Mozart

It's pretty silly how good Mozart was. His style was so specifically pigeonholed into a tiny piece of the realm of musical possibility, and yet he composed music that encompasses the entire realm of human emotions, and is incredibly diverse. Composers who came after him, who had all of the possibilities of 19th and 20th century innovations in music, can hardly be said to have done a better job of capturing human emotion than Mozart. In a way, Mozart was more of a skilled craftsman than an innovator. Unlike Beethoven, who unleashed an entire new style of music on the world, Mozart focused instead on the beauty of his music, and honed his style to a tight, consistent package. The beauty of his music is so much more subtle than that of Beethoven; he breaks the rules specifically and sparsely, which makes the breaks in the pattern even more surprising and more beautiful. Perhaps, at the end of every period in music, a composer (or group of composers) will come in and summarize that genre, creating masterpieces out of experience rather than experimentation

What I've been listening to today:

Symphony No. 40 in G Minor- Mozart

Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major- Mozart

Ceremony of Carols- Benjamin Britten

Do we really need to know everything about Mozart?

Musicologist and record producer Maynard Solomon, in his article “Taboo and Biographical Innovation: Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert”, explores the little snippets of information we know about the lives of composers that, perhaps, we’d rather not know. Using psychoanalysis as a rationalization for the use of these taboos in the biography and study of these composers, he breaks down some of the major oversights within the documental records of the composers’ lives. In an age where hundreds of biographies have been written through the years about a single composer, Solomon makes an impassioned argument that the next frontier in the field of musicology is the juicy stuff, the flaws that reveal a deeper view of a person’s character.

Most of the taboos that Solomon discusses come from the life of Wolfgang Mozart, and though some seem to be largely irrelevant or obvious, such as whether or not Mozart ever told a lie in his life, others do illuminate Mozart’s life in an intriguing way. For example, Solomon discusses the popular perception of Mozart during his own lifetime, which was in many cases a reflection of the belief that Mozart was not an extremely innovative composer or a “genius”, but rather a conduit for the creative forces of some mysterious influence, divine or otherwise. This detail is quite relevant in the analysis of Mozart’s own view of his motivation, as well as in the analysis of his compositional style. According to Solomon, other details of Mozart’s life, such as his bawdy letters and his poor relationship with his father, are often mentioned in biographies, but are glossed over as irrelevant to the overall image of Mozart the author is trying to portray.

Another interesting biographical taboo that Solomon discusses is the ambiguous sexuality of Franz Schubert. After congratulating himself for bringing sexuality into the popular discussion of Schubert’s life, Solomon does delve into some interesting questions about why this possible interpretation of Schubert’s lifestyle had been ignored in so many biographies. Fittingly for a paper based on psychoanalysis, Solomon quotes Sigmund Freud to explain the ignorance of this and other taboos, saying “ ‘Now it is inherent in human nature to have an inclination to consider a thing untrue if one does not like it. . . . Thus society makes what is disagreeable into what is untrue’ ” (14). This Freudian analysis of the biographers reasons for excluding information about Schubert’s love life seems to be fairly reasonable, given historical societal taboos about homosexuality, but doesn’t make a strong case for why a composer’s sexuality is relevant to his music and biography.

Solomon does not necessarily reveal any new information about the composers he discusses in this article; the article actually reads as more of a meditation on the philosophy of biography. He discusses how much a person’s wishes to hide personal information should be taken into account by biographers, but ultimately comes down fiercely on the side of those who believe that every detail about a person’s life, good or bad, should be revealed, arguing that “We need not shrink from political or theological disputes. We ought not be embarrassed in the presence of transgression, desire, rage, loss, and tears” (19). However, though the musical examples he gives are certainly interesting, the article lacks a thorough argument as to why knowing some of the types of details he is so excited about advance our knowledge of a composer in any way.

A Modest Proposal for the Classical Music Industry

The new production of Richard Wagner's Ring cycle at New York's Metropolitan Opera House raises some interesting questions about the business end of classical music in contemporary society. According to Alex Ross in a recent edition of The New Yorker, the production's budget is $16 million, quite a huge amount of money, though it is spread out over 4 operas. My question is why is this much money being spent on perhaps the most popular opera of all time? So much time, effort, and money goes into making productions of operas written hundreds of years ago; it's no wonder that the average American would be unaware of any opera written within the last hundred years, or even a single American composer of opera.

This problem presents itself everywhere in the classical music industry. The big orchestral and choral organizations spend the vast majority of their time performing works by a few dozen long-dead composers that are already well known to audiences. Of course, part of the reason that these organizations feel the pressure to do this is that Mozart and Beethoven sell; even though they haven't been alive for two hundred years, they are the biggest names in classical music.

Why is this? In Mozart's time, it would have seemed ridiculous for orchestras to constantly be playing the organum of Perotin or motets by Josquin, so why is it normal for the New York Philharmonic to play so much Classical and Romantic period music? This is a self fulfilling prophecy; because organizations like the Met and the New York Philharmonic play so little contemporary music, people assume that composers today are just worse than their predecessors, or don't exist. In turn, composers are unable to make enough money to support their art, and go back to their day jobs.

To solve this problem, I have a bit of a "Modest Proposal" for the classical music industry: what if all of the big orchestras and opera houses across the nation made a pact not to play any music older than one hundred years old for the next twenty years? Of course, this is somewhat unlikely to happen, and would cause an immense blow-back from the stodgy classical music audience, but here is a case for why this would revitalize the classical music industry.

If orchestras, etc. were to commission vastly more contemporary music from American composers, it would cost more, and likely require additional support from government or private sources. However, it would ultimately not be overwhelmingly expensive (particularly in comparison with a $16 million production of the Ring), and would kick-start a "Renaissance" (rebirth) of the art of composition in American society. Playing 20th century music would forcefully acclimate audiences to the trends in the non-tonal period of music which they very well could have missed under the overwhelming layer of classical and romantic music in contemporary society. This would cause a paradigm shift in the perception of music in many people, particularly in the generation that would live their childhood through the 20 year period, and would likely alter the face of the classical music culture for decades.

Now, don't get me wrong; I love Mozart, and there is certainly a place for him in modern performance. I just wish that he left a little bit more space for the people who are actually alive today.

Music and Déjà vu

"I remember where I was when I first heard that song".

How many times have you heard or said this phrase in the last year? It is quite strange how music has this power to unconsciously unlock a visual memory that is often hidden in the back corner of our mind. In fact, I think that the memory I get of something when it is spurred on by a piece of music is often far clearer and more sentimental than if I simply tried to remember it with no prompting.

Perhaps it is even deeper than memory, however. I know when I hear certain pieces of music, they remind me of people, places, emotions I've experienced before, and general time periods rather than specific memories. Sometimes it is a piece of music that I've sung with someone, or a song they put on a mix tape for me, or even a concert that I went to with them. Music is incredibly powerful in this way that it connects people, things, sounds, and sights in our minds.


What I've been listening to today
Go by jónsi
Symphony No. 6 in F major by Ludwig van Beethoven
Symphony No. 5 by Gustav Mahler