# Mozart Piano Concerto no 16 - worst of the set?



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

We have played the game of which is the best Mozart PC - what about the worst? Excluding the first 4.

I give the booby prize to no 16 - it's not a bad concerto but given that it is a k400+ piece - I just think it should be better.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> We have played the game of which is the best Mozart PC - what about the worst? Excluding the first 4.
> 
> I give the booby prize to no 16 - it's not a bad concerto but given that it is a k400+ piece - I just think it should be better.


Barenboim makes 16 a real nice concerto to hear.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Maybe the slow movement isn't one of the very greatest, but some fine tunes in the piece overall and some exciting energetic music. Is it really better than some early ones (particularly 6,7,10)?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

stomanek said:


> We have played the game of which is the best Mozart PC - what about the worst? Excluding the first 4.
> 
> I give the booby prize to no 16 - it's not a bad concerto but given that it is a k400+ piece - I just think it should be better.


I would probably describe it as a least preferred if I were to rank them according to which I like most to least. But it is enjoyable on its own nonetheless.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

starry said:


> Maybe the slow movement isn't one of the very greatest, but some fine tunes in the piece overall and some exciting energetic music. Is it really better than some early ones (particularly 6,7,10)?


I like no 6 - think it charming and feel it is equal to the level he was composing at the time. Ir feels right - 10 is superb double concerto - 7 for 3 pianos is a little weak I suppose - written for 3 of wolfie's female pupils I think.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

starry said:


> Maybe the slow movement isn't one of the very greatest, but some fine tunes in the piece overall and some exciting energetic music. Is it really better than some early ones (particularly 6,7,10)?


The second movement is supposed to be one of his most sophisticated, in terms of harmony. Anyways, people have trouble warming up to it because it's an older style, or, as Charles Rosen put it, a masterpiece built out of conventional material. Mozart was proud of it, and I love it because it is so operatic in style. The orchestration reminds me a little of Idomeneo.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

In general, I was astonished when I discovered that 20 to 27 were written virtually contemporaneously with 10 to 19 (or at least, not separated by a gap), as there's such an unusual jump in quality (I do love 17 and 19, though). Perhaps he felt it necessary to impress his visiting father with 20 and 21, along with the Dissonance quartet and the C minor sonata which were all written within the same span of a few months?


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

Have always liked this gem of a concerto - some how hidden between its slightly better cousins, but think Mozart was on form with the 2nd movement and one of the most moving pieces he wrote.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> In general, I was astonished when I discovered that 20 to 27 were written virtually contemporaneously with 10 to 19 (or at least, not separated by a gap), as there's such an unusual jump in quality (I do love 17 and 19, though). Perhaps he felt it necessary to impress his visiting father with 20 and 21, along with the Dissonance quartet and the C minor sonata which were all written within the same span of a few months?


#'s 9 and 10 were composed in Salzburg and my theory is that he played it safer in Vienna to get them used to his style and to gain some work. #'s 11-18 are still brilliant but not so daring as the ones before or after.

I wouldn't have an opinion on any "worst" concerto. I doubt one exists since they all have something distinctive in their own right...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Thanks for the views - have not heard it for 10 years and sort of dismissed it at the time - must listen again.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

StevenOBrien said:


> In general, I was astonished when I discovered that 20 to 27 were written virtually contemporaneously with 10 to 19 (or at least, not separated by a gap), as there's such an unusual jump in quality (I do love 17 and 19, though). Perhaps he felt it necessary to impress his visiting father with 20 and 21, along with the Dissonance quartet and the C minor sonata which were all written within the same span of a few months?


26 isn't that popular actually. And some of the early ones like 11, 12, 15, 17 for example seem as enjoyable as some of the later ones even if the later ones can be larger in scale. So I don't think it's necessarily a jump in quality as simply a change in style. Bigger isn't always necessarily better.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2013)

Apart from PC No 9, I hardly bother with anything below no 19. These obviously blow all the others out of the water, although I'm not all that keen on Nos 22 and 26 relatively speaking. 

As for No 16, it would appear to be among the least popular of the sub-19 category. As I listen to it now (Perahia/ECO) I'm not all that impressed with it. It's about the same as my other version, Schiff, Camerata Academica, which I listened to previously. It seems lacking in anything all that memorable, anywhere in it. 

To be fair, some of the others are also somewhat less than wonderful. I'm especially thinking of Nos 5, 6, 8, 11.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Partita said:


> Apart from PC No 9, I hardly bother with anything below no 19. These obviously blow all the others out of the water, although I'm not keen on on Nos 22 and 26 relatively speaking.


Not even #17? Each movement is stuffed full of content. Beethoven looked to it when writing his own G major piano concerto. Then there's the g minor second movement of #18 that's almost a hybrid of JC and JS Bach's style, but with Mozart's sense of melody.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2013)

trazom said:


> Not even #17? Each movement is stuffed full of content. Beethoven looked to it when writing his own G major piano concerto. Then there's the g minor second movement of #18 that's almost a hybrid of JC and JS Bach's style, but with Mozart's sense of melody.


I prefer No 17 to No 18, and I agree that both are very good.

Alas, there aren't enough hours in the day/year to listen to everything I like. I have acquired so much material that I can scarcely get in the front door without falling over CDs. I daren't open cupborads in case I get knocked out.

The PC is no longer my favorite genre in any case, even though I have acquired every PC of any repute from the earliest times of the piano until well into the 2Oth C. I'm far more interested in chamber music and solo instrument works, on which I'm mainly concentrating my attention these days. Besides, I sometimes like to attempt to play the piano alongside what I'm listening to on CD, and I haven't been able to stretch my finances to include an orchestral accompaniment, but one day you never know.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

trazom said:


> Not even #17? Each movement is stuffed full of content. Beethoven looked to it when writing his own G major piano concerto. Then there's the g minor second movement of #18 that's almost a hybrid of JC and JS Bach's style, but with Mozart's sense of melody.


And 14. It's really Bilson/Gardiner who made me love 14, because they are so irreverant in the final movement.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

StevenOBrien said:


> In general, I was astonished when I discovered that 20 to 27 were written virtually contemporaneously with 10 to 19 (or at least, not separated by a gap), as there's such an unusual jump in quality (I do love 17 and 19, though). Perhaps he felt it necessary to impress his visiting father with 20 and 21, along with the Dissonance quartet and the C minor sonata which were all written within the same span of a few months?


I'd always assumed that all the quartets dedicated to Haydn were written in the same time period - so I was struck by the way you singled out K465


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

starry said:


> 26 isn't that popular actually. And some of the early ones like 11, 12, 15, 17 for example seem as enjoyable as some of the later ones even if the later ones can be larger in scale. So I don't think it's necessarily a jump in quality as simply a change in style. Bigger isn't always necessarily better.


I think 26 is becoming more popular lately. It used to be Mozart's single most popular piano concerto in the 19th century and suffered withering criticism from Mozart's most famous biographers in the early 20th. It's different from the others in that increased tension is expressed through more difficult/virtuosic passages, making it more of a proto-romantic work like those of Hummel; or, how Rosen described it, "Something Hummel would have written if he had not only talent but genius."


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Partita said:


> Apart from PC No 9, I hardly bother with anything below no 19. These obviously blow all the others out of the water, although I'm not all that keen on Nos 22 and 26 relatively speaking.
> 
> To be fair, some of the others are also somewhat less than wonderful. I'm especially thinking of Nos 5, 6, 8, 11.


8 is wonderful, it has a kind of Mozartean perfection. And 11 is definitely interestingly. I've actually gained more pleasure from 8 than with 9 in the past even if it isn't anything like as ambitious. In addition to 22 and 26 I'd say 24 isn't one of my biggest favourites.

In general I don't see the use of drawing some boundary with music, particulary with composers who are really good. Earlier works just have to be accepted for their different style, and a greater simplicity and economy can be a positive.

I was just listening to Serkin playing the slow movement of 11 and I think it sounds good.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

My argument with Mozart would be if the best of his work can often be founded upon a direct, simple but expressive style why is it worth being overly critical of the best of his earlier work which by it's nature is likely to be simple and direct? He liked a singing kind of melodic line from earlier on as well, and also showed early command of how to write for an orchestra. So his development was likely more by the adding of extra nuances rather than the subtraction of or wildly changing the elements of his style.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2013)

starry said:


> ...
> 
> In general I don't see the use of drawing some boundary with music, particulary with composers who are really good. Earlier works just have to be accepted for their different style, and a greater simplicity and economy can be a positive.
> 
> ....


And yet this is what the OP is requesting in the case of Mozart's piano concertos. I don't see any harm in asking people to identify the weakest example from a set which is generally of very high quality. They can't all be of exceptional quality because that would involve a contradiction of terms.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Partita said:


> And yet this is what the OP is requesting in the case of Mozart's piano concertos. I don't see any harm in asking people to identify the weakest example from a set which is generally of very high quality. They can't all be of exceptional quality because that would involve a contradiction of terms.


I asked about 16 because this seems to be one nobody every talks about. I recall it used to be hard to get it on LP.


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

Well I'm too lazy to go back and research what I think is the weakest of the concertos - there all enjoyable. It certainly isn't one of the final two. However the second to last K537 'Coronation' always seems to me something of a disappointment after the preceding magnificent half dozen. I seem to recall a commentator saying that in it Mozart was imitating Mozart - which wasn't a difficult task for him - or words to that effect (was this a Donald Tovey comment? or have I got completely muddled up?).


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

No. 16 is in my top seven of his piano concertos (played by Perahia and the English Chamber Orchestra).

My two least favorites, No. 13 and No. 21, are still both pretty good. What performance do people really like of No. 21? I tried the Jarrett/Davies/Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra version.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

LancsMan said:


> Well I'm too lazy to go back and research what I think is the weakest of the concertos - there all enjoyable. It certainly isn't one of the final two. However the second to last K537 'Coronation' always seems to me something of a disappointment after the preceding magnificent half dozen. I seem to recall a commentator saying that in it Mozart was imitating Mozart - which wasn't a difficult task for him - or words to that effect (was this a Donald Tovey comment? or have I got completely muddled up?).


It's Alfred Einstein's quote:

_..It is very Mozartean, while at the same time it does not express the whole or even the half of Mozart. It is, in fact, so 'Mozartesque' that one might say that in it Mozart imitated himself-no difficult task for him. It is both brilliant and amiable, especially in the slow movement; it is very simple, even primitive, in its relation between the solo and the tutti, and so completely easy to understand that even the nineteenth century always grasped it without difficulty..._


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

The Murray version of this with the English Chamber is delightful as are many others.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Partita said:


> And yet this is what the OP is requesting in the case of Mozart's piano concertos. I don't see any harm in asking people to identify the weakest example from a set which is generally of very high quality. They can't all be of exceptional quality because that would involve a contradiction of terms.


I agree. And it relates to another thread where someone says a composer shouldn't be thought infallible, something I've said myself here before anyway.

It's just that when someone here said (not so much the first post) that everything after a certain piece is good and everything before something is bad, sometimes people do that from a certain K number with his works in general, I don't think it's useful as a generalisation.

With 26 I remember reading that it was thought by some to be incomplete in some way, maybe that the piano part hadn't been fully written out. The style does feel different. I spoke about Mozart using a kind of simplicity to expressive effect, he does so in the acclaimed slow movement in 21, or the less acclaimed one that I posted in 13. But there's something about the whole of 26 which sounds simpler, or even streamlined. If as intended the commission must have been for a different kind of pianist or occasion than the others, including the earlier Viennese ones. Or it was a kind of experiment. 27 is different though and feels more subtle again. It's almost like comparing Mozart's sonata K545 in C which is different to those around it, though I love that work much more than the 26th concerto.



kv466 said:


> The Murray version of this with the English Chamber is delightful as are many others.


He used to be highly recommended in Mozart, but I find the recordings a bit precious sounding, a bit like Ushida does in the sonatas. I want some beauty but I also want some strength in them, in both performance and production.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I can't honestly see why anyone should describe any of Mozart's concertos as 'the weakest'. They are all pretty good to me.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

trazom said:


> It's Alfred Einstein's quote:
> 
> _..It is very Mozartean, while at the same time it does not express the whole or even the half of Mozart. It is, in fact, so 'Mozartesque' that one might say that in it Mozart imitated himself-no difficult task for him. It is both brilliant and amiable, especially in the slow movement; it is very simple, even primitive, in its relation between the solo and the tutti, and so completely easy to understand that even the nineteenth century always grasped it without difficulty..._


Einstein's views are becoming less relevant as appreciation of Mozart's music grows - same with Eric Blom who said of Mozart tat he is "seldom very original" and M was not great at melody. Views which are now seen as absurd. Einstein said of Clemenza Di Tito that is is a masterpiece in cold marble - more or less dismissing the opera. I think Blom says of PC 16 - that it has unremarkable music. I enjoy Einstein's book and Blom - though I think many of their views pander to the views of the 19th century romantics. About K537 - it does not seem to sparkle as do many of the other late PCs - but it is a fine piece anyway.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

stomanek said:


> Einstein's views are becoming less relevant as appreciation of Mozart's music grows - same with Eric Blom who said of Mozart tat he is "seldom very original" and M was not great at melody. Views which are now seen as absurd. Einstein said of Clemenza Di Tito that is is a masterpiece in cold marble - more or less dismissing the opera. I think Blom says of PC 16 - that it has unremarkable music. I enjoy Einstein's book and Blom - though I think many of their views pander to the views of the 19th century romantics. About K537 - it does not seem to sparkle as do many of the other late PCs - but it is a fine piece anyway.


I obviously agree as I said in an earlier post I think the 26th concerto is a very fine work. I don't think its lack of 'profundity' or gravity(an overrated concept anyways) should be held against it. I believe it was written to be popular and like the flute and harp concerto, people tend to hold that against the work. It has some features in it, however, that make it very special: Like modulating to remote and surprising keys in the last movement. And I do find some passages in the concerto to be very moving and profound, even if they weren't intended to be.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Thanks for the views - have not heard it for 10 years and sort of dismissed it at the time - must listen again.


I think your appreciation may grow with the right recording. I have always thought the 5th was a positive masterpiece based on the recording I had. No one else seemed to share my enthusiasm. Then I heard a couple other recordings that made it sound like a less mature work. Not sure why one performance was so much more impressive than the other, but it definately was.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

StevenOBrien said:


> In general, I was astonished when I discovered that 20 to 27 were written virtually contemporaneously with 10 to 19 (or at least, not separated by a gap), as there's such an unusual jump in quality (I do love 17 and 19, though). Perhaps he felt it necessary to impress his visiting father with 20 and 21, along with the Dissonance quartet and the C minor sonata which were all written within the same span of a few months?


He was visited by aliens


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Have now re-appraised no 16 and like it very much now.

The CD which has it on also has no 8 - which really brought tears to my eyes when I heard the opening theme. haven't heard it for ages. Reminds me a little of Haydn's D major PC


----------

