Antonio Salieri: 26 Variations on 'La Follia di Spagna' 2nd version (1/2)

[nazazatrillirivos]

@paqman67 I totally agree with you. Mozart's music can be quite nice, but it's just a sweet cake covered with frosting when compared to Baroque music: I dislike classical period in general. But Salieri is for me an exception and I believe he's really underestimated and in the shade of Mozart superstar.

[andymccoy10]

From 1815, and the only really interesting piece of music Salieri ever composed.

[paqman67]

Ummm... sorry about my Mozart ranting. I forgot about Mr. Salieri...a highly under-rated composer that composed beatiful and sometimes "quirky" and unexpected music for his time. Thank God for Salieri & Beethoven, otherwise the stale, elevator-music-ish style of the "Classical" style would have comatosed later generations...zzzzzzzz....

[andymccoy10]

@paqman67 Salieri isn't underrated. He's right where he should be. A minor figure in musical history, a competent 18th century composer of light comic opera and slightly more substantial historical dramas. Oh, yes, without Salieri, where on earth would be????? lol,

Your comments about Mozart are equally unenlightening. You are, as the great one would say, a musical idiot.

[paqman67]

@andymccoy10 Nah, I just think he is over rated....try listening to some of his early symphonies (before the 25th) and there's not much excitement. I really think that the main fault is not Mozart, but just that "Classical" style was simply written for rich idiots who wanted background music while they counted their golden Ducats. In Baroque times, the composer assumed that listeners were also musicians and not rich dimwits. Salieri was teacher: Beethoven,Mozart's children & Liszt for a reason.

[andymccoy10]

@paqman67 You mean the symphonies he wrote from the time he was 9 until he was in his early teens? They're better than Salieri's symphonies, that's certain. I am not interested in your class interpretation of the classical style, but I would suggest you read Charles Rosen's book on it, and just realize that the Classical Style, as embodied by Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven, essentially defined all the classical music that followed.

Are you trying to be a Marxist musicologist, lol?

[paqman67]

@andymccoy10 I guess I don't think much of Mozart the man and I have trouble separating him from his music. I was, what some musicologists call "Being Provocative" :D, which means I was being a total Pr*ck A'hole..sorry if I offended you..lol! I do have Mozarts complete symphonies & childhood symphonies + the Requiem.. I hate Opera, so I only have a few snippets of his Operas.. I do have monteverdi's Opera "Orfeo" in it's entirity...somewhere in my garage buried under 500 other classical CD's.

[andymccoy10]

@paqman67 You never met Mozart "the man" and you never will. Are you sure you don't mean you don't like Tom Hulce? Reading Mozart's letters is one of the most enjoyable non-musical parts of studying music. The guy could write in 4 languages, expound about algebra, was extremely witty in both german and Italian, and left valuable observations about the Golden Age of Viennese music.

It is useless to expound on the impact Mozart has had on music.  He is the crown jewel of our music culture

[arkon350]

@paqman67 Salieri did not teach those people... oh and to counter your point against Mozart; the reason he is regarded as such a "great composer", is because his compositions were "perfect" - in the sense (theory-wise) that there were no musical mistakes, no misplacement of notes, or misarrangement of sections or lines. He did this so well that he could write a single copy without a mistake - also you can read any of his work upside down, and it reads perfectly. He aslo had perfect pitch.

[andymccoy10]

@andymccoy10 

[revolutionsetude]

Wow!!!

Salieri is really great.

Better than the "genius" Mozart hm...?

[paqman67]

@revolutionsetude finally someone who sees Mozart (like me..:D) as the Lady Gaga of the 18th century! Highly over-rated in my opinion. His later music only became tolerable because he studied THE BEST (ie. Bach, Handel, etc) and more polyphonic in nature. I do like Mozart's late works because of the aforementioned influence.

[DarkwingScooter]

Ooh I much prefer this faster version, brings out the larger scale organisation more methinks.

[TranskriptionenFan]

However they call themselves -

Names are bang and smoke -

Matthias Bamert and his musicians

perform every classical piece marvellously.!!!!!

[KarlAmade]

I don't understand why these people call themselves "the Mozart Players" because as far as I can hear, they play in modern style, not historically informed.

I think there should be rules of how far one can go with such names, like this name says; "We are experts playing Mozart as Mozart should be played...." But that's wrong, they play in modern philharmonic style... They should have been named "the Modern Mozart Players" or what think would fit better ; "The Mozart Slayers"

[BarbaraPloyer333]

Well, you're kind of right, actually. Only the composer would know exactly how his/her music is intended to be played, and hence he/she can only provide the best interpretation.

However, everyone will have their own perspectives when it comes to playing a particular piece- remember, it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

You have to remember that they're also playing for people of the 21st century, not of the late 18th or early 19th century.

[AdmiralPrussia]

My problem is WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT MOZARTNUS MAGNUS WULFGANGUS!

THIS IS SALIERI!

[KarlAmade]

Did you actually catch the problem?

Heard about Historical Informed Performance?

[AdmiralPrussia]

I have. Sir I am just irritated that all people focus on is Mozart.I like C.P.E. Bach but he is a shadow in history yet I feel he is better.

[KarlAmade]

Actually, I did not focus on Mozart at all, but rather the orchestra playing this . They shouldn't have a name like that if they don't play in the period style, c'est mon avis.

[VelikyUstyug1]

I Agree with Admiral Prussia. C.P.E. Bach is not only better than Mozart, he's substantially better than his father.

And coincidentally... this is what the 18th century thought about the matter.

[Astardis]

I get your point - but do you really think Bach - whom I think of as THE greatest ever - would have performed music prior to his days on old instruments?

[KarlAmade]

They had many schools and traditions back then, strict rules concerning temperaments and styles in playing music older than their present day's. Things were not standardized yet, that came in the late 19th century.

As a musician back then you were quite free to do interpretations, but as long as traditions were kept.

[paqman67]

@Astardis The answer is NO. Bach invented the Viola Pomposa and the Lute Harpsichord (amongst other things). I do so hate snobby "Purists" who are uninformed about classical music and treat it like THE GOSPEL. Bach was famous for transcribing his ouvres to other instruments and keys (the French Ouvertures for orchestra for example ) and the D minor Toccata and Fugue , most likely a piece by violin in A minor and trnascribed by a student under Bach's tutelage is another example. Great retort BTW!

[wks1978]

@KarlAmade Ultimately we can never know how people played music in the 18th century. Academics burying their heads in 18th century books certainly won't let us know.

[TheFineArtsReview1]

It's the approach and understanding of the total dimensionality of the rhetoric psychically that the conductor has that which allows this lost gem to shine.

[ontcanman]

I must say that prefer this version, although I do listen to both.

[BarbaraPloyer333]

I like both...

On second thought, I like this version more.

Fast rocks! It has a more mysterious air to it.