I propose something "truly" significant from "La molinara", a work that for some musical reason drove Vienna crazy in the last decade of the 1700s.
Leaving aside the usual hackneyed little song ("nel cor più non mi sento"), here is something significant:
I believe this to be one of the greatest examples of 18th-century concertato.
Everything is here; there is extraordinary construction and compositional mastery and, above all, there is the "comic verve, through rhythm, that Mozart so much lacks: just listen at 3:36, when the brawl breaks out: "a me asino!" [to me, a donkey!], "a me matto!" [to me, a madman!], etc.
An opera full of pearls; regardless, can anyone weigh in regarding the 18th-century concertato?
I like this one very much (so much that I think I've already posted it somewhere...); I find it brilliant for the way the text winks at the solo instruments (flute and oboe), in an evident carousel of allusions.
I note that the more a melody is famous and pleasing to the public, the easier it is to find it metamorphosed in the most disparate repertoires, as is precisely the case with "Nel cor più non mi sento."
It pleased Beethoven so much that it induced him to write variations on it.
It also pleased the compilers of a Protestant hymnbook used in Italian evangelical churches, who inserted it into their collection disguised as a spiritual song.
... you figure it out
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 5 by Carlos
Posts
759
Natan wrote:
I note that a famous melody, the more pleasing it is to the public, the easier it is to find it metamorphosed in the most disparate repertoires, as is precisely the case with "Nel cor più non mi sento". [...]
... you decide
Decide what??? Would this mean that Paganini's Caprice No. 24 and the Folía de España are the most significant pieces in the History of Music?
it is the “comic verve, to the sound of rhythm, that Mozart so much lacks
Avevo sorvolato, attratto dalla valorizzazione delle cose meno note (che a me piace molto); ma, in effetti, questa affermazione non mi sembra sostenibile. Che Mozart non sia il solo ad averne, e che ci siano tanti altri autori da conoscere e valorizzare nel genere, questo sì che è un altro discorso.
B
BackSpace
Member
Reply 8 by BackSpace
Posts
181
CromaDiBrera wrote:
attracted by the enhancement of lesser-known things (which I like very much)
And let's face it, it seems as if only Mozart exists
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 9 by Carlos
Posts
759
BackSpace wrote:
And let's face it, it seems like only Mozart exists
One should ask "why" it seems like only Mozart exists...
In my opinion, it depends on the repertoire; organists vary truly widely and for obvious reasons ... also because Mozart wrote few pieces for organ
As for the rest, how many (and which) symphonies did Mozart write?
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 11 by Carlos
Posts
759
Frank wrote:
In my opinion, it depends on the repertoire; organists vary truly widely and for obvious reasons ... also because Mozart wrote few pieces for the organ
As for the rest, how many (and which) symphonies did Mozart write?
Well, organists vary in a different way, not much more or less than others. Every period has "its instrument" and from Mozart onwards the organ underwent a very significant setback in favor of the piano... for organists, Beethoven almost doesn't exist, for example.
I didn't understand what the absence of Mozartian organ repertoire has to do with the doubtful attribution of some works by WAM, instead...
Paisiello doesn't really wow me... I mean, okay, pleasant, interesting, but he isn't exactly the epitome of comedy and verve. His Nina, mad with love, is an example of larmoyant comedy... I am not an expert in this part of the repertoire, but I would certainly look into Pergolesi's works, at least to find true comedy. As for concertatos, perhaps it's too early; Pergolesi and the Scarlattis still include few, and I don't know their works well enough to list some or go find them on YouTube. But I can at least include the finale of the first act of Cimarosa's The Secret Marriage, which is normally considered an exemplary concertato https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85SnOX7Bn_g
besides, there is really little on YouTube... Scarlatti and Galuppi are impossible to find
It was a joke, Carlos, it was a joke. Just saying that if Mozart had written 10 books for organ, perhaps there would have been less for others.
Anyway, I was expecting more of a question about the obvious reasons and regardless, the organ has its 19th-century repertoire (pf or non pf)... not concentrated on a few authors but on many (even great ones) who have measured themselves against the instrument
Even if there are musicians who have distinguished themselves substantially for the organ... one can talk about that.
I haven't really forgotten, since I like (tastes) him much more than Mozart and Beethoven. And it cannot be said that he is completely forgotten yet (although there is a splendid article by Luigi Veronelli on "the disappearance of Haydn": one of his last, beautiful articles).
anyway, but I wasn't necessarily talking about things that are forgotten, I was sticking to the 'consensus on 18th-century works' thread; it's you two polemicists who got bogged down in the 'Mozart yes, Mozart but also...' discussion...
