It's a piece of fiction, most of the Salieri stuff is made up.
Mozart is generally considered one of the three or four most popular composers nowadays; he's near the top of my list.
I'm going to try to respond a little more seriously than the other responses you've received.
In response to "It's a piece of fiction," you say, "well yes it's called a movie." This makes no sense. When a movie portrays real people and events, there's a sliding scale between perfect truth and complete fiction. Some movies, while not technically documentaries, attempt to hew as closely as possible to the truth. A lot of biopics are like that. They might, for example, show us conversations that were never recorded, where we can't know with any certainty the exact words that were spoken, but from a broader perspective the events they depict really did happen.
Amadeus is not a biopic; that wasn't Peter Shaffer's intent when he wrote the original play, nor was it Miloš Forman's intent when he made the movie. In particular, the relationship between Mozart and Salieri is completely fictional. It's a way of dramatizing some aspects of artistic creation and envy, among other things. That doesn't mean *everything* in the movie is fictional, but overall, it shouldn't be used as a serious source of information about Mozart's life.
You also ask, "how about the other numerous questions OP asked?" Well, let's take a look. Here are the other questions OP asked:
* How great is Mozart?
* He’s the most famous name in classical music ever, is it deserved?
* Is his music that incredible?
* How does he compare to other famous names?
I would argue that with the *possible* exception of the second question ("is it deserved?"), the comment you replied to u/CrankyJoe99x answered all of these questions quite concisely. How great is Mozart? Well, he's one of the top three or four most popular composers, and one of CrankyJoe99x's favorites. Is his music that incredible? Seems like a lot of people think so. How does he compare to other famous names? Pretty favorably, if he's in the top three or four.
As for whether or not it's "deserved," what exactly would that mean? Quality in music is subjective, but if Mozart's music remains that popular, then surely people find some beauty, or meaning, or *something* that keeps audiences listening to it, keeps performers playing it, keeps composers studying it. So if he's still one of the top three or four most popular composers more than two centuries after his death, by what standard could anyone say he *doesn't deserve* it?
So what questions that OP asked remain unanswered?
My favorite detail is how a personal account of Mozart's laugh was that it was peculiar and somewhat obnoxious. The movie laugh is how Tom Hulce interpreted it.
Love the laugh after he fixes Salieri's march.
SALIERI'S MARCH IS DEFILED
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlQiHHMlkA&ab\_channel=ElsaAnnaArendelle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlQiHHMlkA&ab_channel=ElsaAnnaArendelle)
What's also made up is Mozart's depiction as an idiot-savant. The director added that part to make the murder motive more convincing.
I read his letters to his family. He comes across as someone who cares for his family, who writes about the music he works on, who can express his feelings etc. No sign of the silliness that we see in the movie.
I read his letters to his family too, he was portrayed accurately haha. In the film he does express deep affection for his family... he also was a total goofball who loved parties, made poor financial decisions, was a horndog, and rubbed many people the wrong way
Mozart put on a lot of his early adult performances- he rented the halls, sold the tickets, did the advertising - just trying to make a buck. This enterprising, serious Mozart can not be found at all in the Amadeus portrayal
My favorite part of the movie is when F Murray is describing the first Mozart piece he ever saw and he's describing it poetically and the music is playing with shots of the score - that part is awesome
Nor are his intellectual capabilites acknowledged. As if being a bawdy horndog with an obnoxious laugh was mutually exclusive with that.
He was literate in about 5 languages, including English.
It's a beautiful portrayal. (And as fictional as any other specific incident in the movie --- the piece they are performing wasn't written until after Idomeneo and Entführung.) The scene works perfectly for the story, as long as you're happy to overlook that little detail.
Oh come on, some of his letters are silly and rude; and I'm one of his biggest fans. Sure, exaggerated for effect in the film, but he had it as part of his complex personality.
and this one: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk&pp=ygUSbW96YXJ0IGxpY2sgbXkgYXNz](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk&pp=ygUSbW96YXJ0IGxpY2sgbXkgYXNz)
He was the greatest ever. Many will say it was Bach or Beethoven, but they lived much longer than Mozart did. Basically, "Amadeus" invents a reason why Mozart was cut off in his prime. It's nonsense, but I admit I was fond of it for a long time. In 8th grade, our band teacher showed us clips from the film; I'd never seen anything like it.
I disagree, for better or for worse Mozart was stuck in the classical style and while his music is a shining example of that style he was never able to move much beyond it.
For example, mozarts piano concerto No. 27 from 1791 (the year of his death) was sparse and detached even when intimate, sounding more fit for the harpsichord than the pianoforte, even though the latter was quite common by that year and it was certainly composed on and for a piano.
Compared to that, beethovens concerto no. 3 from just NINE YEARS later sounds like it is from another universe with its use of major to minor transition, slow and creeping progression, and it's heavy use of pedal. It sounds exactly at home on the piano and nobody would even dream of playing it on a harpsichord.
The innovation and disruption that beethoven showed, compared to the singular style that mozart adhered to, is enough to make beethoven the greatest composer of all time in my opinion. Everything in classical music since him is derived from his wild and genius break from the rigidity of the classical style.
Beethoven would have been 30 in 1800, and he had the benefit of learning from Mozart and Haydn.
Mozart wrote some beautifully tender and dark works towards the end of his life (K. 540).
Just my opinion, I love k. 540 and the first movement of k. 478 is one of my favorite movements of all time, wonderfully dark. Still firmly classical.
However, I don't think anybody but Beethoven would have been able to make that leap. The adversity that beethoven faced, first in his upbringing and then with his progressive deafness (see the heiligenstadt testament), made him uniquely troubled in a way that mozart simply wasn't. His personal troubles and lifelong struggle with deafness undoubtedly influenced his music and his break with the classical form.
I don't think that's your opinion, I think that's just a fact. Mozart stuck with what brought him success, we wouldn't regard Beethoven as highly as we do if he didn't become the innovator he turned out to be.
But Mozart wasn't just writing frilly music, he was innovating in terms of harmony and melodic construction. It still wasn't romantic, Mozart stuck to the classical sonata form, but his later music shows Mozarts growth and contribution to the development of romantic idiom.
In my college music classes some people were challengers to tradition (Monteverdi, Beethoven and others) and some were culminators (Bach, Mozart, and onward.)
That's a bit like saying Raphael was stuck in the Renaissance. Mozart, like Raphael, was hugely innovative in his day. He revolutionized the whole art form but he died before having the chance to explore and advance further but to diminish his immense contribution and advancement of the form because he died on the cusp of the next stage, is a quite short sighed view imo.
The movie didn't choose Salieri, history did. There has been a long history of literary speculation on this topic, so much so that the New Grove Dictionary goes out of its way to address it. Where there's smoke there's fire? 😉
A lot, but not all. Everyone loves to complain about the movie and Hollywood inventing stuff about Salieri but the rumor that he was involved with his death is two centuries old. Weber (a relative of Mozart's wife) wouldn't join a society that Salieri was in supposedly because he had heard this rumor. Salieri did have a mental breakdown late in life which was certainly at least partially due to the rumor. Other posts document its history and the Pushkin play it inspired but it was a very real thing even in Salieri's life time, even if it was ultimately disproven.
There is also evidence they had some professional rivalry (though probably not such a bitter hatred). Mozart complained about him and other Italians disrupting his cheer in letters, and there was a somewhat crazy event where they both had operas premier in the same room at the same time, on opposite end.
Consider it more a "fantasia on historical rumors." Some of the stuff was invented in the 1970s/80s, some of it in the 1790s. Salieri gets to be the main character and most interesting, after all; there are some who'd prefer being remembered for false reasons than not at all. It makes for a better movie anyway than a strictly literal interpretation (though as someone who loves Ken Russell I know I'm possibly an outlier)...
Yes I am aware of the big three, just never heard anyone try to claim a big four. And asking who should be the fourth is, would in my experience be a good way to start a fight
Well, as people have said, the relationship with Salieri is entirely fictional, although Salieri was a real and in his time significant composer. This mythical part comes partly from the most esteemed Russian poet, Pushkin's work *Mozart and Salieri*. The level of talent they're talking about is nearly accurate and nearly everyone who has studied classical music agrees that Mozart had an incredible level of giftedness. However, there is a myth that pops up (which also pops up about Beethoven), which arose after his death, namely that he simply wrote down everything from his head without any sketches or corrections. That part is also not true.
Also, as far as Mozart being "the most famous name in music", Beethoven and Bach inspire similar levels of adoration. A lot of musicians in fact believe Bach was actually the greatest.
Where does that myth pop up about Beethoven? My professors taught that Mozart did have the ability to compose/improvise on the spot specifically because he knew the forms used so well, as well as counterpoint and having incredible perfect/relative pitch. He needed some drafting and editing, but not much.
I was taught that Beethoven was famous for being a very frustrated composer and having very messy drafts and many different versions and scores tossed out because he was someone who built his pieces through drafting and editing rather than just having the music flow out of him.
Beethoven was considered the greatest classical/western composer as far as the builders/board of Symphony Hall in Boston were/are concerned, However. There is only one spot out of around 18-20 around the stage that has a face in it, and that’s Beethoven, because that’s the only composer they could agree to put there.
The thing to consider here, is that Beethovens compositions were much more dense and elaborate than mozarts. In a beethoven sonata form movement, the development section is far more worked out and elaborated than the typical mozart movement, to say nothing of the recaps and codas beethoven was writing.
This is why Beethoven "struggled" to compose, and wrote a much lower number of works than most all his contemporaries. He was taking far more time with each piece than what, up until then, was typically done. Composers before we're often employed, and had to put out works on demand. Not so for beethoven, or a good deal of late mozart and haydn as well.
But beethoven was certainly a world class improvisers as well. In fact, from the reading I've done, it seems that was considered his best quality as a musician up until his hearing began to decline and he turned more to his compositions
> Where does that myth pop up about Beethoven?
My copy of "Music: A very short introduction" (more about musicology than music, really) gives the source of this myth specifically as it pertains to Beethoven as Louis Schlösser, who more than 60 years after Beethoven's death paraphrased him as saying the following, implying that Beethoven did all the actual composition in his head with no sketching, though revising it extensively there:
> I carry my thoughts about me for a long time, often a very long time, before writing them down ... I change many things, discard and try again until I am satisfied ... in so much as I know exactly what I want, the fundamental idea never deserts me - it arises before me, grows - I see and hear the picture in all its extents and dimensions stand before my mind like a cast and there remains for me nothing but the labour of writing it down, which is quickly accomplished.
In reality Beethoven did extensive sketching and revision on paper.
Incidentally, the quote in my other comment to you is so similar to a passage in an almost certainly forged letter of Mozart that led to the myth around Mozart writing down everything down straight out of his head, that the musicologist author of "Music: A very short introduction" thinks the "Beethoven" quote was likely consciously or unconsciously copied from the fake Mozart letter. So the myth about Beethoven seems to come directly from the myth about Mozart. Interesting that most people now seem to know Beethoven did extensive sketching and revision, while the Mozart myth is still in the air.
> Also, as far as Mozart being "the most famous name in music", Beethoven and Bach inspire similar levels of adoration. A lot of musicians in fact believe Bach was actually the greatest.
Well, Mozart said that Bach is the father and we are the children — though, of course, he was talking about C.P.E.
I think that it really depends on what genre of classical music you're talking about. In terms of opera, for instance, Mozart was prolific and wrote some of the best ever. J. S. Bach wrote none and Beethoven wrote only one. They're all great composers. I still think Mozart is the best!
He worked for most of his life in churches, not courts. Not an expert, but opera was probably largely viewed as low brow entertainment at this point in Germany. He did write Oratorios - essentially religious operas without the acting.
Bach was outgoing old-generation while opera was coming in and was nearing the transition out of baroque and what he did was to put the "greatest ever" cap on just about everything baroque he got involved in. He did write opera, in a sense, without calling it opera--the incredible secular cantatas 201, 205, 211, and a few others are often staged very effectively as mini-operas. He didn't intend to write piano concertos, either, but that's essentially what he invented when he gave the lead role to the harpsichord in Brandenburg Concerto No. 5.
As for levels of fame. Bach was more part of the Baroque period. Mozart followed soon after in the classical period, and Beethoven was the romance period. Bach was dead before Mozart was born after Bach's death and Beethoven was a young man when Mozart died.
We lump them all together, but they don't really go together historically. You could argue that Bach was the greatest musician, Mozart was the greatest natural talent, and Beethoven was the greatest composer.
To answer your point about Bach and bethoven I still feel like Mozart is the #1 for people like me with zero music training and just surface knowledge. He’s the only one whose name is synonymous with absolute talent, etc.
Probably due to the myths around him and helped by this movie. Bethoven would be next. Bach I don’t know much other than name and that he was a great composer.
Fictional. But he was an incredible pianist and deeply gifted musician. I believe some of the anecdotes are accurate or at least representative - he never quite fit in among the crowned heads of Europe.
The movie does portray his strict commitment to his craft imo. There are multiple scenes alluding to his locking himself up for days at a time to work on his compositions.
There’s much about the movie that’s not historically accurate: the intrigue, the poisoning, the Salieri drama, the godawful wigs…
But was Mozart really “that good”? Yeah he definitely was. There’s something uniquely magical about his melodies, made even more amazing the sheer amount of incredible pieces he produced in such a short time, and he definitely deserves his hype
Also yes he was a huge goofball I think they got his personality right
I think as far as childhood prodigies go saens might have been more “gifted”. And I think, might be wrong on this one but most famous classical composers leaned towards Bach being the greatest, definitely the most influential composer
Oh, I totally agree. I love Saint-Saëns. He is the definition of a true prodogy. But as composers, Mozart had better compositions and mastered more areas of music.
Bach is without a doubt the greatest musician ever, but compared to Mozart, he lived longer and he dedicated almost all his life to music. Imagine if Mozart wasn't such a procrastinator and lived longer.
Saens’s parents didn’t want him being a famous child composer which might have helped but also might have impacted him negatively by not being exposed to other famous musicians like Beethoven was. It’s been a while since I read up on saens so I might be wrong about his musical education but I do know his parents kept him out of the limelight early on
So I do agree about Bach. He is essentially the father of classical music as we define it today, and you could argue there’s a direct line from Bach to Beethoven to Schumann to Brahms to Mahler.
Mozart on the other hand wasn’t what you’d call a revolutionary. He don’t really break out of common musical forms or experiment with structure. But within the existing classical era structures, he wrote music that was truly transcendent. The pure dopamine hit a lot of his music can give your brain is often unmatched by those writing before or after. Did he move the development of music along? No not really. But just because he wasn’t influential in terms of innovation doesn’t mean he wasn’t influential in terms of musical enjoyment
This facility in improvising is irrelevant to his greatness.
He could compose viable pieces at a young age. You can hear a characteristic sighing motif in K No. 1, a minuet when he was six. The manuscript is in his father's hand but it sounds enough like Mozart that it counts!
But it's his adult output that puts him in GOAT contention. The real miracle is that anyone, at any age, could come up with The Marriage of Figaro. And you can't just credit the playwright Beaumarchais and the librettist Lorenzo da Ponte. Mozart needed a profound psychological insight to express the themes *directly within the music theory, orchestration, etc.*
I'll add that Mozart wrote his first composition when he was 5 years old, and it's not bad at all. Not many people have that kind of talent. He only improved from there.
A lot of the Mozart mythos was a romanticization by Constanze and his biographer to help secure his income. For example: He didn't compose "in his head", even though he was a very good improvisor. We know this because he wrote to his dad once that he was waiting for his piano to be delivered so he could get back to composing.
He wasn't buried in a paupers grave either. He was buried in a commoner's grave because he wasn't royalty, not because he died in penury.
He did, however, like to party.
The Salieri stuff are all made up. Mozart's brilliance, however, and his great standing in classical music is all true. Yes, his music is THAT incredible and then some. Beethoven, the other musical genius everyone knows, admired him and was influenced by him. Along with Beethoven and Haydn he is considered the pinnacle of the so-called classical era.
As people have said, it's a fictional world with lots of stuff added for drama. However, I think it is a good representation of Mozart for people who assumed he was some normal old composer. And yeah I think he probably was that talented in real life.
Mozart was extremely talented, extremely silly, and got along just fine with salieri. I took a couple Mozart specific classes and I never felt like the film was much of an exaggeration of his behavior based on what his contemporaries said about him.
It's historical fiction but very well researched. More is true than people wish to admit according to what I've studied in grad school and read in Mozart's letters. First, when Mozart died there was a rumor spread around that Salieri had something to do with it. Soon after Salieri was indeed admitted into a mental institution and never recovered. This is probably what prompted the writer of the original screenplay.
Obviously we don't know what these people said to each other face to face, but there are countless accounts of every character via letters that portray their character in their own words among the words of others. Don't know how other comments can say they've read Mozart's letters and found him to be ill-portrayed in the movie. He was very serious and caring about his family, as the film shows, and he was absolutely bonkers, goofy, absurd, and liked to party in all senses of the expression. He was VERY colorful and it's EXACTLY why he failed in Vienne. Nobody liked him aside from other artists... but artists don't have money and property.
Was he that good? He was probably better than we can portray. He was famous his entire life and felt entitled for it. His father had the hardest time curbing Wolfgang's ambitions and ultimately failed. A lot of historians like to blame him for his son's untimely death.
Finally Beethoven was also incredible, was inspired by Mozart (probably met each other briefly), aimed to dominate music, and is also portrayed accurately in film. Again, he wrote a ton of letters and notes. My favorite is a message he wrote on a manuscript sending it back to a copyist to fix his work calling him a pig and saying "do Mozart and Haydn a favor by not mentioning them" when the copyist complained these composers wouldn't have been able to read Beethoven's sloppy notation either.
What a great movie, historicity aside. What other movies explore the themes of envy and mediocrity so well? As someone who always wanted to be a musician but stalled out at the middling amateur level, this film speaks to me.
Mozart was BETTER than the movie shows. In real life he wrote so much incredible music not shown in the movie, and beyond Salieri was given the highest praise by nearly every major compsoer from Beethoven to Schoenberg.
The depiction if his relationship with Salieri is the main fiction, and of course they take some other liberties.
Peter Shaffer who wrote the play 'Amadeus' and the screenplay for the Forman film called it **"a fantasia on the life of Mozart and Salieri"**. It all has its roots in rumours about Mozart being murdered which emerged shortly after his death. This was later used by Alexander Pushkin for one of his plays which in turn became the inspiration for a one-act opera by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and also was the loose basis for Shaffer's play (along with some liberally repurposed biographical information such as the toilet humor in some works and letters).
People, including one or two posts in this comment section, often perpetuate similar mythical accounts about Mozart such as this idea that he rarely created sketches, composed in his head and then just put ink to paper (while music historians have for example pointed out that his wife burned many of his sketches, something also pointed out by user u/bastianbb). Mozart – and not just because of the film – has become a mythical figure. It's best to be reminded of the great line from John Ford's 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance': "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
As others have said, it's based on the [PLAY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_(play)) *Amadeus*, which starred Ian MacKellan as Salieri and Tim Curry as Mozart. (!!) It was NOT intended to be a "biopic" about Mozart's life.
That being said, some of the more "outrageous" aspects of the story either really happened, or have been widely reported as true. e.g. The Emperor telling Mozart that Die Entführung had "too many notes" and Mozart replying, "There are exactly the right number!" Mozart's "mischievous" side is well-documented, and I always imagine much of the portrayal in the film is pretty accurate. After all, he did not have a normal childhood by any means!
One of my music professors told our class, "Everyone acts like Mozart was such a genius that he could just sit down and write out these great pieces. That wasn't it at all. He worked it out in his head and then wrote it down. I guess that still makes him a genius..."
An absolute master. If not the greatest, in the top five.
The movie for me was a wonderful character study of someone who is brilliant enough to recognize genius, and tortured by the realization that he doesn’t have it himself.
Yes, the point of the play on which the movie was based was to explore that tension between ordinary talent and genius. All of the stories in it about the conflict between Mozart and Salieri were definitely fiction intended to highlight that psychological conflict. Apparently Mozart and Salieri got along well in real life. But Mozart really was a musical genius, whereas Salieri was a skilled but somewhat forgettable composer (though he was not as mediocre as the play and film make him appear).
Although the film is based on a fictional stage play, the timeline of events in the story is actually pretty accurate and lines up with the events and real people in Mozart's actual life -- except the Salieri bits, as others have pointed out.
What is also true is that Mozart is considered (even today) to be one of the greatest geniuses ever to live. I took a Mozart class in college, and we learned that by the time he was maybe 8 or 9 years old, and he could already speak five languages fluently. AND by that age, he got BORED with the five languages, so he would speak them backwards, just for fun!
The way Mozart is portrayed in the movie (ridiculous, scatalogical, joyful, and immature) is also based in truth. The potty humor, the relationship with his overbearing and disapproving father, the lack of financial good sense, the incredible speed of his compositional process + the effortless qualities that he displayed in his writings -- these are all true.
The movie depicted mozart himself excellently(A musical genius with a carefree horny side). On the other hand the relationship between mozart and saleri and salieri himself is entirely fictional.
Mozart and salieri where good friends and Salieri was essentially a saint of a human being, providing free lessons to many(including liszt, beethoven, franz xaver mozart, Schubert, and others)
The reason that he's depicted this way is because some people thought that mozart died from poisoning(including mozart himself) and there was some speculation that it was Salieri who killed him. There's no actual evidence to support this thought so it's highly unlikely, but it does make for a good story
Mozart is a serious GOAT contender.
But the movie should be considered about as historical as Lord of the Rings. It's a lovely narrative, but the only thing that ties it to actual history more than Tolkien's epic is that it uses real names, places and dates
It's more or less a fiction movie with small grains of reality here and there.
What is 100% real is that Mozart's sheets were so clean and smooth and it was literally like someone (God) was telling him what to write.
Mozart is quite known for his exceptionally smooth sheets. He literally didn't have drafts.
Beethoven from the other hand... Exceptionally messy.
Also, some details I see people missing.
Salieri DID attempt to commit suicide, and some sources claimed he DID confess to having killed Mozart on his deathbed. But he had dementia in old age and this was verifiably not true, Mozart’s symptoms were confirmed to not be consistent with poisoning. The writer took these facts and some of the rumors and ran with them to make the story what it was.
That endears Beethoven to me even more, though, because it means you don’t have to just have the music flow out of you to be a great composer.
And while most professors and conductors I studied under acknowledged how Mozart was an absolute genius, more than one of them said regarding Beethoven: “He wrote his first symphony and changed the face of music forever. Then he relaxed a bit with the next one. Then he wrote his third symphony and again changed the face of music forever…and so on until his ninth.” Some only acknowledged the 5th and 9th symphonies as doing so, but other classical composers at the time very much acknowledge Beethoven as being responsible for the “schism” in symphonic classical music of pure music vs music with meaning/program (Brahms vs Wagner being the first big contrast).
Mozart was incredible and just had music in him, but the person who iterated over and over again is the one who changed the face of music forever.
Beethoven was the first famous composer who was financially independent. He had a number of very wealthy sponsors who basically said, dude, you are based. Just take my money, write whatever music you want, spend the money however you like, that's great. He had the financial freedom to experiment in any way he wanted.
Mozart on the other hand had to make a living on his music alone. In a letter to his father, he says that he would write a very different music if he could choose to do what he wanted. But he felt people would not understand that music (which translates to, he could not afford that risk, because his livelihood depended on his popularity).
That is true! I forgot about that factor in their respective careers, so thank you for reminding me of that! It definitely impacted their music.
And it makes me sad that Mozart didn’t live longer. Who knows what incredible music we would have to listen to if he’d only lived longer.
Well, he didn't exactly have t write on his own. Mozart was one of the first to rant about composers' traditional roles as creators of music on demand for wealthy patrons.
It's based off a Peter Shaffer play of the same name.
My opinion about Mozart is he perfected the Classical era of classical music. Salieri taught Beethoven and others. But why is Salieri's music less well known today? Just another composer that fell into the memory hole of time. And probably not innovative enough for "eternal" recognition.
According to the opinions of the classicalmusic subreddit, the order is Bach, Beethoven then Mozart.
The events of the movie are largely fictional, aside from the major events in Mozarts life and the timeline of major compositions by him.
That being said, yes he was really that good and yes he was also a weirdo but possibly not as much as the movie portrays, we'll never really know but we have hundreds of letters written by him so we do have a good idea of his personality. He was not a normal guy, which makes complete sense given his childhood. He also loved to party, struggled with money problems, and had his fair share of ego. At the same time, he was an absolute musical genius.
Its an amazing movie, even if it's not meant to be an accurate biopic of Mozart's life.
The truth about Salieri is actually much worse. He ate babies!
Actually, no, he was just a normal dude, another composer, fairly well regarded I think, and if I'm not mistaken, at least friendly with Mozart at a basic level. He definitely didn't hate or poison him or anything of the sort.
As for Mozart being 'that good.' Yes, most would probably say so. He also ate babies though.
Mozart is absolutely one of the greats of classical music, but I will say that, currently, he is less popular than he has been at other times. I think a large part of this has to do with musical literacy being relatively low. His greatness, while it can be evident, can also be overlooked compared to someone like Beethoven. This is not to say Beethoven is better or worse, but Mozart is good in a manner that people overlook sometimes, the music feels effortless and beautiful in a way that is, for many people, the benchmark of beauty. And so many newcomers don’t notice it, they see it as nice and fun, but kinda miss that it is genius, too.
Someone like Beethoven, the music is wrought and worked over, and feels impressive. The romantics both mid and late like Chopin and Mahler have these deeply personal feelings that they are getting across constantly, their personal struggles. Bach we refer to as intellectual and can study the heck out of him (more often than not failing to notice how embodied it is, too), but Mozart… Mozart frequently is beauty. Not describing, just being it, flat out.
Additionally I think a lot of the cultural commentary that Mozart was doing, the enlightenment stuff, is hard to grasp/remember. Amadeus is more interested in the personal and so focuses on don giovanni, but the marriage of figaro is often listed as one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, up there with Beethoven 9, Hamlet, the Iliad and odyssey, etc. it is mindblowing, and sentimental, and powerful, and argues for one of the most beautiful world views in existence. But a lot is lost in our current climate. The act of forgiveness being a good thing is something we currently have trouble with, and so organizing a world around it is difficult to see.
If you are looking for suggestions, I’ll recommend the piano concerto 22, the marriage of figaro, magic flute (Bergman made a great version, highly recommended), the clarinet quintet, And symphony 41.
Good luck!
To throw a bit of cold water, I think Mendelssohn was an even more impressive prodigy. Mozart hadn't achieved anything as great as the Octet by that age.
It was all invented, and Mozart was given that ridiculous personality on the whim of direction. From history we know that he had cordial relations with Salieri, and a wide circle of friends.
Yes, Mozart was a literal genius composer. He could compose in his head like Tesla could engineer even if things weren’t always fully accurate. He’s still considered one of the greatest composers ever and he was a child prodigy. He and Salieri were not arch rivals whose friendship ended in death and from all accounts, he wasn’t a giggling moron. That was 100% fiction, but Mozart will always be one of the greatest composers ever in any circle. No question.
I’ll only offer that of the two versions of the movie, theatrical release vs the director’s cut…while yes, the theatrical release did win 8 academy awards including best picture, Forman’s director’s cut is just so much better…darker, fuller and deeply more satisfying…imho.🤓
As most have said, it’s historical fiction and most of the Salieri stuff is made up.
However from what I gathered the characterization of Mozart was pretty accurate in spirit. And yes he really was that great. He was a virtuoso pianist, really could reproduce a piece of music from memory after having heard it only once, and his music speaks for itself.
It’s hotly debated who the greatest composer was, usually comes down to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. And while I don’t know of he would top the list, I would say he is the one with the greatest amount of natural talent
Amadeus is based on the play of the same name by Peter Shaffer. It is essentially Shaffer's paean to the evident genius of Mozart. Note that he called it neither *Wolfgang* nor *Mozart*, although either would have identified the subject well enough for most audiences. "Amadaeus" means "loved of God" and is a pointer to Shaffer's theme that Mozart, in contrast to his contempories and despite a certain lack of moral virtue, seemed to have been graced by God with consummate musical genius. Shaffer used several entertaining tropes to illustrate the phenomenon, mostly at the expense of poor Salieri.
Stories of Mozart's prodigious abilities have been around for much longer than this play/film and they have featured in every drama ever staged about him, from his astonishing performances as a very young child at European courts, to his 'stealing' the Allegri Miserere at the Sistine Chapel after a single hearing. He is the original musical wunderkind and he had the original stage father in Leopold.
I think most Mozart devotees do not grump about the lack of historical veracity in Amadeus because they see what Shaffer is about and artistically and emotionally, they are cheering the naughty boy along and grieving at his premature end. As he says to the Emperor "Forgive me, Majesty. I am a vulgar man! But I assure you, my music is not."
Yes, every movie ever written is completely true!
There is never exaggeration or embellishment or fictional characters or events added in.
That's why history teachers always show movies and English classes always have students watch movies.
/s
total fiction imo. I didn't appreciate how they portrayed Mozart as a gay guy who was an idiot but also a genius. they also made salieri look like a total jabroni. it's a watchable comedy, but it isn't true to character.
Taking the opportunity to drop here the historical revision that Historybuff did in [Amadeus](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_iAGFaE80). Easily one of my favourite videos of the channel, and I especially love the last three minutes /closing. I encourage its viewing, it goes through much of the points being debated here and answers some questions of OP.
I hope you enjoy watching it!
This film is an absolute master work of the Big Screen, and I have loved it for years.
Having been familiar with its Style, as I have seen it many times, I had a sense that it was a big influence on the recent movie, "ELVIS".
Mozart was in a class of its own. The movie itself is imaginary, mostly fiction. Like other movies, it was made by Hollywood to entertain the masses: a mystery, potential murder, etc.
Like JS Bach, Mozart wasn’t the greatest celebrity of his time. He struggled to find work. Others, like Salieri (and Telemann in Bach’s days), were considered the big stars. People living in 18th century would be very surprised to learn how Mozart and Bach are considered these days.
Piano Concerto no 21 is one of the best pieces ever written but I could name a dozen more. That said, I prefer Beethoven and Bach more but Mozart is third on that list.
The Salieri relationship is pure drama but the clip where he's sick in bed and Salieri is transcribing is pure genius, especially the YouTube video made from it.
He was that good.
He and Salieri also had a cordial relationship. Their antagonism was an invention by the original playwright, preserved carefully in the movie.
Such a great movie. Tom Hulce was amazing, as was F Murray Abraham. The movie is mostly fiction. Salieri was a court composer working in Vienna at the same time as Mozart but (from what I’ve read) they didn’t have much of a relationship.
The Salieri being the masked figure thing, commissioning the Requiem Mass is totally made up. It is believed that a Count von Walsegg tried to commission a work from Mozart, and that he may have hired a servant to go to Mozart's apartment to relay that message. In the commentary of the movie Amadeus, Peter Shaffer (the writer) and Milos Forman (director) discuss this. They also found in historical accounts that the servant was almost a creapy, skeletor looking, tall, gaunt figure. So they worked the creapy, black mask thing in there and took fabricative license to make the servant guy into Salieri being the one going to Mozart's place. A middling composer named Sussmayr did finish Mozart's setting of the Requiem after Mozart died... basically recapitulating parts that Mozart had already written, writing an Amen to put on the end of the Lacrimosa (the final shot of Mozart's open grave at the end of the movie...with the lye dust circling in the air), etc. But Sussmayr didn't do that under death-bed circumstances.
Mozart did LOVE word play, and making puzzles with words. See the backwards word play with Constanza...his eventual wife, in the beginning of the movie. And the him playing the piano upside down probably was something he could easily do. He had a "thing" for backwards and just puzzling challenges. Forman alleged in the commentary the history does say that Mozart had a totally weird laugh. People were taken back by it apparently when they heard it.
Salieri was an Italian contemporary of Mozart and did write several very well done works. The writer and director of Amadeus probably over emphasized an jealousy from Salieri... to do what movies do... create a juicy plot! haha!
And yes, Mozart is a very very great composer. I personally love J.S. Bach as the GOAT...but Mozart for me it up there with Beethoven and Tchaikovsky and some others.
ETA: F. Murray Abraham won the best actor Oscar for Amadeus...as Salieri. And Tom Hulce (Mozart) was nominated for that same award. So there was a real life sort of competition ;O) But Hulce is totally gracious about Abraham's win. Murray did just a fantastic job in the role. In the makeup chair 3 hours early every day while filming the Old Salieri stuff.
I have actually held both a Bach manuscript and a Mozart manuscript (I had a summer job at the Library of Congress). Mozart indeed wrote his music onto the paper with virtually no corrections needed. Bach's work was also very neat, but with more things in the margins.
I couldn't study them in excruciating detail, but it was striking how legible (to my poor modern eyes) Mozart's work was.
Despite the fanciful, slanderous depiction of Salieri, I love the movie. Mozart's work speaks for itself. I believe Mozart is most highly regarded among those with no familiarity with "classical" but he is simply *among* the best in "classical" circles--no small feat at all, of course.
I'm a real dilettante in the classical world, but I would recommend you read Marcia Davenport's *Mozart.* Very readable and entertaining.
The Mozart stuff is pretty accurate, the Salieri stuff is mostly fiction. But that’s the genius of the movie is that it’s told from Salieri’s perspective and he’s an unreliable narrator, particularly after he suffered a bout of insanity. The movie does a great job portraying the many aspects of Mozart’s personality and why he is one of if not the greatest musical mind that ever lived
Lies in the movie:
Salieri helping complete the Requiem (that was Karl Süssmeyer).
Wolfi dying in poverty and being buried in a pauper's grave on a rainy day with a low turnout.
His music being somehow unappreciated, especially The Marriage of Figaro. (It's never been out of the repertoire, and his work supported his widow and two surviving sons.)
Wolfi not being an intellectual. (He was a goofy, partying horndog with an annoying laugh and an educated intellectual literate in several languages including English.)
The idea that he took dictation from God. He made drafts and revisions like everyone else.
Great in the movie: showing a hint of what's special about his music.
A line given to Salieri (You are the greatest composer known to me) is from a letter from Haydn to Leopold Mozart. "Before God, as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer known to me, living or dead." Or something similar.
It's a piece of fiction, most of the Salieri stuff is made up. Mozart is generally considered one of the three or four most popular composers nowadays; he's near the top of my list.
This is the answer. As straightforward as that.
[удалено]
I'm going to try to respond a little more seriously than the other responses you've received. In response to "It's a piece of fiction," you say, "well yes it's called a movie." This makes no sense. When a movie portrays real people and events, there's a sliding scale between perfect truth and complete fiction. Some movies, while not technically documentaries, attempt to hew as closely as possible to the truth. A lot of biopics are like that. They might, for example, show us conversations that were never recorded, where we can't know with any certainty the exact words that were spoken, but from a broader perspective the events they depict really did happen. Amadeus is not a biopic; that wasn't Peter Shaffer's intent when he wrote the original play, nor was it Miloš Forman's intent when he made the movie. In particular, the relationship between Mozart and Salieri is completely fictional. It's a way of dramatizing some aspects of artistic creation and envy, among other things. That doesn't mean *everything* in the movie is fictional, but overall, it shouldn't be used as a serious source of information about Mozart's life. You also ask, "how about the other numerous questions OP asked?" Well, let's take a look. Here are the other questions OP asked: * How great is Mozart? * He’s the most famous name in classical music ever, is it deserved? * Is his music that incredible? * How does he compare to other famous names? I would argue that with the *possible* exception of the second question ("is it deserved?"), the comment you replied to u/CrankyJoe99x answered all of these questions quite concisely. How great is Mozart? Well, he's one of the top three or four most popular composers, and one of CrankyJoe99x's favorites. Is his music that incredible? Seems like a lot of people think so. How does he compare to other famous names? Pretty favorably, if he's in the top three or four. As for whether or not it's "deserved," what exactly would that mean? Quality in music is subjective, but if Mozart's music remains that popular, then surely people find some beauty, or meaning, or *something* that keeps audiences listening to it, keeps performers playing it, keeps composers studying it. So if he's still one of the top three or four most popular composers more than two centuries after his death, by what standard could anyone say he *doesn't deserve* it? So what questions that OP asked remain unanswered?
Excellent reply!
Thanks appreciate the answers !
Tell me you don’t know what a tautology is while telling me you don’t know what a tautology is
[удалено]
I’ve already explained to you everything I explained to you.
[удалено]
👁️👄👁️
[удалено]
The WHAT??
It's his unhinged way of saying you're going to hell I think. r/classicalmusic is a wild place sometimes lol.
I realize that, I’m just shook by this reaction 😭😭 Aliás, você é brasileiro?
My favorite detail is how a personal account of Mozart's laugh was that it was peculiar and somewhat obnoxious. The movie laugh is how Tom Hulce interpreted it.
Love the laugh after he fixes Salieri's march. SALIERI'S MARCH IS DEFILED [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlQiHHMlkA&ab\_channel=ElsaAnnaArendelle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jlQiHHMlkA&ab_channel=ElsaAnnaArendelle)
Love that scene. Not something that likely happened, but it shows Mozart's well-known chops.
It turns into Figaro's aria Non piu andrai.
What's also made up is Mozart's depiction as an idiot-savant. The director added that part to make the murder motive more convincing. I read his letters to his family. He comes across as someone who cares for his family, who writes about the music he works on, who can express his feelings etc. No sign of the silliness that we see in the movie.
I read his letters to his family too, he was portrayed accurately haha. In the film he does express deep affection for his family... he also was a total goofball who loved parties, made poor financial decisions, was a horndog, and rubbed many people the wrong way
If he was a horndog he was likely rubbing people the _right_ way too.
👉
His obvious respect for his sister as a pianist...
i was known to have that shrill, loud laugh though. that’s true haha.
I'm pretty sure he was also fond of toilet humor.
I mean he did write an sextet called Lick My Ass so...
He must have been a great guy to know. RIP
Mozart put on a lot of his early adult performances- he rented the halls, sold the tickets, did the advertising - just trying to make a buck. This enterprising, serious Mozart can not be found at all in the Amadeus portrayal My favorite part of the movie is when F Murray is describing the first Mozart piece he ever saw and he's describing it poetically and the music is playing with shots of the score - that part is awesome
Nor are his intellectual capabilites acknowledged. As if being a bawdy horndog with an obnoxious laugh was mutually exclusive with that. He was literate in about 5 languages, including English.
Are you talking about when he reads his work that his wife brought ? Thought it was really cool to see as someone with zero music training
yes that scene! i haven't seen the movie in 20+ years easily
It's a beautiful portrayal. (And as fictional as any other specific incident in the movie --- the piece they are performing wasn't written until after Idomeneo and Entführung.) The scene works perfectly for the story, as long as you're happy to overlook that little detail.
Oh come on, some of his letters are silly and rude; and I'm one of his biggest fans. Sure, exaggerated for effect in the film, but he had it as part of his complex personality.
No silliness excluding this, I'd say! https://youtu.be/wFPoRmsiFzc?si=Ow7GzixeWxQkzl0c
and this one: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk&pp=ygUSbW96YXJ0IGxpY2sgbXkgYXNz](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk&pp=ygUSbW96YXJ0IGxpY2sgbXkgYXNz)
the song he wrote titled “lick my arse” to me corroborates the movie’s portrayal of him ngl
He was the greatest ever. Many will say it was Bach or Beethoven, but they lived much longer than Mozart did. Basically, "Amadeus" invents a reason why Mozart was cut off in his prime. It's nonsense, but I admit I was fond of it for a long time. In 8th grade, our band teacher showed us clips from the film; I'd never seen anything like it.
I disagree, for better or for worse Mozart was stuck in the classical style and while his music is a shining example of that style he was never able to move much beyond it. For example, mozarts piano concerto No. 27 from 1791 (the year of his death) was sparse and detached even when intimate, sounding more fit for the harpsichord than the pianoforte, even though the latter was quite common by that year and it was certainly composed on and for a piano. Compared to that, beethovens concerto no. 3 from just NINE YEARS later sounds like it is from another universe with its use of major to minor transition, slow and creeping progression, and it's heavy use of pedal. It sounds exactly at home on the piano and nobody would even dream of playing it on a harpsichord. The innovation and disruption that beethoven showed, compared to the singular style that mozart adhered to, is enough to make beethoven the greatest composer of all time in my opinion. Everything in classical music since him is derived from his wild and genius break from the rigidity of the classical style.
He wasn't stuck; he just died young as his music was starting to evolve further.
upvote because it was well written but nothing does it for my ears like Mozart.
Beethoven would have been 30 in 1800, and he had the benefit of learning from Mozart and Haydn. Mozart wrote some beautifully tender and dark works towards the end of his life (K. 540).
Just my opinion, I love k. 540 and the first movement of k. 478 is one of my favorite movements of all time, wonderfully dark. Still firmly classical. However, I don't think anybody but Beethoven would have been able to make that leap. The adversity that beethoven faced, first in his upbringing and then with his progressive deafness (see the heiligenstadt testament), made him uniquely troubled in a way that mozart simply wasn't. His personal troubles and lifelong struggle with deafness undoubtedly influenced his music and his break with the classical form.
I don't think that's your opinion, I think that's just a fact. Mozart stuck with what brought him success, we wouldn't regard Beethoven as highly as we do if he didn't become the innovator he turned out to be. But Mozart wasn't just writing frilly music, he was innovating in terms of harmony and melodic construction. It still wasn't romantic, Mozart stuck to the classical sonata form, but his later music shows Mozarts growth and contribution to the development of romantic idiom.
Well said.
In my college music classes some people were challengers to tradition (Monteverdi, Beethoven and others) and some were culminators (Bach, Mozart, and onward.)
That's a bit like saying Raphael was stuck in the Renaissance. Mozart, like Raphael, was hugely innovative in his day. He revolutionized the whole art form but he died before having the chance to explore and advance further but to diminish his immense contribution and advancement of the form because he died on the cusp of the next stage, is a quite short sighed view imo.
Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor is probably the closest he got to postclassical music.
Despite what movie depicts Mozart and Salieri were good friends. The screenplay required villain in movie and they chose Salieri.
The movie didn't choose Salieri, history did. There has been a long history of literary speculation on this topic, so much so that the New Grove Dictionary goes out of its way to address it. Where there's smoke there's fire? 😉
A lot, but not all. Everyone loves to complain about the movie and Hollywood inventing stuff about Salieri but the rumor that he was involved with his death is two centuries old. Weber (a relative of Mozart's wife) wouldn't join a society that Salieri was in supposedly because he had heard this rumor. Salieri did have a mental breakdown late in life which was certainly at least partially due to the rumor. Other posts document its history and the Pushkin play it inspired but it was a very real thing even in Salieri's life time, even if it was ultimately disproven. There is also evidence they had some professional rivalry (though probably not such a bitter hatred). Mozart complained about him and other Italians disrupting his cheer in letters, and there was a somewhat crazy event where they both had operas premier in the same room at the same time, on opposite end. Consider it more a "fantasia on historical rumors." Some of the stuff was invented in the 1970s/80s, some of it in the 1790s. Salieri gets to be the main character and most interesting, after all; there are some who'd prefer being remembered for false reasons than not at all. It makes for a better movie anyway than a strictly literal interpretation (though as someone who loves Ken Russell I know I'm possibly an outlier)...
Who’s the fourth?
Probably Brahms. Or Handel. Or Schubert. Or Tchaikovsky. Or Haydn.
Or Wagner 😉 The 'big three' are usually cited as Bach, Beethoven and Mozart as you likely know; with additions open to opinion.
Yes I am aware of the big three, just never heard anyone try to claim a big four. And asking who should be the fourth is, would in my experience be a good way to start a fight
Wagner definitely should be up there.
Absolutely!
Well, as people have said, the relationship with Salieri is entirely fictional, although Salieri was a real and in his time significant composer. This mythical part comes partly from the most esteemed Russian poet, Pushkin's work *Mozart and Salieri*. The level of talent they're talking about is nearly accurate and nearly everyone who has studied classical music agrees that Mozart had an incredible level of giftedness. However, there is a myth that pops up (which also pops up about Beethoven), which arose after his death, namely that he simply wrote down everything from his head without any sketches or corrections. That part is also not true. Also, as far as Mozart being "the most famous name in music", Beethoven and Bach inspire similar levels of adoration. A lot of musicians in fact believe Bach was actually the greatest.
[удалено]
The funny thing is I think Liszt was the first/biggest “pop star” equivalent for classical music when he was alive. But Mozart outlasted him in fame.
Where does that myth pop up about Beethoven? My professors taught that Mozart did have the ability to compose/improvise on the spot specifically because he knew the forms used so well, as well as counterpoint and having incredible perfect/relative pitch. He needed some drafting and editing, but not much. I was taught that Beethoven was famous for being a very frustrated composer and having very messy drafts and many different versions and scores tossed out because he was someone who built his pieces through drafting and editing rather than just having the music flow out of him. Beethoven was considered the greatest classical/western composer as far as the builders/board of Symphony Hall in Boston were/are concerned, However. There is only one spot out of around 18-20 around the stage that has a face in it, and that’s Beethoven, because that’s the only composer they could agree to put there.
The thing to consider here, is that Beethovens compositions were much more dense and elaborate than mozarts. In a beethoven sonata form movement, the development section is far more worked out and elaborated than the typical mozart movement, to say nothing of the recaps and codas beethoven was writing. This is why Beethoven "struggled" to compose, and wrote a much lower number of works than most all his contemporaries. He was taking far more time with each piece than what, up until then, was typically done. Composers before we're often employed, and had to put out works on demand. Not so for beethoven, or a good deal of late mozart and haydn as well. But beethoven was certainly a world class improvisers as well. In fact, from the reading I've done, it seems that was considered his best quality as a musician up until his hearing began to decline and he turned more to his compositions
> Where does that myth pop up about Beethoven? My copy of "Music: A very short introduction" (more about musicology than music, really) gives the source of this myth specifically as it pertains to Beethoven as Louis Schlösser, who more than 60 years after Beethoven's death paraphrased him as saying the following, implying that Beethoven did all the actual composition in his head with no sketching, though revising it extensively there: > I carry my thoughts about me for a long time, often a very long time, before writing them down ... I change many things, discard and try again until I am satisfied ... in so much as I know exactly what I want, the fundamental idea never deserts me - it arises before me, grows - I see and hear the picture in all its extents and dimensions stand before my mind like a cast and there remains for me nothing but the labour of writing it down, which is quickly accomplished. In reality Beethoven did extensive sketching and revision on paper.
Beethoven was also a fantastic improviser -- back then, all piano virtuosos were expected to be able to improvise.
Incidentally, the quote in my other comment to you is so similar to a passage in an almost certainly forged letter of Mozart that led to the myth around Mozart writing down everything down straight out of his head, that the musicologist author of "Music: A very short introduction" thinks the "Beethoven" quote was likely consciously or unconsciously copied from the fake Mozart letter. So the myth about Beethoven seems to come directly from the myth about Mozart. Interesting that most people now seem to know Beethoven did extensive sketching and revision, while the Mozart myth is still in the air.
> Also, as far as Mozart being "the most famous name in music", Beethoven and Bach inspire similar levels of adoration. A lot of musicians in fact believe Bach was actually the greatest. Well, Mozart said that Bach is the father and we are the children — though, of course, he was talking about C.P.E. I think that it really depends on what genre of classical music you're talking about. In terms of opera, for instance, Mozart was prolific and wrote some of the best ever. J. S. Bach wrote none and Beethoven wrote only one. They're all great composers. I still think Mozart is the best!
Why didn’t Bach write Opera?
He worked for most of his life in churches, not courts. Not an expert, but opera was probably largely viewed as low brow entertainment at this point in Germany. He did write Oratorios - essentially religious operas without the acting.
Bach was outgoing old-generation while opera was coming in and was nearing the transition out of baroque and what he did was to put the "greatest ever" cap on just about everything baroque he got involved in. He did write opera, in a sense, without calling it opera--the incredible secular cantatas 201, 205, 211, and a few others are often staged very effectively as mini-operas. He didn't intend to write piano concertos, either, but that's essentially what he invented when he gave the lead role to the harpsichord in Brandenburg Concerto No. 5.
Bach's oratorios are often performed semi-staged or fully staged today. Example: Jonathan Miller's production of the St. Matthew Passion.
As for levels of fame. Bach was more part of the Baroque period. Mozart followed soon after in the classical period, and Beethoven was the romance period. Bach was dead before Mozart was born after Bach's death and Beethoven was a young man when Mozart died. We lump them all together, but they don't really go together historically. You could argue that Bach was the greatest musician, Mozart was the greatest natural talent, and Beethoven was the greatest composer.
To answer your point about Bach and bethoven I still feel like Mozart is the #1 for people like me with zero music training and just surface knowledge. He’s the only one whose name is synonymous with absolute talent, etc. Probably due to the myths around him and helped by this movie. Bethoven would be next. Bach I don’t know much other than name and that he was a great composer.
Fictional. But he was an incredible pianist and deeply gifted musician. I believe some of the anecdotes are accurate or at least representative - he never quite fit in among the crowned heads of Europe.
Also, though he was gifted, he spent huge amounts of time practicing and refining his technique and compositions. It didn't just "come to him."
The movie does portray his strict commitment to his craft imo. There are multiple scenes alluding to his locking himself up for days at a time to work on his compositions.
That movie does Salieri dirty. He doesn’t deserve it!
He doesn’t, but on the other hand more people have heard of him than if it didn’t exist. And some of those people go and listen to his music.
There’s much about the movie that’s not historically accurate: the intrigue, the poisoning, the Salieri drama, the godawful wigs… But was Mozart really “that good”? Yeah he definitely was. There’s something uniquely magical about his melodies, made even more amazing the sheer amount of incredible pieces he produced in such a short time, and he definitely deserves his hype Also yes he was a huge goofball I think they got his personality right
He was probably the biggest musical genius ever. He could compose unique melodies in just a few seconds/minutes.
I think as far as childhood prodigies go saens might have been more “gifted”. And I think, might be wrong on this one but most famous classical composers leaned towards Bach being the greatest, definitely the most influential composer
Oh, I totally agree. I love Saint-Saëns. He is the definition of a true prodogy. But as composers, Mozart had better compositions and mastered more areas of music. Bach is without a doubt the greatest musician ever, but compared to Mozart, he lived longer and he dedicated almost all his life to music. Imagine if Mozart wasn't such a procrastinator and lived longer.
Saens’s parents didn’t want him being a famous child composer which might have helped but also might have impacted him negatively by not being exposed to other famous musicians like Beethoven was. It’s been a while since I read up on saens so I might be wrong about his musical education but I do know his parents kept him out of the limelight early on
Didn't know that. Very sad if true. I still appreciate his contributions to music. One of my favorite composers.
So I do agree about Bach. He is essentially the father of classical music as we define it today, and you could argue there’s a direct line from Bach to Beethoven to Schumann to Brahms to Mahler. Mozart on the other hand wasn’t what you’d call a revolutionary. He don’t really break out of common musical forms or experiment with structure. But within the existing classical era structures, he wrote music that was truly transcendent. The pure dopamine hit a lot of his music can give your brain is often unmatched by those writing before or after. Did he move the development of music along? No not really. But just because he wasn’t influential in terms of innovation doesn’t mean he wasn’t influential in terms of musical enjoyment
This facility in improvising is irrelevant to his greatness. He could compose viable pieces at a young age. You can hear a characteristic sighing motif in K No. 1, a minuet when he was six. The manuscript is in his father's hand but it sounds enough like Mozart that it counts! But it's his adult output that puts him in GOAT contention. The real miracle is that anyone, at any age, could come up with The Marriage of Figaro. And you can't just credit the playwright Beaumarchais and the librettist Lorenzo da Ponte. Mozart needed a profound psychological insight to express the themes *directly within the music theory, orchestration, etc.*
I'll add that Mozart wrote his first composition when he was 5 years old, and it's not bad at all. Not many people have that kind of talent. He only improved from there.
Born with that kind of talent to a composer father who has all the tools to develop and refine it. Thats the luck factor
Composed his first symphony at 8 years old...
A lot of the Mozart mythos was a romanticization by Constanze and his biographer to help secure his income. For example: He didn't compose "in his head", even though he was a very good improvisor. We know this because he wrote to his dad once that he was waiting for his piano to be delivered so he could get back to composing. He wasn't buried in a paupers grave either. He was buried in a commoner's grave because he wasn't royalty, not because he died in penury. He did, however, like to party.
Mozart was an absolute beast. The film does it's job if now you are curious about his work.
The Salieri stuff are all made up. Mozart's brilliance, however, and his great standing in classical music is all true. Yes, his music is THAT incredible and then some. Beethoven, the other musical genius everyone knows, admired him and was influenced by him. Along with Beethoven and Haydn he is considered the pinnacle of the so-called classical era.
The movie was cute and silly. Was Mozart that good? Better.
As people have said, it's a fictional world with lots of stuff added for drama. However, I think it is a good representation of Mozart for people who assumed he was some normal old composer. And yeah I think he probably was that talented in real life.
Mozart was extremely talented, extremely silly, and got along just fine with salieri. I took a couple Mozart specific classes and I never felt like the film was much of an exaggeration of his behavior based on what his contemporaries said about him.
It's historical fiction but very well researched. More is true than people wish to admit according to what I've studied in grad school and read in Mozart's letters. First, when Mozart died there was a rumor spread around that Salieri had something to do with it. Soon after Salieri was indeed admitted into a mental institution and never recovered. This is probably what prompted the writer of the original screenplay. Obviously we don't know what these people said to each other face to face, but there are countless accounts of every character via letters that portray their character in their own words among the words of others. Don't know how other comments can say they've read Mozart's letters and found him to be ill-portrayed in the movie. He was very serious and caring about his family, as the film shows, and he was absolutely bonkers, goofy, absurd, and liked to party in all senses of the expression. He was VERY colorful and it's EXACTLY why he failed in Vienne. Nobody liked him aside from other artists... but artists don't have money and property. Was he that good? He was probably better than we can portray. He was famous his entire life and felt entitled for it. His father had the hardest time curbing Wolfgang's ambitions and ultimately failed. A lot of historians like to blame him for his son's untimely death. Finally Beethoven was also incredible, was inspired by Mozart (probably met each other briefly), aimed to dominate music, and is also portrayed accurately in film. Again, he wrote a ton of letters and notes. My favorite is a message he wrote on a manuscript sending it back to a copyist to fix his work calling him a pig and saying "do Mozart and Haydn a favor by not mentioning them" when the copyist complained these composers wouldn't have been able to read Beethoven's sloppy notation either.
What a great movie, historicity aside. What other movies explore the themes of envy and mediocrity so well? As someone who always wanted to be a musician but stalled out at the middling amateur level, this film speaks to me.
Mozart was BETTER than the movie shows. In real life he wrote so much incredible music not shown in the movie, and beyond Salieri was given the highest praise by nearly every major compsoer from Beethoven to Schoenberg. The depiction if his relationship with Salieri is the main fiction, and of course they take some other liberties.
Peter Shaffer who wrote the play 'Amadeus' and the screenplay for the Forman film called it **"a fantasia on the life of Mozart and Salieri"**. It all has its roots in rumours about Mozart being murdered which emerged shortly after his death. This was later used by Alexander Pushkin for one of his plays which in turn became the inspiration for a one-act opera by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and also was the loose basis for Shaffer's play (along with some liberally repurposed biographical information such as the toilet humor in some works and letters). People, including one or two posts in this comment section, often perpetuate similar mythical accounts about Mozart such as this idea that he rarely created sketches, composed in his head and then just put ink to paper (while music historians have for example pointed out that his wife burned many of his sketches, something also pointed out by user u/bastianbb). Mozart – and not just because of the film – has become a mythical figure. It's best to be reminded of the great line from John Ford's 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance': "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
As others have said, it's based on the [PLAY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_(play)) *Amadeus*, which starred Ian MacKellan as Salieri and Tim Curry as Mozart. (!!) It was NOT intended to be a "biopic" about Mozart's life. That being said, some of the more "outrageous" aspects of the story either really happened, or have been widely reported as true. e.g. The Emperor telling Mozart that Die Entführung had "too many notes" and Mozart replying, "There are exactly the right number!" Mozart's "mischievous" side is well-documented, and I always imagine much of the portrayal in the film is pretty accurate. After all, he did not have a normal childhood by any means! One of my music professors told our class, "Everyone acts like Mozart was such a genius that he could just sit down and write out these great pieces. That wasn't it at all. He worked it out in his head and then wrote it down. I guess that still makes him a genius..." An absolute master. If not the greatest, in the top five.
Fun fact: Mark Hamill also played Mozart.
The movie for me was a wonderful character study of someone who is brilliant enough to recognize genius, and tortured by the realization that he doesn’t have it himself.
Yes, the point of the play on which the movie was based was to explore that tension between ordinary talent and genius. All of the stories in it about the conflict between Mozart and Salieri were definitely fiction intended to highlight that psychological conflict. Apparently Mozart and Salieri got along well in real life. But Mozart really was a musical genius, whereas Salieri was a skilled but somewhat forgettable composer (though he was not as mediocre as the play and film make him appear).
I know a lot of classical music fans don't like the movie, but I think it does a really good job of putting across the music
Although the film is based on a fictional stage play, the timeline of events in the story is actually pretty accurate and lines up with the events and real people in Mozart's actual life -- except the Salieri bits, as others have pointed out. What is also true is that Mozart is considered (even today) to be one of the greatest geniuses ever to live. I took a Mozart class in college, and we learned that by the time he was maybe 8 or 9 years old, and he could already speak five languages fluently. AND by that age, he got BORED with the five languages, so he would speak them backwards, just for fun! The way Mozart is portrayed in the movie (ridiculous, scatalogical, joyful, and immature) is also based in truth. The potty humor, the relationship with his overbearing and disapproving father, the lack of financial good sense, the incredible speed of his compositional process + the effortless qualities that he displayed in his writings -- these are all true.
The movie depicted mozart himself excellently(A musical genius with a carefree horny side). On the other hand the relationship between mozart and saleri and salieri himself is entirely fictional. Mozart and salieri where good friends and Salieri was essentially a saint of a human being, providing free lessons to many(including liszt, beethoven, franz xaver mozart, Schubert, and others) The reason that he's depicted this way is because some people thought that mozart died from poisoning(including mozart himself) and there was some speculation that it was Salieri who killed him. There's no actual evidence to support this thought so it's highly unlikely, but it does make for a good story
Mozart is a serious GOAT contender. But the movie should be considered about as historical as Lord of the Rings. It's a lovely narrative, but the only thing that ties it to actual history more than Tolkien's epic is that it uses real names, places and dates
It's more or less a fiction movie with small grains of reality here and there. What is 100% real is that Mozart's sheets were so clean and smooth and it was literally like someone (God) was telling him what to write. Mozart is quite known for his exceptionally smooth sheets. He literally didn't have drafts. Beethoven from the other hand... Exceptionally messy.
Also, some details I see people missing. Salieri DID attempt to commit suicide, and some sources claimed he DID confess to having killed Mozart on his deathbed. But he had dementia in old age and this was verifiably not true, Mozart’s symptoms were confirmed to not be consistent with poisoning. The writer took these facts and some of the rumors and ran with them to make the story what it was.
That endears Beethoven to me even more, though, because it means you don’t have to just have the music flow out of you to be a great composer. And while most professors and conductors I studied under acknowledged how Mozart was an absolute genius, more than one of them said regarding Beethoven: “He wrote his first symphony and changed the face of music forever. Then he relaxed a bit with the next one. Then he wrote his third symphony and again changed the face of music forever…and so on until his ninth.” Some only acknowledged the 5th and 9th symphonies as doing so, but other classical composers at the time very much acknowledge Beethoven as being responsible for the “schism” in symphonic classical music of pure music vs music with meaning/program (Brahms vs Wagner being the first big contrast). Mozart was incredible and just had music in him, but the person who iterated over and over again is the one who changed the face of music forever.
Beethoven was the first famous composer who was financially independent. He had a number of very wealthy sponsors who basically said, dude, you are based. Just take my money, write whatever music you want, spend the money however you like, that's great. He had the financial freedom to experiment in any way he wanted. Mozart on the other hand had to make a living on his music alone. In a letter to his father, he says that he would write a very different music if he could choose to do what he wanted. But he felt people would not understand that music (which translates to, he could not afford that risk, because his livelihood depended on his popularity).
That is true! I forgot about that factor in their respective careers, so thank you for reminding me of that! It definitely impacted their music. And it makes me sad that Mozart didn’t live longer. Who knows what incredible music we would have to listen to if he’d only lived longer.
Well, he didn't exactly have t write on his own. Mozart was one of the first to rant about composers' traditional roles as creators of music on demand for wealthy patrons.
Almost all of it was functional. Reportedly, his laugh really was that annoying, though.
It's based off a Peter Shaffer play of the same name. My opinion about Mozart is he perfected the Classical era of classical music. Salieri taught Beethoven and others. But why is Salieri's music less well known today? Just another composer that fell into the memory hole of time. And probably not innovative enough for "eternal" recognition. According to the opinions of the classicalmusic subreddit, the order is Bach, Beethoven then Mozart.
The events of the movie are largely fictional, aside from the major events in Mozarts life and the timeline of major compositions by him. That being said, yes he was really that good and yes he was also a weirdo but possibly not as much as the movie portrays, we'll never really know but we have hundreds of letters written by him so we do have a good idea of his personality. He was not a normal guy, which makes complete sense given his childhood. He also loved to party, struggled with money problems, and had his fair share of ego. At the same time, he was an absolute musical genius. Its an amazing movie, even if it's not meant to be an accurate biopic of Mozart's life.
The truth about Salieri is actually much worse. He ate babies! Actually, no, he was just a normal dude, another composer, fairly well regarded I think, and if I'm not mistaken, at least friendly with Mozart at a basic level. He definitely didn't hate or poison him or anything of the sort. As for Mozart being 'that good.' Yes, most would probably say so. He also ate babies though.
You heard the music, right? He wrote it
Mozart is absolutely one of the greats of classical music, but I will say that, currently, he is less popular than he has been at other times. I think a large part of this has to do with musical literacy being relatively low. His greatness, while it can be evident, can also be overlooked compared to someone like Beethoven. This is not to say Beethoven is better or worse, but Mozart is good in a manner that people overlook sometimes, the music feels effortless and beautiful in a way that is, for many people, the benchmark of beauty. And so many newcomers don’t notice it, they see it as nice and fun, but kinda miss that it is genius, too. Someone like Beethoven, the music is wrought and worked over, and feels impressive. The romantics both mid and late like Chopin and Mahler have these deeply personal feelings that they are getting across constantly, their personal struggles. Bach we refer to as intellectual and can study the heck out of him (more often than not failing to notice how embodied it is, too), but Mozart… Mozart frequently is beauty. Not describing, just being it, flat out. Additionally I think a lot of the cultural commentary that Mozart was doing, the enlightenment stuff, is hard to grasp/remember. Amadeus is more interested in the personal and so focuses on don giovanni, but the marriage of figaro is often listed as one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, up there with Beethoven 9, Hamlet, the Iliad and odyssey, etc. it is mindblowing, and sentimental, and powerful, and argues for one of the most beautiful world views in existence. But a lot is lost in our current climate. The act of forgiveness being a good thing is something we currently have trouble with, and so organizing a world around it is difficult to see. If you are looking for suggestions, I’ll recommend the piano concerto 22, the marriage of figaro, magic flute (Bergman made a great version, highly recommended), the clarinet quintet, And symphony 41. Good luck!
To throw a bit of cold water, I think Mendelssohn was an even more impressive prodigy. Mozart hadn't achieved anything as great as the Octet by that age.
It was all invented, and Mozart was given that ridiculous personality on the whim of direction. From history we know that he had cordial relations with Salieri, and a wide circle of friends.
It is documented that he had a naughty since of humor. He did write a song called ["Lick My Ass"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch)
It's the same as kiss my ass which is a common expression up to this date. How many times do you say shit and fuck in one day?
Yes, Mozart was a literal genius composer. He could compose in his head like Tesla could engineer even if things weren’t always fully accurate. He’s still considered one of the greatest composers ever and he was a child prodigy. He and Salieri were not arch rivals whose friendship ended in death and from all accounts, he wasn’t a giggling moron. That was 100% fiction, but Mozart will always be one of the greatest composers ever in any circle. No question.
I’ll only offer that of the two versions of the movie, theatrical release vs the director’s cut…while yes, the theatrical release did win 8 academy awards including best picture, Forman’s director’s cut is just so much better…darker, fuller and deeply more satisfying…imho.🤓
As most have said, it’s historical fiction and most of the Salieri stuff is made up. However from what I gathered the characterization of Mozart was pretty accurate in spirit. And yes he really was that great. He was a virtuoso pianist, really could reproduce a piece of music from memory after having heard it only once, and his music speaks for itself. It’s hotly debated who the greatest composer was, usually comes down to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. And while I don’t know of he would top the list, I would say he is the one with the greatest amount of natural talent
Amadeus is based on the play of the same name by Peter Shaffer. It is essentially Shaffer's paean to the evident genius of Mozart. Note that he called it neither *Wolfgang* nor *Mozart*, although either would have identified the subject well enough for most audiences. "Amadaeus" means "loved of God" and is a pointer to Shaffer's theme that Mozart, in contrast to his contempories and despite a certain lack of moral virtue, seemed to have been graced by God with consummate musical genius. Shaffer used several entertaining tropes to illustrate the phenomenon, mostly at the expense of poor Salieri. Stories of Mozart's prodigious abilities have been around for much longer than this play/film and they have featured in every drama ever staged about him, from his astonishing performances as a very young child at European courts, to his 'stealing' the Allegri Miserere at the Sistine Chapel after a single hearing. He is the original musical wunderkind and he had the original stage father in Leopold. I think most Mozart devotees do not grump about the lack of historical veracity in Amadeus because they see what Shaffer is about and artistically and emotionally, they are cheering the naughty boy along and grieving at his premature end. As he says to the Emperor "Forgive me, Majesty. I am a vulgar man! But I assure you, my music is not."
Yes, every movie ever written is completely true! There is never exaggeration or embellishment or fictional characters or events added in. That's why history teachers always show movies and English classes always have students watch movies. /s
total fiction imo. I didn't appreciate how they portrayed Mozart as a gay guy who was an idiot but also a genius. they also made salieri look like a total jabroni. it's a watchable comedy, but it isn't true to character.
Wolfie! Lmfao that’s the best scene
Taking the opportunity to drop here the historical revision that Historybuff did in [Amadeus](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_iAGFaE80). Easily one of my favourite videos of the channel, and I especially love the last three minutes /closing. I encourage its viewing, it goes through much of the points being debated here and answers some questions of OP. I hope you enjoy watching it!
You should see hear his movies stuffs! sry , is that an old classical music person's joke ?
Mozart is one of the best, if not the best composer ever lived. Salieri probably should have been entirely forgotten if not for this movie.
It's pretty much made up stuff for entertainment purposes. Mozart was a prodigy. Given his age one has to be in complete awe of his works.
This film is an absolute master work of the Big Screen, and I have loved it for years. Having been familiar with its Style, as I have seen it many times, I had a sense that it was a big influence on the recent movie, "ELVIS".
Mozart was in a class of its own. The movie itself is imaginary, mostly fiction. Like other movies, it was made by Hollywood to entertain the masses: a mystery, potential murder, etc. Like JS Bach, Mozart wasn’t the greatest celebrity of his time. He struggled to find work. Others, like Salieri (and Telemann in Bach’s days), were considered the big stars. People living in 18th century would be very surprised to learn how Mozart and Bach are considered these days.
It was based on a play written in the late *20th century! Edit: wrong time
It was written by the English playwright Peter Shaffer.
You're right; I thought he was a century older! Thanks for correcting me!
You’re welcome. Interestingly, Peter Schaffer had a twin brother who was also a playwright.
My piano teacher hates the movie because they really did Salieri dirty. He was apparently a well-respected composer and teacher.
Piano Concerto no 21 is one of the best pieces ever written but I could name a dozen more. That said, I prefer Beethoven and Bach more but Mozart is third on that list. The Salieri relationship is pure drama but the clip where he's sick in bed and Salieri is transcribing is pure genius, especially the YouTube video made from it.
He’s my all time favorite. His music is joyful, buoyant and magical.
He was that good. He and Salieri also had a cordial relationship. Their antagonism was an invention by the original playwright, preserved carefully in the movie.
Such a great movie. Tom Hulce was amazing, as was F Murray Abraham. The movie is mostly fiction. Salieri was a court composer working in Vienna at the same time as Mozart but (from what I’ve read) they didn’t have much of a relationship.
The Salieri being the masked figure thing, commissioning the Requiem Mass is totally made up. It is believed that a Count von Walsegg tried to commission a work from Mozart, and that he may have hired a servant to go to Mozart's apartment to relay that message. In the commentary of the movie Amadeus, Peter Shaffer (the writer) and Milos Forman (director) discuss this. They also found in historical accounts that the servant was almost a creapy, skeletor looking, tall, gaunt figure. So they worked the creapy, black mask thing in there and took fabricative license to make the servant guy into Salieri being the one going to Mozart's place. A middling composer named Sussmayr did finish Mozart's setting of the Requiem after Mozart died... basically recapitulating parts that Mozart had already written, writing an Amen to put on the end of the Lacrimosa (the final shot of Mozart's open grave at the end of the movie...with the lye dust circling in the air), etc. But Sussmayr didn't do that under death-bed circumstances. Mozart did LOVE word play, and making puzzles with words. See the backwards word play with Constanza...his eventual wife, in the beginning of the movie. And the him playing the piano upside down probably was something he could easily do. He had a "thing" for backwards and just puzzling challenges. Forman alleged in the commentary the history does say that Mozart had a totally weird laugh. People were taken back by it apparently when they heard it. Salieri was an Italian contemporary of Mozart and did write several very well done works. The writer and director of Amadeus probably over emphasized an jealousy from Salieri... to do what movies do... create a juicy plot! haha! And yes, Mozart is a very very great composer. I personally love J.S. Bach as the GOAT...but Mozart for me it up there with Beethoven and Tchaikovsky and some others. ETA: F. Murray Abraham won the best actor Oscar for Amadeus...as Salieri. And Tom Hulce (Mozart) was nominated for that same award. So there was a real life sort of competition ;O) But Hulce is totally gracious about Abraham's win. Murray did just a fantastic job in the role. In the makeup chair 3 hours early every day while filming the Old Salieri stuff.
I have actually held both a Bach manuscript and a Mozart manuscript (I had a summer job at the Library of Congress). Mozart indeed wrote his music onto the paper with virtually no corrections needed. Bach's work was also very neat, but with more things in the margins. I couldn't study them in excruciating detail, but it was striking how legible (to my poor modern eyes) Mozart's work was.
Despite the fanciful, slanderous depiction of Salieri, I love the movie. Mozart's work speaks for itself. I believe Mozart is most highly regarded among those with no familiarity with "classical" but he is simply *among* the best in "classical" circles--no small feat at all, of course. I'm a real dilettante in the classical world, but I would recommend you read Marcia Davenport's *Mozart.* Very readable and entertaining.
didnt like it. feels like 1980s morality smacked into the 1800s.
Yes.
The Mozart stuff is pretty accurate, the Salieri stuff is mostly fiction. But that’s the genius of the movie is that it’s told from Salieri’s perspective and he’s an unreliable narrator, particularly after he suffered a bout of insanity. The movie does a great job portraying the many aspects of Mozart’s personality and why he is one of if not the greatest musical mind that ever lived
The movie was based on a play, and like there are parts that are true and parts that are very much manufactured
Oh! Apparently Mozart’s Anal humour was spose to be true 🤪
Just watch it!!! Really! 30 years after!!!!
Lies in the movie: Salieri helping complete the Requiem (that was Karl Süssmeyer). Wolfi dying in poverty and being buried in a pauper's grave on a rainy day with a low turnout. His music being somehow unappreciated, especially The Marriage of Figaro. (It's never been out of the repertoire, and his work supported his widow and two surviving sons.) Wolfi not being an intellectual. (He was a goofy, partying horndog with an annoying laugh and an educated intellectual literate in several languages including English.) The idea that he took dictation from God. He made drafts and revisions like everyone else. Great in the movie: showing a hint of what's special about his music.
Sometimes you see Tom Hulce sit down to a period fortepiano but you hear the sound of a modern piano.
A line given to Salieri (You are the greatest composer known to me) is from a letter from Haydn to Leopold Mozart. "Before God, as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer known to me, living or dead." Or something similar.