|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 29, 2020 7:18:16 GMT
My favourite composer is Bach, and if I could bring but one musical work on a deserted island, his Mass in B minor would be the top contender. I find Mozart shines in his vocal works only. His instrumental pieces are much too light for me. They do not displease me, but they do not pierce my soul, either. I am particularly fond of beautiful melodies myself, and not everybody can write them. What good harmony can do for a mediocre melody, it can do for a good melody tenfold. That is one reason why I am so fond of the Beatles (besides having grown up with their music). Also Pink Floyd and Guns N'Roses as well - the former of which I apprecieted more in the past, and the latter of which I appreciate more today. And Bach often leaves me cold. I find I'm about 50/50 with his works: love the organ works, the Mass in Bm, the WTC; don't care much for the other keyboard works, the Passions/Cantatas or various orchestral music. Mozart has plenty of dark, dense, instrumental works. Have you heard the Piano fantasias, the late keyboard concertos (20 is particularly stormy, and 24 and 23 have their dark moments), the string quintets and minor-key quartets? I mean, as far as "piercing your soul" goes, not much in classical music does it for me like the finale of Mozart's 41st Symphony (the finale of Tristan & Isolde and Mahler's 2nd both get close). That quintuple fugato is about as spellbinding a musical feat as has ever been created as far as I'm concerned. Even Bach never created quite its likeness. For something more directly emotional, the slow movement of the 23rd piano concerto, the Sinfonia Concertante, the clarinet quintet and concerto, etc. are all, I find, pretty emotionally stirring. I am sorry, but I find that Mozart at his best does nothing that other composers don't do better - Beethoven in particular. To me, Mozart simply lacks gravitas. Mozart, even when he is trying to be heavy, can't shake being light. Bach, even when trying to be light, can't shake being heavy. In practical terms, that means that Mozart is easy to like, but grows old quickly. Bach, on the other hand, needs to be understood before he can be enjoyed fully - but in return his music doesn't get old so quickly. Some of his music, like the Brandenburg Concertos, are both easy listening and quite complex at the same time - it is one of the works of which I can never have too many recordings. And then you have ponderous works such as Musical Offering or Art of Fugue - the latter of which is perhaps least accessible to the ear, but I've listened to it so much that I can even find that to be emotionally evocative. Speaking of ponderous, his chromatic fantasia in D minor (BWV 903) is very similar to the music I used to hear in my dreams when I was young. It was music that I always sort of heard in the background, but could never capture.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 29, 2020 13:02:03 GMT
And Bach often leaves me cold. I find I'm about 50/50 with his works: love the organ works, the Mass in Bm, the WTC; don't care much for the other keyboard works, the Passions/Cantatas or various orchestral music. Mozart has plenty of dark, dense, instrumental works. Have you heard the Piano fantasias, the late keyboard concertos (20 is particularly stormy, and 24 and 23 have their dark moments), the string quintets and minor-key quartets? I mean, as far as "piercing your soul" goes, not much in classical music does it for me like the finale of Mozart's 41st Symphony (the finale of Tristan & Isolde and Mahler's 2nd both get close). That quintuple fugato is about as spellbinding a musical feat as has ever been created as far as I'm concerned. Even Bach never created quite its likeness. For something more directly emotional, the slow movement of the 23rd piano concerto, the Sinfonia Concertante, the clarinet quintet and concerto, etc. are all, I find, pretty emotionally stirring. I am sorry, but I find that Mozart at his best does nothing that other composers don't do better - Beethoven in particular. To me, Mozart simply lacks gravitas. Mozart, even when he is trying to be heavy, can't shake being light. Bach, even when trying to be light, can't shake being heavy. In practical terms, that means that Mozart is easy to like, but grows old quickly. Bach, on the other hand, needs to be understood before he can be enjoyed fully - but in return his music doesn't get old so quickly. Some of his music, like the Brandenburg Concertos, are both easy listening and quite complex at the same time - it is one of the works of which I can never have too many recordings. And then you have ponderous works such as Musical Offering or Art of Fugue - the latter of which is perhaps least accessible to the ear, but I've listened to it so much that I can even find that to be emotionally evocative. Speaking of ponderous, his chromatic fantasia in D minor (BWV 903) is very similar to the music I used to hear in my dreams when I was young. It was music that I always sort of heard in the background, but could never capture. Beethoven (not to mention Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Rossini, Chopin, Saint-Saens, Wagner, Grieg, etc.) disagreed with you about Mozart lacking gravitas. A philosopher as dour as Schoepenhauer thought Mozart worthy of discussion when he analyzed Don Giovanni. Hell, Schubert directly plagiarized Mozart at least twice. I feel like the problem you (and others) have with Mozart is less with Mozart himself and more with the classical era; the fact that major keys, formal/harmonic clarity, and melody/beauty were more paramount, and direct emotional expressivity and harmonic complexity were more restrained, than in either the baroque or romantic eras. As for Mozart not being the best at anything, I'd strongly argue he was the best composer of concertos (nobody really comes close), and a contender for greatest melodist (only really contended by Schubert, IMO). For everything else, I'd say he's very near the top: symphonies, chamber music, operas, etc. What other composer had the same breadth and depth? Beethoven wrote one (relatively weak by his standards, IMO) opera, Schubert, Brahms, and Bach never wrote any; Haydn can't compete in operas or concertos; Wagner and Verdi, if we consider them better than Mozart in operas, wrote little else. The thing to appreciate about Mozart is how the frequent superficial lightness, beauty, melody, and clarity often develops into, or even masks, darkness and gravitas, and frequently hides real musical complexity underneath it. This is actually why I think Mozart does the opposite of "grows old quickly" because the more you listen and analyze, the more you realize is going on under the surface. This is most obvious in his operas. In Figaro, it's the silly, comedic chaos that stills for the countess's melancholic solo arias; or the final resolution where more comedic chaos of the identity mix-ups stills for the count's apology, a moment which I find has more gravitas than almost all of Verdi and Wagner combined. Even a simple aria like Voi che sapete has a complexity to it if one realizes how delicately it balances satiric comedy and genuine emotion (I discussed it here: www.talkclassical.com/63186-mozarts-voi-che-sapete.html). Don Giovanni is even more obvious, with the Don's and Leporello's comedy playing off the emotional turmoil of everyone in their wake, and the hellish finale that so entranced Schopenhauer. Yet, there are similar analogs in his instrumental works. The slow movement of the Sinfonia Concertante was likely in response to the death of his mother, and it shows; the slow movement of the 23rd piano concerto is so mournful it (as a friend of mine once said) should come with a trigger warning. But that's just discussing emotion, which, sure, Beethoven and the romantics often did better. Mozart's formal and harmonic richness, while not as obvious as Bach's, is certainly quite prevalent. The thing about Mozart's counterpoint, though, and all of his utilization of more complex compositional styles, is that he hides them so well under that "lightness" that, unless you're really listening for them, they sound as easy and natural as his most simplest of works. I quote the musicologist Alfred Einstein on the matter: As for Bach, I flat-out disagree that any music must be understood to be enjoyed; in fact, I think that's backwards, music should only be understood IF it is enjoyed. Bach's mastery of counterpoint and fugues needs no defense, but my problem with him is precisely what Einstein said above about Mozart never "sweating." You always hear Bach's sweat, you hear everything he learned. He thrusts the counterpoint and fugues in your face endlessly and frequently that's all there is, to the point it often sounds like clockwork. Now, that's not always the case, and I think there is plenty of Bach where the overt complexity is combined with some aesthetic beauty, or drama, or emotion, or power, or something else of interest besides just the overbearing harmony, and that's when I appreciate Bach's genius. If I think Bach was at his consistent best in the organ works it's largely because the organ is an instrument that can bring a sense of drama and power to everything played on it, including counterpoint. Something like the Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor can sound downright apocalyptic when played at volume on a full-range audio system! Anyway, sorry for typing a novel, but your complaint about Mozart is a relatively common one I've encountered over the years, and while I won't say it's necessarily true in your case, I often find that it comes from a plain misunderstanding of Mozart's music and his particular genius. Artur Schnabel once said that: "Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters." The reason is precisely because the genius of Bach and Beethoven are obvious and extremely easy to elucidate; Mozart's is much more elusive and ethereal. Sure, many appreciate him just for the beauty and melody, but just as many hear that superficial pleasantry as you do, as light and lacking in gravitas. You only recognize the genius when you see what's really going on underneath that, and it's why I never tire of Mozart because I feel I'm always digging deeper with him. With Bach and Beethoven that's not the case; you pretty much get it after a few listens, they don't hide much. There's also something to be said for the fact that Mozart found a mercurial balance perfectly in the center between Bach's austere objectivity (likely representative of his faith) and Beethoven's (and the romantics) profound subjectivity, making Mozart the most human of composers.
|
|