Used to be: Mozart was not a great innovator!

Hi, I posted an article and the purpose was to find out some facts, not *opinions*, *lectures* and forays into Rachmanioff and the like... I got only 2 useful replies from: Steven Forrest, who prompted me to put laziness aside and type in the full paragragh. the 'fainwoth' guy also had some usefull input. Below is the full paragrah:

'While Mozart was not a great innovator in the manner of Haydn and Beethoven, he set creative standards in a wide variety of forms to which later composers could only aspire.'

Can someone (WHO KNOWS ABOUT MUSIC & MOZART), please shed some light on it. PLEASE: NO BIG DISCUSSIONS.

Thanks a lot Mehrdad

Hi. I'm the Fainworth guy. Or maybe gal. I'm not sure yet. My doctor is sending me the results of the phsyical examination in a few days. And, by the way, that's FainWORTH, as in 'how much is that worth,' not 'woth,' as in The Grapes of Woth.' Also, I don't recognize that paragraph you claim as mine above. But then, I don't recognize many children claimed as mine either. But, seriously, I don't think I wrote that paragraph you attribute to me. I don't know what you want to know about Mozart. That he was a great innovator? That he was not a great innovator? I'd say to some degree all genius is innvoative. All genuinely creative choices are, by definition, untypical; the typical disappears in the inevitable shifting sans of Time. (That's not a typo, but a pun on 'sands.' Get it?) Nonetheless, in another sense, I don't think anything either Bach or Mozart did was innovative. This is by definition. The very fact that they were virtually forgotten (as was Bach), or at least seriously marginalized (as was Mozart) for a while suggests as much. Conversely, every composer who followed Beethoven answered him, either by imitation (Brahms) or repudiation (Wagner); together, it has been argued, these 2 composers led to the 12-tone revolution. So, really: you've got to stipulate your definition of innovation and then proceed from there. It's up to you, as a critic, to define your terminology and to make your definitions and argument compelling to your reader. I doubt if there's any 'objective' truth out there. One can argue continuities or discontinuties as one finds it convenient to do so. Just make your argument persuasive. This means finding the commonly or conventionally accepted arugment, turning this on its head and proving the complete opposite, and you've got an A disseration or thesis. Of the making of disputatious dissertations there is no end.

'It has been argued'??

Liszt wrote 'twelve-tone' music in all but name (and also whole-tone music decades before Debussy). Wagner learned from Liszt

The only big innovation I have any knowledge of is Mozart's use of rubato which has been a staple ever since.

I don't think Mozart was the first to use rubato. I recall CPE Bach treating the subject in his treatise.

Have you been reading Schonberg or is this another factoid from Dubal?

John

Excuse me, but maybe your question is too vague. Why don't you tell us what you consider to be 'innovation'?

I thought my response was helpful

Not from Dubal, although he does say this. It's from 'The Great Pianists.' The author slips the mind, may be Schonberg.

Harold C. Schonberg, the NY Times head critic for decades. He came to the Jupiter Symphony's performance of I think it was the Tovey Cello Concerto a few weeks ago; he looks about 100 years old but seems in quite good health

It is Schonberg who wrote TGP.

John

OK. Upon rereading, neither say he was the first to do this. Chalk this up to another weak guess on my part.

Good lord. I feel like St. George.

John