamics) from the Baroque into the Classical period. Beethoven not only evolved music from Classical into the Romantic, his music was truly and completely innovative, something no one had ever heard before.

But here's another question. When Mozart and Beethoven were alive and still composing, who was their audience? Who could afford music? Before the radio and phonograph allowed the lower classes of people to enjoy music in their own homes, all they had were live performances. Certainly Williams and other film composers have been more accessible at the time of their composing with so many people having access to movies, TV, and CD shops, while Beethoven and Mozart wrote for the elite who could afford to visit the symphony. Probably the best exposure that the lower class got to "classical" music was Bach in church.

This is actually the key question—though you missed a couple of details. People tend to glom all the "classical" composers together—Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky—as a buncha dudes who wrote orchestral music a long time ago. But each was a product of their historical era, and their music reflected the wider cultural perspectives of the time. The difference between Mozart and Beethoven isn't just in form and technicality. Mozart only saw the earliest years of the Enlightenment period, which was when the "middle class" first appeared and were allowed to partake of the same music that once was reserved exclusively for the nobility (outside its use in the church, anyway). He had a sponsor early on, but when he lost that job he had to write operas to make a living.

Beethoven, on the other hand, arrived on the scene after the Enlightenment was well under way and benefited greatly from it. He was able to write music for the masses, and the masses loved it—for good reason. And as the man at the top of the heap as the Romantic period began (some music historians literally date the beginning of the Romantic period as April 7, 1805, the premiere performance of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony), he helped open the door to an even wider audience and musical perspective.

So to answer your question, Blume: They were popular, yes, but they were also beyond great. They were prodigies the world has only seen a handful of times.

- Uni

[gkgyver 1,645]

Everything from before the 20th century isn't all that interesting. Who's with me?

Insanity, most likely.

Moron.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Someone's touchy.

[Bespin 8,480]

Did you know that we use the death of Johann Sebastian Bach, in 1750, to mark the end of baroque period in music.

Respect

[nightscape94 965]

[Uni 306]

Did you know that we use the death of Johann Sebastian Bach, in 1750, to mark the end of baroque period in music.

Respect

Because Bach embodied the Baroque era, and was by far its greatest master. The transition to Classical started a little earlier than 1750, but you're right—Bach earned a sufficient measure of history's respect that no one would dream of saying the Baroque had passed until he was good and done with it.

- Uni

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They were just a 300 year fad!

[Melange 446]

Mozart was one for whom his life difficulties only made his music thrive (imo).

The more angst, time pressure and loss he had, the richer his music became.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

I'm afraid I don't much about Beethoven. I watched "A Late Quartet" recently, and, as a result, I bought Opus 131...and I like it.

Couldn't tell what it all means, though.

Mozart is a different kettle of cod. I have listened to enough of his music, and read enough by people that write, and/or write about music for a living, to be of the opinion that he simply will not be bettered, as a composer.

There has to be a cut-off point for every activity, a place where one says "there can be no better". In music, Mozart is that cut-off piont.

[mark_rayen 0]

I think it is a mistake to claim composers can not be compared due to "technological" advances in craft throughout the centuries. I would call that a rather superficial argument!

Reverting to the original question, which addresses the objective standards of our arguments, the closest I can imagine coming to objectivity would be to refer to the composer's capabilities in terms of broader artistic elements, such as musical rhetoric, inventiveness, or sheer vitality.

Mozart and Beethoven are in large part responsible for defining (along with Haydn and Bach), and more importantly, mastering the musical forms that to this day serve as the quintessential forms of music. Forms that most composers today lean on for aesthetical reference, one way or another. They exemplified the mastery and command of smaller and larger forms, from bagatelles for the piano, to major works for quartets, quintets, or orchestra. Their historical influence aside, they were artistically able to sustain audience interest in musical ideas over long stretches of time, and over severe degrees of inventive transformation. They are stylistically coherent, yet constantly innovative, transforming and expanding the horizon of their language over the course of their vast careers. There command of form reached such a level that they were able to manipulate audience expectations, allowing them to deliver not only music of an intuitive emotional strength, but one that possessed intelligent irony, humour, satire, and that posed deliberate aesthetical challenges and could take on philosophical or even political dimensions. The combination of supreme intellect, and supreme emotional depth is some of what has caused musicians of all generations to never grow tired of their work. Of course, that only scratches the surface of their accomplishments!

I would also disagree that Beethoven's 9th is "easy" to listen to! The famous choral in itself is merely a small soundbite of a much larger work. For some REAL insight into what makes the symphonies so great, check out what Hector Berlioz wrote about them in his essays, wonderful awe-inspiring stuff! http://www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm#sym9

Speaking of soundbites, the problem with a lot of film music compared to "classical" music (dislike the term classical...) is that the film medium tends to only require smaller sound bites. There are no long lines, no great semantical explorations, no broader scoped expansions of a musical material or specific musical language. In short, no ambition! It's so compressed and small, as if unfolded from within a straight-jacket. After about two to four minutes, it's usually over. Double bar. Fine. To this day the most superbly developed Hollywood film music was composed, in my opinion, by a non-film composer, Leonard Bernstein, in his grand suite from On the waterfront.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

INCOMING!!!!!

[WilliamsStarShip2282 308]

mozart (unfortunately died so young) towards the end of his life was just starting to break the mold of the "classical style" which is to say writing something in a strict form with no personal emotions injected into the music by the composer. beethoven, who was just a youngin' at the time felt differently. although his early works dont really say much besides " yes i can keep up with you dear haydn", he later went on to write some of the most beautiful music ever. the classical composers never spent so much time on their works, as tey always wrote within a pre-determined mold. beethoven however, always sought to compose new things. he was a very emotional man, and his life wasnt the greatest. im sure if shakespeare had been alive, he would have written something about him. he spent sometimes years on the same piece of music, and it shows. its full of emotion and passion, and theres a reason why hes considered the best. his music is just as beautiful today as it was then. i could sit here and write 50 pages about the two of them but you should probobly just buy some biographies. if you want to see the true genius of beethoven, study his op.111 piano sonata. specifically the second movement. the form is considered to be perfect in every way but still maintains a unique beauty and originality.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Mozart was one for whom his life difficulties only made his music thrive (imo).

The more angst, time pressure and loss he had, the richer his music became.

Like James Horner?