Even Mozart Said So...

That is, if these letters testify as they seem to, that he was also a calculator, well aware of his abilities and the multiplicity of people who could have listened to his music, at least to me this way of thinking does not surprise me too much; I certainly have the image of Mozart as playful and rowdy, but nonetheless passionate in what he does (I have this image more than anything because I saw Amadeus, but I also read a biography in which Mozart, from what I remember, is described as a child who was affectionate but also tired of the many travels and concerts to which his father had led him and his sister, as an adult overcome by debt and with a constant, almost veiled concern for the future, partly due to his inability to keep expenses in check), if instead I observe the portraits that have reached us all, the sensation is that of a man who is hard to decipher, and this at least as far as I am concerned seems quite understandable since we do not have the possibility to observe other nuances of his image, but precisely the letters and the testimonies of the era help to understand what kind of person he was.

Finally, if I think of him playing with his future wife just as they are about to start one of his concerts (I am talking about the film) and as soon as he senses that they have started without him, starting in 4th [gear/mode] and totally changing expression, passing from the behavior of a boy to that of a more expert court musician (and he was aware of it), I repeat, it is not difficult for me to believe it, perhaps because mood swings do not surprise me, being at the same time passionate but also "calculating" in certain moments, all always related to an awareness regarding what one is dealing with and the world that surrounds us.

I completely agree with the thought of the "MUSICAL GENIUS" of all time..........personally I am an admirer of WAM

Regards

saverio

Where do we leave Bach?

I agree that Bach was above all a "worker," a craftsman, but therein lies his greatness; Mozart makes one think of something more immediate and instinctive, I think that

there is not the greatest of all (although there are always preferences), but the composer who had the greatest impact (often in hindsight) on his era and undertook

paths that were later taken up by his successors.

Ok, I must say that I honestly thought this sentence: «to obtain applause one must write things so vacuous that a driver could recite them, or so indecipherable that they are liked precisely because no sensible man can understand them», would attract your attention more, but evidently I was wrong. Today, we find ourselves facing the same phenomenon, which I believed to be typically twentieth-century, and seeing it expressed in a manner as lucid as Mozart's, more than two centuries ago, had quite an effect on me.

PS editorial note: I don't know who corrected the title by capitalizing all the initials but:

1) it is wrong: in Italian IT IS NOT DONE. The English do that.

2) I wrote it in another way, so could you restore my (correct) spelling? Thank you.

Carlos wrote:

i don't know who corrected the title by capitalizing all the initials

I think an autocorrect does it, it is systematic. Probably to avoid all caps

Carlos wrote:

Ok, I must say that I honestly thought this sentence: «to obtain applause one must write things so vacuous that a driver could recite them, or so indecipherable that they are liked precisely because no sensible man can understand them», would have attracted your attention more, but evidently I was wrong. We find ourselves, today, facing the same phenomenon, which I believed to be typically twentieth-century, and seeing it expressed in a manner as lucid as Mozart's, more than two centuries ago, had quite an effect on me.

In my opinion, they are the usual problems, apart from the Flemish (who indeed indulged "intellectually" more or less in the twentieth-century perspective...that Twentieth Century)...everyone had to deal with the audience and in all the music history books I have read, there is talk of the relationship between composers and publishing (when it arrived), with the audience, etc.

As can be seen, there are modern composers like Giovanni Allevi, who haven't invented anything new

Actually Fantasy, renewing syntax is not a prerogative, there are people like Brahms... and what can you say to him?

Nothing, he wrote beautiful things... period. Who cares if he wasn't someone with an innovative streak like Stravinsky

Carlos wrote:

PS editorial note: I don't know who corrected the title by capitalizing all initials but:

The system automatically, it is also useful for indexing...

Carlos wrote:

I was quite struck both by Mozart's lucidity, as I had never thought to calculate the effect of his music on the audience (the idea of the genius Mozart who "wrote what he had in his head" and that's it is hard to kill...), and by the timeliness of such a statement, which could come from the mouth of a composer or scholar of our day. What do you think?

There are many forms of genius; in Beethoven (who could seem his "opposite" ... compared to M.) it is his way of using the chisel and making, remaking... to achieve that design.

Who knows if there are any statements from Liszt by any chance, who seems closer to Mozart in terms of type of genius

Carlos, I too was surprised by what the others "after you" commented

o I have always a fear in speaking of the "greatest" like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven... as a singer, I have a limited vision of their repertoire, and as a musicologist I have never had "the time" to deepen all the rest.

That being said, I have always remained stunned before some Mozartian findings. Findings of style, never obvious, certain timbral and textural effects, I don't know, a voice that sings that little note there in the high register and, you don't know why, but this thing completely changes the sound of the piece; the thematic development, then, is always masterful, there are invisible links that give coherence. And I have never thought that this was the result of chance, or of "genius". And it is certainly conscious study, if not technical at least "musicality", that series of abilities difficult to learn that allow you, precisely, to transform technique into beauty

thallo wrote:

[...] I have always remained stunned by some of Mozart's findings. Stylistic findings, never predictable, [...] that series of skills difficult to learn that allow you, precisely, to transform technique into beauty

This is yet another step forward compared to what I read in WAM's statement, and it is sacrosanct. What baffled me was realizing that even someone like Mozart, not only when facing patrons but also in his private life, thought about the accessibility of music and that "middle ground" between complexity (where complexity means everything and nothing, but I hope we understand each other) and the possibility of being heard by everyone at different levels. This passage is illuminating: "[...] passages from which only connoisseurs can derive delight; but [...] written in such a way that the less erudite cannot help but be happy with them, even without knowing why...". Beethoven did not worry as much about this, especially in his late production, and this certainly calls to mind various ethical needs (and perhaps even "practical" ones, so to speak). To him (perhaps?) is the beginning of the split owed? The 111 was certainly not written for the public and was certainly not written thinking of someone who could be happy with it, even without knowing why... Nevertheless, nineteenth-century composers (perhaps not all, but certainly some) have, to put it bluntly, had one foot in two camps, if we consider for example the production of Chopin, Liszt, Schumann. Said in passing: mine is anything but a criticism, let that be understood! The problem, in my opinion, is the century just passed, because it decreed, at least for a large portion of composers, especially those born within the first half, the end of the "middle ground". The end of the middle ground, which now, stated with Mozart's words, sounds more than ever "well said", is a problem that has been debated and will be debated for a while longer (at least until the "children" and "grandchildren" composers of a certain generation of experimenters cease their activity); but finding it expressed so fully in his words, I repeat, has left me feeling a bit like this...

Subjects like Beethoven must be treated separately; the fact that due to a physical condition (the loss of hearing) he found himself isolated from the world contributed to him following what he heard more than what was needed.

Schumann also had his problems.

Chopin was an excellent ass...hole

As for Liszt, I wouldn't know what to say; the B minor sonata (a masterpiece, eh!) I doubt reaches most people, I am talking about the laypeople...

... interesting topic Carlos, very interesting!

I should preface that my point of view on the matter is that of a composer; I don't know if it is comparable to the point of view of other figures in the musical landscape (performer, musicologist, audience, critic, etc.) regardless of technical expertise in the field of composition. To be clear, musically I have different needs compared to Carlos, even though we shared a large part of our studies.

Regarding this very point, I can only highlight two very strong elements that are taken for granted but exist and "condition" a composer's work:

- The works that are created are performed for an audience; today it might be only laypeople, only industry professionals, only intellectuals, a mix, etc.

- There is a commission, a promise to be honored. A promise that has contents different from "what I have in my head." An opera seria is one thing, an opera buffa is another. In short, genius or not, work is work... even for Mozart.

In this regard (which I wrote about in another topic), in some letters he himself describes his typical day to his father and well, he didn't spend the whole day writing, as one might imagine. During the day, he would get bored at various nobles' houses trying to secure work, and he wrote late at night or early in the morning. I mean, many professionals today boast about making music within "40 working hours" and the rest—precisely because they are professionals—they can enjoy themselves without having to, unlike those who have a second job, work through the night, during holidays, etc.

Well, Mozart was a professional and a genius, and he did the same to make a living...

Having said that, the composer is quite aware of these little things and hardly writes for himself (of course, there must be his own inner approval); at most, he shapes his music to himself, but finalizes everything for performance and for his audience, or whoever he has chosen, or whoever deserves it.

Now, based on the audience I can have, I can tailor my work; clearly, the classical historical context is not the modern one. Today, I can range across an infinity of possibilities that didn't even exist back then. Today I can create a conceptual opera because I have an audience for that opera, but I can also write pure entertainment music, I can write music for any kind of purpose.

Even Mozart, in a different context, could do the same and we all know that he wasn't always approved (see the Mass in C minor), probably when the "I do as my head tells me" attitude prevailed.

To me, it is not much of a surprise; I am sure that everyone in their own way has written music for the audience, always with that fixation—let's face it, who doesn't seek at least a minimum of feedback on their work? I find it very human; let's see this as Mozart's human side: despite being able to afford writing anything, he still had an eye toward those who were supposed to applaud him at the end of the concert.

I would also like to open a parenthesis; this topic was touched upon around the time of the release of the film "Before the Fall" (film 2007), which I never managed to find or watch.

Somewhere, the phrase recurred: "Bach is not a genius who creates ex nihilo through pure divine inspiration. He is rather an inexhaustible worker who sells his dedication and the product of his intelligence in exchange for (little) money."

Whether shareable or not, after some passages on that occasion, you (Carlos) expressed your point of view also on Mozart, and the part that struck me most was (I quote):

"'Genius' cannot be attributed so easily. Genius and the work of a genius present characteristics that are difficult to categorize, but precisely for this reason we cannot use the word 'genius' every time we are faced with a great artist, a supreme musician, or whatever you want to call them. Otherwise, everyone would be geniuses: Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms... all, in my opinion, great musicians, but none definable as a genius.

On only one author do I feel I can use this word, and that is Mozart, because he combines extraordinary results—which would place him among many other 'colleagues'—with an aspect that others do not have: the impossibility of ever fully grasping everything he does.

There is always some detail that escapes, and I don't mean this to imply that other authors are hacks, heaven forbid! I adore Beethoven, who is perhaps the composer I agree with most, along with Brahms, and in any case, they are authors who require extremely rigorous study and total dedication; but while with them one sometimes manages to have the illusion of having done something good, with Mozart the impression is nonetheless that one has taken the wrong path, or hasn't reached the bottom, anyway less deeply than with the others. Because there is always something that escapes, but while with other authors one manages to circumscribe what escapes and can...'"

trying to work on it, when you deal with Mozart you have the impression that something escapes you

"immanent", I don't know if I'm making sense...

Returning to Bach, his music is sublime, and problematic, and overwhelming, and fascinating,

and always current. But it is not the work of a genius. It is the work of an impressive musician, and

anyway, that is not a small thing."

I would like you to piece together the discourse after this last discovery of yours; for me, all the musicians you mentioned remain geniuses. A brilliance that they put at the service of something, and like everyone (Mozart included), also of the public.

Frank wrote:

«"Genius" cannot be attributed so easily [...]"

I would like you to tie up the discourse after this latest discovery of yours, because for the musicians you cited, they all remain geniuses to me. Genius that they put at the service of something, and like everyone (Mozart included), also at the service of the public.

Your considerations regarding the composer's activity are sacrosanct. I share them all, although, I reiterate, seeing that concept expressed, especially by Mozart, had a certain effect on me, despite the bibliography dedicated to him often pointing out the fact that he, more than others, had to deal with patronage and the problem of "being pleasing" (the numerous Contradanze written one after another—and his comments regarding this, along the lines of "just look at what I have to do!"—are confirmation of this). Nevertheless, I confirm every single word of my post that you were so kind as to quote. I consider it an honor; one quotes the words of three types of people: those who say unheard-of absurdities, those who say interesting things, and the dead... and since I am not dead, I hope the reason was the second and not the first! Do you want me to "double down"? I don't know, but I will tell you that, although genius was not the subject I was thinking of when opening this topic, you have made me reflect on it. I continue to believe it is extremely difficult to define "genius" (and there would be many philosophical aspects to consider, something which I am absolutely incapable of doing due to a lack of tools). Let's say that, considering the matter especially in light of the aspects you emphasize—namely the need to mediate one's aspirations with a wise dose of attention toward the ultimate consumer of such aspirations—I find that in Mozart's production, the distinction is less evident between works declaratively intended for a non-erudite audience (to use his words) and those intended for connoisseurs. That is to say: personally, I am never made to think "oh alright: it's clear he wrote this to be a people-pleaser" or, if we really want to go there, even when I do think it, the immediately following thought is "but, what a luxury people-pleaser!". Can I explain myself? Perhaps not, also because even I am not entirely sure of what I am saying (and, after this, make meatballs out of me!). The floor is open, for me in the first place.

Since I do not consider myself an erudite person regarding composition, I would therefore shift my attention to considering the genius more from a philosophical point of view than a musical one. Indeed, the statements in Mozart's letter show a Mozart different from the one drawn by music historians; however, I believe this is merely an initial impression. His music was certainly the mirror of his personality. We can presuppose that, just as a child born to an Italian father and an English mother will most likely succeed in learning two languages very well, similarly, Mozart learned to use musical language from childhood, and it is therefore not difficult to suppose that his works represent the truth about society—what he would have wanted to say in words without being able to do so, given the specific customs of the time and the society in which he lived, in which there was truly no democracy...

It is also quite clear in his works to see how Mozart often changes emotional spheres, moving from jest and mockery to a very lucid seriousness. These changes are present in many of his works, in the piano concertos as well as in his entire production of piano sonatas.

Drawing a parallel with his social life, as already written, he was often forced to frequent noble houses for work, and if social life imposed upon him the canons of etiquette and knowing how to behave, he often used music to mock this society. I strongly agree with both Carlos and Frank when they maintain that genius or not, he nonetheless had to deal with a patron who would have had to pay for a job that was supposed to be satisfactory.

There is one thing that, from my point of view, is far from obvious and perhaps identifies him as a genius at the top of the pyramid: the fact that Mozart did not have to renounce any musical idea to ensure his music pleased the patron. His music always flows in a clear and natural way as if everything were already written to be perfect, and, if we want to look at things from a critical point of view, as if his music were not written for a patron but for himself.

We do not find this in Bach, who for example wrote music solely and exclusively to celebrate the magnificence of God and therefore went quite much by instinct regarding what the work requirements were from the ecclesiastical class... I do not mean this to imply that Bach is not a genius; I do not want to trigger an uproar. Let's just say we are looking for a head-to-head between undisputed geniuses...

Philosophically speaking, Genius should therefore be one who produces something of great importance (artistic in this case) without having to renounce anything, despite there being limits within which one must operate.

TheSimon wrote:

We don't find this in Bach, who for example wrote music solely and exclusively to celebrate the magnificence of God and therefore went very much by instinct with what were his work requirements from the ecclesiastical class, precisely... I do not mean to say that Bach is not a genius; I do not want to trigger an uproar. Let's just say we are looking for a head-to-head between undisputed geniuses...

I quote this part for two reasons: to criticize an inaccuracy and to use it as inspiration for a larger discussion on "genius," composition, life, etc.

1) inaccuracy... we often forget that a very considerable part of Bach's compositions is NOT sacred. Pianists should know this, considering that even now the most played and well-known compositions of Bach are DIDACTIC keyboard compositions, which are entirely profane. The vast amount of cantatas and "sacred" music, which, it should always be remembered, is much less sacred than one might think—given that we are largely talking about music from a Lutheran environment (any Vivaldi mass is, in theory, more sacred, because liturgy is music, not reflections on liturgy)—has had less success than Italian and French pieces. The Brandenburg concertos, for example, or the suites for cello and keyboard, which are, effectively, the things most known by the general public. I am staunchly convinced that the aura of sanctity with which we envelop Bach's compositions is due in large part to the "ancient" style itself... we should remember that, excluding preludes and fugues, practically ALL the forms used by Bach are dances, and even the preludes should be rhapsodic, fast, and almost improvised...

2) after rereading "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" for the fifteenth time, which is my ultimate comfort book, I decided to inflict a slow torture upon myself by taking the volumes of the Encyclopedia of Music edited by J.J. Nattiez and reading them... it is a thematic encyclopedia and holds great surprises. Just yesterday, I read the chapter written by John Butt "Bach and Handel: differences within a common culture of musical invention." The essay is extremely interesting and seeks to examine above all the FORMATION of the two composers, trying to understand in this way their approach to composition in relation to the 17th-18th century landscape. There are various very interesting things (including a magnificent discussion on "loci communes" about which I knew nothing), but one thing makes you reflect: Handel had the best possible musical education, Bach did not; that is, Handel began studying and writing music by studying COUNTERPOINT... Bach did not! To summarize, Handel studied strict counterpoint with a composition master; Bach, instead, first found himself learning keyboard practice, which in theory meant figured bass, thus a proto-harmonic view of the musical dimension, and only later approached strict counterpoint theoretically. The differences made by Butt are sometimes tricky; when he speaks of strict counterpoint, in fact, he refers to that abstraction typical of certain treatises, like Fux, not to "generic" contrapuntal composition. Therefore, it does not mean that Bach was ignorant and Handel was not; it simply wants to reformulate the idea that Bach was the defender of the old and Handel the progressive.

But these reflections are useful for understanding how even musical personalities as profound as Bach's had a constant relationship with practice. This practice, in practice (...), consisted of the assiduous study of OTHERS' compositions, their reworking, and a constant relationship with contemporaneity. Which, regarding Bach, meant Couperin, Vivaldi, Kuhnau, Telemann—all successful composers. People often speak of Bach's lack of public success at the time, but let us remember that Bach appreciated successful musicians... and borrowed their compositions. In the famous court of Köthen, Bach was a "fashionable" composer, also because, in Butt's view, his teaching method was based on transcribing others' compositions, not on raw contrapuntal invention.

How does all this relate to the discussion? With the simple idea that compositional processes are not always equal to "perceptual" processes. The qualities we attribute to Mozart and Bach are often sensible qualities in our time, but not always in theirs. Bach is complex but no more complex than Gesualdo; but, for various reasons that only the history of reception could explain to us, we believe that Bach's complexity has something more elevated than that of the madrigalists, or the Flemish 250 years before. This, inexplicably, has also influenced the listening of Bach's simple things!

In the same way, one day we decided that Mozart was simple and pleasant; then, gradually,"

we had to resign ourselves to the existence of the Requiem, of the dodecaphonic series in Don Giovanni, to the thousand archaic forms scattered here and there, and we adjusted our aim by saying that Mozart was a genius, that through incredible and unassailable qualities he made simple things that would otherwise be complicated. But it would suffice to look back and return to Monteverdi to find someone who did the same, and with declared awareness, to arrive at the conclusion of this discussion: Mozart had taste and was good. Like Liszt, like Busoni, like Domenico Scarlatti, he had the "fortune" of developing a very deep and early relationship with an instrument and an executive technique and in this way, probably, developed that series of characteristics that we define as "musicality." This does not diminish anything of the Mozart phenomenon; on the contrary, it makes the discussion more useful, in my opinion. Musicality is a set of characteristics about which we still know little, difficult to develop, almost impossible to teach but which, obviously, become fundamental in the professional paths of a musician or a composer.

Thank you guys for your reflections, it feels like being (unworthily, as far as I am concerned) in an excellent circle of intellectuals

Never stop!

thallo wrote:

I quote this part for two reasons: to criticize an inaccuracy and to draw inspiration for a larger discussion on "genius," composition, life, etc.

1) inaccuracy... we often forget that a very considerable part of Bach's compositions is NOT sacred. Pianists should know this, considering that even now the most played and well-known compositions by Bach are DIDACTIC keyboard compositions, which are entirely secular. The vast amount of cantatas and "sacred" music, which, it should always be remembered, is much less sacred than one might think—given that we are largely talking about music from a Lutheran environment (any mass by Vivaldi is, in theory, more sacred, because it is liturgical music, not reflections on liturgy)—has had less success than the Italian and French pieces. The Brandenburg Concertos, for example, or the suites for cello and keyboard, which are, effectively, the things most known by the general public. I am firmly convinced that the aura of sacredness with which we envelop Bach's compositions is due largely to the "ancient" style itself... we should remember that, excluding preludes and fugues, practically ALL the forms used by Bach are dances, and even the preludes should be rhapsodic, fast, and almost improvised...

I did not say at all that Bach's work is intended entirely for the church. Quite the opposite... I said, using different terms, that Bach's music is living essence or pure power. In terms of faith, we can consider vitality and power to originate from God, and this is a constituent part of Bachian spirituality; that is why I was saying that this context fits well with ecclesiastical society (I did not say at all that Bach only composed for the church). I think that when speaking of Bach's music as an absolute and vital concept, it is not possible to apply a distinction between Sacred and Profane, but I believe it depends more on how the work presents itself in that particular moment.

For Thallo.

It is my understanding that the cantata, compared to those of Bach, had already developed by 1600 in Lutheran countries and was situated between two types of sacred compositions:

Geistliches Konzert for one or a few voices

or the concertato Motet for choir.

Within these compositions, chorale melodies are inserted, giving shape to the Choralkantate. The phrases of the chorale were presented by the cantus firmus, entrusted to a vocal part or to the bass. These melodies were developed contrapuntally. The chorale-cantatas were articulated into several sections and, generally, linked to one another with the melody of the chorale.

I point out the 4-volume collection “Nuovi concerti sacri” for 2, 6 voices and basso continuo by Samuel Scheidt (1587-1654), organist and Kappelmeister at the court of Halle. The texts are in German, and some are in Latin taken from the Bible, the Gospels, and the Psalms. After 1650, increasingly important poetic texts are introduced for the cantatas, and the structure is articulated into pieces for choir, for one or more solo voices, and for instruments (see the cantatas of Dietrich Buxtheude, 1637-1707).

In 1700, the Lutheran cantata undergoes the influence of opera seria and the Italian chamber cantata with the introduction of recitative and the da capo aria. With the insertion of recitative/arioso/aria into the choral pieces, there arises a need to use new texts with a new versification; these texts are provided by Lutheran pastors interested in providing an individualized and personalized interpretation of biblical events. Alongside the evangelical texts, texts of a meditative/sentimental character based on reflections related to the day's readings are added. This phenomenon is favored by the movement known as “pietism,” which aimed to overcome the dogmatism of the Lutheran Church and to make the evangelical message closer to the faithful and their inner feelings.

The Pietists develop the emotional and mystical element. To this new conception, the Italian cantata and Melodramma offer an extraordinary model. The first new texts are proposed by the pastor/theologian Erdmann Neumeister (1671-1756) who, upon the suggestion of the court musician W. J. P. Krieger (1649-1725), transfers the poetic structures of opera and the Italian chamber cantata to the evangelical sacred cantata using recitative and aria, which must express a meditative “affetto.” In his collection of cantata texts, Neumeister explicitly refers to the Italian model and uses the term cantata. Nine other collections follow this one until 1752, and these texts will be set to music by Kruger and Telemann.

Given this

Bach's early cantatas, up to 1712, are stylistically reminiscent of those of Buxtheude, without recitatives and da capo arias; however, starting from 1714, he begins to set the “reformed” texts of Neumeister and other authors to music. For his cantatas, Bach uses various textual combinations (biblical passages, chorales, free poetic inventions) with a different distribution of solo and choral pieces in the cantatas and, as a rule, the composition ends with a chorale. Many cantatas show an affinity with the ChoralKantate tradition in the opening piece, which consists of a grand chorus developed with concerted instrumental ritornellos. The cantus firmus of the chorale is entrusted to the soprano, and the other voices develop contrapuntally. The text of the opening piece is derived from the Bible; the compositional technique uses the imitative style of the motet (fugues for choir and instrumental parts treated polyphonically).

Bach wrote 5 Passions, but only the Passion according to John (1724) and according to Matthew (1727) have reached us in complete form and are conceived as a form of Passion/Oratorio elaborated on poetic text linked to the theme of the Passion of Christ.

That being said, I agree with the discussion regarding Monteverdi, Gesualdo, etc.