Today the word ‘genius’ in music has suffered inflation to the point that it has become a rather flattened term. It can refer as facilely to a skilled hip hop artist as it can to, say, a composer like Igor Stravinsky. I guess we use the term genius today for what was formerly meant ‘talent,’ although ‘talent’ is another label that has become flattened to the point of having little distinction. So by describing Mozart as a genius, we encounter a basic problem. Many people consider Michael Jackson to have been a genius too. But I don’t believe we mean the same thing.

In one respect, though, there is the eerie notion that Mozart could have ended up with a life like Michael Jackson’s. Both Mozart and Jackson’s talents manifested at a ridiculously early age. Both their fathers were exploiting them at age 5. Like Michael Jackson, Mozart might have had a career as the greatest entertainer of his generation. As a child he was wowing royal audiences throughout Europe with his amazing feats, playing the piano upside down and backwards, blindfolded, and with his nose. He could have built a reputation as the ‘Kaiser of Pop’ in the 18th century.

That it didn’t happen is what is extraordinary. Mozart eventually discarded his persona as an entertainer and worked unflaggingly to be regarded as a master composer. With all his unusual abilities and tendency towards distraction, it is something of a marvel that he was able to concentrate so fully on composition. Part of the reason for his success was probably the influence of his father. Where Michael Jackson’s father was a steel mill worker and former boxer who played in an R&B band, Mozart’s father Leopold was one of the leading violinists of his day. For all the complexity of the father-son relationship, Leopold was first and foremost an outstanding musician, and he became Mozart’s outer and inner critic. He knew when his son was ‘cheating’, so to speak, using his talent as a crutch instead of working towards true excellence and his highest potential.  This father role is laid bare in the letters we have between them. The ghost of Mozart’s father, embodied in the ghost statue in his opera Don Giovanni, is that of the truth-caller. In the pablum of we today’s super-hero movies, Leopold taught Wolfgang that with his great musical powers came great responsibility.

A person’s choice of mentors is often revealing. When reading about the life of Michael Jackson or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one can’t help but be taken by the loneliness they both felt in their lives. They had really no peers to whom they could relate. For that reason, the fact that each found older friends/mentors is interesting. Michael Jackson had a well-known friendship with Elizabeth Taylor. What other entertainer but she could fully understand and relate to the life of a superstar lived under the harsh microscope of daily media scrutiny, with the tabloids oscillating wildly between labeling them angels or freaks? Taylor was the perfect mentor for Michael Jackson the top entertainer. Mozart, on the other hand, formed a well-known friendship with Joseph Haydn. Haydn was not an entertainer or world traveler like Mozart. But he was a composer who had taken his talent to the greatest heights; he was by this time a revered kapellmeister. Who else but Haydn could fully understand Mozart’s music and Mozart’s desire to develop it even further? Haydn was clearly a huge inspiration for Mozart. Mozart studied Haydn’s quartets very carefully, composed six of his own dedicated to Haydn, and then invited Haydn to come over to hear them. His father wrote home and to all posterity Haydn’s comment: "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."

 What higher validation could Mozart or his father ever receive?

But the question for Leopold was always security and prestige.  Today composers compete for top university teaching appointments. In Mozart’s day, composers competed for top music director positions at courts for aristocrats who loved music. Leopold himself became a Kapellmeister, as they were called, for the prince archbishop of Salzburg. He worked unceasingly to help Wolfgang secure a similar position.  And that goal, which he never actually achieved, in many ways determined the trajectory of Mozart’s life.

Comments

August 16, 2011 @05:18 pm Mr. Martin. Your Stephen King/Shakespeare analogy is one of comparing two creative artists. Russell compared Michael Jackson and W.A. Mozart as performers and as children of guiding/exploitive parents, not as to their creative abilities or the longevity of their appeal. You seem to feel that Mozart’s compositions are tarnished by the mere mention of Michael Jackson’s name, even when artistic accomplishment is not under discussion. I disagree. Russell makes a valid point that Mozart’s artistic talent might easily have gone unfulfilled if his father had not nurtured his compositional as well as performing abilities. Whether Haydn’s influence was as necessary as Leopold’s is less certain, but it didn’t hurt. These points could have been made without comparison to Michael Jackson’s experience, but the comparison is at most gratuitous and not harmful in any way to Mozart's art or reputation. In one respect the Michael Jackson comparison is very helpful - understanding that as a child prodigy (maybe the first in Europe?) Mozart was first and foremost a celebrity, the equivalent of a pop star. While he could play well and improvise as a child, it was the age factor that attracted all the attention and money. As he got into his teens, his appeal as a performer waned even though his playing was just as good and almost certainly better. He was no longer cute or unique. We can all be thankful that Mozart turned to composition rather than trying to rekindle his popularity as a performer by becoming more extreme (as Michael Jackson did). Doug Crowley
August 13, 2011 @08:46 am That you can even compare the two of them clearly shows you have no business writing a music blog. There's nothing fascinating or insightful about such a comparison. It's like comparing Stephen King to Shakespeare, who these days is no doubt dubbed by the likes of you "Willy the Shake." Fred Martin
August 12, 2011 @11:36 am So this idea of genius. I'm not sure if it's quantifiable. Especially in the comparison of someone who has been dead for 300 years vs. 2. Maybe it's an insulting comparison, since we know more sordid details of MJ, but I believe their contribution to their own day was quite similar. And we should all check back in on this discussion in 300 years to find out about MJ's lasting impact. But even if he doesn't have the lasting appreciation, is he less of a genius? MJ was as much a product of his time and experience as Mozart. The "recording" has influenced what a performance can be, and mean. In Mozart's time, after a performance, you'd never hear that high C as it was sung that night, again. All that remained was a memory. Not so now. And to me, that adds to the potency and the lasting impact a performance can have on the way an audiences experiences the work. I believe it becomes a part of the music. Also, a comment addressing another comment that people should be required to read music? Blah! Humbug. I read, and I'm glad I do, but some of the most soulful music, that speaks to another part of the human experience could never be composed in this manner. It stems from another tradition. To hold one "way" above another is to undercut the individual journey toward honest expression. All of these methods are tools to unlock creativity, and we each get to artistic truth in a myriad of ways. Also, someone wanted a Mozart bio I think? Maynard Solomon's is pretty interesting. Rachel
August 09, 2011 @09:14 pm Well Rusty, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog, as always. I think it's important to separate the performer vs. composer element from the popular vs. not popular- (however we shall call it: artistic, revolutionary, etc.) element. Thank goodness that Mozart chose composing rather than only performing other people's music in all his talent. But was he so unpopular in his day? Was he so obscure? I don't know. I haven't read a Mozart biography (which is curious considering he's my favorite composer but I have read biographies of sorts of Beethoven (and his spiritual development) and Wagner (and the erotic impulse) (both great books but I digress...)So Mozart became a composer (thank God!) rather than a pianist by trade, but does this mean that he took the road less traveled? OR was he in fact (in becoming a composer) actually trying to be the trailblazer and achieve wider, more shiny-shiny success with a longer lasting effect than he felt he could achieve by being a performer alone? At the end of the day I think Mozart and M.J. might have been driven by the same impulse. That is, the desire to reach people and share music that expressed the sehnsucht/ longing that we all feel at times in our lives. Hmmm... I dare say Mozart WAS a pop star, and might even say he was a damn good one not only in the success of his music, but also if you look at his lifestyle. Bravo Mozart! Good for you! Michael Jackson? diffirent, sure. Also the son of an exploitative parent as so many "stars" are (likely b/c the parent recognizes an ability to make money). Well, I wouldn't say that Mozart and Michael Jackson would sit down for Lambrusco on a summer evening and have lots to talk about... but then again, maybe they would. I think what is clear is that they both followed "the right way" in a divine comedy sense- steered their course based on an inner navigation system, to hell with what people think... and THAT is genius. It's interesting that you point out their mentors. I never would've made the comparison, and I'm glad you did. Although!~ I think that their choice in mentorship has less to do with the older age of the mentor (that is, that they weren't looking for guidance in a parental sort of way) but that they shared similar mentalities with their mentors. I agree whole-heartedly that it was "something of a marvel" that Mozart was able to concentrate on composing. Thank God for the people that understood him or encouraged him along the way. and Betsy: if ONLY someone could make it a requirement of sorts that to be any kind of musician (including pop) you would HAVE to be able to read and write music! Jennifer Loe
August 09, 2011 @06:42 pm Mozart was able to contribute compositions in such a wide variety of genre unprecedented at the time and perhaps not ever duplicated to this day. Symphony, Concerto, Opera, vocal music, orchestra music...hits! He did it all. Yeah! Donna Fontana
August 09, 2011 @03:17 pm I'm not sure Mozart he had the right disposition to be a court composer. When he was in Salzburg, he feuded with his boss, Archbishop Colloredo, and may have left for Vienna to get away from his control. Would he also have chaffed under the requirements of the imperial court had he secured a position there? True, he would not have been required to write as much religious music as in Salzburg, but he might not have been able to pursue his first love, opera, to the extent he did as a freelancer. Mozart was a member of the first generation of composers to earn a living from performing their own compositions, commissions and publishing their works, instead of as an employee. It was the model Beethoven and all subsequent composers followed until composers-in-residence at universities revived the employee model for a few lucky composers. Doug Crowley
August 09, 2011 @02:22 pm Hello Russell, This comparison is fascinating and very thoughtful. I think that there is a fundamental difference between a singer/ performer and a composer. This is- where the drive for creation comes from: whereas a performer creates and live for the audience, the composer has inner life that may or maynot be connected to a specific audience. Moreover, instrumentalist often has more natural access to the written aspect of music than singers do. And So, if a pianist (Mozart, for instance) wants to take his music from the stage to the paper, it is a much more natural thing for him to do than for the singer. Warm thoughts Aya Aya Sela
August 09, 2011 @11:49 am Thank you, Russell for your terrific insight. Mozart probably would have known that taking Propofal to go to sleep is like taking Chemotherapy because you're tired of shaving your head. Move over David Geffen & Dr. Drew. Let Russell Steinberg straighten out all your musical trainwrecks. Somebody should send this article to Wofgang Amadeus Van Halen. Phil Erenberg
August 09, 2011 @08:27 am Hi Russell, it's me, your unsophisticated but appreciative reader. Wow. Did they have pop artists in the 18th century? and if so, who would a pop mentor have been for Mozart? What we consider classical composers were the stars of the day, were they not? With the explosion of rock and roll in the 20th c, along with electronic media, certain kinds of music went beyond the university setting as far as the general public was concerned, and Michael Jackson rode that wave better than anyone. Mozart may have chosen a different path had he had that opportunity. Thank heaven we have composers today competing for top university positions, and serving as mentors to those coming along behind. Had Mozart become a pop entertainer, would we remember him today? I doubt it. But maybe future generations will remember Michael, along with our top composers trained at universities. We've been able to branch out due to modern technology. Betsy P.S. Think what a tragedy it would have been if Mozart never learned to write his music down. Did Michael? Betsy Wells
August 09, 2011 @08:24 am What a fascinating comparison! Yes, I have to agree that the influence of a father, as well as a mentor, would be a determining factor in his pursuits and success. What about Mozart's mother? Jennifer Zobelein
August 09, 2011 @05:43 am Yes, sir! Certainly the paternal difference is substantial, but MJ was also, due to drugs and temperament, batshit crazy, while Mozart, for all of his eccentricity, was fundamentally sane. Fred Glienna

Leave a comment: