Carl Friedrich Abel (1723-1787) v W A Mozart (1756-1791)

[kernelbogey]

Having heard a symphony by Abel on TTN, followed by a concerto by Francesco Durante (1684-1755) brought to mind a question that hovers for me around the classical canon: why is Mozart considered so much greater a composer than figures like Abel?

As I am not musically trained, but only a perceptive long-term listener to 'classical' music, I do not feel qualified to examine the technical aspects of the music - hence my question. I can appreciate, and be moved by, the mastery of Mozart's composition; I believe that he made significant innovations in, for example, the piano concerto; I know his operas to be masterpieces of lyric dramatic art.

But occasionally, listening to a work by a near contemporary such as Abel, I fall to wondering how much the musical canon - who was great, who is to be revered - was decided at some point(s) in previous centuries by unknown pundits.

The wealth of baroque music now available to us has changed my perception of the comparison: when I was discovering classical music in my teens, composers like Abel and Durante never made it onto the BBC airwaves. Come to that, nor did those of C P E Bach, as far as I can recall - though I believe he was highly revered in Mozart's time.

Access to previously unknown eighteenth century composers has not diminished my admiration for Mozart, but has perhaps reduced the degree to which I believe he should be elevated above them.

[kernelbogey]

In other words
What's so great about Mozart?

[LMcD]

One reason for Mozart's exalted status may be non-musical - perhaps he had access to, or ingratiated himself with - the 'right people', thereby increasing the chances of performances of his works by the top performers of the day. That's not to say that that success wasn't deserved, since he excelled in just about every department - symphonies, operas, works for solo performers and chamber ensembles. However, it's good that it's becoming easier to assess and promote the output of contemporaries who may have been unjustly neglected at the time and until now.
However, I would have no trouble if asked to name my favourite Mozart work - it would obviously be the Sinfonia Concertante K364.
..or the Piano Quartet K478
..or the Quintet for Piano and Winds K452
..or the 'Kegelstatt' trio K498
.. or the Piano Concerto No. 24 K491
.. or the Duo for Violin and Viola K424
.. or the String Quartet K421
Which, IMVHO, suggests that makes Mozart great is the fact that a very large proportion of his prolific output is accounted for by works that repay repeated listening with a concomitant increase in enjoyment and understanding.

[Ein Heldenleben]

It’s an interesting question isn’t it? I think you’ve partly answered it . There is scarcely an area of music in which Mozart didn’t produce several masterpieces - opera , sacred music , the full range of chamber music, the symphony. He bought from infancy to perfection a new combination the forte piano / piano concerto. He was key in the development of German opera and bought Italian opera to hitherto unscaled heights - there was nothing before to compare with the complex emotional and musical texture of Act 2 of Figaro. He excelled in forms which are now out of fashion - outdoor music , wind serenades . The list just goes on and on...

[kernelbogey]

One reason for Mozart's exalted status may be non-musical - perhaps he had access to, or ingratiated himself with - the 'right people', thereby increasing the chances of performances of his works by the top performers of the day. That's not to say that that success wasn't deserved, since he excelled in just about every department - symphonies, operas, works for solo performers and chamber ensembles. However, it's good that it's becoming easier to assess and promote the output of contemporaries who may have been unjustly neglected at the time and until now.

That's an interesting idea. Of course he was also a brilliant performer (on more than one instrument) and improviser - factors which may also have cemented his reputation.

However, I would have no trouble if asked to name my favourite Mozart work - it would obviously be the Sinfonia Concertante K364.
..or the Piano Quartet K478
..or the Quintet for Piano and Winds K452
..or the 'Kegelstatt' trio K498
.. or the Piano Concerto No. 24 K491
.. or the Duo for Violin and Viola K424
.. or the String Quartet K421

I know all of those - except I can't here and now identify the last two from memory - and agree with your assessment of all of them.

Which, IMVHO, suggests that makes Mozart great is the fact that a very large proportion of his prolific output is accounted for by works that repay repeated listening with a concomitant increase in enjoyment and understanding.

Good conclusion with which I can't disagree. I don't know if the same could be said of Abel - though it certainly IMV could be said of Haydn.

[kernelbogey]

It’s an interesting question isn’t it? I think you’ve partly answered it . There is scarcely an area of music in which Mozart didn’t produce several masterpieces - opera , sacred music , the full range of chamber music, the symphony. He bought from infancy to perfection a new combination the forte piano / piano concerto. He was key in the development of German opera and bought Italian opera to hitherto unscaled heights - there was nothing before to compare with the complex emotional and musical texture of Act 2 of Figaro. He excelled in forms which are now out of fashion - outdoor music , wind serenades . The list just goes on and on...

Do you think that his techinical expertise and fluidity endeared him to musicians and academics to the extent that he was heavily 'promoted'? I'm thinking of the Third Programme of my youth under Glock, and the choices made then of music for broadcasting.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Let's not forget that Mozart's 3rd Symphony (K.18) was composed by Abel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukImpxbXm78

[LMcD]

I forgot to mention Symphony No. 29, the Requiem, the Gran Partita, the Fantasy K448 and the Piano Trios . I have problems getting to grips with opera - my loss - but I think his mastery in that field is indisputable.

[richardfinegold]

I am sure that many of us have pondered this over the years. I remember hearing a VC by Myslivicek that was pretty good, but then spinning one by WAM right afterwards. Whereas the former had attractive tunes and stylish energy, the latter did the same but also explored many highways and byways without obviously seeming to do so. The new material seemed to grow as naturally as new elegant branches from a well manicured shrub without disturbing the harmony of the garden

[Ein Heldenleben]

Do you think that his techinical expertise and fluidity endeared him to musicians and academics to the extent that he was heavily 'promoted'? I'm thinking of the Third Programme of my youth under Glock, and the choices made then of music for broadcasting.

No not really . I think the endorsement by Haydn had much more to do with it - “Before God and as an honest man I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name; he has taste, and, furthermore, the most profound knowledge of composition.”
Just look at the other composers who venerated him Britten, Tschaikovsky , Beethoven. Of course there is a great deal of polished juvenile work that isn’t of the highest standard. I think Hans Keller pointed out that Beethoven was writing masterpieces at an earlier age than WAM. But to be honest there’s been nothing like Mozart in musical history - so much quality in so short a space of time and so much innovation in that short time - I’m thinking particularly of the later symphonies , the Da Ponte operas , and the great string quartets ( oh yes almost forgot the Piano concerti).

[LMcD]

I am sure that many of us have pondered this over the years. I remember hearing a VC by Myslivicek that was pretty good, but then spinning one by WAM right afterwards. Whereas the former had attractive tunes and stylish energy, the latter did the same but also explored many highways and byways without obviously seeming to do so. The new material seemed to grow as naturally as new elegant branches from a well manicured shrub without disturbing the harmony of the garden

I've listened to symphonies and other works by some of Mozart's contemporaries, and they're agreeably well-crafted, but - as you suggest - they soon fade from memory when followed by something by the man himself. I love your horticultural analogy!

[kernelbogey]

I love your horticultural analogy!

[kernelbogey]

I've listened to symphonies and other works by some of Mozart's contemporaries, and they're agreeably well-crafted, but - as you suggest - they soon fade from memory when followed by something by the man himself. I love your horticultural analogy!

I have recently become familiar with a small amount of the output of CPE Bach: my impression is that he would be an exception to your rule above.

[LMcD]

I have recently become familiar with a small amount of the output of CPE Bach: my impression is that he would be an exception to your rule above.

Heaven forfend that I should have the temerity to issue rules!
I've heard quite a few works by CPE Bach over the years and he hasn't - as yet - pressed my boat or floated my button, but I'm happy to keep trying. I don't shriek with horror and switch off or retune if one of his works crops up, nor do I actively look for them.

[richardfinegold]

I have recently become familiar with a small amount of the output of CPE Bach: my impression is that he would be an exception to your rule above.

CPE (KPE?) was a different story. Much of his music, once you get past the 800 or so Flute Concertos that he cranked out for his Patron, show a restless energy that almost seems to be willfully rebelling against being shoehorned into edifices with rules and regulations.