They might not be necessarily, with the careful organising and re organising of catalogues and things we can find more I should think. There's the atrocities visited on the germans with destruction of historical libraries.
They were born in the same year 1756; Kraus undoubtedly was aware of 6 year old Mozart touring Europe. Very similar styles...possibly stole ideas from each other.
charles davenport Apart from both composers being born in 1756 they have almost nothing in common. Kraus would have known nothing of Mozart’s travels as a boy; their styles are very different and there is no evidence that the composers either knew each other or stole ideas; it is possible that Mozart might have known a little of Mozart’s later music, particularly some of the operas. There is some evidence of Kraus’s admiration for Gluck, and more importantly, Kraus visited Haydn at Eszterhaza in 1783 and dedicated to him either the Symphony in c minor (VB 142) or the Symphony in D (VB 143), scholars are unsure which one (probably the c minor). Incidentally, the visit to Haydn was part of a four year musical trip around Europe: in 1783, Kraus reached Vienna, he took the trouble to trek all the way out to see Haydn at Eszterhaza, dedicated to him the fantastic c minor symphony which was performed there, and Haydn called him a ‘genius’; Kraus did not meet Mozart during the six months he was in Vienna. I am not aware of Kraus being even mentioned in Mozart’s letters - implying that your comment is largely speculation - though Haydn as mentioned, rated him very highly - ‘Too bad about that man, just like Mozart! They were both so young’.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Well both were German, of course, I strongly suspect that since Mozart was the celebrity of the age, celebrated in the main courts of Europe a as child, everyone would of heard of him. Also there were no copyright laws at at the time, so it would be reasonable to suspect that there was "borrowing" from other composers. We know Mozart borrowed from himself, famously passing off a flute concerto as a new Oboe Concerto. I am not a musicologist nor an historian
charles davenport Mozart as is well known, was a famous child prodigy performer (not composer); he was taken around the courts of Europe in the early/mid 1760’s, but apart from that, he was absolutely *not* ‘...the celebrity of the age’. Mozart’s real fame was posthumous, and probably began to spread in the later 1790’s. Two examples will suffice to illustrate this: 1. Between 1781 and 1790, of the 335 concerts put on at the Concert spiritual in Paris, Mozart’s music appeared 12 times; in contrast, Haydn is listed 191 times - a pretty clear indication where the celebrity lay. 2. Similarly, whilst in England (1791 - 1795), Haydn wrote back to Vienna about Mozart, that he regretted that ‘...I cannot convince the English who walk in darkness in this respect, of his greatness - a subject about which I have been sermonising to them every single day’. In both England and France, Mozart’s fame came later, in fact it was largely posthumous. This pattern of indifference is repeated elsewhere. Mozart was clearly not ‘the celebrity of the age’, and beyond being a child, could not really be said to have been celebrated even at the Austrian court; it was in fact Haydn who was by some distance the most celebrated composer of the age, a position he held certainly until his retirement and arguably until his death when the ‘title’ passed to Beethoven. Haydn had received well known commissions from Paris and London - plus two invitations to visit - and even from faraway Spain (the quartet Opus 42, and The Seven Words). As explained, Mozart’s fame as a composer had not really gone much beyond Vienna and some German/Austrian cities; Haydn’s fee paid by the Concerts spiritual for each of his six ‘Paris’ symphonies was five times greater than the same organisation had paid Mozart for his Symphony 31 (‘Paris’)and that did not include the extra Haydn was paid for the publication rights. The child Mozart’s visits to London in 1764/65 and then to Paris were both long forgotten. Regarding ‘borrowing’; you are quite right, it was common practice in the 18th century and Mozart quite frequently assimilated ideas from other composers then did his own thing with them; however, the links between Mozart and Kraus are not strong (Kraus may have heard Mozart’s Die Entfuhrung). It remains an interesting point why, when Kraus was in Vienna between April and October 1783, he chose to make the long trip to visit Haydn at Eszterhaza (in October) but did not trouble to meet Mozart. Hope that’s helpful.
A beautiful and creative symphony with the extended violin parts. It's too bad that many of Kraus' symphonies are lost to us today.
They might not be necessarily, with the careful organising and re organising of catalogues and things we can find more I should think.
There's the atrocities visited on the germans with destruction of historical libraries.
Carey T Coleman Jr. Quite possibly the silliest, most naive comment in the history of RUclips.
Отлично, очень сбалансировано
Exceptional music but forgotten . This man reduces Mozart to a good composer but not the best.
They were born in the same year 1756; Kraus undoubtedly was aware of 6 year old Mozart touring Europe. Very similar styles...possibly stole ideas from each other.
charles davenport
Apart from both composers being born in 1756 they have almost nothing in common.
Kraus would have known nothing of Mozart’s travels as a boy; their styles are very different and there is no evidence that the composers either knew each other or stole ideas; it is possible that Mozart might have known a little of Mozart’s later music, particularly some of the operas.
There is some evidence of Kraus’s admiration for Gluck, and more importantly, Kraus visited Haydn at Eszterhaza in 1783 and dedicated to him either the Symphony in c minor (VB 142) or the Symphony in D (VB 143), scholars are unsure which one (probably the c minor).
Incidentally, the visit to Haydn was part of a four year musical trip around Europe: in 1783, Kraus reached Vienna, he took the trouble to trek all the way out to see Haydn at Eszterhaza, dedicated to him the fantastic c minor symphony which was performed there, and Haydn called him a ‘genius’; Kraus did not meet Mozart during the six months he was in Vienna.
I am not aware of Kraus being even mentioned in Mozart’s letters - implying that your comment is largely speculation - though Haydn as mentioned, rated him very highly - ‘Too bad about that man, just like Mozart! They were both so young’.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Well both were German, of course, I strongly suspect that since Mozart was the celebrity of the age, celebrated in the main courts of Europe a as child, everyone would of heard of him. Also there were no copyright laws at at the time, so it would be reasonable to suspect that there was "borrowing" from other composers. We know Mozart borrowed from himself, famously passing off a flute concerto as a new Oboe Concerto.
I am not a musicologist nor an historian
charles davenport
Mozart as is well known, was a famous child prodigy performer (not composer); he was taken around the courts of Europe in the early/mid 1760’s, but apart from that, he was absolutely *not* ‘...the celebrity of the age’.
Mozart’s real fame was posthumous, and probably began to spread in the later 1790’s.
Two examples will suffice to illustrate this:
1. Between 1781 and 1790, of the 335 concerts put on at the Concert spiritual in Paris, Mozart’s music appeared 12 times; in contrast, Haydn is listed 191 times - a pretty clear indication where the celebrity lay.
2. Similarly, whilst in England (1791 - 1795), Haydn wrote back to Vienna about Mozart, that he regretted that ‘...I cannot convince the English who walk in darkness in this respect, of his greatness - a subject about which I have been sermonising to them every single day’.
In both England and France, Mozart’s fame came later, in fact it was largely posthumous.
This pattern of indifference is repeated elsewhere.
Mozart was clearly not ‘the celebrity of the age’, and beyond being a child, could not really be said to have been celebrated even at the Austrian court; it was in fact Haydn who was by some distance the most celebrated composer of the age, a position he held certainly until his retirement and arguably until his death when the ‘title’ passed to Beethoven.
Haydn had received well known commissions from Paris and London - plus two invitations to visit - and even from faraway Spain (the quartet Opus 42, and The Seven Words).
As explained, Mozart’s fame as a composer had not really gone much beyond Vienna and some German/Austrian cities; Haydn’s fee paid by the Concerts spiritual for each of his six ‘Paris’ symphonies was five times greater than the same organisation had paid Mozart for his Symphony 31 (‘Paris’)and that did not include the extra Haydn was paid for the publication rights.
The child Mozart’s visits to London in 1764/65 and then to Paris were both long forgotten.
Regarding ‘borrowing’; you are quite right, it was common practice in the 18th century and Mozart quite frequently assimilated ideas from other composers then did his own thing with them; however, the links between Mozart and Kraus are not strong (Kraus may have heard Mozart’s Die Entfuhrung).
It remains an interesting point why, when Kraus was in Vienna between April and October 1783, he chose to make the long trip to visit Haydn at Eszterhaza (in October) but did not trouble to meet Mozart.
Hope that’s helpful.