Anna,

I don't know the Mozart Mass in question, but in the Ordo of Paul VI, the Kyrie isn't part of the penitential rite. (Yes, I know that Mozart died before 1969).

Mass IX's Kyrie also some melismas, and wouldn't qualify as sad or somber.

The Greek word eleos and its derivatives were used in biblical Greek to translate Hebrew chesed. A very rich concept of God's enduring love. [see] Older English translation often just use mercy, even where the Vulgate has misericordiam - tenderness of heart. The word eleison presents great problems in translating succinctly, particularly as it is an imperative.
As the 2002 RM tries to make clear, the modern tropes are not supposed to be confessions of our guilt but to "name the gracious works of the Lord". Unfortunately, when they published the 1969 RM they had left this part of the NO in a confused mess, which invited misunderstanding. They should IMHO have left the Greek, as the TLM wisely did.

The phrase Kyrie eleison is not ipso facto penitential. Throughout the liturgy (whether said/sung in Greek or Latin or English or whatever) we ask the Lord to have mercy upon us - the Gloria that immediately follows the Kyrie ("qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis..."), the Agnus Dei (same), etc. The Victimae Paschali of Easter ends with the word "miserere" - have mercy on us - and the Octave Day of Easter now has the "subtitle" Divine Mercy Sunday.

As I myself have learned about this, I have gotten more and more annoyed when, in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the priest selects the option of using the troped Kyrie for the Penitential Act itself. Think about it: what does the priest say (or at least what is he supposed to say) immediately beforehand? "Brethren, let us acknowledge our sins, and so prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries." In the Confiteor, of course, we explicitly acknowledge that we have sinned - "I confess...that I have greatly sinned...". In the rarely-used second form, we at least collectively acknowledge that we have sinned using the words of Scripture: "Have mercy on us, O Lord. / For we have sinned against you..." When it is done according to the book, where is the acknowledgment of our sin in that third form? And of course in the traditional Mass, the Confiteor and Kyrie are separate acts - the former being a Prayer at the Foot of the Altar, the latter being said at the altar itself after more prayers and then the Introit. It's little wonder to me, then, why so many have lost the sense of sin in general - lex orandi, lex credendi.

Thus endeth the rant.

Anna,

I should add that I'm not a fan of Mozart, and that I share Charles W's difficulty in differentiating between his operatic work and his supposedly sacred work.

(You've helped me find another point of agreement with Charles, so I'm grateful for that. He and I have (over the years) found only a small number of topics on which we share an opinion.)

I was probably the first person on this board to dismiss Mozart as a composer of sacred music if you did a historical analysis of the forum, but then, I was the first person to say a lot of things that put me in a corner, so to speak, over the years. So be it.

Mozart treats most text in the same manner... flowers ruffled in your face built on a simple structure of predictable chords and florid vocal gymnastics. It is religious music at best, but I do not subscribe to the idea that it is sacred music per se... maybe there is a piece here or there that touches into that arena, but they are few.

As Charles says above, he was an opera composer dyed in the wool. It is what it is.

Schoenbergian,

I've never been a fan, although I do periodically undertake to get to like his music more. So far, with very little success.

Your point is well made.

Schoenbergian

You don't need to defend the man nor do you need to defend music or art... or wine... it becomes evident over time and with repetitive involvement... it becomes clearer and clearer then if it is good or if it is not, or if it is just mediocre or just plain lousy. This is the truth about all art and music... I did not say he didn't employ a technique... he has a technique, but it is one of flowers that drawn together always smell the same from work to work and piece to piece.

I play his piano sonatas and study them. [So far his best work (in my opinion) is his fugue in C Major]. I play his Fantasia in D Minor often... I understand his theoretical approaches. For myself he is fun to play, but tiresome and repetitive to listen to. Just my take. Apparently you must rather like his works... yes?

A simple point... the OP has stated that she is 'confused' by the music... does not that say something to you? Does that not bring a question mark into your mind? In other words, give her an answer to her question... why are you bashing my observation? I am simply giving her the answer I have in my own heart and mind.

Give us your answer to the 'confusion'... I hold the same view... she is spot on!

I have observed and listened to this composer for 50+ years. I continue to listen to his music, mostly because the general public likes to listen to their style of popular classical music... It's Mozart and Beethoven over and over and over ad nauseum... still, my opinions and feelings and observations do not change no matter how many times I hear the works.

Why is not Bach played in the concert halls? His music is far beyond the reaches of Mozart and Beethoven, yet, it is almost never programmed there? Why is that?

I think the issue is that the people running the music biz are more concerned about money and always default to program 'music for general consumption'... the music that everyone approves and is familiar with. Perhaps its just the old adage... familiarity breeds contempt.

Thank you for your response... major is not an issue for me, nor is upbeat, nor is the source of the invention... what IS the issue is the composer's circus like treatment of the vocal technique... it is like watching a trapeze act outlined in musical passages that elicit a silly grin. For me, and maybe the OP, that is more the source of the confusion... music that is totally out of character and disconnected with and from the text. It's quite obvious, yes? In other words, the music is the driving force... and the text is tacked on... if you changed out the words you could easily substitute the following:

"flocks of geese... are gathering on the pond"
... they're flying! they're gliding...
seee eee e e e e e e them rise! ascending... ascending... ascending to the skies!

Do you mean things like Toccata and Fugue in D minor? If so, I tend to agree...

hearing his chamber music in concert is more what I was thinking, or even his Cantatas.

Bach's music can transpose to ANY medium, and it can be done well, if it is carefully executed, with delicacy and finesse... it will however, never elicit a bombastic applause or a standing ovation... Bach will only sit you down into quiet or have you on your knees, but that is the nature of his mystical art... he is not theatre...

Mozart is all theatre... even his Kyrie... (and the gloria which I just listened to) and Mozart, (and I have said this before) is the Michael Jackson of his age... One, Fooooour Fiiiivvvvvvvvveeeeeeee, ONE! ONe... one... the general public is in love! blech!

I think the Stowkosky arrangements are fabulous, and that disagreement on them is a matter of taste. Bach’s music is often grand and for those who value the colors of the symphony orchestra, and the richness of an early 20th century style and timbre, Stowkowsky arrangements can add profundity and dramatization to Bach.

As for the Spatzenmesse, I think it’s pretty impressive stuff to be written by a 20 year old.

Bach is not played in concert halls? What is the meaning of that assertion? I've heard Bach countless times in concerts.

The large city symphony halls in particular. It seems it is just the rotatation of the same mediocre works over and over... it's why I never darken their steps.

e.g., I just reviewed these orchestra's season calendars: Baltimore, LA, Atlanta, Chicago and NY... there is one instance of Bach that I found on the BSO.

What area do you live in? Perhaps you have more diversity of programming...

trentonjconn... do you go under the same ID as Liam?

Francis, I'm not sure I understand the question (or quip?).

I agree with Francis on damn near everything- except Mozart.

His Holiness?

The lodge to which Wolfie belonged was based upon “reformed Catholic Ideals”, FWIW

"Kyrie eleison" in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and early Roman liturgy is the congregational response to a litany ("ektenia") of petitions. (Cf. the "Prayer of the Faithful" in the postconciliar Mass.) Therefore it was not necessarily penitential in character.

OK... I take it all back. Mozart is just fine. You all go have fun with scales and arpeggios...

This sounds like a friend of mine who clucks and rolls his eyes at "Mozart's happy Kyries." It's an appeal for God's presence and attention, not another confession of sin. Similarly, one of our late clergy started a practice of bowing during the Kyrie as a penitential posture, and others followed suit. One morning just before Mass, he asked the altar party, "Are we not bowing for the Kyrie?" and the MC just said, "That's a topic for another time." Liturgical manuals don't call for that, so no. I enjoy the joyful kyries anticipating God's presence, as much as the more subdued ones.

There's more than one way to set the Mass, fortunately. Being raised on Beethoven & Haydn, I remember laughing out loud the very first time I heard Liszt's mellow, not to say laid-back dona nobis pacem.

Something that still perplexes me is the 'un-full' reduced texture usually encountered at "pleni sunt caeli et terra'', which I still think Beethoven got right. When Isaiah's vision comes around in OT 5C it's Berlioz' Tibi omnes that has fill our Offertory slot, rather than a treasure from the cyclic mass repertory.

was probably the first person on this board to dismiss Mozart as a composer of sacred music if you did a historical analysis of the forum, but then, I was the first person to say a lot of things that put me in a corner, so to speak, over the years. So be it.

Mozart treats most text in the same manner... flowers ruffled in your face built on a simple structure of predictable chords and florid vocal gymnastics. It is religious music at best, but I do not subscribe to the idea that it is sacred music per se... maybe there is a piece here or there that touches into that arena, but they are few.

As Charles says above, he was an opera composer dyed in the wool. It is what it is

.

I am really tired of such ignorance as this on this board. It is just stupidity.

Listen to, just for a start, the Requiem, the Great Mass in C, the Ave Verum, the Pastoral Mass,
The Litany to the BVM, and then see if this is "fluff"" !
Forshame!!

And, yes the Kyrie was not originally part of the penitential rite. As well, the confidence of the setting was a popular convention in Vienna, observed by all Austrian composers, from Salieri to both Haydns and others. That is certainly a better explanation then something like "Mozart did not care about the words"... even the briefest familiarity with Ave Verum Corpus will show that his belief in the Real Presence is evident on the very structure and harmonic plan of the work. Please stop these ignorant comments.

Every so often the subject of Mozart shows up on this forum. Same as the "filioque" on an eastern forum I belong to. I am quite willing to give both a rest and move on. It seems every director with 5 singers wants to do the Coronation Mass. Has anyone seen any Holy Roman Emperors crowned lately?

Candlemas last year, at Assumption & St Gregory in London, with professional Sparrow Mass - grand occasion, great Ordinariate liturgy, very enjoyable. BUT I would have preferred the concert and the Mass separately (like the refreshments afterwards).

Commonplace trivia: the last time a Holy Roman Emperor was ever crowned was in 1530, even before Palestrina was a thing. The coronations thereafter were of Kings of The Romans and Kings/Queen of Hungary, Bohemia etc.; the sovereign at this point was Elected Emperor of the Romans but not crowned as such.

Mozart and his peers were quite capable of composing in the style of the composers of sacred music who preceded him. Patrons, including very much princes of the Church, were tired of that stuff.

The telling is in the typical use of chromatic passages that move to entirely predictable resolutions and employ dim 7 pivot chords

This type of harmonic progression is that which was employed in much early 20th century Marian saccharine hymns that so many despise

Perhaps it is because Mozart’s name is attached to said work that makes people defensive?

This is a great quote and shows what little you know about harmonic procedure and the unique way in which Mozart mastered it.

The arrival at a new key is not as you misunderstand "entirely predictable " but rather a smooth and perfect modulation to an completely UiNRELATED key!
I don't have time to explain the theological meaning of this, however it you are interested i can send you an article I wrote which elucidates this.
Everyone has an opinion however facts are more important.

Incidentally, many of greatest conductors, Bernstein, Boehm, von karayan, thought this amoung the greatest motets.
The Austrians thought so highly of it that a little chapel was built entirety for the honor of this little piece.
I guess they really should have listened to you, and you would have educated them eh?

I don't know if you realize it, Francis, but I included a proviso about the date for a reason. It's not reasonable to point to compositions that came after Mozart's Ave verum as evidence of weaknesses in his work. Poor imitations of a delicate masterwork don't reduce the greatness of the original.