# Were Bach and Mozart Groundbreaking?



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Seems like a hallmark argument that the greatest composers were the ones who also broke new ground... But two notable composers, Mozart and Bach, come to mind who wrote some of the greatest music ever but I have a hard time labeling them as "groundbreaking". 

They lived at the height and ends of their eras. I would argue that they worked within and perfected the forms of their times (fugues, symphonies, concertos, etc). And they surpassed their contemporaries without question. But I don't hear anything "groundbreaking" in their music. 

This is not a criticism of their music in any way but an observation. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

arnerich said:


> They lived at the height and ends of their eras. I would argue that they worked within and perfected the forms of their times (fugues, symphonies, concertos, etc). And they surpassed their contemporaries without question.


That's true of Bach; he wasn't so much an innovator as a synthesizer of the innovations of the past 85 years, and it seems that everything he touched surpassed his models. This proves you don't have to be the first to be among the greatest. But after these types of geniuses finish, there's nothing much left to say. (I think the same applies to John Coltrane in jazz.)


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Can't comment on Mozart, but with Bach I think the "not an innovator" thing is - at least in part - a cultural stereotype, likely propagated by 19th century musicologists who didn't really understand his background. While he did not invent any new _forms_, his approach to _harmony_ was absolutely unique, innovative, and quite groundbreaking. No previous composer explored the tonal framework so much. Just compare the chords of the very first variation of Bach's passacaglia (an early work with plenty of borrowed melodic material) and those of Buxtehude's D minor passacaglia and C minor chaconne - the similarities are just as striking as the differences. And it went on to the later works, in which he always found exciting new ways to implement some foreign harmony, or re-harmonize the theme unexpectedly, and right up to the Art of Fugue, in which many Contrapunti are in form completely like Frescobaldi's or Froberger's, but the amount of harmonic complexity and chromaticism is completely new. (I think it was Gould who said that the kind of harmonic language found in Contrapunctus I & Contrapunctus XIV would only be next seen in Wagner.)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

They are both not groundbreaking. They just took the forms that were already there and excelled at it. That’s all, no biggie . Schoenberg and Feldman were more groundbreaking. But groundbreaking doesn’t necessarily mean for the better.

When I was a huge Mozart-only fan, I made the argument he was the first pioneer in Romantic expression, not Beethoven. I’m open to hear some arguments on that topic.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I consider Mozart groundbreaking as a prodigious musical prodigy. He’s the gold standard that otther prodigies have been compared to and redefined the word genius and what exceedingly rare creative human beings are capable of at an early age. Quite stunning. And part of his genius is that he was content to work within certain forms and structures rather than struggle with them and reinvent the wheel. During the classical era where the nonessentials were pared away, that was quite brilliant and he brilliantly showed how much could be done with them.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Myriadi said:


> While he did not invent any new _forms_, his approach to _harmony_ was absolutely unique, innovative, and quite groundbreaking.


Interesting observations. Thanks!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Didn't Bach invent the keyboard concerto? And the organ trio sonata? John Butt has written a book on how the Matthew Passion is in some sense the first modern musical drama - I have the book but I don't understand it!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> When I was a huge Mozart-only fan, I made the argument he was the first pioneer in Romantic expression, not Beethoven. I'm open to hear some arguments on that topic.


It's hard for me to see how something like K 310 or a sextet in Cosi are more expressive than a Tombeau by Froberger or a déploration by Josquin or a duet from L'incoronazione di Poppea. I don't understand what romantic means in this context.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

There are some areas I remember reading about, for example Mozart uses a dramatic French overture form in the first movement of his symphony 38, I think that was new at the time. Bach often used free forms in his orchestral suites where other composers were using dance forms. Bach goes atonal for moments in his Mass in B minor and then brings it back to tonality. He was unprecedentedly advanced from a harmonic standpoint as suggested above.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bach's WTC is essentially like a compendium of Baroque techniques of the time, with Bach adding and expanding ideas, the preludes follow no fixed form, Bach varies his approach depending on the expressive needs of the piece. The prelude in D major from WTC Book II is a pre-cursor to the classical sonata form used by Mozart and Haydn. Bach's dramatic and expressive use of harmony can be seen as a pre cursor to Chopin and Wagner.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It is a historical fact that both were groundbreaking in numerous ways. Bach synthesized the old and enriched it. Mozart embraced the new and developed it to early-pre-Romanticism. Our lives and humanity are better off thanks to their art and genius. Fact.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Were Bach and Mozart Groundbreaking? 

Yes and Yes.

Bach either invented or perfected: the fugue, equal temperament, the oratorio and the cantata. His "suites" for keyboard, cello and orchestra was groups of French dances of the time he was the first to put together. His composition known as the art of the fugue was only intended for his cerebral enjoyment, not for playing. He could play all the instruments, sing all the parts, had a volcanic temper, was the ultimate perfectionist, and had such passion he spent a night in jail over a musical spat and wore out two wives bearing him 20-some children. Three of his sons went on to become composers of note, one of whom is credited with "inventing" the symphony.

Mozart perfected the piano concerto, perfected the art of the opera, was the first composer in history to begin a symphony using winds instead of strings, wrote the most fantastic symphony of all -- No. 41 where all the themes in the first three movements are repeated and used in the finale, and was the ultimate example of light and shade in music. He lived only 39 years, about the same as Mendelssohn. Yet he composed the two greatest operas in existence, several others among the top 10 of all of them, 41 symphonies of which 6 or 8 are great masterpieces, world class concertos for just about every instrument including the best in existence for the bassoon, and wrote masterpieces in almost every format except -- POSSIBLY -- the art song. 

Only Beethoven is in league with these masters. Yet, imagine if Beethoven died age 39 -- no "Emporer" concerto, no 9th symphony, no Missa Solemnis and no late quartets and piano sonatas. These are the defining masterpieces by Beethoven. Yet we would know none of them if he died at Mozart's age. This is why Mozart is the greatest composer of all, above both Beethoven and J.S. Bach. No one else comes close to these three.


----------



## Donna Elvira (Nov 12, 2017)

Thank you for the interesting discussion.
I was too embarassed to add my reply after reading all the things I did not know about two of my favorite composers, who I always thought of as great but not "ground-breaking.'
I guess, in certain ways, they were.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Didn't Bach invent the keyboard concerto?


You know, that's actually a very interesting question! I don't recall a single one before Brandenburg 5. Maybe there was a movement or something in Torelli or Corelli or Vivaldi even, but that's something interesting to think about.



Mandryka said:


> And the organ trio sonata?


Nope, Louis Couperin was doing organ trios in the 1650s, and many French organ composers followed suit. Given how diligently Bach copied French organ music (Raison, de Grigny...), he probably took the idea from them.



Mandryka said:


> John Butt has written a book on how the Matthew Passion is in some sense the first modern musical drama - I have the book but I don't understand it!


Indeed, neither do I. What a bizzare statement. Given how Buxtehude's Abendmusiken and oratorios were all lost, and Vincent Lübeck's Passion, and who knows how many more... not fair at all to them. Knowing how much Bach adored and copied Buxtehude (and Buxtehude's practices), he probably knew all of the Abendmusiken by heart after his visit.


----------



## LP collector (Aug 6, 2016)

larold. Mozart lived 35 years (1756-1791).


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Myriadi said:


> H he probably knew all of the Abendmusiken by heart after his visit.


Probably from locking himself away to avoid Buxtehude's daughter.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

<<larold. Mozart lived 35 years (1756-1791).>>

You are correct, thanks. Even more remarkable.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2017)

Groundbreaking because he was "only" 35? I don't think so.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

To say Mozart wasn't groundbreaking is to completely misunderstand just what he brought to music, particularly opera. The three da Ponte operas were totally original in their form and expanded the operatic sound stage beyond recognition.

'Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.' (Leonard Bernstein)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

larold said:


> Were Bach and Mozart Groundbreaking?
> 
> Yes and Yes.
> 
> Bach either invented or perfected: the fugue, equal temperament, the oratorio and the cantata. His "suites" for keyboard, cello and orchestra was groups of French dances of the time he was the first to put together. His composition known as the art of the fugue was only intended for his cerebral enjoyment, not for playing. He could play all the instruments, sing all the parts, had a volcanic temper, was the ultimate perfectionist, and had such passion he spent a night in jail over a musical spat and wore out two wives bearing him 20-some children. Three of his sons went on to become composers of note, one of whom is credited with "inventing" the symphony.


Bach invented none of the forms you mention. His suites were not the first. His son did not invent the symphony. Where do you get these ideas?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Also, Bach didn't spend "a night in jail over a musical spat." He spent almost a month in jail over a serious employment dispute.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

DavidA said:


> To say Mozart wasn't groundbreaking is to completely misunderstand just what he brought to music, particularly opera. The three da Ponte operas were totally original in their form and expanded the operatic sound stage beyond recognition.
> 
> 'Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.' (Leonard Bernstein)


I would also say that his body of work in Piano Concertos was groundbreaking and brought the genre to a new level of artistry.

According to musicologist Neal Zaslaw, "_the piano concerto as a significant genre can almost be said to have been invented by Mozart. Before him, concertos for harpsicord or piano were few in number and seldom of the highest artistic quality. Mozart lent the genre an entirely new stature." _

Mozart's piano concertos (in total) are as important artistically as Beethoven's body of work in symphonies, IMHO.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Some good discussion on this thread.

I was listening to K503 1st mvt the other day and I couldnt help but marvel at the complexity which seems to me quite an achievement for those times - when you compare with the rudimentary concertos of minor masters - the piano concertos are light years ahead.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

larold said:


> Were Bach and Mozart Groundbreaking?
> 
> Yes and Yes.
> 
> ...


If only that were true - I would settle for 1 more year - even a month.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

larold said:


> Were Bach and Mozart Groundbreaking?
> 
> Yes and Yes.
> 
> ...


what? did Mozart compose Parsifal and Otello?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

stomanek said:


> what? did Mozart compose Parsifal and Otello?


He did not, the suggestion concerned the 'best' operas. I realise this may be subject to taste.

I expected more that someone would highlight the bit preceding this: that Mozart lived for _39 years_. If only...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> what? did Mozart compose Parsifal and Otello?


Are you really suggesting that Parsifal and Otello are better than Don Giovanni and Figaro? I've never come across that idea before.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Are you really suggesting that Parsifal and Otello are better than Don Giovanni and Figaro? I've never come across that idea before.


Looks like my little joke didn't make anybody laugh.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> He did not, the suggestion concerned the 'best' operas. I realise this may be subject to taste.
> 
> I expected more that someone would highlight the bit preceding this: that Mozart lived for _39 years_. If only...


I did - see post #24


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Looks like my little joke didn't make anybody laugh.


Ah, that's a problem with the medium! No body language.

By the way, if we'd have met 30 years ago I would have confidently assured you that Parsifal and Otello were better than Figaro and DG. At the time I hated the way Mozart stops the action of his operas for an aria. I suppose since then I've learned to appreciate the sex in Don Giovanni, and the funny bits in Figaro. And I've lost patience with time turning into space, or whatever it is, and kisses that turn you into Jesus. I still love Otello.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Ah, that's a problem with the medium! No body language.
> 
> By the way, if we'd have met 30 years ago I would have confidently assured you that Parsifal and Otello were better than Figaro and DG. At the time I hated the way Mozart stops the action of his operas for an aria. I suppose since then I've learned to appreciate the sex in Don Giovanni, and the funny bits in Figaro. And I've lost patience with time turning into space, or whatever it is, and kisses that turn you into Jesus. I still love Otello.


I am no fan of Wagner - I only said Parsifal as Wagner fans go glassy eyed when P is discussed. Otello is my top opera outside of Mozart.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I am no fan of Wagner - I only said Parsifal as Wagner fans go glassy eyed when P is discussed. Otello is my top opera outside of Mozart.


There's not much difference between us. Re Wagner, I've always been most impressed by Götterdämmerung, from Hagen's watch to the death of Siegfried. It's really astonishing music drama which lasts for about an hour or an hour and a half.

But yes, there are people who genuflect at the mention of Parsifal.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_"Were Bach and Mozart Groundbreaking?"_

Yes, at the height of their inventive genius - rarely if ever wanting for an original idea worth developing - groundbreaking in doing that better than most of their peers. But rather than being known as great innovators who struggled with everything they did, I think both were more content to build churches and cathedrals on the free space that existed than trying to break new ground with fruitless experiments and eccentricities. They took what was already known to a higher level and made the most of it. Saved time!

Mozart on a unique 1912 Bosendorfer, an instrument he might have been crazy about:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arnerich said:


> Seems like a hallmark argument that the greatest composers were the ones who also broke new ground... But two notable composers, Mozart and Bach, come to mind who wrote some of the greatest music ever but I have a hard time labeling them as "groundbreaking".
> 
> They lived at the height and ends of their eras. I would argue that they worked within and perfected the forms of their times (fugues, symphonies, concertos, etc). And they surpassed their contemporaries without question. But I don't hear anything "groundbreaking" in their music.
> 
> This is not a criticism of their music in any way but an observation. What are your thoughts?


I don't see Bach that way at all. When I first listened to his music, tried to play it, and tried to analyze it in terms of "I-II" Roman numeral functionality, I saw that he had already gone "outside the box" in terms of harmonic complexity. The notes analyzed in conventional terms as "passing tones" created in my ears chords which "didn't exist" in terms of conventional harmonic analysis: major sevenths, flat-nine altered dominants emerging out of diminished sevenths, in other words: non-linear harmonic thinking of the highest order. 
I seem to hear this advanced thinking more in his keyboard works, most notably the Well Tempered Clavier. His Masses and Cantatas tend to be more conservative-sounding to me. The Sinfonia Nr. 9 in f minor, for example, uses eleven of the twelve notes, and yet is very emotion-evokong and profound.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see Bach that way at all. When I first listened to his music, tried to play it, and tried to analyze it in terms of "I-II" Roman numeral functionality, I saw that he had already gone "outside the box" in terms of harmonic complexity. The notes analyzed in conventional terms as "passing tones" created in my ears chords which "didn't exist" in terms of conventional harmonic analysis: major sevenths, flat-nine altered dominants emerging out of diminished sevenths, in other words: non-linear harmonic thinking of the highest order.
> I seem to hear this advanced thinking more in his keyboard works, most notably the Well Tempered Clavier. His Masses and Cantatas tend to be more conservative-sounding to me. The Sinfonia Nr. 9 in f minor, for example, uses eleven of the twelve notes, and yet is very emotion-evokong and profound.


Yes, I wonder if they seem groundbreaking to performers, but not at all surprising to us today if we're not performers.

When you actually play the pieces you can't help but do exactly what you've done --- the analysis. Even if it's just in passing and very quick (because the scores are transparent and obvious enough). Can you play a work without dissecting it enough to adequately play it? Maybe some people can.


----------



## Samehada (Aug 10, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see Bach that way at all. When I first listened to his music, tried to play it, and tried to analyze it in terms of "I-II" Roman numeral functionality, I saw that he had already gone "outside the box" in terms of harmonic complexity. The notes analyzed in conventional terms as "passing tones" created in my ears chords which "didn't exist" in terms of conventional harmonic analysis: major sevenths, flat-nine altered dominants emerging out of diminished sevenths, in other words: non-linear harmonic thinking of the highest order.
> I seem to hear this advanced thinking more in his keyboard works, most notably the Well Tempered Clavier. His Masses and Cantatas tend to be more conservative-sounding to me. The Sinfonia Nr. 9 in f minor, for example, uses eleven of the twelve notes, and yet is very emotion-evokong and profound.


Even in Bach's Inventions and Sinfonias that normally kids play there is such a ridiculous amount to unpack. I tried playing his Invention in F minor last summer and was daunted by it's profound density and dissonance.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I really find both of them groundbreaking. Maybe not in style, but in Perfektion. They are both among the greatest genius in music maybe the two brightest..


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

In my opinion, they where groundbreaking.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> There's not much difference between us. Re Wagner, I've always been most impressed by
> But yes, there are people who *genuflect* at the mention of Parsifal.


A funny word, since it is about a knee *stretch* reflex.

Sorry for being out of topic.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see Bach that way at all. When I first listened to his music, tried to play it, and tried to analyze it in terms of "I-II" Roman numeral functionality, I saw that he had already gone "outside the box" in terms of harmonic complexity. The notes analyzed in conventional terms as "passing tones" created in my ears chords which "didn't exist" in terms of conventional harmonic analysis: major sevenths, flat-nine altered dominants emerging out of diminished sevenths, in other words: *non-linear harmonic thinking of the highest order.*
> I seem to hear this advanced thinking more in his keyboard works, most notably the Well Tempered Clavier. His Masses and Cantatas tend to be more conservative-sounding to me. The Sinfonia Nr. 9 in f minor, for example, uses eleven of the twelve notes, and yet is very emotion-evokong and profound.


No, this is exactly wrong (and it would be redundant if the statement made any sense, since non-linear and harmonic are synonymous in this context). It isn't non-linear and it isn't harmonic thinking. _It's called counterpoint._ Linear thinking is the essence of this music and its dissonance treatment.


----------



## Sun Junqing (Sep 26, 2018)

Every famous composer is groundbreaking in my opinion. Not the technique they use to compose but their thoughts showing in their compositions. It's a bit hard to describe..


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I have probably commented on this thread but it has to be said Mozart's principal contribution to advancement of music must be piano concerto and symphony. Bar Haydn, if you listen to 18th C symphonies and piano concertos it strikes me they are short and limited in terms of structure, content expression. Typical concertos last 10-15 minutes and symphonies the same. If there had been no Mozart it would be possible to get 4 works on 1 LP - eg the best composer outside of the big 2 CPE can get 2 symphonies on 1 side and 2 concerti on the other. Mozart's 1st movements of his big piano concertos eg k467 last longer than whole CPE concerti - the orch intro to K467 or K503 (for example) pre piano intro has more quality material in it than an entire classical concerto - it's only when Beethoven PC1 arrives that we see anything remotely like it. The symphonies - well Haydn fans and other will argue that the esterhazy master had already laid down foundation for Mozart to build upon - true - but the Linz and Prague symphonies and the final 3 seem to go further in terms of range of expression, complexity of material and overall end result - establishing the symphony as a serious artistic form. Haydn's symphonies always seem to be crafted to entertain - something they do very well indeed - but Mozart was definitely starting to see the possibilities of the symphony in a way that Beethoven eventually exploited to the full.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

None of those two were groundbreaking in the same sense as Monteverdi, Beethoven, Schoenberg, ie they pioneered no new direction. Rather, they perfected and synthetized the styles common in their epoch. Mozart copied Haydn and perfected his style (symphony, string quartet, string quintet)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> None of those two were groundbreaking in the same sense as Monteverdi, Beethoven, Schoenberg, ie they pioneered no new direction. Rather, they perfected and synthetized the styles common in their epoch. Mozart copied Haydn and perfected his style (symphony, string quartet, string quintet)


It's true Mozart learned much from Haydn, but Haydn also emulated Mozart (the "atonal" opening of Mozart's String Quartet in C "Dissonance") to write the opening of his Oratorio, the Creation" after Mozart's death, (it's impressive when you consider Haydn is 24 years Mozart's senior).

Also, Mozart's chromatic harmony is richer than Haydn. If you compare their orchestral works of similar nature (3/4 time, C minor), for example, Haydn's Symphony No.78 in C minor (1782) and Mozart's Piano Concerto No.24 in C minor (1786).
(Mozart was inspired by the Haydn symphony to write this concerto. But Mozart's has far more chromatic depth. Let me explain)




 In the Haydn symphony, in the opening for example, the second violins and violas in each measure play groups of 6 eighth notes in G and than Ab and then back to G and so on, GGGGGG - AbAbAbAbAbAb - GGGGGG - AbAbAbAbAbAb - G... - Ab... (groups of six 8th notes) for 6 measures, then the basses take over the base harmony, does the same half-step alternations on C.. - B.. - C - B - C - B for another 6 measures, after that, it's not chromatic anymore- Eb to Db, (repeat) and then Ab to Bb. Stay in Bb for 4 measures, then to Ab, to Db.

Now look at the Mozart concerto, 



 *not only did the opening theme, with its use of all 12 tones in the chromatic scale*, inspire Brahms, and Giselher Klebe (1925~2009) in writing of his tone row in Symphony for Strings (1953), unlike Haydn who "spams" repetitions of G-Ab or C-B, Mozart's baseline does something more interesting.

In the opening of the concerto, for example, look how the basses (also groups of six 8th notes) go from *C - B - Bb - A - Ab - G - F under just 10 measures* (first violins also do between over measures 64 ~ 70 in high registers) and continues its restless chromatic bassline, which is much more interesting than Haydn's "spamming" of groups of six 8th notes going up and down between a half-step. Look how Mozart creates melody using chromatic fourths in the woodwinds before the soloist enters. (measure 81) This level of chromaticism is decades ahead of his time.





 Mozart's Masonic Funeral Music in C minor marks the true birth of Romanticism, inspired Beethoven to create his own style based on it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I have probably commented on this thread but it has to be said Mozart's principal contribution to advancement of music must be piano concerto and symphony. Bar Haydn, if you listen to 18th C symphonies and piano concertos it strikes me they are short and limited in terms of structure, content expression. Typical concertos last 10-15 minutes and symphonies the same. If there had been no Mozart it would be possible to get 4 works on 1 LP - eg the best composer outside of the big 2 CPE can get 2 symphonies on 1 side and 2 concerti on the other. Mozart's 1st movements of his big piano concertos eg k467 last longer than whole CPE concerti - the orch intro to K467 or K503 (for example) pre piano intro has more quality material in it than an entire classical concerto - it's only when Beethoven PC1 arrives that we see anything remotely like it. The symphonies - well Haydn fans and other will argue that the esterhazy master had already laid down foundation for Mozart to build upon - true - but the Linz and Prague symphonies and the final 3 seem to go further in terms of range of expression, complexity of material and overall end result - establishing the symphony as a serious artistic form. Haydn's symphonies always seem to be crafted to entertain - something they do very well indeed - but Mozart was definitely starting to see the possibilities of the symphony in a way that Beethoven eventually exploited to the full.


Schubert probably understood what you're saying about what Mozart had done, expanding the explorations and coming up with a more meaning-filled whole, but just like he didn't try to parallel what he saw in Beethoven, he didn't imitate Mozart either.

Of course, this is debatable on a case-by-case basis.

Did LvB or did Schubert follow and modernize Mozart more closely? A little in each can be seen? Using drama developmentally and the use of melodic webbing. Mozart was there before them, but I feel bad for him that his audiences limited him.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I have probably commented on this thread but* it has to be said Mozart's principal contribution to advancement of music must be piano concerto and symphony*. Bar Haydn, if you listen to 18th C symphonies and piano concertos it strikes me they are short and limited in terms of structure, content expression. Typical concertos last 10-15 minutes and symphonies the same. If there had been no Mozart it would be possible to get 4 works on 1 LP - eg the best composer outside of the big 2 CPE can get 2 symphonies on 1 side and 2 concerti on the other. Mozart's 1st movements of his big piano concertos eg k467 last longer than whole CPE concerti - the orch intro to K467 or K503 (for example) pre piano intro has more quality material in it than an entire classical concerto - it's only when Beethoven PC1 arrives that we see anything remotely like it. The symphonies - well Haydn fans and other will argue that the esterhazy master had already laid down foundation for Mozart to build upon - true - but the Linz and Prague symphonies and the final 3 seem to go further in terms of range of expression, complexity of material and overall end result - establishing the symphony as a serious artistic form. Haydn's symphonies always seem to be crafted to entertain - something they do very well indeed - but Mozart was definitely starting to see the possibilities of the symphony in a way that Beethoven eventually exploited to the full.


I would add opera too.


----------

