# What does J. S. Bach have to offer that Josquin des Prez doesn't?



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Honest question. What progress occurred in those 200 years that makes Bach so significant and Josquin virtually ignored nowadays? For the life of me, I can't hear anything in Bach's music that is close to the perfection and soul-touching depth of Josquin's music.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Just speaking from a practical standpoint, it's probably because Bach's music reflects a culmination of thought based on the major-minor tonal system and harmonic structures which have become the basis for Western music pretty much since then. When you listen to Bach, you immediately have a frame of reference.

Josquin wrote in a style which preceded that tonal system, based on modes, so it's not as easy for many people to connect with. 

Fortunately thanks to early music groups from the Tallis Scholars to the present-day Beauty Farm, his music is more popular than it has been for a long time.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Josquin is hardly ignored, if regular recordings of his work is any indication. Josquin was considered the "Beethoven" of his day, i.e. the most famous, dominant composer, who inspired many disciples and imitators. Josquin's style represented the pinnacle of the early Renaissance style whereas Palestrina the master of the late Renaissance, which led directly to Bach.

There is no answer to your question since both composers were masters of their styles and Bach did not replace Josquin; they were both major landmarks along the path of the history of music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

One thing that is interesting is that, at least as far as I know, there is no connection between Bach and Josquin. Bach was curious about music, his music is full of references to other composers, he was constantly experimenting with new styles. It's as if as far as Bach was concerned, Josquin didn't exist!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Interesting perspective. Endless, heavenly dance rhythms; infinitely touching chromatic harmonies, vibrant instrumental and tonal colors, exploration of theological and metaphysical depths, connotations of the most profound sorrow and boundless ecstasy, ruminative solitude and communal celebration, much greater diversity of genres. Not to say I don't love Josquin - I would also count him among my favorite composers - but I don't think a comparison is very enlightening outside of the fact that they both wrote exquisitely for the human voice and were two of the greatest polyphonic masters. I wouldn't want to be without the Missa Pange Lingua and Miserere, but I simply value Bach's Passions and cantatas more for the reasons described above.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

If Bach had exclusively written choral music we might be seeing the same about both of them. Renaissance/early choral music has a certain cultural context that works like Bach's instrumental work don't require. This is to say nothing of the adaptability of Bach's instrumental music - HIP is in, but one of the things about Bach is that the music is very, very hard to kill no matter what you play it on.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

fbjim said:


> If Bach had exclusively written choral music we might be seeing the same about both of them. Renaissance/early choral music has a certain cultural context that works like Bach's instrumental work don't require. This is to say nothing of the adaptability of Bach's instrumental music - HIP is in, but one of the things about Bach is that the music is very, very hard to kill no matter what you play it on.


I was about to say, Josquin isn't as popular because he didn't write any Brandenburg Concertos.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

What does Bach offer that des Prez doesn't? Variety—for one.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> If Bach had exclusively written choral music we might be seeing the same about both of them. ...


Considering that Bach's choral output is the greatest and most varied part of his whole body of work, I don't think so.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Red Terror said:


> What does Bach offer that des Prez doesn't? Variety-for one.


Exactly. I hate to say it, Renaissance music is a bit primitive in terms of form; this leads to a lack of textural variety within a piece (Berlioz famously commented on this). Play any part of a Palestrina mass, for instance, it sounds the same anywhere. It's still great in creating "atmospheres" but can't be compared to Bach imv.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> Considering that Bach's choral output is the greatest and most varied part of his whole body of work, I don't think so.


What gets performed more? Not just in concert, but by practicing musicians everywhere? Everyone who's played an instrument more than at a beginner level has played Bach. Who plays Josquin?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> What gets performed more? Not just in concert, but by practicing musicians everywhere? Everyone who's played an instrument more than at a beginner level has played Bach. Who plays Josquin?


Josquin is most likely sung by any vocal ensemble specializing in Renaissance music. Sure, probably not as pervasive as Bach, but since when does size matter?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

This is cute though:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Exactly. I hate to say it, Renaissance music is a bit primitive in terms of form; this leads to a lack of textural variety within a piece (Berlioz famously commented on this). Play any part of a Palestrina mass, for instance, it sounds the same anywhere.
> Can't be compared to Bach imv.


Renaissance music is a specific period style, with specific attributes and which produced unique polyphonic works that are unlike any other music. For those people, myself included, who appreciate the genre there is plenty of texture, variety, and wonderful music there for the listening. Personally I prefer, Medieval music, but I prefer both that and Renaissance vocal polyphony to the 18th century kind.

I won't argue with your opinion, since it is your opinion, but you state it as if it is a fact instead of an opinion.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> What gets performed more? Not just in concert, but by practicing musicians everywhere? Everyone who's played an instrument more than at a beginner level has played Bach. Who plays Josquin?


That doesn't say much. Für Elise is performed far more often than the Hammerklavier sonata, and in part for the same reason: Bach's choral music is tough to perform. Plus it's liturgical music.

I think the reason we listen to Bach more is that he in a way was the culmination and definition of a tradition while Josquin was an earlier example. Many of the characteristics of that earlier tradition you can hear in Bach's vocal music, since Bach was a student of it. You won't hear quite the richness of Bach's writing in Josquin. Bach is simply more developed and more within our own understanding, like Chaucer vs Shakespeare.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Exactly. I hate to say it, Renaissance music is a bit primitive in terms of form; this leads to a lack of textural variety within a piece (Berlioz famously commented on this). Play any part of a Palestrina mass, for instance, it sounds the same anywhere. It's still great for creating "atmospheres" but can't be compared to Bach imv.


Josquin is not Palestrina! What you say may be true about his music, but it isn't true that any part of a Josquin mass sounds the same everywhere to me. But these things may need the ear to hear the variety - you know people say that Art of Fugue sounds the same everywhere, or Mozart piano sonatas or Wagner's operas. They're wrong about Art of Fugue, they just haven't noticed the variety because their ears aren't attuned to the type of variety present.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> you know people say that Art of Fugue sounds the same everywhere, or Mozart piano sonatas or Wagner's operas. They're wrong about Art of Fugue, ...


Well in a way it's *supposed* to sound the same everywhere.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Josquin is most likely sung by any vocal ensemble specializing in Renaissance music. Sure, probably not as pervasive as Bach, but since when does size matter?


Well, the OP was asking why Josquin was "ignored" - which isn't true (anyone with a passing interest in early music knows Josquin), but I think it's certainly true that Bach is performed more widely. Bach is in the practice and performance repertoire for a lot of instruments, and I think it does matter, especially when instrumental music is almost certainly more accessible to most listeners than sacred music.

I do agree that Josquin is, by any historical reckoning, just as important as Bach.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In fact Josquin wrote one of the most popular hit songs of the 16th century, Mille Regretz.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> ...
> I do agree that Josquin is, by any historical reckoning, just as important as Bach.


Please elaborate.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

And regarding instrumental music, there's a long tradition of transcribing Josquin songs to instruments, for example


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Unlike Josquin, who was endorsed by the Pope (Rodrigo Borgia) and renown as the greatest master of music during his lifetime, JS Bach was not a household name across Europe and the general public largely forgot about him after his death. His current reputation stems from the 19th century revival. It did not hurt that the German Bach could be heralded by a fledgling empire as its chosen son, whereas who cares about the Belgians? You also cant easily adopt Josquin to 19th and 20th century instruments, whereas every instrumentalist plays Bach


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> And regarding instrumental music, there's a long tradition of transcribing Josquin songs to instruments, for example


Is that, by any historical reckoning, just as important as The Well Tempered Clavier?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

dissident said:


> Is that, by any historical reckoning, just as important as The Well Tempered Clavier?


No.

Nxnxn https://m.msnmdnnsmxnms


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Unlike Josquin, who was endorsed by the Pope (Rodrigo Borgia) and renown as the greatest master of music during his lifetime, JS Bach was not a household name across Europe and the general public largely forgot about him after his death.


 Not true.


> His current reputation stems from the 19th century revival. It did not hurt that the German Bach could be heralded by a fledgling empire as its chosen sun, whereas who cares about the Belgians? You also cant easily adopt Josquin to 19th and 20th century instruments, whereas every instrumentalist plays Bach


His current reputation stems from his music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Unlike Josquin, who was endorsed by the Pope (Rodrigo Borgia) and renown as the greatest master of music during his lifetime, JS Bach was not a household name across Europe and the general public largely forgot about him after his death. His current reputation stems from the 19th century revival. It did not hurt that the German Bach could be heralded by a fledgling empire as its chosen son, whereas who cares about the Belgians? You also cant easily adopt Josquin to 19th and 20th century instruments, whereas every instrumentalist plays Bach


"Even before 1750, that legacy had begun to spread, slowly but steadily and irreversibly, primarily through his students and his sons, and first and foremost in circles of professional musicians. But knowledgeable admirers of Bach's art could be found outside German lands as well. A representative voice in this regard is that of the composer and theorist Padre Giovanni Battista Martini in Bologna, who wrote to a German colleague in April 1750, more than three months before Bach's death: "I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."" < Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician | Christoph Wolff · 2002 | P. 462 >


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Cmcmcmcmcmcm jcmcdjdjdjdmxm


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Even before 1750, that legacy had begun to spread, slowly but steadily and irreversibly, primarily through his students and his sons, and first and foremost in circles of professional musicians. But knowledgeable admirers of Bach's art could be found outside German lands as well. A representative voice in this regard is that of the composer and theorist Padre Giovanni Battista Martini in Bologna, who wrote to a German colleague in April 1750, more than three months before Bach's death: "I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."" < Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician | Christoph Wolff · 2002 | P. 462 >


Did not say he was unknown or forgotten among insiders, just not a household name among the general public the way, say, Handel was

Dont think JS ever travelled outside Germany and his career likely suffered from the political fragmentation of Germany. He held the most prominent post in Saxony, but was it more prominent than Telemann in Hamburg?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Did not say he was unknown or forgotten among insiders, just not a household name among the general public the way, say, Handel was


Was Josquin?


> Dont think JS ever travelled outside Germany and his career likely suffered from the political fragmentation of Germany. He held the most prominent post in Saxony, but was it more prominent than Telemann in Hamburg?


Probably not since Telemann turned it down when he got a raise. By the way Telemann might've been a better "chosen sun" than Bach.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Did not say he was unknown or forgotten among insiders, just not a household name among the general public the way, say, Handel was


Have you gone through this thread?:



hammeredklavier said:


> "Samuel Wesley (24 February 1766 - 11 October 1837) was an English organist and composer in the late Georgian period.
> Wesley seems to have become acquainted with the works of Johann Sebastian Bach sometime between 1796 and 1808. In 1810, he and Charles Frederick Horn collaborated in publishing the first English edition of J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. Their joint publication and popularisation of Bach's work have been described as an "English Bach awakening". No time was lost in converting others to the Bach cause; Wesley's principal converts were William Crotch and Charles Burney. In a series of letters to his friend, Benjamin Jacob, Wesley documented how he made Bach better appreciated."


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

When I see thread titles like this what astounds me is how differently people hear music. The thread title to me is a non sequitur. 
How could someone that has actually 'heard' J.S. Bach's music make such a comparison?

We as humans obviously have substantial differences in how we perceive auditory stimulus. I suspect we also perceive colors differently.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you gone through this thread?:


Interesting - and telling that a prominent English organist did not become familiar with Bach until he was 30

Organ of course being what Bach was primarily known for during his lifetime


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Interesting - and telling that a prominent English organist did not become familiar with Bach until he was 30. Organ of course being what Bach was primarily known for during his lifetime


Also look at other things I said in that thread; the fact that other post-1750 composers, J.H. Knecht, did a completion of the Art of the fugue, J.G. Albrechtsberger, G.V. Pasterwitz, in his versets, composed on the theme B.A.C.H., etc.. https://www.talkclassical.com/72289-bad-superficial-crtitiques-value-4.html#post2128352


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

tdc said:


> When I see thread titles like this what astounds me is how differently people hear music. The thread title to me is a non sequitur.
> How could someone that has actually 'heard' J.S. Bach's music make such a comparison?
> 
> We as humans obviously have substantial differences in how we perceive auditory stimulus. I suspect we also perceive colors differently.


It's irritation with the fact that Bach is held in higher regard than Josquin des Prez. 


Bwv 1080 said:


> Interesting - and telling that a prominent English organist did not become familiar with Bach until he was 30
> 
> Organ of course being what Bach was primarily known for during his lifetime


Maybe it was because the organist lived in Handel-land. Haydn and Mozart appear to have been better-informed, and Beethoven as a kid played through both books of the WTC.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Before reading the title of this thread, I had not heard of Josquin des Prez. This speaks more of my ignorance than the virtue of the latter's music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

dissident said:


> It's irritation with the fact that Bach is held in higher regard than Josquin des Prez.


The two are not really comparable in my view, what I get from Josquin's music is not what I get from Bach, at all. For the record I like earlier music and I disagree with the idea that it is formless. I also disagree with comments I've come across on these forums that earlier composers all sound the same and only after Beethoven did they start to sound distinct from each other.

Josquin and Bach were both great masters, but what does Bach offer that Josquin does not, is not a question that makes sense to me. It is like asking what is in Schumann that can't be found in Mozart.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What does J. S. Bach have to offer that Josquin des Prez doesn't?*

Kids.

Lots of them.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Josquin is not Palestrina! What you say may be true about his music, but it isn't true that any part of a Josquin mass sounds the same everywhere to me. But these things may need the ear to hear the variety - you know people say that Art of Fugue sounds the same everywhere, or Mozart piano sonatas or Wagner's operas. They're wrong about Art of Fugue, they just haven't noticed the variety because their ears aren't attuned to the type of variety present.


It is also a criticism commonly levied (unfairly) against contemporary music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

In the following quote, Berlioz talks mostly about Palestrina, but by "the contrapuntists who preceded him", I think he's also including Josquin into the lot, to describe the general tendencies of Renaissance music:

"It is quite possible that the musician who wrote these four-part psalms, in which *there is neither melody nor rhythm*, and in which the harmony is confined to perfect chords with a few suspensions, may have had some taste and a certain amount of scientific knowledge; but genius - the idea is too absurd! 
There are, moreover, people who sincerely believe that Palestrina deliberately wrote in this way in order that his music might be perfectly adopted to his own pious ideal of the words of the text. They would soon see their mistake if they were to hear his madrigals, in which the most frivolous or gallant words are set to exactly the same music as those of the Bible. For example, he has set the words, _"Alla riva del Tebro, giovainetto vidd' io vago Pastore,"_ etc., to a solemn chorus, the harmony and general effect of which are identical with those of his so-called religious compositions. *The truth is that he could not write any other kind of music*; and, far from pursuing any celestial ideal, *his works contain a quantity of formulas adopted from the contrapuntists who preceded him*, and of whom he is usually supposed to have been the inspired antagonist. If proof is wanted, look at his _Missa ad fugam_. 
How, then, do such works as these, clever though they may be as regards to their conquest of contrapuntal difficulties, contribute to the expression of religious feeling? How far are such specimens of the labor of a patient chord-manufacturer indicative of single-minded absorption in the true object of his work? In no way that I can see. *The expressive accent of a musical work is not enhanced in any way by its being embodied in a perpetual canon*. Beauty and truth of expression gain nothing by the difficulties which the composer may have had to overcome in producing them, any more than his work would be increased in value from the fact that he had been suffering physical pain while he was writing it. If Palestrina had lost his hands, and been forced to write with his feet, that fact would not have enhanced the value of his works or increased their religious merit."


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Tonal diversity: Josquin focused on vocal music, and JS Bach offered instrumental readings of all harmonic potentials, thus expanding the imaginative realm of musical languages. It is true in sense of pure melodic refineness, Josquin has no direct rivals, but the point is that people must not think music upon a single line of a multidimensional concept of music, there is no tyrant in music and art.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> In the following quote, Berlioz talks mostly about Palestrina, but by "the contrapuntists who preceded him", I think he's also including Josquin into the lot, to describe the general tendencies of Renaissance music:
> 
> "It is quite possible that the musician who wrote these four-part psalms, in which *there is neither melody nor rhythm*, and in which the harmony is confined to perfect chords with a few suspensions, may have had some taste and a certain amount of scientific knowledge; but genius - the idea is too absurd!
> There are, moreover, people who sincerely believe that Palestrina deliberately wrote in this way in order that his music might be perfectly adopted to his own pious ideal of the words of the text. They would soon see their mistake if they were to hear his madrigals, in which the most frivolous or gallant words are set to exactly the same music as those of the Bible. For example, he has set the words, _"Alla riva del Tebro, giovainetto vidd' io vago Pastore,"_ etc., to a solemn chorus, the harmony and general effect of which are identical with those of his so-called religious compositions. *The truth is that he could not write any other kind of music*; and, far from pursuing any celestial ideal, *his works contain a quantity of formulas adopted from the contrapuntists who preceded him*, and of whom he is usually supposed to have been the inspired antagonist. If proof is wanted, look at his _Missa ad fugam_.
> How, then, do such works as these, clever though they may be as regards to their conquest of contrapuntal difficulties, contribute to the expression of religious feeling? How far are such specimens of the labor of a patient chord-manufacturer indicative of single-minded absorption in the true object of his work? In no way that I can see. *The expressive accent of a musical work is not enhanced in any way by its being embodied in a perpetual canon*. Beauty and truth of expression gain nothing by the difficulties which the composer may have had to overcome in producing them, any more than his work would be increased in value from the fact that he had been suffering physical pain while he was writing it. If Palestrina had lost his hands, and been forced to write with his feet, that fact would not have enhanced the value of his works or increased their religious merit."


I think one person who was perhaps more interesting in his dismissal of early music generally was Heinrich Schenker, you may enjoy investigating.

I sympathise with what Berlioz says about Palestrina, but that's on the basis of very limited experience of his music, so I'm probably not a good judge. In truth, I find most music from the first half of the c16 rather hard to enjoy - music in the century after Josquin. It's either unrelieved dense imitative counterpoint or almost exclusively consonant or both. There are exceptions - e.g.Lassus.

Anyway, the important thing is that this discussion has prompted me to listen to this new release, I don't think it's entirely my style, in fact I felt impelled to switch to Walter Testolin in the same mass, I'm not crazy about the music in fact, at least not as I've heard it interpreted, but others may feel differently, I'd like to know what you think of it


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> In the following quote, Berlioz talks mostly about Palestrina, but by "the contrapuntists who preceded him", I think he's also including Josquin into the lot, to describe the general tendencies of Renaissance music:
> 
> "It is quite possible that the musician who wrote these four-part psalms, in which *there is neither melody nor rhythm*, and in which the harmony is confined to perfect chords with a few suspensions, may have had some taste and a certain amount of scientific knowledge; but genius - the idea is too absurd!
> There are, moreover, people who sincerely believe that Palestrina deliberately wrote in this way in order that his music might be perfectly adopted to his own pious ideal of the words of the text. They would soon see their mistake if they were to hear his madrigals, in which the most frivolous or gallant words are set to exactly the same music as those of the Bible. For example, he has set the words, _"Alla riva del Tebro, giovainetto vidd' io vago Pastore,"_ etc., to a solemn chorus, the harmony and general effect of which are identical with those of his so-called religious compositions. *The truth is that he could not write any other kind of music*; and, far from pursuing any celestial ideal, *his works contain a quantity of formulas adopted from the contrapuntists who preceded him*, and of whom he is usually supposed to have been the inspired antagonist. If proof is wanted, look at his _Missa ad fugam_.
> How, then, do such works as these, clever though they may be as regards to their conquest of contrapuntal difficulties, contribute to the expression of religious feeling? How far are such specimens of the labor of a patient chord-manufacturer indicative of single-minded absorption in the true object of his work? In no way that I can see. *The expressive accent of a musical work is not enhanced in any way by its being embodied in a perpetual canon*. Beauty and truth of expression gain nothing by the difficulties which the composer may have had to overcome in producing them, any more than his work would be increased in value from the fact that he had been suffering physical pain while he was writing it. If Palestrina had lost his hands, and been forced to write with his feet, that fact would not have enhanced the value of his works or increased their religious merit."


I think Berlioz also criticized Mozart, did he not? I seem to remember him criticizing the dies irae from the Requiem.

Berlioz himself has taken his own share of criticism of course. In general I think it is fair to say that the strong points in Renaissance music were mostly weaknesses in Berlioz, he was not exactly renowned for his use of harmony or counterpoint.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Cmcmcmcmcmcm jcmcdjdjdjdmxm


Which year?
..................


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Just to name a couple things ...

the Brandenburg concertos ... what did Josquin compose similar to the invention of these concertos?

well-tempered clavier ... what solo instrumental music did Josquin compose that compares?

the English and French suites and keyboard partitas, not to mention the orchestral suites, are based on dances. what of Josquin is based on dances?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> I think Berlioz also criticized Mozart, did he not?


"The intimate and fervent religiosity of this short masterpiece (Ave verum corpus K. 618) seems to conform precisely to Berlioz's ideal of religious music.
_'This is not just religious music, it is really divine and worthy of the dwellers of Heaven. It is the ideal manifestation of pious serenity, of mystical love, of ecstasy. God dictated it; an angel wrote it.'"_


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

He can be very tough on Mozart -- this is about an aria of Donna Anna's



> Je trouve même l'épithète de honteuse insuffisante pour flétrir ce passage. Mozart a commis là contre la passion, contre le sentiment, contre le bon goût et le bon sens, un des crimes les plus odieux et les plus insensés que l'on puisse citer dans l'histoire de l'art.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> He can be very tough on Mozart -- this is about an aria of Donna Anna's


Wow, for those who don't understand French:

_"I even find the epithet of shame insufficient to wilt this passage. Mozart committed there against passion, against feeling, against good taste and common sense, one of the most heinous and senseless crimes that can be cited in the history of art._"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> He can be very tough on Mozart -- this is about an aria of Donna Anna's





tdc said:


> Wow, for those who don't understand French:


Wow, I didn't want to carry on with this pointless, irrelevant discussion, but you people make me do it.

"I have the strong impression that Berlioz envied Mozart's professional skill as a musician, and was conscious of his own inferiority. Despite the apologetic discourse of Barzun and other Berliozians, his shortcomings in harmony, counterpoint and formal organization are unmistakable even in his mature works. How could he, who grew up at La Côte-Saint-André isolated from any serious music-making until the age of 18, receiving only a rudimentary musical education in his childhood and youth, never mastering an instrument, not encouraged by his family at any stage to understake a musical career, compete with the child of Salzburg, son of a highly skilled musician who devoted his life to his son's musical upbringing and who took him from early childhood all around Europe to meet the greatest masters of his day? Berlioz must have felt this difference, and his often arrogant tone in discussing Mozart's music seems barely to mask a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about his musical abilities. No one more than Mozart could embody for Berlioz the ideal of professional musicianship, so far out of his reach, and thus he remains the ultimate reminder of his shortcomings, and thus a permanent source of irritation. It is this recognition of Mozart's superior mastery of compositional skills that lies behind Berlioz's choice of words: 'this unfailing beauty, always serene and self-assured'. Beethoven, of course, was a perfect musician too, but he had to work hard for it, while for Mozart, the myth had already taken root that his proficiency came with ease. This difference between the two was already evident to Berlioz's generation, and thus Beethoven was conceived as more 'human', and Berlioz could feel closer to him. Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, was much easier to identify with than the 'enfant prodige' who grew up to become the emblem of perfection."
-Benjamin Pearl (Mozartian Undercurrents in Berlioz)


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

tdc said:


> Wow, for those who don't understand French:
> 
> _"I even find the epithet of shame insufficient to wilt this passage. Mozart committed there against passion, against feeling, against good taste and common sense, one of the most heinous and senseless crimes that can be cited in the history of art._"


Berlioz apparently had a gift for heinous and senseless overstatement.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

dissident said:


> Berlioz apparently had a gift for heinous and senseless overstatement.


Surely it doesn't take his literary works to convince you of that?


----------

