Why, exactly, are we celebrating Mozart this year? Because the anniversarial numbers have trapped us (he was born in January 1756)? Because there is something new to be said about him? Because we cannot live without his music and want to pay tribute to that fact? Whatever the answer, we are in for a media extravaganza which only an ostrich is going to be able to ignore, so it might be strengthening to work out in what spirit we approach the party.
The benefits are very straightforward: there will be a lot of glorious music to listen to, some of which we may not have heard before, especially in the case of the stage works that will be receiving new productions. It is possible that hitherto unexplored angles on the young man and his world will inform and enlarge our enjoyment of his writing; no doubt serious-minded people will take this opportunity to publish new thoughts on and interpretations of what we know of his life. Without the impetus of an anniversary, it is also possible that some of this effort would not have been made, or, to put it another way, the money which is needed to fund detailed research or expensive opera sets or new recordings would have gone towards someone else’s anniversary celebrations.
The downside is more complex. There is no classical music better adapted to easy listening than Mozart’s. Compare it with Bach’s or Beethoven’s or even Haydn’s: they may write beautiful melodies, but the necessary musical argument that holds their music together brings a complication which the casual listener regrets. These composers’ tunes are stated and then developed, which interrupts the flow of them, where Mozart seems simply to come up with another memorable tune.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in