# Mozart - KV 297 - Symphony No. 31 ("Pariser Symphonie")



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

The first symphony of Mozart played by a large orchestra. How do you rate it?






In this live perfomance you can listen to the alternative version of the second movement.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

One of Mozart's better symphonies - very good.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Not as good as some earlier symphonies (for usually smaller orchestra), e.g. 25, 28, 29, and I also prefer most of the early concerti of ~1775-78, thus "only" "good".


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

It's "very good" to my taste (I marked the former). I particularly enjoy it's second movement. In terms of how much I like it, I would give this symphony a 7.0 out of 10 in score in my own ranking system.

P.S.: With 5.0 meaning I don't like nor dislike the piece, anything below 5.0 meaning I dislike it, 10 meaning I think it's _hors concours_, and every +0.5 being about twice as good for me as the current score (I enjoy a 7.5 work more or less as much as two 7.0 in this system). A 7.0 means I greatly enjoy the piece, and I put several Bach cantatas and Haydn symphonies in this category.
It's my personal hobby to rank how much I enjoy things (not only music), I love lists and games, and I think that such hobby is completely harmless.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> Not as good as some earlier symphonies (for usually smaller orchestra), e.g. 25, 28, 29, and I also prefer most of the early concerti of ~1775-78, thus "only" "good".


Read the description of the first video. Basically, this symphony is simply loud; the melodies are not so exciting and well developed. What you hear in the symphony 25 (that you mention here above) is basically well written melodies played by a "normal" orchestra. In few words, if you enjoy melodies more than other things there are probably better works of Mozart.

---------------

_Oh, the Paris symphony. There is no mature symphonic work by Wolferl that is as criticized by musicologists as K. 297. Much of these criticisms fail to realize the importance of the work itself, a work that first put Mozart in the symphonic spotlight of a wider audience of Europe (albeit with an at-best lukewarm reaction), a work that was the first to be written by Mozart for a completely full-scale 18th-century orchestra, and a work that has, in it, excitement and fireworks. But, frankly, most of the criticisms are justified. Yes, the symphony is extremely accessible and majestic, but it doesn't go beyond these descriptions. After all, When Mozart wrote this symphony for the Concert Spirituel, he knew that the audience that would be consuming it would be, as he called them: "musical idiots." Therefore, he knew to keep it simple. In regards to melody, he prefers little "hints" and "moments" of a charming theme, rather than completing it and utilizing it contrapuntally, which is what we would hear in the Prague and Jupiter symphonies. There are many themes introduced in the first movement, but it is very much monothematic, with the main theme being a rising D major scale. Mozart could very well make the other themes present throughout the movement, but he doesn't. The end of the second subject is nothing but a bunch of pomposity and loud triplets. The second movement is very lovely, but, like the first movement, the themes are not completed in any satisfying way. It is very sectionalized; there is not very much "natural flow" to it. The third movement is more of that energy and spice that we hear in the first, but with vague, somewhat unsuccessful fugato writing. It is clear that these elements are very intentional by Mozart to appease an audience that he did not necessarily connect with. No other manuscript by Mozart has as many cross-outs and scratches as this one; the second movement had so many that Mozart had to completely make another clean manuscript. As Leopold Mozart said to Wolferl, the symphony is a very loud one. But it is indeed wonderfully orchestrated, and a lot of fun to perform/hear. In the 1780s, Mozart brought this symphony to Vienna in one of his Burgtheater concerts, and he intended to bring it to Prague. He had intended to revise the finale, which he no longer liked. However, he had figured he should simply write another symphony entirely for Prague, and that is the famous Prague symphony. Indeed, the Prague symphony can be seen as a much younger yet mature brother to the Paris symphony._


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Very good I am just spinning them all from the-Prague Chamber Orcestra-Sir Charles Mackerras box set


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> Read the description of the first video. Basically, this symphony is simply loud; the melodies are not so exciting and well developed. What you hear in the symphony 25 (that you mention here above) is basically well written melodies played by a "normal" orchestra. In few words, if you enjoy melodies more than other things there are probably better works of Mozart.


I knew these pieces and Mozart's letters and background stories probably since before you were born... It obviously is a crowd pleaser written for a large orchestra. I didn't say it was "bad", just that I prefer listening to other pieces and not mainly because I enjoy melodies more than other things. The wrong ideas you have about the rôle of melodies in classical music were already critiqued at length in other threads.



> ---------------
> _ Indeed, the Prague symphony can be seen as a much younger yet mature brother to the Paris symphony._


But this is just wrong. The "Prague" symphony is one of the most serious and "dense" Mozart symphonies. The only thing in common with the "Paris" is the main key (and that it is named for a city, like the "Linz" in a different key ). Symphonies that are also rather "loud, broad, brilliant" and might be considered "sisters" of the "Paris" are #34 KV 338 or maybe even the Haffner and Linzer but they are all better than the "Paris".


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> I knew these pieces and Mozart's letters and background stories probably since before you were born... It obviously is a crowd pleaser written for a large orchestra. I didn't say it was "bad", just that I prefer listening to other pieces and not mainly because I enjoy melodies more than other things. The wrong ideas you have about the rôle of melodies in classical music were already critiqued at length in other threads.


It's not that the critiques changed my idea. I will always consider the melody focused pieces as the most valuable. You are free tu value other things more, if you want. @Kreisler jr


----------

