Oh thank heaven- for Mozart and Messiaen!!! Before I begin this fantastic post, let me begin by acknowledging that most of you have seen the movie 'Amadeus' and/or have heard- in passing or actually sat down and listened to Mozart's Requiem. Let me also say that everything you think you know about the origins of the Requiem is apocryphal to the last letter!
The correct history of the writing of the Requiem is actually far more interesting than the version most people think they know.
Didn't Mozart write the requiem for himself as a plot by another composer to destroy the musical genius and take the composition as his own? No, No, No and No.
Mozart DIDN'T write the requiem? you're probably asking me in disbelief- Hello, it's called Mozart's Requiem for a REASON! Well, yes and no. Mozart did not write the entire thing- he wrote the first 2-3 pieces fully for sure, made basic sketches of a few others- vocal lines for 4-8 bars, string parts in ostinato etc.., and was dead by the time the other pieces needed to be written.
Here's the REAL story in a nutshell:
Rich Count' wife dies. he commissions 2 works of art in memorial tribute to her. One, a statue- the other a Requiem Mass. Rich count sends his steward to Mozart to commission the work from him- secretly. Mozart dies before it is even CLOSE to being complete and Mrs.Mozart begs other composers to finnish the work for her so the money will be paid- she needs $$$. 3 composers turn her down because they recognize the enormity of the challenge- c'mon, could YOU complete a Mass half finished from the most famous composer in your country? Only one student finally agrees- Sussmayer. The requiem most often performed is the Sussmayer completion, although there have been others. Sussmayer finishes the music, copied the entire thing out in his own hand and Mrs.Mozart delivers it to Rich Count- who then copies it in HIS hand and tries to pass it off as HIS composition to his dead wife. This doesn't work AT ALL, but there you go.
Antonio Salieri NEVER had anything to do with any kind of plot to kill Mozart for personal gain- thank you Amadeus.
Also, the bit about Mozart thinking he was writing his own Requiem is only partially apocryphal. At the end of his short but productive life, he was suffering greatly from depression and wrote that he felt his death approaching as he composed the R.
But enough about death.
The music itself was HEAVENLY. The power really cannot be talked about in any acceptable terms. Listening to a recording is a mere pittance for the energy and raw emotional POWER that is communicated during a performance. The Requiem is for a full 150 voice choir, 100 instrument symphony, and 4 vocal soloists. And- wow. There is this WAVE of solid sound that just crests right over your ears and truly was emotional. The composition is, over all, imperfect- yes- but the parts that are Mozarts purely are truly perfection! This coming from a musician who can be highly critical of performances- and to be honest there were some weak spots. But the great majority of the work was incredible!
There was another piece on the concert that was DELIGHTFUL. It is: Les Offrandes Oubliees. Translation: The Forgotten Offerings.
wowser.
If you can find it on itunes, check it out!
I will warn you, it is a "modern" piece- meaning it was composed after 1900. So, some of the harmonies are not necessarily triadic in the common sense. But the piece itself merited a mention because it was done BEAUTIFULLY!
The pic is of Drue (cute) and I (not the best angle for me) in front of the sculpture that sits in Abravanel hall Lobby- Its really cool actually. It seems to be made of curly-cue red and orange glass thingys all glued together. I'm no artist- clearly. But it makes for a neat centerpiece.
I love going to the Symphony! Especially when I get to hear new and old music side by side when each one is as delightful as the other, just in totally different ways!
5 comments:
You're right~beautiful pic and post.
OK, so this is totally the "MA in Music with an emphasis in Historical Performance Practices" talking, but I probably would have severely disliked the Mozart. Doesn't it seem odd that the same ensemble plays music from 1791 and 1930 without breaking a sweat? I know, know, its a pointless, tired and pretty boring argument...
Kiersten and I got tickets to see both Itzhak Perlman and Yo Yo Ma in February and May, respectively. They were only $25/each!
Taylor, yes, I do see your point Mr.MA, emphasis in Historical Performance Practices. I will say this about the oddity inherent in going to a performance of mozart and Messiaen- the contrast is what made the concert refreshing. It would have been performancely solid if the Ut. Sym. kept the program within historical genre- but then it would run the risk of being, well, almost TOO period. I didn't mention the 3rd piece on the concert was a Debussy: La Damoiselle Elue- highly mediocre. So, in the context of the REAL time concert, there seemed to be a bridge gesture to move from time period to time period- Mr. Baroque to Radiohead.
Just curious, do you ONLY listen to classical music?(joking, dont kill me/revoke presents.)If the answer no, you'd probabley like the version pf Requiem by Trans-siberian orchestra feat. Mettalica
Oh Sam- you're getting dreadfully close to being written out of my will! Joking. No- 'smatter of fact I DON'T only listen to "Classical" music. I really enjoy listening to other types of music as well- and for your information I LOVE the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. I think they are fun. But thanks for the thoughtful recommendation.
Post a Comment