Why a Mozart record intended for children?

fabio73 wrote:

... but beyond this, Mozart's music is truly composed of a natural outpouring of sounds ...

What does this sentence mean? I don't know if it is right or wrong. It is probably right. However, I wonder what it means. For what reason is the Andantino of the Concerto for Flute and Harp a natural outpouring of sounds? Explain it to us better.

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

What does this sentence mean?

Well... I would have an idea. But I'll gladly give precedence to the joint obligor

I am sorry, but I am only realizing it now and I must make a correction to my previous post: obviously it is not The Marriage of Figaro but The Magic Flute, which I consider an opera of utmost genius within the scope of Mozart's theatrical production. It was a slip of the tongue that put me in contradiction with what I had just written and I apologize.

As far as I am concerned, the only sounds that flow naturally are those... of nature itself and nothing more.

Tutto il resto è artefatto dall'uomo a cominciare proprio dalla musica: qualsiasi tipo di musica fatta da una qualsiasi mano umana, anche la più geniale.

Everything else is man-made, starting precisely with music: any type of music made by any human hand, even the most brilliant one.

Continuing to use jargon of this kind is merely part of a senseless, typically human eternal rhetoric - and probably more of a Western cultural mold than other cultures - that gives us the illusion of being the most absolute and perfect emanation of nature, when in fact that is not the case.

danielescarpetti wrote:

As far as I am concerned, the only sounds that flow naturally are those... of nature itself and nothing more.

Tutto il resto è artefatto dall'uomo a cominciare proprio dalla musica: qualsiasi tipo di musica fatta da una qualsiasi mano umana, anche la più geniale.

In fact, it is just as you say, Daniele, and it can only be so.

i, however, would save that statement by correcting it radically: not that the music "is a natural flowing of sounds" but that it "evokes a natural flowing of sounds". Otherwise, I don't see how the artistic seriousness of all program music can be saved; especially those works in which the descriptive-evocative program was intentionally pursued by the author.

Put in these terms, I agree: that Andantino from the concerto for flute and harp evokes, yes, a natural flowing (smooth, not sparkling) of sounds... But I wouldn't say that for all Mozart, nor would I say that these "flowing" moments exist only in Mozart

LucaCavaliere wrote:

In fact, it is exactly as you say, Daniele, and it can only be so.

io, however, would save that statement by correcting it radically: not that this music "is a natural gushing of sounds" but that it "evokes a natural gushing of sounds". Otherwise, I don't see how the artistic seriousness of all program music can be preserved; especially those works in which the descriptive-evocative program was intentionally pursued by the composer.

Put in these terms, I agree: that Andantino from the concerto for flute and harp evokes, yes, a natural gushing (smooth, not sparkling) of sounds... But I wouldn't say that for all Mozart, nor would I even say that these "gushing" moments exist only in Mozart.

Put that way, the matter may also "sound" more acceptable to me.

More acceptable, while remaining firm that, as you well know, I continue to understand music as being representative only of itself, including program music.

Now Fabio—or whoever agrees with him—will give us his point of view on what exactly he means regarding the natural gushing of sounds within the musical and Mozartian context in particular; but, in the meantime, my strong suspicion is that this statement of his, supported by RedScharlac, is linked to one of the many abused clichés about what has been said and is being said about Mozart's music: namely, that no one more than him has known how to express music with extreme naturalness.

Now, remembering how one of the most abused battle cries by those opposed to atonal music is precisely the fact that it is unnatural while tonal music is natural, I realize even from this premise how wrong it is to approach the theme of music by centering it on the concept of naturalness.

dear Daniele,

on one hand, I also support the
'independence' of music from everything that is 'concept', 'image', or 'event'. However, some composers have worked and composed thinking the opposite. And I also think that a composer who had set out (for example) to set the paintings of a dear friend's exhibition to music, in the end, by composing, produced something that follows exclusively musical logic, and that "works" - in its being something beautiful - even without titles and descriptive programs.

That said, I do not think that a
musical work is representative "only of itself"; instead, I think it expresses the inner world of the one who created it, their 'worldview'. You also wrote this recently in one of your messages.

Then - but I care less about this - what could someone mean who claims that music is "a natural gushing of sounds"?

In my opinion, they mean that such music is something like
fresh, clean water: you can drink it from infancy. Aside from the metaphor, they mean music that reaches you "directly" and that you are able to appreciate even without great erudition or preparation in the subject.

It is a questionable idea, and I don't know if I would support it (probably not).

But there are many musical works that achieve success without the need for too many listening guides: the chorale Jesus bleibet meine Freude, Pachelbel's Canon in D, the Prelude in C from the first book of The Well-Tempered Clavier, the Adagio of the "Moonlight" Sonata . . . There is plenty of "fresh water" in the history of music! And not just thanks to Mozart.

And anyway, even Mozart has his fine bottles of hard liquor

LucaCavaliere wrote:

That being said, I do not think that a musical work is representative "only of itself"; instead, I think it expresses the inner world of the one who created it, their "worldview." You also wrote this recently in one of your messages.

And on this, I have not changed my mind, although it is necessary to clarify my point of view so as not to create misunderstandings.

I am firmly convinced that music—as an art and therefore like all arts—is indissolubly linked in its being and its development to the historical and thus cultural and social period in which it was and is composed; and I am equally convinced that any music—regardless of its importance or genius—is linked to the composer and thus to their personality, history, ideas, character, and... essentially to everything that makes each of us unique and unrepeatable.

That being said, however, it is equally indisputable for me that what distinguishes music from all other arts—and even from literature and poetry—is its being an aleatory form and, as such, it is neither descriptive nor figurative. But, paradoxically, this being—or not being—of music makes it superior to any other human artistic and literary form, since we can listen to it for what it purely represents—that is, itself—or attribute meanings to it which, precisely—for a reason—are defined as extra-musical.

These meanings may have been placed by the composer himself, by a publisher, but also by our own minds and thus be exquisitely personal and infinite.

Now, the theme here is Mozart and his connection with children, but, as often happens, the discussion takes turns that lead very far afield and so, I will stop. What I continue to insist upon, however—always from my point of view—is the inadequacy with which Mozartian music has been defined, even in terms that are unfortunately often academic, creating ways of speaking and thinking that are forced and wrong.

Obviously, I do not know what our friend fabio73 meant by speaking of the natural gushing of sounds. However, I would not feel comfortable dismissing this expression as eternal nonsense rhetoric. I can agree on the fact that it is rhetoric, and perhaps it will even be eternal. It is difficult, however, to maintain that it is meaningless: on the contrary, I would say that it has a multitude of meanings, sometimes even in opposition. In reference to music, the nature-culture dichotomy, or natural-artificial, has had and continues to have as much success as few others (the eternal discussion on the word-music relationship comes to mind, for example). It is also discussed here http://www.nuthing.eu/2012/05/artificiale-naturale.html#comment-form.

In Mahler, natural as an opposite not so much to the cultural or artificial as to the civilized: Naturlaut in the First Symphony, or—more significantly—the entire Third Symphony, not to mention the Wunderhorn. An analogous discourse, certainly less explicit, for Brahms and, going back, for Beethoven—which would, however, require a chapter of its own even here. The case of Webern is different, at least in part: for him, the reference to nature is precisely at the point of contact between the emotional and the structural. Perhaps by pushing it a bit, one often thinks, rather than of the primordial plant he cited, of mineral qualities: but it is still a matter of nature. In Wagner, nature, and I would say specifically the natural gushing of sound, is not just a poetic referent but a reality that gives birth to a new purely musical concept: the entire Siegfried, or more simply the opening of Das Rheingold.

Changing perspective, nature is the direct and explicit model for a lineage of musicians ranging from Pythagoras to Xenakis, from Rameau to Grisey: where the starting point is precisely the nature of sound understood in a physical sense, harmony/disharmony as a natural reality determined by infinitely complex structures.

Where does Mozart fit into all this? Frankly, I do not know. If I think of the examples made so far, or of the Gran Partita, I believe there is a connection: perhaps his ability (unmatched by his contemporaries, by Haydn and Beethoven, and by most of his descendants, perhaps with the exceptions of Chopin, Bizet, Ravel, Grisey...) to not intervene, to let go (or to let gush, to take up the previous metaphor): in other words, a detachment and objectivity that grant him the classical tone par excellence. Unfortunately, I cannot find precise enough words, but I believe that—with a little effort—the concept can be brought into focus even on a technical level.

http://www.nuthing.eu/2012/05/artificiale-naturale.html#comment-form

Open content (youtube)

"Do not intervene"? . . . "Let go"? . . . Mozart, unmatched master of music that makes itself "by itself"?

Let's see if I understood: works that he links below can also be considered to have gushed out spontaneously

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ks9Q8AF4Do

He thinks that for Marius Schneider, referring to so-called Western music, only Gregorian chant flows naturally. Everything else is artificial, artifactual, unnatural.

In specifying what he meant by music in the most pregnant sense of the term, Schneider indicated natural music:

"Such music consists of sounds that man emits spontaneously, both as an expression of the inner rhythm of one's own person and as an imitation of the noises of nature. It is therefore essentially improvised music, or conforming to the habitual acoustic manifestations of an individual." This, unlike artistic music, "depends neither on a conventional meter nor on an aesthetic program developed by a specific culture"

"It is, however, undeniable that artistic music employs rhythms and sounds offered by nature. But, while using these materials, it always subjects them to a specifically human, even rational, order. And since it is part of the world of light, while the nature of sound belongs rather to dreams, its overly conscious constructions do not reach the cosmic region. Abandoning all truly realistic imitation, it creates an artificial sound world. Instead of the opulent development of natural music, one sees the birth of a mastery of form of a decidedly intellectualistic origin. The use, originally unconscious, of numerical proportions becomes intentional [...] By expressing one's own ideas through a sung text, a man can certainly symbolize himself. But in artistic music, such an achievement offers us a very limited truth. It is a totally individual truth, altered by convention. Most rhythms are subjected to metric schemes and sounds betray the rigidity of a pre-existing tonal system. Instead of manifesting itself spontaneously, the singer expresses himself through a pre-constituted composition. However, his song remains symbolic because, while not manifesting the pure nature of man, it expresses a current state of it, i.e., a cultivated nature"

And on Gregorian chant

"Gregorian chant is a form of prayer; therefore, its essence cannot be grasped through a purely musical medium but only through the practice of prayer itself. It occupies a middle term between the spoken letter of prayer and pure mystical contemplation, since it is based on concrete words whose logical sense underlies in some cases and amplifies in others to the boundaries of hyper-logical thought.

The most specific character of it is the ability to dam the forces of devotion, like a sluice gate, to channel them by shaping them after first having raised their level and then set them in motion. Faced with this metaphor, the Romantic imagination would be tempted to imagine one full of repressed feelings which, upon the opening of the sluice gates, would plunge free and passionate like a torrential river out of its prison. The reader must not interpret the metaphor this way. Gregorian chant contains nothing pathetic or violent, nor anything bland or sweet. Feeling gives it neither origin nor body, but rather constitutes only its shadow, that is, a consequence. Gregorian chant is a path, a means of transport. Pre-Christian symbolism would have called it a chariot, a ship, or a river upon which luminous sound syllables would walk.

In our metaphor, the two gates of the sluice symbolize religious culture and self-control, which contain the waters of a lake formed by the rain of divine grace and the rivers that run from the high mountains of recollection to the deposit of the subconscious. The surface begins to rise and sing when the flood causes the waters to overflow from the sluice after having deposited all impure matter on the bottom. [...] In fact, such gates never open and only the crystalline water overflows. In contrast to Romantic music, which perhaps sins through an excess of communicativeness and expansiveness, Gregorian chant has a chastity and a character (by modern musical conception) that is too reserved.

[from The Meaning of Music]

Agreeable or not... there is always someone telling you that there is something more "natural" than what seems "natural" to you

But then, excuse me, this forum is full of interventions by composers in which they explain to non-experts how important the work of composition is! ... how little inspiration matters... or I remember"

male!?

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

Where does Mozart fit into all of this? Frankly, I don't know. If I think about the examples given so far, or about the Gran Partita, I believe however there is a connection: perhaps his ability (unmatched by his contemporaries, by Haydn and Beethoven, and by most of his descendants, perhaps with the exceptions of Chopin, Bizet, Ravel, Grisey...) to not intervene, to let go (or to let flow, to borrow the previous metaphor): in other words, a detachment and objectivity that grant him the classical tone par excellence. Unfortunately, I cannot find precise enough words, but I believe that - with a little effort - the concept can also be brought into focus on a technical level.

I think that the fundamental misconception in treating music history is confusing "nature" - understood as Mother Nature - with naturalness, understood as the will - I wouldn't define it as ability - to remain within the limits dictated by the rules given up to that point within the scope of musical evolution.

If we distinguish between the two things, undoubtedly Mozart's music, but on par with that of Palestrina, Bach, and Rossini..., falls within the limits given by classical measure and exact proportion and thus of the Apollonian - what was, for example, Raphael's role in painting - producing music that is absolutely clear, elegant, and harmonious.

I said it is better to define it as will rather than ability because if we define it that way, we must then deduce that these composers were nonetheless incapable of creating, shaping, building, inventing from nothing: in short, of surpassing what already existed and, as such, was considered natural.

This was the ground upon which Monteverdi, Beethoven... moved, and this due to their predisposition and choice to be innovators, composers who want to break with pre-established patterns as Michelangelo was in the visual arts and falling, they, into the term "divine" - not Mozart and not Bach, who are often erroneously and improperly defined as such - insofar as, like new gods, they recreate and reshape everything.

RedScharlach wrote:

Where does Mozart fit into all of this? Frankly, I don't know. If I think about the examples given so far, or about the Gran Partita, I believe however there is a connection: perhaps his ability (unmatched by his contemporaries, by Haydn and Beethoven, and by most of his descendants, perhaps with the exceptions of Chopin, Bizet, Ravel, Grisey...) to not intervene, to let go (or to let flow, to borrow the previous metaphor): in other words, a detachment and objectivity that grant him the classical tone par excellence.

hi Red

try comparing "not intervening and letting go" with what is written in this post

https://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/6099-e-si-potrebbe-quasi-dire-che-i-migliori-di-noi-raggiungono-la-gioia-attraverso-la-sofferenza/?hl=%2Bciclo+%2Bsinfonico&do=findComment&comment=43710

A small excerpt from post no. 16 (yours)

«"Through suffering" ... One hears people say, for example, "a suffered page": an expression that means everything or nothing at the same time (sometimes the most tormented and complex things burst forth with immediate force from an instinctive approach; other times the composer will have damned himself to give an air of "naturalness" to a couple of bars that, in performance, will never reveal, through their fluency, the hours it cost him).»

Far from letting it run

i agree (with what you wrote on 10/10/2016)

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Let's see if I understood correctly: works that he is about to link below can also be considered spontaneously burst forth

Dear Luca, it might be ... although I am not sure they are the first examples that come to mind. And then, music that makes itself, to tell the truth, I simply cannot stand reading it!

In any case, Bach's Prelude is the exception rather than the rule: in Bach, the emphasis is normally on construction, on the infinite ways of giving shape to the whole in direct or indirect relation to the subject, understanding this concept in its broadest sense. But thinking about the more or less evident naturalness of this Prelude, it might be interesting to note that even this does not arise spontaneously, being the result of a revision process: see the primitive - and perhaps less natural - version from Wilhelm Friedemann Bach's notebook. In general, I have a certain distrust towards attempts to enter the composer's laboratory (studies on so-called "compositional processes"). But it is useful to reiterate the observation you have already cited: precisely what sounds "natural" is, not infrequently, the result of artificial elaboration and complex fine-tuning, even considering what tells us that he studied the sketches of Chopin, Grisey. In any case, I would keep naturalness and ease in composing strictly distinct.

Staying within the scope of Viennese Classicism, I would rather note the fact that Mozart, unlike Haydn and especially Beethoven, even in notably articulated works can do without emphasizing the element of contrast, if not renouncing it altogether. And yet, an example comes to mind in Beethoven - and moreover, for him absolutely atypical, as the piece itself is anything but classical: the Scene by the brook from the sixth Symphony. I repeat: in Beethoven these cases are at the limit - and perhaps the reference to nature is not a coincidence, because I could also cite the first movement of op. 28, as well as the last of op. 53.

Changing perspective slightly, I was thinking of this key of interpretation to highlight analogies and differences between Xenakis and Ligeti: for Xenakis, nature can provide a general model to describe a musical phenomenon (the summer song of cicadas as an illustration of mass sound), while in Ligeti there is a declared emphasis on the mechanism (clocks) which, however, under certain conditions (simplifying: abnormally multiplied) can determine chaotic situations (clouds) that once again overflow into mass sound: with a gradual passage from the mechanical to the natural, or vice versa (a didactic example being the Symphonic Poem for 100 metronomes, or perhaps Clocks and Clouds, certainly among the pieces boasting the most beautiful title ever).

"Clocks and Clouds" for 12-part women's chorus and orchestra. [...]

Ligeti's "Clocks and Clouds" is a relatively-short composition from 1972-1973 that takes its title from Karl Popper's 1966 philosophical essay "Of Clouds and Clocks". In this, Popper makes a compelling and easily-understood argument that scientific phenomena can be broken down into two main categories. The "clocks" are things that we can depend on such as, well, clocks. A clock can be easily measured, taken apart, and reconstructed. "Clouds", on the other hand, are things that we can only get a general, macroscopic view of -- things whose inner-workings we are unable to understand in a deterministic way. A cloud cannot be easily measured nor can it be taken apart. Furthermore, Popper argues that clouds are really made up of a cumbersome number of clocks -- so many that the whole cannot be understood completely. It isn't at all surprising that the meteorologist Edward Lorenz was making major breakthroughs in what we now tend to call "chaos theory" -- most easily defined by a sensitivity to initial conditions. Lorenz's major work in this area is known as "The Butterfly Effect" from the famous question he posed "can the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Oklahoma?"

Throughout the 1960s, Ligeti was composing in two distinct styles described perfectly by Popper's essay. The "clouds" category includes works such as "Atmospheres" (1961), Lontano (1967), and the first movement from his "Cello Concerto" (1966). Examples of pieces falling under the "clocks" description are the third movement of his "Chamber Concerto" (1969) and the third movement of his "String Quartet No. 2" (1968). This "mechanical" style can be traced back to his semi-comical 1962 "Poem Symphonique pour 100 Metronomes", in which 100 metronomes are wound-up and left to unwind at various tempos.

While compositions such as the "Chamber Concerto" and "String Quartet No. 2" do include both "clouds" and "clocks", they are presented in separate movements. It is in "Clocks and Clouds" where Ligeti seamlessly connects one to the other. Being one of his last works in this micropolyphonic style, it is a great summing up of a stylistic period.

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

OT: beautiful piece Clocks and clouds!

Here https://en.schott-music.com/shop/clocks-and-clouds-no153616.html you can find the entire score in preview mode.

Best regards

I realize now that the "gushing" has set a multitude of thoughts in motion.

There was no intention to complicate the discussion, on the contrary... I believe Mozart's music is "natural" and this undoubtedly throws us off.

I rely on instinct when my mind cannot catch all the threads, and with Mozart, I simply cannot. It is not a construction made of parts, but it is—the part!!

To put it briefly, I feel I understand it by listening to it, but I live within that very emotion; the same one that prevents me from deconstructing it. I believe this is why, even in moments of greatest expressiveness and depth, his music still appears to us as pure as it is simple.

Schubert also produces a similar effect for me, in a certain sense.

fabio73 wrote:

I realize now that the "gushing" has set a multitude of thoughts in motion.

There was no intention to complicate the discussion, on the contrary... I believe Mozart's music is "natural" and this undoubtedly throws us off balance.

I rely on instinct when my mind cannot catch all the threads, and with Mozart, I simply cannot. It is not a construction made of parts, but it is—the part!!

To put it briefly, I feel I understand it by listening to it, but I live within that very emotion; the same one that prevents me from deconstructing it. I believe this is why, even in moments of greatest expressiveness and depth, his music still appears to us as pure as it is simple.

Schubert also produces a similar effect for me, in a certain sense.

I wouldn't know what better to add... And so I take another thread of the discussion...

RedScharlach wrote:

Dear Luca, it might be ... although I am not sure those are the first examples that come to mind. And besides, music that makes itself, to tell the truth, I simply cannot accept that!

Because, for the sake of record, I remembered something about music that makes itself: it is an idea that circulated between the 1950s and 1960s, with some composers intending to self-annihilate by implementing automatic writing processes. Given a base material (a chord, a series of intervals...), abstract codes are applied to it which cause it to multiply, giving rise to a piece. Some works by Franco Donatoni and Aldo Clementi follow these principles. Berio criticizes them, with his usual caustic irony, in the fundamental "Intervista sulla musica". In any case, nothing to do with Mozart—for our good fortune, I add.

Thank you, it would be nice to listen to the sounds of nature and try to reorganize a sound universe drawn from this experience. There is something I would like to do before dying. Those who live shall see.

Which of Donatoni's works are exclusively the result of these techniques? Because then one also has to see, if the code is abstract but you choose it well...

Self-annulment, I think, was truly a paradox; at the moment you choose to self-annul, you actually express yourself precisely because of this decision, so you are central to the production of the work!

At the risk of a new OT, regarding sounds of nature and reorganizing, I propose a listening:

Open content (youtube)

fabio73 wrote:

I realize now that the "gushing" has set a multitude of thoughts in motion.

There was no intention to complicate the discussion, on the contrary... I believe that Mozart's music is "natural" and this undoubtedly throws us off.

I rely on instinct when I cannot catch all the threads with my mind, and with Mozart, I simply cannot. It is not a construction made of parts, but it is, the part!!

To put it briefly, I feel I understand him by listening to him, but I live in that very emotion; the same one that prevents me from deconstructing him. I believe this is why, even in moments of greatest expressiveness and depth, his music still appears to us as pure as it is simple.

Schubert also produces a similar effect for me, in a certain sense.

i believe that Beethoven's music is "natural" and this undoubtedly throws us off.

I rely on instinct when I cannot catch all the threads with my mind, and with Beethoven, I simply cannot. It is not a construction made of parts, but it is, the part!!

To put it briefly, I feel I understand him by listening to him, but I live in that very emotion; the same one that prevents me from deconstructing him. I believe this is why, even in moments of greatest expressiveness and depth, his music still appears to us as pure as it is simple.

Schubert also produces a similar effect for me.

RedScharlach wrote:

Because, for the sake of reporting, I remembered something about music made by oneself: ( . . . ) In any case, nothing to do with Mozart - for our good fortune, I add.

Nothing to do with Mozart. Are you sure!??

http://ilpiccolofriedrich.blogspot.it/2012/06/il-gioco-musicale-con-i-dadi-di-mozart.html

Ehhh... Amadeus had a little thought on the subject.

Anyway. You'll tell me that it is still just a semi-finished product