# Mozart - Symphony #40



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think this is my favorite work by Mozart from start to finish. I have no other words to express my love for it other than, it's perfect!


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Yes, it's a great work!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Yes, it's a great work!


Really is a shame he passed so early, he was just finding his adult voice.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Mozart's Final Four symphonies alone put him into a very rarified uppermost stratum of composers.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Mozart's Final Four symphonies alone put him into a very rarified uppermost stratum of composers.


I don't know, I at least find the Jupiter first movement far too repetitive and feel it goes on longer than it needs to.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

One word fitting: Sublime.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

It sucks but it beats the average Mozart work, but I still hate it


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

While admitting it's a masterpiece, I still don't like it. (I find the first theme of the first movement whiney, and I lose interest from there.)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> While admitting it's a masterpiece, I still don't like it. (I find the first theme of the first movement whiney, and I lose interest from there.)


Whiney? Really? I can KIND of see that. I for one love it!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

David OByrne said:


> It sucks but it beats the average Mozart work, but I still hate it


I must remember to reply to a thread where someone expresses admiration for a work that I hate and leave a note there of my loathing.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't know, I at least find the Jupiter first movement far too repetitive and feel it goes on longer than it needs to.


you are entitled to this opinion - though the jupiter is frequently regarded as perfection itself. I think in a recent poll of conductors it was named 3rd greatest symphony of all time.

when did mozart find his adult voice? the great mass in c minor is not his adult voice in a full bloom? composed several years before the g minor symphony?

or pc no 9? k364 etc etc


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

^^
You're welcome if you've listened to it. None of us have been able to escape from Mozart however. He was admittedly a genius (with ups and downs) but not everybody is taken by the classical style. And we're not here just to join in a fan group dancing around any composer' fire. In my opinion it would be better if the forum allowed us to simply dislike posts (= composers or works). All this liking gives a false impression of the fundamental disagreement in tastes between people. Disliking should not be interpreted as negative posting but as a form of balancing. Otherwise we're just an (artificially) 'always positive' PR machine. I love it when people dislike things, it can bind us. What music do you hate?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't know, I at least find the Jupiter first movement far too repetitive and feel it goes on longer than it needs to.


Really? It's actually a perfect example of sonata form.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> ^^
> You're welcome if you've listened to it. None of us have been able to escape from Mozart however. He was admittedly a genius (with ups and downs) but not everybody is taken by the classical style. And we're not here just to join in a fan group dancing around any composer' fire. In my opinion it would be better if the forum allowed us to simply dislike posts (= composers or works). All this liking gives a false impression of the fundamental disagreement in tastes between people. Disliking should not be interpreted as negative posting but as a form of balancing. Otherwise we're just an (artificially) 'always positive' PR machine. I love it when people dislike things, it can bind us. What music do you hate?


I'm not sure there is any music I hate.

But some just isn't for me, or my style.

I really don't enjoy Rap very much, at all. It's borderline hate.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I like Mozart a lot, but I'm not particularly moved by any of his symphonies. I much prefer his clarinet concerto, numerous piano concertos, the Requiem, and chamber music (especially the clarinet quintet).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Casebearer said:


> ^^
> You're welcome if you've listened to it. None of us have been able to escape from Mozart however. He was admittedly a genius (with ups and downs) but not everybody is taken by the classical style. And we're not here just to join in a fan group dancing around any composer' fire. In my opinion it would be better if the forum allowed us to simply dislike posts (= composers or works). All this liking gives a false impression of the fundamental disagreement in tastes between people. Disliking should not be interpreted as negative posting but as a form of balancing. Otherwise we're just an (artificially) 'always positive' PR machine. I love it when people dislike things, it can bind us. What music do you hate?


Then, of course, there is always silence--the silence of indifference? Of hatred (such a strong term)? Maybe merely "I haven't heard it yet"? My own experience is that shared negativity rarely binds people together unless there is within it a stronger positive message (shared hatred of slavery; shared love of freedom and equality).


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Mozart's last 6 six symphonies are masterpieces, and mainstays of the basic repertoire...I love them all, but #s 38 and 39 are my favorites, [at least today!!] that said - I love the inner mvts of #41. All of them are great works - and they are most enjoyable and challenging to perform.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I must remember to reply to a thread where someone expresses admiration for a work that I hate and leave a note there of my loathing.


I don't recommend you to do so, posts like that "_suck_".


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm listening to the 'Jupiter' right now (on movement 2). After listening to Mahler 6 earlier it's like taking off uncomfortable shoes and putting your feet up. Both the 40 and 41 are master-classes in how to write counterpoint.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> I like Mozart a lot, but I'm not particularly moved by any of his symphonies. I much prefer his clarinet concerto, numerous piano concertos, the Requiem, and chamber music (especially the clarinet quintet).


I second that.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> I like Mozart a lot, but I'm not particularly moved by any of his symphonies. I much prefer his clarinet concerto, numerous piano concertos, the Requiem, and chamber music (especially the clarinet quintet).


I agree, add the wind serenades and you've got my opinion on Mozart (minus the 'I like Mozart a lot" lol)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It appears (from this and other threads) that many people who love some of Mozart's other works don't care similarly for his symphonies. But I've noticed this same disparity with regard to Schubert, Schumann and Brahms. 

Is there something about the form itself? Is it mainly about preferring chamber music? Are the same factors operative with respect to all these composers?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Casebearer said:


> ^^
> You're welcome if you've listened to it. None of us have been able to escape from Mozart however. He was admittedly a genius (with ups and downs) but not everybody is taken by the classical style. And we're not here just to join in a fan group dancing around any composer' fire. In my opinion it would be better if the forum allowed us to simply dislike posts (= composers or works). All this liking gives a false impression of the fundamental disagreement in tastes between people. Disliking should not be interpreted as negative posting but as a form of balancing. Otherwise we're just an (artificially) 'always positive' PR machine. I love it when people dislike things, it can bind us. *What music do you hate?*


I dislike too much music to waste time entering threads to express my distaste. I would never have any time to myself.

It's not about being a fan club - you have to have something constructive to say and saying mozart was a genius but sy 40 sucks is not worth saying in my view.

it's odd to me that people who dislike mozart's music admit he's a genius. really? i cant stand stockhausen - to his fans he's a genius and to me he's not.

if you cant stand mozart dont pander to the mozart crowd and say "well yeah he's a genius but he's so repetitive"

if you hate mozart - say it - dont qualify it.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

stomanek said:


> it's odd to me that people who dislike mozart's music admit he's a genius. really? i cant stand stockhausen - to his fans he's a genius and to me he's not.


What have you got against Stockhausen?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> It appears (from this and other threads) that many people who love some of Mozart's other works don't care similarly for his symphonies. But I've noticed this same disparity with regard to Schubert, Schumann and Brahms.
> 
> Is there something about the form itself? Is it mainly about preferring chamber music? Are the same factors operative with respect to all these composers?


Not for me. For the mentioned composers, I'd rank some of their symphonies among their very best works (Schubert 8, Schumann 3, Brahms all). In general, I love symphonies, but from the romantic period onward.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> It appears (from this and other threads) that many people who love some of Mozart's other works don't care similarly for his symphonies. But I've noticed this same disparity with regard to Schubert, Schumann and Brahms.
> 
> Is there something about the form itself? Is it mainly about preferring chamber music? Are the same factors operative with respect to all these composers?


Interesting question. I don't have the answer but maybe it has to do with the fact(?) that these type of composers strongly seem to have a singing voice in the back of their composer's head so they especially excel when there is a leading voice (a human voice, a piano etc) or a couple of voices ' singing' together (in counterpoint) which doesn't work too well in a symphony. Or probably I simply like a leading voice so I kinda avoid symphonies all together...


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2017)

stomanek said:


> I must remember to reply to a thread where someone expresses admiration for a work that I hate and leave a note there of my loathing.


Well, what can you do? Someone starts a thread with just the name of the piece for a title, appearing thereby to invite opinions either way. The fact that their own opinion in the OP was positive doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit.

I was put off the 40th by the pop version in the UK in 1970ish. It's in my collection now (Neville Marriner) but it's only ok to my ears. I like the _Jupiter _better, but I prefer other composers altogether.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Then, of course, there is always silence--the silence of indifference? Of hatred (such a strong term)? Maybe merely "I haven't heard it yet"? My own experience is that shared negativity rarely binds people together unless there is within it a stronger positive message (shared hatred of slavery; shared love of freedom and equality).


Good point. I suspect Mozart possibly heads a small band of great composers that attract derision when the rational position should be indifference. Which is why we see so many one line put downs on Mozart when somebody posts inviting considered opinions.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Is there something about the form itself? Is it mainly about preferring chamber music? Are the same factors operative with respect to all these composers?


Speaking strictly from my own experience, I think you're on to something here.

I greatly prefer chamber music to symphonies. There's just something about most symphonies that I find overwrought and overblown. There are only a handful of symphonies that I really like (for example, Beethoven 7 and 9, and Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, which is a symphony in all but name).

This is probably why I'm not really fond of Mahler's symphonies. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. Yet I find some of his (few) chamber works quite appealing. I really think that it's the symphonic form, rather than the music itself, that leaves me cold.

Again, I think you're on to something here. I'd love to know if there are others who share my view on this.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

stomanek said:


> Good point. I suspect Mozart possibly heads a small band of great composers that attract derision when the rational position should be indifference. Which is why we see so many one line put downs on Mozart when somebody posts inviting considered opinions.


I think any composer--great, not-so-great--could theoretically be the object of studied indifference (with all the ambiguities that undefined indifference implies). I also question whether the indifference needs to be rational; it's probably more a case of indifference first, then a retrospective thrust to make it appear to be rational; to come up with a reason. _I do not love thee, Doctor Fell......._


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Bluecrab said:


> Again, I think you're on to something here. I'd love to know if there are others who share my view on this.


As is apparent in my post above I share your view. I don't know why you don't like symphonies but I am afraid that I am spoiled by my pop/rock background so I am used to a soloist on top of a backing band. When listening to a symphony I keep thinking: this is a nice intro of this band, when does the soloist comes in? Anyway, symphonic music can never truly be more than background music to me: the wall of sound without a soloist makes it anonymous, impersonal for me which makes it hard to relate to it on an emotional level. When there is a solist or a musician on the foreground playing a melody I can easily relate to that person and it's music. Such a leading voice can guide me through the piece which isn't there in a symphony.

BTW, I did exaggerate a bit here as I do like symponies but usually not as much as other genres. And Mozart is certainly not an exception to that.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I like the direction this thread has gone in.

I think when someone says they don't like Mozart but say he is a Genius may also just trying to say they respect Mozart but it just isn't to their taste.


----------



## Dumbo (Sep 3, 2017)

A lot of people just don't get Mozart. It doesn't click for them.

To me, Mozart is the sexiest composer. Just listening to the opening bars of piano concerto #21. He uses his chromaticisms to create a teasing tone. It's like being tickled with a feather. Very different from the blood, boots and incest of Wagner's musical sexuality.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

What I like about Mozart is that he loves music to be loud and clear: right from the first note he slams it into your face. For Mozart music is not to be enjoyed in a lazy chair but to cheer and jump around and go crazy (I always find it difficult not to jump around wildly when I hear Mozart's music). I guess he would love pop/rock when he lived in our time and would make brilliant crossover music...


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

It may not quite be Beethoven or Brahms level but it's pretty damn great still, I think.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I find many opinions about Mozart both annoying and ignorant; and sadly an opinion expressed by a good deal of 'seasoned' art-music listeners. It's generally the same old tired opinion about it being lightweight/happy/repetitive etc. Reading his scores one is simply in awe at the astonishing mastery this man had over music: his complete domination of counterpoint (especially in those last two symphonies and in a way a composer like Bruckner could only dream of); his melodic invention; his clarity of orchestration. I'm quite convinced that had Mozart lived into the romantic period he would have made musical dwarves of the great early romantics.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I find many opinions about Mozart both annoying and ignorant; and sadly an opinion expressed by a good deal of 'seasoned' art-music listeners. It's generally the same old tired opinion about it being lightweight/happy/repetitive etc. Reading his scores one is simply in awe at the astonishing mastery this man had over music: his complete domination of counterpoint (especially in those last two symphonies and in a way a composer like Bruckner could only dream of); his melodic invention; his clarity of orchestration. I'm quite convinced that had Mozart lived into the romantic period he would have made musical dwarves of the great early romantics.


It's hard to imagine anyone dwarfing Beethoven, but just imagine what Mozart could have achieved had he dies perhaps even later, having competed and possibly collaborated with or even been influenced by him. What a loss that early death!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have always loved Mozart symphonies from the first time I heard them. In general I would place 40 and 41 in roughly a similar place as the TC TOP Recommended Symphonies list (top 10ish). I probably have heard those two works as many times as any other classical works, and they continue to sound wonderfully sublime.

I'm not sure why some consider Mozart, Brahms, and perhaps Schubert/Schumann symphonies to be less enjoyable than other works by those composers. In general I value their symphonies as much as their other works.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I find many opinions about Mozart both annoying and ignorant; and sadly an opinion expressed by a good deal of 'seasoned' art-music listeners. It's generally the same old tired opinion about it being lightweight/happy/repetitive etc. Reading his scores one is simply in awe at the astonishing mastery this man had over music: his complete domination of counterpoint (especially in those last two symphonies and in a way a composer like Bruckner could only dream of); his melodic invention; his clarity of orchestration. I'm quite convinced that had Mozart lived into the romantic period he would have made musical dwarves of the great early romantics.


Tired, annoying, ignorant, maybe, but with a certain validity nonetheless. It rather depends on the manner of expression, as usual. Mozart's symphonies do nothing for me emotionally - I find them emotionally lightweight, compared to Haydn, Sibelius, Beethoven, Shostakovich and Mahler - but I wouldn't dismiss them _objectively _as "'lightweight/happy/repetitive".


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Tired, annoying, ignorant, maybe, *but with a certain validity nonetheless*. It rather depends on the manner of expression, as usual. Mozart's symphonies do nothing for me emotionally - I find them emotionally lightweight, compared to Haydn, Sibelius, Beethoven, Shostakovich and Mahler - but I wouldn't dismiss them _objectively _as "'lightweight/happy/repetitive".


How can views that are ignorant be valid in any way?

Only in the sense that those with lack of knowledge hold and believe in them.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> I find many opinions about Mozart both annoying and ignorant; and sadly an opinion expressed by a good deal of 'seasoned' art-music listeners. It's generally the same old tired opinion about it being lightweight/happy/repetitive etc. Reading his scores one is simply in awe at the astonishing mastery this man had over music: his complete domination of counterpoint (especially in those last two symphonies and in a way a composer like Bruckner could only dream of); his melodic invention; his clarity of orchestration. *I'm quite convinced that had Mozart lived into the romantic period he would have made musical dwarves of the great early romantics.*


It's hard to imagine Mozart not developing significantly had he lived. Consider his 3 best symphonies were composed in 1788 - 3 years before his death and it would have been fascinating to hear a symphony composed circa when he composed Die Zauberflote. What could have come later - is the stuff of fantasies for Mozart fans. Music history would look very different to what it is today.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> Mozart's last 6 six symphonies are masterpieces, and mainstays of the basic repertoire...I love them all, but #s 38 and 39 are my favorites, [at least today!!] that said - I love the inner mvts of #41. All of them are great works - and they are most enjoyable and challenging to perform.


Just the inner movements of no.41? Not that stunning, miraculous finale?


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2017)

stomanek said:


> How can views that are ignorant be valid in any way?
> 
> Only in the sense that those with lack of knowledge hold and believe in them.


Because they are not ignorant - only in eugene's opinion?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Tired, annoying, ignorant, maybe, but with a certain validity nonetheless. It rather depends on the manner of expression, as usual. Mozart's symphonies do nothing for me emotionally - I find them emotionally lightweight, compared to Haydn, Sibelius, Beethoven, Shostakovich and Mahler - but I wouldn't dismiss them _objectively _as "'lightweight/happy/repetitive".


With no validity whatsoever. What's the point of comparing Mozart's symphonies to the work of composers who had the benefit of hindsight and of building upon them?
Beethoven was initially a Mozart copyist, but then moved on. Since Mozart had the misfortune of kicking the bucket at a young age people keep the image of Mozart's music - steeped as it is in 18th century values - in their heads and see Beethoven as having somehow trumped Mozart artistically, because he was working under different artistic conditions.

I read P.G. Wodehouse novels sometimes for the simple pleasure they give, but I never find myself making a comparison between those and the novels of e.g. Thomas Mann as though the are both performing entirely the same function. I have equal respect for both as masters of their crafts.

You mention Haydn and it is again so common to hear: 'Mozart..meh, but Haydn, well...' And I think to myself, really? I can't fathom the motivations behind these sorts of utterances.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

This Mozart symphony was one I discovered as a boy when I bought Beecham conducting it with the 41st. Tremendous music. Always love the work.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> You mention Haydn and it is again so common to hear: 'Mozart..meh, but Haydn, well...' And I think to myself, really? I can't fathom the motivations behind these sorts of utterances.


And then you sometimes hear the reverse; but Haydn might be the more accessible of the two, or maybe it just boils down to personal tastes and biases (different expectations, contrarianism etc.).


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

For people who don' t like the symphonic form, here is the Symphony no. 40 transcribed for piano. Yet I like the Symphony better: I think Mozart could not only write brilliant melodies and harmonies but his music is also most appropriate for the instruments he chose to write for. However, I think in this case it could have been a great piano concerto as well if the orchestra plays the themes and the piano the variations:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> You mention Haydn and *it is again so common to hear: 'Mozart..meh, but Haydn, well...' * And I think to myself, really? I can't fathom the motivations behind these sorts of utterances.


If it's common - and I suspect it's somewhat common - might there not be something legitimate behind it? Claims that Haydn is "better" than Mozart are absurd, granted, but there must be reasons for preferring him or it wouldn't be so common to prefer him.

I prefer any number of Haydn's symphonies to any of Mozart's except the "Prague." I don't claim they're better, at least not in every case. What could be "better" than Mozart's G-minor? I just like Haydn's sharp wit and earthy good humor, his playful inventiveness, and the clean, tight, irresistible logic of his musical thinking which paradoxically incorporates a delightful element of surprise. I prefer his piano sonatas for the same qualities, and like his string quartets more than any before Beethoven's last series.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Just the inner movements of no.41? Not that stunning, miraculous finale?


the whole work is great, for sure - for me, personally, the inner mvts are esp appealing..


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I think Bruno Walter presents it very well - Walter of course, being one of the greatest "Mozarteans" of all -

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."


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> If it's common - and I suspect it's somewhat common - might there not be something legitimate behind it? Claims that Haydn is "better" than Mozart are absurd, granted, but there must be reasons for preferring him or it wouldn't be so common to prefer him.


I suspect the reason is because people tend to feel (wrongly) that liking Mozart is a sign of being an immature or 'mainstream' classical music listener. I've heard some preposterous claims in my time, I'll relate a real-life experience:

Imagine me sitting in a house where we have these local political party meetings every few months. The people there have a harpsichord and I get to play it sometimes. So there I am and I play Mozart's funeral march in Cm and this fellow asks (in a sniffy tone) if I know any other Beethoven "bagatelles"(!). I tell him it was Mozart, not Beethoven, but he is not finished and asks me if I know any of Franz Krommer's works. I say I don't - not really knowing who Franz Krommer is - and ask him why I should. He tells me: 'because he's equally as good as Mozart, but didn't have the benefit of Mozart's hype'. Our Krommer expert didn't play any Krommer himself, so I didn't have the pleasure of being educated and put in my place.

What can you do? It's like people are unhappy that Mozart withstood the test of time and proved to be enduring. There's a seemingly endless list of people who could easily take his place if only they had been promoted half as much - suggesting that Mozart is famous and admired not for his amazing skill and the beauty of his music, but because he is overrated and ubiquitous and an easy choice. For every Mozart work these people can come up with one by a contemporary which is as good or better. Me, I'm happy to have a go at Mozart or Haydn or C.P.E. Bach or even Franz Krommer if I have something to read from. In another thread folk are hungry for more pieces from certain composers, but I say that empty belly can be filled by tucking into the feast of music already provided by many different composers. A varied diet is a good diet.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> "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."


Setting aside the business of age/maturity, Walter makes the same point that I did. I'm not claiming anything about how Mozart _is_, but how he seems to me. How is that an invalid opinion?



Woodduck said:


> If it's common - and I suspect it's somewhat common - might there not be something legitimate behind it? Claims that Haydn is "better" than Mozart are absurd, granted, but there must be reasons for preferring him or it wouldn't be so common to prefer him.
> 
> I prefer any number of Haydn's symphonies to any of Mozart's except the "Prague." I don't claim they're better, at least not in every case. What could be "better" than Mozart's G-minor? I just like Haydn's sharp wit and earthy good humor, his playful inventiveness, and the *clean, tight, irresistible logic of his musical thinking *which paradoxically incorporates a delightful element of surprise. I prefer his piano sonatas for the same qualities, and like his string quartets more than any before Beethoven's last series.


A _preference _doesn't have to be common to be legitimate. If only you and I "_prefer _any number of Haydn's symphonies to any of Mozart's", our _preference _is just as valid as if it were held by a 100,000 certified musical experts.

That aside, I wholly endorse your observation of Haydn's music - better expressed than I could have done.

"What _he _said." ^^^


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> With no validity whatsoever. What's the point of comparing Mozart's symphonies to the work of composers who had the benefit of hindsight and of building upon them?
> [...]
> *I read P.G. Wodehouse novels sometimes* for the simple pleasure they give, but I never find myself making a comparison between those and the novels of e.g. Thomas Mann as though the are both performing entirely the same function. I have equal respect for both as masters of their crafts.
> 
> You mention Haydn and it is again so common to hear: 'Mozart..meh, but Haydn, well...' And I think to myself, really? *I can't fathom the motivations* behind these sorts of utterances.


And I listen to Mozart's symphonies sometimes for the simple pleasure they give. What you have commonly heard and what I am saying are obviously not the same thing.

As for comparing with later composers, "you started it" by comparing Mozart to Bruckner...

It's a shame you can't accept others views about Mozart without having to fathom their motivation. I can't fathom your motivation for wanting to fathom...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Agamemnon said:


> For people who don' t like the symphonic form, here is the Symphony no. 40 transcribed for piano.


Many thanks, I really enjoyed that Katsaris performance.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> And I listen to Mozart's symphonies sometimes for the simple pleasure they give. What you have commonly heard and what I am saying are obviously not the same thing.


It really is exactly and obviouly the same thing.



MacLeod said:


> As for comparing with later composers, "you started it" by comparing Mozart to Bruckner...


That's not what I did though is it? I mentioned Bruckner because he's unquestioningly held up as a master contrapuntist whereas Mozart is hardly ever thought of in those terms. I never tried to pit the one's symphonies directly against the other's, or suggest anyone could or should get greater pleasure from one over the other.



MacLeod said:


> It's a shame you can't accept others views about Mozart without having to fathom their motivation. I can't fathom your motivation for wanting to fathom...


They would be easier to accept if they had any substance about them rather than being tired repetitions of the usual. My motivation to fathom is because they are so often expressed.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2017)

Whatever. If all you're going to do is assert the wrongness of my opinions, then this is a fruitless conversation.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> *I suspect the reason is because people tend to feel (wrongly) that liking Mozart is a sign of being an immature or 'mainstream' classical music listener.* I've heard some preposterous claims in my time, I'll relate a real-life experience:
> 
> Imagine me sitting in a house where we have these local political party meetings every few months. The people there have a harpsichord and I get to play it sometimes. So there I am and I play Mozart's funeral march in Cm and this fellow asks (in a sniffy tone) if I know any other Beethoven "bagatelles"(!). I tell him it was Mozart, not Beethoven, but he is not finished and asks me if I know any of Franz Krommer's works. I say I don't - not really knowing who Franz Krommer is - and ask him why I should. He tells me: 'because he's equally as good as Mozart, but didn't have the benefit of Mozart's hype'. Our Krommer expert didn't play any Krommer himself, so I didn't have the pleasure of being educated and put in my place.
> 
> What can you do? It's like people are unhappy that Mozart withstood the test of time and proved to be enduring. There's a seemingly endless list of people who could easily take his place if only they had been promoted half as much - suggesting that Mozart is famous and admired not for his amazing skill and the beauty of his music, but because he is overrated and ubiquitous and an easy choice. For every Mozart work these people can come up with one by a contemporary which is as good or better. Me, I'm happy to have a go at Mozart or Haydn or C.P.E. Bach or even Franz Krommer if I have something to read from. In another thread folk are hungry for more pieces from certain composers, but I say that empty belly can be filled by tucking into the feast of music already provided by many different composers. A varied diet is a good diet.


Maybe there is something in that. Though I have met one or two very knowledgeable people who adore Haydn and can only find one or two pieces by Mozart they like.
And of course there is a widely held belief by the uninitiated that Mozart was a light composer. An anecdote i never tire of is a lady who asked me whether I prefer M or B - I answered M - and she, with a glowing eyes, proudly declared of her 13 y/o son who was at that time learning the moonlight sonata - "he prefers Beethoven"

well - that had me beat. better get out my toy jingle bells and let junior compose his first symphony.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm sure I can find more works I really love by Mozart, I'm just not in a position to buy any music at the moment. Maybe next month.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm sure I can find more works I really love by Mozart, I'm just not in a position to buy any music at the moment. Maybe next month.


Make sure to check out any of his works in minor and you will probably not be disappointed.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm sure I can find more works I really love by Mozart, I'm just not in a position to buy any music at the moment. Maybe next month.


my friend it needs no money to discover new music in the internet age


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> I suspect the reason is because people tend to feel (wrongly) that liking Mozart is a sign of being an immature or 'mainstream' classical music listener. I've heard some preposterous claims in my time, I'll relate a real-life experience:
> 
> Imagine me sitting in a house where we have these local political party meetings every few months. The people there have a harpsichord and I get to play it sometimes. So there I am and I play Mozart's funeral march in Cm and this fellow asks (in a sniffy tone) if I know any other Beethoven "bagatelles"(!). I tell him it was Mozart, not Beethoven, but he is not finished and asks me if I know any of Franz Krommer's works. I say I don't - not really knowing who Franz Krommer is - and ask him why I should. He tells me: 'because he's equally as good as Mozart, but didn't have the benefit of Mozart's hype'. Our Krommer expert didn't play any Krommer himself, so I didn't have the pleasure of being educated and put in my place.
> 
> *What can you do? *It's like people are unhappy that Mozart withstood the test of time and proved to be enduring. There's a seemingly endless list of people who could easily take his place if only they had been promoted half as much - suggesting that Mozart is famous and admired not for his amazing skill and the beauty of his music, but because he is overrated and ubiquitous and an easy choice. For every Mozart work these people can come up with one by a contemporary which is as good or better. Me, I'm happy to have a go at Mozart or Haydn or C.P.E. Bach or even Franz Krommer if I have something to read from. In another thread folk are hungry for more pieces from certain composers, but I say that empty belly can be filled by tucking into the feast of music already provided by many different composers. A varied diet is a good diet.


Just go away and have a good laugh at the ignorance of such people! :lol:

The fact is the vast majority of knowledgeable musicians acknowledge Mozart's supreme genius. I remember Bernstein recording West Side Story and remarking, "The score's come up pretty fresh. Not as fresh as Mozart, of course, but who's in that league anyway!"


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Just go away and have a good laugh at the ignorance of such people! :lol:
> 
> The fact is the vast majority of *knowledgeable *musicians acknowledge Mozart's supreme genius.


The OP made a statement about this symphony being his favourite, implicitly inviting others to share their opinions, presumably allowing positive and negative (though the OP doesn't set the rules about what is permissible to post). Being 'knowledgeable' doesn't come into it, except for a minimum of familiarity with the work itself. Any suggestion that any of the following personal opinions are ignorant seems to me to be itself ignorant. I also fail to see any justification for laughing at others' ignorance, but since none is on show, we'll let that pass.



David OByrne said:


> It sucks but it beats the average Mozart work, but I still hate it





MarkW said:


> While admitting it's a masterpiece, I still don't like it. (I find the first theme of the first movement whiney, and I lose interest from there.)





Art Rock said:


> I like Mozart a lot, but I'm not particularly moved by any of his symphonies. I much prefer his clarinet concerto, numerous piano concertos, the Requiem, and chamber music (especially the clarinet quintet).


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Just go away and have a good laugh at the ignorance of such people! :lol:
> 
> The fact is the vast majority of knowledgeable musicians acknowledge Mozart's supreme genius. I remember Bernstein recording West Side Story and remarking, "The score's come up pretty fresh. Not as fresh as Mozart, of course, but who's in that league anyway!"


Funny, he said exactly the same thing about Beethoven. He was such a double-dealer (in many more ways than one!!).

With respect to Mozart's Symphony #40; I think it a lovely work and I enjoy the last few symphonies of Mozart, a couple of the piano sonatas, 2 or 3 of the operas (in small doses) and some of his chamber music. Undoubtedly the work of a genius, but he's not even in my top 10 composers ranking these days and hasn't been for years. But I love and appreciate Haydn more and more and I adore this: look at Lenny's eyes during this encore (and read Humphrey Burton's massive biography of Bernstein to see what I referred to above).






Haydn's last symphonies, the final two masses, *The Creation* and *The Seasons* - all miracles of form and invention!!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The OP made a statement about this symphony being his favourite, implicitly inviting others to share their opinions, presumably allowing positive and negative (though the OP doesn't set the rules about what is permissible to post). Being 'knowledgeable' doesn't come into it, except for a minimum of familiarity with the work itself. Any suggestion that any of the following personal opinions are ignorant seems to me to be itself ignorant. I also fail to see any justification for laughing at others' ignorance, but since none is on show, we'll let that pass.


I think you take DavidA's post too seriously. Did he not put a laughing emoticon in his post?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Funny, he said exactly the same thing about Beethoven. He was such a double-dealer (in many more ways than one!!).
> 
> With respect to Mozart's Symphony #40; I think it a lovely work and I enjoy the last few symphonies of Mozart, a couple of the piano sonatas, 2 or 3 of the operas (in small doses) and some of his chamber music. Undoubtedly the work of a genius, but he's not even in my top 10 composers ranking these days and hasn't been for years. But I love and appreciate Haydn more and more and I adore this: look at Lenny's eyes during this encore (and read Humphrey Burton's massive biography of Bernstein to see what I referred to above).
> 
> ...


Fair enough - I never found them that interesting.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I listened to this symphony many times, but it never really touched me. It falls into the category of "pretty" - the sort of music that creates a reputation of CM as "music for studying" or "relaxing music". There are works by Mozart - the piano concertos for example, that are more gripping than this symphony, but even so - give me Beethoven or Mahler any day. 

PS. Even the pieces Mozart composed for the glass harmonica are more impressive - the sound of the instrument is so wonderfully soft and tender.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> *Funny, he said exactly the same thing about Beethoven. *He was such a double-dealer (in many more ways than one!!).
> 
> With respect to Mozart's Symphony #40; I think it a lovely work and I enjoy the last few symphonies of Mozart, a couple of the piano sonatas, 2 or 3 of the operas (in small doses) and some of his chamber music. Undoubtedly the work of a genius, but he's not even in my top 10 composers ranking these days and hasn't been for years. But I love and appreciate Haydn more and more and I adore this: look at Lenny's eyes during this encore (and read Humphrey Burton's massive biography of Bernstein to see what I referred to above).
> 
> ...


Yeah you might say the same thing about Lud as well! I always find the Eroica coms up pretty fresh


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I think you take DavidA's post too seriously. Did he not put a laughing emoticon in his post?


Lighten up guys! :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I listened to this symphony many times, but it never really touched me. It falls into the category of "pretty" - the sort of music that creates a reputation of CM as "music for studying" or "relaxing music". There are works by Mozart - the piano concertos for example, that are more gripping than this symphony, but even so - give me Beethoven or Mahler any day.
> 
> PS*. Even the pieces Mozart composed for the glass harmonica are more impressive* - the sound of the instrument is so wonderfully soft and tender.


A laughable statement - but you are entitled to your view.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I have read enough - no more nonsense about the g minor symphony please.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2017)

stomanek said:


> I have read enough - no more nonsense about the *g minor symphony* please.


Which one? :lol:

If it's the G Minor element that's important, I prefer Shostakovich's 11th...and am currently listening to Haydn's "La Poule."


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

The way it begins was radical. No hammerstrokes but rather, strings that sound as though they've already been playing for a while before we actually hear them.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

My fave Mozart symph.

Trying to establish a "reference" performance (recording ) of No. 40.

Not much of a Bernstein fan, but this version on YouTube is very good:





Mackerras is too fast (but _recording quality_ is good):





YouTube has some good (but scratchy) Wand recordings.

One of my oldest CD possession is a Denon release from 1981 (Blomstedt, Staatskapelle Dresden).

Not sure which versions are HIP or otherwise well-done.

(Apologies in advance for any redundancy in in this post. I haven't exhaustively gone thru this thread -- of the whole forum, for that matter.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There are many excellent recordings of the work, including the Bernstein above. For HIP performances, I suppose Pinnock is the reliable default. I also actually like what Norrington did with the work (both of his recordings) and find Harnoncourt's late experiment - presenting the last three symphonies as parts of one single whole - interesting and supported by bracing performances. For the non-HIP Beecham, Walter, Klemperer, Krips, Maag and Suitner have all given us excellent versions (mostly quite different from each other). 

I won't comment much on the work. It is - along with several other late Mozart symphonies - a huge achievement, a major masterpiece ... quite simply one of the greatest pieces (along with more than 100 other pieces) ever written. If you don't know that then I feel sympathy for you as I am certain that some part of your brain is not working properly.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Haydn's last symphonies, the final two masses, *The Creation* and *The Seasons* - all miracles of form and invention!!


So you rate Haydn higher than Mozart. I wouldn't rate Haydn in my top 30. For what it's worth. Not even disagreeing with the above words. Well miracles might be overstating it. Haydn was remarkably industrious and had lots of good little ideas.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Which one? :lol:
> 
> If it's the G Minor element that's important, I prefer Shostakovich's 11th...and am currently listening to Haydn's "La Poule."


Don't forget Schumann's Zwickauer

Honestly not a big fan overall of Shostakovitch's work, but this is my favourite of his Symphonies probably. I really enjoy the last movement in particular. Almost 'holy minimalist'. I even feel roused by the '5 year plan' in the coda


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Casebearer said:


> ^^
> You're welcome if you've listened to it. None of us have been able to escape from Mozart however. He was admittedly a genius (with ups and downs) but not everybody is taken by the classical style. And we're not here just to join in a fan group dancing around any composer' fire. In my opinion it would be better if the forum allowed us to simply dislike posts (= composers or works). All this liking gives a false impression of the fundamental disagreement in tastes between people. Disliking should not be interpreted as negative posting but as a form of balancing. Otherwise we're just an (artificially) 'always positive' PR machine. I love it when people dislike things, it can bind us. What music do you hate?


Yes, yes. Dissent is fine. But it would be nice to hear something more thoughtful than "it sucks," don't you think.?

Edit: Sorry, didn't see how old the thread is.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I like Mozart's 40th a lot, but think I prefer 2 other works of his in G minor - the String Quintet, and Symphony 25.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> So you rate Haydn higher than Mozart.


I can't speak for CountenanceAnglaise, but, for symphonies, yes, me too. But it's not about rating Mozart poorly, just preferring Haydn more.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> I can't speak for CountenanceAnglaise, but, for symphonies, yes, me too. But it's not about rating Mozart poorly, just preferring Haydn more.


I'm not sure how to begin such a comparison, given that they were so different. Both wrote some of the greatest symphonies ever. I would probably go the other way to you - much of Mozart's music has something unworldly about it - but I would feel unsettled by being forced to choose, even if only a choice of a personal favourite.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

tdc said:


> I like Mozart's 40th a lot, but think I prefer 2 other works of his in G minor - the String Quintet, and Symphony 25.


Don't forget the piano quartet. (edited, oops  )


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I can't speak for CountenanceAnglaise, but, for symphonies, yes, me too. But it's not about rating Mozart poorly, just preferring Haydn more.


I could only agree in terms of bulk. Not that Haydn's work is not great. Workmanlike and inventive, endlessly inventive. Clever. plainer harmonically and melodically than Mozart. More predictable than CPE Bach, who doesn't seem to get much of a mention in the context of 'great symphonic writing of the late 18th century'.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

As I said in this thread back on 2017, there is no end to the queue of people with greater alternatives to anything of Mozart's one can mention. Haydn was a fine composer in many different areas, but the facts of the matter is that he simply didn't excel in the way Mozart did in every area. Personally I listen to more Haydn quartets (and his excellent string trios), likely because I heard them before Mozart's and I just like them even more over time, but Mozart's best quartets are spectacularly good. In terms of piano concertos Haydn's are generally not that good and some are simply abysmal (those worst ones might even be misattributions).


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> As I said in this thread back on 2017, there is no end to the queue of people with greater alternatives to anything of Mozart's one can mention. Haydn was a fine composer in many different areas, but the facts of the matter is that he simply didn't excel in the way Mozart did in every area. Personally I listen to more Haydn quartets (and his excellent string trios), likely because I heard them before Mozart's and I just like them even more over time, but Mozart's best quartets are spectacularly good. In terms of piano concertos *Haydn's are generally not that good* and some are simply abysmal (those worst ones might even be misattributions).


I only know the one in D - an attractive work - probably on par with Mozart's early efforts - K175 for example.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I thought the Haydn piano concertos were rather poor but then I listened to a different recording and it turned out that the highly praised recording by Andsnes was to blame - he seems to such all the fun out of them. The works are fine ... but not in Mozart's league, of course.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure how to begin such a comparison, given that they were so different.


Since the comparison is only a matter of which I prefer to listen to, it's not difficult...for me.



Eusebius12 said:


> I could only agree in terms of bulk. Not that Haydn's work is not great. Workmanlike and inventive, endlessly inventive. Clever. plainer harmonically and melodically than Mozart. More predictable than CPE Bach, who doesn't seem to get much of a mention in the context of 'great symphonic writing of the late 18th century'.


You don't have to "agree". There's nothing to agree with or disagree with. What I said was that I _prefer _Haydn's symphonies. That's a fact that doesn't require agreement.



eugeneonagain said:


> Haydn was a fine composer in many different areas, but the facts of the matter is that he simply didn't excel in the way Mozart did in every area.


Dare I suggest that your statement is not a fact, merely an opinion? It may well be an opinion that would find many in agreement.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Dare I suggest that your statement is not a fact, merely an opinion? It may well be an opinion that would find many in agreement.


Yes, my preference is a fact that doesn't require agreement, yet widely has it even among expert opinion. That might be the definition of a fact, though just at risk of straying into the naturalistic fallacy.


----------



## Samehada (Aug 10, 2018)

Just made an account. Mainly because like some users here I am dismayed at the dismissals of Mozart that I see here, on other forums, and real life. Bach and Beethoven don't seem to receive this treatment (as much)! 

In my journey through classical music, several pieces have affected me to the point of tearing up. But only one composer has ever made me laugh (audibly), and that is Mozart. Not because the music is funny to me. I laugh because sometimes, a passage of such depth, clarity, and other words that don't do it justice leaves me in a suspenseful awe... Starstruck, I continue listening only for the inconceivable to occur - the music gets better. Better! Than it already was! So ridiculous will I find this that in my already elated state I can do nothing but let out a laugh similar to how a balloon must pop after it can take no more air. It's a stupid laugh, like that of a child seeing a magic trick for the first time. A laugh expressing both disbelief and gratitude for Mozart. 

Now that I have revealed my status as a Mozart fanboy maybe I can actually try to contribute a little to the discussion...
How many times do we hear someone say something along the lines of "yeah, I'm not a fan of Mozart... except for his Requiem/Symphony 40." It's almost like people are only able to perceive passion in the most gushy pieces. I mean considering Mozart uses a lot of the same material across his life, shouldn't an affinity for one piece translate to nearly his entire catalogue? Or maybe it could be that people approach his music with a romantic frame of reference of Chopin, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky and are thus suitable drawn to/repelled by certain Mozart pieces?


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> For HIP performances, I suppose Pinnock is the reliable default.


For Pinnock, I assume you mean the Archiv recordings from 1990s. YouTube has some snips, as in this example:






For the above video (as is the case for Mackerras) I'm not sure the_ tempo_ is HIP ... anyone know? (It seem a bit quick for me).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Great symphony. One of the most original by Mozart. Britten's version by far is the best to me, except for the grossly overlong 2nd movement.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Samehada said:


> Just made an account. Mainly because like some users here I am dismayed at the dismissals of Mozart that I see here, on other forums, and real life. Bach and Beethoven don't seem to receive this treatment (as much)!


Swings and roundabouts. Beethoven used to cop a lot of abuse in the 19th century, and Bach was studiously ignored by many at the same time. His star had yet to reach its ascendance. In more recent times, Mozart became quite popular in terms of classical audiences. I think there is a reaction to that. Mozart became marketable, and there is I believe a snobbish reaction to that. Not that that is necessarily the reason for lukewarmness on behalf of specific poster(s). Not everyone responds to the same music in the same way.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Berliner Philharmoniker
Wilhelm Furtwängler
Live recording, Wiesbaden, 10.VI.1949

Quite energetic and tight. 
Recording quality is above avg. for time period.


----------



## Samehada (Aug 10, 2018)

Eusebius12 said:


> Swings and roundabouts. Beethoven used to cop a lot of abuse in the 19th century, and Bach was studiously ignored by many at the same time. His star had yet to reach its ascendance. In more recent times, Mozart became quite popular in terms of classical audiences. I think there is a reaction to that. Mozart became marketable, and there is I believe a snobbish reaction to that. Not that that is necessarily the reason for lukewarmness on behalf of specific poster(s). Not everyone responds to the same music in the same way.


Interesting, I have never heard of any widespread negative press towards Beethoven. If anything I had the perception that he was one of the most worshiped of all composers, the main evidence being E.T.A. Hoffman's famous review of the 5th symphony. I wouldn't say Bach was ignored, he was simply obscure due to his old style. But the composers who did explore his work had nothing but praise for it. But judging these composers' popularity levels over history with some accuracy is a pretty great task. You do agree though that in modern times, Mozart is the most derided of the "great" composers (unless you include ones like Schoenberg). I feel like it is a mix of snobbishness as you say, but beginner listeners also seem to have some an aversion to him. Perhaps because there is a general bias towards Romantic music, but this doesn't seem to affect Bach too much (besides some finding his music "mechanical" and such)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

13hm13 said:


> For Pinnock, I assume you mean the Archiv recordings from 1990s. YouTube has some snips, as in this example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes - those recordings. I find a lot of HIP performances fast, especially until recently. Only Harnoncourt seemed willing to slow down for some music. Speed, though, is not that important to me and if I look at my favourite performances of some works I find they often vary greatly in speed. I am not sure how much we know of performance speeds in Mozart's day but would not be too surprised to learn that they varied.

I did once find the clipped phrasing that typified many HIP performances - and that leaked out into non-HIP performances as well - ugly and distressing ... but I have got used to it now (but have not learned to love it).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Samehada said:


> In my journey through classical music, several pieces have affected me to the point of tearing up. But only one composer has ever made me laugh (audibly), and that is Mozart. Not because the music is funny to me. I laugh because sometimes, a passage of such depth, clarity, and other words that don't do it justice leaves me in a suspenseful awe... Starstruck, I continue listening only for the inconceivable to occur - the music gets better. Better! Than it already was! So ridiculous will I find this that in my already elated state I can do nothing but let out a laugh similar to how a balloon must pop after it can take no more air. It's a stupid laugh, like that of a child seeing a magic trick for the first time. A laugh expressing both disbelief and gratitude for Mozart.
> 
> Now that I have revealed my status as a Mozart fanboy maybe I can actually try to contribute a little to the discussion...
> How many times do we hear someone say something along the lines of "yeah, I'm not a fan of Mozart... except for his Requiem/Symphony 40." It's almost like people are only able to perceive passion in the most gushy pieces. I mean considering Mozart uses a lot of the same material across his life, shouldn't an affinity for one piece translate to nearly his entire catalogue? Or maybe it could be that people approach his music with a romantic frame of reference of Chopin, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky and are thus suitable drawn to/repelled by certain Mozart pieces?


Welcome to the forum. Great description of the experience of listening to Mozart! It is even stranger that it keeps delivering all that even when you know the piece well! I also think you have something in your suggestion (I distort it a little) that the problem people have with Mozart is that he is not gushy enough for them. He delivers something rather different to what most composers deliver.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

The slow movement is one of Mozart's greatest moments. It's really sublime. Call me a simpleton, but this chord change at *11:13*-ish really blew my mind when I first heard it:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Samehada said:


> Just made an account. Mainly because like some users here I am dismayed at the dismissals of Mozart that I see here, on other forums, and real life. Bach and Beethoven don't seem to receive this treatment (as much)!
> 
> In my journey through classical music, several pieces have affected me to the point of tearing up. But only one composer has ever made me laugh (audibly), and that is Mozart. Not because the music is funny to me. I laugh because sometimes, a passage of such depth, clarity, and other words that don't do it justice leaves me in a suspenseful awe... Starstruck, I continue listening only for the inconceivable to occur - the music gets better. Better! Than it already was! So ridiculous will I find this that in my already elated state I can do nothing but let out a laugh similar to how a balloon must pop after it can take no more air. It's a stupid laugh, like that of a child seeing a magic trick for the first time. A laugh expressing both disbelief and gratitude for Mozart.
> 
> ...


Welcome aboard.

Like you I am baffled by this insistence among romantic music lovers that only the stormy minor key works are worth listening to in Mozart. My wife - a big Rachmaninov / Tchaik fan - acts like no 40 is the only sy Mozart ever composed. And my best friend - after an opera season in which I dragged him to performances of Figaro, Don Giovanni etc - watching him nod off or yawn and he one day suddenly came to life when he heard the requiem declaring - Mozart is a great composer after all!

Look forward to your contributions.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes - those recordings. I find a lot of HIP performances fast, especially until recently. Only Harnoncourt seemed willing to slow down for some music. Speed, though, is not that important to me and if I look at my favourite performances of some works I find they often vary greatly in speed. I am not sure how much we know of performance speeds in Mozart's day but would not be too surprised to learn that they varied.
> 
> I did once find the clipped phrasing that typified many HIP performances - and that leaked out into non-HIP performances as well - ugly and distressing ... but I have got used to it now (but have not learned to love it).


Two things I find most bizarre about a lot of HIP performances is the insistence on a non-vibrato string tone and tempi that remain quite strictly unchanging throughout the course of a single movement. There is overwhelming evidence for the opposite..........I think Pinnock was recording during a time when HIP recordings were more of a rebellion against the status quo 'modern' performance practice at the time: continuous and inexpressive one-size-fits-all vibrato, moderate/slowish unchanging and inexpressive tempi, one-size-fits-all phrasing that largely ignores the phrasal structure of the music and disproportionate orchestra sections. Hearing a proportionate (but small) orchestra with non-vibrato tone production play fast and with more exaggerated articulation that contributes to the phrasing probably would have been a breath of fresh air, despite the false claims of authenticity............


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

shirime said:


> Two things I find most bizarre about a lot of HIP performances is the insistence on a non-vibrato string tone and tempi that remain quite strictly unchanging throughout the course of a single movement. There is overwhelming evidence for the opposite..........I think Pinnock was recording during a time when HIP recordings were more of a rebellion against the status quo 'modern' performance practice at the time: continuous and inexpressive one-size-fits-all vibrato, moderate/slowish unchanging and inexpressive tempi, one-size-fits-all phrasing that largely ignores the phrasal structure of the music and disproportionate orchestra sections. Hearing a proportionate (but small) orchestra with non-vibrato tone production play fast and with more exaggerated articulation that contributes to the phrasing probably would have been a breath of fresh air, despite the false claims of authenticity............


Interesting to hear. I don't think the HIP movement has done much for Mozart and it may have had a negative influence on non-HIP performers too. But there are some HIP performances I quite like, almost despite the HIP rather than because of it (I hear quite a lot of similarity between Pinnock's approach and Krips's!). IMO Mozart needs a certain feel and some performers have it while others - for me anyway - don't. There has been a tendency with some to try to make Mozart sound like ... not-Mozart. I have been very pleasantly surprised by Norrington - a conductor I thought I hated - in Mozart and I have greatly enjoyed the controversial Currentzis opera recordings. So I still have some iconoclasts that I favour.


----------



## Samehada (Aug 10, 2018)

Thanks for the welcomes!

As for the 40th symphony, I have two favorite things about it. First, the main theme, which is one of the most iconic within classical music. It has been interpreted as everything between crushing tragedy and boundless joy. Maybe it is the twisted ecstasy of long-anticipated revenge? 
The other fantastic aspect is the 3rd movement. Minuets are usually the least significant of classical era symphonies, but the one in symphony 40 maintains and even exceeds the drama and excitement of the work. It's a masterclass of orchestration and counterpoint, must be one of the greatest minuets I've heard. 

The only aspect I've really thought about in terms of performance practice is vibrato, too much of it is a pet peeve for me. Not sure when it became popular to abuse it, or what the best recordings are for avoiding its excess.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> The slow movement is one of Mozart's greatest moments. It's really sublime. Call me a simpleton, but this chord change at *11:13*-ish really blew my mind when I first heard it:


This is a masterwork. Trouble is Boehm's tempi do not do Mozart justice in my view. Sounds more like the Swingle Sisters than the burning, somewhat disturbing and feverish work of art that it really is. Pre 1950s conductors (other than perhaps Erich Kleiber) didn't understand the intensity of Mozart.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I love the piece as well! I always seem to have the controversial opinions. I'm surprised how people say it's too repetitive and that Beethoven is much better. From what I've heard, Beethoven is clearly more repetitive, not to insult him. Mozart's works seem much more developed. It's not necessarily my favorite style of course, but he does it perfectly and it's really nice to listen to I think.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I love the piece as well! I always seem to have the controversial opinions. I'm surprised how people say it's too repetitive and that Beethoven is much better. From what I've heard, Beethoven is clearly more repetitive, not to insult him. Mozart's works seem much more developed. It's not necessarily my favorite style of course, but he does it perfectly and it's really nice to listen to I think.


Wrong Said Fred  Beethoven goes further to develop his music and enlarges the form much more than Mozart. Compare this 40th with Beethoven's 5th. Mozart's K. 310 with the Pathetique Sonata. These are comparable works.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Wrong Said Fred  Beethoven goes further to develop his music and enlarges the form much more than Mozart. Compare this 40th with Beethoven's 5th. Mozart's K. 310 with the Pathetique Sonata. These are comparable works.


Those two symphonies are exactly the ones I'm comparing. I hear very, very little development of themes that don't interest me in the first place. Maybe I need to listen to it again, but I've already given it several tries.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Samehada said:


> Thanks for the welcomes!
> 
> As for the 40th symphony, I have two favorite things about it. First, the main theme, which is one of the most iconic within classical music. It has been interpreted as everything between crushing tragedy and boundless joy. Maybe it is the twisted ecstasy of long-anticipated revenge?
> The other fantastic aspect is the 3rd movement. Minuets are usually the least significant of classical era symphonies, but the one in symphony 40 maintains and even exceeds the drama and excitement of the work. It's a masterclass of orchestration and counterpoint, must be one of the greatest minuets I've heard.
> ...


Nobody really talks about the 3rd mvt so glad you brought it up. I started to notice this mvt many years ago after disregarding it for a decade. Yes it is a remarkable 3rd mvt for a classical sy - oozing style, one of his best.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eusebius12 said:


> This is a masterwork. Trouble is Boehm's tempi do not do Mozart justice in my view. Sounds more like the Swingle Sisters than the burning, somewhat disturbing and feverish work of art that it really is. Pre 1950s conductors (other than perhaps Erich Kleiber) didn't understand the intensity of Mozart.


I sort of agree. Bohm is very "stylish" in Mozart, very civilised. I sometimes enjoy his Mozart. But there are so many performances that tell us so much more about the work. Still, there is a place in the world (or do I mean in my heart) for Bohm's Mozart which is more than I can say for Karajan's.


----------



## Samehada (Aug 10, 2018)

stomanek said:


> Nobody really talks about the 3rd mvt so glad you brought it up. I started to notice this mvt many years ago after disregarding it for a decade. Yes it is a remarkable 3rd mvt for a classical sy - oozing style, one of his best.


Yes this movement needs to be talked about more. I think I watched a video a while ago where it was used as the subject for a study on orchestration. Personally the movement I appreciate the least from No. 40 is the second. I might need to listen to different recordings in order for it to click. Weird because Mozart slow movements are usually easy favorites for me.

Also, when comparing Mozart/Beethoven developments Beethovens' come off as more "obsessive" in terms of scope and picking apart a theme.

Side note, how do you "like" a post on mobile? Is it the icon that has a quotation mark and a little + sign?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Samehada said:


> Yes this movement needs to be talked about more. I think I watched a video a while ago where it was used as the subject for a study on orchestration. Personally the movement I appreciate the least from No. 40 is the second. I might need to listen to different recordings in order for it to click. Weird because Mozart slow movements are usually easy favorites for me.
> 
> Also, when comparing Mozart/Beethoven developments Beethovens' come off as more "obsessive" in terms of scope and picking apart a theme.
> 
> Side note, how do you "like" a post on mobile? Is it the icon that has a quotation mark and a little + sign?


The 2nd mvt is a strange creature - I used to think it's far too repetitive. I heard it played on the radio a few months ago and thought - wow - that's just perfect. It was Eliot Gardner - perhaps he got the rythm just spot on but it seemed to click with me at last.

dont know how to like on mobile.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I sort of agree. Bohm is very "stylish" in Mozart, very civilised. I sometimes enjoy his Mozart. But there are so many performances that tell us so much more about the work. Still, there is a place in the world (or do I mean in my heart) for Bohm's Mozart which is more than I can say for Karajan's.


Interesting that Karajan's star has faded so much since his death. I feel the love in Boehm, even if he does plod, whereas Karajan gives a feeling of icy coldness. Speaking in generalities of course.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eusebius12 said:


> Interesting that Karajan's star has faded so much since his death. I feel the love in Boehm, even if he does plod, whereas Karajan gives a feeling of icy coldness. Speaking in generalities of course.


Yes. I never liked Karajan's Mozart but always enjoyed Bohm's. The first Mozart recordings I heard were those of Beecham and Walter and I still love both.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Eusebius12 said:


> This is a masterwork. Trouble is Boehm's tempi do not do Mozart justice in my view. Sounds more like the Swingle Sisters than the burning, somewhat disturbing and feverish work of art that it really is. Pre 1950s conductors (other than perhaps Erich Kleiber) didn't understand the intensity of Mozart.


What about the slow movement?


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

The slow movement is in proportion to the slowness of the others. I suppose since it is a _slow_ movement, such a treatment may be justified. But it does drag.


----------



## arkadinho (Mar 21, 2016)

Could anyone tell me who is playing here by any chance? Love the performance but the poster is hiding the performer


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

arkadinho said:


> Could anyone tell me who is playing here by any chance? Love the performance but the poster is hiding the performer


Got it!!!

Even if Barenboim English Chamber orchestra does sound similar, the brass blasting out in 0:39 is the same than the *Marriner ASMF recording for Philips.* But the video is pitching the key and speeding the pace to avoid copyright issues.

Took a long time and thank goodness I had my list of Mozart 40 recordings listed by recording year because the sound was very much Philips/Decca from the Analogue times.


----------



## arkadinho (Mar 21, 2016)

I think you're right! Thank you! Why would the poster be concerned about the copyright issues? Both recordings that you mention are still listed on YouTube if you search for them. 

But the thing is... apparently since the performance is not mentioned the clip gets more YouTube hits than any other Mozart 40. I wonder if that's the real reason the poster is not mentioning performers. I suspect I learned something new today about all of us including yours truly lol. It kind of make sense if you think about it though. We all have our preconceived notions of which conductors we like and which don't, and often avoid even giving a chance to those that we have a tendency to not to care of. Fascinating.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

PlaySalieri said:


> I must remember to reply to a thread where someone expresses admiration for a work that I hate and leave a note there of my loathing.


I do that with every Bruckner thread! I never waste an opportunity to bash Bruckner. Funny, I don't feel the need to constantly bash Schoenberg, another composer whose music I simply loathe.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

true



........


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

One of my favourite Mozart works, especially the 1st movement.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

haziz said:


> I do that with every Bruckner thread! I never waste an opportunity to bash Bruckner. Funny, I don't feel the need to constantly bash Schoenberg, another composer whose music I simply loathe.


I may be wrong, but I think PlaySallieri may have been dabbling in irony .....


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

haziz said:


> I do that with every Bruckner thread! I never waste an opportunity to bash Bruckner. Funny, I don't feel the need to constantly bash Schoenberg, another composer whose music I simply loathe.


But is that really good for the forum?

What if we all did that? It could descend into internecine squabbling amongst classical music fans, who have so much in common.

I suppose what I'm saying is it's potentially very divisive. If I posted that I like Ives symphony #2, what purpose would it serve if a whole bunch of people felt compelled to tell me they hate it? Seems weird to me.

P.S. Hatred is perhaps the worse human trait ....


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think bashing is divisive enough if it occurs in threads explicitly reserved for criticism but it should not be done in others.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think bashing is divisive enough if it occurs in threads explicitly reserved for criticism but it should not be done in others.


Indeed. And 'hard-wiring' negative responses in an automatic way seems destructive to intelligent and interesting discourse.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Agree with both the last two posts. I don't enjoy the music of Mahler, about which there are usually numerous ongoing threads on this forum, but I've never seen the point of gatecrashing such threads just to say so.


----------

