# Mozart's most meaningful opera



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep -loftiness- in content. But some of his operas shown otherwise.

Which of this Mozart's Opera gives us a hint of more deep thoughts about existence, human nature and destiny.

There is an _'other'_ option if you think that the selection given is not complete. Please mention it.

Thanks.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

For "human nature", Le Nozze Di Figaro and Cosi fan Tutte are the most telling. While couched in farce, the former is a sublime statement on the nature of love and forgiveness. The latter, a more cynical, slightly disturbing, yet wiser commentary on the same virtues. To me these two operas are opposite sides of the same coin and give more insight into the human condition than any other opera by Mozart or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Ondine said:


> It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep -loftiness- in content.


Heh, I couldn't disagree more.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Heh, I couldn't disagree more.


Yes. I disagree too with this idea. I don't know why but some people tell me this any time I express my delight about Mozart music.

I think that this idea was heavily reinforced due to the Milos Forman's 'Amadeus' film.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Olias said:


> For "human nature", Le Nozze Di Figaro and Cosi fan Tutte are the most telling. While couched in farce, the former is a sublime statement on the nature of love and forgiveness. The latter, a more cynical, slightly disturbing, yet wiser commentary on the same virtues. To me these two operas are opposite sides of the same coin and give more insight into the human condition than any other opera by Mozart or anyone else for that matter.


Yes. Mozart operas were deeply thought. We have to remember that Mozart's historical context was that where doing music was in the same level as cleaning a royal room, cooking, or dressing a princess. So, freedom for Mozart was seriously limited. His political thought had to be extremely disguised.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Die Zauberflöte! All those awesome lyrics and music pieces. How can't you see that?!

_Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja_!

_Pa-pa-pa-papagena_!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I would say Le nozze di Figaro is the most meaningful


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Ondine said:


> Yes. I disagree too with this idea. I don't know why but some people tell me this any time I express my delight about Mozart music.
> 
> I think that this idea was heavily reinforced due to the Milos Forman's 'Amadeus' film.


Mozart's music is like a bon bon. It's deceptively soft and sweet on the surface, but with a bit of work and patience, it gets harder, AND THEN, you reach the chewy toffee underneath.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

I believe most of Mozart's Operas are superb works from any point of view. My soft spot is "Le Nozze di Figaro". In this Opera, the psychological characterisation is of a constant subtlety: Figaro's humour moves from the jovial to sardonic; Suzanna can be superficilally charming and deeply profound; The antipathetic Count can exercise his charme to the ridicule, let alone Cherubino, an "adrogyne" role, to be the most sensual character of the work.
The libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte serves very well Mozart's music to the extent that it can cover carefully and with utmost subtlety and sensitivity the subversive character of the play by Beaumarchais. Wolfgang most cleverly provides three brilliant Arias to the valet and only one (a rather conservative one, though beautiful enough) to the Count, while the "comic" roles have the right of some exquisite accompanying recitatives, usually reserved for the noble characters of an Opera of the time.
Some other intriguing features of the work rely on the challenges as for the various aspects of interpretation. The actual leading role is Suzanna, the domestic. She is better and more served by both the music and libretto. Out of 28 numbers of the work half are for the ensemble. The role of timing is of utmost significance, while the role of the verbal exchanges between voices, voices and orchestra or even between the intruments themselves (even in the Overture) is of paramount importance. For instance, the extended Finales of the Act II (with the superb Septet) and IV are some of the greatest and most sublime moments in the whole Opera History.
Recordings have served the Opera maybe better than any other one by Mozart (with the exception of the other big and "heavy-weight" one, namely Don Giovanni).

Principe


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I


Ondine said:


> It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep -loftiness- in content. But some of his operas shown otherwise.
> 
> Which of this Mozart's Opera gives us a hint of more deep thoughts about existence, human nature and destiny.
> 
> ...


I have never heard of this "general thought", "Le Nozze di Figaro" is a comment on the social situation of the time and strongly critical.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Ondine said:


> It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep -loftiness- in content.


George Bernard Shaw, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Gustave Flaubert, Søren Kierkegaard, Charles Rosen, Einstein, Gounod, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Ingmar Bergman, Thomas Bernhard, etc. would disagree


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Cosí any day. It's one of the most intensely human of operas, and certainly Mozart's greatest Italian opera.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

StevenOBrien said:


> Mozart's music is like a bon bon. It's deceptively soft and sweet on the surface, but with a bit of work and patience, it gets harder, AND THEN, you reach the chewy toffee underneath.


Ooooo, I love Mozart-Kugeln!


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

I guess if you compare Mozart to Beethoven or Wagner, the words "lofty" and "profound" would better describe the latter. However, Mozart's music is not just candy corn for the ears -- the powdered wig version of pop music, say. Mozart's music is mature and controlled, and if it doesn't usually go for the instrumental and emotional extremes reached by Beethoven, I don't think it is any less emotionally genuine. 

As befits the classical era, Mozart came from a culture that viewed art as expressing clarity, logic and beauty above all else. The emotions in his work may not be always on his sleeve, but they are there. To answer the poll, I would say that some of Mozart's most touching music can be found in Die Zauberflote -- for example, Pamina's "Ach ich fuhls" aria.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Glissando said:


> I guess if you compare Mozart to Beethoven or Wagner, the words "lofty" and "profound" would better describe the latter.


One can not possibly compare such group.

With words like lofty and profound, Don Giovanni's ouverture is just as such as Die Wälkure or Siegfried's Vorspiel.

The Commendatore's motif is one of the darkest sounds ever written, even compared to the curse or treasure motives in Der Ring..

Qui tollis peccata mundi from Mozart's Great Mass as the strength of, for example, Kyrie from Missa Solemnis.

Also one cannot diferent eras. On cannot compare very distinct phyllosophies. Mozart had not lived the French Revolution, for example, as Beethoven did or Wagner had with revolution in Dresden.

And certainly one can not compare the achievements acquired by some one who died at 35 years, when by that age none of these composers had reached their zenith.

Each one, in their time, were superbs at what they did with the resources they had.

Imagine what they would have done with today's technology...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Le Nozze di Figaro definitely.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

dionisio said:


> The Commendatore's motif is one of the darkest sounds ever written, even compared to the curse or treasure motives in Der Ring..


I agree. When you look at the music, it is so compact, so effective. Yet the sound is overwhelming, so intens, frightning. I wonder what Mozart thought of it himself. It is just spot on. Dramma giocoso to the max.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

You're right, Dionisio. We cannot compare different composers from different eras with the same standards.
Mozart had much less orchestral means than Wagner. So, as for the orchestration alone, Mozart's works sound like a "feather". However, the strength of Wolfgang was not the orchestration or the enormous concept of a "Gesamtwerk" (Total Work), as Wagner called his "Operas" of epic proportions.
Mozart, despite he cared and was a master of form, he didn't excell even in this field as Beethoven did, who was the absolute Master of the form and structure (Mozart didn't write even a fraction of a Movement like the Finale of the 9th, of the slow movement of the String Quartet in a minor, op.132 or the Finale of the Piano Sonata in c minor, op.111, etc.). However, no composer was so gifted to write some of the most memorable melodies, sometimes even monumental, in every part of each composition, even the smallest or most "insignificant". 
It is amazing that even tha Bass line in a Piano Sonata is absolutely singable! Every line in the most complex polyphonic part of a Mass or the Requiem or a Symphony is so perfect and such a joy to sing it. Take, for example, the extended Finales in Act II and Act IV of "Le Nozze": there is not a single moment of lack or even slowing down of the singing flow of perfect melodic lines, sometimes even of seven different singers (as in the Septet of Act II)!
In short, the profundity of Mozart lies in the simplicity of divine melodic lines, perfectly scored.

Principe


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I think WAM digs the deepest philosophically with Don Giovanni, so it gets my vote for MMMO.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Glissando said:


> To answer the poll, I would say that some of Mozart's most touching music can be found in Die Zauberflote -- for example, Pamina's "Ach ich fuhls" aria.


A wonderful piece indeed.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

It has to be Die Zauberflote. The ideas and above all the music is so profound. It's about the struggle, trials and triumph of the individual through life and the music does that motif full justice like no other. It was disappointing that M did not complete his requiem - but it would have been a tragedy and loss for man if he had not completed Die Zauberflote.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

principe said:


> You're right, Dionisio. We cannot compare different composers from different eras with the same standards.
> Mozart had much less orchestral means than Wagner. So, as for the orchestration alone, Mozart's works sound like a "feather". However, the strength of Wolfgang was not the orchestration or the enormous concept of a "Gesamtwerk" (Total Work), as Wagner called his "Operas" of epic proportions.
> Mozart, despite he cared and was a master of form, he didn't excell even in this field as Beethoven did, who was the absolute Master of the form and structure (Mozart didn't write even a fraction of a Movement like the Finale of the 9th, of the slow movement of the String Quartet in a minor, op.132 or the Finale of the Piano Sonata in c minor, op.111, etc.). However, no composer was so gifted to write some of the most memorable melodies, sometimes even monumental, in every part of each composition, even the smallest or most "insignificant".
> It is amazing that even tha Bass line in a Piano Sonata is absolutely singable! Every line in the most complex polyphonic part of a Mass or the Requiem or a Symphony is so perfect and such a joy to sing it. Take, for example, the extended Finales in Act II and Act IV of "Le Nozze": there is not a single moment of lack or even slowing down of the singing flow of perfect melodic lines, sometimes even of seven different singers (as in the Septet of Act II)!
> ...


I agree with most of that - but Mozart's orch works are better than you think. The first mvt of the prague is immense when played with repeats (about 18 minutes) - so is the first mvt of the jupiter "on a massive scale" according to Alfred Einstein. The 1st mvt of pc 24 is an enormous orchestral structure. Don't underestimate wolfie. He may not have had wagner's rescources - but boy could he use what little he did have.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

dionisio said:


> One can not possibly compare such group... Also one cannot diferent eras.


But that's exactly what you did right here:



dionisio said:


> With words like lofty and profound, Don Giovanni's ouverture is just as such as Die Wälkure or Siegfried's Vorspiel.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

principe said:


> (Mozart didn't write even a fraction of a Movement like the Finale of the 9th, of the slow movement of the String Quartet in a minor, op.132 or the Finale of the Piano Sonata in c minor, op.111, etc.).


Sure he did: the first movement of the prague symphony, the first movement of the string quintet in C major K.515, the finale to Act 2 of The Marriage of Figaro, etc.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm in agreement about Cosi. Maybe I'm getting to that cynical age that agrees all to well with Don Alfonso, but I appreciate it's honesty. The plot is obviously comic, but there is a cutting message behind it. Certainly among the most interesting of all operas I have knowledge of, not just those by Mozart.


----------



## Pamina (Sep 5, 2012)

I have always loved Mozart (it's what got me into opera), but I guess you can tell from my screen name that my choice here would be Die Zauberflote. I first fell in love with Nozze di Figaro, but there are so many universal truths and so much wisdom in Zauberflote. I have always like Papageno's line about Monostatos ("Bin ich nicht ein Narr, dass ich mich schrecken liess. Es gibt ja schwarze Voegel in der Welt, warum auch nicht schwarze Menschen"). this indicates a sense of racial tolerance uncommon in Mozart's time. And of course Sarastro's arias about brotherhood and forgiveness are very profound. (If I was a bass, that's a role I'd love to sing. if for nothing else than to get to sing the sublime, "In diesen heiligen Hallen".)


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> But that's exactly what you did right here:


_Reductio ad absurdum_


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Trazom and Stomanek, we cannot compare apples with oranges. 
The First Movements of "Prague" or "Jupiter" are in Sonata form (as all the First Movements, particularly in the Classic period). So, by definition are larger than the other movements, which, normally, employ more modest forms (Variations, Song, Rondo or Sonata-Rondo). The repeats do not constitute additional music. So, the actual First movements of the two Symphonies are of large scale, but nothing to do with a _Finale_ like the one of Beethoven's 9th, which goes beyond any concept, proportion and form of the Classic period and beyond (actually none managed to repeated it that successfully). The Finales in Mozart or Haydn are the closing pages of a nice journey, not the crowning pieces. In Mozart or Haydn, the First movements normally carry the full strength of the form (and necessarily of the duration) due to the exclusive use of the Sonata form (Introduction, presentation of the two themes, development of them, recapitulation of the themes and Coda, which, in Beethoven case, could be used for a second brief development).
So, the same goes for the Piano Concerto no. 24 (or even no 20). If we compare them with the First movements of Beethoven's Piano Concerti no. 3, 4 and 5, they seem rather a fraction of the latter.
As for the First Movement of the String Quintet No.3 in C, K.515, more or less, we have the same situation. It has nothing to do with the staggering depth, development and resolution of the slow movement of the String Quartet of Beethoven's op.132 in a minor. Beethoven, as a master of form (and not of individual features, like melody, rhythm, etc.) could create incredible movements of unexpectedly epic proportions in every part of a work (see the Scherzi of the Seventh and Ninth Symphonies, for instance). 
Finally, the Finale of Act II of "Le Nozze" cannot find a comparison in Beethoven, since he wrote only one Opera, Fidelio, which was of a moderate scale. 
However, my point was clear: Mozart didn't have to go for the complex form, huge orchestration, lengthy passages, great concepts etc. He had the "face" of music: the divine _melody_ (the social passport of music) in every part of every score, developed in exquisitely beautiful harmony and natural form.

Principe


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

principe said:


> Trazom and Stomanek, we cannot compare apples with oranges.
> The First Movements of "Prague" or "Jupiter" are in Sonata form (as all the First Movements, particularly in the Classic period). So, by definition are larger than the other movements, which, normally, employ more modest forms (Variations, Song, Rondo or Sonata-Rondo). The repeats do not constitute additional music. So, the actual First movements of the two Symphonies are of large scale, but nothing to do with a _Finale_ like the one of Beethoven's 9th, which goes beyond any concept, proportion and form of the Classic period and beyond (actually none managed to repeated it that successfully). The Finales in Mozart or Haydn are the closing pages of a nice journey, not the crowning pieces. In Mozart or Haydn, the First movements normally carry the full strength of the form (and necessarily of the duration) due to the exclusive use of the Sonata form (Introduction, presentation of the two themes, development of them, recapitulation of the themes and Coda, which, in Beethoven case, could be used for a second brief development).
> So, the same goes for the Piano Concerto no. 24 (or even no 20). If we compare them with the First movements of Beethoven's Piano Concerti no. 3, 4 and 5, they seem rather a fraction of the latter.
> As for the First Movement of the String Quintet No.3 in C, K.515, more or less, we have the same situation. It has nothing to do with the staggering depth, development and resolution of the slow movement of the String Quartet of Beethoven's op.132 in a minor. Beethoven, as a master of form (and not of individual features, like melody, rhythm, etc.) could create incredible movements of unexpectedly epic proportions in every part of a work (see the Scherzi of the Seventh and Ninth Symphonies, for instance).
> ...


I understand what you are saying and I agree - though the first mvt of the eroica, for example - does repeat material. But I agree that Beethoven took symphonic writing into new territory. But hey - M wrote his symphonies in 2 weeks - B took 2 years.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I understand what you are saying and I agree - though the first mvt of the eroica, for example - does repeat material. But I agree that Beethoven took symphonic writing into new territory. But hey - M wrote his symphonies in 2 weeks - B took 2 years.


Their speeds of composition were very different, that is true, but I think it is irrelevant in a comparison of style. I would cite the fact that the eroica was created 12-13 years after Mozart's death and the 9th 20 years after that as being more relevant. Styles progress. Music now does not sound the same as 15-35 years ago. Even if we say that classical msuic has progressed more slowly in recent years when comparison with popular music, this is not always true. The late 18th and early 19th century saw major changes in style, but also in the manufcture of musical instruments and the size of orchestras.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Pamina said:


> And of course Sarastro's arias about brotherhood and forgiveness are very profound. (If I was a bass, that's a role I'd love to sing. if for nothing else than to get to sing the sublime, "In diesen heiligen Hallen".)


No doubt one of the most beautiful arias Mozart ever wrote! Welcome to the Forum.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> Their speeds of composition were very different, that is true, but I think it is irrelevant in a comparison of style. I would cite the fact that the eroica was created 12-13 years after Mozart's death and the 9th 20 years after that as being more relevant. Styles progress. Music now does not sound the same as 15-35 years ago. Even if we say that classical msuic has progressed more slowly in recent years when comparison with popular music, this is not always true. The late 18th and early 19th century saw major changes in style, but also in the manufcture of musical instruments and the size of orchestras.


Perhaps you misunderstood me - when B wrote his big works I think he was thinking on epic proportions - and he took the time to do it. If M was writing a symphony for all time - for posterity - and he was given a year to do it and full financial support - we would have, I think, seen something much greater in scale than the Jupiter. But I suppose that is irrelevant. M big epic works - as has been said - are the operas. Figaro is longer than anything B composed by a long way - and easily as complex.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Stomanek, Mozart and Beethoven are not rivals. They contributed in their own ways to Classical Music with their great Opus.
Mozart was a natural composer. That's why he didn't need one year or special financial support to compose "epic" works. Even he had been given two years and all the money of the world, I bet he wouldn't have composed anything different. Most probably, he would decline the offer. His Operas are not "epic", unless you judge them based on the length (the duration) of them. Particularly, "Le Nozze" is a quite charming work, full of musical subtlety and sublime music. Even his more "profound" Don Giovanni is not that epic. On the contrary, his last four String Quintets are, arguably, the most profound, complex and substantive works vis a vis Beethoven (along with his two Piano Quartets as well).
Beethoven was not a natural composer. He had to work meticulously with his compositions. He struggled with melodies, rhythms, even the orchestration. That's why he relied more than any other composer on the form, the structure of the work. By doing so, he mastered his works to a perfection that could go beyond any original plan (see the numerous sketches of the Fifth). The "epic" proportion of the 9th is that it has 4 very complex, full of music movements, whose length is much larger than anything composed till then. Particularly, the Finale of the 9th is of such an incredible scale of concept, realisation, structure that makes any other movement (let alone Finales) of any other composer to look as almost a "dwarf". The same aplies for the finale of Piano Sonata in c minor, op.111, the Benedictus in Missa Solemnis, etc. On the contrary, "Le Nozze" as an Opera could be long enough, but it is not an "epic" work. Operas of good length existed before and after. When a work, such as "Le Nozze" has 28 numbers (Arias, Duets, Ensembles, etc.) is not so unusual to last...a bit longer. However, when you have a String Quartet that has to last around 45 minutes, you have a huge work to accomplish to make it a monumental work and not a bore (see Reger).

Principe


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

Well, can't comment on the opera, so I won't, but I am interested in Ondine's OP point that 'It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep'

I have to say that this is my _current_ reaction, listening at present to 40, 41 and 25 symphonies. That doesn't mean that I'm not finding some of it delightful, but I did have to go and listen to Beethoven's 8th as an antidote to all that delicate frivolity.

(Yes, I _have _seen _Amadeus _- about 10 years ago I suppose)


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

It's not "frivolity", MacLeod. It is called subtlety, refinement, exquisite melodic lines and natural effortless writing. In good performances, the works you mentioned get a much more profound form than they sound. As for Beethoven's 8th, there is enough "frivolity"...underneath (check, for instance, carefully the second movement: there is even Rossini there!).

Principe


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

principe said:


> It's not "frivolity", MacLeod. It is called subtlety, refinement, exquisite melodic lines and natural effortless writing. In good performances, the works you mentioned get a much more profound form than they sound. As for Beethoven's 8th, there is enough "frivolity"...underneath (check, for instance, carefully the second movement: there is even Rossini there!).
> 
> Principe


No, you choose your words, and I'll choose mine. I'm happy with frivolity - even, at times, vacuity.

Yes, the 8th is fun. Agreed.

Rossini? Now he was a real comedian!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have long found the very notion of "profundity" vs "frivolity" in art a bit ridiculous. Composer X writes music mostly in a Major key during a period in which elegance, wit, joy, humor, melody, harmony, and clarity of form were highly valued and extreme expressions of emotions were frowned upon. Composer Y employs dramatic contrasts in dynamics and often writes in a Minor key during a period in which extremes of emotion, hysteria, tragedy, passion, "self expression", and melodramatic fireworks are highly valued, while elements of restraint and harmony are seen as stiff and repressive. So how do we go about comparing the respective success of failure of these composers. 

Far too many classical listeners... at least among those that I have come across on internet forums would seem to suggest that we use the values and standards epitomized by Composer Y as the ideal or measure by which all music should be weighed... (and perhaps much of this is owed to the fact that many members are at that younger age where personal emotions and feelings are of the greatest importance). 

It seem far more logical to compare the achievements of both composers (if comparison is to be an issue at all) according to how well either attained their own goals. Instead we continually get "Composer Y is better than Composer X because Composer X isn't Compose Y". "Mozart is lightweight because he's not like Beethoven". "Brahms in boring because he's not like Mahler or Wagner."


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have long found the very notion of "profundity" vs "frivolity"


True, they should not be put in opposition.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> It seem far more logical to compare the achievements of both composers (if comparison is to be an issue at all) according to how well either attained their own goals.


Quite, and certainly not against some collectively agreed criteria refined down the ages and applied to all composers, irrespective of their own goals (and the tastes of their contemporary audiences).


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

It's not about "choosing my words", MacLeod, or choosing yours either. It's about what is in the score. What is Mozart's music, in musical terms. Frivolity might be, by all means, your words for what it brings to you, but what I wanted to point out to you and to other forum members is the subtlety, the refinement and the effortless natural writing of a genuine musical genius compared to the stiff struggled results of the Beethoven's opus, which as a final product is superb as well. Both of them were of the greatest composers, but for different reasons. That was all!
As for Rossini, he was a spirited musician who could be easily entertaining and equally successfully dramatic (I cannot judge his comedian's skills; I'm dealing with his music only). The key point is that his musical skills seldom proved he really wished to excell. However, people like the fun his music can bring to them, even if at times the music tends to be unashamedly easy come easy go.

Finally, I am not the one of those who advocates "profundity" versus "frivolity". I just wish to bring to the others' attention that there is something solid and significant in the score which has a validity of its own (a musical/technical identity one). The more we can get into it and move further than the surface (the easy melody that might look even naive, the basic rhythm that might sound childish, the primitive harmony that seems to serve no purpose), the more we can discover. If this has multiple effects, after repeated listenning, then we can start talking about the profundity or the opposite of the work in question.
"Le Nozze" is for quite a few people of average listeners a "soap" Opera. Possibly, they are aright, if they stick to a face value listening, ignoring any musical fact of the score and the nuances of the different recordings or live performances. However, I have not encountered anyone, who truly indulged in the score and the work itself, and he was not affected to a high degree.

Principe


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

principe said:


> It's not about "choosing my words", MacLeod, or choosing yours either. It's about what is in the score. What is Mozart's music, in musical terms. Frivolity might be, by all means, your words for what it brings to you, but what I wanted to point out to you and to other forum members is the subtlety, the refinement and the effortless natural writing of a genuine musical genius compared to the stiff struggled results of the Beethoven's opus, which as a final product is superb as well.


I wouldn't want to completely derail this thread (supposed to be about opera) so this is my last response to Principe.

First, it is about the words _and _what is in the score. If I _hear '_frivolity', then that is the word I'll use. Note too that in my first post, I emphasised that this is my _current_ response. There's plenty more listening to do, and I'm sure I'll have plenty of opportunities to hear the exquisite and the subtle.

Second, it's about the music first, and the 'genius' or the 'stiff' afterwards. If Beethoven's 'final product is superb', then it doesn't matter how long he took to do it, or whether Mozart dashed off 3 symphonies in six weeks!


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Points taken, MacLeod, and this my last response to you as well.
When I mentioned that this is not about "choosing my words", this meant to say that I focus on what is in the score. 
Secondly, you may hear "frivolity" and, then, that is the word, but "frivolity" is not in the score. Refinement of writing can be identified, though.

Principe


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, can't comment on the opera, so I won't, but I am interested in Ondine's OP point that 'It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep'
> 
> I have to say that this is my _current_ reaction, listening at present to 40, 41 and 25 symphonies. That doesn't mean that I'm not finding some of it delightful, but I did have to go and listen to Beethoven's 8th as an antidote to all that delicate frivolity.
> 
> (Yes, I _have _seen _Amadeus _- about 10 years ago I suppose)


Mozart did write some frivolous music now and then (some of the serenades fro example) - but you chose the wrong examples there by a long shot!


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Mozart did write some frivolous music now and then (some of the serenades fro example) - but you chose the wrong examples there by a long shot!


I chose those examples becasue those are the ones I'm listening to - CD in the car, mp3 on headphones etc. I don't see how my personal response can be "wrong". (Subjective, yes).


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Your "personal response" cannot be wrong as you rightly suggest, MacLeod. However, what Stomanek may try to say is that you may be wrong, but that's another question. 
Sorry for the intrusion, once more.

Principe


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

principe said:


> Your "personal response" cannot be wrong as you rightly suggest, MacLeod. However, what Stomanek may try to say is that you may be wrong, but that's another question.
> Sorry for the intrusion, once more.
> 
> Principe


No he's not wrong if that is what he hears - any more than a tramp is wrong for claiming fillet mignon tastes like a macdonalds pattie.
And the "academic" view - the recieved views of composers and performers - overwhelmingly is that those symhonies are seriously profound works - especially sy 40. But if frivolity is what he hears - that's what he hears - it's his loss.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

You're right, Stomanek. My point was exactly that, while we are "right", if we believe (we are sure) what we hear is X, we may be wrong as for our _judgement_ and should not to be -constantly- satisfied with our perception, as our subjective prerogative.

Principe


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

stomanek said:


> any more than a tramp is wrong for claiming fillet mignon tastes like a macdonalds pattie.


Yeah, well, for this tramp, eating a MacDonalds pattie _is _like eating _filet mignon!_


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Quite late into the thread, again. Sorry.



principe said:


> [...]and natural effortless writing.


This is what makes Mozart -at least for me- so outstanding. It is felt as an effortless music. 'Irritatingly' perfect.

But most of the opinions -I have heard at offline musical circles- about his music are like that given by MacLeod:



MacLeod said:


> Well, can't comment on the opera, so I won't, but I am interested in Ondine's OP point that 'It is a general thought that Mozart's compositions were not really deep'
> 
> I have to say that this is my _current_ reaction, listening at present to 40, 41 and 25 symphonies. That doesn't mean that I'm not finding some of it delightful, but I did have to go and listen to Beethoven's 8th as an antidote to all that delicate frivolity.
> 
> (Yes, I _have _seen _Amadeus _- about 10 years ago I suppose)


And I do not see any problem with it because I think that here we are into the realm of very personal taste and appreciation. And that is OK.

I will go through _Idomeneo_ again this next week as soon as I can have some free time and then I will give my opinion why I put it into the meaningful list of operas.

Thanks,


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It seem far more logical to compare the achievements of both composers (if comparison is to be an issue at all) according to how well either attained their own goals. Instead we continually get "Composer Y is better than Composer X because Composer X isn't Compose Y". "Mozart is lightweight because he's not like Beethoven". "Brahms in boring because he's not like Mahler or Wagner."


I agree, Stlukesguild.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

By all means, Ondine, it's O.K., as long as we always are "into the realm of very personal taste and appreciation".
However, at the end of the day, we have to decide where is the truth. Somebody should be right and someone else might be wrong. Of course, the truth for each one of us is whatever we perceive at the particular moment we speak, but that cannot define what Mozart actually is or what his last Symphonies are.
Since the originial question is about the "most meaningful Opera" by Mozart, I guess we cannot be that satisfied by simply collecting some very personal (actually, in most cases evolving personal) opinions. We have to find out which might be or even which actually is this "most meaningful Opeera". When I propose "Le Nozze", it is not simply because I like it or I appreciate it most, but because I went through an almost devastating research, exchange of views with people of this business, singers, musicians, critics, scholars, etc. While, personally, I still have my soft spot in my first love of Mozart's Operas, namely "Die Zauberflote", I came to the conclusion that "Le Nozze" is the finest, musically speaking, the more profound (plenty to discover under the subtlety of the surface) and the most developed (out of 28 numbers half are for the Ensemble and the two extended Finales of Act II & IV are some of the best music for the Opera in general).
So, the discourse should go to this kind of argumentation, so that either we confirm this view on "le Nozze" or we come to another conclusion, which, however, should have some tangible arguments to support it.

Principe


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ondine said:


> Quite late into the thread, again. Sorry.
> 
> This is what makes Mozart -at least for me- so outstanding. It is felt as an effortless music. 'Irritatingly' perfect.
> 
> ...


I mix with people at London conservatoires (RCM + RAM) - and have not heard Mozart being described as not being deep - quite the reverse. I have heard a teacher bellow at a student - "where is your expression? This is Mozart!!!"


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I mix with people at London conservatoires (RCM + RAM) - and have not heard Mozart being described as not being deep - quite the reverse. I have heard a teacher bellow at a student - "where is your expression? This is Mozart!!!"


I don't see how you infer that the teacher thinks Mozart is 'deep' from bellowing as he did at the pupil. I'd like to know what is meant by 'deep' and why some commenters are so keen for his deepness to be established.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Yeah, well, for this tramp, eating a MacDonalds pattie _is _like eating _filet mignon!_


I have a couple of recommendation for you - perhaps you just have not heard the right pieces. I consider these movements to be as deep as anything M wrote:

1 - pc 23 2nd mvt
2 - sy concertante k364 2nd mvt

Listen to those and tell me what you think.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I have a couple of recommendation for you - perhaps you just have not heard the right pieces. I consider these movements to be as deep as anything M wrote:
> 
> 1 - pc 23 2nd mvt
> 2 - sy concertante k364 2nd mvt
> ...


Will do - I'll get back to you.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I don't see how you infer that the teacher thinks Mozart is 'deep' from bellowing as he did at the pupil. I'd like to know what is meant by 'deep' and why some commenters are so keen for his deepness to be established.


He was playing a very sensitive middle movement from one of the violin concertos. A movement that overflows with complex emotion. It was a masterclass. I have said this before and I get fed up repeating it - I don't care if you think M is a light composer - but in the professional world of music past and present - that view would be dismissed as nonsense. I challenge you to find a major figure on youtube or a quote from someone notable in music - who expresses your view. Beethoven himself considered M to be a deep composer - wrote several works as a homage to M. Strauss and Mahler conducted and championed his operas. Like it or not that is the dominant view.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

stomanek said:


> He was playing a very sensitive middle movement from one of the violin concertos. A movement that overflows with complex emotion. It was a masterclass. I have said this before and I get fed up repeating it - I don't care if you think M is a light composer - but in the professional world of music past and present - that view would be dismissed as nonsense. I challenge you to find a major figure on youtube or a quote from someone notable in music - who expresses your view. Beethoven himself considered M to be a deep composer - wrote several works as a homage to M. Strauss and Mahler conducted and championed his operas. Like it or not that is the dominant view.


If you read my original post, what I offered was a personal response to what I was listening to at the time. I was not making some absolute and objective claim that "Mozart is not deep / is frivolous", only that my 'reaction' tallied with what Ondine claimed some have said. I notice that you've not attempted to argue that the three symphonies I quoted are 'deep' or debated any of the evidence I specifically offered in the other thread!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> If you read my original post, what I offered was a personal response to what I was listening to at the time. I was not making some absolute and objective claim that "Mozart is not deep / is frivolous", only that my 'reaction' tallied with what Ondine claimed some have said. I notice that you've not attempted to argue that the three symphonies I quoted are 'deep' or debated any of the evidence I specifically offered in the other thread!


Yes I was thinking about those 3 symphonies.
sy 41 for me - is all about dramatic energy and musical architecture rather than depth of expression or meaning - though the 2nd mvt is deep in the sense I think you mean.
No 40 - 1st mvt is all about emotion - unresolvable tragedy - so i don't quite understand what you are saying there about frivolity. The 2nd mvt is quite expressive too.
sy 39 - is all seductive in its rythm and beauty of sound, lyrical and dramatic. 
I can see how if you compare those works with beet sy 3 2nd mvt - you would jump to the conclusion that B is deep and Mozart is not. But I still think that is a bit hasty. If you mean they are not deep - like Philosphy or religion - then I could agree with you - but depth of human feeling is what a lot of mozart's music is all about. B wrote about heroic deeds - the physical might of man - the wonders of nature - Mozart's music is all about beauty of sound, perfection of form, order, - intimacy and fragility of human feeling - though no doubt many on this board will disagree!
Try out those 2nd mvts I suggested - without any pressure - if you find them to be choccie box music - i wn't be offended, just surprised.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

stomanek said:


> He was playing a very sensitive middle movement from one of the violin concertos. A movement that overflows with complex emotion. It was a masterclass. I have said this before and I get fed up repeating it - I don't care if you think M is a light composer - but in the professional world of music past and present - that view would be dismissed as nonsense. I challenge you to find a major figure on youtube or a quote from someone notable in music - who expresses your view. Beethoven himself considered M to be a deep composer - wrote several works as a homage to M. Strauss and Mahler conducted and championed his operas. Like it or not that is the dominant view.


People who say that Mozart's music is not deep usually haven't listened to most of it. They may have listened to a couple of piano concertos, a few symphonies, bits of opera, maybe his violin concertos and clarinet concerto.

To truly understand the genius of Mozart you need to listen to a lot more of his music. All the world's greatest composers like Beethoven, Schubert (listen to his 5th symphony, it has Mozart's influences all over it), Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Grieg, Schumann, Wagner loved Mozart.

So I don't know why some people think their opinion about Mozart is more meaningful than the masters of classical music.

It's mostly ego and unwillingness to learn more about his music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> People who say that Mozart's music is not deep usually haven't listened to most of it. They may have listened to a couple of piano concertos, a few symphonies, bits of opera, maybe his violin concertos and clarinet concerto.
> 
> To truly understand the genius of Mozart you need to listen to a lot more of his music. All the world's greatest composers like Beethoven, Schubert (listen to his 5th symphony, it has Mozart's influences all over it), Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Grieg, Schumann, Wagner loved Mozart.
> 
> ...


That's harsh - there are people who don't connect with it - simple as that.
I often find that Verdi lovers - think Mozart's operas are shallow and unmusical.
I'm a Mozart man - but I also think Verdi is phenomenal - particularly Otello.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> People who say that Mozart's music is not deep usually haven't listened to most of it. [...]
> So I don't know why some people think their opinion about Mozart is more meaningful than the masters of classical music.
> 
> It's mostly ego and unwillingness to learn more about his music.


Quite a grand claim. Since no one in this thread has actually said "Mozart's music isn't deep" (I haven't - Ondine didn't) I'm not sure what the point of this line of debate is.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

stomanek said:


> That's harsh - there are people who don't connect with it - simple as that.
> I often find that Verdi lovers - think Mozart's operas are shallow and unmusical.
> I'm a Mozart man - but I also think Verdi is phenomenal - particularly Otello.


I'm not trying to insult anyone, but by saying that Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms or any other composer is not good because you don't like him is childish.

Ofc, you don't have to like Brahms for example, but saying that his music is overrated is not correct at all...

I am not a Mozart fan boy at all, maybe my avatar is misleading, but I respect him and many other composers, and I don't think that my taste is the right for saying that certain composer is lightweight, or quite the opposite, that some composers are basically Gods and everything they touched is gold.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Quite a grand claim. Since no one in this thread has actually said "Mozart's music isn't deep" (I haven't - Ondine didn't) I'm not sure what the point of this line of debate is.


Yeah, I'm sorry, this wasn't intended for you or anyone her. I just think that tastes change and we shouldn't be so stubborn about exploring certain composers.

For example I though that Haydn was nothing special, but when I started to explore and listen to his music more, I realized that I was just a lazy fool!


----------

