# Mozart Revisited



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky (Apr 19, 2018)

Hi all, what a great forum. First post (other than the introduction).

I honestly never liked Mozart, at least what I heard, which I now know was his earlier work. Just seemed too much like bits and pieces of scales arranged in standard ways. But I have to say, after reading a great book about him, I'm rethinking my opinion. Even his first symphony, written when he was nine or ten, seems better now. And it's not just that I'm hearing more than constructed bit and pieces. I'm hearing the inspiration. And the more I learn about his life, the more I appreciate his work.

So what do you guys think? I know this is an opinion that'll be very subjective, but in responding either way, like or dislike, maybe provide specific reasons to support you opinion so we don't get into a she said/he said type argument.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Firstly, welcome to the forum! :tiphat:

Second, I’m biased.

Thirdly, Mozart is the gift that keeps giving. Example, today in the car I listened to the string trio, K563, and while listening, I wondered about it’s composition. We suspect it was a gift for a friend who often loaned him money. But okay, a “gift” might be trinket music, an entertaining minuet, a small dabble in the harpsichord, witty enough to entertain, but simple enough for his friend to play. But K563 contains huge musical ideas, six intricate movements, it weighs in at about 55 minutes, it contains some of Mozart’s most expressive and original ideas for strings, a sumptuous andante of variations, it’s music as great as he could manage - and I imagined while I listened, the maestro getting into this while he wrote, trying out lines and ideas, growing ever more intense as he worked.

And why? Possibly because he was addicted to composition, strange instrument combos, and had a compulsive, irrepressible flow of ideas, one that seems to have been innate, and without limit.

i dunno if I derailed your thread already, but I love thinking about this mans music...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mozart used to bore me when I first started listening to classical music. Mainly because I was more into the likes of Wagner and Mahler at the time. Those "standard ways" as you put it can seem very restrictive and clichéd if you're not interested. But like all music, it's really just a question of how prepared you are to enter its world, rather than insisting that it conform to yours. Complaining about those standard structures of Classical-era music is kind of like criticizing tables for being flat and having a symmetrical arrangement of legs.

Welcome to TalkClassical!
Seeing as you've begun a Mozart thread, you should be aware of some of the rules:
- Every time someone uses the word "genius", take a shot.
- Every time someone questions the use of the word "genius", take a shot.
- Every time someone complains about the movie _Amadeus_, take a shot.
- Every time someone posts a link to "Leck mich im Arsch", take a shot.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I came rather late in my appreciation of Mozart's gift, after being raised on mostly late 19th and first half of the 20th century music. But exposure to his last four symphonies, the final dozen or so piano concertos, the symphony concertante, etc. convinced me. Mozart for me is like a fresh, eternally clean, clear, sunlit bubbling spring one finds in the wilderness. One can always refresh oneself from such waters.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I love the music of Mozart. He has a massive quantity and variety of work, and almost every piece is worth at least one listen. Of course, he has dozens that are worth dozens of listens, too. Where he shines the most for me is in the piano concertos.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Here are some snippets which show the vast, wide-ranging talents of my favorite composer. Enjoy.........































Many of the above are _relatively_ unknown to most casual listeners.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky (Apr 19, 2018)

Kieran said:


> Firstly, welcome to the forum! :tiphat:
> 
> Second, I'm biased.
> 
> ...


Yes, all his "gift" music. There's one story in which he was in Linz and was invited to put on a concert of his own music. He didn't have anything with him so he wrote a piece in 4 count them 4 days! It was Symphony no 36 I believe. It's around 30 minutes long. I read about this episode before listening to it work. When I did listen to it, omg it was magnificent. To me that's the kind of thing that makes me sometimes believe in so-called supernatural beings. (No let's not go there, hopefully you get my point.)


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

I've never been a huge fan of Mozart. For a long time I mostly avoided his music; thinking it was mostly pretty wall-paper music. 

A few works, however, have really grown on me; especially the lovely Clarinet Concerto. 

I have three or four recordings of the Clarinet Concerto but my favorite is the ultra-smooth rendition by George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra featuring in-house violinist, Robert Marcellus. 

Once on the Food Channel, I saw a documentary on hot dogs where they said that as one's palettes becomes more sophisticated, there comes a time when people switch from ketchup to mustard. Perhaps, then, there also comes a time in a person's life where they switch from Beethoven to Mozart; the restlessness and struggle that characterizes Beethoven and one's young years; is replaced by a middle-aged, more mature, longing for Mozart's seamless sense of peace, balance and serenity.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Mozart used to bore me when I first started listening to classical music. Mainly because I was more into the likes of Wagner and Mahler at the time. Those "standard ways" as you put it can seem very restrictive and clichéd if you're not interested. But like all music, it's really just a question of how prepared you are to enter its world, rather than insisting that it conform to yours. Complaining about those standard structures of Classical-era music is kind of like criticizing tables for being flat and having a symmetrical arrangement of legs.
> 
> Welcome to TalkClassical!
> Seeing as you've begun a Mozart thread, you should be aware of some of the rules:
> ...


But if an essential element of great music is definition (i.e. degree of distinctness) then surely Mozart often fails does he not? I do consider him a genius for some of his work, but it's well established fact that he (and he is not alone, I know) uses chords IV, V, I in his cadences with an irritating regularity.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Hi all, what a great forum. First post (other than the introduction).
> 
> I honestly never liked Mozart, at least what I heard, which I now know was his earlier work. Just seemed too much like bits and pieces of scales arranged in standard ways. But I have to say, after reading a great book about him, I'm rethinking my opinion. Even his first symphony, written when he was nine or ten, seems better now. And it's not just that I'm hearing more than constructed bit and pieces. I'm hearing the inspiration. And the more I learn about his life, the more I appreciate his work.
> 
> So what do you guys think? I know this is an opinion that'll be very subjective, but in responding either way, like or dislike, maybe provide specific reasons to support you opinion so we don't get into a she said/he said type argument.


This is genius I think:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Hi all, what a great forum. First post (other than the introduction).
> 
> I honestly never liked Mozart, at least what I heard, which I now know was his earlier work. Just seemed too much like bits and pieces of scales arranged in standard ways. But I have to say, after reading a great book about him, I'm rethinking my opinion. Even his first symphony, written when he was nine or ten, seems better now. And it's not just that I'm hearing more than constructed bit and pieces. I'm hearing the inspiration. And the more I learn about his life, the more I appreciate his work.
> 
> So what do you guys think? I know this is an opinion that'll be very subjective, but in responding either way, like or dislike, maybe provide specific reasons to support you opinion so we don't get into a she said/he said type argument.


What was the book?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This thread made me put on symphonies 38-41.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

poconoron said:


> Here are some snippets which show the vast, wide-ranging talents of my favorite composer. Enjoy.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just finished Symphony 38 and decided to check some of these out. The first one sounds like nothing else I've heard from Mozart, it's spectacular! Almost like a Beethoven quartet, but with more constraint (not in a bad way).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

poconoron said:


> Here are some snippets which show the vast, wide-ranging talents of my favorite composer. Enjoy.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These were great, thanks for sharing them!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> Hi all, what a great forum. First post (other than the introduction).
> 
> I honestly never liked Mozart, at least what I heard, which I now know was his earlier work. Just seemed too much like bits and pieces of scales arranged in standard ways. But I have to say, after reading a great book about him, I'm rethinking my opinion. Even his first symphony, written when he was nine or ten, seems better now. And it's not just that I'm hearing more than constructed bit and pieces. I'm hearing the inspiration. And the more I learn about his life, the more I appreciate his work.
> 
> So what do you guys think? I know this is an opinion that'll be very subjective, but in responding either way, like or dislike, maybe provide specific reasons to support you opinion so we don't get into a she said/he said type argument.


I'm always reminded of the words of Bruno Walter, one of the greatest Mozarteans:

*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."
* 
wise man, Walter....


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> This thread made me put on symphonies 38-41.


And me this one:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

janxharris said:


> But if an essential element of great music is definition (i.e. degree of distinctness) then surely Mozart often fails does he not? I do consider him a genius for some of his work, but it's well established fact that he (and he is not alone, I know) uses chords IV, V, I in his cadences with an irritating regularity.


Hey, don't look at me, mate, I never gave any criteria for great music!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

To be fair to Mozart, I doubt whether a composer exists that has not reused certain elements in their compositions repeatedly. My favourite composer is Sibelius but he is guilty too.

Mozart wrote a huge amount of music so, perhaps, it was inevitable that he would repeat himself.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

janxharris said:


> To be fair to Mozart, I doubt whether a composer exists that has not reused certain elements in their compositions repeatedly. My favourite composer is Sibelius but he is guilty too.
> 
> Mozart wrote a huge amount of music so, perhaps, it was inevitable that he would repeat himself.


On the one hand you say Mozart is a genius - then you diminish his music with some crass comments you wouldnt dare to repeat face to face in learned company.

If Mozart is as limited and repetitive as you say - why is he the most listened to composer in history and revered by posterity?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

There are people who revisit composers and make discoveries, after initial unfavorable listening. I dont know anybody myself who has come to me with shining eyes after years and said - you were right! Conversions of that magnitude are probably rare.

I revisited Mozart myself, as a young man getting to know classical music in my 20s - listening mainly to compilations of classical pieces - what stood out to me was certainly Beethoven, J Strauss, Tchaikovsky. Mozart was there too - but I didnt notice it that much - it seemed nice - but lacked the oomph type power of Beethoven and Tchaik I loved.
A trip to watch Amadeus film in 1984 did not change my opinion. It seems odd - as many of the pieces in the film which I now count among my desert island discs - had little impact on me in that sparsely populated theatre as I chewed on toffee popcorn.
It was 4 years later when a friend lent me a pop cassette he had recorded and I was listening in my car. On the flip side was PC 21 and as I listened, I thought - what is this? The 2nd mvt seemed familiar. To quote Salieri from Amadeus "This was a music I had never heard"

Maybe it takes the right piece at the right time - but PC 21 was the key that opened the treasure box for me and people revisiting Mozart might just stumble on the right music and have that eureka moment as I did.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

If all he had written were the Piano Concertos then he would still rate just as highly with me


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

stomanek said:


> If Mozart is as limited and repetitive as you say - why is he the most listened to composer in history ...?


You have objectively verifiable empirical data to support this claim, do you? Please share it with us. I'm waiting with bated breath.

I can't substantiate this, so (unlike you) I'll just leave it as surmise. But I suspect that Lennon and McCartney have attracted many more listeners over the years than Mozart.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

stomanek said:


> On the one hand you say Mozart is a genius - then you diminish his music with some crass comments you wouldnt dare to repeat face to face in learned company.


I would repeat them and it's a view that others share.



> If Mozart is as limited and repetitive as you say - why is he the most listened to composer in history and revered by posterity?


I would only need to respond to this if I considered my view as objective truth.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"So what do you guys think?"

Mozart never registered on my music radar until relatively late in life, my 50s, my maturity. Then the love and genius animating his music became a revelation and his music opened up. I'm one of the lucky ones, and there's endless variety to be found but sometimes not apparent on the surface at first. Good luck if one thinks he's not worth hearing and then the endless tedious and labored complaints. I hear nothing but excellence waiting to be discovered-his highly distinct musical language that's full of endless and sublime subtleties.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I love Lily Krauss' take on the Sonatas, all of which are incredible works of Mozart.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

This thread made me listen to his 23rd piano concerto. I think some revisiting of Mozart would be a good idea for me too. Recently I was focused a bit too much on romantic and modern stuff.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

janxharris said:


> But if an essential element of great music is definition (i.e. degree of distinctness) then surely Mozart often fails does he not? I do consider him a genius for some of his work, but it's well established fact that he (and he is not alone, I know) uses chords IV, V, I in his cadences with an irritating regularity.


I've read a lot about Mozart and never come across anyone saying his music lacks a degree of distinctness. Most (almost all I've read) seem to say something very different - his music is magical, elegant, perfect.

I think your second sentence says that you personally find many of his cadences irritating. I've never found any part of any Mozart work irritating.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

In response to the OP, Mozart was one of my early classical music loves. I have been almost overwhelmed with the beauty and seeming perfection of a very large number of works. The first time I heard his Symphony No. 41 I adored it. I probably have heard it roughly as much as any other classical work, and I'm never less than amazed at the music. If I were restricted to listening to a limited number of works the rest of my life, I would include more Mozart than any other composer.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bluecrab said:


> You have objectively verifiable empirical data to support this claim, do you? Please share it with us. I'm waiting with bated breath.
> 
> I can't substantiate this, so (unlike you) I'll just leave it as surmise. But I suspect that Lennon and McCartney have attracted many more listeners over the years than Mozart.


I meant classical music of course.

Well - there is some data on sales etc. The biggest survey seen is the one done by Classic FM over 20 years:

http://www.classicfm.com/radio/hall.../infographics-statistics-facts/top-composers/

Puts Mozart on top with Beethoven 2nd.

I am searching for download sales data in the meantime.

Mozart is at any rate one of the most listened to composers in history if not the most listened to.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bluecrab said:


> You have objectively verifiable empirical data to support this claim, do you? Please share it with us. I'm waiting with bated breath.
> 
> I can't substantiate this, so (unlike you) I'll just leave it as surmise.* But I suspect that Lennon and McCartney* have attracted many more listeners over the years than Mozart.


Certainly not in the concert hall and maybe not on record.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In the US, these were the most-often performed composers in the 2016-2017 orchestral season.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them? (Robert Schumann)

I can only agree!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I've read a lot about Mozart and never come across anyone saying his music lacks a degree of distinctness. Most (almost all I've read) seem to say something very different - his music is magical, elegant, perfect.
> 
> I think your second sentence says that you personally find many of his cadences irritating. I've never found any part of any Mozart work irritating.


Certainly this is the majority view.

As an example of what I find troubling:

Piano Concerto no. 21 - chords IV (3rd in bass), I (5th in bass), V, I.

Symphony no. 41 - chords I (5th in bass), V (with 7th), I

Piano Concerto no. 21 - chords IV, V (with 7th), I

Sinfonia concertante - chords IV, V (with 7th) sus 4th, I

String Quintet No. 5 - chords IV, V, I

Piano Sonata in B-Flat Major, K. 333 - chords IV, V, I

Piano Sonata No 11 A major K 331 - chords IV, I (5th in bass), V, I

I'm just responding to the OP. I'm not trying to convince anyone.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> Seeing as you've begun a Mozart thread, you should be aware of some of the rules:
> - Every time someone uses the word "genius", take a shot.
> - Every time someone questions the use of the word "genius", take a shot.
> - Every time someone complains about the movie _Amadeus_, take a shot.
> - Every time someone posts a link to "Leck mich im Arsch", take a shot.


"Take a shot"? Do you mean, "Take some soothing drug and have a lie down before answering" or "Join in"?



Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> So what do you guys think? I know this is an opinion that'll be very subjective, but in responding either way, like or dislike, maybe provide specific reasons to support you opinion so we don't get into a she said/he said type argument.


I'm getting more out of revisiting Bach at the moment than by revisiting Mozart. Of course I acknowledge the widespread popularity of the man, and the esteem in which he is held by posterity, but thus far, he hasn't done it for me. As someone who lisents mostly to symphonies, I have his 25th, 31st, 36th, 38th, 40th and 41st - but only one copy of each - whereas I have several versions of several of Beethoven, Sibelius, Prokofiev and Shostakovich.

With any luck, I'll still be listening to CM for around another 30 years - Mozart may yet click with me, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Certainly this is the majority view.
> 
> As an example of what I find troubling:
> 
> ...


I understand that you dislike some, or perhaps much, of Mozart's music. No composer is for everyone. Some on TC don't like Baroque music, others dislike opera, some don't respond positively to the Classical Era, others hate much of modern and contemporary music, and you dislike Mozart.

The works you've linked above are some of my favorite pieces in all of classical music (excluding the sonatas), and I could listen to the portions you bookmarked over and over finding them beautiful and moving.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

For performances that might get a doubter clicking on Mozart I wouldn't recommend the symphonies. I'd recommend Perahia's box set of piano concertos, starting with Piano Concerto No. 9 in E-flat major, K. 271, 'Jeunehomme'.

"With any luck, I'll still be listening to CM for around another 30 years" That will not be *any* luck that will be *bad* luck :devil:? Listening to eine kleine nachtmusik 10 000 times will not get you clicking.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I understand that you dislike some, or perhaps much, of Mozart's music. No composer is for everyone. Some on TC don't like Baroque music, others dislike opera, some don't respond positively to the Classical Era, others hate much of modern and contemporary music, and you dislike Mozart.
> 
> The works you've linked above are some of my favorite pieces in all of classical music (excluding the sonatas), and I could listen to the portions you bookmarked over and over finding them beautiful and moving.


I respect your view.

The works of Mozart's that I love are enough to convince me of his genius. As I have said, my favourite composer is Sibelius but there's a lot that I don't like of his.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2018)

Mal said:


> For performances that might get a doubter clicking on Mozart I wouldn't recommend the symphonies. I'd recommend Perahia's box set of piano concertos, starting with Piano Concerto No. 9 in E-flat major, K. 271, 'Jeunehomme'.


Ah, that's the reason then - *if *(let me stress that 'if') his symphonies aren't up to the standard of those composers whose work I do like, I'm unlikely to make any progress, as I'm not a fan of piano concertos, violin concertos, opera...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> In the US, these were the most-often performed composers in the 2016-2017 orchestral season.


More than 30 unique orchestral works performed in the US in one year is amazing, but 69 is almost unthinkable.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mozart was the first composer I listened to. It was back when I was around 10 years old and an LP of Bruno Walter conducting symphonies 35 and 40. I loved them both (I am still unsure why) and quickly went on to exploring more of the symphonies (my father had a lot of Beecham recordings) along with some Beethoven symphonies that I also started to explore. Then I was given the Magic Flute (Klemperer's recording) as a Christmas present. I loved it all (well, I was a little less enthusiastic at that age about the slow movements) and was quickly devouring more and more classical music. Mozart has always been special to me and, if someone doesn't like Mozart, I can feel that their taste is so different to mine that maybe their advice will not work for me! So I'm a sort of Mozart fascist. I have never come close to understanding what it is about Mozart that I love. I have some sense of why I like (or don't) most composers but not Mozart. 

I am also more fussy about how Mozart is played than I am for most composers. And, again, I can't say what it is that determines whether or not I like a particular performance and dislike others. Mozart is perhaps simple but hard to get right.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> In the US, these were the most-often performed composers in the 2016-2017 orchestral season.


The bachtrack survey of 32,000 concerts worldwide put Mozart first in 2017

https://bachtrack.com/classical-music-statistics-2017

I think that my claim of Mozart being the most listened to classical composer in history is probably true but obviously unprovable.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

janxharris said:


> I respect your view.
> 
> The works of Mozart's that I love are enough to convince me of his genius. As I have said, my favourite composer is Sibelius but there's a lot that I don't like of his.


There's a discussion here

http://www.violinist.com/discussion/archive/28960/

which I recommend you read.

Student violinist who find Mozart predictable and replies from fellow violinists.

happy reading.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

janxharris said:


> Certainly this is the majority view.
> 
> As an example of what I find troubling:
> 
> ...


Well - this is pretty much like saying you dont like Van Gough because of the brush strokes and colour choices he makes. But in Van Gough - his brush strokes and colour choices are the glories of his art.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Ah, that's the reason then - *if *(let me stress that 'if') his symphonies aren't up to the standard of those composers whose work I do like, I'm unlikely to make any progress, as I'm not a fan of piano concertos, violin concertos, opera...


do you listen to Beethoven's concertos?


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2018)

stomanek said:


> do you listen to Beethoven's concertos?


Nope. .


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Well - this is pretty much like saying you dont like Van Gough because of the brush strokes and colour choices he makes. But in Van Gough - his brush strokes and colour choices are the glories of his art.


I totally respect that it works for you and most listeners.


----------



## Biffo (Mar 7, 2016)

stomanek said:


> There's a discussion here
> 
> http://www.violinist.com/discussion/archive/28960/
> 
> ...


There are many interesting points in the discussion but my favourite is -

'My teacher suggested that playing Bach is like playing naked because there are no fancy ornaments and you have to make it sound good as it is....'

Suggest you get a different teacher, one who knows something about how to play Bach.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Nope. .


Have you tried Liszt's first?


----------



## Aurelian (Sep 9, 2011)

The only thing wrong with Mozart was his health.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky (Apr 19, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> What was the book?


The book was Mozart: The Man Revealed by John Suchet. Very readable, not stuffy or musicological.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky (Apr 19, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> "Take a shot"? Do you mean, "Take some soothing drug and have a lie down before answering" or "Join in"?
> 
> I'm getting more out of revisiting Bach at the moment than by revisiting Mozart. Of course I acknowledge the widespread popularity of the man, and the esteem in which he is held by posterity, but thus far, he hasn't done it for me. As someone who lisents mostly to symphonies, I have his 25th, 31st, 36th, 38th, 40th and 41st - but only one copy of each - whereas I have several versions of several of Beethoven, Sibelius, Prokofiev and Shostakovich.
> 
> With any luck, I'll still be listening to CM for around another 30 years - Mozart may yet click with me, but I'm not holding my breath.


I think take a shot means a shot of booze, as in a drinking game type thing. Point being the poster thinks the word genius is overused. Just from my reads about people who have been considered geniuses, Einstein for example, I'll bet the "geniuses" would agree.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Have you tried Liszt's first?


No. Thanks for the recommendation. It's not that I've never listened to any. It's that I don't like them...Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shostakovich. I think it's something about the format.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> No. Thanks for the recommendation. It's not that I've never listened to any. It's that I don't like them...Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shostakovich. I think it's something about the format.


Most concerto's don't work for me either but I enjoy the Liszt and Brahms's second.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No. Thanks for the recommendation. It's not that I've never listened to any. It's that I don't like them...Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shostakovich. *I think it's something about the format.*


you mean a soloist playing with an orchestra?

please expand


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2018)

stomanek said:


> you mean a soloist playing with an orchestra?
> 
> please expand


Sure. It's something to do with the composer not having "something to say" but having to furnish the soloist with an opportunity to show off. There's a democracy in an orchestra where many of the instruments have a chance to make an individual contribution without the compulsion to go all virtuoso.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Sure. It's something to do with the composer not having "something to say" but having to furnish the soloist with an opportunity to show off. There's a democracy in an orchestra where many of the instruments have a chance to make an individual contribution without the compulsion to go all virtuoso.


Then, of all composers, Mozart would be your guy for exploring concertos. His piano concertos are famous for a relative "equality" between orchestra and piano. Whereas many later composers, including Lizst, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and others tended to stress the extreme virtuosity of the pianist - often incorporating bombastic and overbearing ((IMO) techniques, Mozart kept it all in balance exquisitly. Beethoven came closest to Mozart, IMO, in keeping a more balanced approach.

I actually agree, in part, with your sentiment and that is why I listen almost exclusively to piano concertos in the Mozart/Beethoven realm.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> No. Thanks for the recommendation. It's not that I've never listened to any. It's that I don't like them...Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shostakovich. I think it's something about the format.


I'd certainly say you gave an aversion to concertos rather than Mozart! Sorry about that because I love the form.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

poconoron said:


> Then, of all composers, Mozart would be your guy for exploring concertos. His piano concertos are famous for a relative "equality" between orchestra and piano. Whereas many later composers, including Lizst, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and others tended to stress the extreme virtuosity of the pianist - often incorporating bombastic and overbearing ((IMO) techniques, Mozart kept it all in balance exquisitly. Beethoven came closest to Mozart, IMO, in keeping a more balanced approach.
> 
> I actually agree, in part, with your sentiment and that is why I listen almost exclusively to piano concertos in the Mozart/Beethoven realm.


If you like concertos sublime, then Mozartis the man


----------

