How do we recognize Mozart?

Fantine_2000 · Guest

Good day. I am a theory teacher in Washington and have been working with a student who asked me a question to which I have no answer: how does music get its character? Specifically, he learned to recognize Mozart's compositions first and wonders what it is about Mozart's music that is so easily recognized. Broadly, how is it that Russion, French, and other types of music are recognized from each other?

I can have him analyze the music but when it comes to the character of actual sound, I was hoping others in the music community would have an idea.

admin · Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:59 am Post subject:

Too large a subject to cover in an entire board I'm afraid.

Would be a combination of orchestration, chord voicings and most importantly the way the melody moves throughout the chord progression.

As music history has evolved composers became more chromatic in their music theory, so earlier composers tend to have a certain set of chord structures they stay within and later composers move around more. Example would be Vivaldi in earlier music with limited chord movement up to Wagner with very heavy chromatic movement.

Again, a VERY large question to be covered.........

Totentanz · Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:15 am Post subject:

A lot of composers who searched for and studied folk music were wondering the same thing. Bartok, Janacek, Vagn Holmboe (had to throw a Dane in there), and Dvorak were all looking to write music that had a little more "character" than the usual bland-western-euro-classical music already in abundance.

The Mighty Handful (or the Mighty Five, starring Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky-Vodka) were a group of Russian composers dedicated to using folk tunes from their Motherland to inspire their music.

I think musical conditioning has a lot to do with why certain things sound like they belong to a certain region and what not. (phrygian scales "sound Spanish." But hey, some Shostakovich symphonies, like nos 8 and 11 have little trumpet parts that could be mistaken for "Spanish horn lines" by a casual observer).

That's my not-too-thought-out response! Basically, I can't think of an easy answer. At the same time, everything shouldn't have to have a codified textbook definition explaining its purpose. 'Specially Music.

-Tote

Tara · Guest

you certainly won't recognize THIS mozart: http://hometown.aol.com/motionizer/page47.html

Guest · Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 9:15 am Post subject:

Hmmm... i would say look at the melodic patterns, the form, the scales and the chord progressions.

Also you could distinguish the tone by the instrumentation, and well as the playing dynamics. Also the technical ability of the player.

I would listen for the cadences of the time period, and the scales of the time period. As well i would analyze if it was a couterpoint composition.

Are you asking about the timbre or each instrument, or the character of the song. I would say the character of the song lies in the scale, rhythm, and chords...or supporting harmony.

Hope that helps, jeff

Jarl Magnus · Guest

I don't know a thing a thing about chords or harmonics, still, I can readily recognize most of Mozart's music (from that of his contemporaries as well, I believe, although I have only heard a few).
You will have to find a better definition than one depending on music theory.
From a philosopher's point of listening, I must say I think composers create an emotional or even transcendent landscape in which they mould their music. And a landscape from which they draw the most simple choices time and time again, as a personal distinction (or maybe idiosyncrasy) to music as a whole. Or perhaps music as it is available to them (after the formal, traditional, sensible and rational) expectations are taken into account).

I'd wish I knew music theory myself, and I wish I had a chance to address music more directly in my personal development; but being seventeen, I feel that my chance is lost.
Still, it's amusing to hear the amount words, often complicated and sometimes inaccurate, simply describe music which is mutually understandable to most.
Of course I'm not talking about the intellectual parts of musical expression, which is surely available first to the trained and intellectually capable.

Guest · Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject:

Grrr....typical response of someone who doesn't know theory. What you are recognizing is the audio symptoms of the underlying theory. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not there.

Jarl Magnus · Guest

Grrr?
Well, if that's so, then I appreciate "the symptoms of theory" quite more than I do the language of music theory.

Guest · Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:32 am Post subject:

Yes, it is simply the difference between someone appreciating the architecture of a great building versus the appreciation from a fellow architect.

Both enjoy, but from different perspectives. And the building was created to please the general population, not just other architects.

Smile

Gabriel · Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject:

The music of different classical periods sounds quite different.
It is quite easy to tell a Baroque piece from a Classical piece from a Romantic Piece from a Serialist Piece, etc.
The whole style of playing is different

As for specific composers, you have to listen for the scales they use, the intervals they use, how they orchestrate the music, etc.

JK · Guest

Q: Good day. I am a theory teacher in Washington and have been working with a student who asked me a question to which I have no answer: how does music get its character? Specifically, he learned to recognize Mozart's compositions first and wonders what it is about Mozart's music that is so easily recognized. Broadly, how is it that Russion, French, and other types of music are recognized from each other? I can have him analyze the music but when it comes to the character of actual sound, I was hoping others in the music community would have an idea.

A: This is a really good question. It touches upon many aspects of human ability, desire, feelings and necessity and the question can’t really be answered without pondering upon these aspects.

We are born with analytical ability. A human being subconsciously recognises and remembers structures and quickly arranges structures into a system. After two years of intense visual and aural observation and subconscious analysis we quickly stop uttering gag gag and commence with increasingly comprehensive verbal and gesticulative communication without conscious knowledge of the rules. The same happens when we listen to music. Music has its structures and systems (cadences, phrases, form etc), a culture area has its structures and systems (themes, conventions, classes etc.) and a composer has structures and systems (rhythmic, harmonic, instrumental preferences). It doesn’t take an interested human very long to memorise and recognise these “patterns”, the methods of accompaniment, variation and development, and assign them to a particular composer. The more we listen to a particular composer, the more we recognise and assign and even if we’re not sure of the composer (i.e. Beethoven or Brahms) we’ll be able to identify the culture area and the era.

Music is the art of expression by sound and composers have in common a desire to express themselves. Why does a composer prefer minor to major key, minor key cadence II – V to minor key cadence VI – V or vice versa? Whatever the reasons, the final composition comprises tens of thousands of such decisions and if it’s “good” and we are receptive, it will move us. If, when listening to a different composition, we are moved again in a similar manner, familiarity and recognition will occur and the chances are high that it will be the same composer.

Composers had to earn money. This necessity forced them to ”produce” for the consumers. Obviously, each consumer group (i.e. culture area, class) had its own history and preferences and these were best determined when the composer studied his predecessors’ and contemporaries’ works. Accordingly, a French composer composed according to the “French system” (learnt from his predecessors and contemporaries and spiced with his own inspiration, insights and feelings) from within the French culture area for the French culture area (possibly using a French folk song as a theme for bonding) in order to fulfil the requirements of his consumers and sell the product to earn money.

I don’t know of any composer who was not an engineer and an architect. They all knew theory, form, variation techniques etc. so well, that they forgot about them and developed a style.