# How do we know Mozart had perfect pitch?



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

I have heard something along these lines from an episode of Scishow on youtube about perfect pitch and whether you can develop it as an adult.



> Can you tell what pitch this is without a reference? If so, you have perfect pitch and are in the same club as Mozart.


At first I was like "Huh, I must be the Mozart of the 21st century because Mozart inspired me to compose music, I have perfect pitch, and I started composing and playing piano at a young age." But then I started speculating. I was asking myself this:



> Did Mozart really have perfect pitch? Did this perfect pitch help him with his composition process? What evidence is there that Mozart had perfect pitch? There could easily be no evidence like how there is no evidence that Beethoven had perfect pitch but he is still said by some to likely have had perfect pitch


So I did some research and couldn't find any direct evidence that Mozart had perfect pitch, just a lot of blogs and other sites mentioning Mozart while talking about perfect pitch in general(a lot like the Scishow video). Even Wikipedia only said that there is evidence that Mozart had perfect pitch, not what that evidence is.

So, how do we know that Mozart had perfect pitch? What is the evidence for it?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

caters said:


> So, how do we know that Mozart had perfect pitch? What is the evidence for it?


When Mozart was a child, he complained his father's violin wasn't tuned to the same pitch as a neighbor's (recalling this from memory). Leopold insisted the violin was correctly tuned but WA continued insisting it wasn't. To prove WA wrong, Leopold went to the neighor's and discovered (as he would continue to) that WA was right (it was something like a quarter tone off). As in all things music, there wasn't any capability in which Wolfgang didn't excel. He was born to create music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

caters said:


> I have heard something along these lines from an episode of Scishow on youtube about perfect pitch and whether you can develop it as an adult.
> 
> At first I was like "Huh, I must be the Mozart of the 21st century because Mozart inspired me to compose music, I have perfect pitch, and I started composing and playing piano at a young age." But then I started speculating. I was asking myself this:
> 
> ...


Myabe not, 
But vtpoet has a certain anecdotal event which may bring in the answer. 
I have no musical training, Yet I can tell which recording is on, which is off. 
I can do this with a composer I am not familiar with, like Bruckner/, Mahler. But it takes time in those 2 for me to rate 5 separate recordings . 
In say 2 hours or less I can rate 5 dif recordings of any Mahler's, Bruckners, And I have never really spent time with either's music.
Mozart late syms, I can tell in seconds and givea rating based on the 1st moniute,,,some music I am very familiar with, I can grade in less than 1 minute opening.

Some composers defy grading and so I spend no effort nor waste time trying to make a rating.

To me, Beethoven;s music defs grading,,as every 200+ recordings have some merits,,,Now the newest Beethoven, like the one I heard on the radio, now that one is zero stars out of 10. 
But take the top 100 Beethoven cycles. It is near impossible to grade them in any order...
there is a reason for this, which I will not go into, 
Take Mozart's top 100 recordings late sysm cycles. 
I can grade those, 1-100 with some error of say 10% +/-. 
I can givea top 5 of the 100 , near 100% accuracy.

I have no musical training, can;'t tell one note from another. 
Ravel's piano music, difficult to grade exact, only a range of orderings.
I have like 10 sets, It would be dif to make a exact list.
Every composers music is dif and requires dif ear to place a recording ina rating system. 
As I say, I think I can do well with Mahler and Bruckner, if given the opportunity. 
5 cds, in less than 2 hours, any Bruckner , any Mahler.

Mozart 100 cds, I can place these in some order in 6 hours time, with a 10% variance differential, that is some post valuation adjustments may be called upon to correct some , hasty verdicts.

EDIT
On the Mozart 100 sets/last 6 syms/6 hours/rating in order of level of crafting.
I have a secret reference recording, if you were wondering how is this possible.
There will be 3 or 4 broad groups, top tier, , then good, then OK, the last, unacceptable group.

EDIT
The 100 Beethoven sym sets, I could not make a grade system in 600 hours. There is a reason for this,,which I am not able to speak of. well there would end up with 2 board categories in the Beethoven, Excellent, the other good/OK. I could do this in say 4 hours or less.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

paulbest said:


> ....I have no musical training, Yet I can tell which recording is on, which is off.....


With all due respect Paul, I have *no* idea what you're going on about. None. Are you using Google translate? :/


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

hehe

I am a record critic.
It has been a past time hobby of mine.
I can not tell pitch, can not name a chord, note,,,but I have this *knack* for deciphering which orchestra is *running on all cylinders * , and which conductor is a tad off the score as intended by the composer. 
Take Celibidache , now here is a tough call. 1st he had a all star orchestra in his Bruckner/Mahler the Munich. I can not give him points on that. *stellar performance* but none of his making. 
But his tempos. Some adore his tempos,,,a few like myself feel he over rides the composer and takes tempos * a la Celibidache*

So I can not judge his records, due to his superior orchestra. 

I was only saying all the above as a bit of showing off, that a proper ear for music, can be achieved without tech knowledge/schooling. 
Just boasting bit here, that's all. 
To me quality of performance counts a lot.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There were earwitness accounts. People were wowed by him when he was just a young lad. In an anonymous letter in the Augsburger Intelligenz-Zettel, one person wrote this letter after hearing the 7-year-old prodigy perform:

"I saw and heard how, when he was made to listen in another room, they would give him notes, now high, now low, not only on the pianoforte, but on every other imaginable instrument as well, and he came out with the letter of the name of the note in an instant. Indeed, on hearing a bell toll, or a clock or even a pocket watch strike, he was able at the same moment to name the note of the bell or time piece."

He was some prodigy and his list of feats is legendary. His ability was put to every imaginative test and he came out with flying colors, including on the matter of perfect pitch. I know it’s possible because I’ve seen it in real life: The well-known jazz musician Tom Scott has perfect pitch and I’ve heard him name the pitch of a dime when it was dropped on a table. Chopin was also known for having perfect pitch and such musicians can write music down without having a reference of a piano or other instrument though they generally prefer writing and composing at the piano because they often have the ability to improvise and that helps them compose. Mozart preferred composing at the piano but he could write things down that he heard without it, such as the Miserere that he transcribed after hearing it at St. Peters. That happened and it led to an audience with Pope Clement within three months when Mozart was 14, and the ban was lifted on anyone having a copy of that work that had not been approved of by the pope.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

All this wonderous musical creative genius is clearly displayed in his late works. 
The only famous composer I know , who is on the records for making some slightly dissing comments on Mozart was Sir Charles Ives. 
All others stood in awe with the deepest respect, at his (EDIT: Late)masterpieces.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Well when he bought his well-known pet starling he jotted down the song it sang which he had probably whistled to the bird. The music he notated in his journal is similar to his PC 17, but he notated the differences the bird reproduced. He also did very few corrections on his scores.

Let's say he had perfect pitch, but this is not all that made Mozart into _Mozart_. He also had other qualities. I doubt he would have been able to carry out his activities had he not had mastery of pitch with a good ear. If he didn't have perfect pitch then he was just damn good without it.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> He was some prodigy and his list of feats is legendary. His ability was put to every imaginative test and he came out with flying colors, including on the matter of perfect perfect.


That he should show up at the perfect moment in music history, with all his gifts, to exploit the prevailing aesthetic just makes one believe in a greater intelligence and design. Call it what you will. And I know it's easy to make his life a just-so story, but imagine if Mozart had been born in 1556 or 1656 or 1956. He would have made a great composer, but what a missed opportunity.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

vtpoet said:


> That he should show up at the perfect moment in music history, with all his gifts, to exploit the prevailing aesthetic just makes one believe in a greater intelligence and design. Call it what you will. And I know it's easy to make his life a just-so story, but imagine if Mozart had been born in 1556 or 1656 or 1956. He would have made a great composer, but what a missed opportunity.


Those two sentences contradict one another. It seems to point to concomitant circumstances not 'a greater intelligence and design'.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Here is something anecdotal I came across while watching a Horowitz plays Mozart's piano concerto 23. 
In some interview prio to the record made in NY studios, Horowitz mentions how busy Mozart had been while writing the 23rd concerto,,,saying Mozart made a slight error,,,and he then goes on to hum out the 1 note error and that it was suppose to have ,,THIS note to follow,. Horowitz goes on to say, its quite understandable, as Mozart was busy writing 2 or 3 works at the same time, just a tiny slip of the pen,,is all its was. 

Now the thing is,,should the performer play the errored note, or overlook it and play the correct note?


I say the pianist make the correction , to the gracias of Mozart.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

samm said:


> Those two sentences contradict one another. It seems to point to concomitant circumstances not 'a greater intelligence and design'.


If you read Jung corre4ctly, Mozart's manifestation , does point towards a intelligent design. 
Jung calls this phenomenon, synchronicity.
If this event is not by a intelligent design, pray tell what is IT?
*chance* . Ain't buying.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

samm said:


> Let's say he had perfect pitch, but this is not all that made Mozart into _Mozart_. He also had other qualities. I doubt he would have been able to carry out his activities had he not had mastery of pitch with a good ear. If he didn't have perfect pitch then he was just damn good without it.


I would be surprised if *all* of the composers we know by name didn't have perfect pitch of some form or another. In those days, being a composer wasn't for the amateur who had to compose at the keyboard-unless you were royalty and didn't have to churn out symphonies and operas at the drop of a hat. That was your job. You were expected to be able to do that. There just wasn't time for plunking away at a keyboard to check your pich. These guys produced sonatas the way we write emails. Bach was quoted as saying that he wouldn't take on a student if the student didn't have, as he called it, "a musical mind". I suspect that having perfect pitch (having the ability to compose without an instrument) was what he meant.

I'm sure that Mozart's abilities floored his non-professional onlookers --- all those bewigged aristocrats with their snuff boxes, but probably didn't so much impress the other composers. In fact, one composer's report was just that. The child Mozart was asked to play this composer's keyboard sonata at site. The aristocrats were floored and thought Mozart was the greatest phenom on earth. According to the composer of the actual keyboard sonata, Mozart made all sorts of mistakes (was proficient but not accurate as a site reader) but so skillfully hid his errors with improvisation that the amateurs were none the wiser.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

As we know Mozart was a bit of *The Jokester*,,,he may have intentionally made those slips, on purpose,,,fora bit of fun..taking another composers work and adding in his own transcriptions. 

maybe he felt the original was too lousey and needed some improvements.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

samm said:


> Those two sentences contradict one another. It seems to point to concomitant circumstances not 'a greater intelligence and design'.


They don't contradict each other at all. If you want to see Mozart's life as the happy product of random chance, then go ahead. There's no proof either way. Your beliefs, nor mine, are going to change a thing. I don't go for Intelligent Design, by the way, unless one considers evolution itself the workshop in which a kind of designing intelligence works---and I do.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

vtpoet said:


> Bach was quoted as saying that he wouldn't take on a student if the student didn't have, as he called it, "a musical mind". I suspect that having perfect pitch (having the ability to compose without an instrument) was what he meant.


Having perfect pitch was almost certainly not one of his requirements for taking on students, or he would have taught virtually none. It is estimated less than 1 in 10,000 people have perfect pitch. It is possible to compose without an instrument without having perfect pitch.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

tdc said:


> Having perfect pitch was almost certainly not one of his requirements for taking on students...


You don't know that any more than I do. Nobody knows exactly what he meant. My speculation may be informed, but it's still only speculation.



tdc said:


> It is estimated less than 1 in 10,000 people have perfect pitch. It is possible to compose without an instrument without having perfect pitch.


The estimate is baseless and according to stackexchange only applies to US Citizens.

A more important study is here: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/science/perfect-pitch-is-linked-to-training-before-age-6.html

And the most interesting quote is this:



> "Among those who started music lessons before the age of 4, some 40 percent had perfect pitch. But that number dropped to 3 percent for musicians who started their training after turning 12."


Given what we know about musical education in the 18th century and earlier, I stand by my speculation that probably all of the composers we remember by name had perfect pitch or as close to that as prefect relative pitch could bring them.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

vtpoet said:


> Given what we know about musical education in the 18th century and earlier, I stand by my speculation that probably all of the composers we remember by name had perfect pitch or as close to that as prefect relative pitch could bring them.


That is possible, but that is not what I was debating. I'm doubtful that having perfect pitch was a requirement for Bach taking on a student. Having a 'musical mind' is not necessarily describing perfect pitch. If perfect pitch was his requirement I suspect he would have said that.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

What good is perfect pitch?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> What good is perfect pitch?


I think people who have it have the advantage of possessing the natural ability for the kind of pitch discernment other musicians have to work for by improving their relative pitch through ear training. I don't see a substantial musical advantage between someone with perfect pitch and someone who has developed their relative pitch to a high level.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

tdc said:


> If perfect pitch was his requirement I suspect he would have said that.


That assumes that the terminology existed at the time. Perfect pitch was recognized, certainly, but I don't think they had a name for it. Nobody in Mozart's time, that I'm aware of, referred to Mozart's "perfect pitch". They used euphemisms or described the same. Even by Tchaikovsky's day, his mother was using euphemisms. He had a "perfect ear" she said. I'm sure Bach was referring to more than absolute pitch when using the euphemism "musical mind", but I suspect (given Bach's own demands and expectations) that he wouldn't have suffered a student who couldn't tell the difference between D Major and F-sharp major. But I speculate.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> What good is perfect pitch?


obviously w/o it, a performer like Oistrakh can not perform the Shostakovich VC1, as he does. Hillary Hahn has perfect pitch, but her latest YT vid of the Sibelius VC, shows she does not know how to present the perfect pitch in performance. 
'Its one thing to possess this rare gift,,its another to know how to utilize it, in such a way to produce beautiful music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

tdc said:


> I think people who have it have the advantage of possessing the natural ability for the kind of pitch discernment other musicians have to work for by improving their relative pitch through ear training. I don't see a substantial musical advantage between someone with perfect pitch and someone who has developed their relative pitch to a high level.


w/o perfect pitch from his earliest, there is no way Oistrakh could have made the Brahms VC come alive as he did,,,Nor the tinest nuances in the Shostakovich VC1, had Oistrakh not been in possession of this rare gift from his youth. 
Huge advantage, earlier the better


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

paulbest said:


> w/o perfect pitch from his earliest, there is no way Oistrakh could have made the Brahms VC come alive as he did,,,Nor the tinest nuances in the Shostakovich VC1, had Oistrakh not been in possession of this rare gift from his youth.
> Huge advantage, earlier the better


Having a sensitive ear, being able to recognize harmonies, (chords and intervals), having good musical phrasing and 'feel' are highly important as a musician. These things don't require perfect pitch.

Being able to sing or recognize pitches without a reference note is a cool party trick, but I'm not convinced it is necessary in becoming a great musician. I've never seen any evidence suggesting that it is the case. Some people with perfect pitch have even claimed it can be a small hindrance at times because their ear is so sensitive it becomes a distraction if any instrument is out of tune even to such a small degree it is imperceptible to most people.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Given what we know about musical education in the 18th century and earlier, I stand by my speculation that probably all of the composers we remember by name had perfect pitch or as close to that as prefect relative pitch could bring them.


I would agree that virtually all the great composers have had top-notch relative pitch. Relative pitch can be taught and learned, though much more easily and comprehensively by some than by others.

But true perfect pitch is a different animal. And one can be a top-flight composer, conductor, musician, or arranger without it.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

paulbest said:


> w/o perfect pitch from his earliest, there is no way Oistrakh could have made the Brahms VC come alive as he did,,,Nor the tinest nuances in the Shostakovich VC1, had Oistrakh not been in possession of this rare gift from his youth.
> Huge advantage, earlier the better


I'm not sure you understand what perfect pitch is. It is the ability to hear a single pitch in isolation from any other pitches and identify the letter name of the pitch.

Great violinists have precise intonation, which requires a precise sense of pitch, but one can have both of these without perfect pitch.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It is more common in current times for people with perfect pitch at 440Hz. I hear it is a challenge for string players with perfect pitch at 440Hz to go down to 415Hz for Baroque performances. I'm used to 440Hz listening myself, and recall the first note of a piece. Luckily I'm not that well-trained, and can adjust quickly for period performances.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

paulbest said:


> If you read Jung corre4ctly, Mozart's manifestation , does point towards a intelligent design.
> Jung calls this  phenomenon, synchronicity.
> If this event is not by a intelligent design, pray tell what is IT?
> *chance* . Ain't buying.


Jung's synchronicity is not 'intelligent design' it is the interplay of influences in the relationship between circumstances, natural abilities and traits and deliberate choices.



vtpoet said:


> They don't contradict each other at all. If you want to see Mozart's life as the happy product of random chance, then go ahead. There's no proof either way. Your beliefs, nor mine, are going to change a thing. I don't go for Intelligent Design, by the way, unless one considers evolution itself the workshop in which a kind of designing intelligence works---and I do.


They absolutely contradict one another. The first suggests design, the second that the circumstances came together at the right time. I'm merely pointing it out, it is what it is.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Heh, Beethoven had perfect pitch in his mind's eye.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

samm said:


> They absolutely contradict one another. The first suggests design, the second that the circumstances came together at the right time. I'm merely pointing it out, it is what it is.


No they don't. You simply choose to interpret them that way, for whatever reason. Here's what I wrote.

"That he should show up at the perfect moment in music history, with all his gifts, to exploit the prevailing aesthetic just makes one believe in a greater intelligence and design. Call it what you will. And I know it's easy to make his life a just-so story, but imagine if Mozart had been born in 1556 or 1656 or 1956. He would have made a great composer, but what a missed opportunity."

In the first sentence I assert that 1756 (or thereabouts) was the perfect time for a Mozart to be born (for all kinds of historical reasons relating to the development of music). But I acknowledge that that's tantamount to a just-so story. The final sentence asserts that if he had been born at any other time, he probably only would have been, for lack of a better term, a second rate Mozart. But this is all sheer fantasy and I only write this to explain what you seem to misunderstand.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sandy Koufax may not have had a perfect pitch, but he came close to it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DBLee said:


> I'm not sure you understand what perfect pitch is. It is the ability to hear a single pitch in isolation from any other pitches and identify the letter name of the pitch.
> 
> Great violinists have precise intonation, which requires a precise sense of pitch, but one can have both of these without perfect pitch.


Got ya, Thanks
Yes this is what I am saying, Oistrakh had qualities apart from his *keen sense of pitch*,,,,In a great violinist performance , perfect pitch, yet lacking many other fine qualities,,,ain't gonna make a great recording. It has to be a blend and synthesis of all the necessary qualities working in a harmonious manner.
This is whats Oistrakh's Brahms Vc what it is. 
Hahn has incredibly beautiful intonations,,,probably, not definitely finest on record. But she lacks something Oistrakh has in the Brahms VC. 
Oisytakh also had superior conductors/orchestras in his day. Vs Hahn's companions.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Sandy Koufax may not have had a perfect pitch, but he came close to it.


He had perfect pitch and the unfortunate batters could only hit a relative pitch.:cheers:


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> He had perfect pitch and the unfortunate batters could only hit relative.


just sawa vid Pete Rose saying how Sandy had a curve ball that just droped dead at the plate. 
And think about it, Sandy was juice free. 
Even babe Ruth couldn't hit off Sandy.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> They don't contradict each other at all. If you want to see Mozart's life as the happy product of random chance, then go ahead. There's no proof either way. Your beliefs, nor mine, are going to change a thing. I don't go for Intelligent Design, by the way, unless one considers evolution itself the workshop in which a kind of designing intelligence works---and I do.


Random chance? The way I see it -
A competitive older sister. The baby of the family (male). His musical father and his father's musical friends and their frequent 3 and 4 part music making. A loving, supportive mother. Being pushed and praised as a wunderkind. His father's contacts. The times and place were lucky for him. His brain and his personality (border-line Tourette syndrome). His early touring, impressed by royalty and the aristocracy, and he was small for his age which helped to make him endearing in those circles. He was driven to be successful and well-off at a very tender age.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> I would be surprised if *all* *of the composers we know by name didn't have perfect pitch of some form or another.* In those days, being a composer wasn't for the amateur who had to compose at the keyboard-unless you were royalty and didn't have to churn out symphonies and operas at the drop of a hat. That was your job. You were expected to be able to do that. There just wasn't time for plunking away at a keyboard to check your pich. These guys produced sonatas the way we write emails. Bach was quoted as saying that he wouldn't take on a student if the student didn't have, as he called it, "a musical mind". I suspect that having perfect pitch (having the ability to compose without an instrument) was what he meant.
> 
> I'm sure that Mozart's abilities floored his non-professional onlookers --- all those bewigged aristocrats with their snuff boxes, but probably didn't so much impress the other composers. In fact, one composer's report was just that. The child Mozart was asked to play this composer's keyboard sonata at site. The aristocrats were floored and thought Mozart was the greatest phenom on earth. According to the composer of the actual keyboard sonata, Mozart made all sorts of mistakes (was proficient but not accurate as a site reader) but so skillfully hid his errors with improvisation that the amateurs were none the wiser.


I believe Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky did not.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

paulbest said:


> obviously w/o it, a performer like Oistrakh can not perform the Shostakovich VC1, as he does. Hillary Hahn has perfect pitch, but her latest YT vid of the Sibelius VC, shows she does not know how to present the perfect pitch in performance.
> 'Its one thing to possess this rare gift,,its another to know how to utilize it, in such a way to produce beautiful music.


Violinists have to make the compromises for equal temperament. Violinists in our ensemble have tried that explain to me how that 'feels'.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> I believe Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky did not.


Stravinsky reputedly did not, but Tchaikovsky's mother stated that he had a "perfect ear"-that may or may not refer to perfect pitch.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> Violinists have to make the compromises for equal temperament. Violinists in our ensemble have tried that explain to me how that 'feels'.


Not sure what you mean to say
What I was saying about Hahn in her Sibelius VC with Mikko Franck,,,at around the 35:40,,,area,, the violin part comes down to almost inaudible notes,,,and Hillary follows, too exact , as the notes can not be heard,,unless she can hear those notes. no one else can,,,Oistrakh's records at that part,,,one can hear the notes,,,This is what I meant,,,its great Hillary can play the notes than low,,,but no one can hear them. 
= Not what Sibelius intended.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> "That he should show up at the perfect moment in music history, with all his gifts, to exploit the prevailing aesthetic just makes one believe in a greater intelligence and design. Call it what you will. And I know it's easy to make his life a just-so story, but imagine if Mozart had been born in 1556 or 1656 or 1956. He would have made a great composer, but what a missed opportunity."
> 
> *In the first sentence I assert that 1756 (or thereabouts) was the perfect time for a Mozart to be born (for all kinds of historical reasons relating to the development of music). But I acknowledge that that's tantamount to a just-so story. The final sentence asserts that if he had been born at any other ti*me, he probably only would have been, for lack of a better term, a second rate Mozart. But this is all sheer fantasy and I only write this to explain what you seem to have misunderstood.


I'm afraid this is some sort of tautological fallacy. Since the defining facts of being Mozart include being born in 1756 to a composer named Leopold in a particular place with this particular genetic material, who heard the music of CPE Bach etc., etc., etc., of course it's the perfect time. It's the only freaking time! It's like saying the universe was perfectly designed for the existence of humans. Any universe in which someone is sitting around saying this is the perfect universe for humans is necessarily going to be … see the anthropic principle in cosmology.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Not sure what you mean to say
> What I was saying about Hahn in her Sibelius VC with Mikko Franck,,,at around the 35:40,,,area,, the violin part comes down to almost inaudible notes,,,and Hillary follows, too exact , as the notes can not be heard,,unless she can hear those notes. no one else can,,,Oistrakh's records at that part,,,one can hear the notes,,,This is what I meant,,,its great Hillary can play the notes than low,,,but no one can hear them.
> = Not what Sibelius intended.


Thanks Paul,
I didn't 'hear' any dropped notes, but there's a lot of notes! I got out the score. There's a fine line between articulating every note in those sweeping figures and keeping with the wholistic interpretation of the ending.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> Stravinsky reputedly did not, but Tchaikovsky's mother stated that he had a "perfect ear"-that may or may not refer to perfect pitch.


I read that he constantly ask his mother to "make the tunes stop" in his head when he was young


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

vtpoet said:


> I would be surprised if *all* of the composers we know by name didn't have perfect pitch of some form or another. In those days, being a composer wasn't for the amateur who had to compose at the keyboard-unless you were royalty and didn't have to churn out symphonies and operas at the drop of a hat. That was your job. You were expected to be able to do that. There just wasn't time for plunking away at a keyboard to check your pich. These guys produced sonatas the way we write emails. Bach was quoted as saying that he wouldn't take on a student if the student didn't have, as he called it, "a musical mind". I suspect that having perfect pitch (having the ability to compose without an instrument) was what he meant.


I don't think that having a musical mind means having perfect pitch, that is just an ability that a person can learn studying music when he's very young (it seems that chinese people since they use a tonal language they have perfect pitch much more frequently for instance). And it's certainly useful, but it's not more than the ability to recognize pitch, creativity is a complete different thing and you can be creative without having perfect pitch, and you could have perfect pitch without being musically creative.
So I don't think that most composers have or had perfect pitch, especially if they didn't start studying when they were little kids as Mozart. But I'm sure than most of them have or had great relative pitch.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> I'm afraid this is some sort of tautological fallacy.


Yes, of course. Like I said, a just-so story. It's impossible to defend such speculation from this criticism. On the other hand, it's also impossible to prove that it's untrue. Believe what you will. A belief in random chance is also just that-a belief.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> Yes, of course. Like I said, a just-so story. It's impossible to defend such speculation from this criticism. On the other hand, it's also impossible to prove that it's untrue. Believe what you will. A belief in random chance is also just that-a belief.


Who has a belief in random chance? That's your postulation too. Certainly nothing to do with my beliefs.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Who has a belief in random chance? That's your postulation too. Certainly nothing to do with my beliefs.


Lots of people believe in chance, and no it's not my postulation. Can't take credit for that.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

vtpoet said:


> No they don't. You simply choose to interpret them that way, for whatever reason. Here's what I wrote.
> 
> "That he should show up at the perfect moment in music history, with all his gifts, to exploit the prevailing aesthetic just makes one believe in a greater intelligence and design. Call it what you will. And I know it's easy to make his life a just-so story, but imagine if Mozart had been born in 1556 or 1656 or 1956. He would have made a great composer, but what a missed opportunity."
> 
> In the first sentence I assert that 1756 (or thereabouts) was the perfect time for a Mozart to be born (for all kinds of historical reasons relating to the development of music). But I acknowledge that that's tantamount to a just-so story. The final sentence asserts that if he had been born at any other time, he probably only would have been, for lack of a better term, a second rate Mozart. But this is all sheer fantasy and I only write this to explain what you seem to misunderstand.


There is nothing I'm misunderstanding and re-posting what you initially wrote doesn't change it. His being born at that time was indeed fortuitous for him. To suggest it was directed by some outward force, as implied by the word 'design' or the loaded terminology: 'intelligent design' is taking it in a completely different direction than the fortuitous collision of circumstances.

That Mozart just happened to find himself (and put himself and also be put by his father and others) in circumstances that allowed his skill to shine is a marvelous set of circumstances. It wasn't all plain sailing or always fortuitous, so 'design' is a rather exaggerated idea unless we are considering Mozart's own self-directed design, which was not always realized.

None of this makes me "believe in a greater intelligence and design" and nothing in Mozart's story actually suggests it. All that kind of thing does is remove the hard work, creativity and fortuitous talent out of the hands of Mozart and others and places into an other-worldly realm seemingly responsible for all marvelous occurrences. That is what I am objecting to.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

samm said:


> There is nothing I'm misunderstanding and re-posting what you initially wrote doesn't change it. His being born at that time was indeed fortuitous for him. To suggest it was directed by some outward force, as implied by the word 'design' or the loaded terminology: 'intelligent design' is taking it in a completely different direction than the fortuitous collision of circumstances.
> 
> That Mozart just happened to find himself (and put himself and also be put by his father and others) in circumstances that allowed his skill to shine is a marvelous set of circumstances. It wasn't all plain sailing or always fortuitous, so 'design' is a rather exaggerated idea unless we are considering Mozart's own self-directed design, which was not always realized.
> 
> None of this makes me "believe in a greater intelligence and design" and nothing in Mozart's story actually suggests it. All that kind of thing does is remove the hard work, creativity and fortuitous talent out of the hands of Mozart and others and places into an other-worldly realm seemingly responsible for all marvelous occurrences. That is what I am objecting to.


If that it is what I had written, then I would object to that too; and for all the same reasons. But you've gone after a straw man. All I can say is that your belief system seems very, very important to you.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

samm said:


> Well when he bought his well-known pet starling he jotted down the song it sang which he had probably whistled to the bird. The music he notated in his journal is similar to his PC 17, but he notated the differences the bird reproduced. He also did very few corrections on his scores.
> 
> Let's say he had perfect pitch, but this is not all that made Mozart into _Mozart_. He also had other qualities. I doubt he would have been able to carry out his activities had he not had mastery of pitch with a good ear. If he didn't have perfect pitch then he was just damn good without it.


Agreed - there are musical kids around today who have perfect pitch - and whose names will never be known

its no big deal

what is a big deal are the compositions

I would be surprised if he did not have perfect pitch though given his overall abilities in music.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

vtpoet said:


> If that it is what I had written, then I would object to that too; and for all the same reasons. But you've gone after a straw man. All I can say is that your belief system seems very, very important to you.


Isn't everyone's belief system important to them? However, this is not a belief system, it's just an assessment of certain commonsense facts.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

samm said:


> Isn't everyone's belief system important to them?


No.



samm said:


> However, this is not a belief system, it's just an assessment of certain commonsense facts.


Insofar as your facts go, yours are no different from mine. Insofar as your belief system goes, we differ.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

vtpoet said:


> No.


Well in that case it musn't be much of a set of beliefs or ideas.



vtpoet said:


> Insofar as your facts go, yours are no different from mine. Insofar as your belief system goes, we differ.


I can see that. One of them makes complete sense.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

samm said:


> Isn't everyone's belief system important to them? However, *this is not a belief system*, it's just an assessment of certain commonsense facts.


In the sense that you have a method for arriving at justified true beliefs - it is a system. Just a more reliable one than those systems of belief that are based on anything like religious faith. Those who possess religions faith - may well disagree.

As an atheist of course I dont believe Mozart was divinely inspired and I dont see the circumstances of his life as evidence for anything that was designed or predestined. As I pointed out - there were hundreds or thousands of children brought up in music - some were better than others - and one - Mozart, was the best. It is pure chance. Those talented composers of madrigals and choral polyphonic wonders of the 16thC - might have been Mozarts had they been born in the 18thC.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

samm said:


> I can see that. One of them makes complete sense.


No, they don't. Neither of them do because they're both belief systems. But, as I say, you seem particularly attached to yours, going so far as to not even recognize that you have one.



stomanek said:


> Those who possess religions faith - may well disagree.


Bear in mind, after all this bruhaha, that I never stipulated that my speculation as concerns "design or intelligence" ( as far as Mozart's birth and talents goes) should be taken factually. However, reviewing my initial comment, I can see how it _could_ be taken that way, especially if one is a metaphysical naturalist-as seems to be the case? FYI: My own is methodological naturalism.



stomanek said:


> It is pure chance. Those talented composers of madrigals and choral polyphonic wonders of the 16thC - might have been Mozarts had they been born in the 18thC.


Rather, based on your belief system (metaphysical naturalism?), you _believe_ it to be pure chance.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> No, they don't. Neither of them do because they're both belief systems. But, as I say, you seem particularly attached to yours, going so far as to not even recognize that you have one.
> 
> Bear in mind, after all this bruhaha, that I never stipulated that my speculation as concerns "design or intelligence" ( as far as Mozart's birth and talents goes) should be taken factually. However, reviewing my initial comment, I can see how it _could_ be taken that way, especially if one is a metaphysical naturalist-as seems to be the case? FYI: My own is methodological naturalism.
> 
> Rather, based on your belief system (metaphysical naturalism?), you _believe_ it to be pure chance.


Perhaps that was not well expressed. By pure chance I simply mean I don't believe Mozart's arrival and achievements have anything to do with god. I could have made this statement as a theist though as a theist I would be one step closer to accepting what you seem to be suggesting here:

*That he should show up at the perfect moment in music history, with all his gifts, to exploit the prevailing aesthetic just makes one believe in a greater intelligence and design.*

perhaps you might explain what you mean by "greater intelligence and design"? I took it to mean some supernatural divine power/being.

I think there are many moments in musical history Mozart could have appeared and made a similar impact - baroque, romantic, 20thC - he just happened to be born in the classical era.

You say you are a methodological naturalist - does Mozart really make you believe in design and intelligence?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I've never been convinced that Fate or Destiny is not orchestrated by some unseen force or organizing principle that's bigger than the human intellect, chance or coincidence. If logic and rationality could give somebody like Mozart the credit that he deserves, being entirely unprecedented among genius composers, I could respect that opinion. But the rational mind and human logic cannot admit to anything that may be beyond its understanding, the explainable, or the exceptional. A million-and-one factors had to come together in perfect alignment for a Mozart to come into existence - the perfect combination of genius and the opportunity to develop it - because it didn't exactly happen that way to anyone else and all the speculation in the world doesn't change that.

Here's Daines Barrington's report on Mozart's extraordinary degree of genius at the age of 8. In my opinion, it cannot be explained other than by the miraculous, unknown causes that had been set in motion, some divine sacred principal in life, and those dominated by the strictly rational will never understand it because they can't explain it other than to say that it happened by coincidence or chance:

http://mozartsocietyofamerica.org/embp/Barrington-final.pdf


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mozart perfect pitch? I mean, anyone who at 14 could hear and write out Allegri's Misereri in one go must have been tone deaf?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Mozart perfect pitch? I mean, anyone who at 14 could hear and write out Allegri's Misereri in one go must have been tone deaf?


It was two goes, not one. We have no evidence of how accurately it was transcribed. My ex-wife could have done that too.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> It was two goes, not one. *We have no evidence of how accurately it was transcribed*. My ex-wife could have done that too.


Very true. Though given that he had already composed a dozen masses and a couple of half decent operas, various serenades, cassations etc by this time - whatever he did do I'm fairly confident would have been nothing less than exceptional.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

stomanek said:


> You say you are a methodological naturalist - does Mozart really make you believe in design and intelligence?


Insofar as methodological naturalism is only a tool and makes no "truth claims", and insofar as I don't claim that my impression of a greater design and intelligence can be factually proen? In a word: Yes. And the same can be said as concerns my impression of individuals besides Mozart.



stomanek said:


> ...perhaps you might explain what you mean by "greater intelligence and design"...


That's probably best answered by stating that I had a Near-Death experience and was given a personal introduction. Funny thing is: I tell people that I'm an atheist. The American Atheist website _optimistically_ defines Atheism as "not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." But I find most atheists are hard atheists or Abrahamic atheists. The design and intelligence that I experienced wasn't "a God or gods", but far, far beyond that: existence itself. And I can't _prove_ a shred of it. But did my experience prove it to _me_? Yes. As concretely as the laptop I'm typing at. I experienced a different reality (and many thousands of others have experienced the same).

But acknowledging that I can't prove a shred of it (though there's lots of evidence out there) I think methodological naturalism is the only coherent and intellectually honest way to live in the world. Science is a method0logy, not an -ism. It's the most powerful method we have for understanding the material universe, but it's also profoundly limited. Methodological naturalism acknowledges that limitation. I am emphatically not an Abrahamic creationist. 

I really don't think anything in this world is random or an accident; but I also, paradoxically, wouldn't say that anything is predestined.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> It was two goes, not one. We have no evidence of how accurately it was transcribed. My ex-wife could have done that too.


But the second go was to check the actual performance against his transcription. So really one. But, yes, Mozart was not alone in having this ability. I've read that Glenn Gould (among a few other pianists) would read a given piece of music in score, then perform it at the piano from memory.

*Edit:* And Mendelssohn could do the same apparently, much to the annoyance of Franz Liszt (so the story goes).


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

vtpoet said:


> No, they don't. Neither of them do because they're both belief systems. But, as I say, you seem particularly attached to yours, going so far as to not even recognize that you have one.


Oh be quiet. I'm not the least bit interested in armchair philosophy using atoms of doubt to posit foolishness and to try and elevate it to something worth considering.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> Insofar as methodological naturalism is only a tool and makes no "truth claims", and insofar as I don't claim that my impression of a greater design and intelligence can be factually proen? In a word: Yes. And the same can be said as concerns my impression of individuals besides Mozart.
> 
> That's probably best answered by stating that I had a Near-Death experience and was given a personal introduction. Funny thing is: I tell people that I'm an atheist. The American Atheist website _optimistically_ defines Atheism as "not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." But I find most atheists are hard atheists or Abrahamic atheists. The design and intelligence that I experienced wasn't "a God or gods", but far, far beyond that: existence itself. And I can't _prove_ a shred of it. But did my experience prove it to _me_? Yes. As concretely as the laptop I'm typing at. I experienced a different reality (and many thousands of others have experienced the same).
> 
> ...


I dont know any theists who claim they can prove their beliefs. I also cant prove my beliefs. So there's not that much difference between you, me and theists then. If there is a difference - it's purely that you believe there is something beyond the material world - based on your personal experience (NDE) - and I am still waiting for evidence.

Science is limited - true - but then so is everything else. So? That's the nature of existence.

*The design and intelligence that I experienced wasn't "a God or gods", but far, far beyond that: existence itself. 
*

and what do you mean by "existence itself" ? Unless you can say - your statement is more or less meaningless.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> But the second go was to check the actual performance against his transcription. So really one. But, yes, Mozart was not alone in having this ability. I've read that Glenn Gould (among a few other pianists) would read a given piece of music in score, then perform it at the piano from memory.
> 
> *Edit:* And Mendelssohn could do the same apparently, much to the annoyance of Franz Liszt (so the story goes).


There's a difference between being able to recall with accuracy a short piano piece and a multi movement mass. I mean one movement would be impressive - but the whole mass?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> It was two goes, not one. We have no evidence of how accurately it was transcribed. My ex-wife could have done that too.


One go to write it and one to check it. Still noted for a 14 year old. Some people are never satisfied! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I dont know any theists who claim they can prove their beliefs. I also cant prove my beliefs. So there's not that much difference between you, me and theists then. If there is a difference - it's purely that you believe there is something beyond the material world - based on your personal experience (NDE) - and I am still waiting for evidence.
> 
> *Science is limited* - true - but then so is everything else. So? That's the nature of existence.
> 
> ...


Science is limited to the natural and measurable which does not include God.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

samm said:


> Oh be quiet. I'm not the least bit interested in armchair philosophy using atoms of doubt to posit foolishness and to try and elevate it to something worth considering.


And yet here you are, commenting away.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

stomanek said:


> So there's not that much difference between you, me...


Exactly. I'd say we agree and I may have tried to make that point earlier.



stomanek said:


> If there is a difference - it's purely that you believe there is something beyond the material world - based on your personal experience (NDE) - and I am still waiting for evidence.


Yes.



stomanek said:


> Science is limited - true - but then so is everything else.


But not everybody would agree with that. Some elevate science to scientism and some elevate scripture to "Intelligent Design".



stomanek said:


> ...and what do you mean by "existence itself" ? Unless you can say - your statement is more or less meaningless.


Define meaningless.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> Exactly. I'd say we agree and I may have tried to make that point earlier.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


You are just parrying a legitimate reasonable question. Probably because you cant answer it.

if you cant properly explain what you mean when you say *I experienced wasn't "a God or gods", but far, far beyond that: existence itself. * it may not have any meaning at all - even to you.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

stomanek said:


> if you cant properly explain what you mean when you say *I experienced wasn't "a God or gods", but far, far beyond that: existence itself. * it may not have any meaning at all - even to you.


I don't feel like turning my life experience into a dog and pony show for something so trivial as a comment over Mozart. If you're genuinely interested, let's talk. I can PM you my phone number. We'll have a good conversation. I think you'll find me a humorous and friendly person.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> But the second go was to check the actual performance against his transcription. So really one. But, yes, Mozart was not alone in having this ability. I've read that Glenn Gould (among a few other pianists) would read a given piece of music in score, then perform it at the piano from memory.
> 
> *Edit:* And Mendelssohn could do the same apparently, much to the annoyance of Franz Liszt (so the story goes).


Not you nor anyone else knows what Mozart put to paper. According to Gutman's biography, Mozart's first attempt at transcription was incomplete and apparently inaccurate, since on the second hearing Mozart "made the necessary additions and corrections." Since Mozart smuggled in paper and writing implements the second time it is possible he did so the first time as well. What I imagine Mozart actually did was write down main melodies from memory the first time (or in situ as he did on the second trip) and then added inner parts of his own to fill out the work. No one knows how accurate this alleged transcription was because no evidence survives.

Gould's memory was not reliable, as one can hear by listening to his mis-memorized performances of Prokofiev and Brahms.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> Insofar as methodological naturalism is only a tool and makes no "truth claims", and insofar as I don't claim that my impression of a greater design and intelligence can be factually proen? In a word: Yes. And the same can be said as concerns my impression of individuals besides Mozart.
> 
> That's probably best answered by stating that I had a Near-Death experience and was given a personal introduction. Funny thing is: I tell people that I'm an atheist. The American Atheist website _optimistically_ defines Atheism as "not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." But I find most atheists are hard atheists or Abrahamic atheists. The design and intelligence that I experienced wasn't "a God or gods", but far, far beyond that: existence itself. And I can't _prove_ a shred of it. But did my experience prove it to _me_? Yes. As concretely as the laptop I'm typing at. I experienced a different reality (and many thousands of others have experienced the same).
> 
> ...


" As concretely as the laptop I'm typing at. I experienced a different reality (and many thousands of others have experienced the same)."

Yes, it was your brain so why shouldn't you believe your brain?

You tell people you're an atheist and I do too, but since I'm convinced that God belief is healthy and beneficial, mentally and physically, I imagine an acceptable god concept and try to believe in it. Maybe other people do this too..


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> " As concretely as the laptop I'm typing at. I experienced a different reality (and many thousands of others have experienced the same)."
> 
> Yes, it was your brain so why shouldn't you believe your brain?
> 
> You tell people you're an atheist and I do too, but since I'm convinced that God belief is healthy and beneficial, mentally and physically, *I imagine an acceptable god concept and try to believe in it.* Maybe other people do this too..


But many believers already do that - the god of the bible - that angry jealous old tyrant in the sky - is not the wise old man of peace that many people have invented for themselves to believe in.

There's not much point telling people you are an atheist if you are inventing and believing in your own god.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> But many believers already do that - *the god of the bible - that angry jealous old tyrant in the sky *- is not the wise old man of peace that many people have invented for themselves to believe in.
> 
> There's not much point telling people you are an atheist if you are inventing and believing in your own god.


The God of the Bible is not the angry jealous old tyrant in the sky. I don't know where on earth you get these ideas from - Dark Age mythology? . The New Testament teaches that God has revealed himself in his Son Jesus.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2019)

I think the answer to the OP's question is that we don't know, and although some have cited reports and anecdotes, I think I only spotted one reference that can be checked out.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> The God of the Bible is not the angry jealous old tyrant in the sky. *I don't know where on earth you get these ideas from *- Dark Age mythology? . The New Testament teaches that God has revealed himself in his Son Jesus.


Nope - from the Old Testament.

eg

From Exodus 20:

"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; *for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me*"

as for the NT - quite a personality change then from jealous punishing god to forgiving prince of peace


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Nope - from the Old Testament.
> 
> eg
> 
> ...


Amazing how you guys never complete the text. 'but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.' The word 'jealous' (qu'ana) in the context means that God demands exclusive rights of worship rather like a husband might be 'jealous' of his wife if she gets attention from other men. Nothing wrong with that, surely, even in this day and age! Your problem comes with the failure to put the text into the context. When we turn to God he is quick to forgive our sins and show love and mercy.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Amazing how you guys never complete the text. 'but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.' The word 'jealous' (qu'ana) in the context means that God demands exclusive rights of worship rather like a husband might be 'jealous' of his wife if she gets attention from other men. Nothing wrong with that, surely, even in this day and age! Your problem comes with the failure to put the text into the context. When we turn to God he is quick to forgive our sins and show love and mercy.


So love and worship me alone or suffer my wrath and punishment? And in return I will love you.

Sounds like a nice god then.

what about

1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

give me a context that excuses these barbaric instructions

next will be the verses which instruct masters how to look after their slaves.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> So love and worship me alone or suffer my wrath and punishment? And in return I will love you.
> 
> Sounds like a nice god then.
> 
> ...


I wish you guys would start with there foreground of the picture which is the New testament rather than the background which is the Old Testament. And by yanking verses out of their context is not helpful. And what this has to do with Mozart having perfect pitch is beyond me unless you are riding a hobby horse?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I wish you guys would start with there foreground of the picture which is the New testament rather than the background which is the Old Testament. *And by yanking verses out of their context is not helpful.* And what this has to do with Mozart having perfect pitch is beyond me unless you are riding a hobby horse?


I read the NT first thank you. I came to the OT later. But it makes no difference. the god of the jews is the same god who is the father of jesus - 2nd person in the trinity. So naturally the OT is the prime source of our knowledge about his character.

You evidently cannot or will not answer my questions asking what context can excuse slaughtering women and children.

So ok lets get back to talking about Mozart and perfect pitch.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

stomanek said:


> So ok lets get back to talking about Mozart and perfect pitch.


Yes, please do. Purely political posts should be placed in the Groups area.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, please do. Purely political posts should be placed in the Groups area.


Yeah ok - I wont post any more here if nobody else does.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Not you nor anyone else knows what Mozart put to paper.


That's patently untrue:

"Later on in their travels, the Mozarts bumped into British music historian Dr Charles Burney. They passed on the manuscript to Dr Burney, who took it to London; and it was published there in 1771."

Interestingly, Mozart's transcription included all the flourishes and additions of the time (*edit:* and unfortunately scrubbed in Burney's edition).



EdwardBast said:


> According to Gutman's biography, Mozart's first attempt at transcription was incomplete and apparently inaccurate, since on the second hearing Mozart "made the necessary additions and corrections."


Nearly all tellings of this story call these corrections "minor". And then there's this:

"It's also often stated that a short while after transcribing Miserere, Mozart was at a party with his father when the topic of the tune came up in conversation, at which point Leopold boasted to the guests that his son transcribed the legendary piece from memory, prompting some amount of skepticism from the attendees. However, in attendance at said party was a musician named Christoferi, who'd actually sung it while a member of the Papal Choir. After looking over the copy made by Mozart, he supposedly confirmed that it was a faithful reproduction."


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> That's patently untrue:
> 
> "Later on in their travels, the Mozarts bumped into British music historian Dr Charles Burney. They passed on the manuscript to Dr Burney, who took it to London; and it was published there in 1771."
> 
> ...


well this is more interesting than religion

what is the source for the second quote?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mozart had an audience with Pope Clement XIV three months after his transcription of the _Miserere_ and was awarded; there was obvious confirmation of his copy/transcription to even suggest an audience with the Pope, though it has been a lost to history. Leopold Mozart, Mozart's father, was the first person to write about this writen transcription. Consequently, the official ban on anyone having an illegal copy was lifted. In other words, the Pope's sense of reason overcame any anger - instead of excommunicating the prodigal composer, the Pope praised his genius. Mozart was proud of that award and was painted wearing it. He was only 14 years old. He made only minor corrections after he first heard the _Miserere_ at St. Peters and the debunkers and skeptics cannot accept that Mozart accomplish this extraordinary feat, which was only one of many during his lifetime. The Pope awarded Mozart the Chivalric Order of the Golden Spur. Do skeptics actually believe that Mozart, a devout Catholic, would accept such an award in good conscience for something that he didn't do even if the manuscript has been lost to history? Of course they would, because they are more interested in debunking Mozart's genius than in understanding, accepting or praising it. So far, they have failed Miserere-ily.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

stomanek said:


> well this is more interesting than religion
> 
> what is the source for the second quote?


Here you go:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2017/01/time-mozart-pirated-music-1700s/


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart had an audience with Pope Clement XIV three months after his transcription of the _Miserere_ and was awarded; there was obvious confirmation of his copy/transcription to even suggest an audience with the Pope, though it has been a lost to history. Leopold Mozart, Mozart's father, was the first person to write about this writen transcription. Consequently, the official ban on anyone having an illegal copy was lifted. In other words, the Pope's sense of reason overcame any anger - instead of excommunicating the prodigal composer, the Pope praised his genius. Mozart was proud of that award and was painted wearing it. He was only 14 years old. He made only minor corrections after he first heard the _Miserere_ at St. Peters and the debunkers and skeptics cannot accept that Mozart accomplish this extraordinary feat, which was only one of many during his lifetime. The Pope awarded Mozart the Chivalric Order of the Golden Spur. Do the skeptics think that Mozart, a devout Catholic, would have accepted such an award in good conscience for something that he didn't do even if the manuscript was lost to history? Of course they would, because they are more interested in debunking Mozart genius than in understanding or accepting it. So far, they have failed Miserere-ily.


There was never a ban on publication. There was never a threat of excommunication. That's all myth. The only rule was that the singers of the Papal Choir were enjoined from sharing the parts with outsiders. Nevertheless, there were transcriptions circulating by the time Mozart did his. What Mozart performed at a party wasn't a transcription, it was an arrangement.

More important, however, the feat isn't that extraordinary. People with perfect pitch do that sort of thing pretty routinely. The proof of Mozart's genius isn't in having performed mundane circus tricks, it's in the quality of his compositions.



vtpoet said:


> That's patently untrue:
> 
> "Later on in their travels, the Mozarts bumped into British music historian Dr Charles Burney. They passed on the manuscript to Dr Burney, who took it to London; and it was published there in 1771."
> 
> Interestingly, Mozart's transcription included all the flourishes and additions of the time (*edit:* and unfortunately scrubbed in Burney's edition).


So, in other words, Burney corrected the transcription to make it more like the original. And by 1771 there were other transcriptions available by which one could make these corrections.



vtpoet said:


> Nearly all tellings of this story call these corrections "minor". And then there's this:
> 
> "It's also often stated that a short while after transcribing Miserere, Mozart was at a party with his father when the topic of the tune came up in conversation, at which point Leopold boasted to the guests that his son transcribed the legendary piece from memory, prompting some amount of skepticism from the attendees. However, in attendance at said party was a musician named Christoferi, who'd actually sung it while a member of the Papal Choir. After looking over the copy made by Mozart, he supposedly confirmed that it was a faithful reproduction."


All from thoroughly dubious sources. Leopold's job was boasting about his son. And why on earth would Mozart bother memorizing the piece? If he had the main lines in his head he could fill out the rest on his own, and at the age of 14 he was likely skilled enough to do a better job of it than Allegri had. The point is that what Mozart likely did in reality is more impressive than the myths spun about the event.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> There was never a ban on publication. There was never a threat of excommunication. That's all myth. The only rule was that the singers of the Papal Choir were enjoined from sharing the parts with outsiders. Nevertheless, there were transcriptions circulating by the time Mozart did his. What Mozart performed at a party wasn't a transcription, it was an arrangement.
> 
> More important, however, the feat isn't that extraordinary. People with perfect pitch do that sort of thing pretty routinely. The proof of Mozart's genius isn't in having performed mundane circus tricks, it's in the quality of his compositions.
> 
> ...


So according to you and your dubious debunkers handbook of questionable resources, Mozart received an audience with Pope Clement XlV because he simple made an arrangement of the _Miserere_. Is that about it? To the contrary, this feat _was_ extraordinary - having perfect pitch does not mean that one has perfect memory - and after more than 200 years, you're just the last one to know. Such skepticism is scraping the bottom of the barrel of what actually happened, starting with the fact that Leopold Mozart wrote about Mozarts's transcription to others; so Mozart himself obviously hadn't heard the _Miserere_ before from any other source or there wouldn't be any reason for him to go to the trouble of transcribing it. Some skeptics can never give Leopold the benefit of the doubt for writing about what Mozart actually did that he didn't have to boast about because his son's feats were already extraordinary starting at the age of five.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

In the Allegri Miserere, there several features that could assist Mozart's memory, recurring patterns that he could immediately pick out. As John Sloboda has pointed out in _The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music_, the piece has a simple episodic structure in which a polyphonic 'chorus' is repeated several times, separated by a repeated simple and homophonic chantlike passage. Mozart would have had prior access to the words, and possibly to the reports of other listeners (his teacher Padre Martini had a copy of the score), which would have given him a pretty clear idea of the type of structure to expect.

Mozart presumably would have had little trouble remembering the high, ornamented soprano line, which is supported by a simple harmonic sequence. Like any well-trained musician he also would have recognized common and even uncommon chords without having to think about them, and heard their relation to one another. With his knowledge of other music of his time, Mozart would have recognized all sorts of conventional melodic and rhythmic sequences in Allegri's psalm setting. On the whole, in fact, the young Mozart's legendary feat requires a leap of the imagination between him and us but is well within the comprehension of most musicians.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> In the Allegri Miserere, there several features that could assist Mozart's memory, recurring patterns that he could immediately pick out. As John Sloboda has pointed out in _The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music_, the piece has a simple episodic structure in which a polyphonic 'chorus' is repeated several times, separated by a repeated simple and homophonic chantlike passage. Mozart would have had prior access to the words, and possibly to the reports of other listeners (his teacher Padre Martini had a copy of the score), which would have given him a pretty clear idea of the type of structure to expect.
> 
> Mozart presumably would have had little trouble remembering the high, ornamented soprano line, which is supported by a simple harmonic sequence. Like any well-trained musician he also would have recognized common and even uncommon chords without having to think about them, and heard their relation to one another. With his knowledge of other music of his time, Mozart would have recognized all sorts of conventional melodic and rhythmic sequences in Allegri's psalm setting. On the whole, in fact, the young Mozart's legendary feat requires a leap of the imagination between him and us but is well within the comprehension of most musicians.


"Three authorized copies of the work were distributed prior to 1770: to the Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I; to the King of Portugal; and to Padre (Giovanni Battista) Martini. However, none of them apparently succeeded in capturing the beauty of the Miserere as performed annually in the Sistine Chapel. According to the popular story (backed up by family letters), fourteen-year-old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was visiting Rome when he first heard the piece during the Wednesday service. Later that day, he wrote it down entirely from memory, returning to the Chapel that Friday to make minor corrections. Less than three months after hearing the song and transcribing it, Mozart had gained fame for the work and was summoned to Rome by Pope Clement XIV, who showered praise on him for his feat of musical genius and awarded him the Chivalric Order of the Golden Spur on July 4, 1770."

Mozart would have had no prior knowledge of any subsequent arrangements of this work, that is if Martini had shown it to him in the first place. If Mozart had already seen it, he would had no reason to transcribe it spontaneously rather than just writing it down from Martini manuscript, which suggests that Mozart hadn't seen it.

I do not agree with those who try to portray this feat as something ordinary that just about any talented musician with perfect pitch could have done... Well, they didn't and Mozart was awarded by Pope Clement XIV for his extraordinary achievement, one of many during his extraordinary lifetime where he was famous by the age of six by performing successfully in front of royalty.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> "Three authorized copies of the work were distributed prior to 1770: to the Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I; to the King of Portugal; and to Padre (Giovanni Battista) Martini. However, none of them apparently succeeded in capturing the beauty of the Miserere as performed annually in the Sistine Chapel. According to the popular story (backed up by family letters), fourteen-year-old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was visiting Rome when he first heard the piece during the Wednesday service. Later that day, he wrote it down entirely from memory, returning to the Chapel that Friday to make minor corrections. Less than three months after hearing the song and transcribing it, Mozart had gained fame for the work and was summoned to Rome by Pope Clement XIV, who showered praise on him for his feat of musical genius and awarded him the Chivalric Order of the Golden Spur on July 4, 1770."
> 
> Mozart would have had no prior knowledge of any subsequent arrangements of this work, that is if Martini had shown it to him in the first place. If Mozart had already seen it, he would had no reason to transcribe it spontaneously rather than just writing it down from Martini manuscript, which suggests that Mozart hadn't seen it. I disagree with those who try to portray this feat as something ordinary that just about any talented musician with perfect pitch could have done... Well, they hadn't and Mozart was awarded by Pope Clement XIV for his achievement.


Its a plausible narrative - and of course we are not talking about a musician who is merely the peer of thousands of other composers of the last 200 years up to the present day - we are talking about one of the great composers in history and arguably the most talented child musician of all who had already at this stage tasted popular acclaim (in Italy) for at least one of his operas and indeed aroused the jealousy of many fully fledged composers of the day.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Account of a Very Remarkable Young Musician. In a Letter from the Honourable Daines Barrington, F. R. S. to Mathew Maty, M. D. Sec. R. S.; 1770; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one of history's most famous composers, began showing his talents when he was just 3 years old. By the age of 6 he was touring with his father and elder sister, also a talented musician. It was the young Mozart however who wowed the audiences. After a concert at the court of the Prince-elector Maximilian III of Bavaria in Munich, and at the Imperial Court in Vienna and Prague, the Mozart family embarked on a 3 and half year concert tour around the courts of Munich, Mannheim, Paris, London, The Hague, again to Paris, and back home via Zurich, Donaueschingen, and Munich. While in London, an 8 year old Mozart proved a huge sensation. But with his child prodigy status came questions from a skeptical few. Was he really so young? Was he really that talented? One person eager to test the truth of these doubts was Daines Barrington, a lawyer, antiquary, naturalist and Friend of the Royal Society. In a few visits to the Mozart family lodgings in London Barrington was committed to testing "scientifically" whether this young Mozart was the real deal or not. Barrington's findings are laid out in the report below to the Royal Society. He brought a manuscript, never before seen by Mozart, which was composed with 5 parts with one part written in an Italian style Contralto clef. As soon as it was put before him on his desk the young Mozart played it perfectly, "in a most masterly manner" wrote Barrington, "as well as in the time and stile which corresponded with the intention of the composer". Further tests included improvising a love song, a "song of rage", and completing a series of difficult keyboard lessons. The young Mozart more than impressed and Barrington wrote that the boy's musical gifts were "amazing and incredible almost as it may appear". Barrington also gives us a touching insight into the still child-like nature of the boy, when he reveals that a favourite cat was often given preference over playing the harpsichord.

Barrington's report: http://mozartsocietyofamerica.org/embp/Barrington-final.pdf
--
Now scholars and skeptics can conjecture all they want about what Mozart did that came to the attention of the pope and was awarded the Chivalric Order of the Golden Spur, but not that what he did was not done by an extraordinary musician capable of doing such a transcription and not just anyone with perfect pitch and average talent. Skeptics agenda: reduce everything down to their own level of the average and the commonplace - that genius can be easily explained as nothing exceptional but the product of exaggeration and misrepresentation. Nor do they apparently have any respect for Mozart in accepting this honor, which obviously would never have happened were it not for his _Miserere_ transcription... transcription not arrangement.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> Now scholars and skeptics can conjecture all they want about what Mozart did that came to the attention of the pope and was awarded with the Chivalric Order of the Golden Spur, but not that what he did was not done by an extraordinary musician and not just anyone with perfect pitch and average talent.


I find it interesting that many people just can't or won't accept the premise of "talent" or "genius". It's tempting to ascribe it to jealousy, but I think a lack of imagination is key. They can't conceive of such abilities in themselves, have never personally witnessed it in others or consider the _approximate_ in others to be _the same as_, and so they assume a dismissive skepticism that is ideological rather than evidentiary (all while demanding evidence). It's the same impulse that compels many to muddle the methodology of science with Scientism. Its not true skepticism, though they style themselves as such.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

stomanek said:


> But many believers already do that - the god of the bible - that angry jealous old tyrant in the sky - is not the wise old man of peace that many people have invented for themselves to believe in.
> 
> There's not much point telling people you are an atheist if you are inventing and believing in your own god.


You can suspect you're an atheist and imagine an acceptable god concept.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> what he did was not done by an extraordinary musician capable of doing such a transcription and not just anyone with perfect pitch and average talent. Skeptics agenda: reduce everything down to their own level of the average and the commonplace - [etc]


I thought the OP asked a simple question. You may suspect that there was a skeptics' agenda behind the question, but I took it at face value.



> how do we know that Mozart had perfect pitch? What is the evidence for it?


The question was not "Did M have perfect pitch?" Nor "What does it signify if W had perfect pitch?" Nor "Does it detract from his reputation as a genius if he didn't have perfect pitch?" Nor "If I've got perfect pitch, does than mean I am a genius like M?"

Can't we stick with the question? Never mind the wandering off the subject and talking about the NT and OT, what about the unnecessary criticism of "skeptics"?



vtpoet said:


> I find it interesting that many people just can't or won't accept the premise of "talent" or "genius". It's tempting to ascribe it to jealousy, but I think a lack of imagination is key. They can't conceive of such abilities in themselves, have never personally witnessed it in others or consider the _approximate_ in others to be _the same as_, and so they assume a dismissive skepticism that is ideological rather than evidentiary (all while demanding evidence). It's the same impulse that compels many to muddle the methodology of science with Scientism. Its not true skepticism, though they style themselves as such.


And what has this to do with anything anyone has posted in this thread, which is not about talent or genius.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I thought the OP asked a simple question. You may suspect that there was a skeptics' agenda behind the question, but I took it at face value.
> 
> The question was not "Did M have perfect pitch?" Nor "What does it signify if W had perfect pitch?" Nor "Does it detract from his reputation as a genius if he didn't have perfect pitch?" Nor "If I've got perfect pitch, does than mean I am a genius like M?"
> 
> ...


you must keep busy

policing all the threads where we go off topic a bit


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

stomanek said:


> you must keep busy
> 
> policing all the threads where we go off topic a bit


Yes, it's a discussion. Let's ruminate about what Mozart imagined for his own god concept.

Since he was a smart cookie perhaps he realized earlier than old people what a primitive state our bodies exist in. The perspective of a god's world gave him inspirational boosts in his work. As an atheist it's difficult for me to take that all in, so I've realized that I have to expand my horizons. Other human outlooks? Maybe some people in here? It's difficult.

As for the Miserere transcription, he probably used the straight forward music theory elements he already knew at such a young age. He knew the text.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2019)

stomanek said:


> you must keep busy
> 
> policing all the threads where we go off topic a bit


If you like. I'm just giving my opinion on others' opinions, same as everyone else here.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> So according to you and your dubious debunkers handbook of questionable resources, Mozart received an audience with Pope Clement XlV because he simple made an arrangement of the _Miserere_. Is that about it? To the contrary, this feat _was_ extraordinary - having perfect pitch does not mean that one has perfect memory - and after more than 200 years, you're just the last one to know. Such skepticism is scraping the bottom of the barrel of what actually happened, starting with the fact that Leopold Mozart wrote about Mozarts's transcription to others; *so Mozart himself obviously hadn't heard the Miserere before from any other source or there wouldn't be any reason for him to go to the trouble of transcribing it. * Some skeptics can never give Leopold the benefit of the doubt for writing about what Mozart actually did that he didn't have to boast about because his son's feats were already extraordinary starting at the age of five.


You are missing the point, as are all who have thought reproducing the Miserere is primarily a feat of memory, like some sort of idiot savant parlor trick. This view short changes the true talent and skill involved. In thinking about this incident one should remember Mozart's working methods as a composer. He considered his own works "composed" at the point where he had a short score, with the main melodies committed to paper, the harmonies decided upon, but the secondary and supporting parts undetermined and as yet unwritten. He would save many, many details for the final "writing" down of the work. Why? Could he not perfectly remember what was in his head when he "composed" it? No! It's just that the secondary parts and inner lines pose only trivial problems, many of whose solutions are forced moves given the main lines and harmonies. Mozart didn't even bother having "perfect memory" of his own compositions while he was composing them(!), so it is unlikely he did when he was reproducing the Miserere either. For a composer with Mozart's prodigious skills, such memorization would be a waste of effort and a distraction from the task at hand.

What I suspect Mozart actually did was approach the Miserere transcription the way he approached composing his own works. That is, on the first hearing in the chapel he got the main lines and harmonic progression in his head or perhaps sketched on paper. Then when he got back to his room he likely worked out good solutions for the other parts at the keyboard and notated them. This effort would have been guided in part by memory, but just as much by his understanding of tonal grammar and part writing. So when he went back to the chapel on Friday with his sketch in his hat, he had a fairly complete version to compare to the performance. He then would have filled in any any gaps and checked his solutions for the other parts against Allegri's. Then, back in his room and armed with the corrections and fresher memory of the performance, he would have written a final version. What he actually performed, however, was an arrangement for his own voice with keyboard accompaniment. In so doing I imagine he altered some of Allegri's writing to make the arrangement work better for a keyboard performance.

As for the part of your post in bold: Unauthorized versions were circulating in addition to the authorized ones. If Mozart had heard such a version he certainly wouldn't have trusted that it was accurate. He would have had to hear the original in making his own transcription.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> What I suspect Mozart actually did was approach the Miserere transcription the way he approached composing his own works. That is, on the first hearing in the chapel he got the main lines and harmonic progression in his head or perhaps sketched on paper. Then when he got back to his room he likely worked out good solutions for the other parts at the keyboard and notated them. This effort would have been guided in part by memory, but just as much by his understanding of tonal grammar and part writing. So when he went back to the chapel on Friday with his sketch in his hat, he had a fairly complete version to compare to the performance. He then would have filled in any any gaps and checked his solutions for the other parts against Allegri's. Then, back in his room and armed with the corrections and fresher memory of the performance, he would have written a final version. What he actually performed, however, was an arrangement for his own voice with keyboard accompaniment. In so doing I imagine he altered some of Allegri's writing to make the arrangement work better for a keyboard performance.


Wow. Could you please advise me on a lottery ticket number selection?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
What I suspect Mozart actually did was approach the Miserere transcription the way he approached composing his own works. That is, on the first hearing in the chapel he got the main lines and harmonic progression in his head or perhaps sketched on paper. Then when he got back to his room he likely worked out good solutions for the other parts at the keyboard and notated them. This effort would have been guided in part by memory, but just as much by his understanding of tonal grammar and part writing. So when he went back to the chapel on Friday with his sketch in his hat, he had a fairly complete version to compare to the performance. He then would have filled in any gaps and checked his solutions for the other parts against Allegri's. Then, back in his room and armed with the corrections and fresher memory of the performance, he would have written a final version. What he actually performed, however, was an arrangement for his own voice with keyboard accompaniment. In so doing I imagine he altered some of Allegri's writing to make the arrangement work better for a keyboard performance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I doubt if anyone knows how he did it for sure but it looks like it was a far more spontaneous event because I've never read that he had any intentions of writing the choir performance down and his final result, after hearing it twice and making corrections, was actually what was being sung at St. Peters. It was not some arrangement that he changed to make it "better for a keyboard performance" and this was what Pope Clement rewarded him the Chivalric Order of the Golden Spur for: a keyboard arrangement rather than the full score of what was being used at the time. I doubt if Mozart would have accepted an award under those circumstances for such an underwhelming accomplishment and be proud of it. But I do believe that this is how you imagine he tried to do it though one can only guess.

Mozart was undoubtedly a genius who could even write fugues in his head while playing a prelude, which he mentioned in a letter, and had already done greater feats than this transcription starting at the age of six. Read Barrington's report on Mozart at the age of eight. I do not go along with the skeptics who try to reduce him to their own level of mediocrity because they may have little or no understanding of genius and believe that everything about it can be explained logically and rationally. I think that only someone who's not impressed with him could write the above description of how they thought he accomplished the Miserere transcription, and I do not agree. He was more than capable of doing a full transcription whether he had some prior knowledge of it from his teacher Martini or not, and even there he could not have heard it beforehand in its present version in full choir. If he had, he would have had no reason to transcribe it at St. Peter's and consequently three months later receive an award for merit by Pope Clement XIV. This event, this transcription, was written about in family letters and I give them more credence than you do.

http://mozartsocietyofamerica.org/embp/Barrington-final.pdf


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Lark,
We both know Mozart had two hearings of the Miserere and at least three sessions in writing it down. According to the principals involved, the first draft was made in Mozart's room after the first hearing. The second writing took place when Mozart smuggled his draft into the chapel in his hat and made corrections and additions on the spot. Then he returned to his room and made a final version. I've speculated about what Mozart was doing in these three sessions with the pen and what faculties and skills might have been in play. For some reason you seem to be offended by the suggestion that any faculty besides memory was in play during this process. What do you think he was doing over the two hearings and three stages of writing?


----------

