Zaide, K. 344, Tiger! wetze nur die klauen

Tiger! wetze nur die klauen

If people didn’t fight for what is wrong, would anyone need to fight for what is right?

I wonder if Mozart ever got sick of it.  The voices, pushing, pulling. His father. Colloredo. His fans. His critics. Sulzberger’s. The Viennese.  Fighting their wills, in order to pursue his own.

I don’t see Mozart as a fighter. By fighting, I don’t mean physical alone. We can fight in all sorts of ways. Both peaceful and violent. In fact, I’m often haunted by this reoccurring theme: ‘Stand up for what you believe.’ Sounds great, in principle. Until, as a youth counselor, I have to clash heads with teens who fight me over the slightest instruction, all the while they’re implicitly (and even at time explicitly) standing up for what they believe. Like a chain between two tugging tractors, I have to adhere to the values of my employer—even if I may think the kids have a point. Who am I decide either way? I don’t want to fight. I have to. (By fight, I mean hold kids accountable.)

The world is full of people fighting for what they believe is right. Much of the time that means, in reality, they are fighting for what they want. ‘Ok? Sound good to me,’ some might say. ‘Shouldn’t we fight for what we want?’ I don’t know… Then, am I to drop my ears back, gnaw, claw and kick until I become the alpha stallion? In spite of all the great things people have done by standing strong (and I’m not at all saying they shouldn’t have), I ask myself how many more atrocities were caused by those who stood up for what they believed, or wanted.  Who knows what would have happened had Hitler not been so perseverant? Even peaceful protests are not as peaceful as some would claim. The have a cost.

And…

Oh, how I hate the way people fight to get others’ attention. Maybe, that is part of my problem. I want recognition, but I don’t want to fight with those willing to pull down their pants just to get others to look at them. Or, those who lay guilt trips.  Or, those willing to spend thousands on marketing.  I assume, if people don’t recognize my work, it’s because it’s not quality. (Part of me still hopes I’m wrong.)

Now, I’m not making grand claims saying that we should never stand up for anything, I just wonder if it would behoove us to reflect more over why were fighting, and what standards we use to determine what’s worth standing up for, before assuming we’re right.

Yet, sometimes we are placed in a position where we have to take a stand. One side or the other. Tiger! wetze nur die klauen is a song that reflects such a dilemma. A powerful song of fist-shaking defiance, Tiger! wetze nur die klauen starts right off saying, ‘this is enough.’ She’d lived in luxury, but at a price. A sexual slave to a powerful man. Likely, she could have been beating her brows with guilt, saying, ‘I deserve this. Look at all the other slaves below me. I have it good compared to them.’ Then, she meets Gomatz and everything changes. She tries to escape, and is caught.

Then, enters Sultan Soliman. A man who is fighting for what he wants. The love of Zaide. As a man, I can identify. Who hasn’t had a crush so strong, that he thought he’d do anything to conjure romantic feelings? But, how far should one take that? This is not a battle Zaide wanted. The slower, sadder middle section of the aria laments with regret, but it transitions back to fist-shaking defiance. ‘Let’s do this.’ It seems to sing, ‘The only pleasure, you’ll willingly get from me is my death.’

I wonder if at the Zaide period of Mozart’s life, he believed a fight was inevitable. A fight with his father? Colloredo? Did he daydream about the eloquent words he would use that would put either in his place? What would it take to get Mozart to stand up for what he wanted? Either way, it was not a battle he wanted to fight.

Sometimes, people like to push others, to try to get them to fight back. I’m not sure what I think about the principle. I can see merit, but it still bothers me. Henry Ford was a jerk to his son. His son never stood up for himself, and eventually, died. Ford was devastated, and said something akin to, ‘I loved him. I just wanted him to stand up for himself.’ Who wants to be that person? I don’t get it. And, if there weren’t any people like that, would we need people like that to train others to stand up for themselves? My brain hurts just now. I don’t know… Maybe I have to live in the ‘real world.’

I still can’t shake the feeling that Colloredo had the same mentality. Read my blurb on Colloredo if you want to see why I think so. http://tonedeaftroglodyte.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-radical-theory-about-archbishop.html   Colloredo goaded Mozart’s Tiger! wetze nur die klauen fight. It was his actions that brought Mozart to Vienna, weaning him from his father. Was that good for Mozart?   ???   Or, was it simply good for us? We’re the ones that get to enjoy the music.

K. 246, Piano Concerto No. 8 in C Major

K. 246, Piano Concerto No. 8 in C Major

A little ditty written for Archbishop Colloredo’s niece.  So this was a piano work, not as popular in the Salzburg area.  So how could a guy like Mozart make such a medium more popular?  How does anyone make something new acceptable to his or her audience?  By tying it to something familiar.   The first thing I thought when I heard the first movement, “That has a familiarity.  It has a build up similar to Violin Concerto no. 5.”  So I checked the tempo marks.  The same as K. 219, except the second movement is an andante instead of an adagio.

As with K. 219, Mozart starts off with the orchestra’s anything is possible tone.  Then, comes the piano solo.  But, this solo isn’t unsure of itself, although it has a similar melody as K. 219’s solo opener.  This solo carries a more curious mood.  “I wander what’s out there?” It says.  Not sure if that is a musical difference between the pianoforte and the violin, or if it is the music itself.  Then we come to the coming-out-of-its-shell element.  This is where the melody is the most similar to K. 219, but it is not as intense.  It builds at a slower pace, and the climax is more mellow.  I prefer K. 219’s first movement’s contrast. “I’m scared” turns into “You’re right, I just might be able to do it.” As opposed to, K. 246’s “I wonder what’s out there” turning into “gee golly, that’s kinda neat.”

Now I’m not sure how much detail I want to go into about the next two movements, because I have not commented on the next two movements of K. 219 yet.  Just to suffice, the second movement has the sighing elements of K. 219.  And, the third movement’s melody feels like a mirror version of the main melody.  As in, a reverse build up. 

A quick tidbit I read about the piece.  It is supposed to be an easier peace to play.  Mozart used it to teach pupils.  And, if you want to make a genre popular that is a good strategy.  Make it easy and make it familiar.

Zaide (K. 344) vs. Die Entführung aus dem Serail (K. 384): Two Moods of Mozart.

Zaide.  Die Entführung aus dem Serail.  Two operas that couldn’t be simultaneously more different and similar.  Melancholy and merry Mozartian moods motivated the music.  

Whenever I delve into the impact Mozart’s life has on the creation of an opera, I must ask, “How much of the theme reflects what Mozart had to say, as oppose to his librettist.”  Sure, Mozart’s opera music does reflect emotions, but are these Mozart’s?  Is he simply doing a superb job of matching the vision of the opera writer?  Or, did his librettist create words that captured the themes Mozart wanted to express?  Collaborations are tricky to interpret.  However, Zaide and Die Entführung seem match Mozart’s life experiences at the time of their creation. 

Zaide.

Mozart’s last striving for employment outside the court of Colloredo had failed.  He had found love in Manheim. Aloysia Weber.  His father’s actions forced Mozart away.  After his mother’s death, Mozart returned to Manheim.  Aloysia was no longer interested. Thus, Mozart accepted his Salzburg sentence as organist.  During that dejected time, he began work on the opera, Zaide. 

Now, how does the opera parallel?  How can we even know if the work was never finished?  All we have are two acts of music.  No dialogue and a missing ending.  There is some debate over how exactly Mozart intended on ending it, but the consensus seems to suggest he would not have ended it tragically.  Such an ending wasn’t fashionable for the times.   I wonder though…  I think Mozart had some wrestlings himself.  As an attempted writer, I often struggle with whether to end a work tragically.  A tragic ending has staying power, but often rubs people the wrong way.  If an artist becomes known as a tragic creator, people may avoid his or her medium.  This fact plagues the artists of history.  An artistic wrestling of expression vs. escape.  Thus, the unknown ending of Zaide begs this question, “Was Mozart trying to escape his reality, or express it?”

I believe he didn’t know. Or may have been doing both.  He had to have had an eclipse of despair choking his motivations.  When humans go through a funk, they often seek out mediums that bury them deeper into their depression.  Zaide’s inspiration is the Voltaire work, Zaire.  Zaire was a radical tragedy of the day.   Until that work, tragedies focused on how moral flaws of the protagonist led to a fall.  Voltaire twisted that notion, and Zaire ends with the slave girl protagonist killed in spite of her virtue.  (I remember reading Candide in college and saw such a premise.)  Consequently, I am led to believe Mozart was stewing in such themes.  He saw himself as a victim of circumstances unable to escape. 

On to the recognizable themes of Zaide.  Zaide is a slave captured by a Muslim Sultan.  (In those days, it was fashionable for artists to write such a plot.)  She falls in love with Gomatz, a fellow slave, although the Sultan desires her.  The two escape, but are captured.  Zaide chooses Gomatz over the Sultan, who wrestles with how he will punish them.  It ends with a death decree.  But, we never know for sure what happens. 

Although, the plot may or may not be Mozart's entire doing, the music was.  And, the aria Ruhe Sanft is the key to understanding the mood of the work--and Mozart.  This aria attracted me to the opera.  As of right now, it is the most beautiful aria I have heard.  (Even Mozart’s throw-aways are incredibly powerful.)  The music’s mood speaks of longing that can never be realized.  Zaide has fallen for the sleeping Gomatz, offering him her picture in hopes it may comfort the exhausted slave.  How had Mozart’s relationship with Aloysia affected parts of this opera?  A number of my youthful crushes have filled my ponderings with regrets.  “If only, I had asked her out sooner… If only, we weren’t so far apart…”  How too, would have Mozart blamed circumstances for his losing Aloysia (and even his mother).  “If only father would have let me travel with the Webers, instead of going to Paris.”  I can feel Mozart beating his brow with such laments. Ruhe Sanft carries such a voice.

Zaide and Gomatz eventually fall in love, and risk death to escape.  But, circumstances strike.  And, Mozart struggles to finish the work in the midst of his depression.  Does he express the facts of fate?  Or, does he use this work as a means to escape his reality?  He drags out a final decision with such contrived tension.  As I watched, I thought, “Kill them already… or something.”  I imagined Mozart pacing in a room struggling in a similar manner.  “Should I kill Zaide… Gomatz… the guardsman that helped them… two of them… all three… or do I let them live?”  With any emotional medium, Mozart had to weigh his desires against the wishes of his audience.  I wonder what he would have come up with if an aristocrat had offered him a guaranteed paycheck to finish how he wanted. 

Die Entführung aus dem Serail

As with many works begun under the duress of depression, Zaide was scrapped.  And, Mozart started work on the opera, Idomeneo. That work was a success.  Through a series of circumstances (read my blurb on Colloredo for more information), Mozart found himself in Vienna—the Hollywood of opera—where Emperor Joseph II sought an opera of the German language.  Would Zaide be a good fit? A friend suggested not.  But, Mozart didn’t scrape the plot completely and Die Entführung aus dem Serail (The Abduction from the Seraglio) was born during merry times. 

What exactly was happening in Mozart life around the writing of Die Entführung?  He was in the city of his dreams.  He could compose an opera in his language.  And, even though Aloysia was married, the Webers now lived in Vienna, and Mozart had an interesting prospect with her sister Constanze.

Die Entführung’s plot is similar to Zaide, but more fleshed out.  A Muslim Sultan employs captured slaves.  Three of which are Konstanze, Pedrillo, and Blonde.  They were captured at sea, and forced into the household of Sultan Bashan.  Bashan has fallen for Konstanze, but desires that she love him without force. Yet, he grows impatient, telling her he could force himself upon her if he wanted.  Konstanze wants to keep herself pure for her love, Belmonte.  Bashan’s head guard Osmin has taken Blonde as his bride.  However, Pedrillo loves Blonde.  As in Zaide, circumstances have fated each character into undeserved positions.  And then, Belmonte enters to rescue everyone.  But, as they escape, they are all captured and their fate is in the hands of Bashan.  What will he decide?  At least with this finished work, we know what Mozart had intended. 

There are several songs that reflect Mozart’s mood, but I would say that the aria Welche Wonne, welche Lust capstones the music describing Mozart’s disposition.  Blonde sings of her good spirits and anticipation of what could be.  The opera never moans a Zaide-like darkness, even after their capture.  (Whether he is catering to Vienna preferences or expressing himself, I cannot emphatically state.) Mozart ratchets the tension, without dimming the mood. 

Bashan asks Belmonte about a certain man.  Belmonte says the man is his father.  The Sultan declares that Belmonte’s father is his sworn enemy.  Surely, we in the audience must believe the prisoners are destined for death.  They can do nothing to save themselves.  Yet, here’s where Mozart lets fate be the powerful ally.  Bashan frees them, ordering Belmonte to never forget the mercy and become a better man than his father. 

I can’t ignore that the very person that freed Mozart’s lead male, seemed at first to be his enemy, but turned out to be his savior.  Moreover, Bashan’s enmity toward Belmonte’s father made me ask, “What does this say about Mozart’s relationship with his father?”  And naturally, I’m drawn back to my radical presumptions about Colloredo.  Are the themes connected? Tension gnawed at Colloredo and Leopold, with Mozart caught in the middle.  No one would disagree that Leopold was actually the one that held Mozart captive.  And, the very person thought to be Mozart’s enemy was actually the man that freed the composer.  Who knows?  Maybe my ideas are nothing but wacky longings of a man who wants to create a new theory.  (Isn’t that how most conspiracy theories are born?)

A Radical Theory About Archbishop Colloredo

I just had to get this out of my mind...

I once read: in literature, a character (whether good or bad) should never be entirely one-sided. Antagonists written completely evil for the sake of being evil are shallow, boring and unrealistic. One such character in Mozart’s life is so often portrayed in such a manner. Archbishop Colloredo. Here’s my radical theory that alters that portrayal. I intend to paint Colloredo not as a child squeezing a struggling kitten tighter, but more as a conservationist chasing away a captive-born endangered animal.

First off, who was the man? Archbishop Colloredo took over after his predecessor, Archbishop Schrattenbach. Leopold hadn’t much respect for Schrattenbach, although the man had been quite generous to the Mozarts. Schrattenbach paid for their journeys, while Leopold scavenged for employment elsewhere. In addition, he used the possibility of new employment to extort for higher pay and position. From early on, Mozart was conditioned to have an adversarial role with the Archbishop. How much did Colloredo know about Leopold’s disrespect of the previous Archbishop?

After the death of Schrattenbach, Archbishop Colloredo won a controversial election. Once in office, he enacted some new policies. In each of their biographies on Mozart, Maynard Solomon and Julian Rushton both emphasize that Colloredo was no ‘liberal/progressive’ (Mozart: a Life. Harper Collins, 1995) (Julian Rushton. Mozart. Oxford University Press, 2006). Of course, neither author directly defines his terms. My guess would be Solomon and Rushton are using present-mined liberal/progressive connotations. However, one generation’s progressive sometimes ends up being a future generation’s conservative. For example, the term ‘classical liberal’ is associated with the more extreme right-wing. Our primarily secular culture—especially patrons of modern progressive philosophies—tends to quickly vilify religious authorities. (Surely, such criticisms have merit.)

Why does that matter? I am trying to establish that for his time, Colloredo was a progressive. Someone who instituted change. Moreover, he was someone who knew how to make change happen in spite of opposition. A very shrewd politician who believed what he was doing was right. We have the tendency to hate these politicians when we disagree with them, but love them when they crusade for our cause. So what were some of his changes? Many were similar to Emperor Joseph II. But, efficiencies dominated his priorities. Efficiencies and the arts have been known to butt heads. And, lacking a full-hearted support for the arts is often enough to strip one of the label ‘progressive’ via modern scholars. But I can’t help but think of his changes, and wonder if I would agree. In worship, Colloredo shortened liturgy and music. He also removed unessential and superstitious elements. In my experience, modern progressives favor liturgical, musical, and superstitious elements of religiosity over doctrinal. In a world dominated by the aristocracy, to whom did pre-Colloredo elements ultimately cater?

Although Colloredo instituted change, he knew how far to push his limits. For example, he covered his provocative paintings whenever more conservative patrons visited. Consequently, to play politics Colloredo needed to control the Mozarts. Salzburg loved Mozart. They loved the attention he brought the city. And, I highly doubt the city placed Mozart’s career dreams over their desires to use him for fame and gain. It would be political suicide for Colloredo to do anything to encourage Mozart to abandon Salzburg.

So, now it is 1777. In his efficiencies, Colloredo limited the Mozart travels. Putting myself in his shoes, I have a hard time blaming him. I liken it to my work. If I were to complain about how horrible my boss was, yet demanded that he should pay for me to work at other locations while I try to find a position there, how should I reasonably expect him to react? Leopold, however, believed Colloredo to be completely unreasonable. Eventually, he sent the Archbishop a letter. He stated that the Gospel requires people to use their talents. And, he requested to be allowed to tour again. Even if Colloredo wasn’t a prideful man (which he clearly was), he’d certainly have a hard time with such demands. The archbishop responded with his infamous letter, ‘in the name of the Gospel, father and son have my permission to seek their fortune elsewhere.’

So, why did Colloredo essentially fire the Mozarts ‘in the name of the Gospel’? The less-than-religious, and even many of the religious, would say such an action is contrary to the Gospel. But, this is not necessarily the case. True, Leopold was correct. The Gospel does call us to use our talents for God. However, the main thrust of the Gospel is trusting that God has provided, and will provide, in order that we may use our talents. Colloredo (who himself likely had faith issues) knew Leopold lacked the faith to venture out without an earthly safety net. Leopold caved, and Colloredo took him back as long as he remained in Salzburg.

Mozart, however, traveled Europe. Leopold monetarily supported the trip. Why did Colloredo allow him to go? Many books and documentaries seem suggest Colloredo did this to spite Leopold, and watch Mozart fail. Spiting Leopold may be possible, but I can’t help but wondering if he really wanted Mozart to fail. Sure, there’s the old if you let a bird go cliché. I just can’t imagine a politically-calculated man releasing his arena’s prized calf, apart from any other motive than principle. If spiting Leopold was the lone goal, he had already had the man humbled to full servitude. I believe Colloredo truly wanted Mozart to find a suitable position on his journey.

Not only did Colloredo want Mozart to find a suitable post, he may have wanted Mozart to gain independence from his domineering father. That is why he insisted Leopold never leave Salzburg. However, Mozart’s journey failed. In addition, his mother died, which ended up giving Leopold even more power over his son, who blamed Mozart for her death. Leopold found a position for Mozart back in the service of Colloredo. Possibly, for the sake of Salzburg political pressure, and for the sorrowed musician’s soul, Colloredo took Mozart back. (And, here’s where my theories will grow to their radical climax.) Colloredo now knows he will have to seek extreme measures to separate Father from son, while not enraging his Salzburg constituents.

Colloredo had to know Mozart’s passion for Opera. And, a commission for an Opera in Munich may have been the catalyst for a plan to release Mozart. If Colloredo truly wanted to keep Mozart in an un-spirited servitude, no way would he allow the musician the commission of Idomeneo. Then, of all actions, he calls Mozart directly to Vienna afterward. No stop back to Salzburg. That would be like a producer asking a rookie, Broadway-acclaimed actor to join him in Hollywood. In his biography on Mozart, Julian Rushton recognizes the difficulty Colloredo would have had by inviting Mozart to the Vienna, the land of opera and keyboard. Ruston states that Colloredo believed he had the power to control Mozart, especially with his father still in Salzburg (Julian Rushton. Mozart. Oxford University Press, 2006, pg. 102). Again, this portrayal of Colloredo seems to paint a picture of a daft, arrogant, small man unconcerned with any bigger picture.

But, something about this portrayal just doesn’t make sense to me. If Colloredo was a man who needed to prove he had the largest phallus in the room, why would he cover up a painting to please peons? (Again, I’m not saying he was an altruistic crusader.) Colloredo was more sophisticated than that, the shrewd politician. Not, only did Mozart’s trip to Munich goad an opera passion, it kept the young man away from his father. Separation from Leopold would have more likely fueled Mozart’s rebellion, not snuffed it.

Now, I can imagine the vigor and optimism surging through Mozart’s nerves as he arrived in Vienna. The young musician was ready to take on the city. Only one obstacle stood in his way: Colloredo. Historians would have us believe that Colloredo wanted to show his dominance, and he laid it on thick. Making Mozart sit with servants, refusing to let him talk to the aristocracy, kicking Mozart out of his quarters, denying a lucrative gig, demanding Mozart leave for Salzburg immediately and without warning, etc. No one can, will, or should deny Colloredo acted like an ass. Even fellow musicians agreed his behavior was over the top. So did the aristocracy. Even if he didn’t value his ‘servants’ opinions, surely, he thought highly of the views of the affluent. (If he were in fact a small, daft, arrogant ass.) But, I believe Colloredo went to drastic measures to drive Mozart away completely.

So, if Colloredo wanted Mozart gone, why didn’t he simply let the musician go? Salzburg. The city loved their treasure, and for Colloredo to give up Mozart would have been political suicide for a less-than-popular archbishop. He had already let Mozart go once. Colloredo needed Mozart to abandon him, and leave in such a manner that he would never return. (When Mozart did rebel, Salzburg disowned the musician, not the archbishop.) The archbishop struck Mozart’s pride. What things did Colloredo tell Mozart that final day? From his letters we can gain a lot of information, but it is the unmentioned elements that draw my curiosity. Particularly, what Colloredo said about Mozart’s father? From his letter on May 9, 1781, Mozart mentions he wanted to spare Leopold’s feelings (Mozart Letters. Trans. by Lady Wallace. Published by Alfred A. Knoff 2006, pg 165). From what? What were the anti-Leopold comments? I could imagine Colloredo telling Mozart that his father was a faithless man, who didn’t trust Mozart’s job acquiring abilities. He may have also blamed Leopold for Mozart’s career troubles. (There is plenty of evidence that Leopold may have in fact been the source of Mozart’s trouble.)

Colloredo needed to address the father/son relationship, for he knew Leopold would attempt to convince Mozart to return. And Leopold tried quite hard to get Mozart to go back to Colloredo. Mozart was so offended by the attempts, he may have likely tore up his father’s letters, and thus we don’t have them. Leopold, and not Colloredo, may have also conspired with Count Arco to try to get Mozart to return. With an Arco Arse boot, the musician’s resolve only thickened.

Ok. If all the events from the Paris journey to Vienna firing were part of a master Colloredo plot, why? Sure, he may have done everything the way he did it to avoid political fallout. But, why not keep Mozart around and let him be the musician he wanted to be? Wouldn’t that be another way to avoid political controversy? I will pose three possible reasons. One, the altruistic reason: Colloredo wanted what was best for Mozart. If this theory is true, the archbishop wanted Mozart to find employment on his Parisian tour. And, he actually wanted to share Mozart with the world. Moreover, Colloredo recognized the unhealthy control Leopold had over his son and wanted to free Mozart. In the end, he found harsh means to do so. Such methods are not historically uncommon. For example, Henry Ford treated his son ruthlessly in order to get a rise out of him, so the man would be a better businessperson.

A second reason, Colloredo may have not liked Mozart and simply no longer wanted to pay for his services and deal with his antics. The third, Colloredo wanted to spite Leopold. Nothing could slap Leopold like driving away the man’s hope for fame and success. Ultimately, all three reasons whisper some truth, but, to me, the first and third resonate the most powerful.

Finally, I would like to address the reason I wrote this article. I’ve read books and watched documentaries. This theory has been poking my spine, keeping me up at night. I’ve been telling myself, ‘who are you to come up with such theories?’ For the longest time, I’ve ignored my inklings to share. But, when I think of movies such as Amadeus (which I actually loved) and Mozart’s Sister (hated), I say to myself, ‘who are their creators?’ What right do they have to mess with history with their theories? So, I figured, ‘why not?’ I’ll share this with the one or two people who may actually read it, and see who will tell me I’m out of my mind. I do have more in-depth arguments to support my theory, but that felt for the sake of brevity it was necessary to simply offer highlights.