Source: Mozart. His character and works, by Alfred Einstein. (Translated from “Universalität” in Mozart. Sein Charakter, sein Werk. A. Einstein. Zürich, Stuttgart 31953. Lizenz: verwaist/ License: abandoned.)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mozart and Universality
Alfred Einstein
Mozart once wrote his father (February 7, 1778): as Leopold knew, Wolfgang could “more or less absorb and imitate all types and styles of composition” – Italian, French, and also German; and this is true, as Mozart could write in all of the current national styles of the 18th century. Yet this does not justify the universality we have in mind here, which is his supranationality; which is his strange position in music history, as he was not an “Italian” or “German,” or (especially) not a “French” composer — but Mozart, who stands far above any national borders or limitations. Neither Italian nor German music determined his musical essence — as there are only Italian or German externalities; as it was Mozart instead who determined the essence of German or Italian music. His universality becomes clear, when we offer the question whether he was greater as a vocal or instrumental composer. That is, whether “Nozze di Figaro” or “Don Giovanni” stand over or under the C major symphony, the c minor piano concerto, or the C major quintet. Yet it would be idle to rack one’s brains over this; as perfection in different areas does not allow comparison. What does allow for comparison for Mozart’s universality is only his relation to other great composers – and we will limit ourselves to the 18th and 19th centuries.
Perhaps closest to Mozart in this regard is Handel, the master of the cantata, opera, oratorio, concerto grosso, the sonata – but we will pause a moment. Are not all of these flowing from a unified, powerful source of Italian vocal conception – of bel canto and the monumental aria? Is Handel, inheritor of 16th and 17th century forms, the fugue, ricercar, of equal rank with his contemporary J.S. Bach? And we pause again. Was Bach universal? Yes, he left no field of instrumental or vocal music untilled, neither church nor worldly, not even the opera if we view his secular cantatas this way. But in truth all of this grew from one root, as instrumental; and even more: from organ polyphony, determining Bach’s vocal themes as well. One could misunderstand and yet correctly say Bach was not a vocal composer. Even his flexible and so illustrative recitatives have a firmly instrumental form.
As completely beyond dispute is the one-sidedness, the lack of universality of Gluck. Gluck did write instrumental music and songs, but was an opera composer and nothing else: in the first half of his life, up to “Paride ed Elena,” as Italian; and in the second, from “Iphigénie en Aulide” on, French. It is said, as not completely misplaced, that Gluck became the genius and reformer of opera seria through his one-sidedness. A fullness of musical invention for all forms was lacking; his pathos pressed him to the area of musical drama, the opera; and a great, ambitious, and logical mind like his made virtues of its limitations.
With Haydn and Beethoven the claim of one-sidedness will be vigorously challenged — the claim they were essentially instrumental composers. The creator of “The Creation,” and the master of “Fidelio” and the “Missa Solemnis” were not vocal composers? And yet it is true. Both Haydn and Beethoven were constrained by words, and spoke more freely in instrumental forms; for Haydn the quartet and orchestra, for Beethoven the piano as well. Neither Haydn nor Beethoven were masters of the song, although both wrote them. And so we come next to Schubert, composer of the “Unfinished Symphony,” the d minor quartet, and hundreds of completed songs – thus the only composer comparable to Mozart, if he was not, despite operatic compositions, lacking a sense for the dramatic, the scenic – a (real) view for the stage. In the 19th century, as well, begins the full-flowering of one-sidedness. First, Carl Maria von Weber: church, opera, and instrumental composer; yet his instrumental works, of which only those for piano live, are set on a formula for “brilliance”; and only “Freischütz” has limited national recognition among his operas. Mendelssohn and Schumann lacked a strong dramatic inclination; and Wagner, also an international master, turned weak and helpless without inspiration from the “scenic word,” when the view of the stage was absent. Verdi gained international recognition as an opera composer, because Italian opera is an international export – and because, thanks to his humanity, grew far past any national limits. Yet Verdi was not “symphonic,” the basis of so much of Wagner’s effect.
Considering the grace and instinctive security of Mozart’s mastery of vocal and instrumental writing, for the mass and opera, quartet and concerto – our admiration for the phenomenon of his uniqueness as a universal musician grows immeasurably. And this grows yet more, in reflecting on the dilemma of his historical and national position. This historical factor must be given its own chapter. [The chapter appears in this DH digital library as a 5-part series titled “Mozart and Counterpoint.”] It concerns the issue that Mozart was born in the “galant” musical period, when polyphonic expression was not natural and fitting. Mozart experienced a significant crisis before he overcame this difficulty. The national aspect is clearer when one considers that Mozart, as a German musician, had to compose Italian operas; and was too great or personal to become a completely Italian composer – or better, to remain one. For other German musicians this was not a problem: Hasse, Graun, Misliveczek, and many others. They belong completely within Italian opera history. Is it not a clear marker of the naturalness and untroubled character of Italian opera between 1720 or 1725 and 1775, that we find almost no aesthetic literature for questions about a national opera? About opera as a form, its relation to drama; above all antique drama [?] In France, by comparison, the line of such literature hardly breaks, as the Italian opera always posed a threat; and in Germany it is not just opera, but the national music style, threatened from all sides. Mozart had almost no influence on the Italian opera buffa, for which he provided the greatest masterworks of the form; and it would be interesting to know what musicians like Paisiello, Sarti, or Cimarosa said or thought about “Nozze” or “Don Giovanni.” From Paisiello, at least, we know what he thought about the difference between Italian and German music in general. Asked by one of his students about this, Giacomo Gotifredo Ferrari from Roveredo, he replied:
“I will tell you. If two masters developed in the same school, there would hardly be a difference in style, yes? Yet Italians in general begin without reaching a conclusion, and the Germans conclude before they start: I’m not sure if I’m expressing this clearly. In Italy we only value melody; whether by nature, or through the effects of harmony, which our voices or voice-led approach exercises upon us; and we make use of modulation only to strengthen the expression of the text. In Germany however, whether for other reasons or because they feel less capable in vocal writing, by comparison, they place little value in melody and rely less on it; so are then compelled to make more adventurous use of harmony, in order to make up for this lack of melody and the magic of a beautiful voice.” (1)
Paisiello confirmed a few exceptions: on the German side, Hasse, Handel und Gluck (!); and for the Italian side Padre Martini, Durante, and Valotti. But despite the conversation occurring on November 21, 1784, before the arrival of “Nozze” and “Don Giovanni”: how superficial and primitive the instruction is! With this intellectual equipment, one cannot address the problem of what is “national” in music, or the issue of Mozart. Rossini spoke with the greatest admiration, at least, for “Don Giovanni,” but without allowing the slightest “ultramontane” influence.
Another danger for Mozart’s universality was already astutely noted by Wyzewa und de Saint-Foix: the one-sided instrumental education he received from his father. How did he elude this danger? It is a wonder, one might suggest, Mozart also became a great vocal composer. He was also more fortunate, and stronger in escaping the danger than Beethoven, who never really did. Both Mozart and Beethoven were trained as pianists, or at least the piano was their instrument; and this in turn influenced them as composers. Yet Mozart as creator, early on, thought independently from the piano. A true singing manner was a basic principle for him, first in vocal forms, then in writing for instruments also. The same conceptual issues existed in the area of opera as for his instrumental works. In Haydn’s case, the matter was much simpler. In his isolation, Haydn was practically compelled to become “original.” Haydn too received Italian, French, Viennese, and Czech influences, yet from a distance; he wrote in the quiet of Weinzierl, Lukavec, and Eisenstadt; then made his first great journey when he was nearly sixty, already having dictated his personal style to the entire musical world. For Mozart, brought on his first journey at seven or eight, thrown into the world, we find someone delivered early to every musical influence. It is astonishing enough he did not pay, did not, at sixteen, lose his talent as is the rule with Wunderkindern; that his personality and power of resistance was strong enough to only assimilate what was, for his nature, beneficial. He could have easily become an Abbè Vogler, or Vogler’s student Meyerbeer: a kind of international monstrosity, with talent enough to bring the (arguably monstrous) stylistic form of “Grand Opera” to the world. Yet he became Mozart. This means he belongs to no nation – yet every nation. He is universal; he is neither a national nor international musician. He is supranational.
Translation by Edward Eggleston.
Footnotes
(1) “Ti dirò. Se i due professori avessero studiato nello stesso modo, non vi sarebbe differenza alcuna: capisci? Ma gl’italiani incominciano generalmente senza finire, e i tedeschi finiscon prima d’incominciare: non sò se mi spiego. In Italia non facciam caso che della melodia; sia per natura, o per gli effetti armoniosi che le voci e la maniera di cantare ci producono; nè usiam modulazioni che per rinforzare l’espressione della parola. In Germania, poi, sia per altre ragioni o perchè i tedeschi si veggono inferiori a noi pel canto, essi non si curan della melodia, ne l’usan che pochissimo; ond’è che sono obbligati di servirsi di un’armonia ricercata, per supplire in tal guisa alla mancanza e alla bellezza magica della voce.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Leave a Reply