# If Mozart had lived.....



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

If Mozart had lived into the romantic era to about 1832 what do you think his music would have sounded like? Would he have changed his style?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Less gallant, more romantic...


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Less teeny bopper more Arnold Schönberg! 

/ptr


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I believe he'd have tutored Beethoven in 1792, and as he usually wrote piano sonatas for his pupils, well the mind boggles. But I often think of this, _what if Mozart had lived til he was 70_, and then I think of how he almost died aged 7, and again aged 9 and almost died before he wrote *Cosi*. Imagine that! So we're fortunate. It seems impossible to imagine any more music coming from just one mind, but I think he'd have kept developing and his influence on music might have been even more immense.

Just on the question, would he have changed his style, his style was developing all the time, and the music of his final year was becoming more sparse but more profound. Compare* Magic Flute* with *Idomeneo *of ten years earlier and you'll see how he began to pare things down, and reduce them to their essence. I don't know if he'd be a hugely expressive proto-Romantic...


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

He would rock the world!!!!!!


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

- He would have continued his evolutionary line through his Clarinet Concerto and Requiem. His music may have become increasingly more contrapuntal and chromatic in nature. His style might have eventually evolved into something loosely resembling an odd mixture of Chopin, Schubert, Bach and Beethoven.

- He would have most likely traveled to London in the mid 1790s to pursue a tour similar to Haydn's. No doubt, he would have had the opportunity here to write numerous great symphonies and operas.

- He probably would have taught Beethoven in the 1790s. Given his record with people like Clementi, he probably would have become initially a little jealous of Beethoven's talent and made an effort to "one up" him in both his playing style and his compositional prowess. He would more than likely have written great piano sonatas and symphonies in response to Beethoven's output (similar to how Mozart wrote string quartets in response to Haydn). Beethoven in turn would probably try to "one up" his master in retaliation, and we probably would have seen quite a remarkable difference in Beethoven's middle period. The musical output of both composers between 1800 and 1820 would have been astonishing.

- Beethoven's studies with Mozart might have led Beethoven to write operas that far surpass Fidelio, and perhaps even Mozart's late efforts.

- Mozart would probably have also focused more on his operatic output and may written operas in a heroic style in response to Beethoven's middle period, surpassing Don Giovanni and Figaro in greatness.

- Alternatively, Mozart could have rebelled against Beethoven's musical style and gone in a completely opposite, but equally great direction, not dissimilar to Schubert.

- It's also possible that Mozart's output might have become stale in his later years, leading to a massive dip in popularity that may still be felt today.

- It's also possible that Mozart's output may have drowned out Beethoven completely during the early 19th century. It's possible that Beethoven may only have the same reputation as someone like Hummel or Eberl today, as a result.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

He would have written more sacred music. I would have to loved to hear it.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

That's a brilliant post, Steven, and had Mozart lived, the 'problem' of Beethoven would have to be faced. Another option is, they become firm friends and still develop differently. But one thing is sure, both would have appreciated the other. I can't see how a great master like Beethoven couldn't inspire something of a response from Mozart, regardless of the fact that he's younger. I imagine a positive response too.

There were huge political upheavals after Mozart's death, and these influenced the direction of composers as much as anything. I wonder how well-positioned Wolfgang would be to take advantage? What effect would they have on his music? Then, would he have met Schubert? There's too much to imagine, really, and there's more the pity it didn't happen. And yet, I think of Mozart's musical life as being complete - unfinished Requiem and all...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think Mozart would have had to evolve, rather quickly, or he'd be lost. Already, by 1805-1810, fashion had changed dramatically, and Mozart's music was going out of style. It remained considerably devalued through much of the 19th century and even beyond, with a few "Beethovenian" exceptions like the D-minor concerto and the 40th Symphony.

I fear that Mozart's aesthetic had had its day by a decade or so after his death, and that he wouldn't have been able to adapt. But if he had lived only a decade longer...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

It's a fascinating question, but obviously hard to answer. I think I remember that Haydn recommended Mozart to his London impresario Salomon for next series of concerts there. So more Mozart symphonies could have been forthcoming in the 1790s at least. It would have been nice to see Mozart replying to Haydn's acclaimed efforts there. As Haydn went into retirement you could see Mozart taking over that role of most acclaimed composer.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Kieran said:


> That's a brilliant post, Steven, and had Mozart lived, the 'problem' of Beethoven would have to be faced. Another option is, they become firm friends and still develop differently. But one thing is sure, both would have appreciated the other. I can't see how a great master like Beethoven couldn't inspire something of a response from Mozart, regardless of the fact that he's younger. I imagine a positive response too.
> 
> There were huge political upheavals after Mozart's death, and these influenced the direction of composers as much as anything. I wonder how well-positioned Wolfgang would be to take advantage? What effect would they have on his music? Then, would he have met Schubert? There's too much to imagine, really, and there's more the pity it didn't happen. And yet, I think of Mozart's musical life as being complete - unfinished Requiem and all...


I think Mozart was on the verge of entering a new period, and that's why his output feels so complete. I think the best analogy would be to say that Beethoven's output would probably have a similar completeness if his output had stopped at around the 7th symphony. I think Mozart still had his proverbial "9th symphony", "late quartets" and "late sonatas" to write.

I don't think political matters would have influenced Mozart's musical style much more than it already had. Don't forget that his final years coincided with the French revolution.

I also like to imagine that an elderly Mozart would have come out of retirement after discovering Schubert just to befriend and interact with him in some way (tutoring, promoting, responding, acting like a father figure). It would make a great soppy Hollywood fantasy film .


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Schubert was very shy, it took him a long while to even be introduced to Beethoven.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> I also like to imagine that an elderly Mozart would have come out of retirement after discovering Schubert just to befriend and interact with him in some way (tutoring, promoting, responding, acting like a father figure). It would make a great soppy Hollywood fantasy film .


:lol: Could have F. Murray Abraham's benevolent twin brother, G. Murray Abraham, play a decrepit Wolfie!

Looking at Mozart's music, he seemed to be heading into that new period in 1789/90, which was about 33 years old, the age Beethoven began to move towards his middle period. So if Mozart was heading the same, we could expect a middle period and then maybe a later years period of confident experimentation and so on. But also, when he died he was actually quite popular and could expect to have more opera commissions, in both Italian and German (from Schikanader). So the work following 1791 most likely would have piled in on him.

Imagine though, if you will, a double concerto for piano, debuted by Mozart and Beethoven in 1795. Such silly dreams are why I don't like threads like this - and I love them!


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

starry said:


> Scubert was very shy, it took him a long while to even be introduced to Beethoven.


Mozart was apparently very easily befriended though, and very quick to befriend others. I would imagine a relationship similar to how Schumann was with Brahms.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Kieran said:


> Imagine though, if you will, a double concerto for piano, debuted by Mozart and Beethoven in 1795. Such silly dreams are why I don't like threads like this - and I love them!


Or an improvisation competition between Mozart and Beethoven!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> Or an improvisation competition between Mozart and Beethoven!


Only one winner there...but I can imagine the loser pushing his defiant fist skywards and huffing out after it!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Beethoven was a great virtuoso composer pianist, I wonder if Mozart would have actually competed against him in that area in the 1790s. Or would he have just settled for doing other things like opera, or maybe even oratorios like late Haydn?

Edit: ah someone brought up the piano competition aspect just before me.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

ptr said:


> Less teeny bopper more Arnold Schönberg!
> 
> /ptr


Schönberg was immensely influenced by the teeny bopper's string quartets.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Beethoven's virtuoso career seemed an important springboard for his career, if Mozart had impinged on that things may have been different, or delayed certainly for Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StevenOBrien said:


> Or an improvisation competition between Mozart and Beethoven!


Improv showdown between Wolfie and Ludwig? I'd buy tickets!

Here's what a reviewer of a piano duel in 1799 had to say: "[Beethoven] shows himself to best advantage in free improvisation. And here the lightness and at the same time firmness in the sequence of his ideas is really quite extraordinary. B. instantly varies every theme, and not only in its figures. Since the death of Mozart, who will always remain the non plus ultra in this, I have never found this kind of pleasure to the degree with which B. provides it."


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Of course if Mozart had moved to London for while like Haydn did that might have left Vienna more free for Beethoven's emergence.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Here's a dramatization of an improvisation competition between Beethoven and Steibelt, for anyone who's interested. Apparently the actual competition was so humiliating to Steibelt, that he never returned to Vienna again.

"Accounts of the contest record it was a disaster for Steibelt; Beethoven reportedly carried the day by improvising at length on a theme taken from the cello part of a new Steibelt piece-placed upside down on the music rack."

So indeed, a loss to Mozart may have ruined Beethoven's career!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't know if Mozart would have moved to London. He was quite popular in Vienna when he died. He had a choice to move to Prague in 1787, when he was falling out of favour in Vienna, and refused it (which is our loss, since they asked for another opera after the success of Don Giovanni). Wolfie went home to Vienna, to be neglected instead. I think with things looking up again, he'd have stayed and had plenty of commissions to keep him happy there...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Yeh I'm not sure he would have fancied a long trip either, he was surprised Haydn made the trip.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

To answer the original question, I feel like Mozart would've stayed true to his classical roots, but expanded the scope of his compositions. Look at the C major string quintet, it has the largest developmental section in the first movement until Beethoven's 9th symphony.

Taste was important to Mozart, so he likely would have been repelled by the gratuitous bombast/bloatedness, or lack of subtlety sometimes found in overtly expressional works characteristic of the Romantics.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Kieran said:


> I don't know if Mozart would have moved to London. He was quite popular in Vienna when he died. He had a choice to move to Prague in 1787, when he was falling out of favour in Vienna, and refused it (which is our loss, since they asked for another opera after the success of Don Giovanni). Wolfie went home to Vienna, to be neglected instead. I think with things looking up again, he'd have stayed and had plenty of commissions to keep him happy there...


He was invited to tour in London in 1790 I believe, and seemed to be quite serious about going (he hired an English tutor). It's speculated that he cancelled the trip because his wife was ill and couldn't travel with him.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StevenOBrien said:


> So indeed, a loss to Mozart may have ruined Beethoven's career!


I wouldn't think so. The consensus of opinion was that Beethoven lost (narrowly) that 1799 showdown with Wolffl. Didn't seem to bother him much, especially since he was moving smartly from being a performer to being a well-known composer.

I suspect he would have been able to hold his own against Mozart, even if he didn't gain a clear victory. Mozart was no chump like Steibelt. Hmmm...now I REALLY want to see that duel. Who's making book?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> He was invited to tour in London in 1790 I believe, and seemed to be quite serious about going (he hired an English tutor). It's speculated that he cancelled the trip because his wife was ill and couldn't travel with him.


That's right, he was seriously considering it. But Vienna was the centre of the musical world and things changed for the better for him in 1791, plus the birth of a son. I doubt he'd have gone. What? And miss the opportunity to learn from Beethoven?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"If Mozart had lived into the romantic era to about 1832...."

... but he didn't.


----------



## charda01 (Apr 30, 2015)

*with you until you said Hummel*



StevenOBrien said:


> - He would have continued his evolutionary line through his Clarinet Concerto and Requiem. His music may have become increasingly more contrapuntal and chromatic in nature. His style might have eventually evolved into something loosely resembling an odd mixture of Chopin, Schubert, Bach and Beethoven.
> 
> - He would have most likely traveled to London in the mid 1790s to pursue a tour similar to Haydn's. No doubt, he would have had the opportunity here to write numerous great symphonies and operas.
> 
> ...


I've thought about this a lot more than anyone who isn't a musical professional should (and, to be clear, I am not a professional; in fact, I'm primarily just a listener), but this question has always fascinated me. I've always felt that with Mozart, the gift threatened at times to eclipse the genius and with Beethoven, the genius at times threatened to eclipse the gift. I pretty much agree with Peter Schaffer's reading in his play _Amadeus_ of much of early and middle Mozart as facile--perfect, but uninteresting to most of us two hundred years later. I have to confess also to finding the symphonies boring--I'd rather listen to almost any Hadyn symphony than almost any Mozart symphony, even the Jupiter kind of bores me (the Hapsburg is actually my favorite Mozart symphony). The Mozart that matters to me is mostly late Mozart: Don Giovanni, The Magic Flute, Figaro (late middle), the Requiem, the Clarinet concerto, piano concerto #21, the Agnus Dei--the usual suspects.

I think as Mozart matured (and suffered), he grew out of the strictures of the child prodigy into the further range of his native genius. Had he lived, I think we would have had several more amazing operas, more achingly beautiful concertos for winds, horns, and piano, as Mozart loved the instruments best that could best emulate the human voice. I don't think he would have become a proto-romantic, but his chromatic experiments a la Don Giovanni and the Magic Flute would have continued, giving us more absolutely amazing contrapuntal choruses and duets to sestets. I think the main effect on Beethoven is that he would have become Beethoven sooner, faster--ending his apprenticeship to the classical mode earlier. I think Beethoven would have caused Mozart in his mature years to leave the symphony behind--after a few Beethovenesque experiments--and concentrate on those forms that best expressed his genius. Beethoven, for his part, may have written another opera or two, but I think Beethoven is essentially a monologic voice--he was an anti-social fellow and opera is a highly sociable art form and most of its great practitioners have been extroverts in life as in art: Mozart, Rossini, Puccini, and Verdi. (I leave Wagner out of this since he needs his own strange category altogether.)

So Mozart would have still sounded like Mozart, only surer of what he did best (and with more of it) and Beethoven would have become himself quicker, rather than become more Mozartian. Genius is certainly influenced, but genius is ultimately always influenced to become more what it actually is--its essential self.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Somebody's reading too many si-fi comics. He died when he did and speculation is futile.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Great post, charda01 - and welcome to the TC community.


----------



## Cypress (Dec 19, 2014)

Going off on a tangent, did Mozart and Constanza have any children survive to adulthood? I am vague on this. I just wonder if he had a child and maybe the musical talents might have been cultivated with Wolfie as the teacher. I cannot remember if his sister had any children. I just wonder if the Mozart line died with Mozart. 

And, I thought that briefly, very briefly Beethoven was a student of Mozart. They were together a brief time because Beethoven had to go home because of a family illness. Where I read this I do not recall, but I thought in his letters, he commented that Beethoven had quite a talent and future in classical music composition.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Cypress said:


> Going off on a tangent, did Mozart and Constanza have any children survive to adulthood? I am vague on this. I just wonder if he had a child and maybe the musical talents might have been cultivated with Wolfie as the teacher. I cannot remember if his sister had any children. I just wonder if the Mozart line died with Mozart.


Wolfgang Mozart did have a child who became a composer...but not a great one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Wolfgang_Mozart

The line didn't survive any longer than Mozart's other son, though, who died in the 1850s as a bachelor.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Cypress said:


> And, I thought that briefly, very briefly Beethoven was a student of Mozart. They were together a brief time because Beethoven had to go home because of a family illness. Where I read this I do not recall, but I thought in his letters, he commented that Beethoven had quite a talent and future in classical music composition.


That could be apocryphal. Luigi's mother fell illl, or died, in 1787 when he came to Vienna, to study with Wolfgang. Whether they met or not, no reliable record shows, except the tale told by Otto Jahn in the 19th century, which includes the famous Mozart assessment of Beethoven.



> Keep an eye on that lad, by gum, he's better'n chopped liver, an' no mistake!


Beethoven wrote a comment in his notebooks about Mozart's playing style on the harpsichord, but this isn't evidence they met, although it's surely likely that Mozart had heard of this great young pianist from Bonn...


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

charda01 said:


> I've thought about this a lot more than anyone who isn't a musical professional should (and, to be clear, I am not a professional; in fact, I'm primarily just a listener), but this question has always fascinated me. I've always felt that with Mozart, the gift threatened at times to eclipse the genius and with Beethoven, the genius at times threatened to eclipse the gift. I pretty much agree with Peter Schaffer's reading in his play _Amadeus_ of much of early and middle Mozart as facile--perfect, but uninteresting to most of us two hundred years later. I have to confess also to finding the symphonies boring--I'd rather listen to almost any Hadyn symphony than almost any Mozart symphony, even the Jupiter kind of bores me (the Hapsburg is actually my favorite Mozart symphony). The Mozart that matters to me is mostly late Mozart: Don Giovanni, The Magic Flute, Figaro (late middle), the Requiem, the Clarinet concerto, piano concerto #21, the Agnus Dei--the usual suspects.
> 
> I think as Mozart matured (and suffered), he grew out of the strictures of the child prodigy into the further range of his native genius. Had he lived, I think we would have had several more amazing operas, more achingly beautiful concertos for winds, horns, and piano, as Mozart loved the instruments best that could best emulate the human voice. I don't think he would have become a proto-romantic, but his chromatic experiments a la Don Giovanni and the Magic Flute would have continued, giving us more absolutely amazing contrapuntal choruses and duets to sestets. I think the main effect on Beethoven is that he would have become Beethoven sooner, faster--ending his apprenticeship to the classical mode earlier. I think Beethoven would have caused Mozart in his mature years to leave the symphony behind--after a few Beethovenesque experiments--and concentrate on those forms that best expressed his genius. Beethoven, for his part, may have written another opera or two, but I think Beethoven is essentially a monologic voice--he was an anti-social fellow and opera is a highly sociable art form and most of its great practitioners have been extroverts in life as in art: Mozart, Rossini, Puccini, and Verdi. (I leave Wagner out of this since he needs his own strange category altogether.)
> 
> So Mozart would have still sounded like Mozart, only surer of what he did best (and with more of it) and Beethoven would have become himself quicker, rather than become more Mozartian. Genius is certainly influenced, but genius is ultimately always influenced to become more what it actually is--its essential self.


It's difficult for me not to be skeptical that you've given this topic more thought given the content that follows. Where does Peter Schaffer characterize Mozart's early and middle period music in that way? And if he did--which I doubt-- what does that say about the erudition(or lack thereof) of someone who echoes that opinion? The middle period, with Sinfonia Concertante, the serenades for woodwind instruments and first of his mature operas(k.366) and piano concertos(k.271) are "facile but uninteresting to us two hundred years later"? Actually being familiar with what constitutes Mozart's early and middle works would be a good start before dismissing them. And how much weight or relevance can one's opinions of Mozart's symphonies hold if they can't even remember the name of the symphony that's supposedly their "favorite"? How does suffering factor in to the quality of someone's artistic work over, say, experience or knowledge? Something which, in Haydn's own words, Mozart had in abundance. As for his confidence in what he did best, I'd say he already had that, given the speed he worked with and the naturalness of his style.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Rossini, Puccini, and Verdi can go suck it.


----------



## kyf (Feb 1, 2017)

StevenOBrien said:


> - He would have continued...


 Great post.

One fact to mention: Mozart's music changed after he discovered Bach & Handel in the 1780s in his twenties.

In our time, we tend to forget/not understand how poor & limited communication, memory, records, & possibly training was during the 18th/19th century. Even with all those sons (who were no Mozart), J.S. Bach was little known outside of Leipzig. It took Mendelssohn to try to popularize Bach in Europe in the 1830s because J.S. Bach was still little known outside of Leipzig then.

Probably J.S. Bach was too difficult for most composers (people even thought, incorrectly, that Schubert didn't know counterpoint techniques) to absorb & develop; even Mozart & Mendelssohn had to make an effort. But Mendelssohn also died young. Verdi's Falstaff definitely came out of those influences, eventually in 1894 when Verdi was 80 years old.

If Mozart (& Mendelssohn) had lived longer, J.S. Bach would have had greater influence on Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Verdi, and maybe even Wagner & co.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

http://www.talkclassical.com/47729-if-mozart-lived-longer-3.html


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> - He would have continued his evolutionary line through his Clarinet Concerto and Requiem. His music may have become increasingly more contrapuntal and chromatic in nature. His style might have eventually evolved into something loosely resembling an odd mixture of Chopin, Schubert, Bach and Beethoven.
> 
> - He would have most likely traveled to London in the mid 1790s to pursue a tour similar to Haydn's. No doubt, he would have had the opportunity here to write numerous great symphonies and operas.
> 
> ...


Well thought out points.
I think your final scenario is highly likely.
We think that a blade of grass trampled by a time traveller will change the future - it's strange that people think Beethoven's works would have not been different - or even existed at all - had Mozart lived on. It is near certain that Mozart would have continued with stellar compositions - it is far less certain that Beethoven's, or anyone else's career that came after would look like it does today.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

charda01 said:


> I've thought about this a lot more than anyone who isn't a musical professional should (and, to be clear, I am not a professional; in fact, I'm primarily just a listener), but this question has always fascinated me. I've always felt that with Mozart, the gift threatened at times to eclipse the genius and with Beethoven, the genius at times threatened to eclipse the gift. I pretty much agree with Peter Schaffer's reading in his play _Amadeus_ of much of early and middle Mozart as facile--perfect, but uninteresting to most of us two hundred years later. I have to confess also to finding the symphonies boring--I'd rather listen to almost any Hadyn symphony than almost any Mozart symphony, even the Jupiter kind of bores me (the Hapsburg is actually my favorite Mozart symphony). The Mozart that matters to me is mostly late Mozart: Don Giovanni, The Magic Flute, Figaro (late middle), the Requiem, the Clarinet concerto, piano concerto #21, the Agnus Dei--the usual suspects.
> 
> I think as Mozart matured (and suffered), he grew out of the strictures of the child prodigy into the further range of his native genius. Had he lived, I think we would have had several more amazing operas, more achingly beautiful concertos for winds, horns, and piano, as Mozart loved the instruments best that could best emulate the human voice. I don't think he would have become a proto-romantic, but his chromatic experiments a la Don Giovanni and the Magic Flute would have continued, giving us more absolutely amazing contrapuntal choruses and duets to sestets. I think the main effect on Beethoven is that he would have become Beethoven sooner, faster--ending his apprenticeship to the classical mode earlier. I think Beethoven would have caused Mozart in his mature years to leave the symphony behind--after a few Beethovenesque experiments--and concentrate on those forms that best expressed his genius. Beethoven, for his part, may have written another opera or two, but I think Beethoven is essentially a monologic voice--he was an anti-social fellow and opera is a highly sociable art form and most of its great practitioners have been extroverts in life as in art: Mozart, Rossini, Puccini, and Verdi. (I leave Wagner out of this since he needs his own strange category altogether.)
> 
> So Mozart would have still sounded like Mozart, only surer of what he did best (and with more of it) and Beethoven would have become himself quicker, rather than become more Mozartian. Genius is certainly influenced, but genius is ultimately always influenced to become more what it actually is--its essential self.


You have considered this question more than any of us - yet you cant even correctly name Mozart's 35th symphony - it's The Haffner - not "the Hapsburg" - the latter is a royal dynasty.
Let us put aside your carelessness/lack of knowledge.
Peter Shaffer in Amadeus does not promote the later period works over the early and middle period. The star piece of the film Amadeus is K361 (the wind sereande) - an earlyish work - symphony 25 is heard at the beginning of the film - certainly an early symphony. When Salieri peruses Mozart's manuscripts we hear works from all Mozart's periods. So your statement is totally untrue. I have seen an interview with Shaffer where he describes how he and Milos Forman sat for a weekend going through Mozart CDs - "We were humbled by the music" were his exact words.

You are like a friend of mine as he finds most of Mozart dull - save for half a dozen works including some that you name - magic flute, requiem etc - those works that people who dont much like Mozart tend to pick out as exceptions. And he supposed that because he finds most of Mozart dull - it is ok to make sweeping statements such as "much of early and middle Mozart is facile--perfect, but uninteresting to most of us two hundred years later" (nb those are your words and certainly not Shaffer's)

I am surprised this question has fascinated you so much given that you dont really seem to like Mozart that much at all.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Wolfgang Mozart did have a child who became a composer...but not a great one.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Wolfgang_Mozart
> 
> The line didn't survive any longer than Mozart's other son, though, who died in the 1850s as a bachelor.


There is some good material on what happened to the Mozart lads in Jane Glover's fine book. I understand that both tried music - one had more talent than the other and was a minor composer and performer - I think he played at the centenary of Mozart's birth in Salzburg at a concert Constanze did not quite live long enough to see. (It's amazing to think most of the Mozart women his wife, sister, Aloysia and others lived into their 80s!)


----------



## kyf (Feb 1, 2017)

*A fun thing to do*

http://www.talkclassical.com/47661-if-mozart-were-alive-4.html#post1198029


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

kyf said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/47661-if-mozart-were-alive-4.html#post1198029


See post 39....


----------



## Donatus (Sep 2, 2018)

Who can tell, perhaps he was burnt out...


----------



## Donatus (Sep 2, 2018)

IF you believe a bit in fate, maybe the last works he wrote, were meant to be his greatest. Perhaps he was burnt out and felt that after them, he was done as a composer after thirty years of feverish creativity. It could have given him a depression and contributed to his early death.

You would probably have asked the same question if Rossini had died in 1829, and not lingered on for 40 more years. Which great masterpieces could he have written after William Tell? Not very many is the surprising answer.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Donatus said:


> Who can tell, perhaps he was burnt out...


No, the quality of his last works don't show any sign of that at all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I believe Mozart wanted to write opera in German. _Die Zauberflote,_ so different from the Da Ponte operas, might have been the beginning of an interesting new phase. As it is, the only memorable German opera between the _Flute_ and Weber's _Der Freischutz _is _Fidelio._


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I believe Mozart wanted to write opera in German. _Die Zauberflote,_ so different from the Da Ponte operas, might have been the beginning of an interesting new phase. As it is, the only memorable German opera between the _Flute_ and Weber's _Der Freischutz _is _Fidelio._


Beethoven agrees with you. "_Die Zauberflote_' will always remain Mozart's greatest work, for in it he for the first time showed himself to be a German musician. _Don Juan_ still has the complete Italian cut; besides our sacred art ought never permit itself to be degraded to the level of a foil for so scandalous a subject."


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> Here's a dramatization of an improvisation competition between Beethoven and Steibelt, for anyone who's interested. Apparently the actual competition was so humiliating to Steibelt, that he never returned to Vienna again.
> 
> "Accounts of the contest record it was a disaster for Steibelt; Beethoven reportedly carried the day by improvising at length on a theme taken from the cello part of a new Steibelt piece-placed upside down on the music rack."
> 
> So indeed, a loss to Mozart may have ruined Beethoven's career!


I was sure that on that occasion the theme drummed out by Beethoven 'with one finger' was the Eroica theme. Hence the use of the theme in the Prometheus ballet, the piano variations and the Eroica symphony, all celebrating his 'heroic' victory over Steibelt. The dramatization showed nothing of Steibelt's speciality, the tremolo, which became a sensation in his hands (and was used by Beethoven subsequently). Apparently he had no left hand to speak of, and his wife would accompany him on the tambourine, of all things. He seems to have been driven out of a few places in disgrace. An interesting rogue.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I wouldn't think so. The consensus of opinion was that Beethoven lost (narrowly) that 1799 showdown with Wolffl. Didn't seem to bother him much, especially since he was moving smartly from being a performer to being a well-known composer.
> 
> I suspect he would have been able to hold his own against Mozart, even if he didn't gain a clear victory. Mozart was no chump like Steibelt. Hmmm...now I REALLY want to see that duel. Who's making book?


I don't believe that that was the consensus vis-a-vis Woelffl and Beethoven. Beethoven was a much more dramatic player than Woelffl, apparently. W was in the Mozart tradition, close to the keys, and not much legato. Beethoven literally destroyed the piano. Woelffl was probably more accurate than Beethoven, but according to Czerny at his peak no one could approach LvB in terms of speed and power and in expressivity. According to wikipedia, Beethoven won their duel.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

charda01 said:


> I have to confess also to finding the symphonies boring--I'd rather listen to almost any Hadyn symphony than almost any Mozart symphony, even the Jupiter kind of bores me (the Hapsburg is actually my favorite Mozart symphony).


Do you mean the Haffner by any chance? And that is a delightful piece. Listening to #39 I was struck by how much music there is in that piece. Frankly the Mozart symphonies are better _as music_ than any other pieces so titled. They are perfectly constructed, crammed full of good ideas. As _musical philosophy_, Beethoven's are far ahead, because Mozart (and Schubert) don't seem obsessed with conveying an idea about the soul or the heart of humanity, even if occasionally he might (almost by accident) digress into those places. Although this is hardly an empirical analysis, there is much truth in it 
On the other hand, Haydn just cannot compare with the best of Mozart except perhaps in sheer bulk- although his work is diverting and full of ideas. It might be like comparing the pyramids of Nubia with the pyramids of Giza. One is quite nice and occasionally really excellent, but the other reaches an absolute grandeur and almost perfection.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Kieran said:


> That could be apocryphal. Luigi's mother fell illl, or died, in 1787 when he came to Vienna, to study with Wolfgang. Whether they met or not, no reliable record shows, except the tale told by Otto Jahn in the 19th century, which includes the famous Mozart assessment of Beethoven.
> 
> Beethoven wrote a comment in his notebooks about Mozart's playing style on the harpsichord, but this isn't evidence they met, although it's surely likely that Mozart had heard of this great young pianist from Bonn...


The chances of Beethoven not going to see Mozart play are virtually nil, and most accounts of close to the time have Beethoven studying with Mozart, which is highly plausible although not proved, but the historical revisionists gain weird joy in 'disproving' the un-disprovable. Beethoven seems to speak of Mozart's piano style (by 1787 Mozart had ditched the harpsichord well and truly) on a first hand basis. If the 2 were in the same room, with a piano in it, most likely they heard each other play. Unfortunately Beethoven's Viennese sojourn was curtailed because of his mother's illness and Beethoven wasn't able to study with WAM full time or long term. He did become a long term student of Haydn (and Salieri, Albrechtsberger..) and we know how that teacher-pupil relationship developed (or not)


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Well thought out points.
> I think your final scenario is highly likely.
> We think that a blade of grass trampled by a time traveller will change the future - it's strange that people think Beethoven's works would have not been different - or even existed at all - had Mozart lived on. It is near certain that Mozart would have continued with stellar compositions - it is far less certain that Beethoven's, or anyone else's career that came after would look like it does today.


Beethoven started out in Mozart/Haydn territory, but although Haydn was still alive and composing, quickly outgrew the Haydn influence (even though he was his teacher), although there is still a remnant here or there in LvB's mature style. That's the thing about artists, they tend to influence each other but great artists pursue their own star regardless of what others are doing. Just because Beethoven was a huge stellar object in the musical firmament, did not require Weber, Rossini or Schubert to be carbon copies of him. LvB nourished the soil which produced other genius, just as WAM did.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

stomanek said:


> I am surprised this question has fascinated you so much given that you dont really seem to like Mozart that much at all.


Little harsh, although I disagree with aspects of the post I think he could have been cut a little slack (especially as it is his first), he put thought into his _post_ even if the opinion expressed is not as informed in all respects as I think it could be.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Eusebius12 said:


> Little harsh, although I disagree with aspects of the post I think he could have been cut a little slack (especially as it is his first), he put thought into his _post_ even if the opinion expressed is not as informed in all respects as I think it could be.


Yeah, I read that post again and it was their first - and only - post. Would have liked to have read more from them on this topic...


----------

