Why a Mozart record intended for children?

...why? I can only share his point of view, and my children give me a demonstration of this when they hear it; they become very active and participate with great joy !!

... it must be the enormous complexity of the simple and direct musical expression that distinguishes it...

Prosseda has always been a very eclectic pianist. What I am about to say might sound mean, but it isn't: in my opinion, he has implemented many strange projects solely for the sake of image recovery and publicity, and he is an excellent pianist. Because it isn't being mean... because in his place, I would have done the same. If one must hold a concert for cows to bring good music to the public, then so be it. The end justifies the means. What can I say? I love Mozart, and if market choices had to justify this publicity stunt of "music selected for children," then that is perfectly fine. It is important that children begin listening to classical music from a young age, and if the trick has to be a targeted publicity stunt, then I welcome that approach.

A friend of mine used to put a CD of Mozart's Marriage of Figaro in the car, and would let her two young children listen to this music. After a short time, when the children got into the car with her, they would ask their mother: "...Mom, put on Figaro...?" and ...everyone would sing together "Non più andrai farfallone amoroso...". How beautiful! Now those children are adults and love Music; they listen to it, they practice it. Nothing more natural, right?

... and so I will play the killjoy.

I do not love Mozart, and that is certainly the point.

That said, I am perfectly aware that putting together a CD with music by Beethoven or Bach would certainly not have the same results on three-year-olds, but if they are a few years older and perhaps musically gifted, then... things change.

Now, don't hate me dear Mozartians, but regarding the so-called Mozart effect, I am of the same opinion as Maximo Pradera - who, by the way, was born three days after me, but that is obviously of no importance - who writes in his book "Beethoven's Tenth Symphony": < In 1997 an American musicologist named Campbell published a controversial book in which he presents the theory that listening to Mozart temporarily increases IQ. Since Beethoven is Mozart cubed, I maintain that listening to his music is just as much more effective.>

Mozart is for all children and adults. His disarmingly complex simplicity is his strength! Will children like it? Yes, of course, but only some will truly like it and want to listen to it again, so not everyone—let's not delude ourselves!

danielescarpetti wrote:

I do not love Mozart and that is certainly the point.

Here, I think the point is exactly this... It is one thing to say: "I don't like Mozart," and quite another to say "Beethoven = Mozart3".

In the first case, it is a subjective statement, which honestly I struggle to understand given that even Beethoven was in love with Mozart and recognized his great genius; the second case is objective since it is even mathematically measured, and it is a false condition.

I believe that classical music is good for the spirit at all ages, regardless of the author. At 8 years old, I used to listen with great pleasure and very often to two cassettes where the fifth symphony and the ninth by LVB were recorded respectively. Obviously, I couldn't understand what lay behind them—I am sure many things escape me even now—but I enjoyed it and spent hours in front of the stereo listening to that music, remaining fascinated by it.

Educating children to listen from a tender age is very important, and it doesn't matter if it is guided listening; it would be enough just to introduce a certain type of music and let them grow up with it. Later they will make a choice, but they certainly won't avoid classical music when they are grown and won't say "what a bore." Today, on the contrary, this is exactly what happens, because for a generation born, lived, and raised with the boom-boom inside their ears, it is automatic that they cannot appreciate anything else, since they identify their music solely as that type of music.

Turning back to the subject of the post, if in order to bring music to children there is a need to show off yet another advertising gimmick, then welcome! The end justifies the means...

TheSimon wrote:

In the first case, it is a subjective statement, which I honestly struggle to understand given that even Beethoven was in love with Mozart and recognized his great genius; the second case is objective as it is even mathematically measured and is a false condition.

I believe that classical music is good for the spirit at all ages, regardless of the author. At 8 years old, I used to listen with great pleasure and very often to two cassettes where the fifth symphony and the ninth by LVB were recorded respectively. Obviously, I couldn't understand what lay behind it—I am sure many things escape me even now—but I enjoyed it and spent hours in front of the stereo listening to that music, remaining fascinated by it.

Educating children to listen from a tender age is very important, and it doesn't matter if it is guided listening; it would be enough just to introduce a certain type of music and let them grow up with it. Then they will make a choice, but they certainly won't shun classical music when they are grown and won't say "what a bore." Today, on the contrary, exactly this happens, because for a generation born, lived, and raised with the boom-boom inside their ears, it is automatic that they cannot appreciate anything else, since they identify their music solely with that type of music.

Turning back to the subject of the post, if in order to bring music to children there is a need to flaunt yet another advertising gimmick, then welcome! The end justifies the means...

My intervention was deliberately ironic, and I realize the difficulty there may be in doing so by writing rather than saying it verbally face-to-face. I used two smiley faces to try to highlight my tone, but I was sure they would not be enough to convey my spirit.

So, I will say that you, Simone, are right in a general sense, but what I wanted to convey is the spirit of a classical music listener who is tired of hearing or reading that Mozart's music is good for this and that, as if we could recommend it like a homeopathic product or something from a pharmacy.

And so we come to the point: if you tell me that listening to classical music is good in general—for our brain, to increase our culture, and so on—that is perfectly fine with me; but when everything centers on a single composer who is the guide, the means, and the end of music... - this phrasing referring to Mozart's music as simple - complex, therefore Mozart is good for everyone from 0 to 120 years old - I find it very questionable - that is no longer fine with me.

I started listening to classical music because my father used to tell me fairy tales through it and, in doing so, he referred especially to Tchaikovsky: specifically Swan Lake. Tchaikovsky was my first beloved composer, and I would start again from there.

As for Mozart, I do not question his genius, but I like to make distinctions within the various genres he tackled—practically all of them—and on the piano only... well... allow me to tell you that there is very little that is genius in my opinion, and between Mozart solo piano and Beethoven solo piano, it's more than just a cube [a huge difference]:..

Then, it might be my subjective opinion, but... show me, apart from Sonata K 310 and Fantasy K 475, where the Mozartian genius lies in the rest of his solo piano repertoire!

For a child, it might be perfectly fine and ad hoc... but after that....? Certainly not for me!

As for the fact that I do not love Mozart, I could tell you that it is not as true and absolute as I previously wrote: in reality, there is a Mozart that I love and another that I do not. The one I love is the one of his greatest Piano Concertos, his late Symphonies, his greatest Quartets, his Serenades for wind instruments, the Requiem, the Motet "Ave verum Corpus," and two operatic works: Don Giovanni and The Magic Flute.

However, there is so much of his music that after a while... it bores and tires me. What can I do about it?"

danielescarpetti wrote:

My comment was deliberately ironic, and I realize how difficult it can be to do so in writing rather than saying it verbally face-to-face. I used two smiley faces to try to highlight my tone, but I was sure they wouldn't be enough to convey my spirit.

So, I will say that you, Simone, are correct in general terms, but what I wanted to convey is the spirit of a classical music listener who is fed up with hearing or reading that Mozart's music is good for this and that, almost as if we could recommend it like a homeopathic product or something from a drugstore.

And so we come to the point: either one tells me that listening to classical music is good in general—for our brain, to increase our culture, and so on—and I am perfectly fine with that; but when everything centers on a single composer who is the sustenance, the means, and the end of music... - this phrasing referring to Mozart's music as simple - complex, whereby Mozart is good for everyone from 0 to 120 years old - I find it very questionable - I am no longer fine with it.

On this, we are in perfect agreement. All music is good; some music can help relax the nerves, others can make them more tense. Even among Mozart's music, there is that which soothes and that which disturbs, so I think these discussions made to mothers like: "play Mozart's music to the baby you are carrying in your womb" are taken somewhat with a grain of salt. Although once on Mythbusters I saw an experiment where they set up greenhouses with plants inside, and in one there was Mozart's music. The ones with Mozart's music grew more vigorously... One would need to evaluate the surrounding conditions, but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened by playing Bach or Beethoven. In my opinion, the result would have been the same.

As for the rest of the personal opinions, I won't comment. They are your ideas which, even if I do not agree with them entirely, I respect.

For what it's worth, maybe just for statistical purposes... my kids prefer Mozart to Beethoven.

It's a conspiracy

Luckily they also have Bach in the catalog ...hi hi hi hi

That a child might like Mozart more does not surprise me at all. His music is certainly more easily approachable at that age compared to that of Beethoven or Bach.

I could say that what surprises me more is those who, having already passed the age of childhood and adolescence, continue to prefer Mozart... yes, that..!

But, on the other hand, people surely much wiser than me not only in musical terms, to justify this have attributed to Mozart's music the oxymoron of complex simplicity.

Mah!!!!!

From my point of view, for certain pieces it is true, others are just truly just complex and wouldn't even please children, and many others are linked to a historical-stylistic period - the galant style - about which those who have already read me know well what I think.

Let's be clear, the music that children adore by Mozart is always the same: the Turkish March, other movements from piano Sonatas, K 525, and so on.

I would like to see them tackle the Quartet of Dissonances or certain wind music... there, I would already see them a bit in difficulty! No?

Anyway, for all that my opinion may be worth, after an initial infatuation with certain Mozart sonatas, my son had no more doubts: Beethoven and Bach.

But you are a corrupting father, Daniele

But yes. but yes, Daniele . . .

«the Turkish March, other movements from piano Sonatas, the K 525 and so on» are delightful like cooked ham: you introduce them early into children's diets. You propose the tougher dishes when they are a little older.

But Luca, to be honest, my children parade Beethoven (aside from Für Elise... just to "change it up") in favor of composers like Bartók, Penderecki (quite unlike cooked ham); note that I didn't mention Vivaldi, Hans Zimmer or Carl Orff ...which they listen to anyway. Evidently the type of Beethovenian processing is distant from the childhood world. Even Gustav Holst holds his own very well; I should experiment with the second half of the twentieth century or something dodecaphonic

antares86 wrote:

But you are a corrupting father, Daniele

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Oh yes. Oh yes, Daniele . . .

«the Turkish March, other movements from Piano Sonatas, K 525 and so on» are delightful like cooked ham: you introduce them early into a child's diet. You propose the tougher dishes when they are a little older.

Frank wrote:

However Luca, to be honest, my children parade Beethoven (aside from Für Elise... just for a "change") in favor of composers like Bartok, Penderecki (quite unlike cooked ham); note that I did not mention Vivaldi, Hans Zimmer or Carl Orff ... whom they listen to anyway. Evidently the type of Beethovenian processing is distant from the world of children. Even Gustav Holst holds his own quite well; I should experiment with the second half of the twentieth century or something dodecaphonic

Whether I am a corrupting father or not, in reality, is a question I already asked myself regarding my father, when at age 9, after having thoroughly enticed me with fairy tales from Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Borodin and Mussorgsky, he made me listen to the Fifth and told me: listen to this, this is music by the greatest composer of all time.

The fact is that I listened to it and from that moment on, Beethoven has never left me.

Now, how much that so peremptory judgment—and certainly debatable—of my father influenced me, and how much listening and my hunger for knowledge of Beethovenian music—which, let it be clear, came hand in hand with the discovery of Brahms—extremely important to my father here too, Mozart, Bach—even regarding Bach and particularly the St. Matthew Passion my father played a central role—Chopin, Liszt, Vivaldi, Verdi, Rossini, Puccini—in melodrama the figure of my father is central—Mahler and... at that point I was more of an adolescent—has had an impact, is something I still ask myself today. Surely it was fundamental, just as I think my musical judgment may have been important for my son.

But my son is very different from me. Today he studies clarinet and piano and plays in two bands, the one in my town and the one in Imola. His intention—then if roses bloom and I intertwine my fingers [if things work out]—is to graduate in both instruments and... time will tell.

Tutto questo per dire che lui ha già dei mezzi per "comprendere" la musica che vanno ben oltre le mie scarse capacità e dunque, suppongo che le sue scelte siano fondate da qualcosa che vada, di conseguenza, ben oltre al giudizio paterno.

And speaking of paternal judgment, here I link to Frank's children who also—their preferences speak clearly—are nonetheless strongly influenced by their father's tastes: I am referring in particular to Vivaldi and twentieth-century music. Mozart, on the other hand, is there for the reasons I have already stated, which are independent of the parent's tastes.

And Beethoven?

Frank's relationship with Beethoven is rather convoluted—correct me if I am wrong, dear Frank—and it goes in alternating currents, I sense this from his interventions that I have always read, in this forum and in a previous forum where we virtually met.

Obviously, this inconsistency is perceived by your children.

The type of Beethovenian processing is distant from the world of children? It certainly is more so compared to Mozart, but it becomes difficult to assert this compared to twentieth-century composers. Therefore, your children parade Beethoven's music because they feel that their father... in a certain sense doesn't quite follow it, at least.

As for the child Daniele, however, Beethoven's music seemed like the ultimate thing, so it was for the adolescent, the youth, the middle-aged man and... if I am to have an old age—God willing—I truly think it will still be so.

Anyway, good music to everyone and may everyone listen to what suits them best. The important thing is to listen to music."}

Daniele... in part you have stolen the words right out of my mouth.

i opened the forum to respond to Frank: to tell you that I agree with what you wrote

but I think that your children Frank, but also Daniele's and many others among us, have stimuli and proposals that are a bit out of the ordinary compared to those that might come from a family that is not particularly musical (to put it very simply). For this reason, I think it is better to speak of music for neophytes rather than music for children.

If someone up to 50, absurdly, has never listened to anything, can we say that musically they are a child?

And if someone, at the age of your children, has already had all those listening experiences, can we say that musically they are more adult than many adults on paper? (and therefore doesn't know much what to do with the baby-mozart disc)

Paraphrasing Daniele's speech, since when Prosseda plays Mozart it sounds good, the children would automatically be conditioned by it.

It must be said that Prosseda plays a lot of stuff, though. It seems to me like a context analogous to the one described by Frank... many possibilities but the children's choices in a certain sense.

I would like to highlight another cliché used when discussing Mozart's music, which even Prosseda himself uses in his video <Mozart's music speaks to the heart>

This came to mind because, besides having heard phrases of this kind—generally alternating the word 'heart' with the word 'soul'—just yesterday I heard it expressed by the violinist UTo Ughi regarding Mozart in an interview on regional news, since he was playing for charity in my region.

Well, aside from the fact that he subsequently performed two Sonatas for violin and piano by Beethoven—including the wonderful Opus 47—I think that this phrase about Mozart's music is a complete nonsense compared to the highly debatable one regarding "complex-simplicity". A true cliché repeated like a parrot by many music professionals, without asking themselves if what they are saying has any proven truth.

Now, aside from the argument that the heart is an involuntary muscle and that the soul only exists for those who believe in it, the correct phrase to say, if anything, should be that "Mozart's music speaks to our brain" and, in particular, to that part that makes us kinder and better towards our fellow human beings or, speaking in a psychological sense, that makes us feel better about ourselves.

The truth is that it is not Mozart and his music performing this, but rather what we personally, through hearing and the subsequent processing by our brain, perceive as most consonant with our being human beings.

Therefore, a Jazz music enthusiast will experience this "miracle" when listening to their favorite composer in that musical field, and it will be the same for rock, etc., etc.

I chose classical music to then broaden my listening horizons from ancient music to "learned" contemporary music—please excuse the adjective, as I do not intend it to be at all derogatory or minimizing toward the value of other musical genres—

I said, however, that Beethoven is the composer who has not left me since childhood, meaning that, on one hand, not a day has passed in which I haven't found myself thinking about him at least a few times, and above all, that I have always found company, words, comfort, and answers in his music, especially during the worst moments. So Beethoven has always spoken to me throughout all these years more than any other composer, and if I hadn't had the support of his music, it would certainly have been harder. To me, Mozart, in reality, has never said much, and what he has said to me is linked to specific moments in my life and to certain specific works of his.

With this, I would never dream of claiming that this must universally be valid for everyone as many do with Mozart, because this phrase truly makes no sense.

In reality, it is all very subjective.

It is our subjectivity, our way of being and thinking, that brings us closer to or distances us from a composer and a musical genre. So, let's stop saying things like this and limit ourselves to justifying our preferences with more objective and relevant arguments, especially if those asserting them are music professionals because, as such, they have much more valid tools to assert their preferences than clinging to the heart or soul.

danielescarpetti wrote:

<Mozart's music speaks to the heart>

. . . Yes. And the music of other composers speaks to the h . . .

danielescarpetti wrote:

Beethoven has always spoken to me more throughout all these years than any other composer, and if I hadn't had the support of his music, it would surely have been harder. (...)

With this, I would never dream of claiming that this must be universally valid for everyone as many do with Mozart, because that phrase truly makes no sense.

In reality, it is all very subjective.

true. Holy words.
in reality they seem like simple concepts. But does it really take so much?