# What represents the peak of Mozart's works to you?



## flamencosketches

I apologize if this thread has been done before, but it seemed like it could be an interesting discussion.

Mozart belongs to a rare class of composers in that he excelled in almost every genre he undertook, from opera to symphony to chamber ensembles to solo pieces. 

In your opinion, which form of composition was his greatest strength? I suspect many will say opera, and that may be the right answer. I'm a new fan of his (and not too big on opera in general to be honest) and have heard very little of his operas. But as mentioned before he has made gems in almost every genre of classical music at the time. 

Personally, I think his symphonies are my favorite of his work, once he started to really hit his stride with it around the 25th. He had a lot of talent in structure and orchestration. I'm a big fan of the piano concertos as well, but I haven't heard any of the early ones (1-11). 

What do you think?


----------



## Woodduck

Egad. Another Mozart thread.

If I had to pick one work, it would be the String Quintet in G minor, K516. But I don't have to pick one work.


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> If I had to pick one work, it would be the String Quintet in G minor, K516.


That would be my choice, too.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Egad. Another Mozart thread.
> 
> If I had to pick one work, it would be the String Quintet in G minor, K516. But I don't have to pick one work.


I used to drive between NY and Chicago through the night playing a cassette of the G minor quintet over and over. There isn't a lot of music in this world that I would listen to in that way. My favorite Mozart by some way is his chamber music, followed by the last six symphonies and the operas.


----------



## Larkenfield

In the master's symphonic writing, I would rate his _ Jupiter_ Symphony as the absolute peak, particularly the fourth movement with its fugal writing: its baseline boldness, its beauty, its Bach-like rigor, its effortless Classical elegance, its confidence, its soaring emotional uplift, it's sense of triumph, its consummate genius-the result of a lifetime of love, inspiration, and study:


----------



## Phil loves classical

His operas Marriage of Figaro, Don G, Cosi, Magic Flute. His piano concertos 20-24, 27. Piano music K475, K511. Clarinet Quintet. Symphonies 39-41.


----------



## KenOC

flamencosketches said:


> ...I'm a big fan of the piano concertos as well, but I haven't heard any of the early ones (1-11).


You may want to give Piano Concerto No. 9 "Juenehomme" a listen. It's an earlier work but is often accounted a masterpiece. Note the immediate piano entry, very unusual in those days.


----------



## Couchie

On the contrary his solo keyboard work is dull to listen to and even more of a chore to play.

As a piano student you typically have to choose between a Beethoven or Mozart sonata for exam classical-era requirements. *NOBODY PICKS MOZART.*

His operas (Cosi, Figaro, Giovanni, Zauberflote) are the best of his work.


----------



## hammeredklavier

If you ask me which 'form of composition' (genre) has the greatest impression on me, it would be the liturgical works, (Masses, Vespers, Motet (Ave Verum Corpus), including the Masonic ones as he had been writing them all his life (quite literally)) there is a great deal of wealth in them.








I like the energy Missa Longa K262 starts with in the Kyrie, like Mozart's other masses, it contrasts the energy of the major mode with solemn minor mode sections.





Missa Solemnis K337 has a majestic Credo (5:40) and then an inspired soprano solo in the Sanctus (11:20) which returns after the Benedictus fugue (12:59)





I find the Laudate Pueri Dominum from Vesperae Solennes K339 very striking. For example, listen for the middle section where Mozart inverts the subject while keeping natural flow. The use of choral, orchestral color at 3:03 inspires deep emotions of fear in me. I find the Magnificat also very majestic. 




Credo from Coronation Mass K317: 



Also I find Spatzenmesse K220 



 interesting that it contains a section in Gloria that Sussamayer later referred to in finishing the Agnus Dei of


----------



## hammeredklavier

Couchie said:


> On the contrary his solo keyboard work is dull to listen to and even more of a chore to play.
> 
> As a piano student you typically have to choose between a Beethoven or Mozart sonata for exam classical-era requirements. *NOBODY PICKS MOZART.*
> 
> His operas (Cosi, Figaro, Giovanni, Zauberflote) are the best of his work.


I also used to be a piano student, I often heard discussions of Mozart being "difficult to play like a pro". https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=901.0 K310, K333, K457, K533, K576 are actually core of piano repertoire, as well as Rondo K511, Fantasies K394, K396, K397, 475. Also, Fantasies in F minor K594, K608 are very difficult works in the organ repertoire.

_"Beethoven made his own copy of K608 and procured a copy of K.594."_
("Automatic Genius: Mozart and the Mechanical Sublime" by Annette Richards)










If Mozart's keyboard works are really a dull and chore to play, why would a great composer such as Beethoven pay him homage. I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything but as I said, Why does music get so angsty and dark with/after Beethoven? I think some people's notion that "music changed because of Beethoven and Beethoven only" leads some other people to think Is Beethoven over-hyped? . I believe all major composers had their parts in music history.

Op.57: 



K475: 



Op.57: 



K475: 




The 3rd piano concerto 3rd movement motif: 



I hear K457 in Op.10 No.1 



The start of the 'Hammerklavier' motif: 



K546 (and fugue for two pianos K426) in Op.111: 









"Cramer, Cramer! we shall never be able to do anything like that!" -LVB


----------



## Rogerx

Perhaps for other no his high but I find it quit interesting work.


----------



## Enthusiast

Even as pure music (rather than as dramas) his operas are too wonderful. But his symphonies - from 24 (K182) onwards - and most of his piano concertos are also wonderful. And the clarinet works. And then there is a lot of other chamber music (especially most of the quintets) ... . Actually the OP say it - he excels in most genres. So why choose? But, if you do it has to be the operas - the three Da Ponte operas, The Magic Flute, Idomeneo, La Clemenza di Tito. I am not really an opera fan but as pure music there is so much there ... and they are great to watch, too.


----------



## Jacck

the 6 string quintets and sinfonia concertante


----------



## Ras

I'm not an opera fan, so if I had to choose one genre Mozart excelled in it would be the piano concerto.


----------



## derin684

Larkenfield said:


> In the master's symphonic writing, I would rate his _ Jupiter_ Symphony as the absolute peak, particularly the fourth movement with its fugal writing: its baseline boldness, its beauty, its Bach-like rigor, its effortless Classical elegance, its confidence, its soaring emotional uplift, it's sense of triumph, its consummate genius-the result of a lifetime of love, inspiration, and study:


Masterful orchestral and fugal writing there, that would probably be my choice too. If not, I'd go with the Fantasia K. 475.


----------



## jasper01

Mozart Clarinet Concerto in A major K622
Maybe not what you are looking for as the peak of his talent but one I never tire of.


----------



## Art Rock

The OP is not asking for our favourite Mozart work(s), but:



> In your opinion, which form of composition was his greatest strength?


To my taste, concertos, and it's not even close. Especially a dozen or more of his piano concertos, the clarinet concerto (possibly my favourite concerto ever), the oboe concerto, the horn concertos, and the fifth violin concerto. Difficult to think of any other composer that combined quality and quantity in this form like him.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I can listen to his piano concertos all day and also string quartets/quintets and piano sonatas. I find it hard to make a judgment on my favorite composers greatest strength. I often go for the high K numbers, since I believe the best comes after some experience in composing, but IT'S MOZART!


----------



## Bwv 1080

Clarinet quintet and the two piano quartets


----------



## poconoron

Instrumental concertos and operas are where Mozart reached his peak, IMHO.


----------



## Olias

Sorry I can't remember the source for the quote but Mozart said something to the effect of:

"I am an opera composer who writes piano concerti for a living and chamber music for my friends."


----------



## science

Don Giovanni. 

I think if Mozart were asked, this is also what he might've said.


----------



## larold

I'd say Mozart "peaked" at the end of his life. These compositions all have very later Köchel numbers:

Clarinet concerto, The Magic Flute, Requiem, String Quintet in E flat and Ave Verum Corpus.

The longer he went about it, the better he got in my opinion. He died young, aged 35, so this could have continued about 30-40 years without decline had he lived longer.


----------



## Enthusiast

We were asked to choose a genre and all chose different ones without really being shocking. As expected, perhaps, Mozart is great in all of them.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> We were asked to choose a genre and all chose different ones without really being shocking. As expected, perhaps, Mozart is great in all of them.


Definitely more or less what I expected. Still interesting seeing everyone's perspectives here!

I'd like to get more into Mozart's operas, but I don't really have that kinda free time to be watching whole 2-3+ hour works at a time. How do y'all opera fans typically enjoy his operatic works? DVDs, youtube, listening only to the music?


----------



## jim prideaux

Piano Concertos.


----------



## PlaySalieri

To answer this question I would have to ask which genre I would want to survive if there was only one and it would have to be opera. Much as it would pain me to let the rest go - these are the works that Mozart revelled in composing and the last 6 operas are all supreme. Contrast this with the symphonies and even piano concertos where some are better than others. From Idomeneo on when Mozart put his pen to opera the result was something special every time. The last 8 piano concertos are near the mark - if you take out K537. 

I would like to scupper this notion that only the very high K numbers showed Mozart at his best. The sinfonia concertante K364, PC 9 Idomeno Die Entfuhrung mass in c minor all composed 8 years before he died belong to his immortal works.


----------



## DavidA

Probably the major works from Figaro onwards excluding 'Tito' which was probably a rush job for cash.


----------



## Merl

Instinctively i go for symphonies but tbh i could have chosen any genre such is the quality of his music in every area. I even enjoy some of his operas and im no opera fan.


----------



## Gallus

Yeah, the late operas and then the piano concertos stand out. After that I'm a fan of his works for wind instruments (clarinet concerto, Kegelstatt trio, oboe concerto etc.) and violin sonatas. But pretty much everything he wrote was excellently crafted at the least.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Probably the major works from Figaro onwards excluding 'Tito' which was probably a rush job for cash.


Tito is still a great opera.


----------



## manyene

The Clarinet Concerto. The Jupiter Symphony. The C Minor Mass. Each exemplifies an aspect of Mozart's genius.


----------



## Machiavel

Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi fan tutte, The magic flute, Tito.


All from 1786 to 1791. 5 operas in 6 years. talk about productivity and genius...


----------



## fluteman

One of those threads where everyone is right. Even the music from Mozart's earliest childhood is leagues ahead of any other composer's work before age 15 or 16, at least that I know of. Mendelssohn wrote his string octet at the age of 16, and I would place him a distant no. 2 in the precocious genius rankings.


----------



## PlaySalieri

fluteman said:


> One of those threads where everyone is right. Even the music from Mozart's earliest childhood is leagues ahead of any other composer's work before age 15 or 16, at least that I know of. Mendelssohn wrote his string octet at the age of 16, and I would place him a distant no. 2 in the precocious genius rankings.


I think the octet is held up as the best work ever composed by a 16 year old. That may be true - AMSND is also a remarkable piece. I would hold up some of Mozart's early operas as his best works up to 16 - and maybe one or two of the masses - K139 in c minor. Exsultate Jubilate. The truly great works really start appearing from the 3rd VC onwards when he was 19. Mendelssohn did not quite fulfil his potential in the spectacular way that Mozart did. A dozen more works of the calibre of his VC and I would have said different.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> One of those threads where everyone is right. Even the music from Mozart's earliest childhood is leagues ahead of any other composer's work before age 15 or 16, at least that I know of. Mendelssohn wrote his string octet at the age of 16, and I would place him a distant no. 2 in the precocious genius rankings.





stomanek said:


> I think the octet is held up as the best work ever composed by a 16 year old. That may be true - AMSND is also a remarkable piece. I would hold up some of Mozart's early operas as his best works up to 16 - and maybe one or two of the masses - K139 in c minor. Exsultate Jubilate. The truly great works really start appearing from the 3rd VC onwards when he was 19. Mendelssohn did not quite fulfil his potential in the spectacular way that Mozart did. A dozen more works of the calibre of his VC and I would have said different.


I also think Mozart at 16~19 surpasses Mendelssohn at the same age


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> I think the octet is held up as the best work ever composed by a 16 year old. That may be true - AMSND is also a remarkable piece. I would hold up some of Mozart's early operas as his best works up to 16 - and maybe one or two of the masses - K139 in c minor. Exsultate Jubilate. The truly great works really start appearing from the 3rd VC onwards when he was 19. Mendelssohn did not quite fulfil his potential in the spectacular way that Mozart did. A dozen more works of the calibre of his VC and I would have said different.


I think Mendelssohn stands as the most precociously gifted young genius but of course he never progressed in the same way as Mozart. Having said that, he still wrote some wonderful music in his later years which are among my favourite works.


----------



## Guest

As much as I love Mozart's music he is not an innovator IMHO. His major strength lies in the operas and therefore i choose Don Giovanni and The Magic Flute. Other major works are the Clarinet Cto K 622 and the String Quintets K 515 and 516.
His Sinfonia Concertante is also out of this world. His Piano Concertos 20 to 25 are also a joy to listen to.


----------



## fluteman

marc bollansee said:


> As much as I love Mozart's music he is not an innovator IMHO. His major strength lies in the operas and therefore i choose Don Giovanni and The Magic Flute. Other major works are the Clarinet Cto K 622 and the String Quintets K 515 and 516.
> His Sinfonia Concertante is also out of this world. His Piano Concertos 20 to 25 are also a joy to listen to.


Yes, good points. To me, Mozart's most important 'innovation' consists of his extraordinarily sophisticated and imaginative use of harmonic progression and modulation, though he knew a thing or two about counterpoint too. That had a very big impact on Beethoven, and ultimately the entire romantic era.


----------



## Strange Magic

I most enjoy the last 4 symphonies, both of the sinfonia concertantes, and many of the later piano concertos.


----------



## mmsbls

Art Rock said:


> The OP is not asking for our favourite Mozart work(s), but:
> 
> To my taste, concertos, and it's not even close. Especially a dozen or more of his piano concertos, the clarinet concerto (possibly my favourite concerto ever), the oboe concerto, the horn concertos, and the fifth violin concerto. Difficult to think of any other composer that combined quality and quantity in this form like him.


I second your clarification of the OP and your answer. I also think his collection of concertos seem unmatched by others. I would add the sinfonia concertante, Flute Concerto No. 2 In D Major - K. 314, and Concerto for Flute and Harp in C Major - K. 299.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> *I also think Mozart at 16~19 surpasses Mendelssohn at the same age*


I'm not sure what you mean by "surpasses" - in what respect? Clearly the young Mozart was busy with his counterpoint lessons. I suppose if you consider that sort of writing the peak of musical achievement, Mozart was prodigious, although I must say that a fugue that harps on its subject as relentlessly as that string quartet movement does can become annoying.

I don't find any of the works you post capable of ousting Mendelssohn from first place in my estimation of musical prodigyhood. By age 19 Mendelssohn had written an immense quantity of truly striking music, including a number of works whose freshness, originality, and maturity seem to me not matched by anything Mozart produced at comparable ages, and in some cases scarcely surpassed by anyone at any age. These include his violin sonatas (the first composed at age 11), his piano quartets (the first composed at 13), the twelve string symphonies (composed between ages 12 and 14), the Octet (composed at 16), the Midsummer Night's Dream (a flare of artistic imagination whose familiarity shouldn't lead us to take it for granted, composed at 17), and the String Quartet in A-minor (in my estimation one of the finest quartets after Beethoven, composed at 18).

Based on these works alone, if Mendelssohn had continued to grow as Mozart did he'd have left everyone at the post.


----------



## Enthusiast

marc bollansee said:


> As much as I love Mozart's music he is not an innovator IMHO. His major strength lies in the operas and therefore i choose Don Giovanni and The Magic Flute. Other major works are the Clarinet Cto K 622 and the String Quintets K 515 and 516.
> His Sinfonia Concertante is also out of this world. His Piano Concertos 20 to 25 are also a joy to listen to.


Not an innovator? I'm not sure I care because, necessary though innovation might be, the ability to produce great masterpieces (whether they use existing techniques and language or invent their own) is what really matters to me. In any case I know very little about the technical side of music. But are those operas really not innovative? Who before Mozart had shown us how many different characters can all sing at the same time and make wonderful music through doing so? I'm not even sure who has managed it _since _Mozart. And, really, who had done with the symphony what Mozart managed to do with his last six? Not Haydn. And .... I could go on. It seems to me that some of his great works represent huge innovation.


----------



## flamencosketches

To veer even further off topic a bit, where's a good place to start with Mendelssohn (pieces/recordings)? I haven't heard any of his music.

I'm listening to Mozart's 3rd violin concerto (Itzhak Perlman & Wiener Philharmoniker) and it's really good. And I've been listening to a few of the later piano concertos a lot lately. The concertos really may be the peak to me. But I haven't really heard a piece of his that I didn't love. I'm glad I decided to give Mozart's music a shot last month, I never expected to like it so much.


----------



## Xisten267

For me it's the Requiem, the "Great" mass, the Ave Verum Corpus, the four last symphonies, the late piano concertos and the operas Le Nozze di Figaro, Cosi fan Tutti, Don Giovanni, Die zauberflöte and La Clemenza di Tito. Also Eine Kleine. I really like the piano sonatas and many of his early pieces, but for me this the best of his production.

I'm not acquainted with most of his chamber music though, except for the string quartets.


----------



## Xisten267

flamencosketches said:


> *To veer even further off topic a bit, where's a good place to start with Mendelssohn (pieces/recordings)?* I haven't heard any of his music.
> 
> I'm listening to Mozart's 3rd violin concerto (Itzhak Perlman & Wiener Philharmoniker) and it's really good. And I've been listening to a few of the later piano concertos a lot lately. The concertos really may be the peak to me. But I haven't really heard a piece of his that I didn't love. I'm glad I decided to give Mozart's music a shot last month, I never expected to like it so much.


Try his violin concerto, it's one of his final, most famous and IMO greatest pieces:


----------



## Woodduck

"Mozart wasn't an innovator!" "Yes he was!" "No he wasn't!" "Yes he was!" "No..." "Yes..."

An innovator relative to whom? It what respect? All truly great artists are innovators. They can't help but be. So what are Mozart's innovations? As far as I can see, the major one is the elaboration of the operatic ensemble, making it a vehicle of dramatic development. Apart from this, I hear Mozart as greatly enriching the musical thought of his time more than changing its nature or direction. Like other major musical creators - Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner - he was able to absorb and amalgamate the ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries, see new possibilities branching off from them, and make something fresh and personal. This is innovation without a doubt, but it's a question of degree, and arguing about degrees is generally pointless.

That said, I tend to think of an "innovator" as an artist who, in successive works, accomplishes leaps of imagination that nothing done previously would seem remotely to suggest, or whose vision is so original and profound that he disrupts and changes the artistic culture, sometimes with a single work. Beethoven did this sort of foundation-shaking more than once, Berlioz did it mind-blowingly with his "Symphonie Fantastique" and successive works, Wagner did it with _Tristan_ and with each opera after that, Sibelius created a strikingly new style and put a region of the world on the musical map, Schoenberg did you-know-what, Stravinsky...

Mozart? Most of his work sounds to me like good, solid late 18th-century music, only better than other people's. I'm rarely moved to wonder, "Where the heck did he get that?!"


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I second your clarification of the OP and your answer. I also think his collection of concertos seem unmatched by others. I would add the sinfonia concertante, Flute Concerto No. 2 In D Major - K. 314, and Concerto for Flute and Harp in C Major - K. 299.


I think the G major flute concerto K. 313 is the best one, and written originally for the flute, unlike K. 314 which is an adaptation by Mozart of his C major oboe concerto. That especially goes for the second movement Andante. I play some or all of that movement off the top of my head nearly every day as a warm up. And the best of the flute quartets, the D major K. 285, is on that same high level. But it's all great music.


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> I apologize if this thread has been done before, but it seemed like it could be an interesting discussion.
> 
> Mozart belongs to a rare class of composers in that he excelled in almost every genre he undertook, from opera to symphony to chamber ensembles to solo pieces.
> 
> In your opinion, which form of composition was his greatest strength? I suspect many will say opera, and that may be the right answer. I'm a new fan of his (and not too big on opera in general to be honest) and have heard very little of his operas. But as mentioned before he has made gems in almost every genre of classical music at the time.
> 
> Personally, I think his symphonies are my favorite of his work, once he started to really hit his stride with it around the 25th. He had a lot of talent in structure and orchestration. I'm a big fan of the piano concertos as well, but I haven't heard any of the early ones (1-11).
> 
> What do you think?


Opera, particularly the Da Ponte operas.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> "Mozart wasn't an innovator!" "Yes he was!" "No he wasn't!" "Yes he was!" "No..." "Yes..."
> 
> An innovator relative to whom? It what respect? All truly great artists are innovators. They can't help but be. So what are Mozart's innovations? As far as I can see, the major one is the elaboration of the operatic ensemble, making it a vehicle of dramatic development. Apart from this, I hear Mozart as greatly enriching the musical thought of his time more than changing its nature or direction. Like other major musical creators - Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner - he was able to absorb and amalgamate the ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries, see new possibilities branching off from them, and make something fresh and personal. This is innovation without a doubt, but it's a question of degree, and arguing about degrees is generally pointless.
> 
> That said, I tend to think of an "innovator" as an artist who, in successive works, accomplishes leaps of imagination that nothing done previously would seem remotely to suggest, or whose vision is so original and profound that he disrupts and changes the artistic culture, sometimes with a single work. Beethoven did this sort of foundation-shaking more than once, Berlioz did it mind-blowingly with his "Symphonie Fantastique" and successive works, Wagner did it with _Tristan_ and with each opera after that, Sibelius created a strikingly new style and put a region of the world on the musical map, Schoenberg did you-know-what, Stravinsky...
> 
> Mozart? Most of his work sounds to me like good, solid late 18th-century music, only better than other people's. I'm rarely moved to wonder, "Where the heck did he get that?!"


So tell me, with respect to the first 22 measures here, "Where the heck did he get that?"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "surpasses" - in what respect? Clearly the young Mozart was busy with his counterpoint lessons. I suppose if you consider that sort of writing the peak of musical achievement, Mozart was prodigious, although I must say that a fugue that harps on its subject as relentlessly as that string quartet movement does can become annoying.
> 
> I don't find any of the works you post capable of ousting Mendelssohn from first place in my estimation of musical prodigyhood. By age 19 Mendelssohn had written an immense quantity of truly striking music, including a number of works whose freshness, originality, and maturity seem to me not matched by anything Mozart produced at comparable ages, and in some cases scarcely surpassed by anyone at any age. These include his violin sonatas (the first composed at age 11), his piano quartets (the first composed at 13), the twelve string symphonies (composed between ages 12 and 14), the Octet (composed at 16), the Midsummer Night's Dream (a flare of artistic imagination whose familiarity shouldn't lead us to take it for granted, composed at 17), and the String Quartet in A-minor (in my estimation one of the finest quartets after Beethoven, composed at 18).
> 
> Based on these works alone, if Mendelssohn had continued to grow as Mozart did he'd have left everyone at the post.


As I said have said, if they were mere "counterpoint exercises" as you say, why couldn't Mendelssohn write great choral masses and choral fugues and choral double fugues like Pignus Futurae Gloriae from Litaniae de Venerabili Altaris Sacramento K243 (written at 19) at the same age as Mozart and influence other great composers? (Remember Mendelssohn had more composers and works to study from than Mozart, - the great Haydn brothers, Bach brothers, whose works Mozart studied rigorously, and Mozart and Beethoven, Handel, JS Bach etc.)
The fact is, Mozart's works at 16~19 were actually treated like they were written by a 20+ year old back then. That's why the influence of Misericordias Domini K222 (written at 19) and the final fugue of Missa in honorem Sanctissimae K167 (written at 17) is found in Beethoven's choral work.
What other great later composers found Mendelssohn's early works striking as Mozart's early ones and actually took time to study them? Tchaikovsky did? Brahms did? Who did? 
Fugues are imitative counterpoint, obviously you'll expect to hear certain passages restated over many voices. If one says the heavily chromatic subject of the D minor Mozart quartet annoying, equally I could say I find the sudden bombasts of Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream Overture empty and vulgar. I could argue they're for nothing more than just "wow!" effect.






I think there's far more variety in terms of skills and tricks than anything by early Mendelssohn in Litaniae de Venerabili K243 - "swept away a dam that obstructed Mozart's writing for the church." As Alfred Einstein said. 
Also I could argue there's nothing original about Mendelssohn's early works compared to Mozart's. They reflect the early Romantic styles and Midsummer Night's Dream is clearly written in the style of Rossini's overtures. String Symphony No.7 in D minor resembles Bach and classical styles even.
Also I'm just following the TC's general consensus on what makes music great. Remember the thread about, "both Beethoven and Schubert wrote great melodies, so let's compare them in terms of counterpoint." I'm taking this even further to argue "how much impact did the works make on music history".
For some reason, I'm reminded of the numerous threads on TC that argued Mozart's works like Symphony No.41 in C and Fantasy in minor K475 "are not actually impressive.", "Mozart is cold and emotionless." I chuckle to myself every time I hear these things. If the works were composed by some other composers (preferably the ones they like), the reaction would have been very different. It's about as biased as TC can get.

I take it you like early Mendelssohn better than early Mozart. That's ok, I respect for preferences.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Mozart? Most of his work sounds to me like good, solid late 18th-century music, only better than other people's. I'm rarely moved to wonder, "Where the heck did he get that?!"


_"The 24th opens with a truly remarkable theme. It sounds as though it might have been composed 150 years later, with, what was for Mozart's day, an outrageously chromatic melody that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale. So unique is it that in 1953 the German composer Giselher Klebe (1925 - 2009) used it as a tone row in his 12-tone Symphony for Strings... Several year later, Beethoven commented to a composer friend during a performance of this Concerto that they "would never be able to write anything like that,""_
https://www.musicprogramnotes.com/mo...-c-minor-k491/





_
"Early reception of the "Haydn" Quartets was both enthusiastic and disgruntled. An anonymous early reviewer, writing in Cramer's Magazin der Musik in 1789, gave a judgment characteristic of reaction to Mozart's music at the time, namely that the works were inspired, but too complex and difficult to enjoy:

Mozart's works do not in general please quite so much [as those of Kozeluch] ... [Mozart's] six quartets for violins, viola, and bass dedicated to Haydn confirm ... that he has a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. But then, what great and elevated ideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!
Giuseppe Sarti later published an attack against the "Dissonance" quartet, describing sections as "barbarous", "execrable", and "miserable" in its use of whole-tone clusters and chromatic extremes. Around this same time, Fétis printed a revision of the opening of the "Dissonance" quartet, implying that Mozart had made errors. When the publishers, Artaria, sent the quartets to Italy for publication, they were returned with the report "the engraving is full of mistakes". However, Heinrich Christoph Koch noted that these works were praiseworthy for "their mixture of strict and free styles and the treatment of harmony". Favorable reports of the quartets came soon after their publication from newspapers in Salzburg and Berlin. In the early 19th century, Jérôme-Joseph de Momigny wrote an extended analysis of No. 15 in D minor, K. 421. Momigny used the setting of text based on Dido's Lament to discuss the emotional and expressive qualities of the first movement of this work."_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn_Quartets_(Mozart)


----------



## Bulldog

Three peaks:

1. Piano Concertos 17 thru 24.
2. Mass in C minor/Requiem
3. Clarinet Quintet/Concerto


----------



## tdc

Mozart has peaks across many genres.

Another example of Mozart's innovation is the opening movement of Symphony No. 38. It is innovative for its dramatic impact. Mozart had the idea to essentially use French Overture form at the beginning of a symphony, something that had not been done before.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> So tell me, with respect to the first 22 measures here, "Where the heck did he get that?"


It's 22 measures. It's chromaticism. Chromaticism was nothing new. There are passages of chromatic harmony in the works of any number of composers, earlier and later, that make us sit up and take notice. Bach did things more shocking, and not infrequently. Examples can multiply.

What does Mozart do after these 22 measures? How does it relate to them? Does it at all? Is pasting a strange and unrelated introduction onto a fairly conventional work a shining example of "innovation"? Haydn was somewhat perplexed by this introduction, not because he didn't understand the harmony - listen to what he did at the beginning of his _Creation_ - but because he saw no reason to begin this work this way. It's a bit of a stunt, isn't it? Hardly the act of an innovator as I defined it. Your definition may differ.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> As I said have said, if they were mere "counterpoint exercises" as you say, why couldn't Mendelssohn write great choral masses and choral fugues and choral double fugues like Pignus Futurae Gloriae from Litaniae de Venerabili Altaris Sacramento K243 (written at 19) at the same age as Mozart and influence other great composers? (Remember Mendelssohn had more composers and works to study from than Mozart, - the great Haydn brothers, Bach brothers, whose works Mozart studied rigorously, and Mozart and Beethoven, Handel, JS Bach etc.)
> The fact is, Mozart's works at 16~19 were actually treated like they were written by a 20+ year old back then. That's why the influence of Misericordias Domini K222 (written at 19) and the final fugue of Missa in honorem Sanctissimae K167 (written at 17) is found in Beethoven's choral work.
> What other great later composers found Mendelssohn's early works striking as Mozart's early ones and actually took time to study them? Tchaikovsky did? Brahms did? Who did?
> Fugues are imitative counterpoint, obviously you'll expect to hear certain passages restated over many voices. If one says the heavily chromatic subject of the D minor Mozart quartet annoying, equally I could say I find the sudden bombasts of Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream Overture empty and vulgar. I could argue they're for nothing more than just "wow!" effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's far more variety in terms of skills and tricks than anything by early Mendelssohn in Litaniae de Venerabili K243 - "swept away a dam that obstructed Mozart's writing for the church." As Alfred Einstein said.
> Also I could argue there's nothing original about Mendelssohn's early works compared to Mozart's. They reflect the early Romantic styles and Midsummer Night's Dream is clearly written in the style of Rossini's overtures. String Symphony No.7 in D minor resembles Bach and classical styles even.
> Also I'm just following the TC's general consensus on what makes music great. Remember the thread about, "both Beethoven and Schubert wrote great melodies, so let's compare them in terms of counterpoint." I'm taking this even further to argue "how much impact did the works make on music history".
> For some reason, I'm reminded of the numerous threads on TC that argued Mozart's works like Symphony No.41 in C and Fantasy in minor K475 "are not actually impressive.", "Mozart is cold and emotionless." I chuckle to myself every time I hear these things. If the works were composed by some other composers (preferably the ones they like), the reaction would have been very different. It's about as biased as TC can get.
> 
> I take it you like early Mendelssohn better than early Mozart. That's ok, I respect for preferences.


It has nothing to do with what I like.

I didn't say "mere counterpoint exercises." You did. Don't misquote me.

To quote you (accurately): "I could say I find the sudden bombasts of Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream Overture empty and vulgar. I could argue they're for nothing more than just 'wow!' effect." Yeah, you could say that and you could argue that. But not without sounding as absurd as you've recently sounded putting down Chopin.

Why are you so obsessed with dumping on anyone who dares to suggest that the Great God Mozart may be less than divine in every respect?


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> "Mozart wasn't an innovator!" "Yes he was!" "No he wasn't!" "Yes he was!" "No..." "Yes..."
> 
> An innovator relative to whom? It what respect? All truly great artists are innovators. They can't help but be. So what are Mozart's innovations? As far as I can see, the major one is the elaboration of the operatic ensemble, making it a vehicle of dramatic development. Apart from this, I hear Mozart as greatly enriching the musical thought of his time more than changing its nature or direction. Like other major musical creators - Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner - he was able to absorb and amalgamate the ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries, see new possibilities branching off from them, and make something fresh and personal. This is innovation without a doubt, but it's a question of degree, and arguing about degrees is generally pointless.
> 
> That said, I tend to think of an "innovator" as an artist who, in successive works, accomplishes leaps of imagination that nothing done previously would seem remotely to suggest, or whose vision is so original and profound that he disrupts and changes the artistic culture, sometimes with a single work. Beethoven did this sort of foundation-shaking more than once, Berlioz did it mind-blowingly with his "Symphonie Fantastique" and successive works, Wagner did it with _Tristan_ and with each opera after that, Sibelius created a strikingly new style and put a region of the world on the musical map, Schoenberg did you-know-what, Stravinsky...
> 
> Mozart? Most of his work sounds to me like good, solid late 18th-century music, only better than other people's. I'm rarely moved to wonder, "Where the heck did he get that?!"


This sounds very plausible to me. Having said that, I don't know enough about classical composers to know whether the level of intensity, the turbulent vision of the void and of horror, in PC 20 and PC 24, Symphony 40 or K 310, is something new or not.

And then we have the strange _fausse naïveté_ of the late pieces like Magic Flute and some of the final violin sonatas and quartets. I'm not keen on that sort of music, but no doubt many people see it as a summit. And again I don't know whether it is totally original, previously unheard of.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> It's 22 measures. It's chromaticism. Chromaticism was nothing new. There are passages of chromatic harmony in the works of any number of composers, earlier and later, that make us sit up and take notice. Bach did things more shocking, and not infrequently. Examples can multiply.
> 
> What does Mozart do after these 22 measures? How does it relate to them? Does it at all? Is pasting a strange and unrelated introduction onto a fairly conventional work a shining example of "innovation"? Haydn was somewhat perplexed by this introduction, not because he didn't understand the harmony - listen to what he did at the beginning of his _Creation_ - but because he saw no reason to begin this work this way. It's a bit of a stunt, isn't it? Hardly the act of an innovator as I defined it. Your definition may differ.


There's a performance of this movement by The Vlach Quartet which seems to me to find so much emotional intensity in the main body of the first movement, contrasting colliding passages of great turbulence, and indeed chromatic harmonies (enharmonics? meantone?) that the music does, to me, appear coherent. Anyway, if you can find it I think you will find it is interesting.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Toward the end of his Salzburg years and the early Vienna years are my absolute favorite. That's where you find most of his "Greatest hits" so to speak, but honestly I'm biased in that I love his works from the earliest keyboard pieces to his unfinished Requiem.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Why are you so obsessed with dumping on anyone who dares to suggest that the Great God Mozart may be less than divine in every respect?


I've considered early Mendelssohn a little overhyped, observing the way people make him out to be online in communities and even articles. I was merely expressing my honest opinion upon finding other people on TC agreeing with me. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/02/the-mozart-of-his-age-mendelssohn.html _"Yes, greater than Mozart: for nothing in Mozart's early output is as quintessentially awe-inspiring as the Octet and the Midsummer Night's Dream Overture, both written when Mendelssohn had reached the ripe old age of sixteen. (This observation, a musicological cliché, is no less true for being a cliché.)"_ 
https://www.classical-scene.com/2009/10/24/1692/
_But Mendelssohn, as a composer, was more precocious than Mozart, in that nothing that Mozart had composed by the age of sixteen matches Mendelssohn's achievement at the same age._

I must stress again, I'm not a Chopin-hater. I never put down Chopin just for the sake of ridiculing him. Every time I did, I used him as an example to make a point like "music didn't start getting better with Romanticism". 
And speaking of Chopin, he was undoubtedly a genius. (although seemed to lack discipline in some aspects) His piano concertos may not be the best of their kind. Yes, there are flaws, but they often make me forget they are works of a 20 year old. (I still think Hummel's are products of a more mature composer (Hummel wrote his Op.85 at 38.) and Chopin did not make progress in the concerto genre after his two) 
None of the concertos Mendelssohn wrote before/at that age make me think that way of him, for example.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> It's 22 measures. It's chromaticism. Chromaticism was nothing new. There are passages of chromatic harmony in the works of any number of composers, earlier and later, that make us sit up and take notice. Bach did things more shocking, and not infrequently. Examples can multiply.
> 
> What does Mozart do after these 22 measures? How does it relate to them? Does it at all? Is pasting a strange and unrelated introduction onto a fairly conventional work a shining example of "innovation"? Haydn was somewhat perplexed by this introduction, not because he didn't understand the harmony - listen to what he did at the beginning of his _Creation_ - but because he saw no reason to begin this work this way. It's a bit of a stunt, isn't it? Hardly the act of an innovator as I defined it. Your definition may differ.


Stunt? No. It is a hugely effective introduction. That jarring A-natural entrance by the first violin. Where could it possibly be leading? Yet it is part of an entirely rational (though unstable) harmonic progression that slowly but surely resolves into the jaunty and entirely stable opening C-major theme. But you don't hear that C-major theme quite the same way you would have heard it without the introduction. That's what harmonic progressions do. They somewhat prepare us, and at the same time somewhat deceive us, for what happens next, so the music is never entirely predictable and certain or entirely unpredictable and random.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> It's 22 measures. It's chromaticism. Chromaticism was nothing new. There are passages of chromatic harmony in the works of any number of composers, earlier and later, that make us sit up and take notice. *Bach did things more shocking, and not infrequently. Examples can multiply. *
> 
> *What does Mozart do after these 22 measures? How does it relate to them? Does it at all? Is pasting a strange and unrelated introduction onto a fairly conventional work a shining example of "innovation"?* Haydn was somewhat perplexed by this introduction, not because he didn't understand the harmony - listen to what he did at the beginning of his _Creation_ - but because he saw no reason to begin this work this way. It's a bit of a stunt, isn't it? Hardly the act of an innovator as I defined it. Your definition may differ.


I can't believe you're the same person who accused me of anti-Chopin campaign, the same person who wrote paragraphs to explain to me "Chopin's fugue isn't actually poorly written, it's just different from Bach, Mozart. It is supposed to be interpreted Romantically." or something to the effect.
If Mozart's K465 is really that unimpressive and unoriginal as you say, why did it serve as a model for a 'unique and original' innovator like Beethoven in writing his 'unique and original' Razumovsky quartets.

Op.59 No.3: 



K465: 



Op.59 No.3: 



K465: 



Op.59 No.2: 



K465: 









_"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it."_

If _classical control of chromaticism_ is so easy as you say (just because Mozart wasn't the first to do it). It almost makes me curious if you ever wondered - "why doesn't Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto have chromaticism like Mozart's 24th even though Beethoven wrote it at the same age as Mozart?"






First it was the 41th symphony, next it was the C minor fantasy, now it's the dissonance quartet..
I wonder what other mature piece by Mozart they would condemn as being "not impressive" next time. I'll be looking forward to it. It gets more and more interesting every time.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I can't believe you're the same person who accused me of anti-Chopin campaign, the same person who wrote paragraphs to explain to me "Chopin's fugue isn't actually poorly written, it's just different from Bach, Mozart. It is supposed to be interpreted Romantically." or something to the effect.
> If Mozart's K465 is really that unimpressive and unoriginal as you say, why did it serve as a model for a 'unique and original' innovator like Beethoven in writing his 'unique and original' Razumovsky quartets.
> 
> _"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it."_
> 
> If _classical control of chromaticism_ is so easy as you say (just because Mozart wasn't the first to do it). It almost makes me curious if you ever wondered - "why doesn't Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto have chromaticism like Mozart's 24th even though Beethoven wrote it at the same age as Mozart?"
> 
> First it was the 41th symphony, next it was the C minor fantasy, now it's the dissonance quartet..
> I wonder what other mature piece by Mozart they would condemn as being "not impressive" next time. I'll be looking forward to it. It gets more and more interesting every time.


You really need to make an effort to read what people say before you respond to it. I put considerable effort into saying exactly what I mean, and I'm generally quite successful. I do not like to be told that I've said things I haven't said, "or something to the effect." I did not say "Chopin's fugue isn't actually poorly written, it's just different from Bach, Mozart. It is supposed to be interpreted Romantically." Neither did I say that "classical control of chromaticism is easy." Nor did I say that Mozart's "Dissonance" quartet is "unimpressive and unoriginal."

Three strikes and you're out, bud (if only you'd stop at three).

The intro to K465 is indeed quite impressive and original. That wasn't in question. The question under discussion was how much of an innovator Mozart was. The introduction to that quartet was offered as evidence of his innovativeness. Fine. His innovativeness impresses me less than it does some other people. I do not think of him, qua innovator, in the same category as Beethoven or Berlioz or Wagner. I explained how I conceive of the term, and the strokes of originality offered here, impressive though they be, don't change my mind about it. I realize that this is unbearable for you, so I fully expect you to dump another monster truckload of Mozart on us in order to achieve your ultimate goal of Mozart world conquest.

By the way, quoting Beethoven (who for some reason you think is more worthy of being quoted accurately) is pointless. _Of course_ he learned from Mozart. He also learned from J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn and anyone else he could. He then went on to change music in ways Mozart never dreamed of.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> I can't believe you're the same person who accused me of anti-Chopin campaign, the same person who wrote paragraphs to explain to me "Chopin's fugue isn't actually poorly written, it's just different from Bach, Mozart. It is supposed to be interpreted Romantically." or something to the effect.
> If Mozart's K465 is really that unimpressive and unoriginal as you say, why did it serve as a model for a 'unique and original' innovator like Beethoven in writing his 'unique and original' Razumovsky quartets.
> 
> Op.59 No.3:
> 
> 
> 
> K465:
> 
> 
> 
> Op.59 No.3:
> 
> 
> 
> K465:
> 
> 
> 
> Op.59 No.2:
> 
> 
> 
> K465:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it."_
> 
> If _classical control of chromaticism_ is so easy as you say (just because Mozart wasn't the first to do it). It almost makes me curious if you ever wondered - "why doesn't Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto have chromaticism like Mozart's 24th even though Beethoven wrote it at the same age as Mozart?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it was the 41th symphony, next it was the C minor fantasy, now it's the dissonance quartet..
> I wonder what other mature piece by Mozart they would condemn as being "not impressive" next time. I'll be looking forward to it. It gets more and more interesting every time.


And it's ironic that the way Mozart uses the introduction at the beginning of the Dissonance quartet is very much like the way Haydn uses them in some of his string quartets, and of course that is no coincidence, but Haydn never got anywhere near Mozart's harmonic complexity.

One of Haydn's last, greatest and most famous string quartets, the Sunrise, Op. 76 No. 4, begins with imo the greatest of Haydn's introductions of this kind. But it has none of the harmonic instability and tension that Mozart's complex harmonic progression has, and that is what makes the ultimate resolution to the stable C-major theme so dramatic and exciting. Also, the Sunrise was written after the Dissonance, and after Mozart had died. Haydn no doubt was influenced by Mozart in that instance.


----------



## Luchesi

I find it odd that I don't hear the K491 as sublime with excellent ideas as his other works of that year. I've talked to other musicians and every last one of them disagree with me. They give me a funny look. They fear for my sanity..

It's good and all. But it sounds like something from his declining years, if he had lived long enough to have them.

When I heard of the Gould recording (the only one he chose to record) I listened to it again, but compared to K466 and the other great ones?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> quoting Beethoven (who for some reason you think is more worthy of being quoted accurately) is pointless. _Of course_ he learned from Mozart. He also learned from J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn and anyone else he could.


But we don't get new threads on TC every week questioning the legacy of J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn. I don't know what you mean by "Mozart world conquest"? Actually I think it's just "giving credit where it's due".
Unlike people like Couchie with his "Beethoven world conquest", at least I don't believe in any of the nonsense music _changed_ because of "one composer" only. At least


----------



## ManuelMozart95

His Piano Concertos starting from 20 onwards.
His Opera The Marriage of Fígaro.
His Symphony 41.
The Haydn quartets and probably his Clarinet concerto.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> And it's ironic that the way Mozart uses the introduction at the beginning of the Dissonance quartet is very much like the way Haydn uses them in some of his string quartets,


Also what Woodduck fails to realize is the rest of the piece isn't just "filler". Remarks like _"It's 22 measures. It's chromaticism. Chromaticism was nothing new. There are passages of chromatic harmony in the works of any number of composers, earlier and later, that make us sit up and take notice. Bach did things more shocking, and not infrequently. Examples can multiply... How does it relate to them? Does it at all? Is pasting a strange and unrelated introduction"_ - demonstrate his lack of understanding of Classicism that is also adopted by Beethoven and is perfectly present in his Razumovsky quartets, as I explained by giving examples. Surely, Beethoven wasn't a musical dummy, to take influence from this stuff, right?

_"The second moment is an Andante cantabile in F major, and starts in much simpler vein: with a clear melody in the first violin. But almost immediately, in the second phrase, you'll hear again that winding chromaticism in the inner parts, and also those tell-tale repeated notes in the cello. Soon after that, the moment become obsessively concerned with a small motive that is first passed from violin to cello, and then to the inner parts; and then, again, you will hear the characteristic build up of instruments, starting (as the slow introduction did) with the cello and moving upwards. In other words,* it soon becomes clear that the slow introduction to this 'dissonance' quartet has actually been a kind a mine from which material for the rest of the movements are to be taken.*"_ https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/

I also talked about the harmonic ingenuity of K421 some time ago:
the coda where Mozart emphasizes the ominous 4 note motif with 'painful' chromatic descending lines: 



chromatic modulation and motivic build in sections such as: 



interesting chromatic and diatonic lines and canonic imitations at: 



thematic variations and inner harmonies at:


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> I find it odd that I don't hear the K491 as sublime with excellent ideas as his other works of that year. I've talked to other musicians and every last one of them disagree with me. They give me a funny look. They fear for my sanity..
> 
> It's good and all. But it sounds like something from his declining years, if he had lived long enough to have them.
> 
> When I heard of the Gould recording (the only one he chose to record) I listened to it again, but compared to K466 and the other great ones?


I am half with you. To me it is a fine work - a great work - but I don't hear it as being as inspired as the five or so concertos that preceded it or the one that followed it. I am not sure I can say it is not as great but I do enjoy it a little less.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> Also what Woodduck fails to realize is the rest of the piece isn't just "filler". Remarks like _"It's 22 measures. It's chromaticism. Chromaticism was nothing new. There are passages of chromatic harmony in the works of any number of composers, earlier and later, that make us sit up and take notice. Bach did things more shocking, and not infrequently. Examples can multiply... How does it relate to them? Does it at all? Is pasting a strange and unrelated introduction"_ - demonstrate his lack of understanding of Classicism that is also adopted by Beethoven and is perfectly present in his Razumovsky quartets, as I explained by giving examples. Surely, Beethoven wasn't a musical dummy, to take influence from this stuff, right?
> 
> _"The second moment is an Andante cantabile in F major, and starts in much simpler vein: with a clear melody in the first violin. But almost immediately, in the second phrase, you'll hear again that winding chromaticism in the inner parts, and also those tell-tale repeated notes in the cello. Soon after that, the moment become obsessively concerned with a small motive that is first passed from violin to cello, and then to the inner parts; and then, again, you will hear the characteristic build up of instruments, starting (as the slow introduction did) with the cello and moving upwards. In other words,* it soon becomes clear that the slow introduction to this 'dissonance' quartet has actually been a kind a mine from which material for the rest of the movements are to be taken.*"_ https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/
> 
> I also talked about the harmonic ingenuity of K421 some time ago:
> the coda where Mozart emphasizes the ominous 4 note motif with 'painful' chromatic descending lines:
> 
> 
> 
> chromatic modulation and motivic build in sections such as:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting chromatic and diatonic lines and canonic imitations at:
> 
> 
> 
> thematic variations and inner harmonies at:


While sweeping statements like the one I'm about to make are always dangerous, I'd say that just as Bach didn't invent counterpoint but developed it in a far more thorough and profound way than anyone before him, Mozart did the same for harmonic progression and modulation. In both cases, though their abilities were recognized in their day, contemporary audiences and critics found much of their music too complicated and hard to handle. Today it's as familiar as the back of our hands. That's what artistic innovation does.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Also what Woodduck fails to realize is the rest of the piece isn't just "filler". Remarks like _"It's 22 measures. It's chromaticism. Chromaticism was nothing new. There are passages of chromatic harmony in the works of any number of composers, earlier and later, that make us sit up and take notice. Bach did things more shocking, and not infrequently. Examples can multiply... How does it relate to them? Does it at all? Is pasting a strange and unrelated introduction"_ - demonstrate his lack of understanding of Classicism that is also adopted by Beethoven and is perfectly present in his Razumovsky quartets, as I explained by giving examples. Surely, Beethoven wasn't a musical dummy, to take influence from this stuff, right?
> 
> _"The second moment is an Andante cantabile in F major, and starts in much simpler vein: with a clear melody in the first violin. But almost immediately, in the second phrase, you'll hear again that winding chromaticism in the inner parts, and also those tell-tale repeated notes in the cello. Soon after that, the moment become obsessively concerned with a small motive that is first passed from violin to cello, and then to the inner parts; and then, again, you will hear the characteristic build up of instruments, starting (as the slow introduction did) with the cello and moving upwards. In other words,* it soon becomes clear that the slow introduction to this 'dissonance' quartet has actually been a kind a mine from which material for the rest of the movements are to be taken.*"_ https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/
> 
> I also talked about the harmonic ingenuity of K421 some time ago:
> the coda where Mozart emphasizes the ominous 4 note motif with 'painful' chromatic descending lines:
> 
> 
> 
> chromatic modulation and motivic build in sections such as:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting chromatic and diatonic lines and canonic imitations at:
> 
> 
> 
> thematic variations and inner harmonies at:


Such descriptions are very illuminating to Mozart but perhaps not illuminating to those who followed him. The world did not stop with Mozart, and other ways of developing themes and structures were necessary or they wouldn't have become an obvious reality. The world changed after Mozart and it's still changing, and it will continue to change, and what people are perhaps looking for is someone who can illuminate these changes rather than remaining fixated in the past however glorious it may have been. Mozart is still here to be enjoyed and venerated but it's doubtful that even he would have remained untouched by the new era to come.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> I am half with you. To me it is a fine work - a great work - but I don't hear it as being as inspired as the five or so concertos that preceded it or the one that followed it. I am not sure I can say it is not as great but I do enjoy it a little less.


You're one of very few people. As I say I've never heard anybody agree with me.

So I assume that Gould was seeking out contrapuntal music, as he always did.

I assume that Beethoven was impressed by the power of C minor as a composer who was psychologically drawn to the potential (composing at the piano) and what he could express with specific keys, especially several minor keys. The power of how the inversions of a chord feel on the piano for inspiring the emotions and thoughts of the composer has been written about.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> You're one of very few people. As I say I've never heard anybody agree with me.
> 
> So I assume that Gould was seeking out contrapuntal music, as he always did.
> 
> I assume that Beethoven was impressed by the power of C minor as a composer who was psychologically drawn to the potential (composing at the piano) and what he could express with specific keys, especially several minor keys. The power of how the inversions of a chord feel on the piano for inspiring the emotions and thoughts of the composer has been written about.


For me, all of Mozart's piano concerti, but especially nos. 19-27, represent one of the highest points in all western music. I should have included them with the mature chamber music, the last six symphonies and the operas in my initial post. In that august final group of 19-27, all are justly celebrated as masterpieces, but if one is underrated, perhaps it is the F major, no. 19. If so, that would be a terrible mistake. One of the earliest classical records to have a profound impact on me as an 8 or 9 year-old was Clara Haskil's astounding performance of no. 19 with Ferenc Fricsay on DG. But when I bought the CD from the "DG Originals" series, it was dreadful, one of the few bad digital transfers in that fine series. If anyone knows of a digital version that is better, please let me know. Not that Mitsuko Uchida or Murray Perahia are so bad.


----------



## Bulldog

fluteman said:


> For me, all of Mozart's piano concerti, but especially nos. 19-27, represent one of the highest points in all western music.


I suppose it's just me, but I find the piano concertos after no. 24 a little disappointing.


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> I suppose it's just me, but I find the piano concertos after no. 24 a little disappointing.


27 is something that maybe hard to pull off, but I've heard a couple of performances which are really touching.


----------



## fluteman

Bulldog said:


> I suppose it's just me, but I find the piano concertos after no. 24 a little disappointing.


I wouldn't say it's just you, there are those who don't care for Beethoven's 9th symphony, Shakespeare's Hamlet, van Gogh's Starry Night, Tolstoy's War and Peace, etc.


----------



## Strange Magic

Whenever I listen to the PC #24 opening movement (I have and love the Gould), I am strangely and portentously reminded of the beginning of the Brahms #1 PC.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> For me, all of Mozart's piano concerti, but especially nos. 19-27, represent one of the highest points in all western music. I should have included them with the mature chamber music, the last six symphonies and the operas in my initial post. In that august final group of 19-27, all are justly celebrated as masterpieces, but if one is underrated, perhaps it is the F major, no. 19. If so, that would be a terrible mistake. One of the earliest classical records to have a profound impact on me as an 8 or 9 year-old was Clara Haskil's astounding performance of no. 19 with Ferenc Fricsay on DG. But when I bought the CD from the "DG Originals" series, it was dreadful, one of the few bad digital transfers in that fine series. If anyone knows of a digital version that is better, please let me know. Not that Mitsuko Uchida or Murray Perahia are so bad.


To me this sounds okay for that long ago.


----------



## flamencosketches

OK, I haven't heard the 24th concerto and it sounds like I'm missing out. Whose should I check out? I'm a big fan of Gould but I'm skeptical of him playing Mozart.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> To me this sounds okay for that long ago.


Compare that with this. It's the same recording.


----------



## fluteman

flamencosketches said:


> OK, I haven't heard the 24th concerto and it sounds like I'm missing out. Whose should I check out? I'm a big fan of Gould but I'm skeptical of him playing Mozart.


Did you see the box set I just wrote about? It includes Haskil's famous recording of the 24th with Markevitch, in stereo no less.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at _Idomeneo_. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
-JOHANNES BRAHMS

https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Ras

*Mozart's piano concertos - 24th. Recommended recordings.*



flamencosketches said:


> OK, I haven't heard the 24th concerto and it sounds like I'm missing out. Whose should I check out? I'm a big fan of Gould but I'm skeptical of him playing Mozart.


ON MODERN INSTRUMENTS:

*Imogen Cooper on Avie.*

*Alfred Brendel with Marriner on Decca* and the same *Alfred Brendel with Charles Mackerras on Phillips.*

*Andras Schiff on Decca.*

*Barenboim with the Berlin Philharmonic on Warner* he plays Mozart with a strong romantic flavor. Not to anyone's taste, but I like it.

ON PERIOD INSTRUMENTS:

Among recordings on period instruments I like* Bilson with Gardiner on Archiv/DG* and *Jos van Immerseel on Channel *records.

(You mention Gould - I've never heard it, so can't comment on that.)

You can hear most of these recordings on www.spotify.com

I can post links and pictures on request, - I'm too lazy to do it right now.


----------



## fluteman

Ras said:


> ON MODERN INSTRUMENTS:
> 
> *Imogen Cooper on Avie.*
> 
> *Alfred Brendel with Marriner on Decca* and the same *Alfred Brendel with Charles Mackerras on Phillips.*
> 
> *Andras Schiff on Decca.*
> 
> *Barenboim with the Berlin Philharmonic on Warner* he plays Mozart with a strong romantic flavor. Not to anyone's taste, but I like it.
> 
> ON PERIOD INSTRUMENTS:
> 
> Among recordings on period instruments I like* Bilson with Gardiner on Archiv/DG* and *Jos van Immerseel on Channel *records.
> 
> (You mention Gould - I've never heard it, so can't comment on that.)
> 
> You can hear most of these recordings on www.spotify.com
> 
> I can post links and pictures on request, - I'm too lazy to do it right now.


Also, Sir Clifford Curzon with the London Symphony Orchestra and István Kertész on Decca. Curzon was superb with Mozart. He recorded no. 24 several times, I'm not sure they are all so easy to find. And by the way, this is the LSO with principal violist Neville Marriner, principal hornist Barry Tuckwell, principal flutist James Galway, and in general a very strong orchestra.


----------



## Ras

fluteman said:


> Also, Sir Clifford Curzon with the London Symphony Orchestra and István Kertész on Decca. Curzon was superb with Mozart. He recorded no. 24 several times, I'm not sure they are all so easy to find. And by the way, this is the LSO with principal violist Neville Marriner, principal hornist Barry Tuckwell, principal flutist James Galway, and in general a very strong orchestra.


Thanks fluteman

Are these the Curzon recordings you recommend:



















> principal violist Neville Marriner, principal hornist Barry Tuckwell, principal flutist James Galway


A pretty "posh" lineup, huh?


----------



## Mandryka

Anyone like Muti/Richter in 491?


----------



## fluteman

Ras said:


> Thanks fluteman
> 
> Are these the Curzon recordings you recommend:
> 
> View attachment 112010
> 
> 
> View attachment 112011
> 
> 
> A pretty "posh" lineup, huh?


Yes. I'm not prepared to comment on the differences between the various Curzon versions of all of these concertos, as I'm sure some pianophiles could readily do. But these are classics.


----------



## Mandryka

fluteman said:


> Yes. I'm not prepared to comment on the differences between the various Curzon versions of all of these concertos, as I'm sure some pianophiles could readily do. But these are classics.


I'm not sure, I remember thinking that if you want Curzon in this there are nights on record with 491 where he was less nervous and tense, with Kubelik for example. Or with Giullini (though I'm not sure if that's ever been available commercially) It's many years since I last listened to these recordings. When he was feeling relaxed and inspired he was well worth hearing, but unfortunately he had all sorts of problems which sometimes got in the way.


----------



## anahit

Jupiter, the last movement.


----------



## fluteman

I like the Kertesz version more than the Kubelik version, which is sometimes a bit too relaxed for me. But I agree, you can strike gold if you're willing to search around a bit. I taped a live performance of his of no. 23 that's wonderful.


----------



## poconoron

hammeredklavier said:


> But we don't get new threads on TC every week questioning the legacy of J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn. I don't know what you mean by "Mozart world conquest"? Actually I think it's just "giving credit where it's due".
> Unlike people like Couchie with his "Beethoven world conquest", at least I don't believe in any of the nonsense music _changed_ because of "one composer" only. At least


I find it very interesting that Woodduck has nary a word of complaint about all of the Beethoven adulation which goes on at TC...........but finds it necessary to zero-in on Mozart's proponents. It is shockingly transparent - at least to me


----------



## Strange Magic

I'm so happy that I like the music of Mozart and Beethoven equally!


----------



## Zofia

I vote for Jupiter also. UwU


----------



## millionrainbows

The flute sonatas. NOT REALLY, just a joke.

I think Beethoven is highly overrated. His music always seem full of forward momentum and rhythmic bluster, and always seems to be trying to be an advocate for some sort of emotional conflict or triumph. It seems very dramatic and self-absorbed, the perfect vehicle for busy Westerners to project their own feelings of grandeur on to.

Mozart had a detachment that Beethoven discarded and never returned to. Beethoven just had to tell us all about it, and we listened with rapt adoration to his heroic narrative, and we never seem to tire of it to this day. I suppose that's because he represents Western man's identity kit perfectly, which is still about "marching through a country and conquering it," with musical accompaniment. I thought Francis Ford Coppola was spot-on when he used Wagner's music in Apocalypse Now. That represents that same kind of bluster and hubris.


----------



## Larkenfield

millionrainbows said:


> The flute sonatas. NOT REALLY, just a joke.
> 
> I think Beethoven is highly overrated. His music always seem full of forward momentum and rhythmic bluster, and always seems to be trying to be an advocate for some sort of emotional conflict or triumph. It seems very dramatic and self-absorbed, the perfect vehicle for busy Westerners to project their own feelings of grandeur on to.
> 
> Mozart had a detachment that Beethoven discarded and never returned to. Beethoven just had to tell us all about it, and we listened with rapt adoration to his heroic narrative, and we never seem to tire of it to this day. I suppose that's because he represents Western man's identity kit perfectly, which is still about "marching through a country and conquering it," with musical accompaniment. I thought Francis Ford Coppola was spot-on when he used Wagner's music in Apocalypse Now. That represents that same kind of bluster and hubris.


Well said. But I blame some of the big-name conductors, who shall remain nameless, for sometimes playing him like an explosive disco rhythm machine who carries live hand grenades that he might have loved throwing at Napoleon after he had crowned himself. I don't recall Bruno Walter playing him that way and he brought out more of Beethoven's humanitarian, soulful, philosophical side. If he's played as having a big temper then listening to him can be like walking through a loaded, turbulent and agitated minefield, and yet he wasn't without his moments of peace and tranquility, such as can be heard in his Pastoral 6th and the slow movements of this other symphonies.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think Beethoven is highly overrated. His music always seem full of forward momentum and rhythmic bluster, and always seems to be trying to be an advocate for some sort of emotional conflict or triumph. It seems very dramatic and self-absorbed, the perfect vehicle for busy Westerners to project their own feelings of grandeur on to.
> 
> Mozart had a detachment that Beethoven discarded and never returned to. Beethoven just had to tell us all about it, and we listened with rapt adoration to his heroic narrative, and we never seem to tire of it to this day. I suppose that's because he represents Western man's identity kit perfectly, which is still about "marching through a country and conquering it," with musical accompaniment. I thought Francis Ford Coppola was spot-on when he used Wagner's music in Apocalypse Now. That represents that same kind of bluster and hubris.


So easy for the mouse to belittle the tiger and the lion from the safety of his ideological burrow...

An "advocate for emotional conflict"? What a snazzy little psychologization of Beethoven and his artistic purposes! How about a "record" of conflict, or an "expression" of it, or an "artistic sublimation"? How about a "transcendence"? Could that be part of Beethoven's nature or motivation? Might we not admire his ability to own and illuminate the stresses and aspirations of life, rather than repress them or dress them in silk stockings and waistcoats for the sake of "civility,""rationality," and "beauty"?

So many ways to understand things...

What of the great quantity of works that don't portray conflict? Beethoven's music is protean, and seems to have something in it for nearly everyone. D'ya think maybe that includes non-Westerners too (you know, all those people sitting peacefully in lotus position rather than "marching and conquering")? Maybe people who respond to Beethoven's grandeur and power are not "projecting" anything at all. I'd venture that most people have few feelings of grandeur to project, but are hungry to hear, and thrilled at hearing, the potential which human life holds for a grandeur beyond the degradation and trivia they see around them and hear on the news. Hey, I'll bet Beethoven felt that way too! Or at least his 9th symphony suggests that he did.

I don't personally know any Western men who carry an "identity kit" with instructions for marching and conquering. The ones I know actually dislike things like that. Come to think of it, Beethoven disliked them too. And as for the music of your other whipping boy, Coppola used the "Ride of the Valkyries," which does not represent "Wagner's music," for reasons too superficial and obvious to elude anyone (well, almost anyone...) Wagner's entire life's work stands in opposition to "marching and conquering": he shows us allegorically the destruction of the reign of violence and power, warrior maidens included, by fire, and finally turns to writing a mystery play that pleads for compassion, shows in the reunion of a spear and a cup the healing of the divided soul, and does it through music of extreme subtlety, penetrating expressiveness, and transcendent beauty that makes "bluster and hubris" unthinkable.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...I don't personally know any Western men who carry an "identity kit" with instructions for marching and conquering.


You are evidently unaware that the conquistadores were all issued iPods loaded with Beethoven. They were listening to the 5th Symphony as they slaughtered and enslaved the native populations of Central and South America. I know this is true because a certain contributor to this thread told me so.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> ...I think Beethoven is highly overrated. His music always seem full of forward momentum and rhythmic bluster...the perfect vehicle for busy Westerners to project their own feelings of grandeur on to.


Odd, then, that Beethoven is proving durably popular in the East, those fabled lands where some of us believe the people care for nothing but hypnotic drones and the boom and tinkle of temple bells. Actually this view is redolent of the imperialistic mindset called "orientalism," which is evidently still extant. See the excellent work by Edward Said.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Odd, then, that Beethoven is proving durably popular in the East, those fabled lands where some of us believe the people care for nothing but hypnotic drones and the boom and tinkle of temple bells. Actually this view is redolent of the imperialistic mindset called "orientalism," which is evidently still extant.


The stereotyping of "Western" and "Eastern" "mind sets" and "world views," and the attempt to read these notions into music's structure and the psychology of its composers and listeners, has been giving me an upset stomach, and I'm grateful that someone else has pointed out that the premises behind such attempts may represent a squishy sort of bigotry and a form of "intellectual imperialism." Stereotypes that appear benign are still stereotypes. But I'm not sure that those being offered here are benign.


----------



## Luchesi

flamencosketches said:


> I apologize if this thread has been done before, but it seemed like it could be an interesting discussion.
> 
> Mozart belongs to a rare class of composers in that he excelled in almost every genre he undertook, from opera to symphony to chamber ensembles to solo pieces.
> 
> In your opinion, which form of composition was his greatest strength? I suspect many will say opera, and that may be the right answer. I'm a new fan of his (and not too big on opera in general to be honest) and have heard very little of his operas. But as mentioned before he has made gems in almost every genre of classical music at the time.
> 
> Personally, I think his symphonies are my favorite of his work, once he started to really hit his stride with it around the 25th. He had a lot of talent in structure and orchestration. I'm a big fan of the piano concertos as well, but I haven't heard any of the early ones (1-11).
> 
> What do you think?


He didn't write the best symphonies or the best concertos or the best quartets or the best solo piano music, masses, operas, serenades, other chamber music. He was limited by his place in musical history, and his audiences and his orchestras and his need for money. So what's the big deal about him?

I would say that the big deal is that he comes your mind as second or third in EVERY! category (depending upon what your mood is). This is remarkable!! This is such a treasure!!


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> The stereotyping of "Western" and "Eastern" "mind sets" and "world views," and the attempt to read these notions into music's structure and the psychology of its composers and listeners, has been giving me an upset stomach, and I'm grateful that someone else has pointed out that as a squishy sort of bigotry and a form of intellectual imperialism it's a recognized phenomenon.


Yes, you remind me of the Vietnamese pianist Đặng Thái Sơn who had to hide with this family in a forest on a mountain during that war --- and only later could work hard at practicing the piano for only three years! He won the Chopin Competition in 1980 mostly because of what his life experiences did to hearten and undergird and enlighten him to know what to do with the Chopin universals. What a story!


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> The flute sonatas. NOT REALLY, just a joke.
> 
> I think Beethoven is highly overrated. His music always seem full of forward momentum and rhythmic bluster, and always seems to be trying to be an advocate for some sort of emotional conflict or triumph. It seems very dramatic and self-absorbed, the perfect vehicle for busy Westerners to project their own feelings of grandeur on to.
> 
> Mozart had a detachment that Beethoven discarded and never returned to. Beethoven just had to tell us all about it, and we listened with rapt adoration to his heroic narrative, and we never seem to tire of it to this day. I suppose that's because he represents Western man's identity kit perfectly, which is still about "marching through a country and conquering it," with musical accompaniment. I thought Francis Ford Coppola was spot-on when he used Wagner's music in Apocalypse Now. That represents that same kind of bluster and hubris.


Mozart's flute sonatas are very good, never mind very good for a 10-year old composer. Some scholars think they were written for violin (an instrument Mozart played) but were published for flute or violin to make them more marketable. There is a lot there that anticipates the later violin sonatas. Of course, they are more sonatas for piano with a flute or violin accompaniment.


----------



## jdec

Couchie said:


> On the contrary his solo keyboard work is dull to listen to and even more of a chore to play.
> 
> As a piano student you typically have to choose between a Beethoven or Mozart sonata for exam classical-era requirements. *NOBODY PICKS MOZART.*












Not saying that Beethoven's notes are not of great quality though.


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> On the contrary his solo keyboard work is dull to listen to and even more of a chore to play.
> 
> As a piano student you typically have to choose between a Beethoven or Mozart sonata for exam classical-era requirements. *NOBODY PICKS MOZART.*


His solo keyboard music is wonderful and an under rated aspect of his oeuvre.

I know which piano sonata I would choose for such requirements. Mozart's K545.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> He also learned from J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn and anyone else he could. *He then went on to change music in ways Mozart never dreamed of.*


Hard to say how Mozart would've perceived Beethoven. He may have found the music dull and long winded.

I realize I'm in the minority here but I've always felt that Beethoven's innovations seem a little awkward within a Classical era format, something he was never able to really break free from. For me his ideas in terms of the expansion of form was brought to its greatest fulfillment in the Romantic era and even by some of the early Modernist composers who were more concerned with vertical harmony.


----------



## Woodduck

poconoron said:


> I find it very interesting that Woodduck has nary a word of complaint about all of the Beethoven adulation which goes on at TC...........but finds it necessary to zero-in on Mozart's proponents. It is shockingly transparent - at least to me


"I am shocked, _shocked_ at such transparency! Or at least translucency! Or something!"

Whatever you think Woodduck's "transparency" reveals to you, you are certain to be wrong. In fact, Wooduck has no wish to zero in on the proponents of anyone. What Woodduck zeros in on are the statements of people who feel that the way to exalt a composer who is by common consent not in need of it is to look for other composers to deprecate and then cry, victoriously, "See how much better my composer is!" Mozart lovers, in particular, seem always on the edge of bursting into the triumphant comparison, and the slightest expression of skepticism, dislike or indifference to their idol, no matter how thoughtfully expressed, will set them off.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Hard to say how Mozart would've perceived Beethoven. He may have found the music dull and long winded.
> 
> I realize I'm in the minority here but I've always felt that Beethoven's innovations seem a little awkward within a Classical era format, something he was never able to really break free from. For me his ideas in terms of the expansion of form was brought to its greatest fulfillment in the Romantic era and even by some of the early Modernist composers who were more concerned with vertical harmony.


I respect the validity of your perceptions _for you,_ but I don't think you've ever understood Beethoven. You're not alone, and I'm not claiming that I understand him fully - his creative scope is, shall we say, rather vast - but I'm sure that what he ultimately did doesn't fit comfortably within the common concepts of "Classical" or Romantic" (although he clearly could work comfortably with inherited formal principles), and I think it's just wrong to say either that he couldn't "break free" of anything or that his innovations were in any way uncertain or incomplete and in need of fulfillment by the Romantics, most of whom could only use him in bits and pieces. His works have always - always, since I first discovered them long ago - struck me as completely realized on the remarkable, and remarkably evolving, terms he laid out for himself. It should be far from any of us to judge him by conventional categories, and I think the need to do this only reveals a lack of sympathy with his music.

Sorry for the diversion, but I did want to respond.


----------



## RockyIII

I've always loved Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, but he peaked with Requiem in D minor. 

Rocky


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> The flute sonatas. NOT REALLY, just a joke.
> 
> I think Beethoven is highly overrated. His music always seem full of forward momentum and rhythmic bluster, and always seems to be trying to be an advocate for some sort of emotional conflict or triumph. It seems very dramatic and self-absorbed, the perfect vehicle for busy Westerners to project their own feelings of grandeur on to.
> 
> Mozart had a detachment that Beethoven discarded and never returned to. Beethoven just had to tell us all about it, and we listened with rapt adoration to his heroic narrative, and we never seem to tire of it to this day. I suppose that's because he represents Western man's identity kit perfectly, which is still about "marching through a country and conquering it," with musical accompaniment. I thought Francis Ford Coppola was spot-on when he used Wagner's music in Apocalypse Now. That represents that same kind of bluster and hubris.


I agree with what KenOC and Woodduck said, and would add that the language in this post - "forward momentum and rhythmic bluster," "emotional conflict or triumph," "dramatic and self-absorbed" - applies, at best, to some of Beethoven's better-known middle period works. Would you say any of that about the late piano sonatas or quartets, or the Missa Solemnis?

Answering the OP: for me, it's the piano concertos from number 17 on.


----------



## ribonucleic

K. 545 - Mvt. II


----------



## Guest

Back to the original question, the last chamber music, particularly the string quintets, the Prussian Quartets, and the String Trio. The late Piano Concerti are close runners up.


----------



## Luchesi

I don't want to get a reputation for being too snarky, but I actually would like to hear someone improve upon a Mozart or a Beethoven piano sonata, or if they get very adventurous any of the mature chamber works.

After all this time and after all the music we've learned about since, what's stopping us?


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to get a reputation for being too snarky, but I actually would like to hear someone improve upon a Mozart or a Beethoven piano sonata, or if they get very adventurous any of the mature chamber works.
> 
> After all this time and after all the music we've learned about since, what's stopping us?


Maybe the fact that none of us is Mozart or Beethoven?


----------



## Xisten267

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to get a reputation for being too snarky, but I actually would like to hear someone improve upon a Mozart or a Beethoven piano sonata, or if they get very adventurous any of the mature chamber works.
> 
> After all this time and after all the music we've learned about since, what's stopping us?


I would rather prefer to actually listen to some new composer who did his/her own music and improved upon it instead. It's just my opinion though.


----------



## Gallus

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to get a reputation for being too snarky, but I actually would like to hear someone improve upon a Mozart or a Beethoven piano sonata


Chopin did it. (Although the sonata form is a defining characteristic of the classical period so this is somewhat of an unfair ask, like demanding composers today to improve upon the Baroque fugue or Renaissance motet.)



Luchesi said:


> or if they get very adventurous any of the mature chamber works.


Brahms did it. Webern did it (after a fashion).


----------



## fluteman

jdec said:


> Not saying that Beethoven's notes are not of great quality though.


Much of Mozart's music is fairly easy to play on a mediocre level, but very hard to play well. But don't take my word on it. Next time you are talking to famous professional pianist or violinist, ask him or her.


----------



## Luchesi

Gallus said:


> Chopin did it. (Although the sonata form is a defining characteristic of the classical period so this is somewhat of an unfair ask, like demanding composers today to improve upon the Baroque fugue or Renaissance motet.)
> 
> Brahms did it. Webern did it (after a fashion).


What I meant was, since people will criticize Mozart or they'll criticize Beethoven, because they're preferring one output more than the other, I don't think they can give specific changes in the scores that would improve them.

They sound to me like they don't understand what the exacting achievements were. So how can they imagine how to improve them? It's just puzzling to me.

Most any music lover can talk in generalities and complain about what they don't like in broad human terms. Mozart should be less repetitive and predictable?, but the problem is the structure would fall. So the question is what do we want in his art? Beethoven was long winded? so which ideas should we cut out? Etc. Have they looked into the details?


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> Most any music lover can talk in generalities and complain about what they don't like in broad human terms. Mozart should be less repetitive and predictable?, but the problem is the structure would fall. So the question is what do we want in his art? Beethoven was long winded? so which ideas should we cut out? Etc. Have they looked into the details?


If a person doesn't like a piece of music, they don't like it. By expressing this dislike I don't think it becomes their responsibility to recompose the music.

I wish Beethoven would've more often tried to express passion and emotion in his symphonies through using harmony, rather than those loud FF "bam bam" sections all the time. It just seems like a relatively cheap and over used device in his repertoire to me. But I'm not going to rewrite one of his symphonies over it.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> What I meant was, since people will criticize Mozart or they'll criticize Beethoven, because they're preferring one output more than the other, I don't think they can give specific changes in the scores that would improve them.
> 
> They sound to me like they don't understand what the exacting achievements were. So how can they imagine how to improve them? It's just puzzling to me.
> 
> Most any music lover can talk in generalities and complain about what they don't like in broad human terms. Mozart should be less repetitive and predictable?, but the problem is the structure would fall. So the question is what do we want in his art? Beethoven was long winded? so which ideas should we cut out? Etc. Have they looked into the details?


Those are reasonable questions, if what people dislike about composers has to do with the music's formal excellence. It usually doesn't, though. You'll rarely hear anyone say that a piece by Mozart or Beethoven is poorly constructed. What people will always disagree about is meaning, significance and value in art, even if they agree on technical questions. Listeners who think a Beethoven symphony is "long-winded" generally just don't like it well enough to stick with it. Three minutes might be more than enough for them.

We also have to distinguish between criticizing a particular work and criticizing its composer. Any one of Vivaldi's innumerable concertos might be impeccably put together and a delight to hear, but it's legitimate to fault him (in the larger scheme of things) for relying on the same formulae and devices again and again and again. It's hard to level this sort of criticism against composers of the stature of Mozart and Beethoven, though. Saying that a certain trait in their music annoys us is hardly an objective criticism.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> We also have to distinguish between criticizing a particular work and criticizing its composer. Any one of Vivaldi's innumerable concertos might be impeccably put together and a delight to hear, but it's legitimate to fault him (in the larger scheme of things) for relying on the same formulae and devices again and again and again.


Stravinsky famously said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 600 times, and it's hard to argue with either of you. It's funny that the main part of Bach's main job was to churn out endless sacred cantatas, and not surprisingly there are strong similarities on many levels when you move from one to the next. However, you can't make a similar criticism of Bach as you can of Vivaldi. I think that's in significant part due to Bach's immense mastery of counterpoint, which gave him an almost bottomless bag of tricks for thematic development. (He also knew all about the different musical styles of his day, but they don't seem all that different to us now, do they?) Vivaldi didn't have that.
Mozart also had an immense bag of tricks to draw from in the all-important area of thematic development.


----------



## Luchesi

Most every person has an opinion about a painting or a poem or a piece of music. They'll tell you they like it or they don't like it. I understand that -- they just have to blurt it out. It's an emotional response. It's successful when this is what art evokes. But when you ask them what would you change? what would you substitute? what would you delete or replace with new ideas? they look at you like, "well, I'm not going to do that..” 

They don't seem to appreciate the problems of the creative artist. And why should they? So I think these discussions will never end.. And if you talk to the same person 15 years from now you would get a whole different response. That's what keeps it interesting in a forum, the different levels of experience and personal paths.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to get a reputation for being too snarky, but I actually would like to hear someone improve upon a Mozart or a Beethoven piano sonata, or if they get very adventurous any of the mature chamber works.
> 
> After all this time and after all the music we've learned about since, what's stopping us?


We have already seen the world' best musical scholars or composers try to complete works or fragments of great composers and their efforts fall woefully short. Look at what scholars have tried to do with Mozart's requiem. Many are better composers than Sussmayr was and yet nobody has succeeded in improving upon his admittedly inadequate completion. Go ahead and replace Sussmayr's mediocre sanctus with something truly inspiring in Mozart's style - what you think he would have done - any takers? Nope - thought not.


----------



## hammeredklavier

stomanek said:


> Look at what scholars have tried to do with Mozart's requiem. Many are better composers than Sussmayr was and yet nobody has succeeded in improving upon his admittedly inadequate completion.


I think Sussmayer and Robert Levin wrote the most 'appropriate' completions, mainly because they used Mozart's early masses as guide to predict what Mozart would have done in completing his Requiem. (It's speculated the dying Mozart specifically told Sussmayer to do so)

Compare Agnus Dei of the Requiem with 



and the remaining part of Lacrimosa with 



The use of inversion in Robert Levin's completion of Amen 



 with


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> I think Sussmayer and Robert Levin wrote the most 'appropriate' completions, mainly because they used Mozart's early masses as guide to predict what Mozart would have done in completing his Requiem. (It's speculated the dying Mozart specifically told Sussmayer to do so)
> 
> Compare Agnus Dei of the Requiem with
> 
> 
> 
> and the remaining part of Lacrimosa with
> 
> 
> 
> The use of inversion in Robert Levin's completion of Amen
> 
> 
> 
> with


Have you heard Finnissy's completions? I can't stand the Sussmayer.


----------



## Pyotr

flamencosketches said:


> I apologize if this thread has been done before, but it seemed like it could be an interesting discussion.
> ………
> What do you think?


No need to apologize, I can't get enough of Mozart talk!

Herr Mozart's peak for me are the five violin concerti. I can't name a favorite. The cumulative listening hours for me of each is about equal.

VC1(k207) - Itzhak Perlman 
VC2(k211) - Itzhak Perlman 
VC3(k216) - Itzhak Perlman 
VC4(k218) - Jascha Heifetz 
VC5(k219) - 1st movement Jascha Heifetz, 2nd movement Daniel Hope/ Armin Jordan, and 3rd movement Christian Altenburger

I can't find anyone that does all three movements of the fifth to my satisfaction, so I mix those three to a CD.

The cadenzas are a very significant part of all five of these works and there are a lot of them. Perlman uses his own((James Levine / Wiener Philharmoniker)except for the first movement of number three, he uses Sam Franko's, and the third movement of number five -Joseph Joachim) and they are magnificent. Although, I don't like his renditions of the 4th or 5th violin concertos.

There are those who complain that since Mozart was classical era, some including Perlman, play them like a romantic era work. So be it. It works for me.

Special mention to Anne Sophie Mutter. She does them all very well, but none well enough to crack my list.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pyotr said:


> No need to apologize, I can't get enough of Mozart talk!
> 
> Herr Mozart's peak for me are the five violin concerti. I can't name a favorite. The cumulative listening hours for me of each is about equal.
> 
> VC1(k207) - Itzhak Perlman
> VC2(k211) - Itzhak Perlman
> VC3(k216) - Itzhak Perlman
> VC4(k218) - Jascha Heifetz
> VC5(k219) - 1st movement Jascha Heifetz, 2nd movement Daniel Hope/ Armin Jordan, and 3rd movement Christian Altenburger
> 
> I can't find anyone that does all three movements of the fifth to my satisfaction, so I mix those three to a CD.
> 
> The cadenzas are a very significant part of all five of these works and there are a lot of them. Perlman uses his own((James Levine / Wiener Philharmoniker)except for the first movement of number three, he uses Sam Franko's, and the third movement of number five -Joseph Joachim) and they are magnificent. Although, I don't like his renditions of the 4th or 5th violin concertos.
> 
> There are those who complain that since Mozart was classical era, some including Perlman, play them like a romantic era work. So be it. It works for me.
> 
> Special mention to Anne Sophie Mutter. She does them all very well, but none well enough to crack my list.


Glad that you recognise the supreme quality of the violin concertos. I think they dont get enough credit for 3 reasons - one is they are early works - and some listeners cant accept that early works can also be masterworks. The other reason is the Mozart's piano concertos, unjustifiably in my view, tend to overshadow them. As a third reason - the big 19thC concerti are so grand and big that Mozart's delicate works are usually dismissed as minor pieces - how often have you seen the concert billing "BIG SHOT violinist plays Brahms VC - and a little bit of Mozart". Ha ha that little bit of Mozart may well be K219 - probably the best VC of the entire 18thC.

Im glad that you also recognise Heifetz recording of the 5th VC - I was never too much struck on Heifetz - until I heard him play K219 - and then I became a big fan.


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> If a person doesn't like a piece of music, they don't like it. By expressing this dislike I don't think it becomes their responsibility to recompose the music.
> 
> I wish Beethoven would've more often tried to express passion and emotion in his symphonies through using harmony, rather than *those loud FF "bam bam" sections all the time*. It just seems like a relatively cheap and over used device in his repertoire to me. But I'm not going to rewrite one of his symphonies over it.


Man, I love the FF "bam bam" sections! 

I'm happy that Beethoven didn't fear to use his own techniques and musical ideas on his works.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> Egad. Another Mozart thread.
> 
> If I had to pick one work, it would be the String Quintet in G minor, K516. But I don't have to pick one work.


I was going to say his String Quintets too. All of them are a delight.


----------



## Bulldog

Pyotr said:


> The cadenzas are a very significant part of all five of these works and there are a lot of them. Perlman uses his own((James Levine / Wiener Philharmoniker)except for the first movement of number three, he uses Sam Franko's, and the third movement of number five -Joseph Joachim) and they are magnificent. Although, I don't like his renditions of the 4th or 5th violin concertos.
> 
> There are those who complain that since Mozart was classical era, some including Perlman, play them like a romantic era work. So be it. It works for me.


It doesn't work for me at all, especially cadenzas that sound like they come from a different century.


----------



## flamencosketches

I've never had any issue with so called "anachronisms" in music. Just another way to interpret the music in my eyes. I like Itzhak on the violin concerti too, tho I haven't heard anyone else.


----------



## Agamemnon

I think a lot of composers regard opera as the summit of (musical) art so they think their operas are the highlights of their body of work. I don't think Mozart was an exception to this. Yet I think the right answer is his piano concertos. I will prove this with facts and sound reasoning  :

First of all, Mozart was primarily a pianist. And he loved to improvise while playing. Actually, what characterizes Mozart best is, I think, that the double meaning of 'play' coincides in Mozart. So I guess piano concerto is the genre that was most natural for Mozart to compose which can explain why he wrote so many of them. And this is why, I think, nobody beats Mozart in the genre of the piano concerto. Mozart equals piano concerto. Yes, as a 'serious' composer Mozart's operas or other works can be his highest achievements but the thing is: Mozart was a playful composer whose music is above all great fun. So listen to his piano concertos and you hear the 'true' Mozart.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> We have already seen the world' best musical scholars or composers try to complete works or fragments of great composers and their efforts fall woefully short. Look at what scholars have tried to do with Mozart's requiem. Many are better composers than Sussmayr was and yet nobody has succeeded in improving upon his admittedly inadequate completion. Go ahead and replace Sussmayr's mediocre sanctus with something truly inspiring in Mozart's style - what you think he would have done - any takers? Nope - thought not.


Well, I wasn't thinking of composing more sections mimicking the style. I was thinking about slightly tweaking what's already completed, as we can find in the scores in which Chopin tweaked some of his own early pieces. In Chopin's case these really were much appreciated improvements.

There's been some famous completions of Bach and Beethoven's 10th. Here's the completion of the Bach fugue from bar 364 when he died. There seems to be an error in bar 367 - which makes this attempt more interesting to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Well, I wasn't thinking of composing more sections mimicking the style. I was thinking about slightly tweaking what's already completed, as we can find in the scores in which Chopin tweaked some of his own early pieces. In Chopin's case these really were much appreciated improvements.
> 
> There's been some famous completions of Bach and Beethoven's 10th. Here's the completion of the Bach fugue from bar 364 when he died. There seems to be an error in bar 367 - which makes this attempt more interesting to me.







Brahms added thirds and sixths to Chopin Etude Op.25 No.2 in F minor. More challenging to play than the original, but not necessarily 'enhanced' musically.
Anyway, I sometimes find it hard to decipher what you're trying to say regarding to the main topic: Are you saying it's interesting some composers tried to tweak their own or others' compositions? Or We should speak our honest opinions on a work only if we know how to rewrite them?


----------



## Larkenfield

If listeners were allowed to "tweak" an already famous work, despite whatever shortcomings they_ think_ it has, it would become false because it didn't come from the mind of the composer who instinctively understand how all the parts fit together in exact detail, whether the listener liked everything or not. The amateurs filled with hubris who think they know better than these great masters, would ruin it! Why? Because the music comes just as much from unconscious inspiration as from the intellect, and just because someone is capable of thinking, it doesn't mean that the composer consciously thought up that particular passage... I can only imagine some of the changes in notes or passages that people would make in Mozart and Beethoven that would not sound characteristic of either of them, because they'd leave their works alone if they understood them in depth in the first place... With the great masters, it's usually all or nothing at all. There's no halfway measures in their works or they never would have written what they did.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> If listeners were allowed to "tweak" an already famous work, despite whatever shortcomings they_ think_ it has, it would become false because it didn't come from the mind of the composer who instinctively understand how all the parts fit together in exact detail, whether the listener liked everything or not. The amateurs filled with hubris who think they know better than these great masters, would ruin it! I can only imagine some of the changes in notes or passages that people would make in Mozart and Beethoven that would not sound characteristic of either of them because they'd leave their works alone if they understood them in depth in the first place... With the great masters, it's usually all or nothing at all. There's no halfway measures in their works or they never would have written what they did.


Mozart reorchestrated Handel's _Messiah,_ adding winds and brass where Handel didn't think they were needed and even adding some melodic figuration to the accompaniments here and there.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Mozart reorchestrated Handel's _Messiah,_ adding winds and brass where Handel didn't think they were needed and even adding some melodic figuration to the accompaniments here and there.


Mozart set Handel's work to a german text and adapted it in various ways for specific performances in front of the nobility. He made cuts, made changes here and there necessary to accomodate a symphony orchestra of those times and adapted it in a way that he thought would be appropriate to all the circumstances. He dispenses with an alto - using instead 2 sopranos - consistent with contemporary practice and taste.

I understand that Mozart's version being performed in the 19thC was largely responsible for the work becoming famous and popular though of course his version is more or less disregarded now.

I dont think this is quite the same as armchair composers claiming they can improve Mozart sonatas but I understand why you brought it up.

Ive never really much liked Handel's Messiah but I see people on Amazon saying it is a revelation - I must give it a listen.


----------



## KenOC

Although I have some rudimentary music editing capabilities, I would never alter a composer's intent. Well, except sometimes where there are too many repeats, or the composer put the movements in the wrong order, stuff like that. I'm sure the composers, were they aware of my efforts on their behalf, would thank me!


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier- "Brahms added thirds and sixths to Chopin Etude Op.25 No.2 in F minor. More challenging to play than the original, but not necessarily 'enhanced' musically.
Anyway, I sometimes find it hard to decipher what you're trying to say regarding to the main topic: Are you saying it's interesting some composers tried to tweak their own or others' compositions? Or We should speak our honest opinions on a work only if we know how to rewrite them?"

I expected someone would bring up the hacking of the Chopin etudes. Godowsky added many more notes, but you're right, Chopin's originals are far more intelligent for artistic expression.






No, what I was saying was, I've heard a gaggle of complaints about many compositions by great composers (especially those before Brahms, because those are the simplest to conceive of, I guess), but I've never heard anybody specify what they would change in those scores. Do people really believe that notes can be changed or deleted for an improvement? Maybe they can. I'm intrigued by that. What do you think?


----------



## Woodduck

People had a more casual attitude about textual accuracy and faithfulness to the composer back then. That applied even to contemporary music, not just older music. Composers were prepared to adapt their own music and that of others to fit the circumstances of performance. Agreed, that isn't the same as thinking we can "improve" the works of great composers, and Mozart probably didn't think he was doing so, but who knows for sure what he thought?


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> I expected someone would bring up the hacking of the Chopin etudes. Godowsky added many more notes, but you're right, Chopin's originals are far more intelligent for artistic expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I was saying was, I've heard a gaggle of complaints about many compositions by great composers (especially those before Brahms, because those are the simplest to conceive of, I guess), but I've never heard anybody specify what they would change in those scores. Do people really believe that notes can be changed or deleted for an improvement? Maybe they can. I'm intrigued by that. What do you think?


Why do you assume that people's criticisms of music are objections to the way it's composed? I made this point in post #119: "You'll rarely hear anyone say that a piece by Mozart or Beethoven is poorly constructed. What people will always disagree about is meaning, significance and value in art, even if they agree on technical questions."

What most people like or dislike about a piece isn't going to be affected by a few tweaks to the score. Musicians might approach certain works with such considerations in mind - "he should have abridged the coda" or "the figuration is unnecessarily dense" - but the great composers aren't prone to such lapses in judgment, and most of the people you're challenging don't have such compositional features in mind.


----------



## fluteman

stomanek said:


> Ive never really much liked Handel's Messiah but I see people on Amazon saying it is a revelation - I must give it a listen.


I think Handel's Messiah is a perfect example of the principle that any piece of music, even the very greatest, can be heard too often. If you've ever had the privilege of being involved in a performance, either in a chorus or orchestra, you know how astoundingly great and beautiful it is. But Handel was light years away from being a one work composer. Of his contemporaries, only Bach's achievement was greater, and third place isn't even in the rear view mirror. It frustrates me that the Messiah is performed nearly to the exclusion of the rest of his work.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"For the 1846 performance Wagner borrowed the orchestral material from the Leipzig Concert Society, which he marked according to his own musical demands. Central to those demands was the balance of the orchestra. In late Classical and early Romantic music, woodwind and brass instruments were traditionally doubled in loud passages. Although Wagner was not completely opposed to that approach, he felt that it needed to be refined and extended. 
In his influential article of 1873, 'Zum Vortrage der neunten Symphonie Beethoven's' ('Performing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony'), he set out his ideas about how that could be achieved and his reasons for modifying the work's existing orchestration. For Wagner, Beethoven's deafness, and the more primitive instruments available to him, meant that certain passages lacked clarity and brilliance. Wagner's aim was to rectify these shortcomings" 
(<The iconic symphony: performing Beethoven's Ninth Wagner's Way> by Raymond Holden https://www.jstor.org/stable/41440727?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents )


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Why do you assume that people's criticisms of music are objections to the way it's composed? I made this point in post #119: "You'll rarely hear anyone say that a piece by Mozart or Beethoven is poorly constructed. What people will always disagree about is meaning, significance and value in art, even if they agree on technical questions."
> 
> What most people like or dislike about a piece isn't going to be affected by a few tweaks to the score. Musicians might approach certain works with such considerations in mind - "he should have abridged the coda" or "the figuration is unnecessarily dense" - but the great composers aren't prone to such lapses in judgment, and most of he people you're challenging don't have such compositional features in mind.


"What people will always disagree about is meaning, significance and value in art..."

That's what posters are doing? Well in that case I'd like to hear more from them. Do you have examples of them disagreeing about the meaning and significance of Mozart works versus Beethoven's works? TC should have some, but I don't remember any.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> "What people will always disagree about is meaning, significance and value in art..."
> 
> That's what posters are doing? Well in that case I'd like to hear more from them. Do you have examples of them disagreeing about the meaning and significance of Mozart works versus Beethoven's works? TC should have some, but I don't remember any.


What else do you think criticisms are, if not value judgments? They're everywhere on this forum. Do I keep files on other people's likes and dislikes? What do you think? Honestly, I don't know what you're aiming at here.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> What else do you think criticisms are, if not value judgments? They're everywhere on this forum. Do I keep files on other people's likes and dislikes? What do you think? Honestly, I don't know what you're aiming at here.


I was happy to hear you say - ""You'll rarely hear anyone say that a piece by Mozart or Beethoven is poorly constructed. What people will always disagree about is meaning, significance and value in art..."

I guess I'll have to wait for the next post talking about this and then the reply to this. I'm new here.


----------



## Larkenfield

Tweaking! The difference is that it was Chopin who tweaked his own works and not an amateur who thinks he knows better. Virtually all composers subject their works to a certain amount of revisions. It's considered normal if they have the time and interest to do it. How would someone here like a stranger to add words they didn't say, or rewrite their posts on the basis of what they thought the person meant, or decided to put it into different words? The original author would most likely resent it. Whatever shortcomings a work _may_ have according to someone's limited or misguided understanding, it's the shortcomings of the composer, not the revisions of a perfect stranger, and I believe is still better, more authentic than trying to tweak the works of a genius..


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Tweaking! The difference is that it was Chopin who tweaked his own works and not an amateur who thinks he knows better. Virtually all composers subject their works to a certain amount of revisions. It's considered normal if they have the time and interest to do it. How would someone here like a stranger to add words they didn't say, or rewrite their posts on the basis of what they thought the person meant, or decided to put it into different words? The original author would most likely resent it. Whatever shortcomings a work _may_ have, according to someone's limited or misguided understanding, It's the shortcomings of the composer, not the revisions of a perfect stranger, and I believe is still better, more authentic than tampering with it.


As you probably know, LvB wanted some higher notes in at least one of his middle sonatas. Would it have been better or is it better the way he didn't want it?


----------



## fluteman

Larkenfield said:


> Tweaking! The difference is that it was Chopin who tweaked his own works and not an amateur who thinks he knows better. Virtually all composers subject their works to a certain amount of revisions.


The exception (supposedly)? Mozart, who is said to have had his music fully composed in his mind before he put pen to paper. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he may have come close.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> The exception (supposedly)? Mozart, who is said to have had his music fully composed in his mind before he put pen to paper. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he may have come close.


His wife trashed many of his papers so we'll never know.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The exception (supposedly)? Mozart, who is said to have had his music fully composed in his mind before he put pen to paper. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he may have come close.


It is a bit of an exaggeration. Mozart preferred to compose at the piano.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> It is a bit of an exaggeration. Mozart preferred to compose at the piano.


Mozart did indeed compose at the piano, if not always at least much of the time, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. One of his works (I forget which and can't look it up right now, perhaps you know) lacks the piano part altogether because he himself played it when the work was performed and he never got around to putting it on paper at all. Beethoven, perhaps in contrast, made all sorts of major modifications on paper, as can be seen from his manuscripts.


----------



## fluteman

Looking back at this, I cannot remember and could not find which Mozart work has a missing piano part. However, I did confirm that Mozart never wrote down the left-hand part for the piano in his piano concerto no. 26, (the 'Coronation', K. 537), and that he performed the piano part for the violin sonata K. 454 without having written it out at all. This confirms that at least for his piano music, and at least on some occasions, Mozart had things pretty much worked out before he put pen to paper.


Woodduck said:


> Mozart lovers, in particular, seem always on the edge of bursting into the triumphant comparison, and the slightest expression of skepticism, dislike or indifference to their idol, no matter how thoughtfully expressed, will set them off.


Hmm. That may be so for some Mozart lovers, but not me. I might make a "triumphant comparison" between Mozart and, say, a lesser contemporary like Hoffmeister, but to me art is not tennis, with rankings, head-to-head matches and tournaments, much as some here at TC try to turn it into that. Each great artist makes his or her own unique contribution to our culture. It isn't a competition, though from a business perspective, there may well be competition between artists of the same time and place. Ironically, Mozart wasn't good at the business end, so if we're thinking about music as a competition, he was more of a loser.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Looking back at this, I cannot remember and could not find which Mozart work has a missing piano part. However, I did confirm that Mozart never wrote down the left-hand part for the piano in his piano concerto no. 26, (the 'Coronation', K. 537), and that he performed the piano part for the violin sonata K. 454 without having written it out at all. This confirms that at least for his piano music, and at least on some occasions, Mozart had things pretty much worked out before he put pen to paper.
> 
> Hmm. That may be so for some Mozart lovers, but not me. I might make a "triumphant comparison" between Mozart and, say, a lesser contemporary like Hoffmeister, but to me art is not tennis, with rankings, head-to-head matches and tournaments, much as some here at TC try to turn it into that. Each great artist makes his or her own unique contribution to our culture. It isn't a competition, though from a business perspective, there may well be competition between artists of the same time and place. Ironically, Mozart wasn't good at the business end, so if we're thinking about music as a competition, he was more of a loser.


New York University economics professors William and Hilda Baumol figure Mozart earned close to 1,711 florins a year, comparable to $495,000 today.


----------



## PlaySalieri

fluteman said:


> Looking back at this, I cannot remember and could not find which Mozart work has a missing piano part. However, I did confirm that Mozart never wrote down the left-hand part for the piano in his piano concerto no. 26, (the 'Coronation', K. 537), and that he performed the piano part for the violin sonata K. 454 without having written it out at all. This confirms that at least for his piano music, and at least on some occasions, Mozart had things pretty much worked out before he put pen to paper.
> 
> Hmm. That may be so for some Mozart lovers, but not me. I might make a "triumphant comparison" between Mozart and, say, a lesser contemporary like Hoffmeister, but to me art is not tennis, with rankings, head-to-head matches and tournaments, much as some here at TC try to turn it into that. Each great artist makes his or her own unique contribution to our culture. It isn't a competition, though from a business perspective, there may well be competition between artists of the same time and place. Ironically, Mozart wasn't good at the business end, so if we're thinking about music as a competition, he was more of a loser.


The sad truth of Mozart's money affairs is that his manuscripts were worth significant sums once he had died. he had his hey day and earned well in Vienna - living like a Prince in the most fashionable district - but his concerts went out of fashion a bit and he downsized several times. Constanze made large sums by selling his MS and arranging concerts to her benefit.


----------



## DeepR

A little off topic but there was talk of Mozart's version of Handel's Messiah. 
I have the DVD with the Bach-Collegium Stuttgart, conducted by Helmuth Rilling. Highly recommended!


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> New York University economics professors William and Hilda Baumol figure Mozart earned close to 1,711 florins a year, comparable to $495,000 today.





stomanek said:


> The sad truth of Mozart's money affairs is that his manuscripts were worth significant sums once he had died. he had his hey day and earned well in Vienna - living like a Prince in the most fashionable district - but his concerts went out of fashion a bit and he downsized several times. Constanze made large sums by selling his MS and arranging concerts to her benefit.


But he was pretty much broke at the end, wasn't he? And not just at the end. Living and partying like a prince seems to have been part of the problem, but he also seemed not to give a very high priority to his business affairs. In the end he was desperate to find a way to finish the Requiem for financial reasons, though he was too ill to do it himself. Posters in this thread and listeners thorough the years have complained about Sussmayr's final (though still not complete) version, and we can safely assume that a healthy and solvent Mozart would never have tolerated it, but he and Constanze needed the money from the wealthy patron who commissioned it, and that is why we have it today.
Constanze lived a very long time after his death, and no doubt did everything she could to monetize his legacy, precisely because she was not left a substantial estate. She did ultimately remarry.
The late William Baumol was a very prominent and respected economist, btw.


----------



## KenOC

There was a theory a few years ago that Mozart's financial troubles arose from a gambling addiction. Haven't heard that lately. Telemann's wife had such an addiction and came close to bankrupting him; he was saved only by friends and an enormous musical productivity.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

IMO, the late piano concerti.


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> There was a theory a few years ago that Mozart's financial troubles arose from a gambling addiction. Haven't heard that lately. Telemann's wife had such an addiction and came close to bankrupting him; he was saved only by friends and an enormous musical productivity.


Fortunate then that Telemann's music was so popular during his lifetime. According to some musical historians, Telemann's music was more highly thought of than that of his nearly exact contemporary Bach.


----------



## Larkenfield

I think Mozart simply wrote down what he heard in his head—and it wasn’t always necessary for him to use a piano—and the idea of being “innovative” rarely entered into it, to his credit as a waste of time. It was all set up in advance and he wrote down the notes about as accurately as anyone could have ever possibly done. Beethoven was great at that too, but it seemed to take him much more trial and error before he felt he had it right. But it doesn’t really matter because some listeners aren’t willing to give Mozart wholehearted credit for anything, nothing to be overwhelmed by or In awe of by his consummate skill of mastery... on the other hand, he always seemed to me to be in his creative zone as a composer, and I can’t think of one exception unless it’s a work that was written by someone else and mistakenly attributed to him, like his so-called third symphony that is now attributed to his father Leopold and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf.


----------



## Pyotr

Mozart may have been broke when he died, but he was only 35. How many 35 year olds today are without the debt of a house, college, car? If he lived longer he would have figured it out and improved his money management.


----------



## Pyotr

I think every young artist wants to be innovative — blaze a new trail, do something never done before. Mozart saw the piano as a way to do this. In the second half of the 18th century, the piano was still in the process of being perfected. It wasn’t until 1847, that one was built that met Bach’s approval, although even then Bach preferred the harpsicord. The Viennese fortepiano, built by Johann Andreas Stein, was the one that impressed Wolfgang so much that he wrote that very widely-quoted letter to his father in 1777 extolling its virtues — he was like a kid in a candy store. 
In his mind, I believe, the violin was passé and old fashioned. He actually preferred the viola to the violin. He produced those five violin concertos because, at the time, that was “what sells ” although I consider them his greatest achievement. Music is about personal preference, it’s not about what the composer thinks, it’s about what the listener feels.


----------



## fluteman

Pyotr said:


> Mozart may have been broke when he died, but he was only 35. How many 35 year olds today are without the debt of a house, college, car? If he lived longer he would have figured it out and improved his money management.


Yes, perhaps so. One could say the same of other famous artists who died tragically young, Dylan Thomas, for example. But although the exact cause of Mozart's death is not certain, like Thomas, he did live hard and party hard, and that includes drinking hard. In order to survive into old age, some temperance, good judgment and emotional stability is required even during one's reckless youth. More than one of the friends of my own youth didn't make it.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Couchie said:


> On the contrary his solo keyboard work is dull to listen to and even more of a chore to play.
> 
> As a piano student you typically have to choose between a Beethoven or Mozart sonata for exam classical-era requirements. *NOBODY PICKS MOZART.*


Missed this earlier.

I picked Mozart. My teacher suggested Beethoven's Op.79. I tried it, found it entertaining but uninvolving and very much "a chore to play", went for Mozart's K332 instead and enjoyed every note.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I am no pianist but suspect that playing Mozart's piano music is a very risky venture for a student. Mozart seems simple but to make it work as well as it can needs a very special touch. In the right hands Mozart's sonatas belong in the same bracket as Beethoven's.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Mozart lovers, in particular, seem always on the edge of bursting into the triumphant *comparison*, and the slightest expression of skepticism, dislike or indifference to their idol, no matter how thoughtfully expressed, will set them off.


I've not noticed that myself. I am a huge Mozart fan (and OK you didn't say "*all *Mozart fans") but have always found comparisons between him and the few other composers who are of equal or similar greatness to be very difficult. I can go straight to the things that thrill me in Beethoven and Bach, and I can talk about them, but with Mozart it is much harder. How is it that music that can superficially sound merely pretty and convention-bound (or even sterile) turns out again and again to be anything but ... and to do so in so many different ways in different pieces? I generally say Mozart is my Number 1 composer because of this, because his greatness is so hard to pin down.


----------



## Xisten267

To me: the five last operas plus _Idomeneo_ and _Die Entführung aus dem Serail_, the last six symphonies plus K. 183, K. 201 and K. 297, the last piano concertos (particularly K. 466, K. 467, K. 488, K. 491 and K. 595), the works for clarinet soloist (both the quintet and the concerto), the final sacred compositions (not only the _"Great" Mass_, the _Requiem_ and _Ave Verum Corpus_ but also K. 321, K. 337 and K. 339), the late chamber music (particularly the string quintets starting with K. 406), the last five serenades (starting with the _"Posthorn"_) and the final divertimenti (starting with K. 334). Also some of the last fantasias and piano sonatas, and the _Sinfonia Concertante_.

If somehow I was forbidden to listen to all pieces by Mozart for the rest of my life but one of my choice, today I would choose _Die Zauberflöte_.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Clarinet Concerto
Clarinet Quintet
String Quintet 4
Haydn Quartets
Symphonies 40 and 41
Great Mass in C Minor
Sinfonia Concertante


----------



## consuono

The Marriage of Figaro.


----------



## ORigel

Late Piano Concerti 
Clarinet Concerto
Operas (at _least Magic Flute_ and _Cosi Fan Tutti_-- I've only listened to them and _Don Giovanni_ so far


----------



## Bigbang

Enthusiast said:


> I've not noticed that myself. I am a huge Mozart fan (and OK you didn't say "*all *Mozart fans") but have always found comparisons between him and the few other composers who are of equal or similar greatness to be very difficult. I can go straight to the things that thrill me in Beethoven and Bach, and I can talk about them, but with Mozart it is much harder. How is it that music that can superficially sound merely pretty and convention-bound (or even sterile) turns out again and again to be anything but ... and to do so in so many different ways in different pieces? I generally say Mozart is my Number 1 composer because of this, because his greatness is so hard to pin down.


You might win the Nobel Prize if you can figure it out. Hard to understand how a guy wrote music over two hundred years ago can be a best seller for all kinds of listeners. Maybe we ought to force feed Mozart to those who resist............


----------



## Simplicissimus

Might as well jump in here as this thread has gotten me to think through my relationship with Mozart. Certainly Mozart could write tremendously in all forms and I like pretty much everything of his, but my personal preferences are as follows:

string quintets > string quartets 14-19 > symphonies 35-41 > sonatas for piano and violin > operas > everything else

The amazing thing about Mozart for me is that I get out of him what I put into him. As other contributers have commented, his music can sound superficial or just "nice," but if you listen with an informed and critical ear, there's a whole lot there, IMO.


----------



## wkasimer

Enthusiast said:


> Mozart seems simple but to make it work as well as it can needs a very special touch.


I think that it was Schnabel who described Mozart as "too easy for amateurs, too difficult for professionals".


----------



## Enthusiast

The peak of Mozart's works? Mozart's works are a mountain range with many peaks. Many works from K300 onward are great and a good few before that as well.


----------



## Agamenon

Olias said:


> Sorry I can't remember the source for the quote but Mozart said something to the effect of:
> 
> "I am an opera composer who writes piano concerti for a living and chamber music for my friends."


Totally!. He was a *super composer of operas.* His piano sonatas are interesting, but as another poster replied, few,few, few students choose this sonatas for exam classical era requirements. In my college ,nobody picks these sonatas for the exams.

DON GIOVANNI IS THE QUEEN OF THE OPERAS


----------



## hammeredklavier

Agamenon said:


> His piano sonatas are interesting, but as another poster replied, few,few, few students choose this sonatas for exam classical era requirements. In my college ,nobody picks these sonatas for the exams.


Not necessarily because they're "bad". Because of the way the piano changed through the centuries, big 19th/20th century pieces tend to be a better medium for testing pianists' physical technique. I asked in another thread "so how many other composers wrote better sets of keyboard works in the late 18th century (aside from J. Haydn, Clementi, C.P.E. Bach)?" Nobody could answer. This continuous vendetta against Mozart's piano sonatas by some members in the past few days is getting tiresome.
Are you Couchie by any chance?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthusiast said:


> The peak of Mozart's works? Mozart's works are a mountain range with many peaks. Many works from K300 onward are great and a good few before that as well.


I find that there's a buttload of good stuff in the K.0~300 range as well.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Not necessarily because they're "bad". Because of the way the piano changed through the centuries, big 19th/20th century pieces tend to be a better medium for testing pianists' physical technique. I asked in another thread "so how many other composers wrote better sets of keyboard works in the late 18th century (aside from J. Haydn, Clementi, C.P.E. Bach)?" Nobody could answer. This continuous vendetta against Mozart's piano sonatas by some members in the past few days is getting tiresome.


It's not a continuous vendetta. Why did you exclude Haydn, Clementi and C.P.E. Bach from your question? There's your answer. That's like asking "what other symphonies (other than those by Haydn, Mozart, Brahms, Mahler, Tchaikovsky and Sibelius) are better than Beethoven's?"
No, Mozart's piano sonatas are not "bad". They suffer though in comparison to his whole great body of work. *In my opinion* they're among the weakest items in the list of Mozart's works. But they're very good for students in learning how to play with clarity and precision, no question. And also in learning how sonata form works. I suspect that's what their original purpose was anyway.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Missa longa K.262, a contrapuntal masterpiece. The Cum sanctu spiritu in this missa is the only triple fugue by Mozart that I know. (the subjects of the Domine jesu from the Requiem don't combine in the end, it doesn't count as a triple fugue.)






I wrote about this some time ago:
_In missa longa K262 for example, the way he creates contrast and tension and then relieves them is masterful. At 10:48, there is this serene, lyrical section "Et incarnatus est", but at 11:41, the C minor "Crucifixus" hits like a thunderbolt, and then in going from the dominant to a new key in G major, 12:38 "Et resurrexit" (with somewhat "neo-Handelian" characteristics of effect) counteracts and relieves the tension. The use of strettos in "Et vitam venturi" 18:00 is just masterful as well._



hammeredklavier said:


> *3:00 ~ 3:24
> 5:39 ~ 6:41
> 7:30 ~ 7:50
> 13:13 ~ 15:27*


So you get the basic idea. the way Mozart paints chromaticism on the white canvas of diatonicism, to create tension and contrast is unique in each of these pieces.
spatzenmesse K220 ( 2:40 , 6:00 )
credomesse K.257 ( 7:18 ~ 10:00 )
missa trinitatis K.167 ( 4:29 , 9:47 )
spaurmesse K.258 ( 2:30 , 6:00 )
missa longa K.262 ( 4:53, 11:21 )
kronungsmesse K.317 ( 4:30 , 9:25 )
missa aulica K.337 ( 7:16 )

To me, these are the best stuff he wrote at 16:


----------



## Heck148

I've not ploughed thru the 18 pages on this thread - 
top Mozart - for me - Don Giovanni, Marriage/Figaro, Magic Flute
Last 6 symphonies, all of which have been named many times, I'm sure -

an absolutely top drawer Mozart work for me is the Quintet in Eb K. 452 for Piano and Winds [ob,cl,hn,bn]...this is a great piece....the writing is exquisite, both the solo and ensemble parts - wonderful dialogues between the members, it all fits in so perfectly...

This work, of course, inspired the young Beethoven to compose for the same group - and his Opus 16 is really excellent, also...the two together make a great and popuilar concert program....many groups perform the works in chronological order - Mozart, then Beethoven, but we did it differently - we programmed it according to when, in the composer's development, it was written - that means the early/young Beethoven goes first; the mature Mozart concludes...worked very well.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^If I recall correctly Mozart considered the Quintet for Piano and Winds the greatest thing he had written up to that point. A lovely work it is; I tend to prefer Wolfie’s chamber music above all his other genres.


----------



## Gray Bean

The Da Ponte operas.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> But they're very good for students in learning how to play with clarity and precision, no question. And also in learning how sonata form works. I suspect that's what their original purpose was anyway.


You know, you could say these things about Haydn and Beethoven sonatas too. tdc and I explained to you many times already. And Mozart gets far more away from mere "scales and arpeggios" in K.533, K.576. 





Haydn and Schubert weren't virtuoso keyboardists, their keyboard writing wasn't any more efficient than Mozart and Clementi.

*[ 6:00 ]*, or leaps in the final movement:




thirds and sixths in K.394:








Stop telling me other composers are somehow different regarding this issue. I'm not particularly impressed by the the "incomplete contrapuntal exercise" inserted in the ending of sonata in A flat Op.110, for example. It's not some kind of "a work of divine, cosmic expression that we must treat differently". The same way Hummel sonata in F sharp minor Op.81 (1819) is not.

An étude (/ˈeɪtjuːd/; French: [e.tyd], meaning 'study') is an instrumental musical composition, usually short, of considerable difficulty, and *designed to provide practice material for perfecting a particular musical skill.*

The modern German spelling for the collection is Das wohltemperierte Klavier (WTK; German pronunciation: [das ˌvoːlˌtɛmpəˈʁiːɐ̯tə klaˈviːɐ̯]). Bach gave the title Das Wohltemperirte Clavier to a book of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys, dated 1722, *composed "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study"*

Chopin Nocturnes, which you described as being a greater artistic achievement than Wagner's Ring cycle (the "ugly quarter-hours"), were mostly written for Chopin's own amateur piano students, many of whom were 'countesses' such as Delfina Potocka, and daughters of wealthy families, such as Charlotte de Rothschild. Because in those days, girls and women of "cultured" families were encouraged to play that sort of music in their drawing rooms to create intimate atmosphere.





also, see Charles Mayer


----------



## millionrainbows

Symphonies 39, 40, & 41.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> Haydn and Schubert weren't virtuoso keyboardists, their keyboard writing wasn't any more efficient than Mozart and Clementi.


It may not be more "efficient", but in my opinion it's greater music. "Efficient"??



> Chopin Nocturnes, which you described as being a greater artistic achievement than Wagner's Ring cycle (the "ugly quarter-hours"), were mostly written for Chopin's own amateur piano students, many of whom were 'countesses' such as Delfina Potocka, and daughters of wealthy families, such as Charlotte de Rothschild. Because in those days, girls and women of "cultured" families were encouraged to play that sort of music in their drawing rooms to create intimate atmosphere.


Yes, and I do agree that Bach and Chopin were more successful at making pedagogical pieces into great music than Mozart was.


----------



## janxharris

The 40th symphony - wow.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Yes, and I do agree that Bach and Chopin were more successful at making pedagogical pieces into great music than Mozart was.


I think they're just different from Mozart. For one thing, Bach didn't write sonatas for four hands, Chopin didn't write fantasies for organ. Why do you always feel the need to keep following me along, demanding me to admit [some composer]'s [certain works] are "not good". (which I already did) And how many times do you have to repeat it? (You said it's your "blind spot", and *I get it.*) Are you getting "sadistic pleasure" from it? I usually don't go into threads about certain composers or their works to express my negative opinions about them for apparent no reason (unless I'm defending another composer). Maybe you're the one insecure about the general quality of your favorite composers' output (whoever they are) compared to Mozart's? Perhaps that explains your obsession to establish "Mozart's sonatas are poorly-written" as a fact? Ask yourself what's the point of listening to classical music. Isn't it just for our enjoyment? And not necessarily "ranking things" in it?



consuono said:


> It's a stupid game.


Indeed, it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> I think they're just different from Mozart. For one thing, Bach didn't write sonatas for four hands, Chopin didn't write fantasies for organ. Why do you always feel the need to keep following me along, demanding me to admit [some composer]'s [certain works] are "not good". (which I already did) And how many times do you have to repeat it? (You said it's your "blind spot", and I get it.) Are you getting "sadistic pleasure" from it? I usually don't go into threads about certain composers or their works to express my negative opinions about them for apparent no reason (unless I'm defending another composer). Maybe you're the one insecure about the general quality of your favorite composers' output (whoever they are) compared to Mozart's? Perhaps that explains your obsession to establish "Mozart's sonatas are poorly-written" as a fact? Ask yourself what's the point of listening to classical music. Isn't it just for our enjoyment? And not necessarily "ranking things" in it?


Hey Hammered, cool down! It's only the opinion of some guy on the internet in his underwear!


----------



## trazom

consuono said:


> But they're very good for students in learning how to play with clarity and precision, no question. And also in learning how sonata form works. I suspect that's what their original purpose was anyway.


Most were written to sell to amateur pianists and the ones that weren't, like k.333, were for Mozart's own personal use. Sonata form wasn't codified as a thing to examine and learn from until the 19th century.


----------



## consuono

trazom said:


> ...Sonata form wasn't codified as a thing to examine and learn from until the 19th century.


Sorry, but that's hogwash.


----------



## trazom

consuono said:


> Sorry, but that's hogwash.


Now there's a cogent and compelling counterargument...


----------



## consuono

millionrainbows said:


> Hey Hammered, cool down! It's only the opinion of some guy on the internet in his underwear!


Says the guy on the Internet in his underwear to his buds on the Internet in their underwear.


----------



## consuono

trazom said:


> Now there's a cogent and compelling counterargument...


And unlike yours, factual.


----------



## trazom

consuono said:


> And unlike yours, factual.


Sorry, but asserting things over and over without any proof is not a valid argument. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion



> The definition of sonata form in terms of musical elements sits uneasily between two historical eras. Although the late 18th century witnessed the most exemplary achievements in the form, above all from Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, compositional theory of the time did not use the term "sonata form". Perhaps the most extensive contemporary description of the sonata-form type of movement may have been given by the theorist Heinrich Christoph Koch in 1793: like earlier German theorists and unlike many of the descriptions of the form we are used to today, he defined it in terms of the movement's plan of modulation and principal cadences, without saying a great deal about the treatment of themes. Seen in this way, sonata form was closest to binary form, out of which it probably developed.[6]
> 
> The model of the form that is often taught currently tends to be more thematically differentiated. It was originally promulgated by Anton Reicha in Traité de haute composition musicale in 1826, by Adolf Bernhard Marx in Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition in 1845, and by Carl Czerny in 1848. Marx may be the originator of the term "sonata form". This model was derived from study and criticism of Beethoven's piano sonatas.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Why do you always feel the need to keep following me along


By the way I'm not following you anywhere. I reply to your comments directed to me. Why do you have to go around here continually sniffing for mentions of the name Mozart?


----------



## consuono

trazom said:


> Although the late 18th century witnessed the most exemplary achievements in the form, above all from Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, compositional theory of the time did not use the term "sonata form".


But it existed, it was a thing, it was a form being used quite frequently and it was emulated and adopted by many composers in the latter half of the 18th century. They didn't all just come upon the idea independently at the same time by amazing coincidence. OK?


----------



## trazom

consuono said:


> But it existed, it was a thing, it was a form being used quite frequently and it was emulated and adopted by many composers in the latter half of the 18th century. They didn't all just come upon the idea independently at the same time by amazing coincidence. OK?


Except that I never argued against any of this in my original post. I said Mozart wrote his sonatas to sell and the rest were for himself to perform. The use of his sonatas to refine technical skill and teach sonata form describes how they are used _now_ rather than Mozart's reasons for composing them.


----------



## consuono

trazom said:


> Except that I never argued against any of this in my original post. I said Mozart wrote his sonatas to sell and the rest were for himself to perform. The use of his sonatas to refine technical skill and teach sonata form describes how they are used _now_ rather than Mozart's reasons for composing them.


And one reason someone might have wanted to buy it is try to get an idea as to how Mozart composed and study his technique... anymore hairs to split or references to throw out there?
At any rate I said I *suspect* that's what the purpose of the sonatas were. I never claimed to have documentary proof. They certainly don't feel like virtuosic showpieces like his concertos which definitely were for his public performances, for the most part.


----------



## trazom

consuono said:


> And one reason someone might have wanted to buy it is try to get an idea as to how Mozart composed and study his technique... anymore hairs to split or references to throw out there?
> At any rate I said I *suspect* that's what the purpose of the sonatas were. I never claimed to have documentary proof. They certainly don't feel like virtuosic showpieces like his concertos which definitely were for his public performances, for the most part.


You keep projecting reasons for purchasing a sonata onto an audience from a completely different time and culture. Most of the people these sonatas were being sold to, depending on where they were published, were amateur and female musicians where music and playing piano was used as a social function, also called private music or _hausmusik_. And obviously, if there were no standard or codified definitions of "sonata form" at that time, they were not going to be used to teach composition in that way.



consuono said:


> They certainly don't feel like virtuosic showpieces like his concertos which definitely were for his public performances, for the most part.


Have you heard all of them? The finales are of k.333, k.576, or 332, or the opening movement of K.533 are very showy. The finale of K.333 even has its own cadenza.


----------



## SanAntone

flamencosketches said:


> I apologize if this thread has been done before, but it seemed like it could be an interesting discussion.
> 
> Mozart belongs to a rare class of composers in that he excelled in almost every genre he undertook, from opera to symphony to chamber ensembles to solo pieces.
> 
> In your opinion, which form of composition was his greatest strength? I suspect many will say opera, and that may be the right answer. I'm a new fan of his (and not too big on opera in general to be honest) and have heard very little of his operas. But as mentioned before he has made gems in almost every genre of classical music at the time.
> 
> Personally, I think his symphonies are my favorite of his work, once he started to really hit his stride with it around the 25th. He had a lot of talent in structure and orchestration. I'm a big fan of the piano concertos as well, but I haven't heard any of the early ones (1-11).
> 
> What do you think?


I would suggest it would be between his operas and his piano concertos..


----------



## consuono

trazom said:


> ...
> Have you heard all of them? The finales are of k.333, k.576, or 332, or the opening movement of K.533 are very showy. The finale of K.333 even has its own cadenza.


Yes. And I've played them.


----------



## isorhythm

I might have answered this thread before, I don't remember, but for me, it's: piano concertos 17-27, clarinet concerto, clarinet quintet, piano quartets, Figaro, Don Giovanni, and the Magic Flute.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I think they're just different from Mozart. For one thing, Bach didn't write sonatas for four hands, Chopin didn't write fantasies for organ. Why do you always feel the need to keep following me along, demanding me to admit [some composer]'s [certain works] are "not good". (which I already did) And how many times do you have to repeat it? (You said it's your "blind spot", and I get it.) Are you getting "sadistic pleasure" from it? *I usually don't go into threads about certain composers or their works to express my negative opinions about them for apparent no reason (unless I'm defending another composer).* Maybe you're the one insecure about the general quality of your favorite composers' output (whoever they are) compared to Mozart's? Perhaps that explains your obsession to establish "Mozart's sonatas are poorly-written" as a fact? Ask yourself what's the point of listening to classical music. Isn't it just for our enjoyment? And not necessarily "ranking things" in it?


*Actually you do*, and over the last two years you have been entering in harsh discussions with other members (yes, this includes myself) because you are disrespecful towards the composers you don't like (Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin and others) and, lately, *with other members as well*. I can refresh your memory with links to these discussions if it's really needed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> *Actually you do*, and over the last two years you have been entering in harsh discussions with other members (yes, this includes myself) because you are disrespecful towards the composers you don't like (Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin and many others) and, lately, *with other members aswell*. I can refresh your memory with links to these discussions if it's really needed.


I apologize if you found them offensive (Believe me, I wasn't necessarily trying to mock you or Beethoven with a mocking tone in that thread), but I still think we were having a pretty reasonable conversation. I still respect the views you expressed in that thread, you're entitled to them. 
Your expression of opinions on Bach's use of rhythm and dynamics, Brahms and Tchaikovsky's inventiveness, Mozart's variety perfectly constitutes a "fair, valid criticism", - whereas mine on Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin doesn't. (If that's what you think, then so be it.) You know, you can just add me to your ignore list and pretend I don't exist. I still like you as a person, (I also like many others, consuono, phil, and mill, - I think all of you people are wonderful), I hope you have a very nice day, sir. =)



Allerius said:


> From now on I'll add you to my ignore list


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I apologize if you found them offensive (Believe me, I wasn't necessarily trying to mock you or Beethoven with a mocking tone in that thread), but I still think we were having a pretty reasonable conversation. I still respect the views you expressed in that thread, you're entitled to them.
> *Your expression of opinions on Bach's use of rhythm and dynamics, Brahms and Tchaikovsky's inventiveness, Mozart's variety perfectly constitutes a "fair, valid criticism", - whereas mine on Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin doesn't.* (If that's what you think, then so be it.)





hammeredklavier said:


> You know, you can just add me to your ignore list and pretend I don't exist. I still like you as a person, (like how I do many others, including consuono, phil, and mill, - I think all of you are wonderful people), I hope you have a very nice day, sir. =)


I was respectful, and I wasn't criticizing anyone, I was only sharing an inoffensive chart that I made for fun (yes, I like to play with Excel) and said from the beginning that it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Lists abound in this community, I'm not the only one doing them. These were my words:



Allerius said:


> Well, according to my personal "tastometer" (that shouldn't be taken too seriously), and if the weighting system is of 1:1:1:...:1, then: *Beethoven*, *J.S. Bach*, *Wagner* and *Mozart*. It would be interesting for me to see other members trying a similar approach:
> 
> View attachment 135808


Now let's take a look at your valid criticism about Beethoven:



hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny :lol:.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:
> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol: (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)
> 
> Beethoven tried to do stuff like the beginning of Mozart K465 in the beginning of Op.59 No.3, but he didn't really achieve it. His attempts ended up being "bang! bang!", "bam! bam!"





hammeredklavier said:


> I can say that the first movement of Op.111 is the best movement in Beethoven's late piano sonatas --- Because it reminds me of Mozart K475, K426/K546
> 
> You can have the rest. :lol: All that boogie woogie and minimalism with tremolos and trills
> Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!! :lol:
> 
> Brahms: "But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven."
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false


A bit too... "sharp", isn't it?



hammeredklavier said:


> You know, you can just add me to your ignore list and pretend I don't exist. I still like you as a person, (like how I do many others, including consuono, phil, and mill, - I think all of you are wonderful people), I hope you have a very nice day, sir. =)


The ignore function doesn't work well; quotes on ignored members still appear, unfortunately. And if you start saying *things like these* about me and what I say then I have to respond.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Gray Bean

Why, oh why do the rest of us have to put up with two members having a feud? Is this site moderated or not?


----------



## janxharris

Gray Bean said:


> Why, oh why do the rest of us have to put up with two members having a feud? Is this site moderated or not?


Without a member making a report (triangular report button below each post) then the moderators wont react unless they happen to see an offending post.


----------



## Beebert

Requiem
Così fan Tutte
Don Giovanni
The Marriage of Figaro
The Magic Flute
Piano Concertos No 9, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27
Piano Quartets
Quintet for Piano and Winds
String Quartet No 19, "Dissonance"
String Quintets
Symphonies No 39, 40 and 41
Clarinet Quintet
Clarinet Concerto
Sinfonia Concertante
Etc, etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I just learned Jan Swafford's latest book, Mozart: The Reign of Love, will be released in December. I'm looking forward to it with great anticipation, especially after having read his excellent tome on Brahms.


----------



## trazom

Brahmsian Colors said:


> I just learned Jan Swafford's latest book, Mozart: The Reign of Love, will be released in December. I'm looking forward to it with great anticipation, especially after having read his excellent tome on Brahms.


I remember when he did an Ask-Me-Anything back when he released Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph in 2014 he said Mozart would be the topic of his next book. I'm glad to hear it's going to be released soon, though I hope that cringey title isn't a harbinger of what's to come.


----------



## aleazk

The Piano Concertos 20 to 27.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> I find that there's a buttload of good stuff in the K.0~300 range as well.


I'm going to listen to this because the picture's a real cutie.

Ever had a crush on a composer?



Woodduck said:


> Mozart lovers, in particular, seem always on the edge of bursting into the triumphant comparison, and the slightest expression of skepticism, dislike or indifference to their idol, no matter how thoughtfully expressed, will set them off.


There is music before Mozart, and then there is music after Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> I'm going to listen to this because the picture's a real cutie.


Mozart portrait miniature of 'virtually unparalleled' importance to be sold
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/02/mozart-portrait-miniature-to-be-auctioned


----------



## consuono

trazom said:


> ...
> Have you heard all of them? The finales are of k.333, k.576, or 332, or the opening movement of K.533 are very showy. The finale of K.333 even has its own cadenza.


After pulling up some old sheet music, particularly K. 511, 540, 576, 332 and 333 I'm going to have to temper or maybe walk back a little my criticism of those solo piano works. After playing Bach partitas for a long while and then going back to the Mozart I do see that there is a kinship there, although in Mozart's own voice. Also the slow movements do indeed have an operatic-aria vocal quality about them. I think it's unfortunate that Mozart didn't have a chance to compose as extensively for solo piano as Beethoven did, because you can sense growth and development there especially in the later works.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------------------


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, I prefer K.394, K.397, K.475, K.594, K.608 over Beethoven's keyboard works. I say yet again, there's no reason Beethoven's long rambling of trills and tremolo, (which gets worse with his loss of hearing), ...


Leaving Beethoven out of it, what really caught my attention in playing K. 511 for the first time in forever was, for one thing, the chromaticism involved in the transitions between sections. That to me is even more impressive musically than the example from the 40th symphony. Secondly, playing through it I heard and felt the origins of Chopin, plain as day.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, I prefer K.394, K.397, K.475, K.594, K.608 over Beethoven's keyboard works. I say yet again, there's no reason Beethoven's long rambling of trills and tremolo, (which gets worse with his loss of hearing), boogie-woogie, and fugal exercises should be hyped up this much.
> [ Compare these sections of off-beat syncopations: Op.26 , Op.57 , Op.109
> and sections of melodies with accompanied figures: Op.26 , Op.57 , Op.109 ]
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCd...them and to some of his other keyboard works.


----------



## consuono

Allerius said:


> I really love Beethoven's sonatas, even more than anything Mozart wrote for solo pianoforte. Beethoven's late works are very well developed and I really like the tremolos and trills that he uses, which have an structural purpose and that contribute for the unique sound of his mature works. I think that with age Beethoven actually improved his compositional process, and I really like Op. 111, I've never seem the sort of rhythm he uses in that sonata in Mozart for example, including the unusual time signature of 12/32. Also, the "boogie-woogie" is truly a stroke of genius in my opinion: the composer of Bonn was truly ahead of his time.


I agree with that as well. For one thing trills and tremolos are going to be there in a lot of piano music simply because the piano doesn't have a whole lot of sustain, comparatively. Also the same criticism can be made of the ubiquitous Alberti bass in Classical works, and there are also measures-long trills in several Bach keyboard pieces (and a few instances in Mozart as well). I don't think it's necessary to denigrate Beethoven to defend Mozart, or vice versa. They don't really need defending.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I don't think it's necessary to denigrate Beethoven to defend Mozart, or vice versa. They don't really need defending.


And I don't think it's necessary to mention Beethoven every fking time (like how you do) to diss Mozart's keyboard works. I don't think Beethoven needs this sort of "special" treatment. He has frequently been the "standard" for judging other composers in the classical music community:



Arent said:


> Are his works mere exercises in sentimentality and poetic or heroic affectation, or does he approach a Beethoven-esque level of depth? What say you?





Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids





KenOC said:


> All the more reason that we should simply accept the judgments that the more discerning listeners among us find intuitively obvious. For example, that the force, depth, and majesty of Beethoven's works completely outshine the far tamer and less imaginative efforts of Mozart. There are, of course, those who refuse to accept such judgments, as obvious as they may seem to the rest of us. We can only hope that such listeners assiduously improve their own tastes until they recognize the truth of these things!


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Where? Where does Mozart fill 2 minutes of music with trill on B like the example in Beethoven's Op.109 for example? How many times do I have to tell you? I don't condemn every composer who uses arpeggios in their keyboard music. It's the way Beethoven uses them that I'm having issues with, (which is just not the same as Bach and Mozart).


Well in the A minor Rondo I mentioned there is a chromatically ascending trill which could be called just as useless as the 2-minute Beethoven trill. Not to mention the G minor prelude of Bach's WTC I. A big chunk of that prelude is trills. Oh, and have a look at Goldberg Variation 28.







> And I don't think it's necessary to mention Beethoven every fking time (like how you do) to diss Mozart's keyboard works. Beethoven doesn't need this sort of "special" treatment.


I didn't bring up Beethoven. You did. All I suggested is that it's a shame that Mozart didn't get to compose at least 32 sonatas like Beethoven did, instead of the 19, half of which were composed in his teens and very early 20s. It's undeniable that the later Mozart piano sonatas are of higher quality.


----------



## Xisten267

consuono said:


> Well in the A minor Rondo I mentioned there is a chromatically ascending trill which could be called just as *useless as the 2-minute Beethoven trill*. Not to mention the G minor prelude of Bach's WTC I. A big chunk of that prelude is trills. Oh, and have a look at Goldberg Variation 28.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up Beethoven. You did. All I suggested is that it's a shame that Mozart didn't get to compose at least 32 sonatas like Beethoven did, instead of the 19, half of which were composed in his teens and very early 20s. It's undeniable that the later Mozart piano sonatas are of higher quality.


I agree with what you said except that for me the Beethoven trills aren't useless at all - in my opinion they serve a dramatic purpose. The trills at the middle of his Op. 111 for example are in my perspective one of the most magical moments in his solo piano music.


----------



## consuono

Allerius said:


> I agree with what you said except that for me the Beethoven trills aren't useless at all - in my opinion they serve a dramatic purpose. The trills at the middle of his Op. 111 for example are in my perspective one of the most magical moments in his solo piano music.


Well I'd agree, I'm just saying that if someone is going to condemn Beethoven for that, there are plenty of examples elsewhere that need to be condemned as well.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I’ve been listening to quite a bit of Mozart lately and I’m thinking that, for me, the 40th symphony might come the closest (at the very least in terms of instrumental music) to satisfying the thread title. In terms of orchestration, counterpoint, harmonic and melodic genius, economy of material and development, emotional engagement it stands at the top of his works IMO. I do think the finale of the Jupiter provides the greatest apotheosis of his life’s work, but the 40th stands as the greatest from start to finish for me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mozart can sometimes give pianists a lesson in humility:

*[ 1:15 ]*






this one is too obvious:

*[ 1:10 ]*


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> But it existed, it was a thing, it was a form being used quite frequently and it was emulated and adopted by many composers in the latter half of the 18th century. They didn't all just come upon the idea independently at the same time by amazing coincidence. OK?


If you look at the different types of formal layouts of all these different classical 'sonatas' you see that the way in which they are structured varies a lot. It was not so much viewed as a form, but a treatment of a theme, and the form itself would vary based on the theme's unique attributes, and on a composer's creativity.

'Sonata form' was not a term that was used until the romantics codified the process. However once the form was codified, it no longer functioned the same way as it did in the classical era. This is also related to how the use of harmony itself had evolved towards the end of the classical era.



consuono said:


> After pulling up some old sheet music, particularly K. 511, 540, 576, 332 and 333 I'm going to have to temper or maybe walk back a little my criticism of those solo piano works.


Right on consuono.


----------



## poconoron

symphony 40
Don Giovanni
Marriage of Figaro
Magic Flute
Piano concertos 17,20,22,24
Divertimento K563


----------



## hammeredklavier

I find this to be the most interesting work Mozart wrote at 20. 
It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
_"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
[10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
as if "darkness" wasn't yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
[13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
[21:48]: the diminished 7th that concludes _"dulcissimum convivium"_ leads to the diminished 7th that opens the 'otherworldly' _"viaticum in domini morientum"_.
[24:04]: _"pignus futurae gloriae"_, a large double fugue styled distinctively unique from the Baroque tradition.
[34:25]: _"miserere nobis"_ (the final movement) quotes _"kyrie eleison"_ (the first movement) and develops on the theme.


----------

