4 ms·
Context and exposure matter in art, they matter a lot. Mozart's requiem for example, is probably the "Mona Lisa" of classical music, everyone knows it's a famou
by mojuba 11y ago
Context and exposure matter in art, they matter a lot. Mozart's requiem for example, is probably the "Mona Lisa" of classical music, everyone knows it's a famous work, that it's great and that it's Mozart. Except it's not. We know today that Mozart wrote only the introduction and also only a few lines for some of the other parts. The rest was secretly completed by Mozart's disciples, most notably F.X. Süssmayr. Mozart was sick at the time but he was expecting a payment for the work (freelance, haha), so his disciples helped him to finish the work and get the money.
The result is that, Mozart's requiem is mostly incredibly boring. Beethoven even called it "amateurish" without knowing the details. The few beautiful parts that you can't not like is indeed Mozart, but the rest is not.
It's the context of Mozart's tragic and mysterious death, and the exposure that makes his requiem one of the "greatest" classical pieces, more so than the music itself.
- StavrosK 11y agoDo you know which parts are Mozart? I'd be interested to hear.
- eternalban 11y agoMusic and architecture have quite a bit in common. A master in either field, should s/he choose to transfer methodology and technique, can effectively provide a ~deterministic methodology for creating works to disciples. The entire work is Mozart's. The genius in such fields is precisely the act of arriving at such a methodology.
- Steko 11y ago> The few beautiful parts that you can't not like is indeed Mozart, but the rest is not. This strikes me as a bit too much in the vein of Pritchard's Understanding Poetry [1]. Sussmyer et al are not in Mozart's league for sure but the notion (and I'm exaggerating here not trying to straw man you) that near every note he wrote is false and everthing Mozart touched is gold is also a bit silly [2]. [1] Featured in a memorable scene in Dead Poets Society, If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. [2] again and again scholars have rationalized why this or that bit of the piece was “inferior” and therefore Sussmayr, only for later historical or analytical information to come to light which proves it had to be Mozart. http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2009/04/05/who-wrote-the-mozart-requiem/comment-page-1/ http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2009/04/05/who-wrote-the-mozar...
- mojuba 11y agoI uncovered the whole story after hearing Süssmayr on radio accidentally. It sounded so much like Mozart, but was clearly inferior. I didn't know it was S. until the host announced who it was. I started googling and found some research on requiem (though the piece on radio was S's own work). At least for me it finally explained why I never managed to listen to requiem in its entirety without getting bored, depending on the performance too, of course. It's all very subjective, but yes, everything Mozart touched is gold, and the rest is a matter of taste. Beethoven didn't like it, for example :)
- Steko 11y agoI agree it's uneven and not as good as Mozart's other celebrated works. But I think all the great composers have lots of uneven pieces as it is without resorting to (often speculative) excuses as to why, they just are. As for Beethoven, actually his famous reply to learning of the authorship issue was 'If Mozart did not write the music, then the man who wrote it was a Mozart.'