| Author |
Subject |
Lucy
Clifford
Registered User
(3/10/01 2:24:55 am)
Reply |
A new
(MUSICAL) topic to consider
It just occured to me
that:
Mozart (b. 1756) developed the symphony astronomically -
changing it from the pretty and amusing form that is prevalent even
in Late Haydn, to the form which Beethoven picked up and devloped it
even further.
Gustav Mahler was born in 1860, a mere 104
years after W.A.M. and carried Romantic movement into the 20th
Century.
He died a mere 120 years after Mozart, and look at what
had happened in between - the exploration of tonality, harmony and
creation which had been started by Mozart's genius and carried on by
Beethoven.
Beethoven's 9th Symphony was premiered in 1824, so
close to the premiere of Mahler's own first chorale
effort.
It is only just over 85 (87) years, less than a life
time, since the premiere of the Rite of Spring, which if anything
was the piece that brought in the 20th Century, and (please don't
laugh) seemed to prophesise the horror and carnage which was so much
a feature of the century.
So it was just around those 157
years, from 1756 to 1913 when music changed its meaning
forever.
Hmmmm. Something for me, at least to meditate
on.
|
cellochris99
Registered User
(3/10/01 5:35:46 am)
Reply |
Mozart
Just a little trivia tidbit. They
say that Mozart had an IQ of ~150. Not too bad. But then again, his
musical genious was off the charts!
Chris
|
Lucy
Clifford
Registered User
(3/10/01 7:41:24 pm)
Reply |
I ask
myself?
Here is a totally non-contensious
topic, deep and meaningful, and has it got 80 replies? NO! Come on
everybody, think a bit 
It also
strikes me that in the years since 1913 (RoS) nothing quite as
amazing has happened, or at least nothing has has caused such an
impact. Why is that? Is the age of 'classical' music no
more?
|
Matthew
Tifford
Registered
User
(3/11/01 1:15:48 am)
Reply |
Mozart,
Haydn, and Beethoven
"Mozart (b. 1756) developed the
symphony astronomically - changing it from the pretty and amusing
form that is prevalent even in Late Haydn, to the form which
Beethoven picked up and devloped it even further."
I have to
disagree with your description of late Haydn as "pretty and
amusing." While I am not a big Haydn fan, his late works are quite
complex. I should also point out that Mozart, along with most
everyone else, had a healthy respect for his work, even dedicating
six quartets to Haydn. This was quite unusual since most of Mozart's
works were dedicated to rich patrons, for obvious
reasons.
From New Grove 2:
(on Mozart and Haydn's
relationship)
"But there is no doubt of their mutual admiration
as composers: each acknowledged the other as his only peer and as
the only meaningful influence on his own music in the
1780s."
Also, while it is believed that Beethoven may have
taken a few lessons from Mozart, Haydn was his primary teacher and
influence.
The great symphonic composers of the
late-classical through the Romantic period derived their
compositional style from him. This is why he is commonly referred to
as the "father of the symphony".
This is not to dispute
Mozart's genius, it is interesting to contemplate what effect he
might have had on later composers if he had lived longer.
Regrettably, the Mozart school of composition died with him.
As for your comment about nothing amazing happening
in music after 1913, here are some exciting composers to check
out:
Andrew Lloyd Webber.
John Tesh
Yanni
Stephen
Sondheim (yeah, I think he sucks too)
|
zambocello
Registered User
(3/11/01 4:08:33 am)
Reply |
apres
Sacre
I think a few amazing things have
happened after 1913. The music of Bartok, Debussy, Schoenberg,
Webern, Berg, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Hindemith, Barber, Britten,
Strauss, etc, etc. Plus the work of living composers who do not yet
qualify for canonization.
|
galois00
Registered User
(3/11/01 12:10:29 pm)
Reply |
Re: A
new (MUSICAL) topic to consider
It's interesting to hear your
suggestions about who has been important (or not!) in this century.
But Lucy's post raises another interesting point. Looking back on
the development from Haydn through Mozart to Mahler, and what's
happened since 1913, you have to wonder: where do we go from here? I
was thinking recently about that funny Kingsley Amis quote about
20th century music. Some older works, though initially
controversial, gradually won acceptance. Rite of Spring is
considered a classic now. Will that process of acceptance continue?
Which contemporary works do you think people will be enjoying 100
years from now?
|
zambocello
Registered User
(3/12/01 1:01:45 am)
Reply |
Re: A
new (MUSICAL) topic to consider
Many pieces from the first part of
the 20th century are already "standard." Carmina Burana, Bartok
Concerto for Orch, the violin and piano concertos, Miraculaous
Mandarin, quartets, etc; Shostakovich and Prokofiev works, Barber
fiddle concerto, Berg 3 pieces and violin concerto, Copland ballet
pieces and Sym #3, Menotti operas etc.
It is fun to
speculate which pieces of more recent composers will have an
enduring place in the repertoire. Corigliano? Christopher Rouse's?
Zwillich? Lieberman? Adams? Sheng? Shall we start a pool and let the
winner's grand child collect?
|
Lucy
Clifford
Registered User
(3/12/01 3:41:38 am)
Reply |
Ah ha!
Matthew
I acknowledge the Haydn/Mozart
relationship, but the gist of what I was saying was that Mozart
spanned the gap, leading into Beethoven's further
developement.
Perhaps, in his way, Haydn was more
influential. I should have said that he turned the symphony from
something pretty and amusing into a more erudite form (the 'London'
for example).
I may sound rather philistine, but I'd choose a
Haydn/Beethoven S/Quartet over a Mozart any day (apart from the
Dissonant)
Andrew Lloyd Webber? A Great
Composer?????????????
Next you'll be telling me that Julian Lloyd
Webber is a great cellist!
JOKE!
JOKE! JOKE!
|
danielemanuel
Registered User
(3/12/01 6:38:57 am)
Reply |
Mozart
et Co.
Interesting topic, I am very
interested in musical history. If you look back at the Viennese time
it isn't hard to find connections between the composers.
For
example, G. C. Wagenseil wrote two Cello Concertos. One of his
pupils was L. Hofmann who was to write eight Cello Concertos.
Hofmann was the music director of the cathedral. Hoping to get his
job later, Mozart was Hofmann's unpaid assistant for some time. (But
Hofmann outlived Mozart). Mozart actually wrote one Cello Concerto
in F (K. 206a - unfortunately lost).
At least one time Mozart
played string quartet together with Haydn, Dittersdorf and Vanhal.
All of them had also written Cello Concertos. To connect Haydn with
Hofmann it is probable that both Haydn and Hofmann composed Cello
Concertos for the cellist Weigl (the reciever of the Haydn C). It
may also be that Haydn heard a cello concerto by Hofmann before
composing the C concerto.
Beethoven did take lessons from
Haydn. But their temperaments didn't match. So Beethoven went on and
took lessons from Salieri (and som others) instead.
....and
the history of music continues just like this. For exemple one of
Lizt's daughters became the wife of Wagner.
\Daniel
|
Matthew
Tifford
Registered
User
(3/12/01 10:56:24 am)
Reply |
Great
cellists
I would say that the greatness of
these two brothers is exactly equal! :-)
"Next you'll
be telling me that Julian Lloyd Webber is a great
cellist!"
|
sarah
schenkman
Registered User
(3/12/01 4:22:46 pm)
Reply |
Re:
apres Sacre
I think orchestras should be
constantly introducing new music to their audience. A few years ago
my orchestra had an assoc. conductor who liked to program stuff like
"Chairman Dances", "Stomp", "Dead Elvis", Philip Glass. It made for
exciting programs. He's gone and now we do almost nothing but
war-horses.
|
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
(Moderator only)
Design
Resources 