Satoshi Akima wrote:

>Thank you, that's certainly an interesting thought, and perhaps you are
>right, but of course this too is speculation.  We shall sadly never know.
>Yes, perhaps Mozart simply always was destined to be the brief shooting
>star that he was.  Then again, I am fascinated that composers can be
>divided into those who do mature to some degree (as would be expected),
>who are the majority; those who change in only subtle stylistic ways; and
>lastly those who seem to evolve with time to such a degree that one can
>in extreme cases barely recognise them from their earlier works.  Mozart,
>like Wagner and Schoenberg, I believe belongs to the last group.

I'm taking this out of context, I know, but I have to disagree.  I have
no problem whatsoever in recognizing Mozart in La Finta Giardiniera or
Zauberfloete, in the Bassoon Concerto or the C minor Piano Concerto, the
Solemn Vespers from the Requiem.  Mozart's music matured, yes.  After all
he started composing when he was a kid.  But it's all Mozart, no question.
As far as destiny goes, I don't believe in it.  He got sick and died.
There is nothing sad about not knowing what he might have written.  We
have what we have and it's all miracle enough.

>Indeed some earlier works by both Mozart AND Wagner are so bad compared
>to later works, one struggles not to laugh at times on hearing them.

Yes, like I'm struggling not to laugh while reading this.  How about
some examples of truly bad, risible Mozart.  Come on, I dare you.  No, it
doesn't even have to be bad.  Show us one composition that is even less
than competent.  You can pick from anything from K.1 to K.626b.  I await
with baited breath.

>As such I feel strongly - but admittedly can never prove - that Mozart
>had barely begun to truly compose at the time of his death.

Oh, rot!  "Barely begun to truly compose"? So the Jupiter Symphony, Don
Giovanni, the string quintets, just a beginning? You really must be
kidding.

Eric James
[log in to unmask]