> >Are you joking? Eugene, this is like saying tuna was whitebait. > >Are you not familiar with Mass in c-minor, Requiem, sonatas in a and c, > >fantasias in d and c, 25th symphony, concerti ##20, 24 & 26??? > Not joking at all. But you've removed my assertion from its > context. There's a reason Mozart chose to not write his truly profound > works for guitar. Along with everyone else (except maybe Paulo Galvao...)
I was speculating that had he written specifically for > guitar, he probably wouldn't have put any more effort at profundity into it > than he did the pleasant trifles he concocted for mandolin. Agreed. It would have been, as we say in Russian, trading a bar of soap for a hole-punch. There simply > wasn't any precedent for "heavy" guitar music at that point in > time. And a very long time after, as well. >...And, not being a guitarist, I doubt Mozart could have exploited > the instrument's technical quirks as well as de Fossa, Sor, or Giuliani. Quirks don't make profound. > >Could you tell us of anyone who might be considered HEAVY apropos mandoline? > Certainly not heavy, but there is plenty that was more thorough at > exploiting the technical idiosyncrasies of of the various mandolin types > than Mozart: Leone, Hoffman, Denis, Barbella... > Best, > Eugene Technical idiosyncrfasies are not musical substance. RT To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
