# Works of Mozart should be played stronger



## sunada (Nov 9, 2010)

I think works of Mozart should be played stronger.

As you know, works of Mozart is played softly, and people like it.
But, I think the way of playing Mozart is made by romantic musicans. They would think, compared with romantic music, classical music is very simple and pure. So they started to play classical music softly, wasn't it?

When I got rid of my prejudice against classical music, and read many scores of Haydn or Mozart, I found some violet or shocking sounds, not only beautiful one.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Yes, these two folks ventured into _Sturm und Drang_ during a period of creativity that musicologists still need to provide a robust explanation for. Though you might like to provide examples of works you may have been referring to, so we can help you discuss. Mozart's piano concerto no.20 in D minor K.466 was a fine example. Perfection.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, I agree, much depends on the way(s) in which these works are interpreted. I just went to a recital here in Sydney on Monday with the Melbourne-based Flinders String Quartet. The last work on the program was Mozart's _Clarinet Quintet in A_ (& they also played the quintet fragment in B-flat) with clarinettist Paul Dean. Man, this guy had a sense for dynamics for sure. There was such a subtlety there. I think that sometimes some musicians have a tendency to 'smooth out' the dynamics in music of the classical era, so it's good to hear performances where these things are handled with a fair bit of gusto. No need to have the delicate padded gloves on for this kind of stuff, it's good when musicians get down and dirty with this music!!! The dynamics in Dean's performance reminded me of jazz rather than classical, he definitely had a fresh approach to this classic work...


----------



## Enjoying Life (Aug 2, 2010)

Does anyone have suggested performances or conductors for Mozart who play it the way you are suggesting?


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Well, for the piano concertos, you could try Edwin Fischer, Richter, and Michelangeli. These tend to play a heavier-handed Mozart than the more fluid and "subtle" school of Casadesus (the school that eventually became the basis for the contemporary style that you describe).


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I absolutely agree with the OP. The only time I felt close to Mozart's music was while listening to Rene Jacobs' Zauberflote; possibly the most sinuously I've ever heard any classical composer played, Beethoven not excepted. And it was damn thrilling.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm not certain how dispute the original assertion that Mozart should be played stronger. I mean, what is the alternative? Mozart should be played weakly... effetely... boringly? I don't buy into the notion that one manner... or one era for that matter... has all the answers when it comes to performing Mozart. I agree that Rene Jacobs recent recordings of Mozart operas are thrilling... but I certainly would not surrender my Otto Klemperer version of the _Magic Flute_, my Carlo Maria Giulini and Joseph Krips versions of _Don Giovanni_, or my Bohm and Erich Kleiber versions of _Le Nozze di Figaro_. The same is true of his other works as well. I have any number of recordings of the various piano concertos and each has its merits. I don't think any of the best recordings of Mozart have ever approached his work with kid gloves. The same is surely true of any composer. Who is best at interpreting Bach's Well Tempered Clavier?... Glenn Gould, Angela Hewitt, Murray Perahia, Sviatoslav Richter, Rosalyn Tureck, András Schiff, Wanda Landowska, Ralph Kirkpatrick, Roger Woodward, or Kenneth Gilbert? Every one brings something unique to the work so that none of them are the ultimate last word.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Every one brings something unique to the work so that none of them are the ultimate last word.


I agree with that, although I appreciate the sentiment that the OP is suggesting. For an example of the kind of 'gloves off' kind of performance that he's talking about, I can't think of anything better than the box set of piano concertos (fortepiano + period instruments) recently released by Viviana Sofroniztki:










It's hard to get hold of, costs an arm and a leg, and polarises opinion considerably, but if you love these performances, you really do love them, and nothing else comes close. I can close my eyes and almost believe it's Mozart himself playing - such is the sense of natural vigour and direct engagement with the music and the keyboard.

But it's not for everyone. There's an extended sample here.

And here's her website.


----------



## tahnak (Jan 19, 2009)

sunada said:


> I think works of Mozart should be played stronger.
> 
> I agree. There should be punch in the double basses and the timpani also.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

sunada said:


> But, I think the way of playing Mozart is made by romantic musicans. They would think, compared with romantic music, classical music is very simple and pure. So they started to play classical music softly, wasn't it?


There's a good reason why Beethoven is considered a legend and one of the most important composers in musical history: he changed the meaning of music beyond what the likes of Mozart and Haydn are capable of producing. He moved music beyond the time where it's meant to accompany the dinners and nightouts of aristocrats. And he started the war to make music as grand and complex as possible. So you can never expect Mozart's music to be played with the strum and drum of Beethoven's, because his intentions are not the same as Beethoven's.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think I disagree with the above post, not only because of the phrase "capable of producing", but also because there's just too much of Mozart in every genre and in every dimension of music for him to be dismissed as one who merely composed music "where it's meant to accompany the dinners and nightouts of aristocrats" (although I'm sure this wasn't the posters full intention).

His music was also meant to accompany the young Beethoven as he learned his trade, and Mozarts' music still accompanies us in a more profound and subtle way than Beethoven (in my own humble opinion) in showing how music itself can reflect life in all its joys and tragedies, humours and movements. He was - in Neal Zaslaw's memorable phrase - a "working stiff", but so too was Shakespeare, and Michaelangelo.

I agree that their intentions were different, but I disagree that this made Beethoven a better composer...:tiphat:


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Karajan dd a good job in making Mozart sounding like Beethoven.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> Karajan dd a good job in making Mozart sounding like Beethoven.


But was this a good thing? I recently attended a great performance of Mozart's 20th piano concerto by the Irish pianist, Finghin Collins, and he demurred on using Beethoven's cadenzas on the grounds that he felt they didn't fit. They were of a different era and were more about Beethoven than Mozart. Of course, that's Beethoven's aim as the performer, to showcase his own virtuosity in the cadenzas, but Collins preferred a cadenza which sounded pre-Beethoven to Beethoven's own brilliant and romantic candenzas.

I wouldn't know enough of this to argue either way, because I love the Beethoven cadenzas but Finghin's performance was brilliant, but I DO believe that Mozart was more subtle than he's given credit for, and what's explicit in Beethoven is still present in Mozart's music, but in more profound and subtle doses. So going back to the OP, I'm not sure who's coming up short, but I find a lot of interpreters of Mozart are capturing that gnawing sense of anxiety and drama that pervades even so-called "light" works...


----------

