Delving deeper into Mozart?

Welcome Spoonful !

congratulations on your hunger for Music.

i am not a great connoisseur of Mozart but I appreciate him very much. Looking at your Mozart list, I see that the Requiem is missing and a piano concerto that I think will give you great listening joy (given what you wrote)

the concerto no. 9 in Eb+ K271

http://www.flaminioonline.it/Guide/Mozart/Mozart-Concertopianoforte9.html

is a more youthful concerto compared to the others you already know, but I think it will surprise you....

Then, speaking more generally, you are right in saying that «internet helps but only up to a certain point». In other sections of this forum, young musicians are advised not to undertake self-taught paths (especially at the beginning) but to be guided by a teacher, even when approaching the instrument for pleasure.

i also broaden the discussion to those who - like me - are simple music listeners. I mean that internet is fine because nowadays you can find everything there, but it is always better (and more beautiful!) to have someone further ahead of you who suggests something to you and with whom you can later discuss and comment.

Sometimes even a simple, but authoritative, guide

http://www.einaudi.it/libri/libro/giorgio-pestelli/gli-immortali/978880617512

. . . happy listening

Open content (youtube)

http://www.flaminioonline.it/Guide/Mozart/Mozart-Concertopianoforte9.htmlhttp://www.einaudi.it/libri/libro/giorgio-pestelli/gli-immortali/978880617512

I have heard quite a lot about Mozart.... I would recommend the 5 violin concertos and the horn concertos.... the flute concertos and the flute, harp, and orchestra concerto to start with.... the Requiem is always good! As are some operas.... The Marriage of Figaro?? A singspiel like Abduction from the Seraglio?

Anyway, I would also dedicate myself to chamber music.... the quartets dedicated to Haydn, for example... as for the piano trios, I'd say you can even listen to all of them since there aren't many, they fit on 2 CDs; I have to listen to the violin and piano sonatas instead, which are standalone.... but finding a recording that I like isn't that simple.... do you want a good recording?? The divertimenti conducted by Sandor Vegh, if you can find them

To get an overview of Mozart's compositions, I recommend starting by consulting his catalogue.

On my website you will find the catalogue both in chronological order

http://www.flaminioonline.it/Biografie/Mozart-catalogoK1-pagina1.html

and divided by musical genres

http://www.flaminioonline.it/Biografie/Mozart-catalogoK6-diviso1.html

If you use the dropdown menu placed at the top right, you will immediately see how the compositions are grouped and you can go directly to the section that interests you.

Scrolling through the list of compositions, you will often find a link that takes you to a Listening Guide.

These Guides are mostly taken from concert programs and can help you better understand the piece you are listening to.

The first piece of advice that comes to mind is to read a good biography (such as that of Paumgartner, ed. Einaudi, director of the Mozarteum in Salzburg). In serious biographies, one always finds an updated catalogue of works, and on YouTube, there truly is almost any Mozart work, even the less well-known ones. But, in reality, that is not enough at all to understand Mozart. What is really needed is to understand the period: one cannot understand Mozart without understanding how his art could emerge among his contemporaries; therefore, in my opinion, it is fundamental to listen to Mozart's contemporaries to truly understand his value. If this is not done, one is led to think that some of his musical qualities were exclusively his when, instead, they might belong to the period and the taste of the era. To an inattentive ear, a work by any Bohemian of the period who emigrated to Vienna (there are many) could easily be passed off as Mozart, at least in instrumental music. In short, my idea is that, to understand Mozart's value, one must compare him with other authors of his time, absorbing their taste and style. Only then can the difference be understood. But this truly applies to any musical author (even for rock: one could never understand the value of a Jimi Hendrix, for example, without comparing his way of playing with that of his contemporaries).

P.S. Of course, if you write that Don Giovanni gave you nothing, the road seems long and winding to me... It is one of the easiest operas to understand, even for those who do not love the genre. And it is a true cornerstone of all the Romantic culture to come. Which confirms to me that it would be useful to know the historical periods before the authors.

Mozart's compositional peaks are "opera" and the symphonies. I wouldn't want to miss anything in these fields.

Frank wrote:

Mozart's compositional peaks are "opera" and the symphonies. I wouldn't want to miss anything in these fields.

What are Mozart's compositional peaks?

The die-hard Mozartians would say all of them, we know that by now, don't we?

Those who, however, are not Mozartians but consider Mozart a supreme composer among others - because he was such - try to identify which fields were those in which he knew how to best give of himself.

Now, on this, I am a bit in disagreement with you, Frank. Certainly opera, yes. Regarding the symphonies, I have some reservations because if one considers that the Salzburg native composed 53 - if I remember correctly - only the last three: the 39th, the 40th, and the 41st, can be considered essential masterpieces. Others certainly deserve consideration but... we cannot speak of peaks.

I would have said the piano concertos, referring to the 9th - noted by Luca - and the 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd, which are milestones in the history of this genre, and I would have made a great mention of the Serenade for winds, 370 and 384, where Mozart is truly unreachable compared to any other composer. Another mention must certainly be given to his major quartets.

I certainly would not have named the violin concertos as Antares does because, apart from something interesting in the 4th and 5th, they are in the galant style and that already says it all, from my point of view naturally.

Anyway, I continue to think that Mozart's absolute peak is the Ave verum corpus K 617, which is a few minutes of sublime musical height

The sadness of this discussion is that the only one who seems not to be participating is Spoonful, who threw the stone into the pond.

Terenzio wrote:

The sadness of this discussion is that the only one who seems not to be participating is Spoonful, who threw the stone into the pond.

Well done!

This is unfortunately an inexplicable—and I don't think it's a coincidence at all—thing that happens in many threads: someone proposes a topic—or throws the stone—then, essentially, disappears, without saying what they do or do not think about what is subsequently developed.

Frankly, I don't understand why, but that much is certain; we just have to accept it!

danielescarpetti wrote:

Frankly, I don't understand why, but that's just how it is; we have to accept it!

Mah... fundamentally I think like you and Terenzio.... I also accepted it a long time ago.

Then I tell myself that there are many people who:

have a need for information > they ask for it > they read it > often they thank [you] > they leave. End.

Anyway Daniele, let's look at it this way: if the pond 'stagnates', then welcome to the stones that stir up the waters a bit

danielescarpetti wrote:

What are Mozart's compositional peaks?

In a very concise way, I meant to say that if a listener wants to orient themselves toward early music and specifically ONLY Mozart, I would choose that slice of repertoire in which he expressed himself at his best. In particular, opera and symphonism. Mozart essentially reaches some peaks in his journey; for example, the first peak, as Massimo Mila tells us, are the 4 symphonies of 1774: k183, k.200, k.201 and k.202.

But I leave the difficult task to Spoonful, who has definitively abandoned us, to research the rest.

I think that the web has spoiled both curiosity and the ability to acquire information a little bit. Once, to learn, you had to spend your hard-earned money on records and books (and there weren't even forums). Today, the possibilities for orientation are unlimited and practically cost nothing, both in terms of money and effort.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

I think that the web has spoiled both curiosity and the ability to acquire information a little bit. Once, to learn, you had to spend your hard-earned money on records and books (and there weren't even forums). Today, the possibilities for orientation are unlimited and practically cost nothing, both in terms of money and effort.

I agree Croma, I managed to read your considerations on Mila, which I can also share... the fact is that not all symphonies are at the same level (as Daniele says), but in fact there are still certain milestones (I only mentioned one) that must be known. Going through the entire journey is always a good thing, if one is truly interested.

To complement everything, I only add that Mozart never had his objectives as a renewal of language; he made us appreciate the value of silence and a new way (for the time) of enjoying music. Centuries later, we can confirm that he was right and his music - by art - manages to cover all levels of enjoyment. Something quite rare.

And I am not Mozartian at all

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Once, to learn, you had to spend your hard-earned money on records and books (and there weren't even forums).

. . . and to think that as a kid they told me I had unlimited possibilities precisely because I could take records, books and ... make photocopies.

While poor Sebastian Bach had to travel 300 km to hear Buxtehude at the organ and hand-copy Pachelbel's scores at night that his uncle wouldn't leave available to him

Frank wrote:

I agree Croma, I managed to read your considerations on Mila, which I can also share... the fact is that not all symphonies are at the same level (as Daniele says), but in fact there are still certain milestones (I only mentioned one) that must be known. Going through the entire journey is always a good thing, if one is truly interested.

To complement everything, I will only add that Mozart never had his objectives as a renewal of language; he made us appreciate the value of silence and a new way (for the era) of experiencing music. Centuries later, we can confirm that he was right and his music - art - succeeds in covering all levels of enjoyment. Something quite rare.

And I am not Mozartian at all.

That the symphonies you cite are, as Massimo Mila said, the "conquest of a true and proper first maturity" in Mozart, does not mean that on my part there can - must - be an enthusiasm towards them that goes beyond not being able - having to - recognize that indeed within the context of the intrusion of Sturm und Drang into German culture and, of music in particular, even the young Mozart changed his style, something which, moreover, had already occurred in Haydn as early as 1770 and, thus, three years earlier. Certainly Mozart, compared to the older composer, did so with more greatness but ...

Surely Mila was, from my point of view, a little too generous towards a certain Mozart.

The reality is that my allergy toward the period ranging from the banning of counterpoint and the subsequent victory of the galant style is total, and it is only starting from the 1780s—first with Mozart and then with Haydn (and in this case, the order is reversed)—that I am once again able to approach and appreciate the music that was produced.

Every era has its own musical style, its tastes and its needs, so I don't think one can judge a period with the benefit of hindsight. If the history of music evolved from counterpoint to the galant style, it means that at the time there was a need for this type of evolution and, in my opinion, it must be respected. In any case, it is not at all true that counterpoint was banned: for symphonies and chamber music, the "mainstream" may have been the galant style, but for sacred music, strict counterpoint was still studied and applied, so much so that Mozart felt the need to go and study with Father Martini. And the same applies to the late 1800s: one only needs to think of Cherubini.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Every era has its own musical style, its tastes and its needs, so I don't think one can dismiss a period with the benefit of hindsight. If the history of music evolved from counterpoint to the galant style, it means that at the time there was a need for this type of evolution and, in my opinion, it must be respected. In any case, it is not at all true that counterpoint was banned: for symphonies and chamber music, the "mainstream" may have been the galant style, but in the sacred realm, strict counterpoint was still studied and applied, so much so that Mozart felt the need to go and study with Padre Martini. And the same applies to the late 1800s: one only needs to think of Cherubini.

I think instead that hindsight can—and should—allow those who listen to that music, being able to make comparisons between before and after, to express a judgment. A judgment which, like all judgments, can obviously be more or less shared.

It is not a matter of lack of respect but a simple point of view given by someone who has the privilege of being able to do so because they were born later.

It's true! Mozart went to Padre Martini and... fortunately for him and for us.

Mozart was a composer of rare genetic genius, but he was born in a period when music hit one of its lowest points; it was precisely also—but not only, obviously—the contact with those who continued to practice counterpoint that opened new horizons for him, making him the greatest composer of his time and, in this regard, surpassing Haydn, who recognized this merit in him.

But if both Haydn and Mozart knew how to reintroduce counterpoint even outside of their sacred works, naturally, it was only with Beethoven—and incidentally especially the late Beethoven—that sonata form and variation were combined with a counterpoint that was entirely revisited compared to the Baroque style and futuristic towards the twentieth century.

Couldn't contrapuntal writing and accompanied monody (typical of the galant style) be viewed as two possibilities in the hands of the composer? As two devices?

Furthermore, I don't know how useful it is to wonder whether a composer did not practice counterpoint because they did not love it (did not feel it was 'theirs') or because they did not master it.

I too, like Daniele, am somewhat suspicious of an era in which polyphonic writing was left solely to the domain of the sacred, when we know well how much richness instrumental polyphony generated even outside of churches.

And all this, both before the galant style (Bach's fugues for keyboard or organ), and after (the progressive recovery of counterpoint in Beethoven).

From their respective detractors, monodic and polyphonic writing are branded: one as 'frivolous', the other as 'abstruse' (uselessly abstruse).

Personally, if I were a director, I would like to think of them as two types of light.

The monody as a strong beam focused on the detail I want to highlight.

The polyphony as a diffused light illuminating the entire scene.

The fact is that the "scene" of the world (and of life) is something complex, multiform, difficult to reduce to a hierarchy of factors in which it is easy to establish which are the most "important".

Is it perhaps for this reason that polyphony, with its complexity, is best suited to be—almost as a sonic symbol—a metaphor for the complexity of the world?

[and thus of the 'sacred' of which, through the faith and ideas of many, the world is a reflection]

A huge thanks to Spoonful who gave us the START (the LA)!"

Counterpoint is just one of the writing techniques; to detest 18th-century music because it more or less supplanted it is a bit like despising oil on canvas because it would have supplanted fresco.

In music history, there are many pedantic and boring works despite rigorous counterpoint, just as there are many compositions (both before and after Classicism) that have done without it, without being artistically inferior for this reason. Luigi Cherubini, whom I mentioned above, was an absolute master of counterpoint and was a contemporary of Mozart (and I don't know why, after Mozart, when talking about the recovery of counterpoint, the usual Beethoven is always cited, with all due respect), opposed the galant style by polemicizing with Napoleon, yet history has relegated him to a secondary place compared to others, perhaps even wrongly (counterpoint aside).