K. 219, Violin Concerto no. 5 (Second Movement), The Keys of
Present-Worldly Unsuccess.
I have fully moved into our new house. I’ve been spending every breaking moment
siding. I’m still not done. But, man, am I sore. Hands-on housework. Another dabblement of mine.
I once heard Jamie Hyneman from Mythbusters say concerning
duct tape, “Duct tape isn’t perfect for anything, but it is adequate for
everything.” Sometimes I feel like I’m
duct tape.
How am I supposed to transition from that to the second
movement of Violin Concerto #5? I will
get there, but it will be a bit of a trip.
Few would consider a duct tape job a completely successful
fix. I guess that depends on how you
define success.
The term success is a subjective term. I guess if you’re the goal-oriented type,
you’ll be able to tell me objectively whether you’re successful. Unfortunately, I’m lack some
goal-orientation. So for now, I am going
to narrow the definition of success to one label: present-worldly success. That means the ability to enjoy the fruits of
one’s success within his or her lifetime.
Fame and fortune are examples.
What are the keys to this type of success? For years, we have been told the keys of
success are hard work, talent, and intelligence. Sounds logical? But, by that standard, I would have to
believe Mozart would have been beyond successful. (Again, I am out to stress the idea of a present-worldly
success.) And, many tend to believe
there are all sorts of characters that are neither smart, talented nor
hardworking, yet are successful.
I do not believe these three qualities are the keys to
success. (Although, they may be helpful
tools to reach actual success achieving traits.) There are two key means of achieving a
present-worldly success. And, I don’t think Mozart had a great deal of either,
at least in his lifetime. One is
focus. This is not the radical. And many might argue Mozart had this trait,
but I will make a case contrary a little later.
The second—this is a more essential
trait and a more radical claim—is
popularity.
First, let’s focus on focus.
Let’s say you want to hire a plumber.
Do you look for the person that is smart and talented? Maybe. Let’s say a plumber makes a bid, and says to
you, “That leaky faucet. I don’t know
what your problem is, but I’m smart and talented, I can figure it out.” Would
you hire the person? What about a hard worker?
If the plumber says, “You tell me what needs to be done and I’ll give
you 110% to knock it out for you,” you won’t hire him or her on that fact
alone. You want the person that has
devoted his or her life to becoming a plumbing expert. You want the person that knows city codes,
costs of materials, the time it will take to fix, and the cost.
‘Surely, Mozart was a focused man?’ Some would say. Yes.
He did have intense sessions of focus concerning music. But, he loved
all music so much he couldn’t devote himself to one particular aspect of it. His father told him to concentrate on the
popular. Salzburg wanted to hear
specific types of music, i.e. violin concertos, and not piano pieces. Vienna wanted lighthearted, Italian language
operas. (These demands also concern
popularity.) Imagine if Mozart would
have honed in on anyone of these skills, and tried to become the best of the
best in one particular area. People of
his day said he could have been one of the greatest violin players, but I sense
that he grew a disdain for the violin.
(Likely, some of his disgust stemmed from his father and Salzburg.) Concerto #5 was his last violin
concerto. He did relatively few violin
works afterward. Not only did he lack a
specialty-music focus, there were extra-curricular distractions that led to
financial troubles. But, I would argue that his lack of focus may have been
what enabled him to create such beautiful music. Exploration and discovery. Seeing larger scales. An avoidance of contrived works.
Rightly applied focus can lead to popularity. (This is the entire purpose of focus groups.)
We’ve been lectured throughout all our
lives not to focus on popularity. If we delve into moral ideals, there are
great principles concerning such statements.
And, I agree deep in my moral heart.
But, my pragmatic head has issues with it. If you want to enjoy the
fruits of a present-worldly success, (I will not comment about the more
important other-worldly successes here) someone, somewhere has to like what you
have to offer. And, unfortunately, it so
often has to be the right people.
Namely, the ones willing to pay.
Or, at least, the ones willing to rally behind you. Even if you want to be the raddest
revolutionary, you’ve got to have a following.
Sure, talent, hard work and intelligence can help, but they are not
necessary. Moreover, if you have these
traits, but piss everybody off (unless you are trying to be popularly
unpopular), you will not enjoy a present-worldly success.
This brings us to Mozart.
His father mostly likely caused the greatest disservice concerning
Mozart’s popularity. In trying to force
himself higher up the musical latter, he likely slathered a poor reputation
onto his son. Moreover, Mozart inherited
his father’s rebellious nature—yet never fully rebelled from his father. In addition, Leopold soured Mozart from
certain musical avenues. Haydn commented
that Mozart was not being paid what he was musically worth. All stemming from a lowered popularity.
Does that mean Mozart should have sucked-up? Not
necessarily, but he sacrificed because of it.
And, we all must ask what sacrifices are we willing to make in order to
achieve success on our own terms? This
is why those who seek present-worldly successes above all else, are the ones
more likely to perform acts we view as questionable or compromised.
Even Mozart’s post-worldly success stems from his popularity. The world remembers him, because his music
has touched it. (Maybe, some have become
fascinated by his off-color behaviors.)
But, if the right people had not heard it and shared it, what would have
happen to his name? Yet, his music’s
beauty is not dependent on our having heard it.
Such thoughts make dreary existential wonderings circle in my brain. How many great works have vanished into
oblivion because they have never gained popularity? Then, in arrogance (because
I believe I am uniquely brilliant), I think, “Are my works destined for such a death?”
So why am I tying all these rambles into the second movement
of Violin Concerto #5. First, the music
stirs such thoughts. The orchestra opens as if it is a friend coming to
comfort. The violin solo mopes in. It is
not sure where life will take it. Its
dreams have been crushed. The orchestra tries to encourage it. The violin seems to perk up, but sighs in
sorrow. The orchestra sighs alongside. Then, the orchestra’s mood brightens as if to
say, “You’ll be all right. Just do it
our way.” The violin doesn’t buy it. Mourning
some more. At times, the violin seems to
submit, only to sink back in melancholy.
The second reason I rambled using this piece concerns the
crossroads in Mozart’s life at the time of this composition. Prospects of a grander musical commission were
bleak. Mozart had to be considering the
possibility that his lot in life would be nothing but a servant of
Colloredo. During this period, Mozart
wrote his violin concertos. Salzburg
loved them. (I love them.) I wonder what kinds of benefits he would have
gotten if he had just stayed in Salzburg composing violin works. Maybe, he wouldn’t have had the fame he has
today. But, I can imagine he’d have had
a more comfortable life. Pies from old
ladies. Hat-tilted respect from city
elders. A stable income from a career in
his passion, amongst poverty norms. Who
knows?
But, Mozart couldn’t devote himself to that particular
focus. I think such wrestlings bounced
around in his head as he wrote this final violin concerto. He wanted to write operas, piano concertos,
and chamber music. But, what could he
do? Did he simply have to accept his lot
in life? Clearly, we know what he
decided. Unfortunately, his audience’s
demands chased Mozart away from a beautiful genre.
