# A great musical mind. Is it glued to its milieu?



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

So I was wondering,

Do you think for instance had Mozart been born today, he would still be just as gifted musically as he was living in the 18th Century? Do you think Mozart's gifted musical mind would excel in music of any style given the societal upbringing? Was he gifted in music, or was he gifted in the music of his time? 

This can be said of ANY composer. But what do you think. Do you think there are people who were not inclined toward music in the 17th century, but would have been a master in the 20th century? OR do you think someone who is a musical genius, would have been a musical genius regardless of the time and place they lived?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A lot of hypothetical questions there, which are always hard to answer, but I suppose you're asking us to think laterally, outside the box?

I think it's likely that if he'd be alive today, Mozart would be doing things like Michael Nyman or Philip Glass, eg. working in a number of genres, eg. both concert hall music and film musics.

He was a man of his time, a product of his age, back then, just like our composers and musicians are a product of the here and now today.

So that's kind of to answer this question -



DavidMahler said:


> ...Do you think Mozart's gifted musical mind would excel in music of any style given the societal upbringing? ...


But as for these, I'm not sure what you mean, what you're asking? -



> Was he gifted in music, or was he gifted in the music of his time?
> 
> ...This can be said of ANY composer. But what do you think. Do you think there are people who were not inclined toward music in the 17th century, but would have been a master in the 20th century?...


As for this -



> ...OR do you think someone who is a musical genius, would have been a musical genius regardless of the time and place they lived?


Not regardless, but it may well be that he'd go into a genre that's more lucrative. Rossini probably would, and compose on the side (or after retirement, as he did) less public-oriented works.

So maybe Mozart would be another Andrew Lloyd Webber, doing musicals? Or like Bernstein, who did all kinds of things, from symphonies to musicals? Or our own Peter Sculthorpe, who composed a symphonic rock song in 1970? I have on cd the orchestral version of that, called_ Night-Song_, and it's pretty good, a kind of fusion, but you can definitely hear his unique style in it.

What I'm saying is it's unlikely he or anyone else before 1900 would be composing purely for the concert hall or opera. Even Schoenberg produced his _Cabaret Songs (Brettl-Lieder)_ in 1903, for a cabaret venue in Berlin where he was doing a stint as conductor. Given a commission or funding, or the will, he could well have produced musicals like Kurt Weill came to specialise in. It was all up for grabs then as it is now. Shostakovich did a kind of rock-operetta,_ Cheryomushki,_ in the late 1950's. It was one of his most popular works in the Soviet Union during his lifetime.

The distance between "high" and "low" arts have been coming together for ages, and some say they're gone now altogether, the distinctions that existed (if any did?) are now truly gone and irrelevant to many listeners of whatever genres of music. I personally think that it's the purpose of a piece, or the purposes of a piece of music, it's audience, etc. that is more relevant now than things like "high" and "low" art categories...


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2012)

Since everything that went into making up the person we know as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was 18th century, or earlier, if "Mozart" were born in the 20th century, he wouldn't be Mozart, now, would he?

The answer to your question, the one in the title, is "Yes."


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I don't think Mozart would have had the same kind of success as a performer on his European tour when he was young in the 20th century as he had in the 1750s/60s. His compositions would _definitely_ be different if he was born in 1956 instead of 1756. Who knows what kind of music he would have written? Possibly even death metal!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

One can also see child prodigies coming after Mozart as a thing to compare him and the other wigs to.

Eg. Liszt, Saint-Saens, Bizet, Prokofiev are ones I can think of.

Of course, I'd guess that many more child prodigies fade into obscurity and don't live up to their promise than the ones that do become as famous as these guys did...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> One can also see child prodigies coming after Mozart as a thing to compare him and the other wigs to.
> ...


You know what? I was thinking the other day something similar to this. I honestly thought our closest "child prodigy" today, or a very talented child entertainer who successfully grew into a mature artist in our times, and obviously will be rememberd for a long, long time was Michael Jackson. You could think of others perhaps. I thought MJ was probably the closest thing to a Mozart - born and raised into a musical family, unusually talented at a young age and continued as one until he died. He wrote beautiful popular music that obviously moved a lot of folks.

OK, now you all can flame me for suggesting MJ was our modern day Mozart.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You know what? I was thinking the other day something similar to this. I honestly thought our closest "child prodigy" today, or a very talented child entertainer who successfully grew into a mature artist in our times, and obviously will be rememberd for a long, long time was Michael Jackson. You could think of others perhaps. I thought MJ was probably the closest thing to a Mozart - born and raised into a musical family, unusually talented at a young age and continued as one until he died. He wrote beautiful popular music that obviously moved a lot of folks.
> 
> OK, now you all can flame me for suggesting MJ was our modern day Mozart.


I have to agree with you. Especially on that last point.  I suppose Michael Jackson _would_ be a modern day Mozart. Except I hate his music. And he didn't compose over 60 symphonies. And he didn't compose over 20 operas. And he didn't compose 27 piano concerti. And he didn't compose 17 masses. And he didn't compose 4 horn concerti. Or 5 violin concerti. But he didn't complete a requiem though...

Actually I doubt he even started a requiem.


----------

