# Mozart, Piano Concertos 20 & 24



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I really enjoy Mozart's piano concertos especially these 2, I think they are both great and was wondering if someone could explain why No. 24 is usually overlooked by No. 20?


----------



## KYGray (Mar 14, 2014)

Burroughs said:


> I really enjoy Mozart's piano concertos especially these 2, I think they are both great and was wondering if someone could explain why No. 24 is usually overlooked by No. 20?


In my opinion (which isnt worth all that much), its because of 2 reasons...

1) The melodies in No. 20 are more easily digested that those of 24.
2) Additionally you have several of the greats (beethoven & Schuman to name a few) who added their touch visa vis their Cadenzas.

Again.. they are both splendid.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

I think number 24 does not get the praise as number 20th because of the slow movement. The slow movement of the 20th has a major contrast of intense and turbid passion after the romanze, but the slow movement of the 24th doesn't have this contrast.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Burroughs said:


> I really enjoy Mozart's piano concertos especially these 2, I think they are both great and was wondering if someone could explain why No. 24 is usually overlooked by No. 20?


24 is great but I think 20 goes beyond great. I find it much more memorable than 24, especially that dark Sturm und Drang 1st movement.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The D minor K. 466 is a milestone in music history, not because of its precedence of being a concerto so much but as symphonic music. Those who were present at its premiere, many of them "Music Cognoscenti," were startled and _it was thought this piece was one where afterwards, "music could / would never be the same."_ This is, too, the keystone piece where history finds the kernel and more of an overt manifestation of what would later become 'romantic music.'

The extensive integration of the greater than usual number of winds as a vital participant in the musical dialogue (vs. lighter comment or color) was also if not 'radical' a marked step forward at that time. (There is a reason that Beethoven was near obsessed with this piece, performing it, writing those wonderful cadenzas for it -- classical while not 'appropriately Mozartean,' that because of course, he was Beethoven ;-) It was the overall symphonic nature of the piece, and its revolutionary handling of form, content and orchestration, which attracted Beethoven to K. 466.

K. 466 has inherent dramatic tension and turbulence from its very start; its middle movement _Romanza_ starts out like a sweet and rather poignant wind serenade then abruptly changes to that Sturm und Drang section, and because the bulk of this movement is that Sturm und Drang segment, this is a significant percent of the whole piece. (I believe anything prior with Sturm und Drang had but a brief few measures as 'dramatic interlude' compared to K. 466) Those aspects tip the balance for most listeners, i.e they are drawn to the overt drama of the piece, and that has it as more popular than the also astonishingly great C minor.

The C minor K. 491 is turgid, the music and developments far more subtle, if you will. It is also the only Mozart work which, as many have commented, is from beginning to end a work which usually imports to listeners, "unrelieved darkness, despair or gloom." Far less overtly dramatic, but I think 'deeper,' even, than the D minor. [Usually, the more overt and obviously dramatic most catches the attention of the general listening audience, making the less dramatic but as or more intense C minor less widely popular.] K 491 is also, imo, much more a difficult piece for the pianist than K. 466 

They are each magnificent and monumental pieces.

 P.s. I do understand the 'popularity by choice' where people have this dominating criterion about 'melody / themes / tunes,' while it more than makes me wonder if that is really the most of -- or just about all of -- what they hear when listening to classical music. Melody is not the criterion by which to measure anything much _but_ 'a tune.'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Rosen has an informative, if short, analysis of the opening of the K. 466 in _The Classical Style_. It helps show just how impressive the piece is and (as PetrB mentions) it has nothing to do with the piano. The concerto remained popular through the 19th century, while many of Mozart's works tended to be dismissed as "minor" and "pretty", at least in the popular taste. Composers knew better, of course.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The D minor K. 466 is a milestone in music history, not because of its precedence of being a concerto so much but as symphonic music. Those who were present at its premiere, many of them "Music Cognoscenti," were startled and _it was thought this piece was one where afterwards, "music could / would never be the same."_ This is, too, the keystone piece where history finds the kernel and more of an overt manifestation of what would later become 'romantic music.'
> 
> The extensive integration of the greater than usual number of winds as a vital participant in the musical dialogue (vs. lighter comment or color) was also if not 'radical' a marked step forward at that time. (There is a reason that Beethoven was near obsessed with this piece, performing it, writing those wonderful cadenzas for it -- classical while not 'appropriately Mozartean,' that because of course, he was Beethoven ;-) It was the overall symphonic nature of the piece, and its revolutionary handling of form, content and orchestration, which attracted Beethoven to K. 466.
> 
> ...


It's interesting you say k. 491 is more diffucult than K. 466, do you mean musically rather than technically as technically I find K. 491 easier.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KYGray said:


> In my opinion (which isnt worth all that much), its because of 2 reasons...
> 
> 1) The melodies in No. 20 are more easily digested that those of 24.
> 2) Additionally you have several of the greats (beethoven & Schuman to name a few) who added their touch visa vis their Cadenzas.
> ...


There's a really fantastic cadenza for 24 by Schnabel, very dark. And that fits well the extreme mood of the primo. Schnabel recorded it at least twice.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The D minor K. 466 is a milestone in music history, not because of its precedence of being a concerto so much but as symphonic music. Those who were present at its premiere, many of them "Music Cognoscenti," were startled and _it was thought this piece was one where afterwards, "music could / would never be the same."_ This is, too, the keystone piece where history finds the kernel and more of an overt manifestation of what would later become 'romantic music.'
> 
> The extensive integration of the greater than usual number of winds as a vital participant in the musical dialogue (vs. lighter comment or color) was also if not 'radical' a marked step forward at that time. (There is a reason that Beethoven was near obsessed with this piece, performing it, writing those wonderful cadenzas for it -- classical while not 'appropriately Mozartean,' that because of course, he was Beethoven ;-) It was the overall symphonic nature of the piece, and its revolutionary handling of form, content and orchestration, which attracted Beethoven to K. 466.
> 
> ...


The drama in 24 is very deep as you say, at least when it's played properly. If you think of the orchestral introduction, how despairing it is, and then when the piano comes in, like a hand reaching out to console someone in the deepest pain. Of course you have to get the right performers to hear this.

It's the final movement, the final variation for piano in particular, which is astonishing I think. Gould is well worth hearing in it -- the studio, not the live.

As far as 20 goes, I've heard it too much, played it to much. I never want to hear it again.

This thread has reminded me that Sv Richter recorded 24, very strangely, with Muti -- maybe Muti killed it. I will listen again to that today.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think number 20, especially the first movement, is more immediately appealing. But number 24 is an utterly sublime work and has it's own rewards. Both are supreme masterpieces. Beethoven was a great admirer of number 24 and the influence is seen in his piano Concerto number three.
There was a benefit concert held after Mozart's death to his widow. The Concerto number 20 was played and the soloist was one Ludwig Van Beethoven. Just wish a recording device had been available in those days!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> It's interesting you say k. 491 is more diffucult than K. 466, do you mean musically rather than technically as technically I find K. 491 easier.


I found it just the opposite  So it goes, even between two very 'equal' technically adept and professional top-level concert artists. One 'fits' your way of thinking more than the other, including reflexive technical application, where in reality and all things being truly equal, both have all the goods and neither piece is in any way 'a problem.'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> .
> 
> As far as 20 goes, I've heard it too much, played it to much. I never want to hear it again.


Poor you! I have also heard it many, many times. I must confess I always enjoy every time I hear it! You can't have too much of a supreme masterpiece!


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Beethoven was a great admirer of number 24 and the influence is seen in his piano Concerto number three.


Indeed. There is also a notable nod to the 24th in Beethoven's 2nd piano concerto (which was in fact his first).

From ~ 26:18 ...






To me, there's a clear reference to the utterly sublime _totentanz_ with which Mozart ends the 24th concerto.

From ~ 30:39 ...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> Indeed. There is also a notable nod to the 24th in Beethoven's 2nd piano concerto (which was in fact his first).
> 
> From ~ 26:18 ...
> 
> ...


According to Ferdinand Riess,when Beethoven heard the final part of the final movement of pC 24 for the first time, he whispered out loud "that's bloody good!"


----------

