Mozart knew perfectly well that he was using Clementi’s theme in the overture to The Magic Flute. Clementi knew it too. Beethoven used the opening of the Mozart 25th symphony in his first piano sonata. It’s obvious and was intentional. It was standard back then.Serious music isn’t about the material but what you do with it.
As for Mozart not writing anything to keep your interest...what music from the second half of the 18th century do you find interesting? Usually people who say that don’t like Gluck or Haydn either (they don’t like the period).
I’m sure you know more about that than I do. I just know what would happen with me. I first thought it with the 4th Movement of Beethovens 5th, the 1st of the 3rd Brandenburg and a piece by Vivaldi I can’t recall the name of....I think it’s somewhere in the Four Seasons. Anyway, It wasn’t worth lifting so I’ve always assumed it was the accident I described or coincidence. And then you see it everywhere.
Gluck...I don’t turn him off. Hayden though, is interesting. His writing’s fine but I find none of it compelling or exhilerating. Mostly he’s relaxing or, not there. I mean, it’s playing but I don’t hear it and I never fill in his blanks. And what’s really weird about Hayden is that I can’t remember any of his music. Literally nothing.
But then the next clown, Beethoven, I know all his symphonies....except for the movements where he was bored and getting it out of the way so he could get to what was interesting...to what he was seeing.
But serious music is........practice. Or showing off/one-upping....or trying to spark something. Or....just having no vision. Bartok’s a perfect example: terrific structure but you look at it and it’s gibberish. I always thought, “I hope this wasn’t what he was seeing.” But then again, maybe I just can’t understand what he saw. But that wouldn’t make sense because the structure’s there.
Anyway, once the vision starts, the serious stuff is over. The screwing around or dullness stops and gaps start opening. Like the Hallelujah chorus...it’s full of holes. Handel couldn’t get all of what he saw down on paper. So you can fill in parts he obviously missed...but of course, you’re only getting a better view. Only he got to see the whole thing.
The stuff that gets put on paper by composers - that’s widely compelling - is never what they saw. I feel bad for a lot of these guys because they missed out on recording equipment. On paper I never get close because it takes so long, and you lose it...or you end up with a variation of what you saw. But when you can improvise the piano part and then go back and do the flute and then the oboe and you know, drive down the staves, you get a lot closer. And it’s a blast. THEN, you get to hear it. Right now. And that’s.......I don’t know. There’s no describing that. It’s like trying to describe sex.
Huh. I’m just going off. Anyway. Whatever.
Mozart’s only problem was polyphony. He was barren in the middle. As opposed to Bach, who was so rich you can remove the melody and still have a coherent, fine piece of music.
“Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” is a great example. Remove the melody and slow it down, and it’s every bit as gorgeous as it is when performed normal in the cantata.
Well....according to the score, it is.
And Mozart’s jokes were....”Ya, I get it. I just wasn’t funny.”