I know something of Mozart.
There is, in most music critique today, a tendency to embrace all sorts of touchy feely description that leans heavily on the words "texture" and "depth". Whereas texture means nothing, depth can mean at least something, and in the case of this young man the absence of depth translates in a straightforward way to very specifically an absence of anything but the primary theme.
There are no foundational instruments in this 9/11 piece doing anything whatsoever other than either echoing the primary theme or adding volume at a different octave.
Mozart's symphony number 1 was written at the age of 8 while travelling to London. Soon thereafter at age 11 he uncorked an avalanche of full concertos for the piano forte, younger that this new young man's age. The concertos were fully orchestral and already were showing his infinite capacity for perfect technique.
What I hear from this young man is an ability to write a tune for multiple instruments. He has a very long way to go and the comparison hype is undeserved. We'll know more in 5 years about what his prospects are. For now, we know he is no Mozart.
Good post. I doubt there will ever be another Mozart. If this kid is just writing slight variations of the melody for different instruments then he is not on the same planet as Mozart.
The stuff Mozart wrote in his early teens was far better than most great classical composers best work. Young Mozart apparently learned much from Bach's son J.C.. J.C. was a pretty good composer with wonderful music but he did not have the depth of his father or Mozart.
Mozart was a once in 1,000 years phenomena.
I would hold Mozart and Bach to be the highest level of musical genius...followed closely by Beethoven, then closely followed by a whole host of genius such as Stravinsky, Bartok, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, etc. We judge this level on a lifes body of work.
My point is that there is a whole continuum of genius. We understand little about the functioning and capacity of the human brain, even less about what constitutes true genius.
IMHO, the highest level of genius is reserved for those who not only have superior technical facility, and a breath of technique, but an ability to reach inside themselves and produce creative work that connects and is understood at an emotional level, as well as a technical level.
I havent heard this young man, but he seems to have the technical facility. That doesnt mean that he will also achieve the highest level of creative expression. I would hope he does.
One aspect IMHO that is overlooked about genius is that during their process of creation they often reject much that they produce. I suspect that this was true with Mozart, although he was able to write out his themes and melodies verbatim, I believe he utilized the same creative destructive process to arrive at a final product, just much much quicker and efficiently than the average genius could.
If this boy can maintain the discipline to not self indulge his obvious gifts, he has a good chance to achieve the highest standards.
Comparing him to Mozart at this point however, is not doing this boy any favors IMHO.
If you really do know something about Mozart you will know that his father was a composer that pushed his son to perform at an early age. That might have something to do with why he became a composer. This 12 year old kid's parents don't have any musical background at all, and everything the kid has done has been on his own.
I wish I had written what you wrote. All true!
I call it "emotive depth" and I agree - whatever you want to call it - the kid doesn't yet have it. He is no Mozart. The 9/11 piece was rather flat from beginning to end.
But from what I heard and saw, he is a prodigy of a kind. To attempt to compare him to Mozart is a red herring. He is what he is, and that's nothing to be easily dismissed.