Video

@@hortleberrycircusbround9678 more false info. Boulogne was a star and known throughout all of europe and the USA before anyone was thinking about Mozart.

​​@@waundellsaavedra3772live in a racial dream bubble all you want. Bologne is average. Joseph wasn't a Louis Armstrong, an Ellington, a Parker or Coltrane. He is nice and pretty BUT not miraculous so continue in your racial folly and withhold Mozart's beauty from your ears. Your loss.

​​@@waundellsaavedra3772Mozart was given the Chevalier title when he was 14 years old by the Pope, so carry on with your delusions.

Mistake. When the first music published by Chevalier was on print Mozart had already composed 21 symphonies and 5 string quartets besides plenty of other music, operas, etc. One year after the publication of Chevalier first opus Mozart composed the great g-minor symphony 25. Since his 6 years old Mozart was already known across Europe as a brilliant prodigy as a composer and as a pianist (or harpsichordist sometimes!) - (Chevalier was 17 years old at the time and no works composed at all) - being received in all important courts and salons by Emperors, Kings and Queens. Besides that, Mozart was a supreme genius and Chevalier was a better than average composer, its true, but not much more interesting than Michael Haydn, Clementi or Salieri, owing too much to the fashionable gallant / rococo style of those times. He remembers me of Mozart when he sacrificed himself to that style... either in Paris or in Salzburg. Not to mention, of course, Joseph Haydn, where everybody, including Mozart, went to see how music composition should be made. Haydn is, with some of Bach's children, the true father, the main creator of the classic style. Chevalier has the honour of being the first black composer in the western classical style and that is very relevant, of course. Also his life was very interesting, and a wonderful, if sad (he died in poverty, it seems) example of a lonely guy trying to fight racial prejudices and other ignominies. Also, he was, to be sure, a much better violinist than Mozart, who never pretended to be a virtuoso violinist in the "show-off" sense of the term. Mozart was a supreme keyboard player and composer, the violin and viola he played in late years only to amuse himself at home, with friends, not in the concert room, and always in chamber music, not solo or concertante music. He played, it seems, his own violin concertos in young age but they are not display, virtuosistic pieces like the real "show-off" violin concertos of his epoch. It is important, when discussing matters, to be informed before... Chevalier was an important figure, he has its place, or should had its place in music history if not for the racism of our society, and was a man of real value and many gifts. But, in spite of that, he was NOT a Mozart, not even as great as Haydn, Boccherini or Carl-Phillip Emmanuel Bach. It is enough to compare his many violin concertos with the five of Mozart (namely numbers 3-5 of Mozart) to observe the enormous distance between a man of great talent and a man of true genius, and violin concertos are not even the best Mozart has to offer us in the concertante field (that honour goes to the piano concertos). Also, the first violin concerto of Mozart was, recent research seems to support the idea, composed the same year as the first two of Chevalier, so, the "influence" of Chevalier seems to be non-existant. But, even if Chevalier was a precursor of Mozart, the honour would be is, not Mozart! In art remains who does better, not who does first. Mozart is the product of his times, and as every great artist, he learned from the best sources, Bach, Haendel, the sons of Bach, Haydn, etc. And many more! But, with all this, he composed is own, great music, music that was, and still is, one of the supreme achievements of the human kind. With Bach and Beethoven, Mozart is one of the three greatest composers ever born in this planet, a trinity that remains unchallenged. This said, it is important that the music of Chevalier be rescued from obscurity, because it deserves better than that, of course. As I said, it is very good music, but, please, don't mix everything, talent with genius, good, nice music, with the miracle that is the best music of Mozart. That is not fair to Mozart, and surely not fair to Chevalier...

Except Boulogne came before Mozart, LMFAOO

@@FlowerTower Mozart, copy and used some of Joseph Bologne's string cords techniques.

His music is conventional. Mozart was a genius, same with Haydn and Beethoven. Just a different level.

@@philipbay1548 Mozart spent his whole life focussed on composing, so yes, you are right, as a composer they are on different levels. But 'Le Chevalier' was likely the better violinist. And as a swordsman, soldier, athlete, ground-breaking social activist and peacemaker, Mozart doesn't even begin to compare! Which was the greater 'genius'? A pointless and irresolvable discussion...

@@PraisetoMyGod So cut and paste plagiarism was popular in 18th-century Europe, hmm? That would explain the great lengths taken to nearly expunge M. Boulogne from history. It was to hide two facts: 1. Mozart was not 18th-century Europe's premiere virtuosic violinist. and 2. 18th-century Europe's premiere virtuosic violinist was a Black polymath--M. Joseph Boulogne, Chevalier de St. Georges.