Sometimes, nothing but Mozart

[jochanaan]

Well obviously there wasn't popular music as we know it in the 18th century, so people couldn't go to that anyway...

Actually, there was.  It's called folk music, and some folk songs were sung in every tavern between St. Petersburg and Lisbon.  Catches, glees and other sung forms were also very popular in homes, pubs etc.  (There is one from the 18th century called, or rather known as, "Zounds, what a long pr*ck!"  Not exactly concert material. )

[Pat B]

There is one from the 18th century called, or rather known as, "Zounds, what a long pr*ck!"  Not exactly concert material.

Just sing it in a language the audience doesn't know. It will sound dignified or at least exotic.

[starrynight]

Actually, there was.  It's called folk music, and some folk songs were sung in every tavern between St. Petersburg and Lisbon.  Catches, glees and other sung forms were also very popular in homes, pubs etc.  (There is one from the 18th century called, or rather known as, "Zounds, what a long pr*ck!"  Not exactly concert material. )

Yeh but not really popular music as most people know it now.  Even though popular music really does develop from folk music (as opposed to classical perhaps, though I know folk elements can be imported in).

[jochanaan]

Just sing it in a language the audience doesn't know. It will sound dignified or at least exotic.

Case in point: Carmina Burana.

[Chaszz]

Yeh but not really popular music as most people know it now.  Even though popular music really does develop from folk music (as opposed to classical perhaps, though I know folk elements can be imported in).

I think some aspects of pop music developed out of classical music. The contrasting themes of ragtime, usually three in one composition, seem to me to have developed out of classical sonata form with its two contrasting themes. Ragtime was one of the contributors to jazz. Also the typical AABA form of much 1910-1950 "Great American Songbook" pop (Gershwin, Porter, Berlin, etc.), where the B section is quite different from the three A sections, I think also came from that aspect of sonata form. (Even some rock continues the AABA form, especially many of Bob Dylan's songs.) Most folk music doesn't have a B section. Where it does, in the chorus which comes after one or several verses, the chorus is not contrasting so much as an emotional climax to and further melodic development of the verse(s).

The composers of 20th c. pop music, as Gershwin etc. above, were frequently classically trained. Also a large number of early- and mid-20th C. black jazz soloists and composers came from middle class, not poor, homes and studied classical music in their youth. The great soloist Louis Armstrong was a poor street boy, but was taken in and informally adopted by a Jewish family, where he heard and loved opera records. So all in all I think classical was one of the ingredients of pop, along with folk.

[jochanaan]

The genres are constantly interfacing. That's why Duke Ellington--also classically trained, I believe--could say, "Only two kinds of music, good and bad."

[Mandryka]

I think you're missing the boat here.  The greatest composers of the past (Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) are revered primarily for how well they tapped into the human condition and all the emotions therein.  We don't move on from any of that.

Sorry for not responding. I only just saw this. Here's my thinking about the point you raise.

Of course people are moved by the emotional meaning of performances of music by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven etc. No argument there.

The emotional content varies from one performance to another. The truths about  "human condition and all the emotions therein" that (e.g.) Klemperer finds in the Gran Partita aren't at all the same as those in a performance by Nachtmusque . The meaning of the performance isn't contained in the composition. If Bach, Mozart etc had ideas about the human condition in mind, they're pretty obscure now and anyway, only historians care.

That makes me think that the reason why these composers are great is that their compositions can be used as a vehicle by interpreters -- it's the interpreters who use the music to say things about the condition of humans.  The human condition changes, and performances change too, to reflect that. The truth in the performance  transcends any ideas that the composer may have had. It's not that Mozart "tapped into the human condition" It's that (e.g.) Harnoncourt tapped into the human condition now and used Mozart's music to express what he saw, to make Mozart out contemporary.

[prémont]

That makes me think that the reason why these composers are great is that their compositions can be used as a vehicle by interpreters -- it's the interpreters who use the music to say things about the condition of humans.  The human condition changes, and performances change too, to reflect that. The truth in the performance  transcends any ideas that the composer may have had. It's not that Mozart "tapped into the human condition" It's that (e.g.) Harnoncourt tapped into the human condition now and used Mozart's music to express what he saw, to make Mozart out contemporary.

Strictly speaking music can not express anything by itself. It is only our acquired habitual emotional reflexes which determine our way of reacting to certain elements in the music (rhythm, harmony et.c.). And composers have known this from the beginning and used these elements to express the emotions we relate to them. Of course an interpreter may be more or less emotionally involved and have a more or less nuanced view upon some music than other interpreters, but his point of departure is the composer´s score with its combination of musical elements. When I read a score I am perfectly able to become emotionally moved, even if I in my head hear nothing but my own idea of the music. You may claim that I am moved by my own idea of the music and not by the music as such, but it is obvious to me, that the music contains elements, which decisively determines my idea of it. So I think an emotionally rich performance is the result of the combination of the emotional content of the music and the interpreters idea of the music, and that it is not exclusively the interpreters merit.

[jochanaan]

...So I think an emotionally rich performance is the result of the combination of the emotional content of the music and the interpreters idea of the music, and that it is not exclusively the interpreters merit.

Speaking as a performer, this is so obvious it hardly needs saying.  We either look at the piece and find it emotionally moving enough to practice, or we begin to enter an emotional state as we prepare it--and the emotion is at least a little different for every piece, so it can't be just us! Every successful performance is a collaboration between composer, performer(s) and audience (unless one or more of those elements are combined, as composer and performer).

[lisa needs braces]

That, you will pardon me, is nonsense. In fact, in the context of this thread, it is worth pointing out that Mozart's music has more things to say, and says it better, than do your posts, sirrah. You've moved on. Laughable.

Why are you habitually so nasty? Christ. No reason to jump down the guy's throat.

He's not the only person who feels that too much Mozart = obnoxious.

http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/020612-NL-mozart.html

[lisa needs braces]

Most of the posters seem to think I said Mozart wrote only pretty music and no serious music. I said "I have nothing against Mozart, except that his frequent prettiness is sometimes a little cloying to me." Sometimes.  A little. Of course I know that he also wrote music which is complex, deep and subtle. And I wouldn't have put in the choice about his music growing more serious as he got older if I didn't hear it already to starting to happen in his later works.

See the above post. I cherish a significant portion of the composer's mature works but cannot endure listening to him at long stretches. I can see why someone who has the urge the change the station after some Mozart might be put off by stumbling into more Mozart in a way they wouldn't be put off by stumbling into more Schubert/Bach/Beethoven after hearing a work or two by those composers.

[starrynight]

I think some aspects of pop music developed out of classical music. The contrasting themes of ragtime, usually three in one composition, seem to me to have developed out of classical sonata form with its two contrasting themes. Ragtime was one of the contributors to jazz. Also the typical AABA form of much 1910-1950 "Great American Songbook" pop (Gershwin, Porter, Berlin, etc.), where the B section is quite different from the three A sections, I think also came from that aspect of sonata form. (Even some rock continues the AABA form, especially many of Bob Dylan's songs.) Most folk music doesn't have a B section. Where it does, in the chorus which comes after one or several verses, the chorus is not contrasting so much as an emotional climax to and further melodic development of the verse(s).

The composers of 20th c. pop music, as Gershwin etc. above, were frequently classically trained. Also a large number of early- and mid-20th C. black jazz soloists and composers came from middle class, not poor, homes and studied classical music in their youth. The great soloist Louis Armstrong was a poor street boy, but was taken in and informally adopted by a Jewish family, where he heard and loved opera records. So all in all I think classical was one of the ingredients of pop, along with folk.

Yes, I think I was thinking in terms of the origins of classical and popular.  Classical may have had it's origins more from formal religious music and popular more from folk.  Earlier modern popular music grew with the musical which was like a popular counterpart to operetta, though the folk influence probably reasserted itself later in the century.

[amw]

Why are you habitually so nasty? Christ. No reason to jump down the guy's throat.

He's not the only person who feels that too much Mozart = obnoxious.

http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/020612-NL-mozart.html

Mr Lebrecht seems to commit the false-consensus error with quite a bit of regularity. I think even he is aware that while you and a few others may agree with him, the vast majority of musicians, listeners and critics do not -- thus his little swipes at that majority, dismissing them as not "true" music lovers or aesthetes. I also like his claim to understand Mozart better than Schnabel or Brendel did, and the unstated assumption that of course they would agree with him if they were as enlightened.

I'm just pointing these things out for anyone who might question why I find NL among the most disreputable, unscrupulous and generally unpleasant writers on music nowadays. That article is hardly the worst example out there, either.

[Karl Henning]

Mr Lebrecht seems to commit the false-consensus error with quite a bit of regularity. I think even he is aware that while you and a few others may agree with him, the vast majority of musicians, listeners and critics do not -- thus his little swipes at that majority, dismissing them as not "true" music lovers or aesthetes. I also like his claim to understand Mozart better than Schnabel or Brendel did, and the unstated assumption that of course they would agree with him if they were as enlightened.

I'm just pointing these things out for anyone who might question why I find NL among the most disreputable, unscrupulous and generally unpleasant writers on music nowadays. That article is hardly the worst example out there, either.

Yes, yes, indeed.  Lebrecht is the personification of "junk musicology" (to adapt the term "junk science"). [ Taking Lebrecht's "journalism" seriously ] = confirmation bias 

Anyone who finds too much Mozart obnoxious, can simply supplement by listening to any of a hundred other composers.  It's a win-win, because one's ear does not tire of Mozart, and Mozart does not at all suffer in the comparison.

[Mandryka]

Strictly speaking music can not express anything by itself. It is only our acquired habitual emotional reflexes which determine our way of reacting to certain elements in the music (rhythm, harmony et.c.). And composers have known this from the beginning and used these elements to express the emotions we relate to them. Of course an interpreter may be more or less emotionally involved and have a more or less nuanced view upon some music than other interpreters, but his point of departure is the composer´s score with its combination of musical elements. When I read a score I am perfectly able to become emotionally moved, even if I in my head hear nothing but my own idea of the music. You may claim that I am moved by my own idea of the music and not by the music as such, but it is obvious to me, that the music contains elements, which decisively determines my idea of it. So I think an emotionally rich performance is the result of the combination of the emotional content of the music and the interpreters idea of the music, and that it is not exclusively the interpreters merit.

I remember you once arguing that when something's in French ouverture form it should be regally played. I thought of this when I was exploring CU 3 recently because BWV 681 is a French Ouverture, and true to form, there are some very good regal performances (Astronio's for example, and Hans Otto)

But it was Kåre Nordstoga's gentle melancholy account which made me see that there was a better way, not the one on her complete CU3 record, but rather the one on a disc which includes Bach corales and Norwegian folk hymns. But best of all Hans Fagius, because of the sweet emotional depth that he finds in it. My bet is that Fagius sees the music as a commentary on the second verse of the hymn, a meditation of Jesus, the dramatic dissonant chords towards the end a representation of his crucifixion, followed by the glory of his rising.

I'm posting this because the most satisfying performances may not base the emotions they find in the music on the music itself, in my opinion.

But your last sentence may well be true for music which isn't grounded in a text.

[jochanaan]

...
But it was Kåre Nordstoga's gentle melancholy account which made me see that there was a better way, not the one on her complete CU3 record, but rather the one on a disc which includes Bach corales and Norwegian folk hymns. But best of all Hans Fagius, because of the sweet emotional depth that he finds in it. My bet is that Fagius sees the music as a commentary on the second verse of the hymn, a meditation of Jesus, the dramatic dissonant chords towards the end a representation of his crucifixion, followed by the glory of his rising.

I'm posting this because the most satisfying performances may not base the emotions they find in the music on the music itself, in my opinion.

But your last sentence may well be true for music which isn't grounded in a text.

Well, Bach's music, and Mozart's, is great enough to sustain diverse readings. And even in music with a sung text, different performers find different readings are effective. As long as it's not too far from what the composer wrote, it's all good.

[Karl Henning]

Well, Bach's music, and Mozart's, is great enough to sustain diverse readings. And even in music with a sung text, different performers find different readings are effective. As long as it's not too far from what the composer wrote, it's all good.

In a word, the performer should engage with the composer, not disregard him/her.

[Henk]

I voted for answer c, but prettiness is also a quality!

[Marc]

[....]prettiness is also a quality!

Definitely.

And it's underrated sometimes.

I.c. Mozart's (so-called) prettiness: it moves and touches me.
More than many of the pretty compositions of many of his contemporaries.

Like the Cherubino songs in Figaro, or the duetto Ah perdona al primo affetto (Annio, Servilia) in Tito, or Là ci darem la mano in Don Giovanni, or the slow movement of KV 467, or .... (endless list).

EDIT:
2 of my fave sopranos singing the 'Tito duetto'.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Hx1Esy_jE_A&

[jochanaan]

In a word, the performer should engage with the composer, not disregard him/her.

Word.