Minuet for String Quintet in D Major

Questions about the thing itself

What is its substance?

            Although I cannot read music, which means the written score is totally meaningless to me, it seems to me that Mozart’s “Minuet for String Quintet in D Major” has it being in both the written score, and in the actual performance.  This being, I would think, would have to be simultaneous.  Notes on the score are meaningless unless one knows the sound that corresponds with the note.  Therefore, even as one composes or reads the score, he or she plays the corresponding notes; either on an instrument, or some where in their mind.

            I suppose music can have its being without ever being written down on a score sheet.  In such a case it may be what you hum without thinking, or what you improvise on an instrument.  The music you create may never have been written down.  I do not believe, however, that music can exist only as the written score.  Some sound is always accorded the note, even when it is written down.

            Some music, like this minuet, must exist both as written score and as performance before it can really be said to have its being.  It would take a great deal of faith to believe these five instruments could come together, and by improvisation, come to create this music.  It took the genius of Mozart to compose the piece.  It takes the talent of the musician to perform the piece.  Together they create and give the music its being.

Has it structure?

            This minuet definitely has structure.  Both in its score, and in its use of instruments.  Each instrument takes part in the performance of the notes as they rise and fall.  The higher pitched instruments are complimented by those of lower pitch.  Each has its place and time to come to the forefront.  The score is structured so as to allow each instrument its time to shine.

            The score itself is structured in such a way as to repeat each note so that the performer will be able to play in the same sequence.  Each time the performers are asked to go beyond the repeated section another instrument takes up the same notes, but in a different tone or pitch.

Questions of Value

Is it good?

            From my musically uneducated point of view this minuet is excellent.  It is a piece where each instrument can be heard; and each seems to fulfill its purpose in the composition.  Even upon hearing the piece for the first time I felt as though I was able to anticipate the direction the music would take.  Thus giving me the sense that there was continuity in the composition.

            And yet there was enough of an element of change or surprise to keep me interested.  This came most obviously as I anticipated the next notes, but was pleased to hear them come from a different instrument.  And all the while the continuity was maintained as each instrument continued to play.  It seemed as though one instrument took the lead while the others played in the background.  Then, as that instrument finished its lead, another would come forward.

            Again, I must defer to the experts for a critique of this minuet’s technical qualities.  As one historian of music has written, “For all the excellence of his quartets, Mozart’s genius reveals itself most fully in his quintets for two violins, two violas, and cello.”  (Grout, p. 516)  I think this piece is very good.  The serious student of music evidently considers it excellent.

Is it beautiful?

Is it great?

            In answering the above question I believe I have also answered, in a personal way, my feelings about whether or not this minuet is also beautiful and great.  In my opinion it meets all the criteria for being beautiful.  Among other criteria I believe it has harmony, proportion and consistency.  Each instrument compliments the others in what appears to me to be perfect harmony.  As one takes up the lead, while the others seem to drop to the background, the piece shows its consistency.

            To say this minuet is great may be going too far.  I don’t know how to determine greatness in a musical piece.  If the criteria is greater complexity and size then describing the piece as great may not be giving it a proper description.  Its execution, even as a written piece, seems to be excellent.  With execution as a criteria for greatness then it may be that this piece should be considered great.

Questions relating more to the observer

Can I think music?

            This minuet is one of those pieces of which, when I really make the effort to listen to it, I begin to anticipate the sounds.  It is as though I know what the next notes will be.  I can hear all the different tones played by the various instruments.

            Since I am not trained in music I do not see notes as they would be written on the musical score.  I do, however, think in terms of sounds.  I do not associate the sounds with words, although there may be times I do associate music with emotions.  Overall, when I hear a piece such as this minuet, I can get lost in the music.  My thoughts become the sounds.  At times even my physical movements correspond to the sounds I hear from the music being performed.

What prior assumptions have I made that direct and constrain my thinking?

            If there would be any pre-conceived ideas about this minuet it would be that I know Mozart is considered one of the great composers of classical music.  Knowing this I might tend to view his pieces as good, without really making the effort to determine why I’ve made that judgement.

            It is also true that, although I do not understand music as would a student of music, I love “classical music.”  Therefore, when I combine my musical tastes with the reputation of Mozart, I undoubtedly have an inclination to consider any of his compositions as good.  My thinking is therefore constrained and directed by my biases in favor of this kind of music.  And, especially considering that I am not a student of music, I would have the tendency to consider Mozart’s music good even if there were technical faults.  This would be the case because I am unable to detect such faults, and would simply go by his reputation and my music preferences.

Questions on the context of the piece

Is it important to know (and, if so, why) —

Whether or not this work might have been intended for inclusion in another work?

            It would seem to me that, as a student of music, I would be interested in why a certain piece was written.  If simply written as a quintet then it has met its goal.  But, if written for inclusion in a larger piece, then there would be many relevant questions left unanswered.  For instance, if performed as part of the larger work would the minuet have the same affect on the listener, and the performer?  Would it stand out from the rest of the work, and possibly make the rest seem dull and insignificant?  Would the beauty of the piece be lost in the performance of the whole?

            I would also think this would reveal something about Mozart’s style, and even his ability as a composer.  Was he unable, for instance, to distinguish the sounds of the quintet from the larger work?  Of course this sounds ludicrous when speaking of Mozart, but the point is that a wholly different approach to the study of the piece would be necessary if it were discovered or known that it was not intended to stand alone.

What Mozart intended?

            I cannot help but believe that anything written, whether musical or as literature, is somehow influence by the author’s life experiences.  I suppose, as a student of music, this knowledge would help one understand why Mozart wrote this piece, and why he chose these particular instruments to perform the piece.  As one, however, who simply enjoys listening to the music, I cannot find a good reason to know what Mozart’s intentions were.

            Lewis Rowell believes, “…evaluation becomes misdirected when it focuses upon such matters as the ease or effort with which a composer wrote a work,  his religious fervor, or that his tears fell upon the manuscript as he wrote.” (Rowell, p. 19)  Each listener reacts to music in his or her own way.  Each reaction, in turn, is almost always shaped by the listener’s mood at the time.  It seems, then, that it is not important to know the composer’s intent.  Music seems rather to be within the frame of mind of the listener.

            I do wonder about Rowell’s consistency since he feels, “…it is important that the same mind that gave birth to this music of the most exquisite refinement was also a mind that took delight in the most earthy language, puns, and coarse humor.”  If he feels the composer’s emotions misdirect the student’s evaluation of the work, then why concern one’s self with the fact that he wrote bawdy letters?

Time

Is time atomistic or continuous?

            I believe the answer to this question will include the answer to the question, “What is the ‘now’ in music?”

            It seems to me that music is an experience that must be looked upon or felt as both now, and as past and future.  We must hear the note that is being sounded now, but it is meaningless without the notes that both precede and follow the immediately present note.  Even if the note played now is in reality a number of notes played by a number of insturments, all at the same moment, they have no meaning without the before and after.  As a matter of fact, the multitude of notes may not only be meaningless, but they may also sound structureless.

            The performer, of course, plays one note at a time, and it is important that he get that note right.  No matter what note precedes or follows.  Therefore, for him or her, in this sense all time is now.  But he must anticipate the next note.  He must ensure that there is the proper space between the previous and following notes.  With this in mind it becomes apparent that time has a more fluid aspect for the musician.

            Although the composer sets down only one note at a time, he does not do it mindlessly.  He must think ahead to the notes that will follow, and look back to ensure that the present note fits with the preceding ones.  A note by itself is just a sound, and as such, I believe, cannot be considered music.  Only when notes are sounded in some kind of sequence do they become music.  Sequence means that time elapses between each note.  Yet no one note is heard as the music.  Notes are heard together, even when they are not sounded at the same time.