On 11 Jan 2007 at 16:48, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 11.01.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: > >> Personally I don't think it really matters that much, I am not > >> crazy > >> > about Mozart's early works anyway, and if it turns out to be a > >> > worthwile piece I couldn't care less whether it is by Mozart or > >> > not. > > > > That's interesting. I'm not excited about much of any of the music > > from c. 1750-70 -- the galant style just seems very boring to me > > (even Haydn from that period). But you do lots of music from that > > period, no? What do you find is the difference between the music you > > do and Mozart's pre-1770 work? Youth and inexperience? Lack of > > sophistication? > > > > Well, I could now start talking about the "Mozart Block" which I > certainly suffer from, at least as far as anything from his earlier > years is concerned. Let's not, that is a very complex matter.
I have a "Beethoven Block" that gets me in hot water with all sorts of people, so I sympathize! > However, daring to let some value judgements enter this discussion, I > find Mozart's early music no more mature than by any other 10-year-old > (or 8-year-old or 5-year-old for that matter). In fact I find early > music by Mendelssohn much more ingenious than Mozart's (I know others > will have a different opinion, that's fine by me). I can't say that there's anything remarkable about the pre-teen Mozart. But from age 10-12 onward, it's mostly as good or better than the music written by adults. I don't know that any of Mendelssohn's pre-teen music is known. > There is no question Mozart was a great genius, the operas, piano > concertos, late string quartets, string quintets are amazing works. > But if the early works were the only part of his work to survive, I > rather doubt we would even know the name Mozart. I think if all that survived was the pre-1770 music, we'd know of him as a minor composer along with all the other minor composers of the time. > On the other hand, I do find Haydn's "early" music extremely > ingenious. The difference is that we don't actually know any of > Haydn's real early music (with one or two possible exceptions I > believe). Right -- early Haydn is mature music, comparable in chronological age to what Mozart was writing in Salzburg in the late 1770s. > The problem with pre-classical and early classical music is quite > complex. There are very good reasons why we find a lot of that music > boring today. It is true I have done some music from that period, but > I very carefully selected it, and I am carefully trying to avoid the > boring music which I think you refer to. > > To just allow myself a little self promotion here: Our CDs with > Stamitz/Gluck and Haydn trios (second volume just came out) are > examples of totally non-boring music from that period, at least in my > opinion. Perhaps you have a little listen at > > http://www.cdbaby.com/all/johannesg I'm not on broadband so can't really do that. But I've had a change in opinion about the Italian "pre-classical" composers after hearing Ensemble 451's playing of Sammartini -- oh, boy, what a difference from all the boring old recordings I'd heard of it before? It's lithe and flexible and really fascinating music. Maybe if some of the other "pre-classics" got the same kind of careful and commited attention from performers, I'd like it better. > or even better, spend a little money and buy the CDs. I guess you > probably would care more for the Haydn. (The second volume is out, but > I don't think we will sell it through CDBaby, as we are now in other > distribution channels. I don't think it has reached the shops yet). If I had any money, I'd be happy to! -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
