RE: Drei Worte zu Mozart und Chopin
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my post...
You seem to prefer the structured, German–symphonic approach to music (more intellectually constructed than emotionally driven). Or maybe I’m just half-blind and misreading you...
My view simply different. I’m drawn to the emotional dimension: the way music comes alive in the hands of the interpreter, the way it speaks to listeners. That was the spirit of my post, not a historical ranking of composers, but how Pires restores meaning, dignity, and life to the pieces she touches.
I understand your admiration for Bach, Haydn, Handel, and Beethoven, and I don’t disagree with their importance. But I’m not sure it’s fair to say Mozart and Chopin are not among the great composers of their centuries. Even though Mozart died young, his ideas shaped what came after him - especially in opera, harmony, and orchestration. His influence outlived him.
As for Chopin, it’s difficult not to see him as a central figure of the Romantic era. I’m not a musicologist, but most of piano culture today -teaching, performance, competitions - still revolves around his work. That suggests he shaped the direction of music just as much as the other major composers of his time.
Also... why do I feel like you might actually be Shatov?..
That is right, my commenting post was only triggered by some words of your post:
From hence I marched through some history of music. This has at first hand nothing to do with emotional versus intellectual dimensions of the respective music.
On the second look, I speak from emotional dimensions in referring to 'taste' versus 'experience'.
More generally spoken - in music there is no either - or in regard to intellectual versus emotional dimensions. Simplified you could say, composing is an intellectual doing to gain emotional reactions, but this would not touch the quality of the resulting works themselves.
They are, but not as the very greatest. Their influence on music history as a measure for greatness leaves especially Chopin in the shadow of others. His oeuvre is estimated mostly for brilliance of his sound and in regard to competitions for rhythmic complexity. This presence in piano culture does not make his works great (as millions of sold CDs by someone like Ludovico Einaudi do not make him a great composer). The suggestion, Chopin would have "shaped the direction of music just as much as the other major composers of his time" is not applicable.
Mozart's operas were exemplary, as I mentioned. His harmonies and orchestrations - help me, proof me wrong - did not go beyond Haydn's and were outranged by Beethoven's. What Mozart did beyound Haydn was to evolve the higher dramatic gesture in instrumental music, derived by his opera work, and in this gained much influence on Beethoven.
[edit]
Shatov asks what this could mean. Especially in the context of Maria Joao Pires who was not an opera singer.
I appreciate your perspective - it’s clear you have a deeper background in music theory than I do. I’m coming at this from a general listener’s standpoint, so my view is naturally different.
When I said “German symphonic approach,” I simply meant music where emotion is carried through structure like long pieces that unfold like a story. Some people love the architectural, intellectual side of music; others connect more to the immediate emotional expression. Both are completely valid.
And about Maria João Pires:
I wasn’t referring to opera at all. I only meant that her playing leans toward intimate, emotional storytelling rather than grand symphonic architecture.
It’s just the impression I got from your comments: you seem to lean toward structure and innovation as the core measure of “greatness” - mentioning dramatic arcs, formal development, and naming Bach, Handel, and Haydn as the primary giants of the 18th century. That’s a respectable musical lens.
I guess from a technical, historical viewpoint, your argument makes sense. From a listener’s and performer’s lens, Mozart and Chopin feel like giants, not “secondary” ones. I think both viewpoints can coexist.
I did not want to destroy a listener's ranking, especially be it a personal one. My 'heroes' have not to be the greatest among their professions. Speaking of some kind of greatness makes presumptions and needs criteria, and speaking of my personal favorites uses other 'presumpteria'. So, if the music of a given composer overwhelms me, I may feel for him (or her) as would she / he be a giant. This is very okay.
But my feelings are feelings and not a viewpoint. My feelings can coexist with the viewpoint of other composers to be greater, since my feelings are nearer to me then other people's thoughts, arguments, and viewpoints.
Formal development has been meant as a historical process which you can not immediately hear while listening to a piece of music. If you are trained in historical evolvements, you will be able to recognise some elements, and then it is possible that your emotions by such intellectual knowing get deeper then before.
Dramatic arcs on the other hand are at first hand of emotional quality. You can experience them rather than reflecting on them.
The last five or six or seven symphonies of Mozart show such dramatic arcs and in this way they are emotionally deeper than his symphonies before.
Chopin's piano concertos show lacks while the construction of such arcs. If you listen attentively you will remark it. But this is of course no 'must do'!
I didn't feel like you were destroying anything. And even if you did, it wouldn't change my personal ranking - I'm already convinced of what I like and I don't need anyone else's approval for that.
But your historical and technical points did open my eyes. They gave me a new way to listen - it lets me appreciate parts of the music I wasn’t paying attention to before. So yes, it’s a new perspective, and a useful one, I think.
Thanks for sharing these points! I'm glad to read these - both, of course. ;-)
This is greatly performed.
Nevertheless a piece of music at the very border to kitsch.
Borderline kitsch or not, it still hits the emotions nicely for me... :-)
Yes, that is the 'correct' perspective:
What you like and what you don't ought not to be influenced by categories like kitsch.
Kitsch or not is an interesting question, but rather a question of theory of art and aesthetics.
The essential approach for non-artists as for artists is the respect of myself in regard to some kind of self-awareness:
What do I like and why?
Am I the fast food guy?
Do I prefer just easy listening?
Or will some deep dive be my thing?
This is Dvořák’s Serenade for Strings. I enjoy it a lot, but I only discovered it recently, so I don’t know much about his history or technical background. I'm curious how you view it - or how you go about dissecting a performance like this - and whether you think it was a good one.
Perhaps I'll begin with this one...
This will take some time...
Since I'm not familiar with the Serenade for Strings and also not with other works by Dvořák and last not with himself, I will have to read something about his oeuvre (concerning the question, how this Serenade for Strings is embedded in this oeuvre), and I will have to listen to this piece and to pieces from the compositional neighbourhood. Maybe I will take a look into the score, and as soon as I have a first impression or an opinion, I could furthermore go into some musicological literature about this piece. But first steps first...
So that’s what the first steps are - far more thorough than I expected and a lot of work.
Apologies... I didn’t mean to burden you with extra work. I honestly thought you already knew the piece. Take all the time you need, and if it’s not possible, that’s perfectly fine. I’ll take some time to explore more of Dvořák’s music as well, so I can (at the very least) follow your thoughts when you share them.
Here we go...
https://steemit.com/hive146118/@ty-ty/der-dvorak-code-or-the-dvorak-code
It is a performance so great that one is 'allowed' to ignore the quality of the piece.
(Which I not did regard as kitschy but on the border to it.)