i totally agree with him on how people listen to classical music today- and that's part of the reason it isn't a popular form of music- because people take it so seriously. Mozart meant it to be entertaining and enjoyable for both the audience and performer, after all that's how he had to make a living, just like pop/jazz performers today.
It depends what you mean by popular... if you mean popular as in listened to by the majority, then Mozart's music has never been popular, as it was mostly listened to by a small rich elite, while those working in the fields had neither time nor money to listen to his music and were concerned with putting food on their plates. You seem to view 18th century Europe as if it was just another 20th or 21st century. I can assure you it was a very different world, and simply not to be compared to the 20th century. What did change between the classicism of Haydn and Mozart, compared to Beethoven, is that the composer would become less willing to be subservient to the tastes and expectations of the elite, as Beethoven started to compose in directions some of his elite audiences did not necessarily always at first appreciate, especially from his "eroica" symphony onward. However, it would be a mistake to claim that Mozart wrote most of his music to please the majority... it was written to please the rich elite of the time, at least, in the first place. And the lower aspiring classes would then emulate the tastes and fashions in music of those socially above them.
@@clavichord He also had to write for commissions. The unfinished "Requiem" was a commission for a rich nobleman whose wife had died. He wanted the "Requiem' to be sung in honor. He never paid the whole commission so Mozart left it unfinished. He did write other music for which he was paid. And Mozart lived in Salzburg and Vienna, not near farmers and fields.Mozart himself was a middle-class,Roman Catholic, and was a neighbor in Vienna to the middle class. He also found tunes in the popular music of the time, in what we would call music halls. Much so-called 'elite' music had more humble beginnings.
Levin is prophetic here and it's even worse today. Piano competitions, for instance, are complete caricatures of institutionalized rigidness in classical music nowadays. Not only that there isn't any room for improvisation any more, but anything resembling originality, idea, and inspiration, beyond bland stage-mannerisms and bawling affectations are strictly forbidden.
I agree. Maybe that's why musicians and conductors from the earlier 20th century generation, when audio recording was not yet as dominant or developed as today, like Furtwangler and Toscanini, remain well appreciated by many. Skilled and world famous conductors whose performances of standard repertoire contained an originality and freshness of performance which differed each time, and explored or emphasised different aspects of the work, while still remaining true to written composition, as well as exploring the unwritten intentions of the composer.
Levin is right about the "truth of a performance." I once heard a conductor say that he could tell the audience's reaction between his shoulder blades.
I prefer the term "thoughtful". Robert started studying composition at 7 and not only has an amazing background in the fundamentals, but the chops to pull it off.
He has also provided a finished version of Mozart's "Requeim in D Minor." and finished other of Mozart's unfinished works. You have to be a real whiz at theory and composition to do that.
i totally agree with him on how people listen to classical music today- and that's part of the reason it isn't a popular form of music- because people take it so seriously. Mozart meant it to be entertaining and enjoyable for both the audience and performer, after all that's how he had to make a living, just like pop/jazz performers today.
It depends what you mean by popular... if you mean popular as in listened to by the majority, then Mozart's music has never been popular, as it was mostly listened to by a small rich elite, while those working in the fields had neither time nor money to listen to his music and were concerned with putting food on their plates. You seem to view 18th century Europe as if it was just another 20th or 21st century. I can assure you it was a very different world, and simply not to be compared to the 20th century. What did change between the classicism of Haydn and Mozart, compared to Beethoven, is that the composer would become less willing to be subservient to the tastes and expectations of the elite, as Beethoven started to compose in directions some of his elite audiences did not necessarily always at first appreciate, especially from his "eroica" symphony onward. However, it would be a mistake to claim that Mozart wrote most of his music to please the majority... it was written to please the rich elite of the time, at least, in the first place. And the lower aspiring classes would then emulate the tastes and fashions in music of those socially above them.
@@clavichord He also had to write for commissions. The unfinished "Requiem" was a commission for a rich nobleman whose wife had died. He wanted the "Requiem' to be sung in honor. He never paid the whole commission so Mozart left it unfinished. He did write other music for which he was paid. And Mozart lived in Salzburg and Vienna, not near farmers and fields.Mozart himself was a middle-class,Roman Catholic, and was a neighbor in Vienna to the middle class. He also found tunes in the popular music of the time, in what we would call music halls. Much so-called 'elite' music had more humble beginnings.
Levin's improvisation abilities are marvelous!
Levin is prophetic here and it's even worse today. Piano competitions, for instance, are complete caricatures of institutionalized rigidness in classical music nowadays. Not only that there isn't any room for improvisation any more, but anything resembling originality, idea, and inspiration, beyond bland stage-mannerisms and bawling affectations are strictly forbidden.
I agree. Maybe that's why musicians and conductors from the earlier 20th century generation, when audio recording was not yet as dominant or developed as today, like Furtwangler and Toscanini, remain well appreciated by many. Skilled and world famous conductors whose performances of standard repertoire contained an originality and freshness of performance which differed each time, and explored or emphasised different aspects of the work, while still remaining true to written composition, as well as exploring the unwritten intentions of the composer.
Levin is right about the "truth of a performance." I once heard a conductor say that he could tell the audience's reaction between his shoulder blades.
Fantastic clip.
He reminds me very much of Glenn Gould, in his approach and in his passion.
He is far more spontaneous than Gould, who always sounded 'practiced.'
He is better than Gould. Gould lacked spontaneity and chose mostly to record rather than play in concert.
@@patriciayeiser6405 He also lacked musicality.
he is so nerdy... yet the music and his playing is so badass...
Mozart was hard af
I prefer the term "thoughtful". Robert started studying composition at 7 and not only has an amazing background in the fundamentals, but the chops to pull it off.
He has also provided a finished version of Mozart's "Requeim in D Minor." and finished other of Mozart's unfinished works. You have to be a real whiz at theory and composition to do that.
Sinefield or something?