|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.26.244
In Reply to: Re: My First Opera posted by Brian Cheney on April 22, 2007 at 10:07:42:
" 'Flute' is a monument of Western culture, an inexhaustible treasure. Sorry it came across to you as less than that."HI,
Much, much less. Sorry, I don't get it and I don't think there is enough there to try. But we have at least drawn the battlefield for discussion.Mozart usually strikes me as being a superficial person with enormous native talent. I'll not argue that point. But, until the end, there was no depth with a few, almost accidental, exceptions. But towards the end of his superficial, pampered life -- glory, glory, glory.
He died too young. He was just coming into an understanding of life with its trials, joys, and triumphs. Many others, without the same talent, accomplished far more of real value. He is, generally, greatly overrated, IMO.
Follow Ups:
You are. of course, intitled to your opinions, and are allowed to express them freely, at least in this country (the U.S.).When your opinions differ so markedly from from history's judgement, however, you might do well to be more circumspect and first discover WHY your opinions are so divergent.
Mozart had an uncommon understanding of people and human nature--this is why his operas are so compelling. Compared with the usual fodder of the day, his characters live and breath--their emotions, strengths, weakness are illuminated and amplified by the music. There is a universal appeal to Mozart's character development and exposition as facilitated by the music that is reminiscent of great playwrights such as Shakespeare.
Your assessment that "he was just coming into an understanding of life" is way off the mark--as a child, Mozart was uncommonly mature and by his 'teens possessed an understanding that few adults have. He continued to develop this all through his career. Also, your statement that "many others, without the same talent, accomplished far more of real value" is highly questionable. Other than Haydn, I challenge you to name a single contemporary of Mozart who is his equal, either in scope or depth.
As for The Magic Flute, there is indeed music "of depth"--you just have to recognize it when it appears. Given your prejudice against Mozart, it's not surprising that you missed it. I'm thinking here of the orchestral writing, with its imitative counterpoint and unusually full scoring (full winds, including three trombones), all of which impressed amd influenced Beethoven and later Weber. In fact, German Romantic opera in many ways had its start with The Magic Flute, and would be unthinkable without it.
Then there are scenes such as Act II Scene 28 (Tamino, Two Armed Men and later Pamina) which is based on a Bach chorale tune, with added counterpoint--very unusual and ahead of its time. Or the aria "In diesen heil'gen Hallen". which Bernard Shaw (an atheist!) thought could have been sung the Lord God himself. Or the second aria of the Queen of the Night, which is as "Sturm und Drang" as it gets. Or Pamina's aria, "Ach, ich fühl’s", which is as deep an expressiion of grief and sorrow as Mozart (or anyone, for that matter) ever wrote.
The point of the Magic Flute is that its music is tremendously varied, from simple folk-song to elaborate ensemble numbers to solemn Masonic hymns for male choir to coloratura arias to rousing finales with chorus and orchestra. As Brian said, I doubt that ANY student production could make sense of this music or do justice to it--they simply wouldn't be able to field the necessary voices.
The Magic Flute is not Mozart's greatest opera--that honor goes to Don Giovanni. But it is his greatest German opera, and to understand Mozart completely, one must know the work.
On second thought, keep your opinions to yourself--you're simply demonstrating your closed-mindedness.
HI,
There may some truth in what you say. But why would I have any reason at all to close off myself from music I secretly consider great? I wouldn't and I don't. Perhaps you should take the trouble to read this entire thread and you may discover what I'm really saying.Ah, give me Vivaldi (not his operas. please) and I'm a happy man.
BTW, do you apply the same judgments to yourself?
On the one hand, you make statements about Mozart's *typical fluff* and being *overrated*, and on the other hand you say that you *secretly consider* his music to be great.Based on that, I doubt if anyone knows what you're *really saying*, least of all you.
HI CB,
You misunderstood what I meant. It was simply this: if I liked the music I would not make a case against it. If I don't like the music then it is fair game. In other words, I won't argue against myself in either case. Is this clear?
That is true. Making a case for music "that one doesn't like" as not being good music, however, is a major stretch.
Hmmm - I studied Don Giovanni at university. It was my first exposure to a Mozart opera. At first I found it overly glib and fluent, but getting beyond that is the secret of understanding Mozart. After many auditions, I started to get the emotions beneath the surface, and the depth beneath the gloss. Try listening to one of the Solti Flutes, or watch the Bergman film, to get more out of Flute than you have. Mozart's operatic works are building blocks of Western Civilization, and you will be depriving yourself of something special if you don't work a little harder.
I can't see my arguments swaying your opinions, based as they are on profound ignorance of, and colossal misconceptions about, the composer's life and work.
It is kind of a hopeless argument. I got into an dispute with someone here over the merits of Beethoven's late quartets. It became obvious that the fact that the other listener did not like/get the quartets was clearly the fault of the composer and his composition.
Tourist regarding the Mona Lisa: "What's so great about that??"Another tourist at the Winged Victory: "Where's her head?"
Here's to the man who once said "You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
You forgot the Tourist asking about the Venus de Milo:"Hmmph. Where's her arms?"
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
HI,
Oh, I forgot to mention that I am not totally ignorant of Mozart's life. I'm actually pretty familiar with it having read several biographies. I think his father was close to a monster, a soccer mom in drag. I do know of his young fame, his father's ambition living his life through his son's, his history in the courts and of his financial difficulties.Also, of his childish dependence on his father then the courage to try to break away. He never really succeeded. It was too late. They were emotionally bonded forever. Buried in an unmarked paupers grave. A sad ending. It would have made a good opera which I would probably have never seen.
The best you can accuse me of is indifference. Please don't play your "I'm superior" card. It won't fly with me.
Unfortunately for you, you were doing OK until this post. No one played any such "superiority card", and your fragile ignorance (um...ego) has now allowed you -- YOU -- to try to feel "superior" by preserving your rights as a caveman. If you don't understand Mozart's music -- really, truly understand it from a musicological perspective(form, orchestration, development) or from a socio-historic standpoint (overbearing father is trite, and shallow), you should just MOVE ON. You don't like Mozart: we got it.
HI SE,
The reasons you list to like Mozart, while interesting, are totally beside the point in my view. If one needs to be a musicologist, sociologist, or a composer to enjoy any composer the music has failed. You simply make my point.Take Schonberg for example. His serial forms no doubt interest the musical technologists but is music that only a mother could love. I can appreciate the original thinking but at the same time leap to change the radio station.
Obviously. I am fascinated by Mozart's life. I think it is compelling. But it does not follow that I am equally captured by his music.
If the intents of the composer are to state EXACTLY what it is they have stated and, by those standards, the music is demonstrably successful (structure, texture and sound), one cannot make a statement such as you made: "the music has failed". The only condition that has come to be is that the listener (you or I) "doesn't like the music as a matter of personal opinion".It's a subtle point that may be moot here, since you're closing statement, "it does not follow that I am equally captured by his music" is not as absolute as the "music failed" view, and I may be reading too much into what you are intending, in the end to say.
I take it you are not "dismissing the worth" of Mozart or Schoenberg, you simply don't like them. If you are saying more than that, the only way to do so honestly is by addressing them systematically, according to the "rules" that these composers were actually applying. Even with that accomplished, it is simply not true in any way that someone else that may continue to disagree with you is exerting any kind of "superiority" -- it is not a logical conclusion. It is simply a matter of expressing an opinion based on a different point of reference.
HI SE,
While I realize that music may hold as its purpose the solving of certain technical problems and, if those are satisfactorily solved, the music may be said to be successful, I feel that definition is too narrow.For me, the purpose of music is to communicate the intensions of the composer in order to emotionally involve the listener. Just how he goes about doing that is a technical detail that is mostly hidden from the listener-one we are not aware of. If one walks away from a concert saying, “Wow, did your hear the way he resolved that key modulation”, that’s an interesting detail that has nothing to do with my overall impression of the music. If I walk away unmoved, the music has failed its purpose FOR ME. Is this personal? Of course-can it be else wise?
I love Van Gogh. All day long I could wax enthusiastic about his use of color, the shape of his brush strokes, his application of pigment, his representation of light, his tragic life, etc. But in the final analysis none of these things matter. What does matter is how his work strikes me in my emotional centers. That’s all that counts. To me, that’s what all art (music included) is about and nothing else. I’ll leave the technical details to the academics.
I want you to pay close attention here. It is very clear to me that while I generally consider Mozart’s music superficial, and that he was a superficial person, he was moving into a period of his life where he was going to overcome his superficiality. His late music was starting to emotionally fulfill the promise of his technical and aesthetic potential. There is no telling where he could have taken his music if only he had had the time. We will never know. Perhaps he had reached his artistic zenith but I doubt it.
I think it is a great tragedy that the world was robbed of Mozart’s potential. Much of his late music moves me to tears. In fact, the contrast between his earlier and later work underlines his youthful superficiality. Unwittingly, Mozart himself points out the emotional lack in his early music by writing such effective late music.
Do you agree?
"Unwittingly, Mozart himself points out the emotional lack in his early music by writing such effective late music."How do you get there? ALL artists evolve their personal style. The change in their late style vs. their early style has nothing to do with the artist making a deliberate "judgement" about their earlier work. The ones that DO engage in that type of thinking are notorious for burning their earlier manuscripts, or making public statements with regard to the change (Arvo Part, I believe, stepped away from tonality only to return to it...Penderecki also?).
In the end, when you make all of these judgements like "But in the final analysis none of these things matter", you are making them as someone that (with apologies) OBVIOUSLY isn't a composer, and may not be a musician.
I, personally, try not to discount things I don't understand as being non-essential or "beside the point". And I DEFINITELY don't buy into the line of reasoning that leads to "if someone knows more, and suggests that I need to know more" that they are trying to be "superior" or "arrogant". They are simply stating fact and, believe me, I am on the receiving end of that comment as much as you are. It's one of the things that drives me to learn more.
That said, I like what I like "for whatever reason I like it". It's an endless argument. There's no accounting for taste. I don't think anyone was trying to "suggest you change your mind". I believe the push is more along the lines of "dig a little deeper before you pass sweeping judgement over a major work of art". Remember (and I don't mean this personally): even idiots are allowed to vote. Where would something as complex as Classical music be if there weren't rules, standards, many definitions of "successful execution"? Wait...it would be BAD music. But, nothing is bad if at least one person likes it?:-)
HI SE,
It's not a sylistic change as much as maturity. Are you now just playing with words? You know I didn't mean that he made some sort of public pronouncement that he was going to change his ways. No. He was growing and reacting to emotional depths he could not reach before, IMO. I truly believe he went through an epiphany concerning his father which allowed deeper feelings and musical profundity to emerge. But this is just speculation. What's not in doubt is that he was changing and becomming more emotionally mature. Not the brat anymore. Life is a humbling experience.I'll repeat. His earlier fluff is underlined as such by his later maturity. The contrast is striking. Can you not see this?
There are very few composers whose later works don't have more to say than their earlier ones. All artists mature. So, you are saying you like his later works more than his earlier ones? OK. I don't think of composers as "brats" and such. A lot of that is trumped-up by authors trying to sell books. Mozart's early works are extremely "mature" as Classical Period compositions. His later works veer towards Romantic. Do you like music by the great Franz Joseph Haydn? Most of HIS stuff sounds like early Mozart...because it's Classical Period. The most highly successful Medieval and much of Baroque isn't nearly as emotionally charged (or as technically competent) as early Mozart. That makes this music disposable? Or, do we apply different standards as listeners in order to appreciate them?
HI Se,
I was going to mention Papa Joe but I didn't want to confuse the issue. I like Hayden even less than early Mozart. As with Mozart, I won't deny he was a significant historical figure. His music doesn't do much for me.But do understand there are many pre-classical composers I venerate. Like Bach, Vivaldi, Buxtahude (especially his organ works), and even earlier. Maybe I just don't like the Classical period at all.
.
HI All,
Maybe you are right. But we must face the fact that not all music resonates the same with everybody. And sometimes it does take work. It took me a few years to really start to understand Bach (I was much younger then) and now he sits atop my list of musical Heroes.With Mozart, well, I have tried to like him. Certainly, the common opinion shares yours. But I find only superficiality - usually. He kind of reminds me of academics who collect facts but can't figure out what to do with them; then spends a lifetime trying to convince others of their genius when in the final analysis they are nothing more than collectors of facts. Intellectual junk collectors.
Is that fair? Probably not.
The best part of Mozart’s music in my view is his delicacy with mood and finesse with the gesture. Since I am not a trained musician I have no appreciation for his technical talents and I really don’t care. I do care about how the music affects me emotionally. And Mozart usually leaves me cold. What can I say?
I mostly agree with it. I generally admire Mozart's technique, sometimes admire his tunefulness, humor or forays into darker, more aggressive sounds and seldom step away with any sensation of "awe". But...that's me. My benchmarks are the likes of Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner etc.: composers who wrote music on a different scale, dramatically.
HI SE,
Yes, I think you have said it well. "Clever" is the word. Can anyone hold Mozart and Beethoven in equal awe? It seems that they represent the two opposite ends of the emotional and musical language spectrum .Personally, I'll take Beethoven any day.
(and I mean this in no deeply technical way) the "Classical Style" and the "Romantic Style". Haydn and Mozart are considered to be, in many views I've encountered, the END of a style: the height of Classical as a style in terms of form, rules and range of expression. Beethoven, with his stretching of the rules and forms (outright breaking them apart in his Late works), opened the door for many more adventurous uses of harmony, timing, orchestration and outright DRAMA in music as an art form. This would be taken up later by Liszt, Chopin and -- perhaps more than anyone -- Berlioz and Wagner in their music-dramas.The result of all this is that Mozart (and Haydn...even Bach) CAN appear "boring", since they are definitely constrained, stylistically, by their own "systems". Germany/Austria were VERY conservative in the 18th and 19th centuries, at least in terms of those who actually PAID for music to be written and performed. On the one hand, history says that there was awareness of "intellectual value" in the forms preferred -- which is TRUE...as far as it goes. OTOH, conservative is (by one definition) a very limiting world view that doesn't invite new voices into a conversation. We need only look back at Biber, for example, to see that the "brains were there to do more with the music", but popular opinion ruled the day.
I think this is true in a way, but the genius of Mozart is his ability to create a huge variety of very subtle and beautiful and often quite complicated effects from what superficially appears to be a limited and simple system.It's very easy to compose or even improvise something that most people would recognize is in the "style" of Mozart, if you have some training and experience in playing Mozart's music. To compose on the level of Mozart hiself -- that is not so easy.
So it isn't surprising that many listeners, especially inexperienced or untrained ones (I'm not saying that applies to you) find Mozart "boring", at least at first.
and, personally, I like much of what Mozart composed, even through my 21st Century perspective (and THAT'S saying something)! By "constrained", I only meant that the type of music composed, for example, in the 20th Century was simply beyond "the possibilities" (or the willingness to explore them) of the earlier composers. I'll pull in Biber and Marais here: those composers had an incredible vision. Beethoven, of course, was incredible in this regard. Mozart, a highly gifted artist and techician, was "no Beethoven" -- VERY conservative by comparison, IMO. Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Shostakovich...all of these composers were, to me anyway, more "pioneering" in terms of what they were willing to explore than Mozart. But, I agree (and to your point), composers like Mozart, Bach and Vivaldi were able to extract an amazing range out of *relatively* thinner materials.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: