# Mozart's Symphony 41 question



## Queequeg (Feb 12, 2014)

First of all, hi, first post here. I've been a bit of a lurker when I'm looking up anything about classical music. (and I hope this is the right forum for this thread).


Anyway, Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony is probably my favorite all time and I am trying to understand something about the last movement "Molto Allegro." From what I've read, this movement is revolutionary and unparalleled because of how Mozart combines the 5 different melodies into a 5 voice fugato at the end of the movement, which I definitely hear. 

But why is such a composition so unique and unequaled that the likes of Beethoven and Bach never achieved? Mozart combined the five separate melodies beautifully but I have a hard time appreciating why this is such an unrivaled movement that other great composers couldn't accomplish.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

How could anyone hope to top such a thing?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Because Mozart's the best! And because few composers have even tried to imitate his miraculous feat! (Incidentally, I understand Bruckner had similar contrapuntal aspirations for the final movement of his 9th, would he could have completed it--and I'm sure it would have been very hard for him!). Of course, in the end there is no answer! :lol: 

Anyways...not that it will surprise you, I'd recommend looking into the music of Brahms, whose 4th Symphony (like the other ones) is a great marvel, particularly because it has a similarly impressive finale. 

Welcome to the forum, in any case!


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2014)

J S Bach was the ultimate master of fugal writing, but note that he didn't write any symphonies as they hadn't been invented in his day (or at least not in a style that was to become the norm later in the 18th C). 

After Bach's death, "contrapuntal" textures, as they are known, became far less an important feature in the "classical period" that followed. There was much greater emphasis on melody. Mozart's attempts at fugal writing were quite few, and not all of them were that good in comparison with Bach's. The one area where Mozart did manage to pull off something quite spectacular was the last movement of Jupiter that you have referred to. Haydn too had a few successful attempts at fugal writing but on the whole it was not a major feature of his work. 

Beethoven was more interested in writing fugues, although again it was not a major feature, as this form was largely over with as a major characteristic of music writing. Examples pop up in several places, like in several string Quartets, most notably in the Gross Fugue, in Symphony No 9, and in the piano sonata No 29 "Hammerklavier. I would imagine that it is difficult to dispute that Beethoven's achievements overall match the quality of anything Mozart attempted in fugal writing. 

I therefore think that your understanding of Mozart's supreme prowess in this area may be incorrect.

Notable later 19th C composers who were also interested in fugues were Mendelssohn, Liszt, Brahms.


----------



## Queequeg (Feb 12, 2014)

Ah so basically, it has to do with the different styles of the composers based on their time and what they were interested in creating?


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2014)

Queequeg said:


> Ah so basically, it has to do with the different styles of the composers based on their time and what they were interested in creating?


Yes it does, precisely that. The baroque era contained a great deal of fugal writing, and J S Bach was the last great baroque composer who was especially associated with this style. The fugue developed out of various previous types of so-called "contrapuntal" or "polyphonic" composition method, all based essentially on the principle of an initial theme that is then combined a number of others that harmonize with each other. Some fugues are quite simple but they can become extremely complex, and here Bach was the supreme master at writing some of the most difficult.

Interest in all that kind of composition peaked with J S Bach who died in 1750. By that time there was already the beginnings of the "classical era" under way. Out went polyphony and in came a much simpler mode of musical expression. In fact, the early beginning of the classical era is known as the "galante" period, which involves very much simpler style musical form, almost naive in comparison with the baroque. This "galante" style evolved as the 18th C wore on with the likes of Joseph Haydn and W A Mozart who greatly developed it and made it a good deal more complex, but it still essentially remained non-polyphonic. As noted earlier, there were some exceptions and by both of these composers wrote occasional fugues, but these were relatively very small beer compared with the profusion of the baroque era.

Beethoven developed the "classical style" to its utmost limit, and incorporated some fugal writing, some of it being extremely complex and well ahead of its time, but all of that "classical style" soon afterwards gave way to the Romantic era which had already begun and also was largely non-polyphonic. This is not to say that fugal writing died out under the Romantics, as there was still a continuing interest in it by some composers, e.g. Mendelssohn and Brahms especially. Mahler also incorporated a fugue occasionally in his symphonic work. Into the 20th Century, others to use it were Richard Strauss, Stravinsky and Shostakovich, but again they were relatively exceptional cases compared with the majority of their work.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

What a great coincidence - I just watched the X-Files episode where Queequeg dies.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"Trying to understand......"

Translation: I am a doctoral student writing my dissertation on Mozart. Perhaps these guys will do my research for me. 

Welcome to TC by the way!!!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Partita said:


> Mozart's attempts at fugal writing were quite few, and not all of them were that good in comparison with Bach's. The one area where Mozart did manage to pull off something quite spectacular was the last movement of Jupiter that you have referred to. Haydn too had a few successful attempts at fugal writing but on the whole it was not a major feature of his work.


I believe 'fugal' writing also includes fugatos, in which case Mozart and Haydn were very successful. Especially with Mozart's late work, in which fugal writing did become increasingly prominent. There are numerous fugues in his sacred music, maybe one or two well known fugues for different instruments, the famous double fugue in the piano concerto 19 finale; but even more brilliant fugatos across the spectrum of his late instrumental works: the Haydn quartets, fantasias for mechanical organ, and even in some of the ensemble writing in his operas. How many also know of the other 5-voice invertible counterpoint fugato and stretto fugues found in the D major viola quintet finale, k.593?


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

What happens in the finale that deals with "5" voices is the technique of invertible counterpoint.

When two (or more) melodic lines are written together (sounding simultaneously) that's counterpoint. However, good part-writing does not necessarily mean that one can place any voice on the bottom and be correct from the standpoint of the rules of theory and harmony. For one to write melodies that can be "inverted" (placed in any position as top voice, bottom voice or in between) and be correct is a challenge.

Therefore, two-part invertible counterpoint is not too hard, three-part is harder, four is very hard and what Mozart achieved is considered genius level as five-part invertible is beyond hard.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

Haydn early Symphony #3 ended in a short fugue with a somewhat familiar motif. (Go to 15;29 for the movement.)






Mozart used that four note motif in many of his works. Here is one about a part of the body and what to do with it!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> J.S. Bach was a master of north European school counterpoint of that period, and of that period only, _period!_
> 
> This is where many who idolize Bach above all others then wrongly assess -- nearly in toto -- any and all of the later great contrapuntal works and achievements...


Have to disagree with that. Certainly lots of composers have used counterpoint in various ways since Bach, some very impressively. But none astonish us so reliably and powerfully as Bach. IMO Bach is the master of counterpoint in a_ll _schools and _all_ places for at least the last 300 years.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Alfacharger said:


> Haydn early Symphony #3 ended in a short fugue with a somewhat familiar motif.


A snazzy little fugue! See also Haydn's Op. 20 string quartets, written ten years later; three of the six end with fugues. There are other fugal and quasi-fugal elements as well in other movements. To quote Donald Tovey:

"Enormous importance lies in these fugues. Besides achieving in themselves the violent reconquest of the ancient kingdom of polyphony for the string quartet, they effectively establish fugue texture from henceforth as a normal resource of sonata style."


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Have to disagree with that. Certainly lots of composers have used counterpoint in various ways since Bach, some very impressively. But none astonish us so reliably and powerfully as Bach. IMO Bach is the master of counterpoint in a_ll _schools and _all_ places for at least the last 300 years.


But Bach never attempted, for example, to combine fugal writing in a sonata-form symphonic movement, which is why it doesn't make sense to measure the achievements of later composers' work with counterpoint in new forms by comparing them to JS Bach's which is essentially what that poster was saying.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

trazom said:


> But Bach never attempted, for example, to combine fugal writing in a sonata-form symphonic movement, which is why it doesn't make sense to measure the achievements of later composers' work with counterpoint in new forms by comparing them to JS Bach's which is essentially what that poster was saying.


Well, I'm not sure that was what the poster was saying! But I agree that Bach was a bit weak in sonata form (it not really having been invented yet) and not so hot with tone poems either. You can't be everything to everybody!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bach practically invented the trio sonata, and the six he left are outstanding, as are the gamba sonatas and the solo violin sonatas.

Re the fugue in The Jupiter symphony, I'll have to go back to Zaslaw's book, but I thought that there's evidence that it combines music from different genres (popular and sacred) and that's one reason it's so,meaningful. I could be wrong, the book's upstairs and I'm typing this downstairs and I don't have time to check. But if that's right then it's a very J S Bachian thing to do - JSB was always breaking down genre walls by combining French and German and Italian music styles in the same piece. One thing J S B seems to be reying to say is that the moral and cultural barriers can be dissolved, at least in heaven. Maybe the same in The Jupiter.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Bach practically invented the trio sonata, and the six he left are outstanding, as are the gamba sonatas and the solo violin sonatas.


I suspect Corelli might deserve that honor more than Bach (1681 and 1689).


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2014)

KenOC said:


> You can't be everything to everybody!


Well maybe _you _can't...!


----------



## Roi N (Oct 22, 2013)

I'll attempt to answer your initial question.
The greatness of the 41st is not just because of the fugue coda in the finale. He could've ended the symphony without it and it would've been his best. And that's the point - add to this top-tier symphony a fugue - in the coda nontheless - with all the themes and mini-themes from the finale, and you get a masterpiece that is better than any other symphony ever written.
I Hope I helped


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2014)

trazom said:


> I believe 'fugal' writing also includes fugatos, in which case Mozart and Haydn were very successful. Especially with Mozart's late work, in which fugal writing did become increasingly prominent. There are numerous fugues in his sacred music, maybe one or two well known fugues for different instruments, the famous double fugue in the piano concerto 19 finale; but even more brilliant fugatos across the spectrum of his late instrumental works: the Haydn quartets, fantasias for mechanical organ, and even in some of the ensemble writing in his operas. How many also know of the other 5-voice invertible counterpoint fugato and stretto fugues found in the D major viola quintet finale, k.593?


My aim was to deal with the OP's assertion that Mozart was the only composer who wrote brilliant fugues that were "_so unique and unequaled that the likes of Beethoven and Bach"_ never achieved. It simply isn't true that these latter composers were out-performed by Mozart in fugal writing. I was not interested in listing all the other achievements by Mozart or Haydn in this area.

I also wanted to point out that fugal writing declined in relative importance after the baroque era. I stressed twice, in two separate posts, that this basic compositional technique did not die out, and I provided several examples of later composers who made successful use of it (Mendelssohn, Brahms etc). The purpose of this was to provide some hopefully relevant context to the main issue raised.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Bach was a fugal god. Mozart was evidently impressend by the old fugal art and Bach the fugal master. What a brilliant way to finish up his last symphony with that gigantic fugal finale. (Incidentally, even though Mozart was less interested with the symphony as a genre, he still wrote it like he relished it as much as he did composing his favorite genres - the opera and the piano concerto).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I believe that most folks listening to the last movement of the Jupiter Symphony wouldn't hear the 5 voices.
Too bad there was never a 42nd.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There's so much more to this piece than the last movement. The slow movement might be my favourite part, an expressive aria, with that strange throbbing figure a quirkily original touch.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I believe that most folks listening to the last movement of the Jupiter Symphony wouldn't hear the 5 voices.
> Too bad there was never a 42nd.


Depends what you mean by 'most folks'. I'd say that it doesn't take much for the average, or even below average listener to classical, to be able to spot the fugal qualities, even if they don't know the term. Speaking personally, any more voices and I'd go insane. More of a good thing isn't necessarily better.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I remember one time eating out in a seafood restaurant near Jones Beach, LI a while back and the first movement of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony was playing softly through the restaurant's speakers. That restaurant was a "keeper"!


----------



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

Forgive me my ignorance, may I ask, where exactly in the symphony does this famous 5 part fugue appear , is it from 10:46 to 10:58 in the folowing clip?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I believe that most folks listening to the last movement of the Jupiter Symphony wouldn't hear the 5 voices.


Yup - I for one can simply not manage to follow all the different voices. I'll need a Bernstein-type lecture to play them to me separately and then combine them to even understand what people are talking about. But I still find that finale one of the most thrilling things Mozart ever wrote.



starry said:


> There's so much more to this piece than the last movement. The slow movement might be my favourite part, an expressive aria, with that strange throbbing figure a quirkily original touch.


Indeed, though to me, the symphony is marred by yet another dreadful minuet. It is to me the one thing about the Classical era that I really dislike: all those ultra-light minuets.


----------



## Physix (Feb 14, 2014)

Vasks said:


> What happens in the finale that deals with "5" voices is the technique of invertible counterpoint.
> 
> When two (or more) melodic lines are written together (sounding simultaneously) that's counterpoint. However, good part-writing does not necessarily mean that one can place any voice on the bottom and be correct from the standpoint of the rules of theory and harmony. For one to write melodies that can be "inverted" (placed in any position as top voice, bottom voice or in between) and be correct is a challenge.
> 
> Therefore, two-part invertible counterpoint is not too hard, three-part is harder, four is very hard and what Mozart achieved is considered genius level as five-part invertible is beyond hard.


Well, my question is, does the invertible counterpoint enhance the listening experience in any way? Or is it more of a musical palindrome?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Physix said:


> Well, my question is, does the invertible counterpoint enhance the listening experience in any way? Or is it more of a musical palindrome?


I think part of the genius here is that the listening experience is so great despite the invertible counterpoint (whatever exactly that even means). Counterpoint always runs the risk of descending into a dry exercise that sounds like a computer program could have done it. Not Mozart's Jupiter counterpoint! As mentioned in my previous post, I cannot make head or tails of all the theoretical aspects of the movement and have never been able to even work out which the five themes are that people talk about, but it never prevented me from enjoying the work.

Some composers apparently know how to please at various levels simultaneously. In fact, I think that is precisely what makes a great composer in the first place: the ability to attract crowds from many different times and cultures and educational backgrounds by writing music that has that certain "something" that appeals very broadly.


----------



## Physix (Feb 14, 2014)

That was psychedelic. Smalin really outdid himself this time.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vasks explains the 5-part invertible counterpoint quite well in #10 above. There is no fugue per se. There are fugato sections (or points of imitation), but the material usually jumps immediately to another of the 5 melodic ideas which eventually, in the coda, get put together in the famous passage.

Yes, the counterpoint is really good. What I always found most significant about the movement is that it is a climactic finale in an era when nearly every symphony ended with a relatively lightweight rondo.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Haydn's London symphonies ending with lightweight rondos?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Haydn's London symphonies ending with lightweight rondos?


I haven't consulted the scores this morning, but I believe some of the Londons (at least) end with sonata-rondo forms. The Jupiter was several years earlier than Haydn's Londons. But yes, the Haydn finales are generally lightweight relative to the opening movements. There was a general trend over time to replace rondo finales with sonata-rondos or full-fledged sonata form movements - meaning a general increase in the weight of the finales.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I haven't consulted the scores this morning, but I believe some of the Londons (at least) end with sonata-rondo forms. The Jupiter was several years earlier than Haydn's Londons. But yes, the Haydn finales are generally lightweight relative to the opening movements. There was a general trend over time to replace rondo finales with sonata-rondos or full-fledged sonata form movements - meaning a general increase in the weight of the finales.


I played some of the Haydn symphonies preceding the Paris symphonies and they are quite dull. A lot of note-spinning with little inspiration, from first movement to last movement. Starting with the Paris symphonies, Haydn took it up a notch. His finales became more witty, not profound like the Mozart Jupiter, but eons away from some of Haydn's earlier efforts. Delightful to listen to, anyway, those Paris and London Symphonies.

The final movement in the Surprise is a model of how to use the form of the time. He produces a whirlwind of wittiness in 4 minutes. Doesn't burn any bridges. Not the Jupiter, but as moving to me all the same. Haydn knew how to keep it pithy!


----------



## Queequeg (Feb 12, 2014)

So is the 4th movement the greatest difficulty in performing Symphony 41? John Eliot Gardiner said it was one of "the most difficult to climb;" is it largely because of the fugato and, I'm guessing, the challenge it provides to the conductor and the musicians as they play the different melodies?


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

brianvds said:


> I think part of the genius here is that the listening experience is so great despite the invertible counterpoint As mentioned in my previous post, I cannot make head or tails of all the theoretical aspects of the movement and have never been able to even work out which the five themes are that people talk about, but it never prevented me from enjoying the work.
> 
> Some composers apparently know how to please at various levels simultaneously. In fact, I think that is precisely what makes a great composer in the first place: the ability to attract crowds from many different times and cultures and educational backgrounds by writing music that has that certain "something" that appeals very broadly.


BINGO!!

We have a Winner.

The famous 5-part invertible counterpoint moment is to impress the musical elite, but it's just good listening for all others.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Haydn's London symphonies ending with lightweight rondos?


Well, I haven't studied any London symphony finales (tons of Haydn and Beethoven rondo finales of their piano sonatas however).

The Classical composer used the rondo form for last movements precisely because they viewed rondos as lighter in weight. This is because the opening idea in its tonic key forces the music to return to that key with each restatement of the rondo's opening theme. Thus it's easier to follow and the movement is forced to not stray too far from the tonic key.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Yup - I for one can simply not manage to follow all the different voices. I'll need a Bernstein-type lecture to play them to me separately and then combine them to even understand what people are talking about. But I still find that finale one of the most thrilling things Mozart ever wrote.


Here is a section of short score from the coda with just the five ideas. They are numbered in the second example for reference:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vasks said:


> The famous 5-part invertible counterpoint moment is to impress the musical elite, but it's just good listening for all others.


You are at a very far remove from a composer's muse to say, "The famous 5-part invertible counterpoint moment is to impress the musical elite."

Mozart, at the height of his skill, was certainly having a joyous time writing that movement which is best described as a more than ebullient polyphonic romp 

Most assuredly, the idea and the execution of it held him in a state of rapt delight with 'what he could do' with that material, and other than being fascinated with what he could make of it (and having a jolly good time of it) he was more than likely not thinking of anything else, let alone "...impressing the musical elite." (He may have been impressed with what he had come up with, but further.... I don't think so!)

He _was_ the musical elite, and having, I would think, one of the happier times of his life in the middle of composing that particular movement, and that is what is palpably communicated to the listener.


----------



## Queequeg (Feb 12, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Here is a section of short score from the coda with just the five ideas. They are numbered in the second example for reference:
> 
> View attachment 35265


Thanks for that. So lastly, what we see in the finale is that these 5 voices are repeated in different ways and are bouncing from instrument to instrument (i.e one section plays parts of the different melodies)?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Queequeg said:


> Thanks for that. So lastly, what we see in the finale is that these 5 voices are repeated in different ways and are bouncing from instrument to instrument (i.e one section plays parts of the different melodies)?


Yes. The passage I chose was the second of five consecutive four-measure passages in which a different one of the five motives is in the bass - and, in fact, literally in the double bass part. Not bouncing from section to section exactly; All five motives are assigned in a different way each time to the five parts of the string section, so you can pretty much see the whole contrapuntal texture just by looking at the strings. There are doublings of the string parts in the winds.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

PetrB said:


> You are at a very far remove from a composer's muse to say, "The famous 5-part invertible counterpoint moment is to impress the musical elite."
> 
> Mozart, at the height of his skill, was certainly having a joyous time writing that movement which is best described as a more than ebullient polyphonic romp
> 
> ...


Hey! I like what you wrote. But did you notice that a number of the posters just on this thread are asking "where is it? where's the famous passage?" Now multiply that times all those audience members that have also missed it. That's my point. I'm not going to guess what Mozart was actually thinking but clearly only the musical cognizetti will catch the awesomeness of that passage in real time.

And here's a Wiki quote worth considering: "_In an article about the Jupiter Symphony, Sir George Grove wrote that "it is for the finale that Mozart has reserved all the resources of his science, and all the power, which no one seems to have possessed to the same degree with himself, of concealing that science, and making it the vehicle for music as pleasing as it is learned."_


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Every great composer's musical composition can be appreciated on different levels, by the sophisticated professional as well as the casual listener.

Mozart wrote that about one of his piano concertos, I believe the 15th-in a letter to his father-pleasing to the ear of the novice, but making the professional pianist sweat.

Novice listeners will not even notice that technical whirlwind in the Jupiter's last movement. All they know is it sounds "pleasing".


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vasks said:


> Hey! I like what you wrote. But did you notice that a number of the posters just on this thread are asking "where is it? where's the famous passage?" Now multiply that times all those audience members that have also missed it. That's my point. I'm not going guess what Mozart was actually thinking but clearly only the musical cognizetti will catch the awesomeness of that passage in real time.
> 
> And here's a Wiki quote worth considering: "_In an article about the Jupiter Symphony, Sir George Grove wrote that "it is for the finale that Mozart has reserved all the resources of his science, and all the power, which no one seems to have possessed to the same degree with himself, of concealing that science, and making it the vehicle for music as pleasing as it is learned."_


LOL. Leave it to a professional writer  Indeed, what Grove said states "the value of it."

Mozart, in a letter to his father, wrote something similar of his Piano and wind quintet (with which the composer was very pleased) that the learned would appreciate all that went on in it, where the general listener would also take great pleasure in it. Perhaps reading that letter would find that Sir Grove had nearly paraphrased what Mozart had written about that piano and wind quintet!

Some seem to think, along populist lines, that the convergence of those two qualities was something actively sought out so the music was 'generally pleasing' -- I think it just 'came together,' and that is one reason the composer was so pleased with it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vasks said:


> I'm not going to guess what Mozart was actually thinking but clearly only the musical cognizetti will catch the awesomeness of that passage in real time.


If what you mean by "catch [it] in real time" is someone listening to the finale for the first time without the benefit of a score and saying: "Hey, did you hear that? That was a passage of five-part invertible counterpart!!!," I doubt that anyone, ever, has caught it in real time. I imagine some astute listeners, after hearing the five permutations, might have had suspicions and thought: I need to look at a score and see exactly what's going on there. And if they had been told in advance to listen for a passage of five-part invertible counterpoint, they would know where it was. But that isn't the same as actually parsing and recognizing all the elements on the fly.

I'd like to play heretic at this point and question how impressive Mozart's achievement actually is, or, at least, what exactly is impressive about it. First of all, one of the five ideas (5 in the quote above, post #38) is only one measure long, and another (3) is only two measures. So in real terms, it is a stretch calling it five-part invertible counterpoint. It is, in fact, effectively, less than four. And what is impressive wasn't solving the abstract problem of making all of the ideas an acceptable bass. The achievement was solving a problem of characterization, in the operatic sense - giving five very simple melodic fragments enough character and differentiation so that each stands out in a crowd - while simultaneously making the parts invertible. It is exactly the same sort of problem he learned to solve in composing ensemble vocal passages in _The Marriage of Figaro_ and his other operas. So for those earlier in the thread comparing it to Bach's fugal writing, I would say Mozart was solving a different kind of problem and that Mozart's solution was as ingenious for its purposes as those of Bach.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

My brother could listen to the finale of the Jupiter Symphony and then say how "relaxing" it is. Drives me nuts!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

hpowders said:


> My brother could listen to the finale of the Jupiter Symphony and then say how "relaxing" it is. Drives me nuts!


Yeah, that kind of response to any classical music drives me potty. Ask anyone who doesn't listen to classical music what they like about it, and they say it's soothing music, calms them down, sweet n lovely.

I'm at a loss as to how this idea caught hold, maybe old Hollywood flicks are to blame, all them strings involved, and all (often the same people say, "ooh, isn't it just like fillum music?")...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Yeah, that kind of response to any classical music drives me potty. Ask anyone who doesn't listen to classical music what they like about it, and they say it's soothing music, calms them down, sweet n lovely.
> 
> I'm at a loss as to how this idea caught hold, maybe old Hollywood flicks are to blame, all them strings involved, and all (often the same people say, "ooh, isn't it just like fillum music?")...


On the other hand, when mobs of kids gather to protest something, classical music is sometimes used through loud speakers to disperse the crowd.

What's the matter? They ran out of tear gas?

The finale of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony should prove perfect.

See how they run!!!!!

Well on the brighter side, at least it's an emotional reaction!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Perotin said:


> Forgive me my ignorance, may I ask, where exactly in the symphony does this famous 5 part fugue appear , is it from 10:46 to 10:58 in the folowing clip?


It starts at 10:32


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> On the other hand, when mobs of kids gather to protest something, classical music is sometimes used through loud speakers to disperse the crowd.
> 
> What's the matter? They ran out of tear gas?
> 
> The finale of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony should prove perfect.


They used Mozart in some business districts in Cincinnati to disperse loiterers a couple of decades ago.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> They used Mozart in some business districts in Cincinnati to disperse loiterers a couple of decades ago.


There you are! Has the world gone insane? Mozart for crowd dispersal.
I think it's so sad.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

I think "Pierrot Lunaire" can clear out a crowd faster than anything by WAM.


----------



## Chad (Jan 11, 2014)

I think you could spend a life time studying the genius of master composers and there solutions to exiting challenges of expressing their musical ideas.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

That's exactly what we're doing!!!


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I love that part! I just wish Mozart went all-out and expanded it in a longer crazier sequence.



brianvds said:


> Yup - I for one can simply not manage to follow all the different voices. I'll need a Bernstein-type lecture to play them to me separately and then combine them to even understand what people are talking about. But I still find that finale one of the most thrilling things Mozart ever wrote.


Nor can I. It just overwhelms me, which is what makes it so great for me.


Perotin said:


> Forgive me my ignorance, may I ask, where exactly in the symphony does this famous 5 part fugue appear , is it from 10:46 to 10:58 in the folowing clip?


Indeed, 10:32. Listen (well, watch) as the voices are introduced one by one before they all play at the same time.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> There you are! Has the world gone insane? Mozart for crowd dispersal.
> I think it's so sad.


Low volume, through the same speakers musak might be in piped through in street strips where kids are wont to hang out. I imagine it is two things: it commands a listening attention like nothing else they are used to, and is so "unhip" they don't want to be associated with it in any way 

Not taken into account: rowdy, perhaps delinquent, youth who adore Mozart or classical music in general.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Low volume, through the same speakers musak might be in piped through in street strips where kids are wont to hang out. I imagine it is two things: it commands a listening attention like nothing else they are used to, and is so "unhip" they don't want to be associated with it in any way
> 
> Not taken into account: rowdy, perhaps delinquent, youth who adore Mozart or classical music in general.


I can understand my dog running away from the music. Perhaps it's the volume as it must sound deafening when played at what is to me, moderate volume.

In my world, a group of punky-looking kids refuse to leave the local square and the authorities start blasting the first movement of Beethoven's 9th from a Furtwangler performance. The kids stop what they are doing and one says to the other,
"Did you hear those tempo manipulations? I actually prefer any of the Karajans." Seven of his friends nod in agreement.
One yells up at the City Hall, "We'll leave if you play the 1977 Karajan performance."

I've always been a dreamer.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Vasks said:


> I think "Pierrot Lunaire" can clear out a crowd faster than anything by WAM.


And it might also possibly dispel the notion that classical music is soothing and relaxing. They can perhaps even change the original words to something like "you have fifteen seconds to disperse before we put on the Five Pieces for Orchestra." All of this said in Sprechgesang of course.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's amazing that right as his artistic freedom was beginning to flourish his candle burns out. It's one of the greatest pieces of music ever written.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

For me it's one of those rare pieces that I instantly fell in love with. On the very first listen it became an all-time favorite piece of music. It was actually the youtube clip above. The graphical representation also helped.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The Mozart 41 is excellent background music for fine dining establishments.

That's the way I heard it and that's the way I prefer to hear it in the future.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Vasks said:


> I think "Pierrot Lunaire" can clear out a crowd faster than anything by WAM.


What about the "Threnody to the victims of Hiroshima"?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MoonlightSonata said:


> What about the "Threnody to the victims of Hiroshima"?


Threnody and Pierrot do not meet the specs for this job because the powers that be are not trying to inflict indiscriminate pain. The job requires music appealing to the genteel and well-heeled while repelling impecunious ne'er-do-wells. Mozart is perfect - and it is likely some of the stoners would actually enjoy Pierrot. ;-)


----------

