# Concertos/Concerto movements where soloist seems unfitting.



## BeethoFan (Jun 23, 2010)

Give examples of concerto works (or their individual movements) where you think the soloist seems to be rather superfluous.

One for me would be Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20, 1st movement. A wonderful, mysterious atmosphere is established in the beginning with the strings and winds, and then the piano comes in all cheerful and giddy, even becoming intertwined with the dark feeling emanating from the orchestra. I really could've done without the piano here.


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

BeethoFan said:


> Give examples of concerto works (or their individual movements) where you think the soloist seems to be rather superfluous.
> 
> One for me would be Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20, 1st movement. A wonderful, mysterious atmosphere is established in the beginning with the strings and winds, and then the piano comes in all cheerful and giddy, even becoming intertwined with the dark feeling emanating from the orchestra. I really could've done without the piano here.


*Puts on Mozart 20th piano concerto*

*Waits until piano entrance*

Are you sure you're talking about the 20th? If anything, the piano contributes more to the mysterious atmosphere.


----------



## Mayerl (May 5, 2008)

Wish I was good enough to question Mozart's compositions.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

BeethoFan said:


> One for me would be Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20, 1st movement. A wonderful, mysterious atmosphere is established in the beginning with the strings and winds, and then the piano comes in all cheerful and giddy, even becoming intertwined with the dark feeling emanating from the orchestra. I really could've done without the piano here.


Is this a joke?

Knowing this place, I suspect it's not.

God help us.

Failing that you might wish to peruse THIS article, which explains what a marvellous piece of composing this first movement is. The most relevant bit is next to the musical notes, you know the squiggly things written on bar lines.


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

Mayerl said:


> Wish I was good enough to question Mozart's compositions.


I was thinking that as well...  This goes for any piece or composer really.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*classical restraint?*



BeethoFan said:


> One for me would be Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20, 1st movement. A wonderful, mysterious atmosphere is established in the beginning with the strings and winds, and then the piano comes in all cheerful and giddy, even becoming intertwined with the dark feeling emanating from the orchestra. I really could've done without the piano here.


That's an interesting interpretation of the message the piano is sending. Perhaps you should hold that opinion in abeyance, and listen to more Mozart concertos. Based only on your moniker, you may be expecting more overt angst from the guy. He didn't allow himself the overt expression of dark emotions that Beethoven did.

The pathetique is there, throughout Kv. 466; it just isn't 'in your face'.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> I really could've done without the piano here.




Ahh - Pleasure is classical music with more than a solist. Happiness is classical music without a symphonic orchestra. Bliss is classical music without a piano. Heaven is pure string quartet medium 



> Wish I was good enough to question Mozart's compositions.


If you have average hearing, and the stuff between the auricles and a reasonable hi-fi system, why not?

we don't need to be a composer to have a personal view nor question a composer's music anymore than you need to be a chicken to go into a chicken coop, nor a car to go into a garage.

Not questioning what you hear ... is uncritical blindness (? analogy = deafness??) and leads to the cult worship of anything, including potential screed that a composer writes.

Questioning is healthy. Unless Mozart wrote music for composers, he wrote music for listeners. If you can listen ... you can question. It really is not the realm of the self-proclaimed 'expert' or the domain of the knowledgeable. Go on ...you can! Question Mozart's music..! And everyone else's that you hear. It's a perfectly valid human enterprise, to form our own opinions about what we experience....rather than dumbing down and humbling ourselves before the blind expectations handed down to us as some kind of 'canonical' dogma.

As it is, I don't find music scored for a soloist & orchestra tends to conform to the exception of 'poorly scored for solist'. Maybe I need to broaden my horizons to discover this realm of music


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with what Head case has said - it's ok to be critical, as long as you have reasonably solid reasons to back your criticisms up (whether they be positive or negative). I just can't stand the idolatry that some people have for some composers - making them into a god.

Getting back to the topic, I do remember seeing Mozart's 22nd piano concerto live earlier in the year & actually the slow movement struck me as the most moving. I don't think the piano was superfluous - quite the opposite, it was integral to the piece. But I don't remember hearing his 20th, so I can't really comment on that.

But if you want to hear concertos from the classical era that have this very "unified" feeling between the soloist and ensemble, go no further than Haydn's two cello concertos. There is no question of the cellist being superfluous here. & as with the Mozart, Haydn's slow movements are (for me) the highlights of these masterworks...


----------



## BeethoFan (Jun 23, 2010)

Oh boy...wow. First off, thanks everyone for deviating from the thread topic and making this an argument about Mozart's Piano Concerto 20, 1st movement.



mueske said:


> If anything, the piano contributes more to the mysterious atmosphere.


I'll try to break down the parts i am speaking of, so as to be as clear as possible. Here is my frame of reference:











First Vid:

beginning to 2:20: Terrific, wonderful, attention-grabbing. All aboard.

2:21-3:20: Piano's first appearance. Ok mueske, in this segment the piano does seem to carry on and continue the orchestras initial mood setting.

From 3:46 on (continuing till the end of the second vid) is where the piano seems to go off on a tangent for me. The established mystery seems to be gone and in it's place comes moments of excitement, jubilance, and curiosity that seem out of touch with what the orchestra continues to say (even though its appearance is becoming more and more brief).

What i'm saying is that i would have much preferred this first movement to expand and develop upon what was established in the first 2:20 of it. The piano from 3:46 on seems to be acting as a polar opposite, as opposed to an accompaniment. This stood out as awkward to me. To each their own, i guess.



Opal said:


> Is this a joke?
> 
> Knowing this place, I suspect it's not.
> 
> ...


Read the bit of the article talking about the 1st movement:



> As analyzed by Alfred Einstein, Mozart's sharp distinction between solo and tutti in the first movement remains strongly contrasted without compromise or resolution; indeed, after an especially forceful introduction the piano enters with a gentle tune that it never shares and with good reason - its wide leaping intervals are uniquely suited to the keyboard and would sound awkward on any other instrument.
> A further point of distinction is that the movement ends not in customary elation but gently, as if the contestants were exhausted after their uncommonly taxing exertions.


My point is that the sharp contrast provided by the solo is what i personally didn't like and what i felt was out of place. But hey, thanks for showing that anything Peter Gutmann says is the undeniable truth.



Head_case said:


> Ahh - Pleasure is classical music with more than a solist. Happiness is classical music without a symphonic orchestra. Bliss is classical music without a piano. Heaven is pure string quartet medium
> 
> If you have average hearing, and the stuff between the auricles and a reasonable hi-fi system, why not?
> 
> ...


Nice to see i'm not the only person open to giving opinions about the works of "The almighty musical gods that can do no wrong. Ever."

Head_case, not sure what you're trying to mean with the last comment, i was just giving a particular example about a particular piece where i thought the solo seemed a little out of place. I love what the piano can do and i am not trying to demonize piano concertos at all.

I'm sure some other people must feel the same way about some other pieces. Anyone?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BeethoFan said:


> Give examples of concerto works (or their individual movements) where you think the soloist seems to be rather superfluous.
> 
> One for me would be Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20, 1st movement. A wonderful, mysterious atmosphere is established in the beginning with the strings and winds, and then the piano comes in all cheerful and giddy, even becoming intertwined with the dark feeling emanating from the orchestra. I really could've done without the piano here.


I think there are music editing programs you could buy perhaps for the home computer, where you could delete the superfluous solo entries you described and listen to the piece that way. Post the results here. We are very eager to listen to a Mozart piano concerto improved by you, with the superfluous notes deleted. :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BeethoFan said:


> I'm sure some other people must feel the same way about some other pieces. Anyone?


Well, I feel that the use of the organ in Saint-Saen's 3rd symphony is only employed for flashy (superficial?) effects. Compare this to Poulenc's _Concerto for organ, strings & timpani_, and you might see what I mean. In the Saint-Saens, the mighty king of instruments sounds merely like an "add-on" whereas in the Poulenc, it combines with the whole ensemble to make a blend of colours that is truly spectacular. In effect, Saint Saens treats the instruments seperately, each to it's own, but Poulenc uses all of them as a kind of timbral pool from which he draws colours like a painter uses different shades and textures. But maybe it's unfair to compare them, as one was written in the Romantic era, and the other in the C20th (Neo-classicism). Of course, one is also called a "symphony" while the other is a "concerto." The issue of the musical era probably says more about my tastes than the music, but (that said) I really enjoy the solo organ works of Widor (his organ symphonies) and Bonnet & Guilmant, who were also French Romantics...


----------



## BeethoFan (Jun 23, 2010)

Tell you what Harpischord... buy me a brand new Yamaha S90 ES and you got a deal.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BeethoFan said:


> Tell you what Harpischord... buy me a brand new Yamaha S90 ES and you got a deal.


I believe in the sponsoring of the education, training and careers of musicians worthy of talent. You need to prove yourself before you start asking for the golden cup. So how about it? I suggest you might like to consider improving a Mozart piano concerto by deleting/editing the superfluous sections, and I'm sure if your improved version is worth our ears to listen to, then I won't be the only humble sponsor here. :tiphat:


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Could in general imagine a lot more of _vocal _ soloist works - and especially recordings of them - where the "concertante" role of the protagonist was played down or even replaced ... Actually have a secret dream of the Wagner operas transcribed into - piano concertos 

As regards _any_ Trombone Concerto lasting more than 15 mins, I´m also totally in - as for completely eliminating the soloist´s part.

Continuing such alternative thinking: there should be more things going on in the Beethoven Violin Concerto, too repetitive and thin in its instrumentation - why not an extra concertante cello there


----------



## Yoshi (Jul 15, 2009)

Wow... some of the comments here are incredible. I don't think the original poster ever claimed to know how to compose better than Mozart.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

joen_cph said:


> Continuing such alternative thinking: there should be more things going on in the Beethoven Violin Concerto, too repetitive and thin in its instrumentation - why not an extra concertante cello there


Or better yet, transcribe the whole solo part to piano and make it a piano concerto.

Oh wait - he did. And it sounds much better.

Now, personally I'd like to hear the Bach Cello Suites without the cello.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Weston said:


> O
> Now, personally I'd like to hear the Bach Cello Suites without the cello.


Me too. I can't imagine why *Bach* ever thought of spoiling such beautiful pieces by incorporating cellos.

Just the other day, I was listening to *Mozart's* Flute & Harp Concerto (K 299), and I thought "_hang on a minute, this would have sounded a lot better if Mozart had used a laptop rather than a harp"_.

Don't get me really going on this topic because I'll never stop, but I must also mention that I reckon *Beethoven's* Piano Concerto (the one with the famous piano introduction) sounds almost complete rubbish; he should have used "silence" instead of the piano at that jucture.

And one more if I may, while I'm in the mood for making high-powered musical comments, it seems clear to me that a "classic" faux pas was the choice of a drum by *Haydn* in his Symphony No 103 "Drum Roll". I can't imagine what possessed him to make such an inappropriate choice of instrument. I mean, calling it "drum Roll" is fair enough but why spoil it by putting a drum in it? The very height of ineptitude.


----------



## BeethoFan (Jun 23, 2010)

Opal said:


> Don't get me really going on this topic because I'll never stop


Oh no, by all means keep going. I'm learning a lot about you.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Concerning Mozart's piano concerto, you have to remember both the audience he was writing for and the general writing practices of the time - Mozart was writing for a public that did not have taste for a great deal of serious, heavy music. More importantly, 95% of all music in the Classical period was written in the major key, so any piece in the minor key is naturally going to have a lot of 'major' material. Lastly, the Classical style that Mozart wrote in was primarily a comic style, considering the fact that the style was derived from comic opera of the early 1700s. And since it is primarily a comic style, it does not lend itself easily to heavy, serious, overly dramatic minor-sounding pieces. Really, the 20th piano concerto is about as dramatic as you get in the Classical period.


----------

