# Mozart: 40 vs 41



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm listening to 40 now, and it's really doing it for me at the moment. Dare I say I like it more all the way through as a whole over 41! 

I'll put 41 on next just to confirm.

Discuss!

:tiphat:


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

They're both great pieces and tastes will always differ, but on this subject I'll let Peter Shaffer speak for me:

"I know it is usual among Mozartians to praise his use of the minor - to say that he is at his most 'sublime' when writing in G minor and his most tragic in D minor - but I find this attitude completely incomprehensible and indeed uncomprehending. One never stops hearing about the tragic nature of the Fortieth Symphony, but to me the Thirty-ninth (in cheerful E flat) is an infinitely greater work, and the last movement of the Forty-first (in grand C: the 'Jupiter') one of the supreme achievements of art."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, let's just say that 39-41 is a pretty darn good trio of symphonies. And 38 ain't chopped liver either, except that Wolfgang cheats us out of a movement in that one.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I always feel that #41 is _grander_, if you know what I mean. Bigger in scale. It has a large opening movement, filled with power and sweep, sudden changes, sweet melody capping it off: there's so much happening there, compared to #40. Gorgeous, weird, emotional slow movement. The third movement is also a greater one for me, than #40's - and let's not even compare the finales, because although #40's final movement is brilliant, #41 owns, in the realm of final movements, particularly in Mozart.

So although I love both, I think of #41 as the summit...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Personally, I take more to 40 than 41; it seems to be more of an internal reflection and, thus, more revealing. But the two together are the two sides of his personality.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I think 41 is "greater"- the last movement is one of the most creative pieces Mozart ever wrote. But I enjoy the melodic, tragic, 40th symphony- every single note. And Mozart's little "Schoenberg surprise" (I think it's at the very beginning of the development of the last movement) is so ahead of his time. Every melody of every movement is memorable, and I think it will always remain my favorite Mozart symphony.


----------



## bigboy (May 26, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I think 41 is "greater"- the last movement is one of the most creative pieces Mozart ever wrote.


I feel inclined to agree with you here, but I am curious, what do you think is so exceptionally creative about it?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

bigboy said:


> I feel inclined to agree with you here, but I am curious, what do you think is so exceptionally creative about it?


This explanation goes more in detail...

"The awe-inspiring counterpoint in Mozart's final symphony, explained in one video", by musicologist Richard Atkinson:

http://www.classicfm.com/composers/mozart/music/jupiter-symphony-counterpoint-video/

With the culminating point explained from 11'50" to the end:






Symphony 41, Jupiter, 4th mvt. with "Graphical score":


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

bigboy said:


> I feel inclined to agree with you here, but I am curious, what do you think is so exceptionally creative about it?


jdec's post essentially says it all- but I'll add that you won't find anything like it in any other Mozart, Haydn, or even Beethoven pieces. It is something that imitates Bach and composer like him in form, is truly classical in instrumentation and layout, and is quite Romantic in spirit. That's what I find so creative about it- Mozart brings together these different eras and styles into one 2-minute coda that just blow your mind.


----------



## bigboy (May 26, 2017)

Thanks jdec and Tchaikov6 for your responses- there is something interesting stuff to think about here!


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Confession, the last movement of 41 is the only movement I really admire. I could do without the others, especially the 3rd movement.


----------



## FranzS (May 27, 2017)

40 was my first Mozart, I was five years old maybe, and I was stunned, so it remains a special listening experience for me even after so many years, but 41 - the video posted by jdec explains it in a brilliant and clear way - is a higher concept and _reussite_


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It may be a masterpiece of form, and exemplify Mozart's g minor mood, but I've always found No. 40 whiney and nothing I feel like listening to vouluntary.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

MarkW said:


> It may be a masterpiece of form, and exemplify Mozart's g minor mood, but I've always found No. 40 whiney and nothing I feel like listening to voluntary.


I guess no-one will ever force you, so don't so it.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I think the exposition of the 40th's first movement is an argument for the existence (though beyond our understanding of the brain as yet) of some objective criteria containing certain ratios and "rules" by which to measure the distinctiveness and memorability of melodies and themes, and that a piece like that is what happens when someone already as good as Mozart meets several of those criteria via skill and intuition alone, and then several more on top of that by chance.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

They are among the pinnacle of symphonic writing, period.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

My opinion on this matter corresponds to that of many who have already posted, and I certainly agree with the author of _Amadeus_ that "the last movement of the Forty-first (in grand C: the 'Jupiter') one of the supreme achievements of art."

I have long treasured the _Jupiter _over Symphony No. 40, not because the 40 is weak in any way, but simply because I enjoy the mighty power of the Jupiter more ... perhaps inexplicably.

I am deeply enthused by both works. But sublimely saddened by each, too. Keys aside. Simply, it always suggests to me, when I listen to these works, that No. 40 is the culmination of the Mozart we know as symphonist, while No. 41 is the promise of the Mozart we never get to know (because of his untimely death). In the G minor symphony I hear the perfection we know as the genius of Mozart the composer. With the great C major symphony I am teased always by the question of what might have been had this genius lived on a few decades longer. Though the finale of the _Jupiter_ remains a triumph of optimism and joy, it brings more tears to my soul than does all the dark lament of the gloriously magical 40th.

But that's Mozart for you. And certainly for me.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Does anyone find the 3rd movement of symphony 41 lacking? It's not bad music by any means it just sounds commonplace.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For me it's 40 just over 41.

But there are dozens of symphonies I prefer to either of them.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

arnerich said:


> Does anyone find the 3rd movement of symphony 41 lacking? It's not bad music by any means it just sounds commonplace.


Not to me it doesn't. I wonder if you find that because it's a "mere" minuet, but to me that makes no difference at all to the way I view its beauty and polish.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

40 here. In it, I hear Mozart hinting at what could have been a new direction for him had he lived longer. Similar to the difference between LVB's early and late period string quartets, I think (my opinion) that had Mozart lived longer, we'd now be discussing his late period as well, as hinted at by 40. I hear things in 40 that I don't hear in any other Mozart symphony. Possibly my favorite of his symphonies.

-09


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I often reflect upon Schubert through the lens of Mozart's final two symphonies. Schubert often seems to me a continuation of Mozart, a reflection of what Mozart would have become had he lived longer. Unfortunately, Schubert dies so young that the promise of true fruition is never achieved. So we're left to wonder "what if" about both Mozart and Schubert (in the same sense that I wonder "what if" about the poets Keats and Hart Crane).

Schubert's Eighth (the "Unfinished", a poignantly sublime nomer) recalls to mind the Mozart G minor. These works seem to proceed from a similar sound world, one of an "otherworld" -- I'm tempted to say a "Heavenly" world, though I remain an unbeliever. While Schubert's Great Ninth (never a favorite symphony of mine) reflects moreso Mozart's 41st (and the music of Beethoven, so much of which I cherish with a passion I cannot conjure for the Schubert Ninth). The anomaly here is that I deeply love the Mozart 41st but not the Schubert 9th. I suspect the problem is me and not the music.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> I often reflect upon Schubert through the lens of Mozart's final two symphonies. Schubert often seems to me a continuation of Mozart, a reflection of what Mozart would have become had he lived longer. Unfortunately, Schubert dies so young that the promise of true fruition is never achieved. So we're left to wonder "what if" about both Mozart and Schubert (in the same sense that I wonder "what if" about the poets Keats and Hart Crane).
> 
> *Schubert's Eighth (the "Unfinished", a poignantly sublime nomer)* recalls to mind the Mozart G minor. These works seem to proceed from a similar sound world, one of an "otherworld" -- I'm tempted to say a "Heavenly" world, though I remain an unbeliever. While Schubert's Great Ninth (never a favorite symphony of mine) reflects moreso Mozart's 41st (and the music of Beethoven, so much of which I cherish with a passion I cannot conjure for the Schubert Ninth). The anomaly here is that I deeply love the Mozart 41st but not the Schubert 9th. I suspect the problem is me and not the music.


I'll have to disagree with you. I think Schubert's Unfinished Symphony reflects the styles of Beethoven more than anyone, and same with the ninth. The most Mozartian symphony of Schubert is, in my opinion, the fifth. It has the Mozart feeling of "fresh air" a lot more than the other symphonies.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

arnerich said:


> Confession, the last movement of 41 is the only movement I really admire. I could do without the others, especially the 3rd movement.


you don't like 41/III?? the Menuet??
I love that movement, there is something so deliciously poignant, moving, about that descending main line....I also love the slow mvt...again, there is a poignancy, almost a "yearning" quality to it. It's so beautiful when played expressively - Walter, Reiner, etc...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

arnerich said:


> Does anyone find the 3rd movement of symphony 41 lacking? It's not bad music by any means it just sounds commonplace.


see my post above - I love the menuet of 41, i love the slow mvt as well. great music..


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

40 v 41? Only one way to sort this.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I was going to create a poll, then I saw this


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I'll have to disagree with you. I think Schubert's Unfinished Symphony reflects the styles of Beethoven more than anyone, and same with the ninth. The most Mozartian symphony of Schubert is, in my opinion, the fifth. It has the Mozart feeling of "fresh air" a lot more than the other symphonies.


Of course, Schubert's Fifth (my personal favorite of the Schubert symphonies and, perhaps, of the Schubert oeuvre) is quintessential Mozart -- the great Mozart symphony Mozart didn't write. Schubert's Fifth is that exact work which makes me ponder Schubert as an extension of Mozart.

Certainly there is much of Beethoven in Schubert, but I always hear more Mozart. I suspect that this has something to do with Schubert's contemporaneousness with Beethoven, meaning that the elder composer's scores and music were not as readily available to Schubert as were Mozart's scores, already well-established by the time of Schubert's youth. It was perhaps easier to study a Mozart symphony than one by Beethoven. Schubert derives much of his form from Mozart, I suspect from score analyzation, and some of his "sound" from Beethoven, I suspect from actually hearing the music performed. Perhaps someone knows more about Schubert's acquaintance with Beethoven's scores, but it seems that Schubert was not the wealthiest of composers and was perhaps limited in his ability to access newer publications.

I suspect that Schubert was more strongly influenced by the longer-lasting wealth of the "classical" age than the newer, and rather short-lived to that point, Beethovenian age. It generally takes time to adjust to and assimilate new art, which was Beethoven's art, so we could certainly not blame the young Schubert, genius though he was, if he did not always comprehend what Beethoven was doing.

-----

After penning the above paragraphs I turned to the internet for some information and found the following article

http://unheardbeethoven.org/beethoven-and-schubert-2/

which seems quite revealing about the relationship between young Schubert and elder Beethoven, and the influence of each on the other. The author appears to have respectable credentials, so his essay may be acceptable as informed. I found it quite informative. And it reminds me that perhaps I should spend more time reading experts than posting here at Talk Classical where my humble opinions count really for little to nothing at all. Of course, I do relish reading the opinions of others here, many of whom seem well informed themselves.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, Schubert's Fifth (my personal favorite of the Schubert symphonies and, perhaps, of the Schubert oeuvre) is quintessential Mozart -- the great Mozart symphony Mozart didn't write. Schubert's Fifth is that exact work which makes me ponder Schubert as an extension of Mozart.
> 
> Certainly there is much of Beethoven in Schubert, but I always hear more Mozart. I suspect that this has something to do with Schubert's contemporaneousness with Beethoven, meaning that the elder composer's scores and music were not as readily available to Schubert as were Mozart's scores, already well-established by the time of Schubert's youth. It was perhaps easier to study a Mozart symphony than one by Beethoven. Schubert derives much of his form from Mozart, I suspect from score analyzation, and some of his "sound" from Beethoven, I suspect from actually hearing the music performed. Perhaps someone knows more about Schubert's acquaintance with Beethoven's scores, but it seems that Schubert was not the wealthiest of composers and was perhaps limited in his ability to access newer publications.
> 
> ...


Wow, quite a bit to read! Anyways, I suppose you could say that since Schubert was poorer, he only had access to Mozart symphonies, but I don't think that would have stopped Schubert. And although Schubert was influenced by the classical age, as his first piano sonatas, string quartets, and symphonies indicate, I still think if there is one composer that inspired Schubert in his last couple symphonies, string quartets, and again piano sonatas, it is Beethoven. There is still a Mozart and Haydn touch, that is for sure, but I think although Schubert did not always enjoy where Beethoven was going, he was influenced subconsciously by this master. His music always seems to me a bit more "sophisticated" in a way, although not necessarily high, snobby, and noble. It is more of a light and graceful sophiscated, with much of the influence of Beethoven as well. Take the first movement of the Piano Sonata No. 21 (I know we were talking about symphonies, but this is a good example)- it is like Beethoven in layout, style, form, texture, and much else. Schubert always had Mozart's spirit, maybe, but he had Beethoven's drive and emotion that really made his last two symphonies stand out from anything Mozart ever wrote (not necessarily _better_, but quite different), and honestly different from anything Beethoven wrote either. But if it has to come down to one composer that influenced Schubert the most- despite the article's evidence- I still choose Beethoven.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Wow, quite a bit to read!


The Paul Reid essay notes that Schubert played early Beethoven works in the student orchestra (giving him an obvious acquaintance with those pieces), and that he studied primarily with Salieri who was often critical of Beethoven (but at least he didn't poison Beethoven as he apparently did Mozart!!!! -- yes, I'm laughing) and who bequeathed to Schubert an attitude that "disapproved of music as a tool to arouse cheap emotions."

Reid tellingly notes: "... we find Schubert in 1816 blaming Beethoven for the trend towards 'Bizarrerie' in music. This 'Bizarrerie', which Schubert roundly condemns, is characterised by what Schubert considers an almost sacrilegious tendency to mix tragic and comic elements, to combine 'the holiest with the Harlequin', and arouse wild passions instead of leading listeners towards love and God." I find this especially intriguing in light of the Eighth Symphony in which major and minor keys function somewhat for Schubert like tragic and comic elements.

As a side note, I view Bruckner as an extension of Schubert in the way I view Schubert as an extension of Mozart. This is not to say that both Bruckner and Schubert were not influenced by others as well. Bruckner couldn't be the same composer had it not been for Wagner, but Bruckner still seems to me to be Schubert appropriating Wagner rather than any other mode.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> The Paul Reid essay notes that Schubert played early Beethoven works in the student orchestra (giving him an obvious acquaintance with those pieces), and that he studied primarily with Salieri who was often critical of Beethoven (but at least he didn't poison Beethoven as he apparently did Mozart!!!! -- yes, I'm laughing) and who bequeathed to Schubert an attitude that "disapproved of music as a tool to arouse cheap emotions."
> 
> Reid tellingly notes: "... we find Schubert in 1816 blaming Beethoven for the trend towards 'Bizarrerie' in music. This 'Bizarrerie', which Schubert roundly condemns, is characterised by what Schubert considers an almost sacrilegious tendency to mix tragic and comic elements, to combine 'the holiest with the Harlequin', and arouse wild passions instead of leading listeners towards love and God." I find this especially intriguing in light of the Eighth Symphony in which major and minor keys function somewhat for Schubert like tragic and comic elements.
> 
> As a side note, *I view Bruckner as an extension of Schubert* in the way I view Schubert as an extension of Mozart. This is not to say that both Bruckner and Schubert were not influenced by others as well. Bruckner couldn't be the same composer had it not been for Wagner, but Bruckner still seems to me to be Schubert appropriating Wagner rather than any other mode.


Wow, I've never heard that before! I'll have to compare some symphonies of them and see if I find similarities.


----------



## ToneDeaf&Senile (May 20, 2010)

For the longest time I considered No.41 desert-island music, and No.40 as overrated. Then, in the mid-late 80s, I heard Neville Marriner and the Academy of Saint Martin in the Fields perform No.40 live on tour in Southern California. What I heard that night amazed me. (That whole concert was superb. The only letdown was Beethoven's second. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. It just didn't catch fire until almost the very end.) Since then I put the two works on equal footing. Sadly, I never found a recording of N.40 that came close to equaling what Marriner achieved that long-ago night.


----------

