Mozart symphonies - who is going to play them in the future ?

[Ariosto]

Hope your Bach has sufficient bite!

Sometimes I think I have bitten off more than I can chew - especially when I get around to doing the Chaconne ...

[amateur51]

Ammy - that sounds a civilised performance - I probably wouldn't mind the RSt either, what were the works?

Four Last Songs with an overwhelmed soloist whose name escapes me and Til Eulenspiegel which was full of mischief

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No need to admit it to the world, ferny, even if you are!!

Never let it be said that I'm afraid of stating the bleedin' obvious!

... oh; it never has!

[kernelbogey]

A compelling piece by Martin Kettle in the Guardian drawn to my attention on another thread. I do not understand why symphony orchestras have stopped playing them . Dogmatic HIPPites may rejoice but not me . It also does not make much sense when the symphony orchestra happily continues accompanying pianists in Mozart .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-mozart-genius

A thoughtful and interesting response in today's Guardian from Nick Kenyon to Martin Kettle's article.

[Barbirollians]

A thoughtful and interesting response in today's Guardian from Nick Kenyon to Martin Kettle's article.

A lousy response that avoids the question .

[cloughie]

]Four Last Songs with an overwhelmed soloist [/B]whose name escapes me and Til Eulenspiegel which was full of mischief

Wot another?

[cloughie]

A lousy response that avoids the question .

Like so many 'names' who say a lot and tell you nothing. For his information, unless I have skewed my listening over the last 50 years most of Mozart's 25-41 have been mainstream works both in concert and in recordings. As for 1-24 and all the other pre 183, K unnumbered symphonies, whilst the Hogwood/Schroder AAM set was a good project it was Karl Bohm's traditional forces BPO set that brought the full 1-41 to us.(OK there was no 2 3 or 37).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Like so many 'names' who say a lot and tell you nothing. For his information, unless I have skewed my listening over the last 50 years most of Mozart's 25-41 have been mainstream works both in concert and in recordings. As for 1-24 and all the other pre 183, K unnumbered symphonies, whilst the Hogwood/Schroder AAM set was a good project it was Karl Bohm's traditional forces BPO set that brought the full 1-41 to us.(OK there was no 2 3 or 37).

The numbering system for Mozart symphonies is confusing, to sya the least. Although no. 41 is Mozart's last known symphony, there is a "42", and a 43, 44, 45, 46, 47...etc. Fare better to abandon the old numbering system and adopt the Einealpensinfonieedition numbering, which I first introduced on this forum several months ago:-

Originally Posted by Pabmusic
However, how about a novel numbering system, based on - say - Fibonacci numbers. Symphonies 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377 (that should cover the fragments).
Let's do the same with Mozart's symphonies. (I did consider sending this one out on 1st April, but I was away on holiday at the time:

1 in E flat K.16
2 in D K.19
3 in F K.19a
4 in B flat K.22
5 in C K.35
6 in D K.38
7 in F K.43
8 in D K.45
9 in G K.45a “Old Lambach”
10 in G K.46b
11 in D K.48
12 in D K.62a
13 in C K.73
14 in G K.74
15 in D K.87/74a
16 in D minor K.118/74c
17 in G K.110/75b
18 in D K.120/111a
19 in F K.112
20 in A K.114
21 in G K.124
22 in C K.128
23 in G K.129
24 in F K.130
25 in E flat K.132
26 in D K.133
27 in A K.134
28 in D K.135
29 in D K.161 & 163 /141a
30 in E flat K.184/161a
31 in G K.199/161b
32 in C K.162
33 in D K.181/162b
34 in B flat K.182/173dA
35 in G minor K.183/173dB
36 in A K.201/186a
37 in D K.202/186b
38 in D K.203/189b
39 in C K.200/189k
40 in D K.121/207a
41 in D K.204/213a
42 in C K.102/213c
43 in D (from “Haffner” Serenade) K.250/248b
44 in D “Paris” K.279/300a
45 in G K.318
46 in B flat K.319
47 in D K.320
48 in C K.338
49 in D “Haffner” K.385
50 in C “Linz” K.425
51 in D “Prague” K.504
52 in E flat K.543
53 in G minor K.550
54 in C “Jupiter” K.551

(Numbers 2,3 & 37 of the old system are finally put to rest.)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A lousy response that avoids the question .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Glancing through the Leeds International Orchestral Season brochure reveals 20 concerts (with not a single HIPP band amongst them) consisting of "68" pieces (there's a "selection" from Rachmaninov's Vespers, and a group of songs I've counted as one"item").

4 are by Mozart, with the CBSO performing the only Symphony (the Prague) and three arias from the operas; the Manchester Camerata (another fine modern instrument chamber orchestra I omitted earlier) are giving the d minor Piano Concerto; and the Hallé the Clarinet concerto. Haydn is represented by two works: the Oxford Symphony (Manchester Camerata) and The Creation (BBC Phil). There's also a Baroque "Christmas" event (7 pieces) by the EU Chamber Orch and Nicola Benedetti.

In comparison, Beethoven has two Overtures, three concertos and two symphonies. Schubert's Great C major Symph, too.

[cloughie]

The numbering system for Mozart symphonies is confusing, to sya the least. Although no. 41 is Mozart's last known symphony, there is a "42", and a 43, 44, 45, 46, 47...etc. Fare better to abandon the old numbering system and adopt the Einealpensinfonieedition numbering, which I first introduced on this forum several months ago:-

Originally Posted by Pabmusic
However, how about a novel numbering system, based on - say - Fibonacci numbers. Symphonies 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377 (that should cover the fragments).
Let's do the same with Mozart's symphonies. (I did consider sending this one out on 1st April, but I was away on holiday at the time:

1 in E flat K.16
2 in D K.19
3 in F K.19a
4 in B flat K.22
5 in C K.35
6 in D K.38
7 in F K.43
8 in D K.45
9 in G K.45a “Old Lambach”
10 in G K.46b
11 in D K.48
12 in D K.62a
13 in C K.73
14 in G K.74
15 in D K.87/74a
16 in D minor K.118/74c
17 in G K.110/75b
18 in D K.120/111a
19 in F K.112
20 in A K.114
21 in G K.124
22 in C K.128
23 in G K.129
24 in F K.130
25 in E flat K.132
26 in D K.133
27 in A K.134
28 in D K.135
29 in D K.161 & 163 /141a
30 in E flat K.184/161a
31 in G K.199/161b
32 in C K.162
33 in D K.181/162b
34 in B flat K.182/173dA
35 in G minor K.183/173dB
36 in A K.201/186a
37 in D K.202/186b
38 in D K.203/189b
39 in C K.200/189k
40 in D K.121/207a
41 in D K.204/213a
42 in C K.102/213c
43 in D (from “Haffner” Serenade) K.250/248b
44 in D “Paris” K.279/300a
45 in G K.318
46 in B flat K.319
47 in D K.320
48 in C K.338
49 in D “Haffner” K.385
50 in C “Linz” K.425
51 in D “Prague” K.504
52 in E flat K.543
53 in G minor K.550
54 in C “Jupiter” K.551

(Numbers 2,3 & 37 of the old system are finally put to rest.)

How about leaving things as they are, complex as it may be I know where I am with it!

[Boilk]

Robert Hartford writing in the 10th March 1984 edition of Classical Music magazine.

Mozart - the ten-per-cent genius

For many a year [Symphony] No 37 stood in the Mozart canon, neighbour of the Linz and Prague, and doubtless was given its due as a comparable vessel of Mozart’s unique genius. Then it was discovered to be not by Mozart but by Haydn’s younger brother, Michael. As far as I know, no one had declared Michael Haydn a genius and so his P16, once hailed as Mozart’s K444, was consigned to oblivion.

I think this highlights the undue god-like status conferred on Mozart by some commentators (wasn't it once conferred on Mendelssohn in the early 20th century?) and evidently irked Mr. Hartford enough to write that aricle. It's true that for all his accomplishments, probably under a tenth of Mozart’s 600-odd pieces get regular performances, and a lot of what he rapidly churned out was simply to put bread on the table (and I don't think today's George Benjamins and Kaija Saariahos could keep up the quality if they had to churn out music just as fast!).

The majority of Mozart that gets performed is from the last 5 years of his life. Had he died at 30, he wouldn't be as highly-rated. If Haydn had died at 35 (having got as far as symphonies Nos. 33 and 34) he'd presumably be no more celebrated than say Michael Haydn or Boccherini.

I do welcome less Mozart in our concert halls, because it will not diminish his wider stature one bit, whilst also making room for more lesser-known composers and hopefully more contemporary music. IMHO there's still too much Bach performed (especially at Easter and Christmas) at the expense of his contemporaries, although the sitation has improved in the last few decades.

[David-G]

Robert Hartford writing in the 10th March 1984 edition of Classical Music magazine.

Mozart - the ten-per-cent genius

For many a year [Symphony] No 37 stood in the Mozart canon, neighbour of the Linz and Prague, and doubtless was given its due as a comparable vessel of Mozart’s unique genius. Then it was discovered to be not by Mozart but by Haydn’s younger brother, Michael. As far as I know, no one had declared Michael Haydn a genius and so his P16, once hailed as Mozart’s K444, was consigned to oblivion.

I think this highlights the undue god-like status conferred on Mozart by some commentators (wasn't it once conferred on Mendelssohn in the early 20th century?) and evidently irked Mr. Hartford enough to write that aricle. It's true that for all his accomplishments, probably under a tenth of Mozart’s 600-odd pieces get regular performances, and a lot of what he rapidly churned out was simply to put bread on the table (and I don't think today's George Benjamins and Kaija Saariahos could keep up the quality if they had to churn out music just as fast!).

The majority of Mozart that gets performed is from the last 5 years of his life. Had he died at 30, he wouldn't be as highly-rated. If Haydn had died at 35 (having got as far as symphonies Nos. 33 and 34) he'd presumably be no more celebrated than say Michael Haydn or Boccherini.

I do welcome less Mozart in our concert halls, because it will not diminish his wider stature one bit, whilst also making room for more lesser-known composers and hopefully more contemporary music. IMHO there's still too much Bach performed (especially at Easter and Christmas) at the expense of his contemporaries, although the sitation has improved in the last few decades.

I am afraid I couldn’t agree with you less. The quote highlights nothing of the kind. What it does show is that there is good music written by "lesser" composers, if only people will look for it.

The supreme status of Mozart (let’s call it that rather then god-like) is not "undue" at all. It derives from the quality of his masterpieces. Of course not all Mozart’s 600 works are masterpieces; but if many/most of the supreme masterpieces were from the last five years of his life, so what? Does that diminish their quality or his status? In my view, not. And anyway, it’s not hard to think of masterpieces written earlier in Mozart’s life. Take Idomeneo, a supreme masterpiece if ever there was one.

"and a lot of what he rapidly churned out was simply to put bread on the table". "Churned out" is rather a perjorative term. Were the piano concertos "churned out"? Or the operas? It was after all rather important for Mozart to put bread on his table – nobody else was going to. If for that reason he wrote a lot of dance music and serenades which might be regarded as "lesser works", they are still very fine music. Beethoven set numerous Scottish, Irish and Welsh songs for much the same reason. That does not seem to reduce the opinion in which he is held.

"Had he died at 30, he wouldn't be as highly-rated." What a strange remark. If he had died at 20, he would be even less highly rated. So would most composers. Thankfully Mozart didn’t die at 30, and thankfully we have the works that he wrote in his thirties.

"I do welcome less Mozart in our concert halls". It would seem that you are not very keen on Mozart’s music; you are not alone in that. I, on the other hand, adore Mozart’s music, and feel deprived when I see so little of it programmed at the Proms. I could truthfully say: "I would welcome less contemporary music in our concert halls, because it will not diminish the stature of contemporary music one bit, while also making room for more Mozart". But I would not say that, because even if most contemporary music does not appeal to me, I recognise that some people like it; that there has to be a balance in programmes; and that it is important for contemporary music to be heard.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

How about leaving things as they are, complex as it may be I know where I am with it!

I am flattered that you think that anyone at all would listen to my suggestion.

[cloughie]

I am flattered that you think that anyone at all would listen to my suggestion.

That's fine EA - I just don't like all this tinkering around with the status quo - the Schubert scenrio for example.