What I find fascinating about this piece – the overture to an opera that Mozart wrote when he was 14 – is that it sounds like the kind of thing you might get if you programmed a computer to generate “something that sounds like Mozart.” It’s the distinctively Mozartian sound, but by contrast with his later work he’s just not doing anything very interesting with it.
My point here isn’t to slam the piece – hell, it’s damn good for 14, and anyway in its day the Mozartian sound was already an innovation (I wouldn’t mistake this piece for, say, Haydn). But it’s just interesting to realise that there is such a thing as the pure Mozartian sound, apart from the cool things he would later learn to do with it. It’s a bit like encountering a genus not yet contracted to any particular species – or perhaps a kind of Mozartian prime matter.
Never mind the music, what sort of drugs was the choreographer on?
The choreographer is trying to distract you from the inadequacy of the music.
Yeah, you can kind of get a hint of his later great overtures like “The Magic Flute”, which is the piece of music that turned me on to Classical Music proper. I think the piece starts out well, but the third section is a dud.
Also, those eyes are fucking terrifying.
Also, those eyes are fucking terrifying.
Lmao, That was my first initial thought.
I’d love to see a PDQ Bach arrangement.
Totally sidetracking the conversation: why do you use ‘realise’ instead of ‘realize’ or ‘criticise’ instead of ‘criticize’? I only ask because I’ve always found the ‘s’ much more aesthetically pleasing than the ‘z’. It makes for a more smooth read.
Just wondering where that comes from.
Short answer: I read a lot of British children’s books growing up, and I guess it rubbed off.
He also uses Armourall on his car and his favourite colour is green.