Graycap23 said: Could Mozart sing? .....case closed.
Can Prince read music? Or write his own down? We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: Could Mozart sing? .....case closed.
Actually, he could. There is an incident where he performed an ensemble aria from one of his operas (I can't remember now which one) with several people at home. The info probably can be found in Wolfgang Hildesheimer's excellent book "Mozart". Could Prince play one of Mozart's piano concertos on the level of an internationally known piano player like, for instance, Alfred Brendel, Murray Prahia or Mitsuko Uchida? I doubt it. Prince is very, very good at the piano, especially when it comes to accompanying himself, but his technique isn't good enough to play a lot of the tricky pieces from classical music (that's the difference between classical training and being self-taught). Just listen to "The Dance": Prince's piano work on that track is beautiful, no doubt, but the fast runs show a tiny little bit of technical abilities missing. It doesn't matter though, because he doesn't need it for the music he records. Could Prince play the violin on Mozart's level (i.e. playing one of the Mozart concertos)? I don't know, but he would have to practise like an idiot. I've played the violin myself for 10 years, but Mozart's 4th concerto still was too difficult for me. Can Prince write orchestral music? I doubt it, why would he hire Claire Fischer if otherwise? Honestly, folks, this is a pointless comparison. Both excellent musicians, but in two completely different genres. Mozart has been a genius you'll probably only find every x centuries (in average). Why should we try to compare anyone to him? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Genesia said: jdcxc said: Rock/guitar-based music is basically sped up blues.
Somebody always gotta make it about race. Yeah. Bloody racists. Anyway what about Yngwie Malmsteen? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmancipationLover said: Honestly, folks, this is a pointless comparison. ? Agreed. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's basically impossible to compare the two, as they are two completely different types of artists.
But I'll say Prince is more comparable as an artist to Mozart than he is to Madonna. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
iloveannie said: pplrain said: apples to oranges... OK now compare them...
I watched a video recently of a girl with some oranges. I'm not sure but I reckon she could have hidden apples just the same way although I doubt so many. There was a video years ago called Apples and Oranges with a girl who popped one up her front-bottom and as she did so one popped out of her botpot. Yet on closer inspection it turned out that they were both oranges and not one apple and one orange as had been suggested by the title. Never did know who to forward the complaint to. You could forward your complaint to Mr Delmonte, if he says no...then send it to Granny Smith. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sdldawn said: Mozart wouldn't write about boxes of chocolates that could knock the socks of anyone that that comes his way
where tha strings? FAIL lol that post was ultra win You're so glam, every time I see you I wanna slam! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Isn't it true that Prince can't even read or write music? He's hardly in the league of Mozart. No hard feelings. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The only true comparison U could make between the 2, is their ability to produce vast volumes of music in minimal time!
As brilliant as Mozart was in comparison to many! I don't think he was all that inovative! Where Prince can be! Four Composers stand out as innovators copared to their contemporaries in their respective era. Bach. Beethoven. Wagner & Puccini all brought something new to their respective audience. Prince brought a new sound to the '80's & '90's. So really! No comparison! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I love Prince, but...man...Mozart was freakin' MOZART!
Have you HEARD The Requiem? The Magic Flute? Queen of the Night Aria: http://www.youtube.com/wa...qBW_9OjhlA :: [Edited 2/3/09 6:15am] I wanna be loved to the 9s, so let me cover your ass with this sheet, and baby, you better stay on the beat! Cause you know the Karma Sutra? I can rewrite it. But, with half as many words. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bleutuna said: I love Prince, but...man...Mozart was freakin' MOZART!
Have you HEARD The Requiem? The Magic Flute? Queen of the Night Aria: http://www.youtube.com/wa...qBW_9OjhlA :: My favorite Mozart aria bar none. We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
there is no use in comparing both. Mozart was a classical artist, Prince is a popular artist. I never liked comparisons, but if you have to compare Prince to someone, it makes more sense to compare him with Mc Cartney, Dylan, Wonder, Hendrix, etc. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LazarusHeart said: The comparison is hilarious and unfair to Prince
At the age of 5 Mozart was composing music already, and at the age of 8, he'd composed a full scale opera far superior to Prince's only Opera which he composed in his late 30s . Moreover, comparing Prince's Opera , Kamasutra, or any of Prince's albums to Don Giovanni is just laughable. Mozart simply smokes Prince in composition, emotion, skill, and overall concept. Remember, Mozart could critically listen to something being played, while writing down full scale symphonic pieces, while composing an entirely different one in his head than the one he was writing down. 250 years have passed, and Mozart's music is still loved, studied, and emulated. 250 years from now Prince's music will be loved, studied, and emulated as well. But there will be no comparison. The only age and time you'll ever see Prince being compared to Mozart is from Prince fans, still alive today. In the future, long after we're all good and gone, such a discussion wouldn't even cross a music professor or student's mind. And I'm saying this as a Prince fan. YES!!! I hope that this ends the silly comparison between Prince and Mozart. I love Prince, but he is not in Mozart's league. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kenlacam said: YES!!! I hope that this ends the silly comparison between Prince and Mozart. I love Prince, but he is not in Mozart's league. Doesn't that work in both directions? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GustavoRibas said: there is no use in comparing both. Mozart was a classical artist, Prince is a popular artist. I never liked comparisons, but if you have to compare Prince to someone, it makes more sense to compare him with Mc Cartney, Dylan, Wonder, Hendrix, etc.
Wrong about Mozart being only a "classical artist." Classical is a relatively recent term used to identify composers by era (as opposed to Romantic, Neo-classical, or Contemporary composers, for example). At the time he was writing music, Mozart was very much a popular artist. His operatic works, in particular, were a huge part of the popular music offering of the day. We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Genesia said: GustavoRibas said: there is no use in comparing both. Mozart was a classical artist, Prince is a popular artist. I never liked comparisons, but if you have to compare Prince to someone, it makes more sense to compare him with Mc Cartney, Dylan, Wonder, Hendrix, etc.
Wrong about Mozart being only a "classical artist." Classical is a relatively recent term used to identify composers by era (as opposed to Romantic, Neo-classical, or Contemporary composers, for example). At the time he was writing music, Mozart was very much a popular artist. His operatic works, in particular, were a huge part of the popular music offering of the day. absolutely, and as his music became more complex, he lost favor among the people--just as happened to prince Moreover, people point to him writing before he was ten. But if you listen to Mozart's early stuff it's really simple. Impressive for a kid, yes, but composing & counterpoint can be more like learning math than divine inspiration (as Mozart was no doubt stuck with many times). There is a "correct" way to compose, Mozart was taught and took to it at a young age. But it's no different than any young child learning a skill. Mozart was amazing because he used the skill and eventually made amazing music with it, but just to compose is not amazing in and of itself. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Genesia said: Wrong about Mozart being only a "classical artist." Classical is a relatively recent term used to identify composers by era (as opposed to Romantic, Neo-classical, or Contemporary composers, for example). At the time he was writing music, Mozart was very much a popular artist. His operatic works, in particular, were a huge part of the popular music offering of the day. absolutely, and as his music became more complex, he lost favor among the people--just as happened to prince Moreover, people point to him writing before he was ten. But if you listen to Mozart's early stuff it's really simple. Impressive for a kid, yes, but composing & counterpoint can be more like learning math than divine inspiration (as Mozart was no doubt stuck with many times). There is a "correct" way to compose, Mozart was taught and took to it at a young age. But it's no different than any young child learning a skill. Mozart was amazing because he used the skill and eventually made amazing music with it, but just to compose is not amazing in and of itself. Mozart also had his own version of Warner Brothers. We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Shit hop vs. Mozart would be a fairer comparison. Both are equally as slow and dull. At least Mozart was talented though. Andy is a four letter word. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Genesia said: GustavoRibas said: there is no use in comparing both. Mozart was a classical artist, Prince is a popular artist. I never liked comparisons, but if you have to compare Prince to someone, it makes more sense to compare him with Mc Cartney, Dylan, Wonder, Hendrix, etc.
Wrong about Mozart being only a "classical artist." Classical is a relatively recent term used to identify composers by era (as opposed to Romantic, Neo-classical, or Contemporary composers, for example). At the time he was writing music, Mozart was very much a popular artist. His operatic works, in particular, were a huge part of the popular music offering of the day. On the other hand, one shouldn't make the mistake to assume that the relation of "popular music" and "art music" (= the gap) we know today is identical to the situation of the 18th century. There were times when people (well, at least some) were entertained by "art music". Like Bach's or Mozart's concertos. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: Shit hop vs. Mozart would be a fairer comparison. Both are equally as slow and dull. At least Mozart was talented though.
Man, you should listen to "The Abduction from the Seraglio", for instance. If that is slow and dull, then I'm Kanye West. [Edited 2/3/09 14:54pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmancipationLover said: vainandy said: Shit hop vs. Mozart would be a fairer comparison. Both are equally as slow and dull. At least Mozart was talented though.
Man, you should listen to "The Abduction from the Serail", for instance. If that is slow and dull, then I'm Kanye West. Do you mean "Abduction from the Seraglio"? We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Genesia said: EmancipationLover said: Man, you should listen to "The Abduction from the Serail", for instance. If that is slow and dull, then I'm Kanye West. Do you mean "Abduction from the Seraglio"? Ooops, mixing up German with English. Thanks - and edited! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmancipationLover said: Genesia said: Wrong about Mozart being only a "classical artist." Classical is a relatively recent term used to identify composers by era (as opposed to Romantic, Neo-classical, or Contemporary composers, for example). At the time he was writing music, Mozart was very much a popular artist. His operatic works, in particular, were a huge part of the popular music offering of the day. On the other hand, one shouldn't make the mistake to assume that the relation of "popular music" and "art music" (= the gap) we know today is identical to the situation of the 18th century. There were times when people (well, at least some) were entertained by "art music". Like Bach's or Mozart's concertos. I think that's what genesia was saying. Back then it wasn't "classical music," it was music. Mozart did operas that were funny & entertaining, and in fact the whole classical style is based on folk music and was considered simpler & more accessible than the stuff Bach had been doing. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: EmancipationLover said: On the other hand, one shouldn't make the mistake to assume that the relation of "popular music" and "art music" (= the gap) we know today is identical to the situation of the 18th century. There were times when people (well, at least some) were entertained by "art music". Like Bach's or Mozart's concertos. I think that's what genesia was saying. Back then it wasn't "classical music," it was music. Mozart did operas that were funny & entertaining, and in fact the whole classical style is based on folk music and was considered simpler & more accessible than the stuff Bach had been doing. Exactly. Thank you. We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: EmancipationLover said: On the other hand, one shouldn't make the mistake to assume that the relation of "popular music" and "art music" (= the gap) we know today is identical to the situation of the 18th century. There were times when people (well, at least some) were entertained by "art music". Like Bach's or Mozart's concertos. I think that's what genesia was saying. Back then it wasn't "classical music," it was music. Mozart did operas that were funny & entertaining, and in fact the whole classical style is based on folk music and was considered simpler & more accessible than the stuff Bach had been doing. Not denying a lot of what you say. I just wanted to give a little heads-up that it's not too recommendable imo to see Mozart as some sort of 18th century pop musician when the musical categories at that time were completely different than they are today. I won't rule out though that we all are basically saying the same thing. Maybe we should try to compare Prince to Johann Strauss... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Prince is MozArt
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IMMORTAL1 said: Prince is MozArt
as mozart was music... or reincarnated... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
doriangrayville said: IMMORTAL1 said: Prince is MozArt
as mozart was music... or reincarnated... Bullseye | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IMMORTAL1 said: doriangrayville said: as mozart was music... or reincarnated... Bullseye yes s [Edited 2/4/09 4:02am] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
doriangrayville said: IMMORTAL1 said: Bullseye yes s [Edited 2/4/09 4:02am] Nervous already? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |