Margaret Mikulska wrote:

>Robert Peters wrote:
>
>>Christopher Webber wrote:
>>
>>>The line about the "magic flute at the lips of God" gives us a very good
>>>example of Shaffer's customary impressiveness of utterance, combined with
>>>total vacuity of meaning.
>>
>>This line is not the best written line in the world but it is by no
>>means without meaning.
>
>Then please explain it to us.  I agree with Christopher, btw.

Margaret, the metaphor is very easy to understand.  Shaffer simply means
that Mozart was God's mouthpiece, his music are direct utterances of God.
Gulda meant the same when he called Mozart an "angel".

>>I think you deliberately misinterpret Shaffer. He is not suspicious of
>>the artist, he admires him for being the creator of wonderful art
>>whereas we all (me, you, everyone) have to live a life full of
>>trivialities. This is a statement full of truth I think.
>
>Oh dear, the cult of genius again.  It may surprise you that Mozart too
>has a lot of "trivialities" in his life.  He had to pay the rent, for
>instance, imagine that.  Deal with money problems when his cash flow was
>low.  I doubt he had fewer "trivialities" in his life than most of us.

It doesn't surprise me at all, Margaret, thank you.  I have read some books
about Mozart, you know.  I know that geniuses also have to pay the rent and
go to the loo - but they are still geniuses (that is: exceptonially gifted
people) whereas we (me and you, see: I speak for the both of us again) are
far away from paying the rent AND being able to compose Cosi fan tutte,
paint The Creation of Adam or write Faust.  Which makes our lives a lot
more trivial than the lives of Michelangelo, Mozart and Goethe.

>And please speak for yourself.  If your life is boring and trivial, I'm
>sorry for you.  Mine is not and never has been.  There are plenty of things
>that interest me to the point of obsession and I enjoy that.  I admire
>Mozart's music, but I don't envy him.  And if you ever decide to read
>Mozart's letters, you might notice that he doesn't talk about his music in
>terms "Look Papa, I created another wonderful masterpiece".  His letters,
>when he writes about music, are more like those of a very talented
>craftsman, some quite technical.  Then again, so many of them are quite
>trivial.

You yourself speak for more people than yourself (see above: "than most
of us") but critizise me for doing the same.  This is pretty poor style,
don't you think? And to make you sleep better: my life is not boring
and trivial but boredom and trivialities are a part of it, as they are
a natural part of every human life - and trivialities are a part of your
life, too: paying the rent, going to the loo, taking showers etc.  So you
can stop being sorry for me.  - By the way, I already have read Mozart's
letters.  The book is circa 2 metres away from the computer where I sit
now.  What is it that makes so many posts by you, Steve, Christopher and
Janos sound so awfully snobbish? You write as if you are the only people
in the whole wide world who have read something about classical music.
Everyone who is not of your opinion does not know what poetry is, hasn't
read Mozart's letters, is an illeterate hulk, is not learned enough.
I don't like this attitude.  All my life I lived a rich life full of
intellectual and cultural pleasures.  I studied literature and languages,
have a thorough knowledge of the arts and, yes, find a lot of profound
ideas and wonderful entertainment in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus - and I don't
find it good style to call an artist I don't like an "arsehole" as others
on the list do.  In my post I only tried to explain Shaffer's idea, you
know.  If you don't like this idea, well, then don't.  But Shaffer
transports much more with Amadeus than just an old-fashioned,
one-dimensional idea of genius.  If you think so you deliberately
misinterpret him (and me!).  It must be very hard for you that Mozart
and others are liked and seen in ways differing from your own.

Robert