# Mozart Piano Concerti: the 'still genial' but not as attended to concerti



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I have only recently become well acquainted with every concerto 17 onwards. Before I had only know the usual suspects: 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26(though this one is probably the least interesting of 17+, for me).

I realized how witty and buoyant 19 was. 18 has some really different irregularities that are of interest. The themes of 22 really catch, for me, and there is a similar elastic and buoyant quality to it like 19. Then we get to 25. This one is kind of a beast. It's longer and has some really unexpected and different harmonic ideas. Finally we arrive at 27, not perhaps as flashy, but something weirdly final about it, appropriate of a last concerto, and utter perfection.

What do you think? This has been one of the biggest musical finds for me in recent times, just to finally get around to understanding how awesome these works are.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Good news! I think there's strange and wonderful progressions in his concertos. For example, the 9th is a fully formed beast, as great as any. Alfred Brendel described it as the 8th wonder of the world. The 10th, for two pianos, is majestic, music swimming in all directions. These are his last Salzburg concertos. Then he went to Vienna.

My own theory is that he dialled it back a tad to bring the Viennese up to speed. This isn't as patronising as it sounds: his concertos could be very complex, for their time. His g-minor piano quartet was derided because it was considered to be too complicated. I think then, concertos 11-17 or 18 vary in density and complexity, but generally aren't as expansive and grand as the ones from 19-onwards. They're beautiful, but not as original or inventive as the 9th, say. This is my own opinion.

The later Viennese ones are all masterworks of the highest order, each as different from each other as they could be. The two minor chord ones (20 and 24) are even coming from a different species of minor. Cuthbert Girdlestone (I know, great name) said of #24 that "Tempest tossed it certainly is, but with less intensity, less obsession than the D minor. It expresses a soul driven hither and thither by the storm: the D minor was itself the storm."

I kind of envy you coming new to these works, but then again, I'm going through #'s 22 and 23 obsessively and I feel like they're new to me. There's also something miraculous about virtually every slow movement in all the piano concertos...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I wouldn't presume to understand how great they are as I've gone on record as being tepid toward much of Mozart's output, but I can say with certainty the piano concertos are of the realm in which Beethoven overlaps Mozart the most for me. In no other genre have I heard much connection. The Mozart PCs, especially the later ones, are surprising profound works full of much beauty as well as anguish. They are certainly my favorites of Mozart's catalogue.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

This is the benefit of being obsessed with finding good but not as appreciated composers for a long time, after prematurely moving on from the most known and greatest composers. You come back to Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc, and after 8 relatively uninterrupted years of classical music consumption, you have a gold mine of the greatest music ever written that you are better equipped than ever to appreciate.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I have to agree that No. 27 is a wonderfully unique work with a mood that differs from the rest in the set. I wouldn't assign any intentional valedictory sentiment to it, though; Mozart was in the prime of his composing powers and could have certainly continued to extend the limits of the piano concerto genre.

Likewise, I will second Kieran's enthusiastic appraisal of the No. 9 in E-flat. It bursts with inspiration from the first bar.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

No. 9 even has one of the best finales along with the minor key concertos no. 20 and 24. Many of Mozart finales suffer in my opinion of the "lame rondo main theme syndrome", even if there's interesting stuff happening in the episodes.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

#9 has the piano leap in early, a witty innovation that he was never to repeat, but which others did. Also, it has that rollicking rondo finale, but rather strangely, and very pleasingly, he paused it to perform a slow minuet in the middle of it, before the fireworks go off again. He did this again in the 22nd, but I like it better in the 9th. Not sure if it was an innovation, but it showed how abundantly imaginative he was when composing this one...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> I have only recently become well acquainted with every concerto 17 onwards. Before I had only know the usual suspects: 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26(though this one is probably the least interesting of 17+, for me).
> 
> I realized how witty and buoyant 19 was. 18 has some really different irregularities that are of interest. The themes of 22 really catch, for me, and there is a similar elastic and buoyant quality to it like 19. Then we get to 25. This one is kind of a beast. It's longer and has some really unexpected and different harmonic ideas. Finally we arrive at 27, not perhaps as flashy, but something weirdly final about it, appropriate of a last concerto, and utter perfection.
> 
> What do you think? This has been one of the biggest musical finds for me in recent times, just to finally get around to understanding how awesome these works are.


Just some random thoughts on performance mainly

There's a self directed performance by Gilels of 27 which really opened it up for me -- no other has the same feeling of valediction/nobility that I've found. It's on Vista Vera, not to be confused with his other one with Bohm conducting maybe.

16 is difficult -- Barenboim is really special with it. For 19, which I also like, there's Pollini and Schnabel.

Another one to explore I think is 14, especially the contrapuntal finale. Bilson is outstanding in it.

13 and 12 are not at all bad either.

There are chamber versions of some of these concertos which you may enjoy (I did)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I think the low K number of no 9 really just underlines where Mozart was in his creative potential at that time - the fact that he never bettered this concerto evidence that at 23/24 years of age he was already there -at the top where he remained until his last day. That is why when people say to me they only listen to the late K number I think - what about K271 - and of course many others. The funny thing is if you read Mozart's letters from that time and various contemporary accounts - there is no recognition that a musical miracle has happened.
That's an interesting hypothesis that he dumbed down the piano conerto for the viennese and then picked up the pace later. If we think about the concertos 11,12,13,14 certainly lovely as they are one would not think they were concertos with K numbers over 400 - perhaps. 15 seems to be more striking - 16 stalls a bit, 17 is a wonder, but 18 doesnt suggest Mozart is goiing to take the artistic leap into minor key tonality that he does in the D minor - or the meandering dreamlike inventiveness of K467 middle movement.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Taken as a group Mozart's piano concertos form the greatest set of works for the medium. They are absolutely sublime - relatively simple technically but fiendishly difficult to play well. I can remember a time when there were few Mozart piano concerto recordings that were really recommendable. Fortunately since then we have had Perahia, Brendel and other gifted Mozartians who have recorded complete sets. One of the best Mozartians was Annie Fischer whose recording of numbers 22 and 23 were on my turntable constantly when I was a lad.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

We all have our personal favourites among these great works and mine changes constantly, as I'm sure is the case for many. I'm very fond of No.12, having many years ago acquired a recording by Benjamin Britten playing it and it contained an innocence I haven't come across since. Amongst the greatest is No.15 and always return to the old Bernstein recording which is coupled with No.17, the only two Mozart concertos I believe he recorded as soloist, and the Solomon version on Testament. I find No.15 contains the very best of Mozart in a very compact and sophisticated form, and the 3rd movement rondo contains a repeated lilting melody played first by the piano alone and then repeated with the orchestra which I've always found one of the composer's most beautiful melodies. We all have our favourite recordings and if I had to name one pianist who is supreme in Mozart it would have to be Clifford Curzon, and although he didn't record the lower number concertos we have an indispensable set containing Nos.20,23,24,26 and 27, musicianship at its finest.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Any thoughts on #26, traditionally considered the runt of the litter?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Any thoughts on #26, traditionally considered the runt of the litter?


I like 26 - it has a wonderful Rondo in particular, even if the material in the first movement isn't incredibly inspiring. I also really like 25 which manages to be a big C Major thing and intricate and interesting at the same time


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Any thoughts on #26, traditionally considered the runt of the litter?


Strange considering this is known as 'The Coronation' concerto, and certainly the 1st movement has its moments of grandeur and I have always loved the concerto's 3rd movement rondo, but this work is pushed to the back of the set of mature concertos with No.16, which again doesn't get programmed as frequently.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

One of the most important points to realize was when Mozart wrote these piano concertos, these were then the most original works for piano and orchestra. Nothing came close, as the piano concerto was still a form under development. 

Such is proof of Mozart's genius and greatness.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Not addressed at any particular poster, just wanted to address a few different things that were brought up: 

-This first one really isn't that important, but Mozart wrote the 9th piano concerto in 1777 so he would've been 21 at the time.

-The 14th piano concerto doesn't really belong with the Early Viennese concerti(11-13). It's a much more advanced work than the previous three, owing to the greater dramatic role given to the strings, a general mood of restlessness that pervades the entire work, uniting themes that are very different in character. It's so idiosyncratic many musicologists aren't sure how to categorize it stylistically; but many, including Girdlestone and Hutchings, considered it more symphonic and forward-looking in style than the 15th piano concerto.

-As for the 16th concerto, it's less popular with audiences because it was composed in an older style with more conventional thematic material(almost like an opera seria), but it's no less accomplished than the others. Mozart was particularly proud of it and he wrote out some unusually elaborate cadenzas for them which are almost always used in performances today. It's more symphonic than its predecessors, the writing for woodwinds is even more prominent, the harmony vacillates between extensive chromaticism and simplistic diatonicism convincingly and dramatically, and the second movement, in the rich, contrapuntal passages in the accompanying woodwinds and strings, is the earliest of the series of concerti to reveal the results of his intense study of Bach and Handel.

I think everyone's pretty familiar with Einstein's intense dislike of the 26th piano concerto, but he wrote that when Mozart's estimation in the public eye was still pretty low and ignorance and misconceptions about his style were everywhere. It's lighter in tone and more galant in style and, for Einstein, embodied every negative cliche the Romantics thought of Mozart's music, as if Mozart was making parodying himself. Charles Rosen defended the work as different, though not lesser. In some ways the piece is very forward looking, rather than relying on rhythmic agitation or dark, moody subjects, tension is induced by increasing chromaticism and virtuosity in the solo piano writing, something that occurs much more often in piano concertos of the Romantic composers.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> One of the best Mozartians was Annie Fischer whose recording of numbers 22 and 23 were on my turntable constantly when I was a lad.


Just curious...which performances by Fischer? I notice a couple of each, for instance, on YouTube.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> One of the most important points to realize was when Mozart wrote these piano concertos, these were then the most original works for piano and orchestra. Nothing came close, as the piano concerto was still a form under development.
> 
> Such is proof of Mozart's genius and greatness.


Nothing to add :tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

dgee said:


> I like 26 - it has a wonderful Rondo in particular, even if the material in the first movement isn't incredibly inspiring. I also really like 25 which manages to be a big C Major thing and intricate and interesting at the same time


Yes, that's the thing about 25. Lots of strange and different things going on there, and he extends his material more than normal for him.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> One of the most important points to realize was when Mozart wrote these piano concertos, these were then the most original works for piano and orchestra. Nothing came close, as the piano concerto was still a form under development.
> 
> Such is proof of Mozart's genius and greatness.


I appreciate the spirit of the post, but in my opinion this is not entirely true. CPE Bach did a mountain of fantastic and very innovative work for the keyboard concerto genre. Some of his are lighter and less interesting, but probably half of them are brilliant, and with a select few being works of genius.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

revdrdave said:


> Just curious...which performances by Fischer? I notice a couple of each, for instance, on YouTube.


EMI recordings with the Philarmonia


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> I appreciate the spirit of the post, but in my opinion this is not entirely true. *CPE Bach did a mountain of fantastic and very innovative work for the keyboard concerto genre.* Some of his are lighter and less interesting, but probably half of them are brilliant, and with a select few being works of genius.


I will treat your claim with the same scepticism I had when someone told me that CPE's best symphonies can equal Mozart. A quick trip to youtube put showed that up for the hogwash it is - CPEs entire symphonies are often shorter than a Mozart 1st movement and certainly dont come anywhere near in quality.
So tell me then - what are these works of genius? Give me the best - something that justifies your apparant claim to parity with Mozart. I will check it out with the same scepticism I had recently when someone claimed that Boccherini's quintets with 2 violas are equal to Mozart's k516/515.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> no offense but there is invariably someone in a thread about Mozart's genius who pops up and says - hey - what about CPE...


Aw c'mon now. CPE wrote a lot of fine works. I especially like his flute concertos. Here's what Beethoven wrote in 1809: "Of Emanuel Bach's clavier works I have only a few, yet they must be not only a real delight to every true artist, but also serve him for study purposes; and it is for me a great pleasure to play works that I have never seen, or seldom see, for real art lovers."


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Aw c'mon now. *CPE wrote a lot of fine works.* I especially like his flute concertos. Here's what Beethoven wrote in 1809: "Of Emanuel Bach's clavier works I have only a few, yet they must be not only a real delight to every true artist, but also serve him for study purposes; and it is for me a great pleasure to play works that I have never seen, or seldom see, for real art lovers."


Yes he did - but let's keep in the right perspective.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Actually, when you look into it, the history of the piano concerto turns out to be not that well researched. Check out this Steffan concerto, for instance:






This is from the 1780s, and you have to wonder who influenced who, given that Steffan was at the end of his life at the time, apparently having written a lot of wonderful music. Unfortunately, this is almost the only available recording of his works, and scholars, as a rule, dutifully report that the bulk of his oeuvre remains to be studied.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> EMI recordings with the Philarmonia


Good--thanks very much!


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

just read through this thread while having a break at work and will now return to work with my I pod and a refreshed and inspired enthusiasm for my two favourite Mozart P.C.'s-19 and 22-performed by Murray Perahia and the ECO...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> I have only recently become well acquainted with every concerto 17 onwards. Before I had only know the usual suspects: 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26(though this one is probably the least interesting of 17+, for me).
> 
> I realized how witty and buoyant 19 was. 18 has some really different irregularities that are of interest. The themes of 22 really catch, for me, and there is a similar elastic and buoyant quality to it like 19. Then we get to 25. This one is kind of a beast. It's longer and has some really unexpected and different harmonic ideas. Finally we arrive at 27, not perhaps as flashy, but something weirdly final about it, appropriate of a last concerto, and utter perfection.
> 
> What do you think? This has been one of the biggest musical finds for me in recent times, just to finally get around to understanding how awesome these works are.


Also please try No. 9, Mozart's first great keyboard concerto-has a very "deep" slow movement.

Also, I hope you get to compare fortepiano performances (Gardiner or van Immerseel) of these great works vs. standard piano performances.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I will treat your claim with the same scepticism I had when someone told me that CPE's best symphonies can equal Mozart. A quick trip to youtube put showed that up for the hogwash it is - CPEs entire symphonies are often shorter than a Mozart 1st movement and certainly dont come anywhere near in quality.
> So tell me then - what are these works of genius? Give me the best - something that justifies your apparant claim to parity with Mozart. I will check it out with the same scepticism I had recently when someone claimed that Boccherini's quintets with 2 violas are equal to Mozart's k516/515.


I could give you recommendations for days, but people who are coming at it with this kind of skepticism will not understand. I call it a romantic washed perspective. A lot of people too deeply into romanticism/modernism seem to think Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are the only worthwhile composers, before that era. It is a different style. You cannot expect certain things. You have to listen for it on it's terms. His Symphonies are shorter. So what? They are different. These are not symphonies that even utilize mature sonata form. But they are imaginative, distinct, and fresh.

Here is one of my favorites. Please don't compare it to Mozart, wipe your ears of J.S. Bach contrapuntal expectations or so called 'forward thinking' anticipations of romanticism. There are other measures of quality. I will not say it's better than Mozart or equal. But it is worthy, and of high quality. This thread is not about CPE, so I'm not going to go into stylistic points that I admire, or what I feel about these works. 
mvt. 1





in particular check out this finale





If you don't at least find that last stimulating and interesting, then wait a while, and give it another try. Put in as much time as many do with Haydn symphonies, when they know Haydn is a respected composer but can't get over their need for romanticism. People often report 'getting' Haydn at a certain point. And they would do the same with CPE Bach, but he doesn't have the pedestal in the popular estimation to buy him time and patience equal to the amount Haydn gets.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Yes he did - but let's keep in the right perspective.


Perspective can afford to wobble about a bit. I never said that he was at the level of Mozart(you said I said it, not me), but I did say he was a genius and I stand by it. This is music one can enjoy deeply.

People on talkclassical seem to think they can know a composer by comparing him to another. You can't. That is one part of the process sometimes. But really, a composer is only understood when you are listening entirely under the umbrella of that composer.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Mozart's PCs were an early discovery for me in my teens when I discovered Classical Music. I had the set of 21-27 with Robert Casadesus/George Szell. After a while I branched out and now listen pretty regularly to 9-27.
As great as Mozart's Symphonies are , in particular 35-41, I believe that the PCs are his finest non-Operatic Legacy. There is such fantastic give and take between Soloist and Orchestra, and I love the modulations that extend themes and send them in unexpected directions. My current favorite is K.466 The last movement is always a stunner, because it begins so tragically and then with a sudden key change all the clouds clear and life is festive again. In other Composer's hands it mite sound trite; in Mozart it is as natural as the coming of Spring.
Regarding C.P.E. Bach, he is a Composer that I have also listened to for years, and I am gradually getting to know most of the works in the C.P.E. Brilliant Classics mega box. As much as I admire him as a composer, I don't thaink that he can be compared to Mozart (no insult there--not many Composers can stand that comparison). As much as I enjoy C.P.E. music I sometimes feel that he has Musical A.D.H.D.. He veers off impatiently in many directions, sometimes in mid phrase. It can be exhilarating but 
vertiginous, and he really, if ever, seems to plumb the depths of profundity that Mozart and Haydn seem to tap into at will.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I think your assessment is fair Triplets. Although CPE Bach was in many ways more harmonically adventurous and bold than Haydn. Haydn has a unique thing going for him(Beethoven went further with it, mind you, but Haydn kind of started it) in his ability to really commit to material. Mozart could both juggle many things and commit. CPE usually doesn't write as long of pieces, so he doesn't lose a relative sense of form, and we have coherent works by and large. He is certainly more in the moment, though, and this is particularly seen in the keyboard rondos and fantasias, which sometimes do the strangest things, but do wander considerably.

Regarding the Mozart symphonies vs. the Piano concerti, I think the symphonies should never be underestimated. I can't think of a single Piano Concerto slow movement that I enjoy more than the slow movements of Symphony 39 and 40, respectively. But the piano concerti of Mozart do dominate their genre a little more, whereas the symphonies exist in a pool of many great symphonic works, and Beethoven can on the whole be thought more significant.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2016)

My favorites of the pre-17 concertos are:

No. 5 which is actually his first original piano concerto. Right from the beginning he showed that he was going to take the concerto from into new directions. It is - to me - one of his earliest masterpieces. This one is not recorded enough and you have to go back to some older recording to get a good one. I like Uchida on a modern piano, or Immerseel on fortepiano. 

No. 9 is delightful and amazing everytime I hear it. The bar was raised for the piano concerto and for the concerto form entirely. Alexandre Tharaud has fine newer recording on Erato, paired with the Hayden D major PC.

No. 10 for two pianos does not get enough play. The dialogue between the two pianos and the orchestra worth putting this in the top 10 Mozart PC's for me. The Jussen brothers have an excellent new recording of it on DG.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

clavichorder said:


> Finally we arrive at 27, not perhaps as flashy, but something weirdly final about it


Yes, the fact that we (including the people who play it) all know that the young man who wrote it died shortly afterwards of food poisoning, and we're sentimental.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Jerome said:


> My favorites of the pre-17 concertos are:
> 
> No. 5 which is actually his first original piano concerto. Right from the beginning he showed that he was going to take the concerto from into new directions. It is - to me - one of his earliest masterpieces. This one is not recorded enough and you have to go back to some older recording to get a good one. I like Uchida on a modern piano, or Immerseel on fortepiano.
> 
> ...


certainly agreed about no 5 - a concerto bursting with the energy and optimism of forward looking youth - much better in my view than the basson concerto he composed at a similar age.
I also like 6 and 8 - the concerto for 3 pianos is probably the least impressive of those years.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I think every single piano concerto by Mozart (No.5-27) is a gem, and they jointly define how a classical style concerto should sounds like (also they contribute greatly on the double-exposition form).
No.9 is probably the best earlier piece, and No.10,13,15,17-19 are all frequently-performed. Among later works, No.20 and 24 are the black pearls, as they are in minor key and are made with unique compositional style showing the other side of the composer. No.22 and 25 are really big works, somehow overlooked. 22 has a innovative last movement, and 25 has a big first movement with multiple themes. No.23 has one of the best slow movement, and his only movement in F-sharp minor. No.27 is late work with excellent first movement development and beautiful slow movement.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Yes he did - but let's keep in the right perspective.


Yeah, yeah we get your perspective, Mozart hung the moon, never did anything wrong ever, and was the greatest composer who ever will be.. Some people feel differently don't let it trouble you, and trust me Mozart doesn't need any help.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> ...Mozart hung the moon, never did anything wrong ever, and was the greatest composer who ever will be...


Well it's true.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Yes, the fact that we (including the people who play it) all know that the young man who wrote it died shortly afterwards of food poisoning, and we're sentimental.


The food poisoning thing has been one of many speculated reasons that he died, I always thought the strongest cases were made for Rheumatic fever, Mozart having had it before in his teens and he always was not particularly of good health which would suggest he didn't have the greatest immune system and getting RF again at 35 did him in.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

The notion that Mozart "was not particularly of good health" is another urban legend (used to bolster the master legend of the young artist who was dying slowly by degrees and knew it, thus justifying our sentimentalization of the last one or two or three or whatever years' worth of his music). He wasn't Schubert, whose early death everybody really did expect. Documents from the time consistently express surprise at his sudden fatal illness.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Well it's true.


Only to some, and most likely far less people who who like some sort of God awful contemporary music more than absolute music in general.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> The notion that Mozart "was not particularly of good health" is another urban legend (used to bolster the master legend of the young artist who was dying slowly by degrees and knew it, thus justifying our sentimentalization of the last one or two or three or whatever years' worth of his music). He wasn't Schubert, whose early death everybody really did expect. Documents from the time consistently express surprise at his sudden fatal illness.


In H.C Robbins Landon's book "1791 Mozart's Last Year" he makes an excellent case that Mozart had an ill-feeling constitution all his life and most likely had a poor immune system as a result, he also embraces and lends credence to the RF diagnosis. His book is filled with documents from the time as well. For what it's worth he also goes over how much of a surprise it was to those who knew him that he died, his constitution notwithstanding.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

I know, I've read it. So given that you know his health evidently wasn't bad enough to prevent people from being surprised by his death, what are we talking about?



Fugue Meister said:


> Only to some, and most likely far less people who who like some sort of God awful contemporary music more than absolute music in general.


So, wait, people who like contemporary music are _more_ or _less_ likely to know that Mozart is the greatest ever?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> I know, I've read it. So given that you know his health evidently wasn't bad enough to prevent people from being surprised by his death, what are we talking about?
> 
> So, wait, people who like contemporary music are _more_ or _less_ likely to know that Mozart is the greatest ever?


Just because people were surprised doesn't discount the idea that Mozart had a weaker immune system than most people and could have succumbed to whatever illness befell him (even food poisoning I'm not disputing any one thing, I'm just saying it may not have necessarily been trichinosis).

The other point was even if x amount of people think Mozart is God, y amount of people think Kanye is God (y is most likely more vastly numbered than x) so what good does it do to go around saying "Mozart was better than everyone, ever", when most people like garbage?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Harold in Columbia said:


> The notion that Mozart "was not particularly of good health" is another urban legend (used to bolster the master legend of the young artist who was dying slowly by degrees and knew it, thus justifying our sentimentalization of the last one or two or three or whatever years' worth of his music). He wasn't Schubert, whose early death everybody really did expect. Documents from the time consistently express surprise at his sudden fatal illness.


I think the surprise was that he didn't pull through, but he'd also been seriously ill many times before, including as a child. Even worse than his death aged 35 could have been his death about 2 years earlier which would have robbed us of Cosi, as well as all the works that came after. Mozart wasn't a robust bloke, he often was very sick. I don't know what killed him at the end, but I think it was a bronchial infection, just from different opinions. Nobody can be sure, though.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Kieran said:


> Even worse than his death aged 35 could have been his death about 2 years earlier which would have robbed us of Cosi, as well as all the works that came after.


In which case we'd be hearing about how the clarinet quintet was his swan song, "with an undertone of resignation," etc.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> The other point was even if x amount of people think Mozart is God, y amount of people think Kanye is God (y is most likely more vastly numbered than x) so what good does it do to go around saying "Mozart was better than everyone, ever", when most people like garbage?


Kanye is very good, though.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Too bad Mozart didn't write a few more solo keyboard concertos in A Major. The two he wrote indicates to me that A Major was "his" key.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

I've wondered whether A major is my favorite key because Mozart is my favorite composer. (Another example: The sonata K. 330, the first movement theme of which seems to me a good nominee for the best melody ever.)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

No 9 played by Serkin/ Abbado.......... are we in haven yet?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Just because people were surprised doesn't discount the idea that Mozart had a weaker immune system than most people and could have succumbed to whatever illness befell him (even food poisoning I'm not disputing any one thing, I'm just saying it may not have necessarily been trichinosis).
> 
> *The other point was even if x amount of people think Mozart is God*, y amount of people think Kanye is God (y is most likely more vastly numbered than x) so what good does it do to go around saying "Mozart was better than everyone, ever", when most people like garbage?


As a fervent admirer of Mozart's music I can't ever remember saying he was God - that's just a silly statement that people like your good self use to try to denigrate him. Mozart was just a very human person who happened to have vastly more musical talent than just about anyone else and who applied himself to the said talent with incredible energy for 35 years. The result is one of the most sublime bodies of musical work ever.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Mozart was just a very human person who happened to have vastly more musical talent than just about anyone else and who applied himself to the said talent with incredible energy for 35 years. The result is one of the most sublime bodies of musical work ever.


I absolutely agree but I also feel like Mozart would have been open minded enough to let other music in and not proclaim one person bested the rest like some of the extreme Mozart fans here do... Also..

I never said you in particular called him a God by the way and I'm not trying to denigrate Mozart. I don't think my point is getting through to you.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> As a fervent admirer of Mozart's music I can't ever remember saying he was God - that's just a silly statement that people like your good self use to try to denigrate him. Mozart was just a very human person who happened to have vastly more musical talent than just about anyone else and who applied himself to the said talent with incredible energy for 35 years. The result is one of the most sublime bodies of musical work ever.


Amen to this :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I absolutely agree but I also feel like Mozart would have been open minded enough to let other music in and not proclaim one person bested the rest like some of the extreme Mozart fans here do... Also..
> 
> I never said you in particular called him a God by the way and I'm not trying to denigrate Mozart. I don't think my point is getting through to you.


Now there is music from which a man can learn something.
- W. A. Mozart (on hearing Bach motets in Leipzig)

Maybe if you made your point clearer it would get through to more of us.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I absolutely agree but I also feel like Mozart would have been open minded enough to let other music in and not proclaim one person bested the rest like some of the extreme Mozart fans here do... Also..
> 
> I never said you in particular called him a God by the way and I'm not trying to denigrate Mozart. I don't think my point is getting through to you.


You seem to have a thing about people who claim Mozart the greatest ever composer. So what - we all have our own views - it's not that uncommon a view in music. Jane Glover (conductor and professor at Royal Academy Of Music) in her book "Mozart's Women" starts off by stating that Mozart is the greatest composer the world has ever seen and it was the biggest tragedy in the history of music when he died young. If it will make you feel any better why notwrite to her and point out it's just her opinion NOT A FACT!
Dont be so touchy about Mozart and people who think he's better than all the rest - I never see you complaining when people on here claim Beethoven is unmatchable.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

By you zealots really come out of the woodwork when someone tries to point out no one composer is the absolute best. Everyone can voice there opinion, I'm not stoping you guys from voicing yours, I'm merely voicing mine in opposition to those who believes any one man is and always will be greater than another. All opposing ideas should be accounted for and I still maintain Mozart would agree with me. 

Music's quality is entirely subjective, it's not like math with clear cut right ways to do things and anything but the right answer is wrong... This is all I'm trying to suggest. 

And I've never seen a cult of blindly following disciples of Beethoven which is why you never hear me railing against them, Beethoven lovers seem to be more open minded to the achievements of other great composers.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Music is objective. It's just harder than math.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Music is objective. It's just harder than math.


You are really gonna have to share your research with us sometime. I would read all of it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> By you zealots really come out of the woodwork when someone tries to point out no one composer is the absolute best. Everyone can voice there opinion, I'm not stoping you guys from voicing yours, I'm merely voicing mine in opposition to those who believes any one man is and always will be greater than another. All opposing ideas should be accounted for and I still maintain Mozart would agree with me.
> 
> Music's quality is entirely subjective, it's not like math with clear cut right ways to do things and anything but the right answer is wrong... This is all I'm trying to suggest.
> 
> And I've never seen a cult of blindly following disciples of Beethoven which is why you never hear me railing against them, Beethoven lovers seem to be more open minded to the achievements of other great composers.


'Zealots really come out the woodwork...' Come on! So people who disagree with you are zealots and you are not?
I actually put Bach, Mozart and Beethoven on an equal footing as (imo) the three greatest composers of all. There is nothing cultish about it - just my opinion. I've certainly no problem if others think differently. 
And just when is this 'Mozart cult' a blind cult? I don't know anyone who 'worships' Mozart blindly. They might admire him most than any other composer but it's not blind admiration as he produced a breathtaking set of works for all to hear. But you seem to imply people lose their senses. They don't!


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

clavichorder said:


> You are really gonna have to share your research with us sometime. I would read all of it.


No you wouldn't.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> No you wouldn't.


Wait, do you have it? I am legitimately curious. Also, don't read heavy sarcasm into that last post. And don't underestimate me either.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Do I have research that proves musical quality is objective? No, of course not. What's to prove?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Do I have research that proves musical quality is objective? No, of course not. What's to prove?


I think that musical quality can be objective when broken down into parts. The counterpoint aspect(within a given style), the thematic aspect, the melodic aspect, etc. But when attempting to create a sum of everything, and taking into account the artistic and life element on the whole, I think it more or less becomes impossible past a point. You can have a sense, but you can't really convince anybody of it. I also think different schools, genres and nationalities are hard to weigh against each other.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Was reading Girdlestone in bed last night, he doesn't rate #26 at all, which is disappointing, but interestingly he doesn't make the connection that (I think) David Cairns made in his excellent book on Mozart's operas, that Mozart composed so many concertos between 1784 and 1796 because he was thwarted in his desire to write opera, and these concertos were in some sense stage dramas without words, with the soloist (usually Mozart) playing all the parts. Once he got a commission for _Figaro_, then _Don Giovanni_, the PC's generally faded from his writing. He composed twelve from 1784-1786, but only three more after _Figaro_.

His symphony compositions died out too, during this period (1784-1786), only to return with the _Prague_, composed between _Figaro _and _DG, _then the last three symphs in 1788. The concertos fulfilled that function too: full scale symphonies, with piano accompaniment.

Now, a conclusion *could *be drawn here, that although Mozart's concertos are such a formidable and crucial contribution to the repertoire, foundational even, they were only his second choice, and had he been given his hearts desire to compose an opera each year (or two), we might have very few of these great Viennese concertos, including those magnificent later ones, from #19 onwards...


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

clavichorder said:


> I think that musical quality can be objective when broken down into parts. The counterpoint aspect(within a given style), the thematic aspect, the melodic aspect, etc. But when attempting to create a sum of everything, and taking into account the artistic and life element on the whole, I think it more or less becomes impossible past a point. You can have a sense, but you can't really convince anybody of it. I also think different schools, genres and nationalities are hard to weigh against each other.


Like I said: it's harder than math.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Like I said: it's harder than math.


There is another aspect. If you are really serious about this, it probably could only be reliably done if you know many pieces really well. Maybe when one knows and has loved at one point at one point or another, all the most important repertoire and more(without going senile). For me, I tend to know pieces better after I develop an emotional entry into the work. In order to do this, I generally have to forget all my ranking, and enter into the world of that given composer or piece. For me it is more valuable to really understand some good music, than it is to know everything and have a roughly accurate sense of what is the best(which I am not qualified to do yet anyways).

I think even the classical music that many call 2nd rate still has depths, personality, and craft to the point where you could busy yourself for a long time appreciating it and being enriched for it. Hence my interest in Sebastian de Albero or Ernst Wilhelm Wolf(also these are 18th century composers and to me this is an era widely misunderstood).


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Kieran said:


> Was reading Girdlestone in bed last night, he doesn't rate #26 at all, which is disappointing...


That's the critical whipping boy among the later concertos. I like Charles Rosen's take: the concerto Hummel would have written if he'd had the genius (that is, it anticipates the post-classical style of Hummel, Weber, Schubert, et al, where self-contained themes alternate with passagework).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> That's the critical whipping boy among the later concertos. I like Charles Rosen's take: the concerto Hummel would have written if he'd had the genius (that is, it anticipates the post-classical style of Hummel, Weber, Schubert, et al, where self-contained themes alternate with passagework).


It is as if these guys cannot allow that Mozart sometimes wrote works that were less than supreme masterpieces. he wrote plenty and so did other great composers. They had to make a living.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

I don't think anybody, except maybe public radio programmers, and performers trying to get some attention and/or money by playing some justly forgotten divertimento or whatever, has any problem admitting that Mozart wrote a lot of hack work.

I think the _Coronation_ concerto provokes unease because intuitively everybody feels it's a major work, but the usual standards for identifying a major Mozart work don't apply.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

So, what are the final words on performances of "The Coronation" in terms of the best?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> So, what are the final words on performances of "The Coronation" in terms of the best?


I think a reason The Coronation takes such a drubbing is that the score wasn't completely filled out, and it gave the impression of being a job that Mozart dashed off in a hurry for a performance but he didn't think highly enough of it to go back and fill in the left-hand parts for posterity. This view makes the mistake of thinking it was composed for posterity, when in fact, in common with virtually everything Mozart wrote, it was composed for a specific performance. It was hugely popular, then it fell out of vogue. It's probably old-fashioned and backward-glancing compared to the other late PC's, but I've read revisions of this view that say it looks forward to a different style which was more evident in #27.

Regardless, I personally think it's not a slight work, and I rate it as highly as the early Viennese works, but not as highly as the later ones...


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

clavichorder said:


> So, what are the final words on performances of "The Coronation" in terms of the best?


I don't know, I basically never like performances of Mozart's piano concertos. The opening movements are always too relaxed (this is supposed to be music that shows what Mozart the famous (forte)pianist can do). Robert Levin has some good moments, I guess:


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> I think your assessment is fair Triplets. Although CPE Bach was in many ways more harmonically adventurous and bold than Haydn. Haydn has a unique thing going for him(Beethoven went further with it, mind you, but Haydn kind of started it) in his ability to really commit to material. Mozart could both juggle many things and commit. CPE usually doesn't write as long of pieces, so he doesn't lose a relative sense of form, and we have coherent works by and large. He is certainly more in the moment, though, and this is particularly seen in the keyboard rondos and fantasias, which sometimes do the strangest things, but do wander considerably.
> 
> Regarding the Mozart symphonies vs. the Piano concerti, I think the symphonies should never be underestimated. I can't think of a single Piano Concerto slow movement that I enjoy more than the slow movements of Symphony 39 and 40, respectively. But the piano concerti of Mozart do dominate their genre a little more, whereas the symphonies exist in a pool of many great symphonic works, and Beethoven can on the whole be thought more significant.


Clavbear, might you recommend specific keyboard concertos of CPE Bach that will be comparatively easier to like than some of his others? I have heard the Keyboard Concerto series on BIS and I find the historical instruments a bit harsh to my tastes. Can't bear them longer than 15 minutes. Or maybe even 20.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Music is objective. It's just harder than math.


That's funny - I just saw The Man Who Knew Infinity (film) about an Indian mathematician who was a divinely inspired academic. and of course Mozart popped up agains as he always does in such films when suggesting that maths genius is in some way comparable with the feats of a great composer who could keep an entire symphony in his head.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

A great mathematician is of course no less distinguished than a great composer. I just mean it's easier to know when you're right in math.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Music's quality is entirely subjective, it's not like math with clear cut right ways to do things and anything but the right answer is wrong... This is all I'm trying to suggest.
> 
> And I've never seen a cult of blindly following disciples of Beethoven which is why you never hear me railing against them, *Beethoven lovers seem to be more open minded to the achievements of other great composers.*


who knows - still I know of one Beethoven fan at least who virtually put me out of his house when I suggested that Mozart's music in K466 has a demonic quality unmatched by any other composer. he pulled out beethoven's late quartets and if his dear old mum had not come into the room I would probably still be there listening to them.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

PC 26 - yes sounds like Mozart really got this one down quickly for the coronation - still - cant help enjoying it even when you know he ought to have given us something as good as k503 or k491


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Herrenvolk said:


> Clavbear, might you recommend specific keyboard concertos of CPE Bach that will be comparatively easier to like than some of his others? I have heard the Keyboard Concerto series on BIS and I find the historical instruments a bit harsh to my tastes. Can't bear them longer than 15 minutes. Or maybe even 20.


What did you think about the movements I linked of the F major one? The middle movement is good too.

This one is actually longer than your preferred length. But I regard it to be the best one I have yet heard. The theme is wonderful in the first movement, and it keeps moving with good material. The middle movement was evidently heard by Beethoven, because it will remind you of certain things he does in the middle movement of Piano Concerto 4. The finale also has a lovely theme.
That is the 1st mvt, Wq 31 in C minor. You can find the others too. The strings sound modern in this performance, but it uses a harpsichord.





I want to recommend others, and will in a sec, but I like this one so much I can't stop listening atm.

With CPE, some opus collections seem to be better than others. Wq 43 is a solid set of concerti. This movement of the F major one from that set, the finale, is so charming and lively: 



 The first movement has a theme that is literally just an arpeggio with CPE style rhythm, but somehow it's still really good. He's like that sometimes, he won't even bother with a really interesting theme, but some how it has a hook and a forward propulsion like Scarlatti often does.

Here is another from Wq 43, but in D major. This performance is rather fast, even rushed, but with modern piano and instruments. I link it because it's a video and you have the whole concerto. 




The middle movement of that very work has a very striking keyboard line, that just seems to me the epitome of Strurm und Drang:


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

stomanek said:


> PC 26 - yes sounds like Mozart really got this one down quickly for the coronation - still - cant help enjoying it even when you know he ought to have given us something as good as k503 or k491


I would say the _Coronation_ is at least as good as K. 503.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I listened to some of CPEs piano concertos - good works - better than I thought they would be. Certainly far more cohesive and lively musical works than concertos by many other minor masters from that era.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I listened to some of CPEs piano concertos - good works - better than I thought they would be. Certainly far more cohesive and lively musical works than concertos by many other minor masters from that era.


Yes, put into perspective these works are more original and more cohesive than just about everyone except Mozart's and Beethoven's. CPE's style is very brilliant and original, but at times comparatively thin. I don't like Glass or the minimalists much, but he can be thought of like an analogue to them for his times, EXCEPT for the fact that he was also pushing the harmonic envelop, using some ideas that were not common till the romantic transition period. Of course, he had a father who had mined a wealth of the richest harmonies thanks to deep probing of the older contrapuntal methods, so it's almost like he was privileged with unique insider training. But he didn't crack under his father and went straight out there into new territory. His older brother, maybe more musically talented on the onset, and certainly producing an interesting and concentrated output, seemed to suffer from a burden.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

clavichorder said:


> CPE's style is very brilliant and original, but at times comparatively thin. I don't like Glass or the minimalists much, but he can be thought of like an analogue to them for his times, EXCEPT for the fact that he was also pushing the harmonic envelop, using some ideas that were not common till the romantic transition period.


- La Monte Young, at least, certainly pushed the harmonic envelop: 




I wouldn't call his music thin, either. Diffuse, maybe. "Thin" does stick to Glass, Reich and some of his other descendants, though. And yet I'm not sure Reich is a lesser composer than Young. Music is confusing.

- Kyle Gann for one worships the harmony in the "Bed" aria in Glass' _Einstein on the Beach_, for the "voice-leading, and the potential variety of such, among distantly-related chords": 




It's not clear to me that he's doing any more than using Ye Old Boulanger School moves within minimalist limits, though.

- Incidentally, if anybody in recent memory is like C.P.E. Bach, I'd nominate composers such as Varese, Cowell, and Messiaen, with the period in which they came of age, c. 1920-1950, being analogous to c. 1750-1780 as one of the "we have no idea where we're going" periods in music history.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

stomanek said:


> PC 26 - yes sounds like Mozart really got this one down quickly for the coronation - still - cant help enjoying it even when you know he ought to have given us something as good as k503 or k491


I think Mozart got most of his work down quickly and he was supposed to have composed the overture to Don Giovanni in one sitting.
I listened to several versions of the Coronation concerto the other day and can honestly say I don't find it inferior or superior to all the others in the set. What has always come to mind when hearing this concerto is that it does have a slight understatement to it, more personal than outward going, and has been covered by most of the great pianists notable for their interpretations of Mozart's concertos.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> I would say the _Coronation_ is at least as good as K. 503.


I'm afraid I wouldn't. Tastes differ of course, and what a boring world it would be if they didn't, but I'm with stomanek on the subject of no.26. It's polished and pleasant but, for me at any rate, that's about it, whereas K503 on the other hand is a great marble edifice of a concerto, fully the equal of the minor key masterpieces. IMHO of course.


----------

