# My second Mozart cd and it was a disappointment i feel sad



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

Ockay i will probably make enemy here(lord please have mercy), but i find on the first lisen * Mozart's concerto for flute and harp k299 and Sinfonia concertante k297b a bit a tad borring....*
But it's supposed to be Mozart and of course well know Mozart genieous, i feel like Mozart past life harsh critics...it's not like in the movie where a dude said Mozart has too mutch notes, no i find
his work pretty only to be pretty, it did not move me...

I heard some of his work rendered by Jacque Hétu and love it, but it were Mozart variations not clearly Mozart.Than i would like Toshio Hosokawa lotus Under the moonlight (hommage a Mozart).

So it clearly trigger and spark an interrest for me to investigated furter on into Mozart but for now im disapointed, i could'aint fine Mozart misecordias k222 that was subjection of mister ComposerOfavantgarde a TC menber but it sounded great i heard on YouTube.

I was in a small christian record store and Bookstore they did have piano work of him , his requiem that i heard about a million time, is uttermost radio friendly material.

:tiphat:

What is your cue does Mozart made music that where moving or relentless power, let's face it prettyness is not sutch weakness understand me on this.. but pretty music that has this has sole purpose that is not moving, is like watching Molly Ringwald in her prime time year pretty in pink or something (silly joke).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Well, the Flute & Harp Concerto isn't Mozart at his most profound, so you're off the hook with that one. Mozart claimed he didn't even like the flute. The Sinfonia Concertante, however... Don't give up on it. It really has a lot to offer. Maybe try other performances.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I agree with Woodduck on both works. For the concertos try the piano concertos (20-27, although the earlier ones have their moments as well) and the clarinet concerto.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Try the Piano Concerto in D minor, maybe the slow movement of piano concerto 23 in A major, and perhaps piano sonata 12 in F major, certainly piano sonata 8 in A minor (at least the first and last movements), first movement of piano quartet in E flat major, symphony 25 in G minor (especially the first movement), string quintet in G minor (1st movement), violin sonata in E minor k 304, not forgetting the incredible penultimate section of Don Giovanni ("Don Giovanni, a cenar teco").


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I don't know if you like chamber music, but the 6 'Haydn' quartets, the 3 'Prussian' quartets and the Hoffmeister quartet are excellent, and so are the string quintets, especially K. 515 & 516 (the G minor listed above by Chordalrock).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I didn't much care for Mozart when I first heard his music. There were a few (usually minor-key) exceptions, but it took several years of occasional listening before I found myself able to say "yeah, I like Mozart". There wasn't any road-to-Damascus moment, it just gradually happened. This sort of thing occurs with me often for composers or even genres of music. So don't worry about it! It might come to you in time, or it might not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't think you've listened to two of his greatest works. Try the clarinet concerto for something far more profound.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Yep...Early symphonies. Piano Sonatas. Arias for Soprano and Orchestra ( Mia Speranza Adorato K 416 particularly)
The brilliant stuff is there but ( shock horror) there is a lot of pretty pedestrian music in his vast output. It can take a lifetime to wade through it. Its a worth while task though

Listening to Symphony no 29 right now Berlin Phil HVK. lovely jubbly!


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Test it out on youtube before making your next purchase


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Badinerie said:


> Yep...Early symphonies...


Nope!

Or at least not the very earliest, he was only a wee kid when he composed the really early ones. Don't buy a box set and start from the beginning (at least not until you have listened to a dozen "best of" disks and are a Mozart fanatic...) Start with no 25 (little G minor)



> Listening to Symphony no 29 right now Berlin Phil HVK. lovely jubbly!


I agree, that's a great one. Haven't heard Karajan's version, but I can imagine him doing a good job. For a lighter, brisker, interpretation you might try Marriner. Try Pinnock for a good HIP version.

Other symphonies to try first: 31, 33, 38, 39, 40

But, rather than the symphonies, I agree with those suggesting to start with the key piano concertos (20-27, again don't start with the early ones!) Brendel and Perahia usually do a superb job, as do several others.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Your sample size is way too small. To expect that each of 600+ works is a profound utterance is absurd. And just because a work has been recorded, that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth listening to.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Well, let's be a little more fair to the Flute/Harp Concerto. The 2nd movement Andantino does have one of the most adored melodies which is why it was featured in the movie Amadeus as one of the works Salieri was so envious of as he looked through Mozart's scores. Even less 'complicated' or 'profound' Mozart is to be appreciated though there's no doubt he soared to greater heights in the later piano concertos and operas.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Mal said:


> (20-27, again don't start with the early ones!) Brendel and Perahia usually do a superb job, as do several others.


Actually, with the piano concertos, I would start with the early ones starting with his first original concerto (#5) and moving up from there. It was written around the same time as some the symphonies you were recommending and it's a genre that was more important to him. Earlier piano concertos in number doesn't mean they're "early" works. Most of them were written after his early twenties and I can't think of any reason why 14-19 would be less immediately accessible to a new listener than the others. They certainly don't lack anything in the way of quality(or melodies, if all else fails).


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

They are certainly lovely pieces in their own right, but I agree with Mal. The later ones make a more immediate impact IMHO and that would be particularly helpful in this case. Once the bug has bitten, nos.5 to 19 are waiting to be discovered.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

If it makes you feel any better, Glenn Gould hated Mozart's music too.

But picking a piece from the late 1770s isn't playing the odds. It wasn't until 1781 or so - when the Kochel numbers pass around 350 - that Mozart earned the laurels he wears today.

You might try the K.376-380 Violin Sonatas. Extremely appealing music that's virtually interpretation-proof.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

The string quintets! At least check out nos. 3 [C major] and 4 [g minor]


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Cosmos said:


> The string sextets! At least check out nos. 3 [C major] and 4 [g minor]


Do you by chance mean string quintets? If so, I greatly enjoy the G Minor, K. 516.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Don't miss the other, much more famous Sinfonia concertante...it's a relatively early piece, but one of his best.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

DiesIraeCX said:


> Do you by chance mean string quintets? If so, I greatly enjoy the G Minor, K. 516.


My bad, I definitely meant the string quintets.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

trazom said:


> Actually, with the piano concertos, I would start with the early ones starting with his first original concerto (#5) and moving up from there.


I've kept a record of what I found a "tad boring" from my first run through the complete set, and 2,3,5,7,8,14,16,18 get the thumbs down I'm afraid.

I started to get deeply into Mozart after listening to Brendel's version of the Piano Concertos on his two "double decca" sets with the ASMF:

Mozart: The Great Piano Concertos 19-24, 2 Concert Rondos

Mozart: The Great Piano Concertos Vol.2 9, 15, 22, 25, 27

I didn't find any of these even slightly boring, and couldn't imagine anyone who would! So, it might be safest to start with these.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

deprofundis said:


> Ockay i will probably make enemy here(lord please have mercy), but i find on the first lisen * Mozart's concerto for flute and harp k299 and Sinfonia concertante k297b a bit a tad borring....*
> But it's supposed to be Mozart and of course well know Mozart genieous, i feel like Mozart past life harsh critics...it's not like in the movie where a dude said Mozart has too mutch notes, no i find
> his work pretty only to be pretty, it did not move me...
> 
> ...


I felt exactly like you for a long time. There were two things always I liked, the Dies Irae of the requiem and the slow movement of K310 on a Lipatti recording. The next thing that opened up for me was the Grillers playing some quintets and Heifetz etc playing K563. I didn't like the arias in the operas (they seemed to just stop the action)

The big breakthrough for me came from the Ponnelle films of Figaro and Cosi fan tute. And Glenn Gould playing the variations movement in the 24th piano concerto. Much later on I remember starting to enjoy the Prussian Quartets, at the same time I became fascinated by Beethoven op 18s, I think initially through The Alban Berg Quartet.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Well I had the flute and harp as a newbie to Mozart at age 24 and thought it was fabulous - I still love it. 
As for the sinfonia concertante - an attractive piece - which may not be by Mozart at all - I think scholars are divided.
I dont consider it to be Mozart - too many uncharacteristic touches and the quality of invention is lacking.

Well keep trying - lots of good suggestions - the clarinet concerto is one of the supreme classical pieces - but there are many pieces that you will write off a pretty and superficial - even though they are far deeper. As some have suggested - it can take some time before the full beauty of Mozart's work really start to work their magic.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deprofundis said:


> What is your cue does Mozart made music that where moving or relentless power, let's face it prettyness is not sutch weakness understand me on this.. but pretty music that has this has sole purpose that is not moving, is like watching Molly Ringwald in her prime time year pretty in pink or something (silly joke).


For relentless power try Don Giovanni statue scene.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ribonucleic said:


> If it makes you feel any better, Glenn Gould hated Mozart's music too.
> 
> But picking a piece from the late 1770s isn't playing the odds. It wasn't until 1781 or so - when the Kochel numbers pass around 350 - that Mozart earned the laurels he wears today.
> 
> You might try the K.376-380 Violin Sonatas. Extremely appealing music that's virtually interpretation-proof.


There is so much nonsense on this thread - there are dozens of pieces written before 1781 which are included among the eternal treasures of music. Piano concerto no 9 for example - many of the diverimenti, serenades, Exsultate Jubilate - symphonies 25 and 29 - many many many.
I wouldnt bother helping the OP - if he thinks the flute and harp is just pretty and nothing more. Let him - I say - venture forth to his listening destiny : Beethoven. 
Then when he is asked who his favourite composer is he can say a name that will denote him a serious listener of profound music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ribonucleic said:


> If it makes you feel any better, Glenn Gould hated Mozart's music too.
> 
> But picking a piece from the late 1770s isn't playing the odds. It wasn't until 1781 or so - when the Kochel numbers pass around 350 - that Mozart earned the laurels he wears today.
> 
> You might try the K.376-380 Violin Sonatas. Extremely appealing music that's virtually interpretation-proof.


Glen Gould did not hate Mozart's music - he probably recorded more Mozart than the music of any other composer. He had a preference for Mozart's earlier works though.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ribonucleic said:


> If it makes you feel any better, Glenn Gould hated Mozart's music too.
> 
> .


But you can't take Gould as a reference point to anything!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Animal the Drummer said:


> They are certainly lovely pieces in their own right, but I agree with Mal. The later ones make a more immediate impact IMHO and that would be particularly helpful in this case. Once the bug has bitten, nos.5 to 19 are waiting to be discovered.


What impact would concertos number 26 or 27, for example, make on a new listener that numbers 9 or 10 or 14,15, 17, 19, etc. couldn't? I don't see a huge difference in quality that would require some initiation process before the listener could enjoy everything before the 20th concerto(the great--if arbitrary--divide).



Mal said:


> I didn't find any of these even slightly boring, and couldn't imagine anyone who would! So, it might be safest to start with these.


Well, my reasoning was based on their accessibility or likelihood that someone who hadn't heard them before would find them enjoyable based on the discussions I've read from other listeners about the earlier concertos here and on other message boards and reactions from listeners on youtube. I didn't assume because I like many of them it would be impossible for someone else not to.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

trazom said:


> What impact would concertos number 26 or 27, for example, make on a new listener that numbers 9 or 10 or 14,15, 17, 19, etc. couldn't? I don't see a huge difference in quality that would require some initiation process before the listener could enjoy everything before the 20th concerto(the great--if arbitrary--divide).
> 
> Well, my reasoning was based on their accessibility or likelihood that someone who hadn't heard them before would find them enjoyable based on the discussions I've read from other listeners about the earlier concertos here and on other message boards and reactions from listeners on youtube. I didn't assume because I like many of them it would be impossible for someone else not to.


By accessible it might be thought a piece full of tuneful music - the flute and harp in my view falls into that category - so there is no point trying to guess what kind of Mozart piece will appeal to the OP. That is why I suggested he forget Mozart. He may respond to something whose profoundity is immediately obvious to any listener. which is why I suggest Beethoven.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Of course, we each have our own road (and some lead to dead ends). For me, Mozart first came to life with an LP twofer of George Szell conducting Symphonies 35, 39, 40 and 41. I put on No. 35 and the energy and exuberance grabbed me from the first bar.

No question that Nos. 39-41 are more mature works (and I have many recordings of them along with the other symphonies), but to this day, I have a soft spot for that No. 35.

Edit - I went back to look at the original post. If you are seeking a Beethovian relentlessness and power in Mozart, you will only find it in a comparatively few places - mostly the works in Minor keys such as Piano Concerto No. 20. What I hear is rapturous beauty and grace that can touch my heart. Mozart, more than any other composer, simply makes me smile. One of the best known descriptions of Mozart, which has been credited to several people including Isaiah Berlin, goes as follows:

"It is said that the angels, when they play for God, play Bach, but when they play for each other, they play Mozart."


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Chordalrock said:


> Try the Piano Concerto in D minor, maybe the slow movement of piano concerto 23 in A major, and perhaps piano sonata 12 in F major, certainly piano sonata 8 in A minor (at least the first and last movements), first movement of piano quartet in E flat major, symphony 25 in G minor (especially the first movement), string quintet in G minor (1st movement), violin sonata in E minor k 304, not forgetting the incredible penultimate section of Don Giovanni ("Don Giovanni, a cenar teco").


I recall the first time I heard Symphony 25 in proper. It sounded strangely familiar. Only years later did I realize where I had heard it before. The first movement was used in the film version of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum." (For Sondheim fans it was merged with "Comedy Tonight" and other songs during the chase.)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

jegreenwood said:


> Edit - I went back to look at the original post. If you are seeking a Beethovian relentlessness and power in Mozart, you will only find it in a comparatively few places - mostly the works in Minor keys such as Piano Concerto No. 20. What I hear is rapturous beauty and grace that can touch my heart. Mozart, more than any other composer, simply makes me smile.


Very true and spoken by someone who knows his Mozart!  The D Minor (1785) ushered in an era of Mozart wherein he seemed to move to a whole new level of compositional maturity and innovation (followed by Marriage of Figaro 1786 & Don Giovanni 1787). But beyond that, the #20 Concerto is arguably/IMO the pinnacle of all his piano concertos and, as you infer, it anticipates the depth & power that Beethoven was to bring to his concertos.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Very true and spoken by someone who knows his Mozart!  The D Minor (1785) ushered in an era of Mozart wherein he seemed to move to a whole new level of compositional maturity and innovation (followed by Marriage of Figaro 1786 & Don Giovanni 1787). But beyond that, the #20 Concerto is arguably/IMO the pinnacle of all his piano concertos and, as you infer, it anticipates the depth & power that Beethoven was to bring to his concertos.


the c minor piano concerto?

I think there's much much more too. A minor sonata - c minor sonata - fantasy in c minor etc - minor quartet - g minor quintet - Don Giovanni - requiem - c minor mass - g minor piano quartet etc etc

It's a danger to pigeonhole Mozart - he was as comprehensive a composer as ever existed.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

trazom said:


> What impact would concertos number 26 or 27, for example, make on a new listener that numbers 9 or 10 or 14,15, 17, 19, etc. couldn't? I don't see a huge difference in quality that would require some initiation process before the listener could enjoy everything before the 20th concerto(the great--if arbitrary--divide).


Some unnecessarily tendentious terminology there. No-one (except perhaps your good self) is talking about "huge" differences or "initiation processes". On the contrary, my own post began with an explicit acknowledgement that many of the concertos before no.20 are lovely works in their own right, and in fact no.17 IMO could take its place with the 20+ contingent for current purposes. What I said, and what I stand by, is that those later works make a more immediate impact - they are longer, more complex and more imposing pieces of greater melodic distinction, and therefore a more effective response to the OP.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

stomanek said:


> the c minor piano concerto?


The D-Minor piano concerto.



> I think there's much much more too. A minor sonata - c minor sonata - fantasy in c minor etc - minor quartet - g minor quintet - Don Giovanni - requiem - c minor mass - g minor piano quartet etc etc
> 
> It's a danger to pigeonhole Mozart - he was as comprehensive a composer as ever existed.


Re-read my post. There's nothing in it that 'pigeonholes' Mozart. It's just my opinion that the D-Minor (#20) was the pinnacle of his piano concertos. As far as the period starting with around 1785 (the year of the #20's composition) being the beginning of an era of many if not most of Mozart's most accomplished works is not an original concept. Nothing in those statements suggests a limited or narrow, as opposed to comprehensive, output.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Some unnecessarily tendentious terminology there. No-one (except perhaps your good self) is talking about "huge" differences or "initiation processes".


The 'bitten by the Mozart bug' was the phrase I associate with an initiation process, your statement implying that they wouldn't be able to enjoy the earlier concertos without enjoying the later ones first. If you can tell me what is tendentious about the wording of my post, please do so.



Animal the Drummer said:


> What I said, and what I stand by, is that those later works make a more immediate impact - they are longer, more complex and more imposing pieces of greater melodic distinction, and therefore a more effective response to the OP.


They make a more immediate impact on you and a handful of others that have posted in this thread, but as I said in my reply to the other poster, that doesn't mean another person will have the same experience, and because the earlier concerti are popular and accessible to others, I don't see the point in limiting my recommendation to only 20-27. Also, even if you could argue those concertos are longer(the 9th concerto, in one example, is 30th minutes at least), more complex(even with the double fugue in the finale of the 19th concerto? or what kind of complexity do you mean?), and more imposing of greater melodic distinction(which is also vague and highly personal) that doesn't mean the person you're recommending the concertos to will agree or even value those same qualities in the music.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

DaveM said:


> As far as the period starting with around 1785 (the year of the #20's composition) being the beginning of an era of many if not most of Mozart's most accomplished works is not an original concept. Nothing in those statements suggests a limited or narrow, as opposed to comprehensive, output.


Many biographers I've read place the beginning of that era one year earlier, 1784, since it's the time he not only broke away from the Archibishop for good and composed his first mature operas, but also began the middle Vienna concertos(14-15) and started compiling a catalogue of all his works for himself starting with K.449, suggesting he considered these works important enough to preserve.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I recall reading that Leopold Mozart wrote to his son about the D minor concerto that if Wolfgang manages to stay on that level, it will be enough for him to be remembered as a great composer forever. Or something to that effect. Better than the exact words, I remember getting the impression that Leopold clearly saw the D minor concerto as something special, as more impressive a work than Mozart had done before. And I don't personally find that perspective hard to understand.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

trazom said:


> The 'bitten by the Mozart bug' was the phrase I associate with an initiation process, your statement implying that they wouldn't be able to enjoy the earlier concertos without enjoying the later ones first. If you can tell me what is tendentious about the wording of my post, please do so.
> 
> *That association is itself tendentious. The point I made, clearly enough for anyone not coming to this discussion with your particular agenda, is not that "they wouldn't be able to enjoy" etc." but simply that "they" (and it's as well to remind ourselves that "they" in this context are specifically those who have had trouble getting into this composer's output) would be relatively more likely to do so by starting with the later ones, and I stand by that.*
> 
> They make a more immediate impact on you and a handful of others that have posted in this thread, but as I said in my reply to the other poster, that doesn't mean another person will have the same experience, and because the earlier concerti are popular and accessible to others, I don't see the point in limiting my recommendation to only 20-27. Also, even if you could argue those concertos are longer(the 9th concerto, in one example, is 30th minutes at least), more complex(even with the double fugue in the finale of the 19th concerto? or what kind of complexity do you mean?), and more imposing of greater melodic distinction(which is also vague and highly personal) that doesn't mean the person you're recommending the concertos to will agree or even value those same qualities in the music.


*Not necessarily perhaps, but (a) each of us will necessarily give his or her own answer to the OP's enquiry, (b) the "handful of others" to which you refer is rather more than your view has managed to recruit and (c) my reading of the views of Girdlestone, Hedley and innumerable other commentators on the concertos over the years means I'd stake a sizeable sum that the view of the "handful" on here would be replicated if opinions were to be canvassed on a wider scale than this. You clearly think things should be otherwise and that's your prerogative, but it's equally the prerogative of others to disagree.*


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I recall reading that Leopold Mozart wrote to his son about the D minor concerto that if Wolfgang manages to stay on that level, it will be enough for him to be remembered as a great composer forever. Or something to that effect. Better than the exact words, I remember getting the impression that Leopold clearly saw the D minor concerto as something special, as more impressive a work than Mozart had done before. And I don't personally find that perspective hard to understand.


I think you read too much and put too much value on Leopold's words. He was clearly feeling very emotional and proud.
Mozart himself declared his quintet for winds and piano to be the best thing he had done to date - does that mean that we should accept the great operas written before then - the c minor mass, quartets etc etc are not as good. Mozart did not always have a good memory with what he had already composed - his haffner symphony for example written at speed and on the go - then sent to his father - later seen by Mozart he declared amazement at it - having forgotten every note.
I am one of those Mozart fans who find really special music across most of Mozart's life.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Animal the Drummer said:


> (b) the "handful of others" to which you refer is rather more than your view has managed to *recruit*


I thought we were trying to avoid tendentious words. You say it's a prerogative of mine to disagree yet when I do, my reply is meant to "recruit" posters?



Animal the Drummer said:


> (c) my reading of the views of Girdlestone, Hedley and innumerable other commentators on the concertos over the years means I'd stake a sizeable sum that the view of the "handful" on here would be replicated if opinions were to be canvassed on a wider scale than this. You clearly think things should be otherwise and that's your prerogative, but it's equally the prerogative of others to disagree.


That's an odd projection in that last sentence. I didn't say anything about how things "should" be. And I would personally be a bit hesitant to consider a small number of people on one thread, on one out of many music message boards, as representative of the entire population that listens to classical music(either regularly or sporadically). Also, the issue wasn't whether or not someone could agree or disagree, it was whether or not someone with no experience with the piano concertos would be as likely to enjoy one of the piano concertos before number 20 as after. The evidence offered by two individuals favoring the late concertos was that a newcomer would enjoy them because one poster loved them and couldn't imagine anyone having a different view, and the other poster, because the late concertos make more of an impact. I thought this was pretty flimsy reasoning given that many of the earlier concertos are still comparatively late works written in close proximity to the late concertos, that there is no way to predict what someone else will like just because you or others may like it, and lastly, that Mozart himself probably would've considered the earlier concertos as enjoyable given they, in his own words, were composed to appeal to both connoisseurs and amateurs.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think, at least, #17-19 easily match the last 6 Piano concertos in quality, especially #19.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

trazom said:


> Mozart himself probably would've considered the earlier concertos as enjoyable given they, in his own words, were composed to appeal to both connoisseurs and amateurs.


Do you have a citation for that? The way I remember it is that Mozart was talking about his late piano concertos, not early piano concertos nor all of them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mozart to his father: “. . . a happy medium between what is too easy and too difficult; they are very brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and natural without being vapid. There are passages here and there from which the . . . connoisseurs alone can derive satisfaction; but these passages are written in such a way that the less learned cannot fail to be pleased, though without knowing why.”

On piano concertos 12, 13, and 14.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

According to this book:

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0521001927

That quotation is just meaningless rhetoric typical of the time.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Alfred Einstein on PC no 9

"Mozart equalled but never bettered it"


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

trazom said:


> I thought we were trying to avoid tendentious words. You say it's a prerogative of mine to disagree yet when I do, my reply is meant to "recruit" posters?
> 
> *The comment was not about what you meant to do. It was prompted by your own previous "handful" reference and directed at the fact that your post had not evoked even that much support.*
> 
> That's an odd projection in that last sentence. I didn't say anything about how things "should" be. And I would personally be a bit hesitant to consider a small number of people on one thread, on one out of many music message boards, as representative of the entire population that listens to classical music(either regularly or sporadically). Also, the issue wasn't whether or not someone could agree or disagree, it was whether or not someone with no experience with the piano concertos would be as likely to enjoy one of the piano concertos before number 20 as after. The evidence offered by two individuals favoring the late concertos was that a newcomer would enjoy them because one poster loved them and couldn't imagine anyone having a different view, and the other poster, because the late concertos make more of an impact. I thought this was pretty flimsy reasoning given that many of the earlier concertos are still comparatively late works written in close proximity to the late concertos, that there is no way to predict what someone else will like just because you or others may like it, and lastly, that Mozart himself probably would've considered the earlier concertos as enjoyable given they, in his own words, were composed to appeal to both connoisseurs and amateurs.


*Your original issue was with the idea that someone who had been disappointed with their experience of Mozart's music should be recommended to listen first to the latest of the piano concertos. It follows from that that you don't think they should. The discussion then moved on to the likelihood or otherwise that such a person would be more likely to find a way into Mozart's music through those later works, in respect of which I've made it clear that I'm not relying only on one thread on one message board. I struggle to see what the shortness of the time gap between the composition of the early and middle period concertos and that of the later ones might add to the argument, which centres on the works themselves. Finally, there is no certainty in predicting what anyone will like in musical terms, but one can and should try when faced with the kind of appeal made in the OP above, and that process - if undertaken honestly rather than used as an opportunity to ride one's own hobbyhorses - will at least attempt to discern what will be most likely to achieve its purpose.*


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

This is an interesting thread, but it may be that deprofundis is seeking something in Mozart that is not there in abundance: _Sturm und Drang_. The closest one gets in instrumental Mozart to the S&D of, say, the first movement of the Brahms First Piano Concerto is the first movement of the #24 Concerto (I have Glenn Gould) and perhaps scattered moments here and there. Haydn offers more tension, often, than Mozart, in the very beginnings of many of his London symphonies. But if the goal is restructured as a search for sheer beauty, joy, clarity, and even exultation/exaltation (Jupiter, for example), then Mozart is The Man. I would go with the last three symphonies and the last eight piano concertos, especially the even numbered ones, plus the two sinfonia concertantes. Repeated listening should do the trick.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Your original issue was with the idea that someone who had been disappointed with their experience of Mozart's music should be recommended to listen first to the latest of the piano concertos. It follows from that that you don't think they should.


Actually, I took issue with the citation of one's own positive experience with the later as if it were enough of an argument to recommend them to a new listener at the expense of the earlier concertos.



Animal the Drummer said:


> in respect of which I've made it clear that I'm not relying only on one thread on one message board.


I didn't say that's all you were relying on, but you did say you were confident that the handful of people on the thread that echoed your sentiments could be "canvassed" on a much wider scale.



Animal the Drummer said:


> I struggle to see what the shortness of the time gap between the composition of the early and middle period concertos and that of the later ones might add to the argument, which centres on the works themselves.


I brought up the short succession of time they were written in to suggest there wasn't as big a difference in stylistic maturity or "length and complexity" as one might suspect.



Animal the Drummer said:


> if undertaken honestly rather than used as an opportunity to ride one's own hobbyhorses


This leading statement is pretty tendentious in itself and is simply more projection. I'm not overly preoccupied with the topic of the early versus late concertos as the definition would suggest. I don't remember the last time I was even involved in a similar discussion.


----------

