Mozart

Started by facehugger, April 06, 2007, 02:37:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Josquin des Prez

Quote from: snyprrr on May 20, 2009, 09:25:12 PM
I still can't find the "real" Mozart thread on the search engine. Anyone?

I have just started listening to Mozart's late SQs, many for the first time, but ALL for the first time as a serious study mode. Haydn I can follow, but I was blown away by Mozart's "too many notes" florid style and really got the sense that I need to be told HOW to listen to them studiously. Is it me, or does he have LOTS of little quirks that keep things intersting? He just seems to pack so much stuff into 6-7 mins. What's the secret of listening to these SQs? I still can't tell them apart, mostly (my un-classical bias shows :-[ :-X :P), and I'm having trouble picking up that Mozartean happy melancoly. You can get technical with me, I'll pick it up. My set (ABQ) starts with K387, the "Sunrise."

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. :)

If i were you, i'd pay attention to the harmony. Mozart's tonal language is much more chromatic then either Haydn or Beethoven, always sounds on the verge of braking apart. Yet, it almost never does. That's the genius of it i think. The overtly chromatic introduction to the last quartet indicates that he knew very well what he was doing, it's just not an indirect feature of his melodic sensibility. He is actually stretching the harmonic boundaries of his works without making it look like he is doing anything. I believe Mozart to be a considerably greater composer then Haydn and a far more sophisticated one. Stick with it for a while and you'll see what i mean.

Herman

Snyppr, if you just keep listening you'll soon be able to tell Mozart's six Haydn quartets apart, and the four wonderful quartets that come after, too. They are indeed the ultimate in SQ writing, even the Hunt and the Hoffmeister (499) that are a little less complex harmonically. Each of 'em has a distinct character.

There is no need IMO to relegate Haydn to a lesser status, just because Mozart's quartets are so *#@! good. !) Mozart couldn't have written his without the model Haydn provided 2) Haydn wrote a lot more great quartets than Mozart.

Valentino

I guess I have to put on Superwoman and her Sidekicks in K. 421 now. Desert island stuff, that!
We audiophiles don't really like music, but we sure love the sound it makes;
Audio-Technica | Bokrand | Thorens | Cambridge Audio | Logitech | Yamaha | Topping | MiniDSP | Hypex | ICEpower | Mundorf | SEAS | Beyma

karlhenning

Quote from: Herman on May 21, 2009, 02:21:21 AM
Snyppr, if you just keep listening you'll soon be able to tell Mozart's six Haydn quartets apart, and the four wonderful quartets that come after, too. They are indeed the ultimate in SQ writing, even the Hunt and the Hoffmeister (499) that are a little less complex harmonically. Each of 'em has a distinct character.

There is no need IMO to relegate Haydn to a lesser status, just because Mozart's quartets are so *#@! good. !) Mozart couldn't have written his without the model Haydn provided 2) Haydn wrote a lot more great quartets than Mozart.

Well said withal, Herman.

Opus106

Quote from: Herman on May 21, 2009, 02:21:21 AM
They are indeed the ultimate in SQ writing

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you, but do you mean to say that no other string quartet or set of string quartets has/have exploited the medium to a greater extent?
Regards,
Navneeth

Josquin des Prez

Quote from: Herman on May 21, 2009, 02:21:21 AM
Mozart couldn't have written his without the model Haydn provided

Faulty logic is faulty. Haydn couldn't have written anything like the Opus 76 or his London symphonies without the model provided by Mozart. To really understand how ahead of his time Mozart really was you have to pay attention to the time line. The "hey day" of high classical music were the 1790s. Mozart wrote most of his best works during the 1780s. Think about it.

Gurn Blanston

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 07:33:49 AM
Faulty logic is faulty. Haydn couldn't have written anything like the Opus 76 or his London symphonies without the model provided by Mozart. To really understand how ahead of his time Mozart really was you have to pay attention to the time line. The "hey day" of high classical music were the 1790s. Mozart wrote most of his best works during the 1780s. Think about it.

... basing his quartets directly on the model provided by Haydn's Op 33 (1781). I would be edified to have you show me where Haydn's later quartets owed any debt whatsoever to Mozart's quartets.... :)

8)
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

karlhenning

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 07:33:49 AM
Quote from: HermanMozart couldn't have written his without the model Haydn provided.

Faulty logic is faulty.

And a tautology is a tautology!  Your remark is a puzzling 'response' to Herman here, viz.:

QuoteHaydn couldn't have written anything like the Opus 76 or his London symphonies without the model provided by Mozart.

Two contemporary artists, in a state of mutual influence.  This does not in the least 'negate' Herman's remark;  you have added the dimension that Mozart was an influence upon Haydn, too.  To offer that as a supposed 'contradiction' to the fact of Haydn's influence upon Mozart, is faulty logic.

Once again, the fact that you start the post out with a comment on faulty logic, is ironic, and amusing.

And I thank you!

QuoteTo really understand how ahead of his time Mozart really was you have to pay attention to the time line. The "hey day" of high classical music were the 1790s. Mozart wrote most of his best works during the 1780s. Think about it.

This whole bit is predicated on the peculiarity, the nicety, of designating the 1790s as a "heyday" in 'distinction' to the decade earlier.  Since there seems no memo in existence to such a curious effect, your statement is entirely self-serving, rather than anything in service of historical truth. Think about it.

snyprrr

Quote from: snyprrr on May 20, 2009, 09:36:18 PMIt's fixed now, snipper, no problem. :)  GB
Snipper?  uh...uh...snipper??? oh, woe is me... ;D ;D ;D

ok, ok ::), I feel better now...

On the Haydn vs Mozart debate: who made who vis a vis Haydn's "Sunrise" (76/4) vs. Mozart K575? They're both in "D" and seem to have a similar flavor. I mean, by THAT time, there must have been some cross pollination.

I've also noticed many of Mozart's openings are...mm...mellifulous? The only quartet that opens with some sort of unison seems to be the last in "F' K590. Is it Beethoven that made the "heavy/cool" union intro his own?

Standouts for me right now are the "Sunrise" K387, the "Hoffmeister" (reminds me of Hindemith's last SQ!!!), and the last K590. But the whole cycle seems like a giant garden with cubbyholes of glory everywhere!

Also, per Haydn SQs, why does talk about them always center around Op.76, Erdody? When people pick their favorite Haydn SQs we always get something from that set or Op.77? I went through most of the Naxos set years ago seeking "snyprrr's personal favorite" (and I thought there must be one in THAT many SQs, perferrably in minor key), but I just found Haydn (or the Kodaly Qrt.), well, frankly boring. But don't get me wrong, I have all his minor key symphonies which I love, and the piano trios and piano sonatas I like a lot. Perhaps it is the smooth homogenized SQ sound in Haydn that seems to put me to sleep. But when I heard the Alban Berg Quartet (Teldec box) play "The Rider", I realized that the performer certainly makes a difference. This was quite an exciting, razor sharp performance, and I don't remember the Kodaly making that kind of impression on me. And I am really eager to hear some Festetics?? HIP.

I recently heard what may finally be my favorite Haydn SQ, Op.33/5 in f minor (of course). I saw it on youtube, and it had an almost baroque sound to it I really liked. I noticed also that Haydn didn't really take off on the SQs until after his Sturm und Drang period (of course my fav Haydn period), the Op.33 however falling squarely into this period. So, perhaps if and when, I would certainly like to hear the Festetics?? in Op.33.

...perhaps Boccherini or Albrechtsberger (is this a father/son team?...there seems to be two of them???)....

DavidRoss

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 08:15:14 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 07:33:49 AM
Faulty logic is faulty. Haydn couldn't have written anything like the Opus 76 or his London symphonies without the model provided by Mozart. To really understand how ahead of his time Mozart really was you have to pay attention to the time line. The "hey day" of high classical music were the 1790s. Mozart wrote most of his best works during the 1780s. Think about it.
This whole bit is predicated on the peculiarity, the nicety, of designating the 1790s as a "heyday" in 'distinction' to the decade earlier.  Since there seems no memo in existence to such a curious effect, your statement is entirely self-serving, rather than anything in service of historical truth. Think about it.

More hilarity: the delicious irony of JdP suggesting to anyone else that he should "Think about it."   ;D  Thanks for the chuckles.
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

Valentino

(Mosaïques for Haydn, snyprrr.)

The mere suggestion that Haydn and Mozart were not influenced by each other makes me chuckle.
We audiophiles don't really like music, but we sure love the sound it makes;
Audio-Technica | Bokrand | Thorens | Cambridge Audio | Logitech | Yamaha | Topping | MiniDSP | Hypex | ICEpower | Mundorf | SEAS | Beyma

karlhenning

Quote from: snyprrr on May 21, 2009, 08:21:53 AM
On the Haydn vs Mozart debate . . . .

O Freunde! Nicht diese töne!

The two artists had the highest regard for one another, and it would look juvenile on our part to couch the matter in one-or-the-other terms.

From p.16 of Mozart: The Golden Years

Quote from: H.C. Robbins LandonThe three symphonies of this period [i.e., When he returned to Salzburg and began composing in 1779 and 1780, from earlier the same paragraph] are all uniquely beautiful works of quite different kinds [...] The next work, the lyrical B-flat Symphony № 33 (K.319), is in that Austrian tradition of chamber symphony perfected by Haydn (and by his followers, such as J.B. Vanhal).  In keeping with the general tradition, the orchestration omits trumpets and drums and the entire score is of a feathery lightness.  The third symphony, № 34 (K.338), is, again, totally different—a grand work in C major with trumpets and drums, in the key associated with spiritual and temporal power.  We notice that Mozart has made something of a speciality of this incisive and brilliant use of C major:  one of the characteristics of his music in general, but especially of this pageantry in C, is the use of the dotted rhythm in 4/4 time [mus. ex.: quarter-note, dotted-eighth + sixteenth-note, quarter-note, quarter-note]. This particularly Mozartean marching motif pervades the first movement in a quite extraordinary way, announcing itself in the horns and trumpets in bar 3, but proceeding to the whole orchestra in bars 7, 11, 13, and so forth, thus making us almost continuously aware of its presence, sometimes for bars on end.  Haydn had made a great specialty of such C major pageantry, and had composed a dozen symphonies with trumpets and drums and (an Esterháza specialty) horns in C alto, an octave above normal, culminating in his Symphony № 56 of 1774, a work widely diffused in manuscript copies and several printed editions and hence probably well known to Mozart.  Mozart, as was his wont, assimilated this C major style of Haydn's and made it even more brilliant and penetrating.

karlhenning

From p.133 of Mozart: The Golden Years

Quote from: H.C. Robbins LandonThe Haydn-Mozart relationship has been the subject of much comment, most of it (as far as nineteenth- and twentieth-century Mozart scholarship is concerned) of a slightly surprised nature, considering that Mozartians—but not Mozart himself—have always tended to consider Haydn a second-rate composer and unworthy of the loving attention with which the younger master treated him and his music.  That Mozart actually did revere Haydn is attested in many contemporary and near-contemporary documents, for instance in Franz Xaver Niemetschek's Mozart biography of 1798, based on information given by Constanze Mozart and other authentic sources.

snyprrr

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 08:57:02 AM
O Freunde! Nicht diese töne!

bitte, bitte, neine, meine shones kraftmeister! gesuntheit!! ;D

I should have used quotes! und how bout that Deutschereinzechtgersprackt? ::)

...uber alles...

Josquin des Prez

#74
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 08:15:14 AM
Two contemporary artists, in a state of mutual influence.  This does not in the least 'negate' Herman's remark;

The comment regarding Mozart's influence upon Haydn wasn't meant to negate Herman's remark, it was just an addition to my claim that his logic was faulty. The fact Haydn influenced Mozart and that without the first we wouldn't have the other doesn't have anything to do with whether Mozart was in fact a greater or more "sophisticated" composer. This is so obvious i didn't feel any need to expand on his statement other then calling his logic defective. Herman's quip and your hearty support of it is a clear example of knee-jerk feel good sentimentality overriding logical consideration. If he wanted to prove that Haydn was not a lesser genius he should have attempted to do so directly. I don't know how you people can lead an existence made up entirely of coffee klatch pleasantries.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 08:15:14 AM
This whole bit is predicated on the peculiarity, the nicety, of designating the 1790s as a "heyday" in 'distinction' to the decade earlier.  Since there seems no memo in existence to such a curious effect, your statement is entirely self-serving, rather than anything in service of historical truth. Think about it.

Historical truth being defined entirely according to the mainstream academic interpretation of it, right? No way an individual should ever develop their own opinion on a given subject, God forbid! When Haydn first introduced his opus 33 quartets, i don't see a great deal of acknowledgment in the musical culture of his time. Only Mozart was able to seize upon those new ideas, and he almost instantly went beyond them. The standard he set was so high even Haydn had to play catch up, and that despite the fact he was allegedly leading the new style. Most of his best works were written after Mozart was already dead, and if we juxtapose Mozart's achievements during the period he was most active with what was going on around him the gab is so wide that it doesn't even appear to be possible.

Gabriel

#75
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 10:28:10 AM
When Haydn first introduced his opus 33 quartets, i don't see a great deal of acknowledgment in the musical culture of his time. Only Mozart was able to seize upon those new ideas, and he almost instantly went beyond them.

While Haydn, at the same time, was going beyond them by his own means. I don't see here any superiority of Mozart over Haydn.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 10:28:10 AM
The standard he set was so high even Haydn had to play catch up, and that despite the fact he was allegedly leading the new style.

This sentence is true only in a relative way. In fact the genres in which Haydn didn't match Mozart were mainly opera and concerto.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 10:28:10 AM
Most of his best works were written after Mozart was already dead...

This statement is false. Haydn's masterpieces written before Mozart's death can be counted for dozens, if not by hundreds, in most if not all musical genres.

Personally, I think that the exercise of deciding objectively if Haydn or Mozart was a greater composer than the other is vain and sterile. And concerning the concept of "musical genius", I think that the fact of being born in the countryside, in an environment that was not precisely the best for developing a musical talent, and then to struggle in Vienna through the most difficult economical and social conditions for finally becoming the greatest composer of his time (with Mozart) is a Haydnian accomplishment that I can't qualify but of "genius" and that I admire as deeply as Mozart's almost unparalleled precocity.

karlhenning

Quote from: Gabriel on May 21, 2009, 03:16:16 PM
This sentence is true only in a relative way. In fact the genres in which Haydn didn't match Mozart were mainly opera and concerto.

And Haydn graciously (and humbly) conceded Mozart's superiority in opera.

Quote from: Gabriel
This statement is false. Haydn's masterpieces written before Mozart's death can be counted for dozens, if not by hundreds, in most if not all musical genres.

Personally, I think that the exercise of deciding objectively if Haydn or Mozart was a greater composer than the other is vain and sterile. And concerning the concept of "musical genius", I think that the fact of being born in the countryside, in an environment that was not precisely the best for developing a musical talent, and then to struggle in Vienna through the most difficult economical and social conditions for finally becoming the greatest composer of his time (with Mozart) is a Haydnian accomplishment that I can't qualify but of "genius" and that I admire as deeply as Mozart's almost unparalleled precocity.

Quoted for truth.

karlhenning

Quote from: 'Josquin'
Yeah, they don't like radical crypto-Marxists trying to undermine the prestige of European history and by extension ruining tourism to their city. Cant blame them.

I guess Mr Newman doesn't like the inconvenience of historical fact undermining his attempts to make a name for himself by the wacko method of sling mud and see what sticks.


Opus106

Wolferl


Could anyone enlighten me on the use of the suffix -- assuming it is one -- 'erl.' There was Wolfgang's sister, Maria Anna, who was also known as Nannerl, but I don't recollect seeing the name Nann, or Nanngang even! But I do seem to recollect that letters among family members used Wolferl often. So was it a pet-name?
Regards,
Navneeth