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

[MickyD]

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.

As a great lover of CPE Bach, I must take issue with the "800 or so Flute Concertos" accusation - Quantz was the one who churned them out for Frederik the Great. About 400, I believe.

Just have a listen to the cello concerti to understand why CPE was rather special and indeed admired by so many in his time.

[Edgy 2]

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.

I often wonder who decided which are the really great composers and which the also rans.
I get so much pleasure, often even more, from listening to the so called unsung composers.

[Tony Halstead]

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.

As far as I know, Abel didn't write nearly 30 piano concertos, 40-odd symphonies and numerous operas.
It's an 'almost invalid' comparison.
A much more apposite one would have been with Johann Christian Bach, who was, as we know, Abel's 'business partner' for many years.
JCB must surely have had Abel's cello skills in mind (although C.F.A. was a celebrated viola da gamba player) when he wrote many of his superb 'Symphonies Concertantes' featuring some very demanding and sprightly cello solos. In his composing skills, Abel's lovely 6 Symphonies Op.17 are superior in their technique to JCB's first set (his Op. 3) and are at least the equal of of the latter's Opp 6, 8 and 9, yielding only to Bach's masterful Op.18 set with its 3 wonderful 'double orchestra' Symphonies.

[kernelbogey]

As far as I know, Abel didn't write nearly 30 piano concertos, 40-odd symphonies and numerous operas.
It's an 'almost invalid' comparison.
A much more apposite one would have been with Johann Christian Bach, who was, as we know, Abel's 'business partner' for many years.
JCB must surely have had Abel's cello skills in mind (although C.F.A. was a celebrated viola da gamba player) when he wrote many of his superb 'Symphonies Concertantes' featuring some very demanding and sprightly cello solos. In his composing skills, Abel's lovely 6 Symphonies Op.17 are superior in their technique to JCB's first set (his Op. 3) and are at least the equal of of the latter's Opp 6, 8 and 9, yielding only to Bach's masterful Op.18 set with its 3 wonderful 'double orchestra' Symphonies.

Fair enough, Tony: my comparison was simply (in my OP) prompted by hearing an Abel work on TTN.

As others have indicated, the thought about Mozart's excellence and superiority is not an uncommon one; and surfaced for me on that occasion.

I'm reminded of the scene in Schaffer's Amadeus where, to the accompaniment of the oboe theme from the Gran Partita, Salieri speculates about the (literally) God-given genius of Mozart. As an atheist, I interpret that, for myself, as his having some quintessential human gift, available perhaps to others, although rarely to such a degree. We might speculate that such abundant gifts are but rarely bestowed on humans, and that excellence in other fields than music may be on a par: Michelangelo, say, Einstein, Shakespeare....

[Ein Heldenleben]

Fair enough, Tony: my comparison was simply (in my OP) prompted by hearing an Abel work on TTN.

As others have indicated, the thought about Mozart's excellence and superiority is not an uncommon one; and surfaced for me on that occasion.

I'm reminded of the scene in Schaffer's Amadeus where, to the accompaniment of the oboe theme from the Gran Partita, Salieri speculates about the (literally) God-given genius of Mozart. As an atheist, I interpret that, for myself, as his having some quintessential human gift, available perhaps to others, although rarely to such a degree. We might speculate that such abundant gifts are but rarely bestowed on humans, and that excellence in other fields than music may be on a par: Michelangelo, say, Einstein, Shakespeare....

Although I find Amadeus an enjoyable romp it is about as accurate a portrayal of the origins of Mozart’s genius and his work as Mel Brook’s High Anxiety is as an analysis of contemporary psychiatry. The real story ( as far as it can be pinned down ) is so much more interesting.

[gurnemanz]

I've been enjoying Leopold Koželuch (1747-1818) beautifully played on a fortepiano by Jenny Soonjin Kim - a labour of love on her part and another good turn done to us by Brilliant Classics. Presto has the complete Sonatas on 12 CDs on offer. I got the download which is surely worth a fiver of anyone's cash.

[kernelbogey]

Although I find Amadeus an enjoyable romp it is about as accurate a portrayal of the origins of Mozart’s genius and his work as Mel Brook’s High Anxiety is as an analysis of contemporary psychiatry. The real story ( as far as it can be pinned down ) is so much more interesting.

Yes, mein Held, I know that - but Schaffer is having the same thought about Mozart's genius as others in this thread, no? - just putting the words into the mouth of his creation.

[kernelbogey]

I've been enjoying Leopold Koželuch (1747-1818) beautifully played on a fortepiano by Jenny Soonjin Kim - a labour of love on her part and another good turn done to us by Brilliant Classics. Presto has the complete Sonatas on 12 CDs on offer. I got the download which is surely worth a fiver of anyone's cash.

I do wonder at the many astonishngly prolific composers from eighteenth century Bohemia: was it something in the water?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes, mein Held, I know that - but Schaffer is having the same thought about Mozart's genius as others in this thread, no? - just putting the words into the mouth of his creation.

Who knows where genius comes from? I don’t think it’s anything to do with God otherwise we’d have to blame Him for everything . Did Hitler have a God- given talent for waging war ? What about my God-given talent for singing Wagner ? One thing we can say about musicians with a degree of certainty is that there are a large number of very talented musicians who had talented parents. Mozart had excellent musical training from a very young age but then so did a lot other musicians who didn’t go on to write the finale of the Jupiter.

[MickyD]

As far as I know, Abel didn't write nearly 30 piano concertos, 40-odd symphonies and numerous operas.
It's an 'almost invalid' comparison.
A much more apposite one would have been with Johann Christian Bach, who was, as we know, Abel's 'business partner' for many years.
JCB must surely have had Abel's cello skills in mind (although C.F.A. was a celebrated viola da gamba player) when he wrote many of his superb 'Symphonies Concertantes' featuring some very demanding and sprightly cello solos. In his composing skills, Abel's lovely 6 Symphonies Op.17 are superior in their technique to JCB's first set (his Op. 3) and are at least the equal of of the latter's Opp 6, 8 and 9, yielding only to Bach's masterful Op.18 set with its 3 wonderful 'double orchestra' Symphonies.

You are as modest as ever, Tony - your recording of the beautiful Op.17 symphonies with the Hanover Band does them great justice.

[LMcD]

This evening's concert on Radio 3 comprises works from 1771 by Mozart and his contemporaries (sadly, no Abel).

[kernelbogey]

On TTN, the last item today was Mozart's Trio for piano and strings in C major (K.548), played by Trio Orlando.

I therefore had the extraordinary pleasure of hearing a work by Mozart for the first time, bringing my thoughts back to the theme of this thread. I thought that this piece, while not top-notch Wolfgang, was nonetheless very good. Though perhaps if it had been by another composer it might be rated much more highly.

In other words, different standards of judgement between Mozart and others.

[RichardB]

Whether one thinks Mozart's work stands head and shoulders above everything else being written in his time depends to a great extent on what one is looking for in music. If it's a question of "tunefulness" or "elegance" or many related adjectives then of course there are plenty of late 18th century composers whose work stands comparison with at least half of Mozart's large output. In any case it's surely somewhat blinkered to subscribe to a "great men" theory of musical history, according to which composers are divided between true masters and also-rans. Mozart's reputation, though, isn't principally based on the majority of his work, which with the best will in the world doesn't rise that far above what many of his contemporaries were doing, but on a relatively few examples of music whose expressive complexity is unique, not just for its time but for any other, although you have to be in tune with it to hear it, it's something that's often taking place as it were "between" the notes rather than straightforwardly "in" them. As we see explicitly in the libretto of Figaro, Mozart is beginning to put individuality and expressive freedom at the centre of his musical thinking in a way that few composers had been in a position to do so before him, because he was born and grew up at a time when the longstanding feudal order could be at least questioned, even if the revolutionary message of Beaumarchais' original play had had to be excised in order for da Ponte's libretto to pass the Viennese censor. In general, Mozart's da Ponte operas explore the emotional complexities of their characters in a way that no other composer of the time was even interested in doing. Not everyone appreciates opera, of course; but this kind of sensitivity is also present in his instrumental music.

[Barbirollians]

I was interested by the reference to Hans Keller saying Beethoven wrote masterpieces at a younger age than Mozart.

I suppose it might depend on what Keller regarded as a masterpiece. I cannot think of anything Beethoven wrote before 1791 that comes within hailing distance of Mozart's Piano Concerto No 9 K271 - which is one of his very best works and which he wrote in 1777 when he was 21.

[RichardB]

I was interested by the reference to Hans Keller saying Beethoven wrote masterpieces at a younger age than Mozart.

That's just HK being typically provocative, isn't it? It might also be said (accepting for a moment that "masterpiece" has a distinct meaning, which I don't think it does) that Purcell, JS Bach, Schubert and Shostakovich all wrote masterpieces at a younger age than Mozart.