In the last few weeks, one of the most important events in the history of art has taken place. It was an event of great importance for art lovers, but especially for musicians. No, I'm not talking about everyday singers, I'm talking about real artists.
As you may have heard, Mozart has released a new piece. It's called "Serenata ex C" and it's accompanied by three violas. What do you mean, which Mozart am I talking about? The one we know, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Born in 1756, the musical genius was interested in music almost from infancy. I would like to say from childhood, but by the time he was five (5) years old, he was touring Europe performing for aristocrats and royal families. Some five year olds just ate mud (definitely not me).
The aforementioned work was discovered in the Leipzig Municipal Libraries. The work in question is 12 minutes long and consists of 7 movements (Marche, Allegro, Menuett, Bolognese, Adagio, Menuett, Finale).
According to what I have read, Mozart did not use the name "Amadeo" until 1769. It is also stated that it does not appear in this work. This means that Mozart could have been at most thirteen (13) years old when he completed this composition. Furthermore, as a result of my reading, it appears that researchers also estimate that he could have been ten or thirteen years old.
Mozart, who died very young at the age of thirty-five, must have been insatiably productive and addicted to music, as he began composing at an early age and wrote more than six hundred works in total.
The work was renamed "Ganz kleine Nachtmusik", (Quite Little Night Music) similar to one of his earlier works. The work was also performed for the first time in public by three young musicians at the Leipzig Opera House on 21 September. You can listen to it in all its naturalness among human voices here, and the studio recording of the composition here.
Photo by Tobias Tullius on Unsplash
Before I wrote down the topic for this article (actually my friend told me to write it down when I told her the news), I had a topic that was developing in the opposite direction in my mind.
It was a quick look at today's music genres. No, I don't want to criticise them, we all know that every era brings changes. We also know that this happens in every field. It's a cliché now.
But there is something else that has changed: there is a loss of infrastructure. This is not a question of changing musical tastes. It is a problem on a human level. Because with each passing period, there is a noticeable compromise in quality.
I've been involved in music for a very short time, so I can't say I've been involved in it thoroughly. But I would argue that this problem is also observable from the outside. So yes, I think we can say that the (probably periodic) genres that have taken the music world by the hand are sloppy and artificial. Also, for years now, parodies or social media posts about "how to make X kind of music" have emphasised that some genres are less complex and even simpler than you might think.
I'll try to be as objective as possible (it's going to be difficult), but let's talk about some facts.
Each new generation is familiar with a different genre of music. This is not necessarily the case, but it is very likely that there will be a noticeable change. This is why we generally feel the need to categorise music as 80s, 90s, 2000s. Because we know what music was on the market in the 90s, some of it comes to mind (whether we like it or not), and if we still remember it, we can somehow sing along to it.
However, as in any branch of art (with the tendency of interest in that branch), new works are always being created. So it is with music and literature. Just as there are millions of books to read, there are millions of pieces to listen to.
So instead of being stuck in the past, we are actually submitting to the pieces that are constantly falling in front of us, or even being dropped (exposed). I think songs are no different from advertising in this respect. Just as we don't know how many advertisements we come across during the day, the current songs we listen to in different ways have similar characteristics.
We are forced to be intimate with so many songs, but I don't think that's healthy. The fact that something is too much does not mean that it should be good or even loved. Even if you listen to an album by a band or singer you like, you may find songs you don't like. In the best case, even if we don't call it disliking, if you don't listen to it, you don't lose anything and you don't mind moving on to the next one.
However, everyone wants to consume a product or buy a service that they consider to be of high quality (within their own financial means or taste). This means that, at some point, no one will think that these choices are of poor quality or object to them.
At the end of the topic, the concept of “everyone” began to take shape. The reason I mention this is that I want to talk about the common taste of the people or the public, which includes the concept of everyone. This includes the concept of a new generation with similar views, perspectives or lives.
What is current (generation's favourite) or widely known (the popular) is considered acceptable. The opposite is seen as strange, more likely to be marginalised and less important. The reason for this is that they are (not always) of high quality or different from what is known.
What is popular, that is, what appeals to the zeitgeist and the masses, and what is suitable for the public as a whole (especially if it does not have a cultural component), is inappropriate. Because the public tends to buy any product (output) that is daily, fresh, quickly consumed, uncomplicated. The public do not make sculptures, they do not like to look at them; it is tiring or perhaps unnecessary to attach meaning to them. They do not paint their houses like paintings, it is tiring to make shapes, they do not think twice when choosing a single colour, it is more calculated, practical.
There is no blame here. This is natural, this is how it should be. Because people naturally see the simplest as rational. But when it comes to art, things have to change. Simplicity must be avoided. And only a part of the people can do this, not the majority. At the same time, this is natural.
Moreover, the fear of missing something, of being deprived of it, of not knowing it, means being alienated from what is popular. No one wants that. But that is the beauty of learning, the joy of being surprised when you hear the unknown. What was the last thing you said you didn't know? Can you remember the last time you were surprised? There are fewer and fewer of them.
Photo by Marius Masalar on Unsplash
Mozart is literally the son of classical music, but he is also a soldier, a flag-bearer for his creations. Although he was a commoner and gave open concerts, aristocrats and royal families recognised his works. They were the ones who satisfied this need. On the other hand, he was able to create works of high quality, complex, requiring knowledge of mathematics and music, because this was not the work of an ordinary person. So he was a genius.
When we look at these periods, we think that the dominant music is classical music. In fact, it is not, it is only those that have survived from that period to ours; the quality ones have remained and the mediocre ones have been passed from mouth to mouth. The strange thing is that this music was not in tune with the public, which means that it was not “popular”. The reason why they were recognised, why they were listened to even after centuries, why theses and dissertations were written about them, why they were discussed academically, and why they still serve as an example and light for those who follow this path, was not because they were compatible with the generation or the people of that time. They were given attention according to the aristocratic needs of the time and rewarded with the philosopher's stone. In the same way, Shakespeare's plays were appreciated by the royal family and he continued to produce more.
Each of these pieces is a genre that has been able to create identities, give a perspective on music, inspire others and show that not everyone can do it. This genre and its difficulties are only important for those who are passionate about being true musicians, and only for those who do not hesitate to risk their lives for this passion. (Nowadays, as art can be more easily disseminated to the masses, I think it would not be wrong to say that this is also the case for those who love art and artists).
The song of this year or the genre of that year... Each of them has an ephemeral quality. None of us has a great longing for the songs of the 60s, we just look for those nostalgic periods that we lived and experienced. The real and lasting works are those that we feel the need to listen to and consume, even if we didn't know or experience those periods.
That is why not everyone is considered an artist. Their names are limited, then they are remembered as cultural heritage, or tears are shed for them because they are worth it. That's why Mozart, even though he was only a teenager, was able to produce works of a higher standard than the vast majority of today's musicians, and that's why he will always remain at the forefront of history. And that is precisely why the appearance of this work is of historical significance.
The call of 200 years ago has only now reached our ears.
Comments