Mozart's Music Suffers from Having Too Many Notes

I thank the Con for appreciating present constraints I have faced in getting an argument up, so now I'll have to throw one together. As promised, this is time for rebuttal. What the Pro have put to you here is that Mozart obfuscates his music with his embellishment. Con have spoken on how this embellishment enhances his music. What Pro have said boils down to one main argument: Mozart is repetitive. He recycles figures until you're just bored of it. He justifies this by splicing in a scale or two here and there. He will introduce a blindingly brilliant figure, entertain us with it, frantically whizz about with a scale and then move on to another which really shouldn't be in the same piece. The modulation in the 25th symphony for example, has been cited has clumsy and does not do justice to the constituent parts of that piece. Yes, using scales gets him where he wants to be, but at the listener's expense. The point I have made about Der Holle Rache is that it reinforces a stereotype. Not that it's "just" vowels, thats just how it is perceived. This is exactly why people hate classical music. A composer delighted with one repetitive figure that he intends to abuse. The Jupiter symphony's fourth movement is a five voice figure, don't try this at home. It took Mozart, an admittedly great composer, most of his composing life to reach a point at which he could carry it off, and here he does so with flying colours. Overall, though, he seems to always want this much complexity. It rarely ever works that well. In his later works such as the Requiem and the Jupiter Symphony he does make some very intricate music very well, but just as often he ends up veering around too much with the piece. Now Con argues that because we have identified SOME Mozart pieces here which benefit from his lack of musical economy, that all of his pieces do. Proof by induction. But no case for this has been offered. He contends that embellishment is necessary to ensnare the listener just as flowery language is to ensnare a reader. He offered Wodehouse as an example. Personally I would say that Wodehouse was ruthlessly economical with words. Wonderful at short stories. What expression is really about is saying as much as you possibly can with as little as you possibly can. At his best, Mozart does this. He says more with a few notes than we ever could in a thousand words with. But sometimes, he produces bloated, self indulgent pieces. My main contention is that he could benefit from a bit more minimalism. It's the repetition of phrases that kills him. Beethoven constantly introduces new themes throughout his music and that is where he is at his best. Mozart does this too in the Jupiter symphony. There is variation. It isn't permutations of one melody, it's different melodies colliding with each other pleasantly. Look at Beethoven's 5th symphony. The opening figure of the 1st movement is what is always remembered. But he is constantly introducing new ideas. In the 4th movement he produces another excellent melody towards the end which has not been in the piece hitherto. He does not simply dwell on the ingenious opening figure. He finds more figures. In a lot of Mozart's work, he fails to do this, and loses the interest of many a listener. Now Con's argument would appear to come down to an attack on minimalism. The point of minimalism is to express oneself better with less. Look at Sibelius, who had a certain revulsion to the concept of "too many notes" to the point where his 7th and final symphony was a one-movement piece. He manages to express himself perfectly well, clearly and directly without having to risk boring the listener. The Pro states that Mozart simply makes too much of a fuss about his music. Some is sublime, but often, it's a frilly mess. Please affirm the motion. Thank you!