Years ago, I saw the movie “AMADEUS”, which of course deals with the conflict between Salieri (the official court composer to the emperor of Austria), and the musical genius Mozart. The movie claims that Salieri was consumed by jealousy of Mozart, and determined to kill him (Mozart) by destroying his reputation. Later, I heard that Salieri and Mozart were real rivals, and that there was a musical competition held in Vienna, at the behest of the emperor. According to the author, Salieri won (he was preferred to Mozart by most of the populace). This made me interested, so I managed to find some of Salieri’s music. To me, it sounded a LOT like Mozart’s! So is this all hype-was Mozart really that much better a composer, or is it just an accident of history that it is MOZART who is so revered today?
Why did poor Salieri fall into such disfavor-according to his contemporaries, he was almost as prolific as his rival. If both men were around today, how would music critics judge their worth?
I love “Amadeus”. I just picked up the DVD. I read the play over and over before I finally saw it on Broadway (Frank Langella played Salieri). It’s great play and movie (the two, although both written by Peter Schaeffer, are VERY different), but you shouldn’t mistake it for reality. Schaeffer didn’t intend either his play or his screenplay to be a real depiction of the lives of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Antonio Salieri. All of his plays seem to be about God and Man, and the relationship between them. Although nominally based on historic incidents, Schaeffer has no problem with screwing around with history to make his points.
So “The Royal Hunt of the Sun” isn’t really about Francisco Pizzaro and Atahuallpa and the conquest of the Incas – it’s about God and Man. “Equus” isn’t about an English boy who blinded six horses in his care – it’s about God and Man. And “Amadeus” isn’t really about either Mozart or Salieri. Why, after all, did he call it “Amadeus”, rather than “Mozart”, or “Salieri” for that matter? Because “Amadeus” means “God Loves”. God and Man.
This is really clear in both the Movie and the Play. The character of Salieri believes that Goodness is rewarded by artistic success. Until Mozart comes along and disproves the equation. Infantile, childish, boorish, self-serving, scatological, seducing Mozart has the supreme gift of music, while pious, self-sacrificing, proper Salieri does not. He recognizes Mozart’s consummate skill before his contemporaries do, and is condemned to see his fame fade away while Mozart’s grows. So he wages war on God. This is what Schaeffer wanted to do in his play, and he does so without regard for the real characters of Salieri and Mozart. I don’t honestly know how virtuous Salieri was or how undeserving Mozart was, but I’d try and find a different source on it.
After the play became a success it fostered a new interest in the work of Salieri. Concerts were given. Records appeared. You can hear some of Salieri’s music in the Movie. I’d suggest it sounds “the same” to modern ears because it is all in the style of the time and place, but that to contemporary ears (or to the ears of a present-day enthusiast of that style)they seemed very distinguishable. Despite the boost, “Salieri” music hasn’t caught on. I never hear it played on the Classical stations, although I do hear a lot of Mozart. So even with the advantage of a modern media boost Mozart wins out. I don’t know if Salieri’s was any better in a theoretical sense, or on some cosmic scale of values, but Mozart’s has proven to be more popular.
This is really an IMHO. Anyway, Mozart was better.
By the way, the whole thing about the guy in the mask showing up and demanding the Requiem Mass? It’s true. It wasn’t Salieri, though. I can’t remember who it was, but it is public knowledge. There really was someone who did that.
I prefer Mozart myself. =)
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
egkelly wrote:
So did everyone else’s music at the time.
The differences in style between one composer and any of his/her contemporaries is always going to be a lot smaller than the differences in style between the music of one period and the music of a different period. Both Mozart and Salieri (and, for that matter, Haydn and early Beethoven) wrote during the “classical” period, which lasted approximately from 1750-1800. Everybody in the classical period was obsessed with the “sonata” form – it was the “in” thing to have the movements of your symphonies, string quartets, and even operatic arias follow the rules of the Sonata Form. Furthermore, certain harmonic progressions were “in the air” at the time and used by all.
Personally, I prefer the music of the Romantic period (1800-1900), particularly the early Romantic period.
The story is basically true, though I’m not sure about the mask part. From the San Jose Symphony site:
There’s additional details of the history of the Requiem about 1/3 of the way down the page.
As an artist I know how subjective these things are.
That said, Mozart was waaay better than Salieri. I don’t know what it is, or how, but there is magic in Mozart’s music that is absent in most other music–in almost all other artistic creations, by anyone.
When I hear music from that period and wonder if it might be Mozart, I kind of squint my ears, if you know what I mean, and listen for magic: if I can sense a kind of supernatural beauty within the music, I know it’s Mozart. If that’s not there–if it’s just music–it’s not Mozart. This works every time.
I’m an atheist, but the times I doubt that most are when I’m listening to Mozart: I just can’t fathom that essence coming from as corrupt a source as humanity.
lissener wrote:
I knew somebody would come up with a way to keep this thread in Great Debates. 
My take on the emotional power of really good music: No “outside source,” divine or otherwise, is necessary. All the music is doing is getting you in touch with feelings that were already there inside you. If Mozart’s music really were divinely inspired, it should have an emotional impact on just about everybody, and clearly not everyone – not even every classical music enthusiast – is moved by Mozart’s music. (Including myself. As far as I’m concerned, Beethoven could kick Mozart’s butt any day of the week.)
Mozart vs. Salieri: I have listened to enough of Salieri’s music to form a view that Mozart’s music was significantly better. Not that Salieri’s was bad, by any means – he was a more than competent court composer, whose music met the aesthetic demands of his audience.
Mozart was more clever in his approach. He understood the musical conventions of the era, and played around with them. It’s not that he did anything particularly new or radical; it’s more that he understood how the music worked and thus was better at putting it together. I could express this in more technical music theory terms, but I haven’t the time and I doubt it would add much to the debate.
Mozart vs. Beethoven: That’s a little harder. Mozart was very much a synthesizer – he took what was already there and adapted it to his purposes. You can see as he gets older and is exposed to various styles how he incorporates new elements into his music. His early work sounds very much like that of Johann Christian Bach (youngest son of J.S.Bach), whom he met and studied with in London. Mozart adopted elements of Italian music, of French music, and even, later in his life, Baroque counterpoint. And he put all these bits together in a way that worked.
Beethoven was more an innovator. He started from the style of the time and stretched it to acheive the sound he wanted. Beethoven’s composition process was laborious – his extant notebooks show a lot of crossing out, changed passages, places where what he’d originally written was fine but what he’d changed it to was better. Mozart didn’t do that.
Now if you want a real debate, let’s talk Mozart vs. Pergolesi (1710-1736). Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater, some of which you can hear over the flashback of Salieri’s childhood in Amadeus, defined the style of sacred motet writing for a century, and his Intermezzo La serva padrona served as an influential precursor of opera buffa. All that before his untimely death at age 26.
One voice teacher I knew had a theory that Franz Schubert was the reincarnation of W.A. Mozart:[ul][li]Schubert was born shortly after Mozart died.[/li][li]Schubert studied under Antonio Salieri, whom he later surpassed.[/li][li]Schubert and Mozart were both highly prolific composers; Mozart wrote some 600 works in his lifetime, and Schubert wrote over 900.[/li][li]Both Schubert and Mozart were prolific because they were able to “hear” a completed piece in their head, with all the parts already mapped out, and then merely take “dictation” of what they imagined.[/li]Both Schubert and Mozart died in their 30s; Mozart at 35, and Schubert at 31.[/ul]The only difference between them was that Schubert heard the music of Beethoven a few years before he died, and it temporarily sent him into a kind of compositional paralysis – he suddenly had a much higher standard against which to judge his own work.
. . . except Mozart and Schubert created music with such different personalities. Schubert is dryly intellectual: try as I might, I can’t find any emotional depth to get a hook on in Schubert’s music. Mozart, on the other hand, is emotionally vibrant: playful, mournful, whatever–but always alive and breathing.
I always thought that Tom Hulce should have won the Oscar instead of F. Damn Murray Freakin’ Abraham…
Oh, you mean…ah, well. Carry on.
Up front, I LOVE Mozart’s music, and I consider him one of the most brilliant composers who ever lived. What follows is NOT meant to downgrade his music in any way.
Mozart has a grip on people’s imaginations that no other composer seems to have. (Heck, you don’t see Peter Shaffer writing plays about Bach or Purcell, do you?) And that’s only PARTLY because of his music. I think Mozart’s status depends in large measure on his legend: the 5 year old who played the harpsichord for the emperor, the 12 year old who wrote an opera, the potty-mouth genius who lived fast, died young, and left a good-looking corpse.
Mozart left behind an extremely impressive body of work… but I happen to think Haydn’s complete works are even MORE impressive. But while nearly all music aficionados ADMIRE Haydn, no one romanticizes him, as they do Mozart. After all, apart from his magnificent music, Haydn was a rather ordinary, unremarkable 18th century craftsman. He didn’t drink, carouse, or seduce women. He didn’t smoke opium. He wasn’t a political revolutionary. He was a simple, professional musician, in the employ of a Count, and he was grateful to the Count for the opportunity to make a living with his music (indeed, Haydn often wrote that he wished Mozart would attach himself to a suitable nobleman, so that he could concentrate 100% on music).
I think Haydn is underappreciated precisely because his personality was so much more subdued than Mozart’s, and because he lived such a conventional life. And, oddly, Mozart seems a much grander figure because of the life he led.
Incidentally, I think that Mozart’s childhood accomplishments, though quite remarkable, are FAR less impressive than his work as an adult. Face it, we’ve all seen countless child prodigies in many fields- but how many 5 year old violinists grow up to become concert masters? How many 5 year olds who can dribble a basketball (you see such kiddies on “The Tonight Show” all the time) grow up to be NBA stars? Fact is, if Mozart had died at the age of 20, he would be all-but-unknown today. Yes, he wrote an opera at 12, but how many people even know its title? How often do opera companies perform it?
As magnificent as Mozart’s music is, I suspect his legend is based as much on romantic balderdash as it is on his work.
Just checking in to agree on this point.
I don’t think it’s likely that your average person 300 years ago, or 300 years in the future for that matter, would be able to distinguish Guns ‘N’ Roses from Poison, Led Zeppelin from Van Halen, or Steppenwolf from Slade. All they would be able to distinguish is the general form: a lead vocalist, between one and three guitars, and a bass guitar, all with electronic distortion.
Hell, ask my grandmother if she can tell the differences, and she’ll tell you that it all sounds like the same noise. And that’s just a couple generations’ difference.
You really have to be immersed in the music to be able to recognize it properly, and I bet to the people of the 1700s, Mozart and Salieri sounded as different as Rush and Cinderella do to us.
But what about the competition? Suppoosedly, the Emperor Francis Joeseph decide to hold a public competition between the two composers; this was open to the public, and also judged by a panel of eminent musicologists of the day. According to the late Rober Lursema, Salieri was judged the winner! So is it possible, that Mozart’s fame owes more to subsequent history?
Let’s revive Salieri!
Any mediums out there? What do the two rivals say from the netherworld?
lissener wrote:
You’ve “obviously” spent too much time listening to Schubert’s symphonies, and not enough time listening to Schubert’s Lieder. Ever heard Fritz Wunderlich’s recording of Die Schöne Müllerin? Rrrrowr!
I heard on a radio program once that Salieri was a pretty decent guy. In fact he took care of Mozarts wife after he died.
The differences really are not that great. Mozart took existing music and added various existing elements into it, changing them into something new.
Beethoven started seeming the same way, but instead of combining set styles and elements he “created” new ways to alter it.
It can seem that these two are drastically different with Mozart merely “borrowing” from others, while Beethoven does something new and radical.
To me (And this is an IMHO) creativity is merely taking pieces of existing works and thoughts anyhow. So (To me) what these two different composers did was not so different from on another. (Would be a great debate to start, if it hasn’t been done already… “Where does creativity come from”)
Beethoven has a taste of the teenage rebel in his music, while Mozart has that more sophisticated air of wine and pipe smoke.
Tracer beat me to it. Schubert has plenty of emotional depth, thank you very much. Nothing dry about Erlkonig or Gretchen am Spinnrade or Der Tode und das Madchen or… I could go on all night.
As far as Mozart and Salieri are concerned, Mozart’s harmonic language is, in general, more sophisticated than Salieri’s. IMO, it’s partly because Mozart was a better musician, but it also has to do with a difference in style. Salieri’s style is Italianate while Mozart’s has a mixture of German and French influence as well. The German style has tended to focus more on harmony and polyphony, while the Italian style tends more toward a focus on the melody (particularly when it’s a vocal line) with relatively simple accompaniment. Mozart has a wonderful melodic gift, so he combines the best of both (several) worlds. I think that adds more layers for the educated* listener to “chew on.” You can come back to Mozart over and over, and each time discover something new. I haven’t found that with Salieri, for the most part, although much of his music is delightful.
Mozart also has a wonderful sense of drama and characterization in his operas – and in his symphonies, too, in the way his melodies “sing” and the way the orchestral drama of the sonata form unfolds. He didn’t break with tradition, like Beethoven (as others have mentioned already), but he was extremely good at manipulating the inherited forms. So was Haydn.
Mozart’s orchestration is more inventive than Salieri’s (at least in his operas, which are all I’ve compared), partly thanks to the wonderful Mannheim orchestra that gave him the opportunity to try new and innovative orchestration.
rivulus
*By “educated” I don’t mean necessarily trained in school, etc. but having listened to plenty of that kind of music, so it’s in your ear and you have a deeper understanding of the language and structure of Classical style.
OK, first of all, I agree that we should get more of a chance to hear Salieri, and lots of other marginalized composers – if only to have a chance to make up our own minds what we like.
However, claiming that Salieri was better than Mozart based on the judgment of that illustrious panel is rather like claiming the films selected by the Academy as winners are better than films that don’t win. It ain’t necessarily so. I’d be a bit skeptical about that.
rivulus