Re: about Mozart, Musicians and Gould

[jerry <jerbidoc@zianet.com>]

>Hi Sara:
>Definitely, participating in this kind of list means fun to me, and it helps
>me in many ways, to know things better.
>I suscribed some two weeks ago, and I am kind of surprised by the fact (of
>course I learned it here) that Gould didn't like Mozart.
>I love Gould's recordings, but I'm not very informed about his life and
>whereabouts, so the list is a constant joy to me.
>Back to Mozart, and trying to think about the reasons behind Goulds dislike,
>let me tell you that surprisingly, I'm not precisely a big fan of Mozart.
>Moreover, in what I consider an extense CD collection I own, he represents a
>mere 1%, may be 2%.
>To summ up my impression about Mozart, the work I admire the most, the
>Requiem, was mainly written by another guy!!!
>I find myself not being the tip of the thumb of Gould as a pianist, and with
>a  humble amateur reach when it comes to musicology or technical
>understanding of music.
>So I can easely admit that I have no rational element to judge Mozart's art.
>BUT, on the other hand, I feel exactly the same as Gould towards Mozart.
>I believe that in music, there is a sort of apreciation that can be
>rationalized, but it is primarily, and firstly, irrational. I'm talking
>about that instinctive perception of the equilibrium between the obvious and
>the predictable.
>The musical genious just manages to make his trip on the rope of music not
>falling in these extremes.
>I think that everyone is able to unconciously "follow" the musical speech of
>a work, and therefore unconciously "guess" what's comming next. The subtle
>seduction of this continuous "mind game", and the right mix between guesses
>and falilures, makes music enjoyable.
>To me, Mozart is generally dangerously near to the edge of "the gorge of the
>obvious".
>In "eine musicalisches Spass" (A musical joke), Mozart intended to summarize
>the cliches and common places of any mediocre composer of his time.
>Paradoxically, until I read about the reason of the name given to the work,
>I considered this work as a tipically "Mozartian" piece of music. After
>reading the explanation, with pain I must say that my opinion didn't change,
>and it only happened that I added to my inner picture of Mozart an "Here is
>an ill advised joker" sign hanging on his neck.
>Don't get me wrong. Not even in a zillion years I would be able to conceive
>music like "eine kleine Nachtmusik" or Haffner or Jupiter symphonies. But I
>don't see Mozart SO far away from the rest, and may be he many times was too
>close to be obvious.
>So, it is an honor to me to be as politically incorrect as Gould.
>Regards.
>Pablo
>

Pablo, Hi!
If I might butt in?, and say two things about this..

First, and we've all probably heard this preached at us from the time we
were children, Mozart's music sounds extremely facile and 'glib' UNTIL you
try to play it well, and effectively express all its finer secrets.  It's
all in there, believe me!   Remember, if you're not often in the company of
musicians, you might never hear Mozart played badly or mindlessly, you'll
just have to imagine it!  <grinning>
Wolfie probably thought he needed to write in such an obvious and
superficial SOUNDING style (if it was intentional, and not just an
intuitive outcome) because of his audiences, AND because of his need for
income (he rarely had helpful patrons).  He couldn't afford to have many
failures, nor could he afford to get a reputation for composing
'unattractive' concert works.  Heh..  Most of his more wonderfully
intellectual and complex pieces were not at all profitable.  :((  The times
and the settings for his full genius were never as encouraging as they were
for Beethoven, or even JSB.

But second, Gould knew Mozart very well, so that's probably not the issue
(and WAM's music has been extensively analyzed.  I'm sure GG was fully
exposed to the latest ideas) .  I dare say (and it sounds odd to say) that
Glenn had an opportunity to get to know these works far 'better' (maybe
more 'intimately') than the poor short-lived AND very busy composer
himself.  As a pianist myself, when I hear Gould play Mozart (except for a
few movements of a few sonatas <grin>) I must conclude that he loves 'this
or that' in the music, especially the earlier pieces, and he appreciated
the greatness of the late works, BUT..., and here's my point!, GG liked
other things so much more!!  GG liked JSB (and CPE Bach), and Gibbons,
Byrd, Wagner and Schoenberg and even Brahms, better than most of Mozart.
He had his good reasons, and it takes a lot of study of the output of all
these creators, and Mozart!, to understand what he was trying to
communicate.

I don't always agree with GG's opinions, but maybe I will someday,  ;)
Jerry