Mozart

by Ebenezer Prout

THE ART OF MOZART

In surveying Mozart's art work as a whole, one of the first things to strike the student is the comprehensiveness of his genius. There is hardly another of the great composers who has produced so many masterpieces in so many different styles. It may be at once conceded that in certain directions he has been surpassed by one or other of those who have succeeded him. Very few musicians will be found who will place him, either as a symphonist or as a writer for the piano, by the side of Beethoven; but, on the other hand, the latter is far inferior to Mozart in his treatment of the voice. Again, Mozart's songs, taken as a whole, will not compare with those of Schubert, but as an operatic composer Schubert has written nothing to approach, still less to equal, Figaro or Don Giovanni. There is hardly one department of musical composition on which the genius of Mozart has not left its mark. From this point of view, it will be scarcely too much to call him the most wonderful "all-round" musician that the world has ever yet seen.

Without underestimating his remarkable natural gifts, it can hardly be doubted that Mozart's surroundings conduced not a little to the versatility of his genius. Both in Salzburg and in Vienna Italian music was in the ascendant; and in this the vocal element was of far more importance than the instrumental. With his extraordinary power of assimilating all that was best in whatever he heard, and the almost supernatural facility in composition which seems to have come to him instinctively, it is not surprising that his earliest works show strong traces of Italian influence. This was no doubt to some extent modified by the journeys which, as a child, he made with his father to Paris and London, in which cities he learned to know much of both French and German music; but nearly to the end of his life his style, especially in his vocal music, was rather Italian than distinctively German.

One of the most striking features of Mozart's music is the perfect command of form seen in even his earliest works. He was never a great innovator in the sense in which that word may be applied to Haydn, Beethoven, or Schumann; he worked on lines that had been already laid down by others, contenting himself with improving as far as possible on his models. If his earlier operas be compared with the works of his Italian contemporaries, it will be found that the form of the songs and concerted pieces differs in no material respect from that to be seen in the operas of Cimarosa, Paisiello, or Sarti; that which distinguishes Mozart's work is its wonderful flow of melody, its perfect feeling for euphony, and the true dramatic instinct displayed wherever the libretto affords an opportunity. But his later operas, beginning with Idomeneo, stand upon an altogether higher footing. Mozart had at this time come under the influence of Gluck, whose works he had learned to know in Paris.

If we compare the score of Idomeneo with that of Gluck's Alceste, we cannot but see the similarity of style. True, Mozart's flow of melody is more abundant—we might even say more spontaneous; it is in the more dramatic treatment of the orchestra, and especially in the large amount of accompanied recitative (as distinguished from recitativo secco) that we note the resemblance. Yet while the influence of the older master is clearly to be traced, there is an essential difference in the method of the two composers. Gluck sometimes sacrifices his musical forms for dramatic effect; Mozart treats the accepted forms in such a way as to make them capable of expressing the emotions of the drama.

An important point, in which Mozart surpassed not only Gluck, but all other composers of his day, was his treatment of the orchestra. In his earlier works his employment of the instruments was somewhat conventional; but he soon freed himself from the trammels of tradition, and tried experiments in tone combination that were as new as they were striking. These novelties are to be seen less in his operas and symphonies than in his serenades and divertimenti.* It was not till his visit to Paris in 1779 that his command of orchestration reached its highest development. In his works from this time forward, whether purely instrumental, or vocal with orchestral accompaniment, are seen a richness and a feeling for beauty of colouring in advance of anything previously heard. It was the elaborate accompaniments of his operas, as compared with those of other composers of his day, that caused Gretry to reproach him with having placed the pedestal on the stage and the statue in the orchestra. At the present time we are so accustomed to the rich instrumentation of the modern school that Mozart's scores seem comparatively thin.

* As examples, may be named the serenade for two orchestras, one consisting of two violins, viola, and double-bass, and the other of string quartett and kettle-drums, and the very curious little pieces for two flutes, five trumpets, and four drums.

If we compare Mozart's instrumental works with those of Haydn, it will be seen that the difference between them is one of spirit rather than of form. Haydn's music flows on in a clear stream, of no great depth in general, but always pleasing, always intelligible, and most logical and coherent in its thematic developments. In Mozart's music the lyrical element predominates. His slow movements are in general more emotional than those of Haydn, both melody and harmony are richer, and the workmanship more finished. This statement must be taken only as a generalization, for in the later years of Haydn's life the influence of Mozart on his style is clearly to be seen, and some of the slow movements in the Salomon symphonies or the later quartetts are not unworthy to be placed by the side of Mozart's best. On the other hand, we find in Haydn's minuets and finales an element of humour, sometimes even of broad fun, which is rarely seen in Mozart's instrumental music, though abundant enough in the lighter scenes of his operas.

With a few important exceptions, Mozart's pianoforte works do not rank among his greatest achievements. Many of his sonatas, variations, etc., were written for his pupils, and possess little more than historical interest. Mozart lived at the transitional period in which the harpsichord was giving place to the piano, and in his earlier sonatas, etc., the style of harpsichord music is often to be seen. Yet some of his later works for the piano, such as the two fantasias in C minor, the sonatas in B flat and C minor, the rondo in A minor, and the adagio in B minor, though now, owing to the changes in popular taste, seldom heard, are far from deserving the neglect into which they have fallen. The same may be said of the best sonatas for piano and violin, and of many of the concertos. It is hardly a generation since the latter were often to be heard in public; the modern love of sensationalism and of display for its own sake seems to have banished them—it is to be hoped not permanently—from the concert room.