Loki is fantastic, the haters are just jealous. Makes me think of a post i read about someone working from home being told his dog cant show up in his calls because the office doesn't allow dogs.... Insanity
@@SamTahbou It doesn't bother me in any way, but it's obvious people only have dogs/cats in their content so animal-obsessed people can go 'aw, look at the cute dog/cat', aw isn't he cute, aw, aw, aw!' It's the lowest form of pandering, and completely transparent. Everyone who wants a dog or cat has one, big deal. As for being jealous, as I said, literally anyone can own a dog if they want, so why would anyone be jealous? But then I guess the sort of people who like Mozart don't mind gratuitous and obvious sentimentality.
@@thealexanderbondThe "obvious sentimentality" has passed me by. Can you point me in the right direction? Mendelssohn and some other 19th composers sometimes stray into sentimentality ("O Rest in the Lord" from "Elijah", for example): that's because the expanded and less restrained musical language of that period is much more capable of self-indulgent and excessive feeling but I just do not hear it in Mozart or his contemporaries, to be honest.
I like all your videos, but I especially enjoy the in-depth lecture videos with your brilliant playing. I'd love to see more of them, not fewer! They're what make this one of my favourite channels on UA-cam. And, for the record, Loki's presence is nothing but a joy.
Loki is great and adds alot to the videos and your lectures are brilliant and I am glad you are here to learn from! Please keep them coming! Thank you!
I prefer Beethoven's attitude to Mozart compared with Glum Ghoul. Beethoven once attended an outdoor concert of Mozart’s great C minor Piano Concerto. He turned to his friend Johann Baptist Cramer and said with a sigh: “Ah, Cramer. We will never be able to do anything like that.” In a letter to Abbe Maximilian Stadler, Beethoven wrote, 'I have always counted myself amongst the greatest admirers of Mozart and shall remain so until my last breath'.
This video absolutely needed to happen. Very well articulated. I can send this to the Gould sycophants now. Also your dog is great and is apart of the personality of your videos. The lecture style is absolutely necessary. How else could you expect to explicate adequately enough? You're an engaging speaker so you have nothing to worry about.
Far more important than Mozart's K 491 is the issue of the dog: THE BOW WOW MUST STAY! What a lovely looking, happy creature! Aside from that, thank you for the very interesting breakdown of what is going on under the hood. For those of us trying to write - especially using the now ancient major and minor modes, which have been extremely well trodden - this stuff is extremely useful. When I was an undergraduate at the now defunct Dartington College of Arts in Totnes, I never had any lectures that gave this kind of insight. Coming to think of it, in three years, I think we only had two lectures on tonality, and none on counterpoint. Man alive, did I have to do some catching up before trying to write some actual proper music, as opposed to the 'anything goes' rubbish that they encouraged us to pump out there. If you play Loki some recordings of experimental music from the 60s, I'm sure he will agree with me.
I'm no fan of Mozart, and I really like Gould, but his arguments about Mozart puzzle me. Have you seen the session where Glenn Gould and Yehudi Menuhin play Schönberg's phantasy op. 47? Before they play it, the two have a chat about the music. Menuhin is not convinced by the composition, and he's explaining why, but he's willing to take the music at its own merit. When Gould notes that Menuhin apparently doesn't like Schönberg, the response is very interesting: "Well, Glenn, I was very anxious to take you up on the invitation to play it, because I admire you, and know that you know more about Schönberg, and have a genuine understanding of Schönberg, perhaps than anyone else. And I'm always interested in learning about something through the eyes of someone who understands it, and loves it, because I've always had the motto in my life than anyone who liked something knew more about it than one who didn't." Gould doesn't like Mozart, and doesn't understand Mozart, but he's not willing to seriously consider the arguments of those who do. He's brilliantly cynical, sure, but he's missing the point.
Great comment! The Schoenberg phantasy film is fascinating. The discussion they have beforehand is marvellously civilised: a model of how people should disagree instead of the ghastly polarisation that tends to characterise so much contemporary discussion. They then go on to perform it brilliantly too. With Mozart, I think Glenn had real difficulties with all the homophonic style gallant aspects of the style - he thinks Mozart ought to be trying harder (there's an interesting discussion about fugue in which he's very complementary about Mozart: ua-cam.com/video/8_JccQK3KKU/v-deo.htmlsi=WlGY7juUi6zQX8UZ).
As has already been said by others, this is arguably the best rebuttal (on UA-cam at least) of Glenn Gould's arguments for Mozart being a bad composer. It is well known that the puritanical Gould did not like the dramatic aspects of Mozart's music. So already there, he had a cognitive bias against Mozart. Added to that, he seemed to prefer music with a clear architectural structure that followed a strict logic. He called Bach the greatest musical architect (a valid point, if there ever was one), and if my memory serves me correctly, he essentially argued that Mozart was too lazy in his writing of passages played by the left hand and thereby had missed many opportunities. Gould was a musical genius who had an almost unparalleled ability to play 4-5 voices in a fugue so that each voice was perfectly clear. When he toured in Russia in 1957, the Russian musicians thought that he was an alien, they had never heard anything like it, as several of them testified in the documentary The Russian Journey (highly recommended!). So with his almost superhuman ability to overview and remember every tiny detail in a piece of music, it is no wonder why he loved Bach. Nevertheless, one could argue that his obsession with musical structure and his seeming need for a rationale behind every last note sometimes got the better of him, particularly when combined with his puritanical streak.
Around 15:00, I love the discussion of rhythm, and the long-range movement of the top note of the scale. Noticing those things is the difference between "Mozart is boring" and "Mozart is magical". Thanks for showing the magic of that passage.
Lovely stuff. I found myself thinking a lot of the same stuff about Gould (esp the stuff about him deliberately playing Mozart badly to support his thesis haha) but with a lot less granular knowledge... So I really wanted to hear what you had to say. He doesn't help his case by playing extracts of Mozart so it sounds like Bach either haha? That said, I actually really enjoy Gould's trolling here... I think thats' what it is. Investigating classical/gallant/baroque improv and partimento and realising how important the Italians (and opera) were to the music culture of the time has really changed my perspective on this era. I spent some years singing not just Mozart but some of those semi-forgotten Italian composers who ended up in the beginners Arie Antiche repertoire (the Schirmer Book of Old Italian Songs), so I always felt there was a bit of a split between the instrumental canon and the music that singers love (such as Bel Canto.) I wonder if the sort of centralisation of Bach in the historical narrative by the Romantics has left us with a tendency to dismiss a lot of C18 music for teleological reasons - probably much more so in the mid 20th century when Modernism was the big deal. Everything builds up to Schoenberg... Stravinsky's tribute to these 'generic' masters (well to what he thought was Pergolesi haha) in Pulcinella is an interesting counterpoint to this. Of course Bach, as I understand it, loved Italian music?
Yes! Bach was an amazing composer but his deification in the 19th century certainly skewed the perception of Music history in a very Germanic direction. I completely agree that this has led to an unbalanced view. The Italian tradition, with its emphasis on the voice and melody and dramatic juxtaposition and rhythmic vitality, tends to be ignored. You're right that Stravinsky was alert to this (he also loved Verdi). That's one of the reasons why (I would suggest) he's more important that Schoenberg
Thanks for that, I’m glad to have stumbled across you. My own take on Gould is that it’s important to see him in the context of the new technology of the day - I think he was very aware that it needed exploring thoughtfully in the recording studio and mass media of television. To state something controversial is to strive for relevance and to some degree I think he was testing the waters in terms of what he could get away with. However, it may be that his prime motivation was to encourage a general audience to listen and question the relevance of Mozart’s music - he would have known his arguments were easy to challenge but in that perhaps he knew many would take up the challenge and listen with fresh ears - indeed as you have guided us to do.
One of my personal favourite Mozart genres is his late chamber music. Sublime. I don't think it is an understatement to claim that Mozart developed 18th century chamber music into maturity. For the first time, there was an equal balance between all instruments. Sometimes it feels like Mozart was writing music before his time, and I definitely have moments listening to his chamber music, when it seems he transcends the classical style into proto-Romanticism of the next century. So yes, on many, many levels, Mozart was an absolutely exceptional composer.
Yes - the chamber music is astonishing. The amazing divertimento for string trio, the wonderful quartets, the violin sonatas and piano trios and piano quartets, and perhaps most amazing of all the string quintets!
Seymour Bernstein said, via Tonebase, that there was something "snide" about Gould. I like his piano playing but I have to agree. Gould argued that it's sloppy to incorporate improvisation ideas into a composition (which disqualifies most of Chopin's works from being great music).
Shostakovich as a young man did what must be the pinnacle of improvisatory piano - accompanying silent film showings in the cinema. It gives a flavour that runs through a lot of his "proper" output. I have a lot of love for Gould's extensive Bach output and I'm a sap for his eccentricities and the character he projects. A friend of mine had CDs with his radio interviews and Jings did they get us arguing! I gorge myself on Gould's opinions the way I once read Le Corbusier's Towards a New Architecture. The polemic, the logic, the enthusiasm and the determination of it is an absolute delight - but I am aware that it is a brilliantly coloured mixture of great sagacity and codswallop.
That's partly because Glenn Gould was left field in such an interesting way. But you're right: the classical world is not exactly brimming over with radical ideas... apart from the hyper-niche world of contemporary music which most people are not even aware of!
Thanks as always for your illuminating discussion Professor! I (foolishly) used to speak disparagingly of Mozart too, referring to him as the Celine Dion of classical music. This was all completely independent of Glenn Gould I might add. Things Mozart did like the Alberti bass, etc. seemed very light and uninspired to me, like pop music or elevator music, which explains the reference to Celine Dion. I now (thankfully) have a lot more appreciation for him and especially for his later works. Silly me.
People who don’t like seeing Loki have some choices: listen but don’t watch, examine their opinion and change it, etc, etc. I’m part of the Loki fan club.
Thank you! Gould does indeed play Mozart 'mechanistically' and I have been saying as much for years. I do think that Gould's approach to music was overly cerebral and (dare I say?) pretentious. I find Gould cold and condescending; someone who liked to feel above others. Mozart's late music is usually fabulous. Who could doubt the greatness of Symphonies 39-41? Or Die Zauberflöte? Or the 27th Piano Concerto? Or Ave Verum Corpus? And so on. Gould, in his cold, cerebral way, probably preferred Alban Berg's most atonal sonic 'hell' to all of this sublime music. I prefer Andras Schiff's Bach and Uchida's Mozart...
But that was not the music Gould talked about. He was in particular talking about his piano sonatas, which are indeed pretty formulaic and unimaginative for the most part. Most definately the most uninteresting part of his entire catalogue.
I have not much time for Gould. Anyone thinking that his K.491 was good needs their head examined. He was obviously trying to do a Lang Lang and turn it into a huge showpiece. Horrid indeed.
As I see it, Gould disagreed with romanticism aesthetics, which lead him to different paths to interpret all that non-romantic repertoire which was being played romanticly. Since I despise romanticism as a whole, I concur with Gould thinking. And no, playing non-romantic isn't playing robotic, there's plenty of expression in Gould work
Professor, your little pet is adorable! (...opinion offered by a fan in northwest Arkansas) I remember seeing Glenn Gould performing on 1950s TV. Really eccentric, and sometimes even a bit spooky!
I have only been learning piano for a year now (after 6 decades of not doing so), & about the same into reading more deeply about music history. Yes, some of the things you discuss shoot straight over my head (theory). It is simply fantastic. I really enjoy how you notate the musical score with bits of knowledge as well (more theory). & I would say that my reading of music has greatly increased because of the way your videos are presented. Well done, editor! My only suggestion would be to say: don't be afraid of longer videos. As for Loki, well, anyone how has a problem with a dog being present (or even wandering about), you just send them my way, & I'll sort it.
I have loved this piece since I was a teenager, and I am not even a pianist. I hear longing, darkness, sweetness, drama, loneliness and terror in this piece, in my opinion one of Mozart's most expressive instrumental works. I think the seeming simplicity and cliched aspect is simply Mozart playing it close to the vest--he deos not want to draw too much attention in overt ways to any particular moment, he would rather the expressivity have a quiet power. It is nice that you reveal some of the amazing subtleties under the surface, and rather sad that Gould got bored playing the piece (which I think is the real problem for him).
Dog on channel? Great! I see no reason not to. Too lectureree? (sp?). No way! More lectures please. Don't dumb down for people who can only concentrate for less than 30 seconds at a time- there is a very substantial audience for those that want more. No more 'lowest common denominator!'
This is a great video. I loved your point on sequences - that stretch of Brandenburg 5 really makes me feel I'm laying in a brook and all my worries are steadily dissolved. There's a hypnotic quality music can offer that can only be wrought by long stretches of repetition.
The more people talk about Gould, the more I'm convinced he was perhaps one of the greatest business minds and PR geniuses of the 20th century (if nothing else).
I appreciate your justification of the sequences and their rhythmic interest. I think Vivaldi parodies this in a violin concerto in D minor, RV 235. (I love listening to Carmignola's interpretation while reading the manuscript on Del Vivaldi's channel.) Almost the entire first parts of the first movement is made up of circle of fifths sequences. Then at the end, he breaks ritornello form by having the orchestra play completely unrelated material and ends the movement, almost as though laughing and saying, "Well, you wanted something new, right?" Ironically, though, he briefly quotes that closing material in the third movement (albeit with an added trill), which further convinces me this was parody. But the whole movement is filled with weird textural subtleties (or, in some instances, not as subtle). It's not surprising that the concerto would be a form in which composers would display their rhythmic mastery-the concerto master himself, as Chandler says, "did for rhythm what Bach did for counterpoint". I also have to disagree with Gould here. I do wonder if he was being controversial for the sake of being controversial. And keep Loki!
If Gould had such a low opinion of this great concerto, why on earth did he record it?! In fact, it is the only one of Mozart's concertos he did record.
Hi, gould sycophant here. I think that his excellency's point was not that Falling Fifths sequences are boring or dull in and of themselves, but rather that Mozart over indulges in using them.
I'm a professional symphonic musician (clarinetist). I love Glen Gould. I love this video. But I love Mozart the most! FWIW, my favorite of the piano concerti is the companion to the C minor, the A major, K.488, but then again, I AM a clarinetist. Speaking of which, a staple of my repertoire, C. M. von Weber's 1st clarinet concerto in F minor, basically pilfers the opening of K.491 for it's first theme. I completely agree that Mozart is, first and foremost, an opera composer. A critic once accused me of being perhaps overly dramatic in my interpretation of the Clarinet Concerto, K.622, calling it a "stately and courtly" work. He thought I played it too much as if it were Beethoven. Well, considering the proximity of K.622 work to both "The Magic Flute" and the Requiem and the fact that Beethoven was already 20 years old, I think prima facie that would mean a rather dramatic interpretation might be completely in line with what the composer had in mind. Thanks!
I don't think at all that Gould didn't like this music, but he did have some serious problems with it, almost wishing it could be better, maybe. When he presents these ideas in essays and film he is presenting an argument, something often a bit extreme and seemingly rigid or dogmatic. He does this, I believe, for the purpose of really making an audience or reader think critically; he wants to enter into a dialogue with society and the musical public. In his essay "Glenn Gould Interviews Himself About Beethoven" he goes as far as to say that he does not enjoy listening to works like the Grosse Fuge or even the 14th String Quartet, I think this is both true and false in some senses, that he does enjoy this music immensely and is quite literally entranced by it (visible any time he plays anything), but at the same time cannot help but think about it at an incredibly deep intellectual/musicological level. Thus he discovers problems. His main driving principle as an interpreter was to fix problems in the music, look deep into its structure from the future further than even the composer was able to, and present a new version of it which works better in a way, has fewer problems. He has a deep love for music, and wants to make you think about it, and wants to communicate with you. He is always described as a great pianist first, but he described himself as a Canadian writer and broadcaster who just happened to play the piano, saying it was the greatest means through which he was capable of conveying his thoughts. A couple other responses to points you made. There are many other beautiful things about this piece and stylistic period of Mozart's development, the rhythmic genius, instrumentation, other voices, etc., but what Gould is criticizing here is the harmonic simplicity and dullness. Just the same harmonic sequence over and over again, decorated differently with virtuosic patterns. Related to this, as to what you said about Bach, Gould mentions this same thing in the program; the ruthless exploitation of the same motivic sequences "ad infinitum" is a common element in many of Bach's compositions. Gould mentions between essays and other film programs on Bach that although his music can be endlessly sequential, especially in his earlier works, he is in facts using this sequential simplicity to explore immensely intense and emotional harmonic development, really getting to know the secrets of harmony inside and out. At the same time, Gould makes the argument that Bach is also always involved in fugal writing. There are countless examples of sequences and patterns even from the earliest works that move their way all through Bach's life and development, but now instead of infinite repetition they just blow right by one after the next, "giving the impression of an infinitely expanding universe." It seems as though when writing in other forms he is constantly having to resist the urge to turn it into fugue, constantly exploring small motivic cells and ways they can be developed and interrelated (much like Schoenberg would do 200 years later!). Gould writes that in a way Bach is always writing a fugue, collecting ideas for future fugues, and eventually his life's defining work, The Art of Fugue. So back to the point, I think what bothered Gould in this sense was Mozart's lack of development. It's not like he had significantly better instrumentation in his later period than when he was younger, and although as a craftsman and contrapuntist he may have in fact developed his capacity, he never really put that capacity to the test. He was content almost making self parody, and the ingeniousness, fire and personality of his youth was no longer present. This, I think, is Gould's major problem with Mozart. or If anyone wants to talk about anything Gould related please reply, love the guy and don't get many chances to really have a conversation about it lol
I'm certainly not more knowledgeable on Gould than you. So, I'm writing this just off of what little I know and your comment. I think Gould is simply partial to Bach. The argument that when Mozart uses circle of fifths - it's uninspired writing and when Bach uses the circle of fifths idiom it's exploring emotional harmonic development is backed up by nothing but his personal taste. On the topic of development, motivic and contrapuntal development are not the only kind of development and nor should they be (neither does Mozart shy away from them). As for Mozart falling into self-parody, I strongly believe that Mozart of all people, had a strong internal standard for compositions he would put his name on. Contrapuntal entries in sonata form recapitulation, triplet accompaniment replacements for alberti bass in concerti, lots of delicious chromaticism, dissonance, invertible counterpoint (at the octave, fifth, even tenth) - these are elements of his music which he could have done simply without and passed off - if he simply wanted to parody. I think all this ultimately boils down to the composer Gould likes more. And there's nothing wrong with liking Bach over Mozart.
This is a wonderfully perceptive comment! You're absolutely right. GG's view of Mozart is very much "Talented. Could do better!" But I also think you're right that he's in dialogue with himself on the topic, and it's actually a very interesting example of critical thinking. He admires Mozart more than he admits. The point you make about Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is absolutely correct. Have you heard this interview? (ua-cam.com/video/8_JccQK3KKU/v-deo.htmlsi=WlGY7juUi6zQX8UZ). He ends up saying that the GF is not only wonderfully touching in its striving after fugal expression. It's actually his FAVOURITE FUGUE! I suppose my problem with GG's essentially Schoenbergian position on sequences is that it leads ultimately to an overly cerebral approach (as typified by Schoenberg himself). The glory of Mozart is that there's no trace of Schoenbergian "Thou shalt not" in his aesthetic - there's just the sheer intuitive joy of creation. Thank you again for your comment.
Going to start off this reply by advising that I have a rather strong bias for Gould and just about everything he has ever said and done, so keep that in mind lol. However I do think he brings up some really valid points in the program, albeit a bit extreme, but like I said he wants to make you think critically about Mozart, not to accept the canonic gods of western music as infallible; he wants to show they are human beings the same as you and I. So as for the use of circle of fifths modulation in Bach and Mozart, I think this needs to be taken in perspective of the development of both of their lives. Bach did this sort of thing using ever more inspired patronic sequences and relations he could come up with through the course of his life. Bach was certainly not above pumping out something formulaic when the situation demanded it, but to my knowledge he didn’t often exploit a sequence of falling fifths so brutally. Not to say he didn’t ever. Mozart was equally subject to the demands of his time, which required a massive output of work from him; he was certainly not above pumping out a bland symphony, concerto or sonata when needed, and I think fell into this more and more as his life went on. I do completely agree that Mozart did go through important stylistic/contrapuntal/organizational development through his life, and there are some phenomenal works from his later years. The String Quintet immediately comes to mind for me, delicious chromaticism, dissonance, etc. the first movement of this work especially has it all, truly sublime. However the subsequent movements are then a perfect example of his shortcomings as a composer. He entirely fails to build or even maintain the intensity first established, he isn’t willing or able (or whatever it be) to really dedicate himself to a serious completion of the work in maybe a more Beethovenian sense. This is understandable of course as Mozart was not Beethoven, and it would be unfair to ask such things of him. Just not the kind of composer he was. I totally agree that Mozart is incredible, love him, and some of those later works are really something to behold, and while I can agree that he may have had a strong internal standard, I would not say that this standard was unwavering. Thanks for the response, really enjoyed your perspective. Would love to hear some more of your thoughts if you’re interested in further dialogue :)
@@PortisFarzenberg I understand your (and Gould's) objections to Mozart and the argument that he ought to try harder, especially when it comes to sustaining intensity. But I think this actually boils down to different personality types. W.A.M. just isn't that kind of guy! Of course sometimes he really does sustain the intensity: the C minor fugue or the Masonic funeral music or the D minor quartet or the Requiem etc. but normally he likes to sidestep away from tragedy. So, for example, the ending of Don Giovanni so offended 19th century performers that it became common practice to finish with the D minor dragging off to hell music and to dispense with the 'frivolous' epilogue. However, I like the wonderful theatricality of that turn-around - it is in fact a wonderfully bold thing to do (and Stravinsky imitated it at the end of The Rake's Progress.) For me, the great G minor quintet reaches it's darkest moment in the wonderful introduction to the finale (with the pizzicato cello): music of such intense sadness that a good performance has people weeping... and then he turns around and has this lovely cheerful rondo (the ending of the D minor concerto also does this). It's a profoundly theatrical gesture, and Mozart was a man of the theatre. Like Shakespeare, he loves to play games with his audience! You never quite know what he's going to do but I would argue, the comic endings are often more profound than the more predictable 'intense' ending that you're expecting. Incidentally, Beethoven imitated Mozart's approach with the wonderfully crazy Opera Buffa ending of his Quartetto Serioso.
I am really struggling to rationalise how anyone could possibly have a problem with a cute dog chilling to a classical music discussion. A human needs to be completely hard hearted to make such remarks. About this concerto in particular, it is actually one of my favourite Mozart concertos but at the same time when I first listened to Gould discussing this passage, I sort of agreed with him on a superficially intellectual level. But, after you emphasised the rhythmic importance of the passage, subtle nuances such as the breaking of the hemiola, inversion of rythms from long-short to short-long, it really clicked something in me. Added to that, the seemingly homogeneous and non dynamic way that Gould plays that passage (even if deliberately) speaks to how he (and I on first hearing) couldn’t comprehend the point of the passage on an intellectual level. This was a very fascinating discussion from which I learnt a lot! Thank you!
I love Loki and love him in the videos. I have never purchased any of his recordings. There are many other artists I prefer for Bach, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Chopin etc.
Your YT videos are not lecture-y. I sat in those lectures in music school. I find your posts excellent, good for non-musicians, and helpful for those classically trained. I wish as a youth I'd heard like you in my classes.
Thanks very much for this. I recall watching Gould's take on this and was flabbergasted that he would choose the C minor concerto as an example of Mozart being a bad composer. Thanks for providing a bit of analytic depth that I had lacked on this one. Yep, a great composition!
I agree with you about his Mozart performance. Too mechanistic! Take Serkin's performance of Mozart's D minor K. 466. who clearly loved performing Mozart.
@@brianmidmore2221 ...or the Mona Lisa was just a cliche portrait... Glenn Gould was a pompous self-centered narcissistic contrarian who liked to be intentionally divisive and say controversial things just to get a rise out of people and play the devil's advocate for ridiculous points of view...he was basically a big giant TROLL. He was the Alex Jones of his time. He once said that Mozart, who died at the incredibly young age of 34, "it is a shame that Mozart didn't die SOONER." I say it is a shame that Glenn Gould didn't do the same. Instead we were cursed with decades of his pompous and ridiculous opinions and his non stop humming and singing as he butchered every performance he ever gave by turning it into an out of tune drunken karaoke parody of whatever piece he was playing. I would like anyone to show me where the vocal line is on the score in ANY of the pieces Gould plays for solo piano. Cause I sure HEAR IT. EVERY TIME.
Thank you for your brilliant analysis of the very passages that Gould dismissed so quickly. It really is a matter of perspective, isn’t it. I absolutely love the music of Mozart. There are brilliant composers who I must be in the right frame of mind to enjoy, but I can enjoy Mozart in any frame of mind. When I was a teen I loved what I perceived to be, at that point in my life, his joyful character. I later began to appreciate Mozart beyond the “happy child prodigy” cliche and began to see a wider and deeper range of emotional expression and compositional craft in his music. Of course, reading and listening to biographers, historians, musicologists, and performers who study Mozart has guided my increasing appreciation. A few years ago I read Scott Burnham’s book “Mozart’s Grace”. He describes some musical passages so beautifully that he made me feel almost as if I were listening to these pieces for the very first time. There’s a lot more I could say about Mozart, but you’ll probably say it better in your next video. I look forward to it. 🙂
Agree with everything you said, apart from the part about Gould being a genius. The most notable legacy he left was some dodgy interperations of Bach and rhis woeful criticism of Mozart, a true genius who's legacy is among the greatest of any musician in history.
Beautifully presented. Well done Loki! Gould made me chuckle when I first watched it, so I didn't take him too seriously. It was illuminating to hear you revelling in Mozart's melodic, harmonic and rhythmic genius in this lecture. (There's nothing wrong with lecture format. The trouble with audiences today is that they want everything dumbed down, hyped up and made easily digestible. I'm sure they welcome the adverts as they allow diversion from concentration)!
A few years ago I discovered Glenn Gould's hilarious diatribe against "Mozart in his later years" (in itself a nonsense). I did not assume he was serious about it. Gould seemed to me like a precursor to musical comedians like Igudesman & Joo who joke around on a very high technical level. Goulds extraordinary proficiency, for us mere mortals always a sure sign of serious endeavor, and with it, seriousness, can throw one off trail. I am not sure he did it to establish his credentials as in iconoclast. Anyway, thank you very much for pointing out the merits of the wonderful C Minor Concerto.
“Interactive communication vs dynamic conflict” - superb juxtaposition! Your demonstrative analysis is wonderful; leave Gould to hum along with Sir Humphrey 🌝
As much as I think Gould is being hyperbolic, I don't disagree entirely with his assessment that a lot of Mozart sounds like "office memos". Same, however, could be said about Bach, too, a composer who also recycled a lot of his material. The main difference between them is stylistic: Mozart's style is usually far lighter than that of Bach's, and that's why I personally like Bach more than Mozart, even though Bach's fodder isn't any better than Mozart's.
I just subscribed. I enjoy the dog, the lecture format, and your joyful propensity to laugh at the laughable. I assume you are very busy, but...I would like to ask a personal question. Do you have an opinion on musicians like Gould who hummed along so loudly that it cannot be ignored when listening to his playing? (Bernstein was the same way...and Heaven knows there were dozens of others who did it). I don't know which way to lean on the issue. I find it distracting. (Especially with Bernstein, because that cat could NOT sing a lick. Gould was not much better.) Thoughts? (From anybody.) I'm so glad I found your channel. Thanks for sharing your knowledge! (Keep the dog...he may offer his own musical thoughts here someday.)
Thank you! Well I'm not really a fan of humming on recordings but yes it's a common enough problem. There are no doubt psychological explanations for it. I suspect that musicians get caught up in the moment and the humming is part of their absolute engagement with it. In Gould's case, it seems to have been an expression of the intuitive musicality that he kept somewhat repressed in his conscious thinking about music.
I love this video. thank you so much! I've always thought that the profundity of Mozart's contrapuntal, harmonic, and rhythmic skill is seriously underrated, because he conceals it so well. I look forward to more videos on his music!
I never understood why people raved about Gould. I found his Bach playing particularly devoid of anything remotely human about it. Sure, there's a great clarity to his playing but he just takes life out of the music for me. I actually remember listening to a Goldberg Variation recording (that one of my friends recommended to me) and I found it totally boring. Not the piece, just his interpretation of it. I have heard more than just his Bach recordings but I have never found any of them to be enlightening or even enjoyable. I just don't get him or why people think he was great at all.
Please don’t make any adjustments too the gifts you bring the internet. Specificity and quality takes time. UA-cam and similar platforms are constantly flooded with quick format infotainment which I am sure the people who seek it will have no problem finding. Rare gems like your channel are valuable. If anything go deeper, all the best and thanks for the great work.
Like you I found it somewhat hilarious and amusing that he dared criticize Mozart. Poor Mozart died young. He never had the time to get lazy. So I’m glad you tackled this subject. I love Gould partly because he does this kind of critique but I don’t agree about Mozart becoming worse. Gould liked to play devil’s advocate.
I absolutely lovely that someone on yt does this complex musical analysis. As a college student, its a studying tool that i can use towards understanding the subject in question. I absolutely love it! Keep on making great videos like this one:)
For me, nobody plays Bach like Gould. I can't say if some of his more controversial interpretations were what Bach had intended but he sure does the finest job of them. Genius as he was, Gould made me shake my head in disbelief when I first heard him slating Mozart. He was entitled to his opinion...which is all it was...albeit that of a genius 😄 Also, I love your channel and have thoroughly enjoyed each video you have kindly presented to us. Loki belongs there too, I found it a bit ruff that someone would object 😂
What a treat, great content, from Loki to unpicking incredible craftsmanship given with soul satisfying simplicity - that's great art. My only argument about this super analytical approach is that these microelements are probably spontaneously created and captured on paper or on the spot during improvisation. And that's talent. Great we can analyse it and analyse it after hundreds of years, but has this resulted in our modern approach of composing something without any spontaneity adhering to absurd rules of dissonance that even when broken with incredibly clever tricks and reflect moments of genius, nobody understands and nobody wants to know about? Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this video after a really difficult day at work and it made my day. Thank you very much indeed!
Thank you for your kind comment. I think analysis can always help us to know and love music better, and there are all sorts of amazing kinds of music being created even today!
One of the great things about UA-cam is, that if you do not like the content, you do not have to watch it. I like the content on this channel a lot, and I could not care less, if there is a dog or not.
“Actually”, Gould laments some of Bach’s sequences too in his series of interviews with Bruno Monsaingeon. I believe it was in the context of fugue writing; Bach had to work at fugue writing and his early fugues can be tedious, is the argument. Here is the video; the relevant discussion begins right after the opening piano: ua-cam.com/video/exD8bhJP1eo/v-deo.html
Yes. Fascinating video. I think ultimately his point is that Bach worked hard to improve his craft (whereas he thinks Mozart took a more comfortable improvisatory route).
Glenn Gould's video tells us a great deal about Glenn Gould but little of relevance about Mozart. Television companies should be more careful about the 'experts' that they promote, but they never are. They want characters who can hold an uninformed audience. So lectures by various experts on a range of subjects on UA-cam are most welcome though rare. (Yale university public lectures, National Gallery [London] and some of the TED speeches (Evelyn Glennie's is superb) are among personal favourites. And Loki says nothing but tells us more about Mozart (of worth) than Mr Gould.
I'm a Mozartian and I like your presentation very much. It is pretty convincing and in a way obvious. It's a pity, though, that Gould cannot address your points and arguments - this would be a wonderful discussion and he might be convincing, too. Maybe he would not approve of Loki. But Loki stays, of course. Greetings from Opole, Poland.
Don't worry too much about changing anything that doesn't occur to you organically. Your videos make my world better. Us people who make content out of love and appreciation should remain skeptical of the demands of the audience. There have been people on these platforms who find their entire mental landscape morphed into whatever is getting views, reactions, and responses. It can be an insidious force if not met with equal parts reverence and irreverence (kinda like how Gould approaches the world if you pay close attention).
I'd argue that Gould occasionally forms fine-tuned (but incorrect) arguments so that people will be forced to think higher quality thoughts (generated within their own noggins) in order to disagree.
I really enjoyed this discussion. Absolutely love and appreciate the lecture approach. Glenn Gould is so eccentric and I really haven't heard him talk much before. He's certainly bizarre! And I actually didn't enjoy Mozart when I first started playing piano 3.5 years ago but since then Mozart has gradually grown on me, until I went to a Mozart concert recently where the pianist faced his back to the audience and faced the Orchestra (Melbourne Symphony Orchestra) and both played piano and conducted at the same time. I loved it so much. And now I absolutely love Mozart! And as I said in another comment, Loki is great. Please keep Loki in your videos.
Thank you for your videos. Some people like dogs and some people don't, but it's your channel to do as you wish within reason. Because of how knowledgeable you are, the more lecture, the better. Keep up the great work!
The dog is permitted, and he should play piano and sing. As far as Glenn Gould is concerned, saying Mozart wasn't a very good composer near the end of his life, we must remember Gould had some serious addiction and other mental health issues in his life. I try to understand his challenges and appreciate his major contribution to the art of music, but obviously I don't have to agree just because he's a genius. We should remember genius borders insanity, and if anyone could dance back and forth on that line, Gould is one of those people. BTW, my cat says hello. 😻 He just loves you. He's a Russian blu and he appreciates the Finer Things in life, so long as I am paying for them😮Thanks for the adventure in music
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Loki stays. Your format and style is perfect.
Yes. I agree.
- I second third and fourth that - who in their right mind is bothered by a dog - I know, people who have too much time on their hands.!!
Loki's a good dog. Why would we object?
Ignore the nonsense. Keep being yourself. Your style and content is spot on.
Hey! Cool to see we watch similar content, Alan. Your playing is a big inspiration for me.
Include Loki! :-)
Why would anyone complain about Loki? He's just hanging out 😪
Loki is fantastic, the haters are just jealous. Makes me think of a post i read about someone working from home being told his dog cant show up in his calls because the office doesn't allow dogs.... Insanity
@@SamTahbou It doesn't bother me in any way, but it's obvious people only have dogs/cats in their content so animal-obsessed people can go 'aw, look at the cute dog/cat', aw isn't he cute, aw, aw, aw!'
It's the lowest form of pandering, and completely transparent.
Everyone who wants a dog or cat has one, big deal.
As for being jealous, as I said, literally anyone can own a dog if they want, so why would anyone be jealous?
But then I guess the sort of people who like Mozart don't mind gratuitous and obvious sentimentality.
@@thealexanderbondThe "obvious sentimentality" has passed me by. Can you point me in the right direction?
Mendelssohn and some other 19th composers sometimes stray into sentimentality ("O Rest in the Lord" from "Elijah", for example): that's because the expanded and less restrained musical language of that period is much more capable of self-indulgent and excessive feeling but I just do not hear it in Mozart or his contemporaries, to be honest.
@@thealexanderbond yes, it clearly doesn't bother you
I like all your videos, but I especially enjoy the in-depth lecture videos with your brilliant playing. I'd love to see more of them, not fewer! They're what make this one of my favourite channels on UA-cam.
And, for the record, Loki's presence is nothing but a joy.
Thank you!
Loki (should be spelled Lowkey since this is a music channel) is a major part of your videos at this point 🐕
Loki is great and adds alot to the videos and your lectures are brilliant and I am glad you are here to learn from! Please keep them coming! Thank you!
Thank you!
I prefer Beethoven's attitude to Mozart compared with Glum Ghoul. Beethoven once attended an outdoor concert of Mozart’s great C minor Piano Concerto. He turned to his friend Johann Baptist Cramer and said with a sigh: “Ah, Cramer. We will never be able to do anything like that.” In a letter to Abbe Maximilian Stadler, Beethoven wrote, 'I have always counted myself amongst the greatest admirers of Mozart and shall remain so until my last breath'.
Great Beethoven quotes!
@@themusicprofessor Beethoven also wrote "Handel is the master of us all"
@@themusicprofessorChopin said the same thing about Beethoven in a letter after hearing one of his string quartets.
Mozart in turn said - Bach is the father and we are the children (talking about Carl Philipp Emanuel), so he has that going for him.
Greatness recognizes greatness.
It‘s amazing you take the time to show off some of the more interesting aspects of music properly. Thank you for keeping this format alive!
Thank you!
This video absolutely needed to happen. Very well articulated. I can send this to the Gould sycophants now.
Also your dog is great and is apart of the personality of your videos. The lecture style is absolutely necessary. How else could you expect to explicate adequately enough? You're an engaging speaker so you have nothing to worry about.
Far more important than Mozart's K 491 is the issue of the dog: THE BOW WOW MUST STAY! What a lovely looking, happy creature! Aside from that, thank you for the very interesting breakdown of what is going on under the hood.
For those of us trying to write - especially using the now ancient major and minor modes, which have been extremely well trodden - this stuff is extremely useful.
When I was an undergraduate at the now defunct Dartington College of Arts in Totnes, I never had any lectures that gave this kind of insight. Coming to think of it, in three years, I think we only had two lectures on tonality, and none on counterpoint. Man alive, did I have to do some catching up before trying to write some actual proper music, as opposed to the 'anything goes' rubbish that they encouraged us to pump out there.
If you play Loki some recordings of experimental music from the 60s, I'm sure he will agree with me.
Doggo is great. Keep Loki in the videos.
I'm no fan of Mozart, and I really like Gould, but his arguments about Mozart puzzle me.
Have you seen the session where Glenn Gould and Yehudi Menuhin play Schönberg's phantasy op. 47? Before they play it, the two have a chat about the music. Menuhin is not convinced by the composition, and he's explaining why, but he's willing to take the music at its own merit. When Gould notes that Menuhin apparently doesn't like Schönberg, the response is very interesting:
"Well, Glenn, I was very anxious to take you up on the invitation to play it, because I admire you, and know that you know more about Schönberg, and have a genuine understanding of Schönberg, perhaps than anyone else. And I'm always interested in learning about something through the eyes of someone who understands it, and loves it, because I've always had the motto in my life than anyone who liked something knew more about it than one who didn't."
Gould doesn't like Mozart, and doesn't understand Mozart, but he's not willing to seriously consider the arguments of those who do. He's brilliantly cynical, sure, but he's missing the point.
Great comment! The Schoenberg phantasy film is fascinating. The discussion they have beforehand is marvellously civilised: a model of how people should disagree instead of the ghastly polarisation that tends to characterise so much contemporary discussion. They then go on to perform it brilliantly too. With Mozart, I think Glenn had real difficulties with all the homophonic style gallant aspects of the style - he thinks Mozart ought to be trying harder (there's an interesting discussion about fugue in which he's very complementary about Mozart: ua-cam.com/video/8_JccQK3KKU/v-deo.htmlsi=WlGY7juUi6zQX8UZ).
As has already been said by others, this is arguably the best rebuttal (on UA-cam at least) of Glenn Gould's arguments for Mozart being a bad composer. It is well known that the puritanical Gould did not like the dramatic aspects of Mozart's music. So already there, he had a cognitive bias against Mozart. Added to that, he seemed to prefer music with a clear architectural structure that followed a strict logic. He called Bach the greatest musical architect (a valid point, if there ever was one), and if my memory serves me correctly, he essentially argued that Mozart was too lazy in his writing of passages played by the left hand and thereby had missed many opportunities.
Gould was a musical genius who had an almost unparalleled ability to play 4-5 voices in a fugue so that each voice was perfectly clear. When he toured in Russia in 1957, the Russian musicians thought that he was an alien, they had never heard anything like it, as several of them testified in the documentary The Russian Journey (highly recommended!). So with his almost superhuman ability to overview and remember every tiny detail in a piece of music, it is no wonder why he loved Bach. Nevertheless, one could argue that his obsession with musical structure and his seeming need for a rationale behind every last note sometimes got the better of him, particularly when combined with his puritanical streak.
Thank you for your interesting comment.
Puritanical is a perfect word for him.
I love your discussion here!❤😊
Indeed he called himself "the last puritan."
@@sm0065 Not without a pinch of irony, though.
Around 15:00, I love the discussion of rhythm, and the long-range movement of the top note of the scale. Noticing those things is the difference between "Mozart is boring" and "Mozart is magical". Thanks for showing the magic of that passage.
Lovely stuff. I found myself thinking a lot of the same stuff about Gould (esp the stuff about him deliberately playing Mozart badly to support his thesis haha) but with a lot less granular knowledge... So I really wanted to hear what you had to say. He doesn't help his case by playing extracts of Mozart so it sounds like Bach either haha?
That said, I actually really enjoy Gould's trolling here... I think thats' what it is.
Investigating classical/gallant/baroque improv and partimento and realising how important the Italians (and opera) were to the music culture of the time has really changed my perspective on this era. I spent some years singing not just Mozart but some of those semi-forgotten Italian composers who ended up in the beginners Arie Antiche repertoire (the Schirmer Book of Old Italian Songs), so I always felt there was a bit of a split between the instrumental canon and the music that singers love (such as Bel Canto.)
I wonder if the sort of centralisation of Bach in the historical narrative by the Romantics has left us with a tendency to dismiss a lot of C18 music for teleological reasons - probably much more so in the mid 20th century when Modernism was the big deal. Everything builds up to Schoenberg... Stravinsky's tribute to these 'generic' masters (well to what he thought was Pergolesi haha) in Pulcinella is an interesting counterpoint to this. Of course Bach, as I understand it, loved Italian music?
Yes! Bach was an amazing composer but his deification in the 19th century certainly skewed the perception of Music history in a very Germanic direction. I completely agree that this has led to an unbalanced view. The Italian tradition, with its emphasis on the voice and melody and dramatic juxtaposition and rhythmic vitality, tends to be ignored. You're right that Stravinsky was alert to this (he also loved Verdi). That's one of the reasons why (I would suggest) he's more important that Schoenberg
I seem to recall Leonard Bernstein had a bit to say about Beethoven being a "bad" composer and then going through his 7th symphony
We actually made a video about this!
ua-cam.com/video/VNG4sUvi9BM/v-deo.htmlsi=GTDl4njrneNgamxO
@@themusicprofessor Ah, that could be where I remember it from....
He brings joy into a World that so desperately needs it. My lady cat loves him and would not be happy if he was excluded.
all this time I thought Loki was the professor
Loki is a professor of being a good boy
Professor Loki is expert in dogology
Perhaps rather the Muse?
Loki provides all the pawnotes.
@@heresy7266 All these puns on professor Loki are in increasingly PAW taste 😆
Loki STAYS 🔐
By the way, Beethoven must have liked it since he clearly copied the affect (and even the key) for his 3rd concerto.
Thanks for that, I’m glad to have stumbled across you. My own take on Gould is that it’s important to see him in the context of the new technology of the day - I think he was very aware that it needed exploring thoughtfully in the recording studio and mass media of television. To state something controversial is to strive for relevance and to some degree I think he was testing the waters in terms of what he could get away with. However, it may be that his prime motivation was to encourage a general audience to listen and question the relevance of Mozart’s music - he would have known his arguments were easy to challenge but in that perhaps he knew many would take up the challenge and listen with fresh ears - indeed as you have guided us to do.
My father and I used to watch Gould in the 60s discussing Schoenberg between episodes of Bonanza and a wrestling show.
Those were the days!
One of my personal favourite Mozart genres is his late chamber music. Sublime. I don't think it is an understatement to claim that Mozart developed 18th century chamber music into maturity. For the first time, there was an equal balance between all instruments. Sometimes it feels like Mozart was writing music before his time, and I definitely have moments listening to his chamber music, when it seems he transcends the classical style into proto-Romanticism of the next century.
So yes, on many, many levels, Mozart was an absolutely exceptional composer.
Yes - the chamber music is astonishing. The amazing divertimento for string trio, the wonderful quartets, the violin sonatas and piano trios and piano quartets, and perhaps most amazing of all the string quintets!
Seymour Bernstein said, via Tonebase, that there was something "snide" about Gould. I like his piano playing but I have to agree. Gould argued that it's sloppy to incorporate improvisation ideas into a composition (which disqualifies most of Chopin's works from being great music).
Glenn didn't like Chopin either!
Funnily enough, 'snide' would be my first choice of adjective to describe Seymour Bernstein!
@@melefth Agreed. I think he was projecting.
Dismissing improvisatory ideas in composition kills the Baroque!
Which is hilarious because Bach was master improviser.
Shostakovich as a young man did what must be the pinnacle of improvisatory piano - accompanying silent film showings in the cinema. It gives a flavour that runs through a lot of his "proper" output.
I have a lot of love for Gould's extensive Bach output and I'm a sap for his eccentricities and the character he projects. A friend of mine had CDs with his radio interviews and Jings did they get us arguing! I gorge myself on Gould's opinions the way I once read Le Corbusier's Towards a New Architecture. The polemic, the logic, the enthusiasm and the determination of it is an absolute delight - but I am aware that it is a brilliantly coloured mixture of great sagacity and codswallop.
One of the best classical music channels on the Internet! Thank you for making these
Thank you!
In Germany, we say something along the lines of "not all that glitters is Gould"… I mean gold, of course…
sucks how uncontroversial things have been inside the classical world that people are still debating a tv spot from the 70s
That's partly because Glenn Gould was left field in such an interesting way. But you're right: the classical world is not exactly brimming over with radical ideas... apart from the hyper-niche world of contemporary music which most people are not even aware of!
Thanks as always for your illuminating discussion Professor! I (foolishly) used to speak disparagingly of Mozart too, referring to him as the Celine Dion of classical music. This was all completely independent of Glenn Gould I might add. Things Mozart did like the Alberti bass, etc. seemed very light and uninspired to me, like pop music or elevator music, which explains the reference to Celine Dion. I now (thankfully) have a lot more appreciation for him and especially for his later works. Silly me.
People who don’t like seeing Loki have some choices: listen but don’t watch, examine their opinion and change it, etc, etc. I’m part of the Loki fan club.
Aren't we all?
Thank you! Gould does indeed play Mozart 'mechanistically' and I have been saying as much for years. I do think that Gould's approach to music was overly cerebral and (dare I say?) pretentious. I find Gould cold and condescending; someone who liked to feel above others. Mozart's late music is usually fabulous. Who could doubt the greatness of Symphonies 39-41? Or Die Zauberflöte? Or the 27th Piano Concerto? Or Ave Verum Corpus? And so on. Gould, in his cold, cerebral way, probably preferred Alban Berg's most atonal sonic 'hell' to all of this sublime music. I prefer Andras Schiff's Bach and Uchida's Mozart...
I will take Schiff and Uchida over Fouls any day!
But that was not the music Gould talked about. He was in particular talking about his piano sonatas, which are indeed pretty formulaic and unimaginative for the most part. Most definately the most uninteresting part of his entire catalogue.
I have not much time for Gould. Anyone thinking that his K.491 was good needs their head examined. He was obviously trying to do a Lang Lang and turn it into a huge showpiece. Horrid indeed.
As I see it, Gould disagreed with romanticism aesthetics, which lead him to different paths to interpret all that non-romantic repertoire which was being played romanticly.
Since I despise romanticism as a whole, I concur with Gould thinking.
And no, playing non-romantic isn't playing robotic, there's plenty of expression in Gould work
@@JulioLeonFandinho If he agreed so much then why did he love Wagner and Strauss? ;)
Professor, your little pet is adorable! (...opinion offered by a fan in northwest Arkansas) I remember seeing Glenn Gould performing on 1950s TV. Really eccentric, and sometimes even a bit spooky!
I have only been learning piano for a year now (after 6 decades of not doing so), & about the same into reading more deeply about music history. Yes, some of the things you discuss shoot straight over my head (theory). It is simply fantastic. I really enjoy how you notate the musical score with bits of knowledge as well (more theory). & I would say that my reading of music has greatly increased because of the way your videos are presented. Well done, editor! My only suggestion would be to say: don't be afraid of longer videos.
As for Loki, well, anyone how has a problem with a dog being present (or even wandering about), you just send them my way, & I'll sort it.
I have loved this piece since I was a teenager, and I am not even a pianist. I hear longing, darkness, sweetness, drama, loneliness and terror in this piece, in my opinion one of Mozart's most expressive instrumental works. I think the seeming simplicity and cliched aspect is simply Mozart playing it close to the vest--he deos not want to draw too much attention in overt ways to any particular moment, he would rather the expressivity have a quiet power. It is nice that you reveal some of the amazing subtleties under the surface, and rather sad that Gould got bored playing the piece (which I think is the real problem for him).
Dog on channel? Great! I see no reason not to. Too lectureree? (sp?). No way! More lectures please. Don't dumb down for people who can only concentrate for less than 30 seconds at a time- there is a very substantial audience for those that want more. No more 'lowest common denominator!'
This is a great video. I loved your point on sequences - that stretch of Brandenburg 5 really makes me feel I'm laying in a brook and all my worries are steadily dissolved. There's a hypnotic quality music can offer that can only be wrought by long stretches of repetition.
The more people talk about Gould, the more I'm convinced he was perhaps one of the greatest business minds and PR geniuses of the 20th century (if nothing else).
I appreciate your justification of the sequences and their rhythmic interest. I think Vivaldi parodies this in a violin concerto in D minor, RV 235. (I love listening to Carmignola's interpretation while reading the manuscript on Del Vivaldi's channel.) Almost the entire first parts of the first movement is made up of circle of fifths sequences. Then at the end, he breaks ritornello form by having the orchestra play completely unrelated material and ends the movement, almost as though laughing and saying, "Well, you wanted something new, right?" Ironically, though, he briefly quotes that closing material in the third movement (albeit with an added trill), which further convinces me this was parody. But the whole movement is filled with weird textural subtleties (or, in some instances, not as subtle). It's not surprising that the concerto would be a form in which composers would display their rhythmic mastery-the concerto master himself, as Chandler says, "did for rhythm what Bach did for counterpoint". I also have to disagree with Gould here. I do wonder if he was being controversial for the sake of being controversial.
And keep Loki!
We like Loki 🐶
If Gould had such a low opinion of this great concerto, why on earth did he record it?! In fact, it is the only one of Mozart's concertos he did record.
Hi, gould sycophant here. I think that his excellency's point was not that Falling Fifths sequences are boring or dull in and of themselves, but rather that Mozart over indulges in using them.
I love loki! Keep loki
My friend, please, please don't change a thing. It's the whole format that really is perfect...Loki, lecture and all.
I'm a professional symphonic musician (clarinetist). I love Glen Gould. I love this video. But I love Mozart the most! FWIW, my favorite of the piano concerti is the companion to the C minor, the A major, K.488, but then again, I AM a clarinetist. Speaking of which, a staple of my repertoire, C. M. von Weber's 1st clarinet concerto in F minor, basically pilfers the opening of K.491 for it's first theme.
I completely agree that Mozart is, first and foremost, an opera composer. A critic once accused me of being perhaps overly dramatic in my interpretation of the Clarinet Concerto, K.622, calling it a "stately and courtly" work. He thought I played it too much as if it were Beethoven. Well, considering the proximity of K.622 work to both "The Magic Flute" and the Requiem and the fact that Beethoven was already 20 years old, I think prima facie that would mean a rather dramatic interpretation might be completely in line with what the composer had in mind. Thanks!
...and clarinetists must love Mozart most of all because, of all composers, he is the composer for the clarinet!
As a debate premise, "Mozart was a mediocre composer" is absolutely indefensible 😢
I don't think at all that Gould didn't like this music, but he did have some serious problems with it, almost wishing it could be better, maybe. When he presents these ideas in essays and film he is presenting an argument, something often a bit extreme and seemingly rigid or dogmatic. He does this, I believe, for the purpose of really making an audience or reader think critically; he wants to enter into a dialogue with society and the musical public. In his essay "Glenn Gould Interviews Himself About Beethoven" he goes as far as to say that he does not enjoy listening to works like the Grosse Fuge or even the 14th String Quartet, I think this is both true and false in some senses, that he does enjoy this music immensely and is quite literally entranced by it (visible any time he plays anything), but at the same time cannot help but think about it at an incredibly deep intellectual/musicological level. Thus he discovers problems. His main driving principle as an interpreter was to fix problems in the music, look deep into its structure from the future further than even the composer was able to, and present a new version of it which works better in a way, has fewer problems. He has a deep love for music, and wants to make you think about it, and wants to communicate with you. He is always described as a great pianist first, but he described himself as a Canadian writer and broadcaster who just happened to play the piano, saying it was the greatest means through which he was capable of conveying his thoughts.
A couple other responses to points you made. There are many other beautiful things about this piece and stylistic period of Mozart's development, the rhythmic genius, instrumentation, other voices, etc., but what Gould is criticizing here is the harmonic simplicity and dullness. Just the same harmonic sequence over and over again, decorated differently with virtuosic patterns. Related to this, as to what you said about Bach, Gould mentions this same thing in the program; the ruthless exploitation of the same motivic sequences "ad infinitum" is a common element in many of Bach's compositions. Gould mentions between essays and other film programs on Bach that although his music can be endlessly sequential, especially in his earlier works, he is in facts using this sequential simplicity to explore immensely intense and emotional harmonic development, really getting to know the secrets of harmony inside and out. At the same time, Gould makes the argument that Bach is also always involved in fugal writing. There are countless examples of sequences and patterns even from the earliest works that move their way all through Bach's life and development, but now instead of infinite repetition they just blow right by one after the next, "giving the impression of an infinitely expanding universe." It seems as though when writing in other forms he is constantly having to resist the urge to turn it into fugue, constantly exploring small motivic cells and ways they can be developed and interrelated (much like Schoenberg would do 200 years later!). Gould writes that in a way Bach is always writing a fugue, collecting ideas for future fugues, and eventually his life's defining work, The Art of Fugue. So back to the point, I think what bothered Gould in this sense was Mozart's lack of development. It's not like he had significantly better instrumentation in his later period than when he was younger, and although as a craftsman and contrapuntist he may have in fact developed his capacity, he never really put that capacity to the test. He was content almost making self parody, and the ingeniousness, fire and personality of his youth was no longer present. This, I think, is Gould's major problem with Mozart.
or
If anyone wants to talk about anything Gould related please reply, love the guy and don't get many chances to really have a conversation about it lol
I'm certainly not more knowledgeable on Gould than you. So, I'm writing this just off of what little I know and your comment.
I think Gould is simply partial to Bach.
The argument that when Mozart uses circle of fifths - it's uninspired writing and when Bach uses the circle of fifths idiom it's exploring emotional harmonic development is backed up by nothing but his personal taste.
On the topic of development, motivic and contrapuntal development are not the only kind of development and nor should they be (neither does Mozart shy away from them).
As for Mozart falling into self-parody, I strongly believe that Mozart of all people, had a strong internal standard for compositions he would put his name on.
Contrapuntal entries in sonata form recapitulation, triplet accompaniment replacements for alberti bass in concerti, lots of delicious chromaticism, dissonance, invertible counterpoint (at the octave, fifth, even tenth) - these are elements of his music which he could have done simply without and passed off - if he simply wanted to parody.
I think all this ultimately boils down to the composer Gould likes more. And there's nothing wrong with liking Bach over Mozart.
This is a wonderfully perceptive comment! You're absolutely right. GG's view of Mozart is very much "Talented. Could do better!" But I also think you're right that he's in dialogue with himself on the topic, and it's actually a very interesting example of critical thinking. He admires Mozart more than he admits. The point you make about Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is absolutely correct. Have you heard this interview? (ua-cam.com/video/8_JccQK3KKU/v-deo.htmlsi=WlGY7juUi6zQX8UZ). He ends up saying that the GF is not only wonderfully touching in its striving after fugal expression. It's actually his FAVOURITE FUGUE! I suppose my problem with GG's essentially Schoenbergian position on sequences is that it leads ultimately to an overly cerebral approach (as typified by Schoenberg himself). The glory of Mozart is that there's no trace of Schoenbergian "Thou shalt not" in his aesthetic - there's just the sheer intuitive joy of creation. Thank you again for your comment.
Going to start off this reply by advising that I have a rather strong bias for Gould and just about everything he has ever said and done, so keep that in mind lol. However I do think he brings up some really valid points in the program, albeit a bit extreme, but like I said he wants to make you think critically about Mozart, not to accept the canonic gods of western music as infallible; he wants to show they are human beings the same as you and I.
So as for the use of circle of fifths modulation in Bach and Mozart, I think this needs to be taken in perspective of the development of both of their lives. Bach did this sort of thing using ever more inspired patronic sequences and relations he could come up with through the course of his life. Bach was certainly not above pumping out something formulaic when the situation demanded it, but to my knowledge he didn’t often exploit a sequence of falling fifths so brutally. Not to say he didn’t ever. Mozart was equally subject to the demands of his time, which required a massive output of work from him; he was certainly not above pumping out a bland symphony, concerto or sonata when needed, and I think fell into this more and more as his life went on.
I do completely agree that Mozart did go through important stylistic/contrapuntal/organizational development through his life, and there are some phenomenal works from his later years. The String Quintet immediately comes to mind for me, delicious chromaticism, dissonance, etc. the first movement of this work especially has it all, truly sublime. However the subsequent movements are then a perfect example of his shortcomings as a composer. He entirely fails to build or even maintain the intensity first established, he isn’t willing or able (or whatever it be) to really dedicate himself to a serious completion of the work in maybe a more Beethovenian sense. This is understandable of course as Mozart was not Beethoven, and it would be unfair to ask such things of him. Just not the kind of composer he was.
I totally agree that Mozart is incredible, love him, and some of those later works are really something to behold, and while I can agree that he may have had a strong internal standard, I would not say that this standard was unwavering.
Thanks for the response, really enjoyed your perspective. Would love to hear some more of your thoughts if you’re interested in further dialogue :)
@@PortisFarzenberg I understand your (and Gould's) objections to Mozart and the argument that he ought to try harder, especially when it comes to sustaining intensity. But I think this actually boils down to different personality types. W.A.M. just isn't that kind of guy! Of course sometimes he really does sustain the intensity: the C minor fugue or the Masonic funeral music or the D minor quartet or the Requiem etc. but normally he likes to sidestep away from tragedy. So, for example, the ending of Don Giovanni so offended 19th century performers that it became common practice to finish with the D minor dragging off to hell music and to dispense with the 'frivolous' epilogue. However, I like the wonderful theatricality of that turn-around - it is in fact a wonderfully bold thing to do (and Stravinsky imitated it at the end of The Rake's Progress.) For me, the great G minor quintet reaches it's darkest moment in the wonderful introduction to the finale (with the pizzicato cello): music of such intense sadness that a good performance has people weeping... and then he turns around and has this lovely cheerful rondo (the ending of the D minor concerto also does this). It's a profoundly theatrical gesture, and Mozart was a man of the theatre. Like Shakespeare, he loves to play games with his audience! You never quite know what he's going to do but I would argue, the comic endings are often more profound than the more predictable 'intense' ending that you're expecting. Incidentally, Beethoven imitated Mozart's approach with the wonderfully crazy Opera Buffa ending of his Quartetto Serioso.
I am really struggling to rationalise how anyone could possibly have a problem with a cute dog chilling to a classical music discussion. A human needs to be completely hard hearted to make such remarks.
About this concerto in particular, it is actually one of my favourite Mozart concertos but at the same time when I first listened to Gould discussing this passage, I sort of agreed with him on a superficially intellectual level. But, after you emphasised the rhythmic importance of the passage, subtle nuances such as the breaking of the hemiola, inversion of rythms from long-short to short-long, it really clicked something in me. Added to that, the seemingly homogeneous and non dynamic way that Gould plays that passage (even if deliberately) speaks to how he (and I on first hearing) couldn’t comprehend the point of the passage on an intellectual level. This was a very fascinating discussion from which I learnt a lot! Thank you!
Those that don't like your presentation- please post links to your videos.
Outstanding video! Totally agree with everything you said. Mozart's use of rhythm can be so subtle and yet so powerful
Is it Geniuses or Genii? So what - just enjoy what inspires you! Great vid, Matt
This is the best rebuttal of Gould's arguments I've heard. Great video!:-)
I was going to say the exact same thing. The best rebuttal of Gould's arguments indeed!
Thank you!
I love Loki and love him in the videos. I have never purchased any of his recordings. There are many other artists I prefer for Bach, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Chopin etc.
I 💌Loki (and I'm a cat person)!
Also like the style and presentation of your videos in general 👍
Thank you!
I watched that Mozart essay by Gould. Gould was an odd duck.
Your videos are great, and so is your puppy. Haters gonna hate
Your YT videos are not lecture-y. I sat in those lectures in music school. I find your posts excellent, good for non-musicians, and helpful for those classically trained.
I wish as a youth I'd heard like you in my classes.
Thanks very much for this. I recall watching Gould's take on this and was flabbergasted that he would choose the C minor concerto as an example of Mozart being a bad composer. Thanks for providing a bit of analytic depth that I had lacked on this one. Yep, a great composition!
I agree with you about his Mozart performance. Too mechanistic! Take Serkin's performance of Mozart's D minor K. 466. who clearly loved performing Mozart.
You could argue that Van Gogh's sunflowers was just the cliche of a bowl of flowers.
@@brianmidmore2221 ...or the Mona Lisa was just a cliche portrait...
Glenn Gould was a pompous self-centered narcissistic contrarian who liked to be intentionally divisive and say controversial things just to get a rise out of people and play the devil's advocate for ridiculous points of view...he was basically a big giant TROLL. He was the Alex Jones of his time. He once said that Mozart, who died at the incredibly young age of 34, "it is a shame that Mozart didn't die SOONER."
I say it is a shame that Glenn Gould didn't do the same. Instead we were cursed with decades of his pompous and ridiculous opinions and his non stop humming and singing as he butchered every performance he ever gave by turning it into an out of tune drunken karaoke parody of whatever piece he was playing. I would like anyone to show me where the vocal line is on the score in ANY of the pieces Gould plays for solo piano. Cause I sure HEAR IT. EVERY TIME.
Please note: Professor Loki has good scratch at 11:46
He really goes for it!
Let me grab me a cup or coffee. I had been waiting for this video!
Thank you for your brilliant analysis of the very passages that Gould dismissed so quickly. It really is a matter of perspective, isn’t it. I absolutely love the music of Mozart. There are brilliant composers who I must be in the right frame of mind to enjoy, but I can enjoy Mozart in any frame of mind. When I was a teen I loved what I perceived to be, at that point in my life, his joyful character. I later began to appreciate Mozart beyond the “happy child prodigy” cliche and began to see a wider and deeper range of emotional expression and compositional craft in his music. Of course, reading and listening to biographers, historians, musicologists, and performers who study Mozart has guided my increasing appreciation. A few years ago I read Scott Burnham’s book “Mozart’s Grace”. He describes some musical passages so beautifully that he made me feel almost as if I were listening to these pieces for the very first time. There’s a lot more I could say about Mozart, but you’ll probably say it better in your next video. I look forward to it. 🙂
Agree with everything you said, apart from the part about Gould being a genius. The most notable legacy he left was some dodgy interperations of Bach and rhis woeful criticism of Mozart, a true genius who's legacy is among the greatest of any musician in history.
Beautifully presented. Well done Loki! Gould made me chuckle when I first watched it, so I didn't take him too seriously. It was illuminating to hear you revelling in Mozart's melodic, harmonic and rhythmic genius in this lecture. (There's nothing wrong with lecture format. The trouble with audiences today is that they want everything dumbed down, hyped up and made easily digestible. I'm sure they welcome the adverts as they allow diversion from concentration)!
I think Gould meant for us to chuckle!
A few years ago I discovered Glenn Gould's hilarious diatribe against "Mozart in his later years" (in itself a nonsense). I did not assume he was serious about it. Gould seemed to me like a precursor to musical comedians like Igudesman & Joo who joke around on a very high technical level. Goulds extraordinary proficiency, for us mere mortals always a sure sign of serious endeavor, and with it, seriousness, can throw one off trail. I am not sure he did it to establish his credentials as in iconoclast. Anyway, thank you very much for pointing out the merits of the wonderful C Minor Concerto.
Excellent show. It is great to discuss Glenn Gould. We love the dog.
RS. Canada
Your style and dog are perfect, don't change!! I love the long, deep discussions.
“Interactive communication vs dynamic conflict” - superb juxtaposition! Your demonstrative analysis is wonderful; leave Gould to hum along with Sir Humphrey 🌝
As much as I think Gould is being hyperbolic, I don't disagree entirely with his assessment that a lot of Mozart sounds like "office memos". Same, however, could be said about Bach, too, a composer who also recycled a lot of his material. The main difference between them is stylistic: Mozart's style is usually far lighter than that of Bach's, and that's why I personally like Bach more than Mozart, even though Bach's fodder isn't any better than Mozart's.
Yeah cliché’s are essential for a living practicing music culture. That is the vocabulary, the common patterns, that get shared across musicians.
We love loki!!!!!!!
I just subscribed. I enjoy the dog, the lecture format, and your joyful propensity to laugh at the laughable. I assume you are very busy, but...I would like to ask a personal question. Do you have an opinion on musicians like Gould who hummed along so loudly that it cannot be ignored when listening to his playing? (Bernstein was the same way...and Heaven knows there were dozens of others who did it). I don't know which way to lean on the issue. I find it distracting. (Especially with Bernstein, because that cat could NOT sing a lick. Gould was not much better.) Thoughts? (From anybody.) I'm so glad I found your channel. Thanks for sharing your knowledge! (Keep the dog...he may offer his own musical thoughts here someday.)
Thank you! Well I'm not really a fan of humming on recordings but yes it's a common enough problem. There are no doubt psychological explanations for it. I suspect that musicians get caught up in the moment and the humming is part of their absolute engagement with it. In Gould's case, it seems to have been an expression of the intuitive musicality that he kept somewhat repressed in his conscious thinking about music.
I love this video. thank you so much! I've always thought that the profundity of Mozart's contrapuntal, harmonic, and rhythmic skill is seriously underrated, because he conceals it so well. I look forward to more videos on his music!
Please keep Loki present for as long as he’ll have us 😉
I never understood why people raved about Gould. I found his Bach playing particularly devoid of anything remotely human about it. Sure, there's a great clarity to his playing but he just takes life out of the music for me. I actually remember listening to a Goldberg Variation recording (that one of my friends recommended to me) and I found it totally boring. Not the piece, just his interpretation of it. I have heard more than just his Bach recordings but I have never found any of them to be enlightening or even enjoyable. I just don't get him or why people think he was great at all.
Very well put. I couldn't agree more...
Please don’t make any adjustments too the gifts you bring the internet. Specificity and quality takes time. UA-cam and similar platforms are constantly flooded with quick format infotainment which I am sure the people who seek it will have no problem finding. Rare gems like your channel are valuable. If anything go deeper, all the best and thanks for the great work.
Loki's reaction to Mozart corresponds to mine. Great addition for the channel!
I like the format and to be honest I barely notice Loki but like the idea of having your dog there.
Like you I found it somewhat hilarious and amusing that he dared criticize Mozart. Poor Mozart died young. He never had the time to get lazy. So I’m glad you tackled this subject. I love Gould partly because he does this kind of critique but I don’t agree about Mozart becoming worse. Gould liked to play devil’s advocate.
I absolutely lovely that someone on yt does this complex musical analysis. As a college student, its a studying tool that i can use towards understanding the subject in question. I absolutely love it!
Keep on making great videos like this one:)
I love your format and your dog.
Loki is cool !
And please keep your style … it’s perfect.
no complaints, excellent video
Lovely video, and you exactly explain why I love Mozart so much. And please do not listen to anyone who says Loki doesn't belong.
For me, nobody plays Bach like Gould. I can't say if some of his more controversial interpretations were what Bach had intended but he sure does the finest job of them. Genius as he was, Gould made me shake my head in disbelief when I first heard him slating Mozart. He was entitled to his opinion...which is all it was...albeit that of a genius 😄 Also, I love your channel and have thoroughly enjoyed each video you have kindly presented to us. Loki belongs there too, I found it a bit ruff that someone would object 😂
What a treat, great content, from Loki to unpicking incredible craftsmanship given with soul satisfying simplicity - that's great art. My only argument about this super analytical approach is that these microelements are probably spontaneously created and captured on paper or on the spot during improvisation. And that's talent. Great we can analyse it and analyse it after hundreds of years, but has this resulted in our modern approach of composing something without any spontaneity adhering to absurd rules of dissonance that even when broken with incredibly clever tricks and reflect moments of genius, nobody understands and nobody wants to know about? Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this video after a really difficult day at work and it made my day. Thank you very much indeed!
Thank you for your kind comment. I think analysis can always help us to know and love music better, and there are all sorts of amazing kinds of music being created even today!
I looooove dogs, so I love seeing your little cutie down there in the video.
An episode on the Beatles would be great. They have some fantastic harmonies
One of the great things about UA-cam is, that if you do not like the content, you do not have to watch it. I like the content on this channel a lot, and I could not care less, if there is a dog or not.
“Actually”, Gould laments some of Bach’s sequences too in his series of interviews with Bruno Monsaingeon. I believe it was in the context of fugue writing; Bach had to work at fugue writing and his early fugues can be tedious, is the argument.
Here is the video; the relevant discussion begins right after the opening piano: ua-cam.com/video/exD8bhJP1eo/v-deo.html
Yes. Fascinating video. I think ultimately his point is that Bach worked hard to improve his craft (whereas he thinks Mozart took a more comfortable improvisatory route).
Thank you for continuing on, this was very fun and refreshing to watch. Loki is best boy and a great assistant to the professor seems to me.
Glenn Gould's video tells us a great deal about Glenn Gould but little of relevance about Mozart. Television companies should be more careful about the 'experts' that they promote, but they never are. They want characters who can hold an uninformed audience. So lectures by various experts on a range of subjects on UA-cam are most welcome though rare. (Yale university public lectures, National Gallery [London] and some of the TED speeches (Evelyn Glennie's is superb) are among personal favourites. And Loki says nothing but tells us more about Mozart (of worth) than Mr Gould.
Matthew, I wish to thank you for all the thoughtful work you apply to your videos. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Bravo.
I'm a Mozartian and I like your presentation very much. It is pretty convincing and in a way obvious. It's a pity, though, that Gould cannot address your points and arguments - this would be a wonderful discussion and he might be convincing, too. Maybe he would not approve of Loki. But Loki stays, of course. Greetings from Opole, Poland.
Don't worry too much about changing anything that doesn't occur to you organically. Your videos make my world better. Us people who make content out of love and appreciation should remain skeptical of the demands of the audience. There have been people on these platforms who find their entire mental landscape morphed into whatever is getting views, reactions, and responses. It can be an insidious force if not met with equal parts reverence and irreverence (kinda like how Gould approaches the world if you pay close attention).
I'd argue that Gould occasionally forms fine-tuned (but incorrect) arguments so that people will be forced to think higher quality thoughts (generated within their own noggins) in order to disagree.
There is much wisdom here.
I really enjoyed this discussion. Absolutely love and appreciate the lecture approach. Glenn Gould is so eccentric and I really haven't heard him talk much before. He's certainly bizarre! And I actually didn't enjoy Mozart when I first started playing piano 3.5 years ago but since then Mozart has gradually grown on me, until I went to a Mozart concert recently where the pianist faced his back to the audience and faced the Orchestra (Melbourne Symphony Orchestra) and both played piano and conducted at the same time. I loved it so much. And now I absolutely love Mozart!
And as I said in another comment, Loki is great. Please keep Loki in your videos.
Thank you for your videos. Some people like dogs and some people don't, but it's your channel to do as you wish within reason. Because of how knowledgeable you are, the more lecture, the better. Keep up the great work!
The dog is permitted, and he should play piano and sing. As far as Glenn Gould is concerned, saying Mozart wasn't a very good composer near the end of his life, we must remember Gould had some serious addiction and other mental health issues in his life. I try to understand his challenges and appreciate his major contribution to the art of music, but obviously I don't have to agree just because he's a genius. We should remember genius borders insanity, and if anyone could dance back and forth on that line, Gould is one of those people. BTW, my cat says hello. 😻 He just loves you. He's a Russian blu and he appreciates the Finer Things in life, so long as I am paying for them😮Thanks for the adventure in music
Interesting discussion! ✌️
I definitely need to explore Mozart piano concertos more.
Love Loki at 14:00, especially the circles!
Love Loki - my dogs hang out with me while I watch - & the "lectures" - really enjoy learning new things about music. Seems to be a unique channel!