>From many letters by Mozart himself & by his father Leopold we know that both were perfectionist, who would never have allowed players of their (Mozarts) works to spoil these by their own too often mediocre additions. Yes, it has been usual, that the pianists played along with the orchestra, but not with Mozartian pieces. Yes, they flourishes (boring) passages by ornamentations, turns (mordent) etc., but also not for Mozartian pieces, where it would destroy the strong stylish demand. The Mozartian pieces as well as later Schuberts compositions are unique in their simplicity , clarity, transparency & perfection and do not need ANY embellishment. If one thinks, they would be bettered up - may it be Dr.Levin, perhaps or another so called Mozartologue - , they have not understood Mozart nor the world where he or Schubert lived nor the character of the people there.
Mozart says everything in perfection & very simple (= in this content simple means CLEAN, in German words: "rein" ), Schubert did the same. So they became the great composers. Any addition would just be cheap & mediocre, as most players who need these additions to make their playing more interesting or interesting at all (in their own opinion !!). Cadenzas, that´s a different thing. Surely, Mozart built in some "cadenza points", also in the horn concertos, besides the usual first movement cadenza, so to see the final rondos in his three completed horn concertos. Surely, there is space for a short , very short cadenza of just a few measures. But what do we get to listen to, special during auditions ? Players telling long more or less known excerpts from other cadenzas in a most lengthy story, often mixed with complete out of style elements & mixed with wrong harmonic elements. And they play it in a stupid show off manner not verse the culminating final trill, but until the middle of the lengthy uninteresting & often caricaturesque cadenza, where they get coordinating or breathing problems, which results in a terrible uninteresting finale of the cadenza. If there are composers not to be touched or altered by no ways, then they are Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven & R.Wagner. Bach & Haendel are different, as they left some embellishment & other ornamentations to the experience of the players often. ============================================================ ============================================================ ========================= -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Gross Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 3:19 PM To: 'The Horn List' Subject: RE: [Hornlist] Mozart and His Music To help me understand performance during Mozart period, the first question is about this part of the review of the Mozart piano concerto. 07:09 AM CST on Friday, March 17, 2006 By OLIN CHISM / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News [. . .] The most radical move toward Mozart's day is Mr. Levin's. He gives the DSO more notes for its money, often playing along during orchestral tuttis whereas most pianists sit them out, throwing in some little flourishes and improvising the cadenzas. All this is documented from the old days. [. . .] If I understand Mr. Chism correctly, this improvisation by the pianist was not unusual during Mozart age. From Hans answer to my original question, this improvisation (if that is the proper term) was not the accepted practice for horn players. Do these two statements accurately reflect the way music was performed in this period? If those statements are correct, why would one instrument play exactly as the composer desired and the other improvised during a performance? _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/hans%40pizka. de _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
