# How many cycles of Mozart's symphonies exist?



## Lord Lance

Originally I thought there were only few sets: Marriner, Hogwood, Pinnock, Mackerras and Bohm.

I have uncovered many, many more since then: A. Fischer, Otmar, Levine, Arigoni, Levine, Leinsdorf, Ward, Tate, Kehr,.

The sheers number of artists recording some 40+ symphonies is boggling. So, I was wondering if anyone knew exactly how many box sets exist of Mozart's symphonies.


----------



## joen_cph

I think that the various _Harnoncourt_ sets makes a complete or almost-complete, remarkable cycle too (with Concentus Musicus, CtGebouw, ECO)
http://www.amazon.ca/Nikolaus-Harnoncourt-Conducts-Mozart-Symphonies/dp/B00GZHRDHA

- _Jaap ter Linden_, on Brilliant http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Comple...26&sr=1-2&keywords=mozart+complete+symphonies


----------



## Pugg

That's why people invented the internet, happy searching.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I wouldn't be surprised if there are 60 or more.


----------



## joen_cph

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if there are 60 or more.


There aren´t. These were 16, with varying numbers of included symphonies. 
Above 25 would surprise me a lot; around 20 is a reasonable guess.


----------



## manyene

Pedant's corner: Only one, surely. There are umpteen recorded cycles


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

joen_cph said:


> There aren´t. These were 16, with vayring numbers of included symphonies.
> Above 25 would surprise me a lot.


Well, there are many more complete Mahler cycles than 16 which take roughly the same amount of time to play through. Mozart has been regularly recorded for a longer period of time than Mahler has and requires less instruments......

But I haven't been on this planet for a very long time, so I can't say for sure what musical trends have been with Mozart's music throughout the 20th century. Perhaps only a small amount of music has been popular and often recorded?


----------



## joen_cph

Pedant´s corner II:

Some of the symphonies are disputed as maybe, or maybe not by Mozart, some are composite compositions; 
39 are listed here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_symphonies_of_spurious_or_doubtful_authenticity; 
for no.32 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/32._Sinfonie_(Mozart), 
for no.37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._37_(Mozart), 
and there´s the "Odense" one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony,_K._16a_(Mozart), 
etc.

If we think of only "the last 6 symphonies", there are many more recorded sets than just 16 - 25 different ones. Nos. 25, 29, 31 and 33 also had some popularity at least, promoted by for example Klemperer, Britten, Krips, Fricsay, Barschai, etc. But complete cycles including the early symphonies haven´t been that many; I´ve been collecting since the early 80s, including the elder LP market, and on top of my head, I don´t recall any seen ones missing. Very local, largely unknown ones don´t seem to be plenty either.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I am aware of cycles complete (to varying degrees) conducted by:

Alessandro Arigoni
Karl Böhm
Hans Graf
Christopher Hogwood
Günter Kehr
Erich Leinsdorf
James Levine
Jaap ter Linden
Charles Mackerras
Neville Marriner
Trevor Pinnock
Jeffrey Tate

I make that 12 to choose from. They all have slightly ideas of what constitutes 'complete' as some un-numbered Mozart symphonies hadn't even been discovered when the Böhm or Leinsdorf sets were recorded.


----------



## Triplets

To what extent do we need a complete cycle? The ones that he turned out when he was a prepubescent wunderkind are interesting but I don't really want to hear them that often. Haydn's first 20 or so Symphonies are more interesting than Mozarts first couple of dozen.
I own the Hogwood cycle, which I found deeply discounted at a second hand stores. It is missing the liner notes but that's ok.
I don't feel the need to acquire another. I do own multiple versions of #25 through 41


----------



## Delicious Manager

Triplets said:


> To what extent do we need a complete cycle? The ones that he turned out when he was a prepubescent wunderkind are interesting but I don't really want to hear them that often. Haydn's first 20 or so Symphonies are more interesting than Mozarts first couple of dozen.
> I own the Hogwood cycle, which I found deeply discounted at a second hand stores. It is missing the liner notes but that's ok.
> I don't feel the need to acquire another. I do own multiple versions of #25 through 41


I think it's a mistake to discount all of Mozart's early symphonies. Certainly Nos 10, 17 and (especially) 21 are of interest, while Nos 25 and 29 are already works of genius.


----------



## joen_cph

Harnoncourt is great even in the earlier, pre-20 ones and bring great liveliness and variation to them.


----------



## Lord Lance

joen_cph said:


> Harnoncourt is great even in the earlier, pre-20 ones and bring great liveliness and variation to them.


Dreadfully slow and leading to dull performances.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lord Lance said:


> dull performances.


Have you read your signature lately? 

I think Harnoncourt has a very energetic take on the early symphonies, but you are right about the tempo choices! I find that Adam Fischer has has an incredibly lively, extroverted and big boned sound in his complete cycle which makes the early works sound wonderful and not like something a kid could've written!


----------



## joen_cph

Some reviews of Harnoncourt in the early symphonies can be read here:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/May06/Early_Mozart_82876757362.htm
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-10991/
http://www.classical.net/~music/recs/reviews/r/rca75736a.php

BTW, I also liked Adam Fischer in the 40th a lot, the only one of his recordings I heard, and I´ll eventually get his set - it has top priority to me, for supplementary Mozart, together with the old Anda set of the piano concertos.


----------



## Brouken Air

joen_cph said:


> Some reviews of Harnoncourt in the early symphonies can be read here:
> 
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/May06/Early_Mozart_82876757362.htm
> http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-10991/
> http://www.classical.net/~music/recs/reviews/r/rca75736a.php
> 
> BTW, I also liked Adam Fischer in the 40th a lot, the only one of his recordings I heard, and I´ll eventually get his set - it has top priority to me, for supplementary Mozart, together with the old Anda set of the piano concertos.


Fischer is good in the early symphonies up to the 20's, from 30 on I prefer by far Harnoncourt, Klemperer, Szell, Mackerras or Pinnock.

:tiphat:


----------



## Lord Lance

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Have you read your signature lately?
> 
> I think Harnoncourt has a very energetic take on the early symphonies, but you are right about the tempo choices! I find that Adam Fischer has has an incredibly lively, extroverted and big boned sound in his complete cycle which makes the early works sound wonderful and not like something a kid could've written!


Well, y'know... it was written by a kid.

COAG, you are from the Modernist Cult, part of the HIPster crowd (or at least that is my impression of you)- very different tastes you and I have despite being the same age.

Honestly, Karajan's tempi may've been slower than, say Hogwood or Fischer, but they had warmth and the interpretations are just incredible. Glorious big band Mozart. They probably don't have the state-of-art clarity and balance that modern interpretations have but they still are legendary in their own right. Not that all of them are home runs. I haven't heard all of them; I will get back to you once I do.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lord Lance said:


> Well, y'know... it was written by a kid.
> 
> COAG, you are from the Modernist Cult, part of the HIPster crowd (or at least that is my impression of you)- very different tastes you and I have despite being the same age.
> 
> Honestly, Karajan's tempi may've been slower than, say Hogwood or Fischer, but they had warmth and the interpretations are just incredible. Glorious big band Mozart. They probably don't have the state-of-art clarity and balance that modern interpretations have but they still are legendary in their own right. Not that all of them are home runs. I haven't heard all of them; I will get back to you once I do.


I've actually never fully understood why people say 'big band Mozart.' Is it purely because of the orchestra size? Or is it anything to do with a very big sound?

And btw, yes you described me in a nutshell! :lol:
Although I don't really like Hogwood's Mozart recordings all that much. I find them to have a rather thin sound compared to other interpretations (like Fischer).

I also do not like Karajan's Mozart unless you're talking about some _really_ early recording he made of the Haffner symphony in the 30s or 40s.

All this is just subjective, you are right there, but I am really curious to know what your reasons for liking Karajan's Mozart are. Give a list of the best qualities about his interpretation and I'll have another listen with them in mind.


----------



## Lord Lance

*Zingzingading!*



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've actually never fully understood why people say 'big band Mozart.' Is it purely because of the orchestra size? Or is it anything to do with a very big sound?
> 
> And btw, yes you described me in a nutshell! :lol:
> Although I don't really like Hogwood's Mozart recordings all that much. I find them to have a rather thin sound compared to other interpretations (like Fischer).
> 
> I also do not like Karajan's Mozart unless you're talking about some _really_ early recording he made of the Haffner symphony in the 30s or 40s.
> 
> All this is just subjective, you are right there, but I am really curious to know what your reasons for liking Karajan's Mozart are. Give a list of the best qualities about his interpretation and I'll have another listen with them in mind.


Both. The orchestral sizes and the sound they produce are massive. Karajan's Bach's Mass in B minor, for example, employ close to or more than two hundred musicians!

At these critical junctions of my life, I yearn to know about music theory and music the most. Karajan's Mozart.... The most tempting facet of the performances are the Karajan trademarks [Hate 'em or love 'em - I can certainly respect hating them]. Lush string sounds and double the amount of player or maybe 2.5x of the period performance movements with modern instruments creating a performance with a memorable sound - inimitable. His artistic liberties work for me too - No, I don't know what they are but I hear it from folks that he does them with all works he conducts; he _interprets _them rather than blindly just letting the notes go woosh. The sound is fantastic too - as long as you were not raised on SACD sound. Most importantly, the interpretations themselves are idiosyncratic. Not your average run-of-the-mill Mozart. Again the "hate 'em or love 'em" scenario. Also, I am relieved that he didn't go at a frenzied tempi. But, hey, that's me. I enjoy Klemperer's Mozart which is all but completely out of fashion; the leaden Mozart, the languid and thick Mozart. Or not. Karajan's Mozart isn't perhaps lyrical as much as aggressive and powerful. A little darker than the period performance which can be light weight and make them more brighter. All the while, Karajan's Mozart is lyrical and magical.

I have indeed heard his 1940s Mozart. More typical standard fare Mozart than what would characterize his 1960s-1980s Mozart.

Which 1930s record of my Lord have you heard?

Speaking of my Lord, have you heard his fine EMI 35-41 series of Mozart's symphonies?


----------



## DavidA

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *I've actually never fully understood why people say 'big band Mozart.*' Is it purely because of the orchestra size? Or is it anything to do with a very big sound?
> 
> And btw, yes you described me in a nutshell! :lol:
> Although I don't really like Hogwood's Mozart recordings all that much. I find them to have a rather thin sound compared to other interpretations (like Fischer).
> 
> I also do not like Karajan's Mozart unless you're talking about some _really_ early recording he made of the Haffner symphony in the 30s or 40s.
> 
> All this is just subjective, you are right there, but *I am really curious to know what your reasons for liking Karajan's Mozart* are. Give a list of the best qualities about his interpretation and I'll have another listen with them in mind.


Let Karajan answer for himself:

"The misconception about Mozart persists! He is seen as an idler, a sort of playboy who reigned from Palace to Palace with his music. In fact, Mozart was with all his heart and soul among his times. He was always in a state of emotional exaltation. The mistake about him tends to reduce the stature of his personality, which is all the more unacceptable in the case of the Mozart of the later symphonies and the requiem where the full orchestra is needed, although not an orchestra that is over forceful."
HvK then goes on to quote a letter Mozart wrote to his father in 1781:
"I forgot to tell you the other day that at the concert the symphony [possibly the Paris Symphony] went magnificently and had the greatest success. There were 40 violins, the wind instruments were all doubled, there were 10 violas, 10 double bases, eight violin-cellos and six bassoons."
So maybe he has a point?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lord Lance said:


> Both. The orchestral sizes and the sound they produce are massive. Karajan's Bach's Mass in B minor, for example, employ close to or more than two hundred musicians!
> 
> At these critical junctions of my life, I yearn to know about music theory and music the most. Karajan's Mozart.... The most tempting facet of the performances are the Karajan trademarks [Hate 'em or love 'em - I can certainly respect hating them]. Lush string sounds and double the amount of player or maybe 2.5x of the period performance movements with modern instruments creating a performance with a memorable sound - inimitable. His artistic liberties work for me too - No, I don't know what they are but I hear it from folks that he does them with all works he conducts; he _interprets _them rather than blindly just letting the notes go woosh. The sound is fantastic too - as long as you were not raised on SACD sound. Most importantly, the interpretations themselves are idiosyncratic. Not your average run-of-the-mill Mozart. Again the "hate 'em or love 'em" scenario. Also, I am relieved that he didn't go at a frenzied tempi. But, hey, that's me. I enjoy Klemperer's Mozart which is all but completely out of fashion; the leaden Mozart, the languid and thick Mozart. Or not. Karajan's Mozart isn't perhaps lyrical as much as aggressive and powerful. A little darker than the period performance which can be light weight and make them more brighter. All the while, Karajan's Mozart is lyrical and magical.
> 
> I have indeed heard his 1940s Mozart. More typical standard fare Mozart than what would characterize his 1960s-1980s Mozart.
> 
> Which 1930s record of my Lord have you heard?
> 
> Speaking of my Lord, have you heard his fine EMI 35-41 series of Mozart's symphonies?


Than you very much for such an informative and insightful post! It definitely got me thinking. 

The 'big band' sound I think is as much a modern conception as the HIP orchestra size (maybe a couple of decades older, but bear with me). What I find that 'big band' Mozart gets wrong and HIP Mozart gets right is the ratio of strings to wind and brass. Big orchestras were certainly not unheard, but what is curious about large scale performances is that if the number of strings were doubles, the number of other instruments would also be doubled in order to keep the prime orchestral balance that was considered during the composition of the work. In the 20th century, for various reasons which sprouted from the evolution of the orchestra and the recording industry, it became much less common to keep the ratio and thus a very very different (string centric) sound was created.

It might seem that I am not a fan of large orchestras for older repertoire like Mozart, but I've come to realise recently that it's more about orchestral balance than it is the actual number of instruments. I love Adam Fischer's Mozart cycle partly because of its huge sound. It's deceptively huge though! A chamber orchestra is closer to the balance of what Mozart designed his music for and therefore, with this instrumental clarity, comes a _forte_ which is characterised by both the timbre and technique of the instruments.

I have nothing against Karajan, I just find that his interpretations really don't work for me no matter how much integrity and validity they have. I find it very refreshing to hear his take on any music; I hear a different sound, a different type of musicality, something which is truly unique amongst a sea of same old stodgy music making. It just seems that all of the qualities that make Karajan's interpretations unique also make enjoy listening to it less. Nobody's fault but my own.

I have investigated on Spotify some very early recordings he made, the earliest being in 1938, but I think it was on a CD of mainly famous overtures or an early recording of Beethoven's 7th.

I listened to Karajan's EMI Prague symphony this morning and compared it to his DG Prague. I prefer the EMI version, but I prefer Adam Fischer to both.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

DavidA said:


> Let Karajan answer for himself:
> 
> "The misconception about Mozart persists! He is seen as an idler, a sort of playboy who reigned from Palace to Palace with his music. In fact, Mozart was with all his heart and soul among his times. He was always in a state of emotional exaltation. The mistake about him tends to reduce the stature of his personality, which is all the more unacceptable in the case of the Mozart of the later symphonies and the requiem where the full orchestra is needed, although not an orchestra that is over forceful."
> HvK then goes on to quote a letter Mozart wrote to his father in 1781:
> "I forgot to tell you the other day that at the concert the symphony [possibly the Paris Symphony] went magnificently and had the greatest success. There were 40 violins, *the wind instruments were all doubled*, there were 10 violas, 10 double bases, eight violin-cellos and six bassoons."
> So maybe he has a point?


The key words are emboldened, I explained this in my post in response to Lord Lance. Thank you for providing me with sources to back up my arguments!


----------



## Lord Lance

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Than you very much for such an informative and insightful post! It definitely got me thinking.
> 
> The 'big band' sound I think is as much a modern conception as the HIP orchestra size (maybe a couple of decades older, but bear with me). What I find that 'big band' Mozart gets wrong and HIP Mozart gets right is the ratio of strings to wind and brass. Big orchestras were certainly not unheard, but what is curious about large scale performances is that if the number of strings were doubles, the number of other instruments would also be doubled in order to keep the prime orchestral balance that was considered during the composition of the work. In the 20th century, for various reasons which sprouted from the evolution of the orchestra and the recording industry, it became much less common to keep the ratio and thus a very very different (string centric) sound was created.
> 
> It might seem that I am not a fan of large orchestras for older repertoire like Mozart, but I've come to realise recently that it's more about orchestral balance than it is the actual number of instruments. I love Adam Fischer's Mozart cycle partly because of its huge sound. It's deceptively huge though! A chamber orchestra is closer to the balance of what Mozart designed his music for and therefore, with this instrumental clarity, comes a _forte_ which is characterised by both the timbre and technique of the instruments.
> 
> I have nothing against Karajan, I just find that his interpretations really don't work for me no matter how much integrity and validity they have. I find it very refreshing to hear his take on any music; I hear a different sound, a different type of musicality, something which is truly unique amongst a sea of same old stodgy music making. It just seems that all of the qualities that make Karajan's interpretations unique also make enjoy listening to it less. Nobody's fault but my own.
> 
> I have investigated on Spotify some very early recordings he made, the earliest being in 1938, but I think it was on a CD of mainly famous overtures or an early recording of Beethoven's 7th.
> 
> I listened to Karajan's EMI Prague symphony this morning and compared it to his DG Prague. I prefer the EMI version, but I prefer Adam Fischer to both.


Yes, after reading your post I checked on Spotify myself [clever IP circumventing. If Spotify asks, I am Finnish]. Interesting. I might give them a go sometime. Exploring Karajan is my passion after all. [Recently finished downloading all discs of his complete works on DG - which I want to hear (read: Non-operatic; giving the German Requiem a go soon) - 183 discs of glorious music]

Hardly insightful. I just stated what the music was. 'tis all. None of the fancy music stuff.


----------



## Albert7

More than you know. I would collect a few cycles.


----------



## Lord Lance

Albert7 said:


> More than you know. I would collect a few cycles.


C'mon, I admitted my prejudice and promised a wee bit of optimistic stance. Remove the sign, _please_? I feel guilty about it - a sign of something I suppose.

"More than you know"? I suppose you mean that you know more about this than I do? No doubt about it~ Forty years of listening experience cannot be matched~

A "few" seems too _few_. The go-to word should be "become a homeless hoarder of these cycle".


----------

