# Mozart and Salieri



## timothyjuddviolin (Nov 1, 2011)

A comparison of two piano concertos and the question, what makes Mozart better than Salieri?

Mozart and Salieri


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

K.414? You think Mozart's rep/chops derived from that?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

timothyjuddviolin said:


> A comparison of two piano concertos and the question, what makes Mozart better than Salieri?
> 
> Mozart and Salieri


We do because we know where Mozart is but where's Salieri ?
For a more technical explanation just hang around for a while and PetyrB will arrive over the horizon.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

Mozart was just a better composer than Salieri and Haydn.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Mozart was just a better composer than Salieri and Haydn.


Hah. Jeez; leave no opportunity unseized. An elipse or maybe a dash would have been more effective though.

Salieri... and Haydn.


----------



## Musician (Jul 25, 2013)

The fact that Mozart was Mozart is what makes it better


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> K.414? You think Mozart's rep/chops derived from that?


They did when they were composed. The early Viennese piano concerti (11-13) were referenced in Mozart's own letters ("They're a happy medium between what is too easy and too difficult.") Intended to please the unsophisticated as well as the connoisseurs. They may not be as great as the late concertos, but they're still mini-masterpieces, and far better than the concertos being written at the same time by others.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

timothyjuddviolin said:


> ...what makes Mozart better than Salieri?


Aside from his music, probably very little.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

trazom said:


> They did when they were composed. The early Viennese piano concerti (11-13) were referenced in Mozart's own letters ("They're a happy medium between what is too easy and too difficult.") Intended to please the unsophisticated as well as the connoisseurs. They may not be as great as the late concertos, but they're still mini-masterpieces, and far better than the concertos being written at the same time by others.


OK. I suppose my take, of a mediocre stretch of piano concertos between K.271 and K.450, has no aspects about it of Accepted Doctrine.



[That really should read...stretch of mediocre... but hell with it.]


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Mozart was just a better composer than Salieri and Haydn.


I don't see how your post added anything to the conversation, sorry.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

The reason Mozart is regarded so highly and Salieri is a "historical curiosity" is because Mozart was posthumously hyped and fetishised as a divine musical figure, and it basically just became the popular frame of mind to view him as untouchably brilliant. Salieri on the other hand would probably just be considered just another composer from that period, but he get's an even shorter end of the stick because he was posthumously pitted against Mozart in fiction, and by that time Mozart had already been idolized beyond all reason. That work of fiction basically posits that not only was Mozart objectively great, but Salieri was actually objectively inferior and mediocre, thus setting up his anger and jealousy, and of course people who won't think for themselves will just believe that as fact.

The truth is that Salieri wrote fine music for the classical period. Its typical of the time, but so is pretty much everything Mozart wrote as well. In fact even though he get's written off as some wannabe, or some hack composer, Salieri was pretty important to music history, being one of Beethoven's music teachers during his developing years, as well as to Franz Liszt. Salieri had received free lessons in his early years from Gluck, because he could not afford to pay, and so he always gave free lessons when he was a success, and he taught many performers and composers.

Personally I like Salieri, and think he should be performed alot more. We don't need 80 trillion performances of Mozart and Haydn. Give some awesome stuff like this a chance:






EDIT: I should probably add that I typed this before reading all of the article ^^; But I wasn't really addressing the article alone but more what seems to be a pervasive attitude.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

the only thing by Salieri that moves me is his Folia variations. Sorry, heavens know I tried, but his music just comes across as mediocre when compared to Mozart.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> the only thing by Salieri that moves me is his Folia variations. Sorry, heavens know I tried, but his music just comes across as mediocre when compared to Mozart.


Mozart's music comes across as mediocre when compared to The Smashing Pumpkins.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> ...a mediocre stretch of piano concertos between K.271 and K.450...


Garf. Gurgle. [strangling sounds] Gasp. Choke. Gaghhh!!! But I gave the post a "like" because such an astounding statement, far beyond the reach of most, is surely deserving of recognition.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Garf. Gurgle. [strangling sounds] Gasp. Choke. Gaghhh!!! But I gave the post a "like" because such an astounding statement, far beyond the reach of most, is surely deserving of recognition.


Not the most astounding statement on the thread, I think you'll find.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Mozart=God and Salieri=Satan. 

TV says it!.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The reason Mozart is regarded so highly and Salieri is a "historical curiosity" is because Mozart was posthumously hyped and fetishised as a divine musical figure, and it basically just became the popular frame of mind to view him as untouchably brilliant.

So then the question then becomes why was it Mozart who was canonized and fetishized? Perhaps some lottery was held that none of us has heard of? Or perhaps you have been reading the ramblings of Robert Newman who posited that Mozart was established as the Great composer by a clandestine group including the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Illuminati (and quite likely the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) in order to establish an Austro/Germanic hegemony in music... as if the Austro/German tradition wouldn't still rule the roost without Mozart.

Or perhaps it is simply that a great majority of those most involved in classical music have for generations recognized something quite special a great deal of Mozart's music.

As for Mozart's "untouchable brilliance"... that's nothing more than your oft-repeated invention. Nearly anyone who is quite fond of Mozart is well-aware of the fact that he composed a fair share of music that was less than brilliant. One wouldn't expect otherwise when considering that his oeuvre includes a good deal of music written while he was still a child. One doesn't judge the merits of an artist, however, upon their shortcomings or failures, but upon their successes. The fact that Picasso painted more bad paintings than anyone else in art history in no way undermines the fact that he also painted more great paintings than almost anyone else in art history.

Salieri on the other hand would probably just be considered just another composer from that period, but he get's an even shorter end of the stick because he was posthumously pitted against Mozart in fiction, and by that time Mozart had already been idolized beyond all reason.

Mozart's reputation well well-established... by the likes of Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, etc... well before the film Amadeus made anyone aware of Peter Schaefer's play... or Pushkin's short story. Salieri, on the other hand strikes me a competent... but not even a close rival for Haydn, Boccherini, Gluck, Stamitz, Kraus, Cherubini, or any number of other composers of the era.

The truth is that Salieri wrote fine music for the classical period. Its typical of the time, but so is pretty much everything Mozart wrote as well.

Yes... Mozart wrote music typical for the classical era in the same way that Tchaikovsky and Wagner wrote music typical of the Romantic era.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK. I suppose my take, of a mediocre stretch of piano concertos between K.271 and K.450, has no aspects about it of Accepted Doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> [That really should read...stretch of mediocre... but hell with it.]


You're cuckoo for cocoa puffs!
K365-449 are anything but mediocre works, especially 449, which is the first of the mature piano concertos.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

trazom said:


> You're cuckoo for cocoa puffs!
> K365-449 are anything but mediocre works, especially 449, which is the first of the mature piano concertos.


And #9, K.271, is considered the first of his "great" concertos, mature or not.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

As for Haydn and Mozart, I suspect Mozart is only better because of his operas.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> As for Haydn and Mozart, I suspect Mozart is only better because of his operas.


Well, apparently Mozart has an oratorio, La Betulia Liberata - haven't heard it though. Maybe it's good, although it usually doesn't get mentioned much.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> But does Mozart have oratorios?


Well, Mozart also does not have the Baryton trios! 

Of course, this is highly debatable, that is why I said "I suspect", because I find Mozart's operas to be amazing, but his other work is no way superior to Haydn's. Both are excellent.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

well put - I happen to not be a huge opera fan, so I guess this genre doesn't affect my view of both composers much.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

What puts Mozart head and shoulders above the rest is what he does with his material, many times I hear the beginning of a work by a lesser composer and think that sounds very much like Mozart.
The opening theme might be great and something as good as Mozart could have thought up but that's where it ends.
Mozart takes us on a journey, exploring and developing ideas in such inspired ways, a lesser composer such as Salieri never does this, it tends to just ramble along in a very pretty fashion.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Development*



presto said:


> What puts Mozart head and shoulders above the rest is what he does with his material, many times I hear the beginning of a work by a lesser composer and think that sounds very much like Mozart.
> The opening theme might be great and something as good as Mozart could have thought up but that's where it ends.
> Mozart takes us on a journey, exploring and developing ideas in such inspired ways, a lesser composer such as Salieri never does this, it tends to just ramble along in a very pretty fashion.


Right on. I have been working on a response but you nailed it better than any of my drafts.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

presto said:


> What puts Mozart head and shoulders above the rest is what he does with his material, many times I hear the beginning of a work by a lesser composer and think that sounds very much like Mozart.
> The opening theme might be great and something as good as Mozart could have thought up but that's where it ends.
> Mozart takes us on a journey, exploring and developing ideas in such inspired ways, a lesser composer such as Salieri never does this, it tends to just ramble along in a very pretty fashion.


That is part of it, and one sometimes hears this same fault in immature work by even great composers. I once heard a piano concerto by Beethoven that isn't even numbered, one of his very early works, and it was amazing how rambling and formless it is.

But I think there is another factor here: Salieri's melodies are simply not as catchy and memorable. I think that makes a bigger difference than one might think.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Persichetti Lecture*

When I was an undergraduate Vincent Persichetti, an American composer, came to our school to particiapate in a contemporary music festival.

At a lecture he asked for three random notes from the audience. He then improvised a piece for piano based on these three notes.

He boasted that he could do anything that Mozart could do. What made Mozart a genius was that he was doing this stuff when he was five. He did not master these techniques until he was in his thirties.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Vincent Persichetti... boasted that he could do anything that Mozart could do. What made Mozart a genius was that he was doing this stuff when he was five.

What made Mozart a genius wasn't parlour tricks. It was composing things like Don Giovanni, the Clarinet Quintet, the later Piano Concertos, and the Haydn Quartets. Persichetti most certainly could not do anything Mozart could do.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> When I was an undergraduate Vincent Persichetti, an American composer, came to our school to particiapate in a contemporary music festival.
> 
> At a lecture he asked for three random notes from the audience. He then improvised a piece for piano based on these three notes.
> 
> He boasted that he could do anything that Mozart could do. What made Mozart a genius was that he was doing this stuff when he was five. He did not master these techniques until he was in his thirties.


Eh, I have Persichetti's piano sonatas in my Itunes. They are pretty good, but they aren't Mozart piano sonatas.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

presto said:


> What puts Mozart head and shoulders above the rest is what he does with his material, many times I hear the beginning of a work by a lesser composer and think that sounds very much like Mozart.
> The opening theme might be great and something as good as Mozart could have thought up but that's where it ends.
> Mozart takes us on a journey, exploring and developing ideas in such inspired ways, a lesser composer such as Salieri never does this, it tends to just ramble along in a very pretty fashion.


I have to say I dislike generalizations such as these, especially since Haydn's London symphonies are masterful works with excellent variety and development of material. Or listen to Haydn's Fifths quartet - he takes a single interval and uses it all throughout the movement, sometimes as the main melody, sometimes as the bass and also all throughout the development section.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Persichetti remarks*



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Vincent Persichetti... boasted that he could do anything that Mozart could do. What made Mozart a genius was that he was doing this stuff when he was five.
> 
> What made Mozart a genius wasn't parlour tricks. It was composing things like Don Giovanni, the Clarinet Quintet, the later Piano Concertos, and the Haydn Quartets. Persichetti most certainly could not do anything Mozart could do.


I was at the lecture and you were not. I understood what Persichetti was saying. The problem is with me. I am a weak writer and did a very poor job of describing the situation. I do not need a lecture concerning my failings as a writer. Persichetti was in no way stating that he was as good a composer as Mozart. I apologize that I gave the impression that Persichetti was an arrogant windbag. Even though he was an amazing musician, he was very friendly and accessible.

I can assure everyone that Persichetti admired Mozart and understood his legacy and his greatness.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> I was at the lecture and you were not. I understood what Persichetti was saying. The problem is with me. I am a weak writer and did a very poor job of describing the situation. I do not need a lecture concerning my failings as a writer. Persichetti was in no way stating that he was as good a composer as Mozart. I apologize that I gave the impression that Persichetti was an arrogant windbag. Even though he was an amazing musician, he was very friendly and accessible.
> 
> I can assure everyone that Persichetti admired Mozart and understood his legacy and his greatness.


Many of us were willing to assume that the guy ain't that dumb; relax.


----------

