# Which Mozart Symphonies Are Actually Any Good?



## Neward Thelman

But, I'm actually sincere about it. It's a matter of personal musical limitations, which I acknowledge, and a drill-boring, pestering need to understand - particularly since I\'m going thru a Mozart phase at the moment.

Here's the deal. I've read more music theory than most and over many more years than most. Indeed, the average listener isn't even aware of the academic, theoretical literature - and that's a very good thing [since much of it, particularly as it deals with 19th cent music is pretty miserable and mostly incorrect].

So, I'm aware of the technical superiority of most of Mozart's output; his symphonies [and piano concerti] in particular.

And, I like the Jupiter, #40, #39, and #29. The Haffner and Linz are interesting, if not quite objects of love.

But, #30? #28? #34? Etc.

Those sound like the worse powdered wig fluff, not worth a micro-second of my time, nor a single neuron of memory storage in my ugly head.

Let me hasten to add that I absolutely don't intend to dampen in the slightest anyone's appreciation of that music, especially for those lucky enough to be classical-era specialists.

But for me, pretty much anything prior to Beethoven just doesn't speak. I have to really left-brain myself to focus my attention.

So, as I'm finding myself going thru a Mozart phase at the moment, as I said above, I'm also going thru the symphonies - and seeking some guidance of the previously mentioned classical-era mavens [if there happen to actually be any around here]. Besides the big major works which I already know and like and have liked since teen years [typed above] - which of the other symphonies are worthy - and which are, well, mostly powdered wig proper and not likely to be of value to guys like me?

And - what do you find of value in them? What have you latched on to? What insight can you offer?


----------



## Woodduck

Not a great fan, myself, of Mozart's symphonies, I am rather in awe of the first movement of #38, the "Prague." The most expansive single symphonic movement before Beethoven, it's ambitious in plan, rich in material, and powerfully exultant in spirit. Mozart never did better. Perhaps no one did.


----------



## cimirro

Mozart's works in minor keys are always my favorites. I recommend Symphony No.25 Kv.183 since you have not mentioned it and it is in G minor.


----------



## MarkW

The six you have mentioned, plus Woodduck's "Prague" pretty much exhaust my personal tolerance for Mozart symphonies. Your results may vary.


----------



## brianvds

Woodduck said:


> Not a great fan, myself, of Mozart's symphonies, I am rather in awe of the first movement of #38, the "Prague." The most expansive single symphonic movement before Beethoven, it's ambitious in plan, rich in material, and powerfully exultant in spirit. Mozart never did better. Perhaps no one did.


I am also a fan of that particular movement. I am also relieved that the symphony doesn't contain yet another dreary minuet, but even so, the other two movements aren't up to the same standard as the first.


----------



## KenOC

“Which Mozart Symphonies Are Actually Any Good?”

Well, I suggest doubters sit down and try to write symphonies better than Mozart’s worst efforts! Others may want to explore the symphonies of Mozart’s contemporaries and see how they stack up, even against Mozart as a kid. Quite amazing!

Obviously some are better than others, and his later efforts are generally better than his earlier.


----------



## trazom

The last six are generally considered to be his best and the ones that get the most performances. All the symphonies from 30 and earlier, in the original K. catalogue, were written by the time he was 18 so most of them are very early works unlike, say, his piano concertos where most of them were written later in his career. There are a few good symphonies besides the ones you mentioned, #38 being the greatest one you didn't mention, and my other favorites 31"Paris", and 33 



, the last one is tricky and really needs a sensitive conductor to successfully bring out the darker melodic strands in the music, the same goes with the slow movement from the Linz symphony. Kleiber's performance worked for me although it may not be right for you.



brianvds said:


> I am also a fan of that particular movement. I am also relieved that the symphony doesn't contain yet another dreary minuet, but even so, the other two movements aren't up to the same standard as the first.


I think the andante is one of his best and worthy of the first movement. It has the same characteristics of the first movement: The counterpoint, abundance in thematic material, rich involvement of the woodwinds, chromatic inflections, seamless transitions, and minor key modulations but all on a more intimate scale.


----------



## bharbeke

Here are the ones that I like. The best are marked with a *.

5
6
8
11
12
14
15
17
23
24
25
26
28
29
*31
32
34
35
36
*39
*40
*41
42 (K 75)
*47 (K 73m)

I probably like some of the others, but I've only heard one version of most. Keep in mind also that some, such as #3 and #37, are probably not by Mozart in their entirety, so the numbering scheme is a bit odd.


----------



## hpowders

No. 29-41 are all representative of Mozart's best work.


----------



## Omicron9

Of course there is no "best" Mozart symphony, but 40 is my favorite.


----------



## Pugg

Omicron9 said:


> Of course there is no "best" Mozart symphony, but 40 is my favorite.


They are all great in their own right.


----------



## Heck148

25, 31,34 = excellent 

35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 = great


----------



## beetzart

I like the last three, the little G minor one, Prague, Paris, Haffner, and symphony no. 1, it is fun and some achievement for someone so young. The 2nd movement is deeply heartbreaking which makes me wonder did he really compose it?


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Well, I suggest doubters sit down and try to write symphonies better than Mozart's worst efforts!


But that is not a good guide to what we should listen to, else the only thing I could toss out from my listening is 4'33' because I know I can write a better piece than that. :lol:


----------



## MonagFam

KenOC said:


> "Which Mozart Symphonies Are Actually Any Good?"
> 
> Well, I suggest doubters sit down and try to write symphonies better than Mozart's worst efforts! Others may want to explore the symphonies of Mozart's contemporaries and see how they stack up, even against Mozart as a kid. Quite amazing!
> 
> Obviously some are better than others, and his later efforts are generally better than his earlier.


Your point about contemporaries stacking up to the child Mozart is fascinating to me. How did they view it? Did they believe it? Did they resent him?


----------



## Sloe

My favourite Mozart symphony is number 40.


----------



## KenOC

MonagFam said:


> Your point about contemporaries stacking up to the child Mozart is fascinating to me. How did they view it? Did they believe it? Did they resent him?


We have Haydn's words of course. And we have the view of at least one of Mozart's composing contemporaries, Leopold Kozeluch, who said on Mozart's death: "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


----------



## Tchaikov6

Sloe said:


> My favourite Mozart symphony is number 40.


I agree. All 4 movements of the 40th are the most Romantic Mozart gets (maybe tied with 20th piano concerto) and they seem to "include" me in the music more than the 41st does (I'm not critiquing his last symphony- I consider it his greatest. I like the 41st symphony for a different reason). And the shockingly modern last movement's tone row- There you have Arngang Schozart! :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

I dont tend to listen to any symphony prior to no 24.

No 24 is a delight - esp the 2nd mvt. 25 in g minor is his first great symphony - 26 another fine work, short - but with some beautifully dark moments and a lively finish. No 27 seems to miss the mark, cant recall 28. 29 is as fine as the 25th - 30 I cant recall - 31 I like quite a lot - esp the 1st mvt. 32 is short and bouncy - 33 has been called mozart's little pastoral symphony, a lovely little work. 34 I never really like much - 35 is a great work - dramatic, pompous at times, full of character and beautiful melodies and stirring rythms. 36 shows Mozart thinking along the lines of Haydn's attempt to expand the expressive and artistc boundaries of the symphony - a great work. The first mvt of the prague points to a big big future for Mozart as a symphonist if only he can stay alive - which he brings to some fruition in the last 3 great works - in the jupiter in particular. There could have been much much more - but alas.


----------



## millionrainbows

I always try to extract some underlying principle to problems, and here is mine. Mozart is not going to be harmonically very daring; he was a classicist, and stayed within those bounds pretty much (there may be exceptions). So we have to look at other aspects, namely, the rhythmic aspects. The reason No. 40 is so popular is because of this, and more. The theme is very good, and that makes it memorable to most perhaps on that alone; but listen to the minuet movement, in a triple rhythm, and you will find yourself getting lost, if you are really listening. Here is what I said earlier in current listening:

_Now, this is a good example of why Mozart is so interesting, and one of the greats: the third movement of Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K.550.
I've heard all the Haydn, and Schubert, so I know that the Menuetto & Trio is in a triple meter. When I listen to this, I hear a theme that sounds like it was a 4/4 idea, but "crammed into" a 3/4 meter. It sounds like the theme was put in there "as is" as a 4 beat phrase, and then some eighth note space was added to make it come out as triple. It's weird; if you count eighth notes, you get 9.

__Of course, with Mozart, it's easy to just listen and let this all just slide by; but if you are a scrutinizing listener like I am, who counts beats and tries to figure stuff out, it is challenging, sometimes puzzling, and evidence of genius. This is why he was a notch above._

Now that listeners are armed with this new knowledge, are there any earlier symphonies that are seen in a new light?


----------



## Lisztian

^I really fail to see how that makes him a notch above: to be more clear, I fail to see how it is indicative of superior-sounding music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

stomanek said:


> I dont tend to listen to any symphony prior to no 24.
> 
> No 24 is a delight - esp the 2nd mvt. 25 in g minor is his first great symphony - 26 another fine work, short - but with some beautifully dark moments and a lively finish. No 27 seems to miss the mark, cant recall 28. 29 is as fine as the 25th - 30 I cant recall - 31 I like quite a lot - esp the 1st mvt. 32 is short and bouncy - 33 has been called mozart's little pastoral symphony, a lovely little work. 34 I never really like much - 35 is a great work - dramatic, pompous at times, full of character and beautiful melodies and stirring rythms. 36 shows Mozart thinking along the lines of Haydn's attempt to expand the expressive and artistc boundaries of the symphony - a great work. The first mvt of the prague points to a big big future for Mozart as a symphonist if only he can stay alive - which he brings to some fruition in the last 3 great works - in the jupiter in particular. There could have been much much more - but alas.


No. 33 was one of the first symphonies I've ever heard. I still like it, especially the first movement.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lisztian said:


> ^I really fail to see how that makes him a notch above.


Please, don't go into such excruciating detail! Make short, pithy renouncements, then move on to another target.


----------



## Lisztian

millionrainbows said:


> Please, don't go into such excruciating detail! Make short, pithy renouncements, then move on to another target.


I wasn't trying to make a renouncement or to target anyone: I was simply expressing something that I fail to understand. I respect you and how you see things a great deal, and perhaps the fact that I'm half asleep contributed to the post seeming more curt than intended.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> "Which Mozart Symphonies Are Actually Any Good?"
> 
> Well, I suggest doubters sit down and try to write symphonies better than Mozart's worst efforts! Others may want to explore the symphonies of Mozart's contemporaries and see how they stack up, even against Mozart as a kid. Quite amazing!
> 
> Obviously some are better than others, and his later efforts are generally better than his earlier.


I get your point, but I think pro-active advice on specific elements of Mozart might be effective; or maybe not, as is evidenced by the flip, pithy response to my insights.

"Instant gratification" is what the people want. If what you say is true, and I think it is, comparison with Mozart's contemporaries would involve extensive and inferior musical experiences. That sounds tedious.

To listen to the later works is well-advised. To be impressed at Mozart the child prodigy, however, might be less entertaining than watching Steve Harvey and his _Little Big Shots_ show.

I think an uncomfortable truth is being uncovered here: Mozart is not for everybody, especially newcomers or dilettantes, dabblers, or internet-lazy youths who have not yet put the hours in. A certain sense of musical craftsmanship begins to reveal itself; a certain elusive, ubiquitous mastery is seen.

I got into Mozart the old-fashioned way: I earned it, by repeated listening and probing.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I pretty much only like 1st movements of Mozart's symphonies, 25, 35, 39, 40 all have good ones.....I remember reading that the symphony was not considered a 'serious' genre during the classical period, it was more of a 'trivial entertainment' form.


----------



## chill782002

While I have discussed the merits of Mozart's symphonies compared to Haydn's elsewhere, some of his symphonies are very good - particularly 22, 25, 29, 35, 38, 39, 40 and 41. I think Mozart's real wizardry was at string quartets, others rate his piano concertos most highly but there doesn't seem to be a lot of love for his symphonies for some reason.


----------



## Heck148

Perhaps it is appropriate to quote the words of Bruno Walter, a great Mozartean, as he describes his journey of understanding and appreciation of the great composer:

_Bruno Walter:_ "When I was very young, when I was a teenager, then I was only enthusiastic for the great pathos and the big emotions, and Mozart seemed to me at that time too quiet, too tranquil. Youth is more apt to love the shout and the great gestures. ... I fell into the same category. It needs some maturity to understand the depth of emotion that speaks in Mozart's seeming tranquility and measure."


----------



## Kieran

Neward Thelman said:


> But, #30? #28? #34? Etc.
> 
> Those sound like the worse powdered wig fluff, not worth a micro-second of my time, nor a single neuron of memory storage in my ugly head.


You realise he was possibly only seventeen when he composed #28? And only 18 when he composed #30? I think a little more than a micro-second spent with these and you'll admire the man even more. They're not "great" symphonies, but they're not bad either. Most likely they were written to fulfil an obligation.

His major adult symphonies are all things of glory, especially the final 4 symphs, which are varied in their sound, and most especially the miracle of 1788 - his final three symphs, composed at a rapid speed across the summer, each not only a different colour on the palette, but actually a different palette. Broad and muscular and sensitive and sweeping, these last 4 symphs represent a high point in the genre, not only worth a dip into, but worth keeping as a lifetime companion...


----------



## sluciani

cimirro said:


> Mozart's works in minor keys are always my favorites. I recommend Symphony No.25 Kv.183 since you have not mentioned it and it is in G minor.


Totally agree. Opening of the first movement of #25 is reminiscent of Don Giovanni, IMHO.


----------



## mtmailey

I say his best symphonies are 35 to 41 the early one they are not easy to get on cd


----------



## Kieran

chill782002 said:


> While I have discussed the merits of Mozart's symphonies compared to Haydn's elsewhere, some of his symphonies are very good - particularly 22, 25, 29, 35, 38, 39, 40 and 41. I think Mozart's real wizardry was at string quartets, others rate his piano concertos most highly but there doesn't seem to be a lot of love for his symphonies for some reason.


I think the difficulty isn't his: he received absolutely no commissions to write symphonies in the final 3 years of his life. Imagine, at an age where Beethoven still hadn't composed his Third Symphony, Mozart was already out on his ear. It's our loss, but the difficulty lay with the patrons of the time, who didn't appreciate him again until just before he passed, but even in that crowded final year. there were no commissions for symphonies....


----------



## Woodduck

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> *I pretty much only like 1st movements of Mozart's symphonies*, 25, 35, 39, 40 all have good ones.....I remember reading that the symphony was not considered a 'serious' genre during the classical period, it was more of a 'trivial entertainment' form.


I feel the same way.

Sonata form was the Classical era's great contribution to music, and it allows the first movements of Classical symphonies to attain a richness of content and a power of expression beyond that of succeeding movements (except perhaps when slow movements exhibit an exceptional pathos, but that was not obligatory). Haydn himself expressed impatience with the relatively trivial minuet, musing that someone would someday come up with a really original one (enter the Beethoven scherzo), and final movements tend to be exuberant romps in rondo form, lots of fun but without much pretense of depth.

I find Mozart infusing a bit more emotional substance into the later movements in his G minor symphony, helped by the mere fact that it's in minor, and the final movement of the "Jupiter" is a unique tour de force. But Classical symphonies in general, including most of Mozart's, are not integrated artistic entities but entertainments consisting of attractively paced collections of contrasting movements, not unlike Baroque sinfonias and suites.


----------



## PlaySalieri

millionrainbows said:


> I get your point, but I think pro-active advice on specific elements of Mozart might be effective; or maybe not, as is evidenced by the flip, pithy response to my insights.
> 
> "Instant gratification" is what the people want. If what you say is true, and I think it is, comparison with Mozart's contemporaries would involve extensive and inferior musical experiences. That sounds tedious.
> 
> To listen to the later works is well-advised. To be impressed at Mozart the child prodigy, however, might be less entertaining than watching Steve Harvey and his _Little Big Shots_ show.
> 
> I think an uncomfortable truth is being uncovered here: Mozart is not for everybody, especially newcomers or dilettantes, dabblers, or internet-lazy youths who have not yet put the hours in. A certain sense of musical craftsmanship begins to reveal itself; a certain elusive, ubiquitous mastery is seen.
> 
> *I got into Mozart the old-fashioned way: I earned it, by repeated listening and probing.*


That's fair enough - people discover Mozart in their own way. I was deaf to Mozart until I was 25 - I even saw amadeus when it came out (when I was 20) and thought - genius - what's all the fuss? I cant explain why I suddenly had ears for Mozart at 25 and not 20. Maybe it was the piece (k467) that made me aware he was something special - which unlocked the door to the treasury. But I never had to work hard with Mozart after that - the great works I fell in love with as soon as I heard them. There are still some I cant get into though - like Idomeneo, a lot of the minor works like the violin sonatas, church sonatas etc. But I would say all the symphonies after 23 are good to great.


----------



## Tchaikov6

stomanek said:


> That's fair enough - people discover Mozart in their own way. I was deaf to Mozart until I was 25 - I even saw amadeus when it came out (when I was 20) and thought - genius - what's all the fuss? I cant explain why I suddenly had ears for Mozart at 25 and not 20. Maybe it was the piece (k467) that made me aware he was something special - which unlocked the door to the treasury. But I never had to work hard with Mozart after that - the great works I fell in love with as soon as I heard them. There are still some I cant get into though - like Idomeneo, a lot of the minor works like the violin sonatas, church sonatas etc. But I would say all the symphonies after 23 are good to great.


That's how I felt at first about Mozart. I mean, I enjoyed his music fair enough but my opinion was, essentially- "Meh, nothing special. Melody, Alberti bass line, maybe a little of development; anyone can do _that_! Indeed, that's how I felt about a lot of composers (Mahler, Sibelius, Bruckner, Schubert, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, etc.) until TC has really expanded my interests. Mozart now is one of my favorite composers and I turn to him when I am either very sad and in need of comfort and light; or very happy when I want something to accompany my cheerfulness. But don't get me wrong; Mozart can be _very_ dark.


----------



## millionrainbows

There might be a different set of criteria for "getting" the earlier symphonies, beyond being impressed by how young he was. After all, that's how humanity thrives and progresses: all this genetic information suddenly manifests itself as "genius" at adolescence, or before. Suddenly, human potential is again renewed, and all it needs is nurturing.

I also disagree about only the opening movements being worthy of serious consideration. To me, the minuets are essential, because of their rhythmic significance, being in "3." Maybe the themes are not as melodically up-front and defining, but the way the material is handled is perhaps more rhythmically significant than melodically or thematically. Perhaps the material is more fragmented and transformed in ways that only intent "structural" listening can reveal. It seems more structurally significant than ear-catching melodic; after all these people are dancing, who's listening? It's more about movement and gesture.


----------



## millionrainbows

On the other hand, some of Mozart was rather run-of-the-mill. I'm not saying that it's all equally great, or that you have to be a wrinkled old codger to appreciate it. I'm grateful that younger folks are at least trying. The present era of being over-saturated and bombarded by music makes it perhaps more difficult to filter-out the good stuff from the filler.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> There might be a different set of criteria for "getting" the earlier symphonies, beyond being impressed by how young he was. After all, that's how humanity thrives and progresses: all this genetic information suddenly manifests itself as "genius" at adolescence, or before. Suddenly, human potential is again renewed, and all it needs is nurturing.
> 
> I also disagree about only the opening movements being worthy of serious consideration. To me, the minuets are essential, because of their rhythmic significance, being in "3." Maybe the themes are not as melodically up-front and defining, but the way the material is handled is perhaps more rhythmically significant than melodically or thematically. Perhaps the material is more fragmented and transformed in ways that only intent "structural" listening can reveal. It seems more structurally significant than ear-catching melodic; after all these people are dancing, who's listening? It's more about movement and gesture.


That is what I was getting at in the other thread, rhythmical significance or melodic/harmonic significance.


----------



## Heck148

I love the inner mvts of Mozart"s last symphonies....wonderfully beautiful and poignant..esp 38, 39, 41.


----------



## JAS

Are we actually criticizing Mozart for writing _only_ a handful of truly great symphonies, and a notable number of other merely very satisfactory symphonies? Most composers would presumably exchange everything they wrote for one piece as magnificent and well-regarded as any of Mozart's symphonies (not taking into account the complications of financial compensation that such an exchange would necessarily entail). Wow, tough crowd . . .


----------



## Jacred

JAS said:


> Are we actually criticizing Mozart for writing _only_ a handful of truly great symphonies, and a notable number of other merely very satisfactory symphonies? Most composers would presumably exchange everything they wrote for one piece as magnificent and well-regarded as any of Mozart's symphonies (not taking into account the complications of financial compensation that such an exchange would necessarily entail). Wow, tough crowd . . .


I think the situation was different Mozart's day compared to ours. Mozart was perfectly content to write similarly-styled symphonies so long as they pleased. For us, as there are so many symphonies to choose from, we naturally gravitate towards the ones that stand out more. So we tend to be pickier.


----------



## science

The odd-numbered ones, of course. 

But seriously, 25, "the little g minor." Because that is also my gangster nickname.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think pro-active advice on specific elements of Mozart might be effective; or maybe not, as is evidenced by the flip, pithy response to my insights.
> 
> I think an uncomfortable truth is being uncovered here: Mozart is not for everybody, especially newcomers or dilettantes, dabblers, or internet-lazy youths who have not yet put the hours in.
> 
> "Instant gratification" is what the people want.
> 
> I got into Mozart the old-fashioned way: I earned it, by repeated listening and probing.


Verily, thou keepest thine ear to the grindstone, an example to all, and dost remind us that it is written: _The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied_ (Proverbs 13:4). And: _For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."_ (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

The pain may be great and the cross heavy, but glorious is the reward. Nobody makes _Apfelstrudel_ like Mozart.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> Are we actually criticizing Mozart for writing _only_ a handful of truly great symphonies, and a notable number of other merely very satisfactory symphonies? Most composers would presumably exchange everything they wrote for one piece as magnificent and well-regarded as any of Mozart's symphonies (not taking into account the complications of financial compensation that such an exchange would necessarily entail). Wow, tough crowd . . .


Hardly doing Mozart a disservice with a little bit of criticism, I think he can take it.


----------



## Pugg

JAS said:


> Are we actually criticizing Mozart for writing _only_ a handful of truly great symphonies, and a notable number of other merely very satisfactory symphonies? Most composers would presumably exchange everything they wrote for one piece as magnificent and well-regarded as any of Mozart's symphonies (not taking into account the complications of financial compensation that such an exchange would necessarily entail). Wow, tough crowd . . .


Amen .............................


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

JAS said:


> Are we actually criticizing Mozart for writing _only_Most composers would presumably exchange everything they wrote for one piece as magnificent and well-regarded as any of Mozart's symphonies


Hang on, don't get ahead of yourself. Mozart wrote some great stuff but he wasn't god, you can give composers credit but you have to recognize when you're speaking from zeal.


----------



## Woodduck

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Hang on, don't get ahead of yourself. Mozart wrote some great stuff but he wasn't god, you can give composers credit but you have to recognize when you're speaking from zeal.


Absolutely. Even God isn't God. That would be Bach.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely. Even God isn't God. That would be Bach.


Actually God is, in fact, God. He only thinks he's Bach.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Actually God is, in fact, God. He only thinks he's Bach.


Can you blame him?


----------



## trazom

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Hang on, don't get ahead of yourself. Mozart wrote some great stuff but he wasn't god, you can give composers credit but you have to recognize when you're speaking from zeal.


No, but at least there's more evidence of his existence. Anyways, I don't believe that "zeal" necessarily means there isn't some truth to what one says or posts. Some of the most knowledgeable people here are also passionate advocates for the music they know or love and are perfectly capable of writing informed and insightful posts about them. Just like it's equally possible for people to write ignorant things about composers or their music with perfect equanimity.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Hang on, don't get ahead of yourself. Mozart wrote some great stuff but he wasn't god, you can give composers credit but you have to recognize when you're speaking from zeal.


Mozart wrote some great melodies, but I guess the people that think he is the GREATEST ignore the obvious simplistic cliches and patterns that he uses all the time.
Pretty similar to the cult to Bach - ignores all the flaws and says that he is the greatest.
Check the Wallace Berry award - some of the books and articles on the list contain pretty good analyses of the classical repertoire including popular renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic cliches.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

There are overwhelmingly more people who consider Mozart and/or Bach the greatest than there are who doubt it. Theoretically they _could_ all be wrong and you (and Wallace Beery) right. Or not.

All composers have fingerprints. So what? Novelty is not the only measure of quality in art, or even one of the most important.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Animal the Drummer said:


> There are overwhelmingly more people who consider Mozart and/or Bach the greatest than there are who doubt it. Theoretically they _could_ all be wrong and you (and Wallace Beery) right. Or not.


There is no flawless composer. Some were stealing melodies, some had simplistic rhythms, others had bad balance in the texture, third - great orchestration, but no actual motives and melodies, or - no development, or - too much repetition, or - being incomprehensible using obscure composition systems that don't translate to aural events that are enjoyable for the humans and so on.
It's always possible some day AIs to start composing "perfect" compositions.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacred said:


> I think the situation was different Mozart's day compared to ours.* Mozart was perfectly content to write similarly-styled symphonies so long as they pleased.* For us, as there are so many symphonies to choose from, we naturally gravitate towards the ones that stand out more. So we tend to be pickier.


There's much stylistic variety in the mature symphonies. the last 4 are as different from each other as beethoven's great symphonies are from each other, more so I would say. so your statement is nonsense.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

BabyGiraffe said:


> There is no flawless composer. Some were stealing melodies, some had simplistic rhythms, others had bad balance in the texture, third - great orchestration, but no actual motives and melodies, or - no development, or - too much repetition, or - being incomprehensible using obscure composition systems that don't translate to aural events that are enjoyable for the humans and so on.
> It's always possible some day AIs to start composing "perfect" compositions.


Define "perfect". Whatever you come up with, it won't hold a candle to Mozart.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Animal the Drummer said:


> Define "perfect". Whatever you come up with, it won't hold a candle to Mozart.


Consult some musical philosophical literature on the subject for different criteria.


----------



## PlaySalieri

BabyGiraffe said:


> Consult some musical philosophical literature on the subject for different criteria.


there have been many composers in history who can compose flawlessly - but most of those cant think of a decent tune or attractive rythm, harmony etc. basically their powers of invention are banal. AI will no doubt achieve the same level. I have heard many AI compositions - surprisingly good - but as I say - not interesting.


----------



## Jacred

stomanek said:


> There's much stylistic variety in the *mature symphonies. the last 4* are as different from each other as beethoven's great symphonies are from each other, more so I would say. so your statement is nonsense.


Key words here in bold. The fact that they are stylistically different and each profound in their own ways is what makes the later symphonies stand out more from most of the earlier ones.


----------



## Delicious Manager

The ones I rate (in numerical order):

17 in G, K 129
21 in A, K 134
25 in G minor, K 183
29 in A, K 201
31 in D, K 297 (Paris)
33, in B flat, K 319
36 in C, K 425 (Linz)
38 in D, 504 (Prague)
39 in E flat, K 543
40 in G minor, K 550
41 in C, K 551 (Jupiter)


----------



## Phil loves classical

BabyGiraffe said:


> Mozart wrote some great melodies, but I guess the people that think he is the GREATEST ignore the obvious simplistic cliches and patterns that he uses all the time.
> Pretty similar to the cult to Bach - ignores all the flaws and says that he is the greatest.
> Check the Wallace Berry award - some of the books and articles on the list contain pretty good analyses of the classical repertoire including popular renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic cliches.


I agree with you on the cliches. The early Mozart works in general had a higher conventions quotient and lower in inspiration. Listening to his contemporaries like Salieri and even some of Haydn you can hear these classical cliches, some more than others. But this is why the later Mozart is considered above his contemporaries, he was able to go further beyond the conventions. An analogy with Jazz is, I would say 70% or more of Jazz is conventional rehash, which is why they can improvise spontaneously. Really how inspired can a person be to be spontaneously producing actual insightful music that consistently? But Mozart's last 3 symphonies is a proof he was that great, having been all written within 3 months, with all three rising well above the conventional.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

BabyGiraffe said:


> Mozart wrote some great melodies, but I guess the people that think he is the GREATEST ignore the obvious simplistic cliches and patterns that he uses all the time.
> Pretty similar to the cult to Bach - ignores all the flaws and says that he is the greatest.
> Check the Wallace Berry award - some of the books and articles on the list contain pretty good analyses of the classical repertoire including popular renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic cliches.


People who complain about earlier clichés just haven't learned to spot the modern ones yet.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacred said:


> Key words here in bold. The fact that they are stylistically different and each profound in their own ways is what makes the later symphonies stand out more from most of the earlier ones.


Not just the last 4 - there are others before starting at no 25 that rise well above the best symphonies of those times - save perhaps those of haydn. I dont hear the cliches you probably mean in no 29 for example, or 35, or 36.


----------



## jdec

Phil loves classical said:


> But Mozart's last 3 symphonies is a proof he was that great, having been all written within 3 months, with all three rising well above the conventional.


Actually he composed he 3 last symphonies in just 6 weeks, not 3 months. Isn't that even more amazing?


----------



## ProudSquire

Only you can know the answer to your question. Any other answer/s supplied here may or may not help you in the least. As for me I like most of Mozart's symphonies. The last 6, starting with symphony No.35 and up to the 41st are generally conisdered to be his mature symphonies. They show a wealth of new ideas and direction, and unfortunately an unfullfilled potential that was severed by his untimely death. The earlier symphonies are of note too, they may not be as great as the last 4, but there some beautiful moments in them that point to the wonders that are to come. 

I'd say listen and decide for yourself, only then can you determine for yourself which you deem to be of any merit to you. Happy listening. 

:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Take the Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord for example:












We can use these pieces to see how Mozart developed. The early ones, K.6 thru K.9, are very simple, and he probably received help, revisions, or advice from his father on the early ones, but already by the third one, K.9 in B-flat, I can already hear progress; the violin part seems more substantial, and there is "gestural phrasing;" the music seems to be creating musical gestures which lend it more of a speech-like, musically meaningful effect. It allows the music to "breathe" in gestures, instead of sounding mechanical. And this tendency only increases as I progress through the numbers. So at least, listening to Mozart like this has a pedagogical value. While not every piece is a "masterpiece," we can at least gain an understanding of how a composer and his ideas can develop in time.


----------



## John Kiunke

No. 18 is very nice.


----------



## Larkenfield

Regarding the OP, I have never thought of Mozart's works of genius as being "powdered wig proper," ever. I think people will sometimes forget that the performances can make a huge difference, someone like Neville Marriner's, and that some click and some don't. But I have never heard Mozart write anything less than _good_, and I think what's true is that some listeners simply were not born with the DNA for Mozart, like for certain foods, but for other composers, and would be better off moving on to someone else. Or come back to him later after one has changed and there's a new appreciation of the composer that doesn't have to be forced, and happens naturally-that is, if it's meant to happens at all. But to ask "which symphonies are actually any good?" is not a neutral position but a negative position that already shows a greater sense of disliking the composer than liking him, and not likely to change, no matter how good the performances... I would also have suggested any Mozart symphony that George Szell recorded, which happen to be personal favorites.


----------



## Prodromides

Neward Thelman said:


> ...
> But for me, pretty much anything prior to Beethoven just doesn't speak. I have to really left-brain myself to focus my attention.
> ...What insight can you offer?


No insight (regarding Mozart, that is) from my perspective, which is this: music written prior to the 1870s by composers born before 1851 doesn't speak to my personal aesthetics.


----------



## Enthusiast

It is let's knock Mozart time again. I am the other way inclined and feel unsure what people who hate Mozart can find in any classical (small c) music. It seems to me they are missing one of the genes vital for enjoying it.


----------



## Aloevera

I get the impression that Mozart for a good chunk of his career was trying to fulfill the prodigal image placed on him by royalty. It seems there is a major leap that Mozart made to step out of that prodigy mindset which not many people can break out of and become something else . I think his symphonies 1 - 35 are somewhat of a symptom of it, but afterwards there seems to be a much nobler quality to it


----------



## joen_cph

Recordings mean a lot. I find Harnoncourt´s recording of almost all the early symphonies entertaining and often creative, on a level that is not really obtained by the other versions I´ve heard.


----------



## Enthusiast

Aloevera said:


> I get the impression that Mozart for a good chunk of his career was trying to fulfill the prodigal image placed on him by royalty. It seems there is a major leap that Mozart made to step out of that prodigy mindset which not many people can break out of and become something else . I think his symphonies 1 - 35 are somewhat of a symptom of it, but afterwards there seems to be a much nobler quality to it


I think you should go back to those pre-35 symphonies. Many of them are great masterpieces, certainly from 21 onwards. They do not fit your theory.


----------



## amfortas

Which posts in this thread are actually any good?


----------



## SixFootScowl

amfortas said:


> Which posts in this thread are actually any good?


This one is.


----------



## Aloevera

Enthusiast said:


> I think you should go back to those pre-35 symphonies. Many of them are great masterpieces, certainly from 21 onwards. They do not fit your theory.


I am not at all saying he didn't many many great pieces before that. Sinfonia in e flat is no doubt a masterpiece. It just seems to be that he dropped the style of symphony 31 or 35 (i even like 35) type of showing off along with overindulgence. Its also around this time he began his piano concertos 20 - 27 which no doubt is feels like a major leap even though 1, 5, 9 10, 17, and 18 I consider to be also masterpieces.


----------



## Guest

Aloevera said:


> I get the impression that Mozart for a good chunk of his career was trying to fulfill the prodigal image placed on him by royalty. It seems there is a major leap that Mozart made to step out of that prodigy mindset which not many people can break out of and become something else . I think his symphonies 1 - 35 are somewhat of a symptom of it, but afterwards there seems to be a much nobler quality to it


I can't say I agree with this. The Hallmark of Mozart, for me, is that he fulfilled the rather restrictive expectations of his era but somehow, as if by accident, created works that have a transcendent beauty. I find this true of the early as well as the late works, although in the late works the conformity to the standard classical style starts to loosen.


----------



## Aloevera

Baron Scarpia said:


> I can't say I agree with this. The Hallmark of Mozart, for me, is that he fulfilled the rather restrictive expectations of his era but somehow, as if by accident, created works that have a transcendent beauty. I find this true of the early as well as the late works, although in the late works the conformity to the standard classical style starts to loosen.


It doesn't seem to me that he was restricted since I think he especially liked the form and structure of the classical era more so than even other classical composers and it is something he took pride in. I don't see anything wrong with it. Its the same as saying Malhar was restricted by his lack of structure, both percieved music to be a certain way.


----------



## Guest

Aloevera said:


> It doesn't seem to me that he was restricted since I think he especially liked the form and structure of the classical era more so than even other classical composers and it is something he took pride in. I don't see anything wrong with it. Its the same as saying Malhar was restricted by his lack of structure, both percieved music to be a certain way.


Whether he liked it or not, I have no way of knowing. My impression is that the music that he put into those structures was often unconventional, while not giving the impression of being transgressive.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Aloevera said:


> I am not at all saying he didn't many many great pieces before that. Sinfonia in e flat is no doubt a masterpiece. It just seems to be that he dropped the style of symphony 31 or 35 (i even like 35) type of showing off along with overindulgence. Its also around this time he began his piano concertos 20 - 27 which no doubt is feels like a major leap even though 1, 5, 9 10, 17, and 18 I consider to be also masterpieces.


Whenever we start to think along these lines - that Mozart's inventiveness made a major leap after this or that work, year - there is always an earlier work to confound it.
Many commentators feel the pc 9 is unequalled by anything later - the violin concerti 3-5 are light years ahead of any other concerto composed at that time - the seraglio and idomeneo - early "mature" works are as good as any later opera. And Mozart was also capable of composing utterly conventional music later in his career.


----------



## Guest

Well, Mozart is remembered because he did things others didn't do in the musical language of the time. That's pretty much how the best composers tend to do things......


----------



## Pyotr

Mozart consumes 50% of my music listening these days but I’m not a big fan of his symphonies, except for #41, which is my favorite symphony. One note about #41 that I find interesting is that most scholars believe that Mozart never heard his 41th Symphony performed. This is notable because Herr Mozart was in the habit of revising his works after hearing them performed — Jupiter went through no such revisions; it was perfect the first time.


----------



## Guest

Pyotr said:


> Mozart consumes 50% of my music listening these days but I'm not a big fan of his symphonies, except for #41, which is my favorite symphony. One note about #41 that I find interesting is that most scholars believe that Mozart never heard his 41th Symphony performed. This is notable because Herr Mozart was in the habit of revising his works after hearing them performed - Jupiter went through no such revisions; it was perfect the first time.


I am not going to make any judgements on behalf of Mozart.......but of course, if he felt there were some issues that needs fixing then it _would_ have been fantastic to hear a revised version of the symphony had he made those revisions.


----------



## Captainnumber36

shirime said:


> I am not going to make any judgements on behalf of Mozart.......but of course, if he felt there were some issues that needs fixing then it _would_ have been fantastic to hear a revised version of the symphony had he made those revisions.


To hear, yes, but some may still *prefer* the original.


----------



## PlaySalieri

shirime said:


> I am not going to make any judgements on behalf of Mozart.......but of course, if he felt there were some issues that needs fixing then it _would_ have been fantastic to hear a revised version of the symphony had he made those revisions.


It was either Blom or Alfred Einstein who said there was a rule with Mozart - the first version is always the best.

I think in fact he did his revisions pre performance and post perf revisions were rare.


----------



## larold

_"Which Mozart Symphonies Are Actually Any Good?" Well, I suggest doubters sit down and try to write symphonies better than Mozart's worst efforts!_

Hear, hear. I also suggest the author perhaps tell us what *is *worth his listening time for comparisons sake.


----------



## Enthusiast

larold said:


> _"Which Mozart Symphonies Are Actually Any Good?" Well, I suggest doubters sit down and try to write symphonies better than Mozart's worst efforts!_
> 
> Hear, hear. I also suggest the author perhaps tell us what *is *worth his listening time for comparisons sake.


Not a good critique of Mozart-deaf listeners. As Dr Johnson noted, we know whether a table is poorly made or not without being able to make one ourselves. That said, I don't really think of people who don't get Mozart as music lovers!


----------



## Pyotr

stomanek said:


> It was either Blom or Alfred Einstein who said there was a rule with Mozart - the first version is always the best.
> 
> I think in fact he did his revisions pre performance and post perf revisions were rare.


With an Avatar like that you probably know more about Mozart than I. Here is a snippet from Wiki (the total repository of human knowledge):

in a recently discovered 10 July 1802 letter by the musician Johann Wenzel (1762-1831) to the publisher Ambrosius Kühnel in Leipzig, Wenzel refers to a performance of the 40th symphony at the home of Baron Gottfried van Swieten with Mozart present, but the execution was so poor that the composer had to leave the room....There is strong circumstantial evidence for other, probably better, performances. On several occasions between the composition of the symphony and the composer's death, symphony concerts were given featuring Mozart's music for which copies of the program have survived, announcing a symphony unidentified by date or key. These include:

Dresden, 14 April 1789, during Mozart's Berlin journey
Leipzig, 12 May 1789, on the same trip
Frankfurt, 15 October 1790

Copies survive of a poster for a concert given by the Tonkünstlersocietät (Society of Musicians) 17 April 1791 in the Burgtheater in Vienna, conducted by Mozart's colleague Antonio Salieri. The first item on the program was billed as "A Grand Symphony composed by Herr Mozart".
Most important is the fact that Mozart revised his symphony (see above). As Zaslaw says, this _"demonstrates that [the symphony] was performed, for Mozart would hardly have gone to the trouble of adding the clarinets and rewriting the flutes and oboes to accommodate them, had he not had a specific performance in view."_ The orchestra for the 1791 Vienna concert included the clarinetist brothers Anton and Johann Nepomuk Stadler; which, as Zaslaw points out, limits the possibilities to just the 39th and 40th symphonies.
Zaslaw adds: _"The version without clarinets must also have been performed, for the reorchestrated version of two passages in the slow movement, which exists in Mozart's hand, must have resulted from his having heard the work and discovered an aspect needing improvement."_


----------



## Bluecrab

Enthusiast said:


> ...Mozart-deaf listeners...


How do you define "Mozart-deaf listeners"?



Enthusiast said:


> I don't really think of people who don't get Mozart as music lovers!


A couple of points:

- There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable of classical music, who "get" Mozart, and who simply don't like his music.

- If you think that anybody who does not like Mozart's music cannot be a music lover, you're simply wrong. That's a terribly narrow-minded premise.


----------



## Enthusiast

Bluecrab said:


> How do you define "Mozart-deaf listeners"?
> 
> A couple of points:
> 
> - There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable of classical music, who "get" Mozart, and who simply don't like his music.
> 
> - If you think that anybody who does not like Mozart's music cannot be a music lover, you're simply wrong. That's a terribly narrow-minded premise.


I accept that Mozart-deafness is a condition that deserves our sympathy. The subject is narrow-mindedness - mine (if I really believe what I wrote humorously) and the Mozart-deaf, who seem closed to so many of the places that music can take us - I agree with that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pyotr said:


> With an Avatar like that you probably know more about Mozart than I. Here is a snippet from Wiki (the total repository of human knowledge):
> 
> in a recently discovered 10 July 1802 letter by the musician Johann Wenzel (1762-1831) to the publisher Ambrosius Kühnel in Leipzig, Wenzel refers to a performance of the 40th symphony at the home of Baron Gottfried van Swieten with Mozart present, but the execution was so poor that the composer had to leave the room....There is strong circumstantial evidence for other, probably better, performances. On several occasions between the composition of the symphony and the composer's death, symphony concerts were given featuring Mozart's music for which copies of the program have survived, announcing a symphony unidentified by date or key. These include:
> 
> Dresden, 14 April 1789, during Mozart's Berlin journey
> Leipzig, 12 May 1789, on the same trip
> Frankfurt, 15 October 1790
> 
> Copies survive of a poster for a concert given by the Tonkünstlersocietät (Society of Musicians) 17 April 1791 in the Burgtheater in Vienna, conducted by Mozart's colleague Antonio Salieri. The first item on the program was billed as "A Grand Symphony composed by Herr Mozart".
> Most important is the fact that Mozart revised his symphony (see above). As Zaslaw says, this _"demonstrates that [the symphony] was performed, for Mozart would hardly have gone to the trouble of adding the clarinets and rewriting the flutes and oboes to accommodate them, had he not had a specific performance in view."_ The orchestra for the 1791 Vienna concert included the clarinetist brothers Anton and Johann Nepomuk Stadler; which, as Zaslaw points out, limits the possibilities to just the 39th and 40th symphonies.
> Zaslaw adds: _"The version without clarinets must also have been performed, for the reorchestrated version of two passages in the slow movement, which exists in Mozart's hand, must have resulted from his having heard the work and discovered an aspect needing improvement."_


I am not sure about Zaslaw's comments. I would need to do some reading on this.


----------



## Captainnumber36

All of them are great, it just depends on my mood which ones I want to listen to.


----------



## Eusebius12

Yeah but he helped to develop that style. Also the late works anticipate romanticism quite a lot. He retained a need for balance in his works so they never descend to unrestrained vulgarity (not always undesirable though). He can never burst the dam, even if the penultimate scene of Don Giovanni or movements of the C minor Mass and the Requiem shake its foundations. Similarly, it would be hardly true to say that Die Zauberfloete was in any way representative of some rococo tradition, although it remains balanced and formally perfect in a truly Mozartean way.


----------



## Eusebius12

Mozart has a transgressive quality that Alfred Einstein identified, and he writes in an extraordinarily pungent sturm und drang fashion when the mood catches him. What he wanted to write and what he thought his public and patrons could handle might have been different things. Mozart believe it or not was often considered very advanced for his time. As far as being completely transgressive, take the opening of the Dissonance quartet. How shattering would the D minor concerto been to some of his bewigged listeners, or the k 475 C minor fantasy for piano?


----------

