David Stewart said:

>Well, I held this back in case I got bashed but now that I have some
>company: I think that Mozart's Piano Concertos, as a body of works,
>are the best examples of good classical composition there are.  They
>encapsulate the essence of classicism which something like the Requiem
>doesn't - beauty though simplicity.  The piano writing at all times is
>perfectly idiomatic and imaginative which I don't think could be said for
>his sonatas.  The tunes are all gorgeous - without exception.  Harmony is
>normally much more interesting that his symphonies and the form seems to
>work better, sounds less repetitive even though essentially it is.  The
>least you could say about them is that they are arguably the best examples
>of Piano Concerto that you will ever find.  Beethoven's are contenders
>also.

Let's not go overboard here.  When I say I liked soem these works I meant
compared to most of the Mozart output.  but to put these on a par with the
better Beethoven concertos is going too far.  I'd put them equal with the
Haydn concerto in D.  You don't even mention the Brahm's concertos which
are more exciting in my view.

I can't find a lot to enjoy in most Mozart sonatas.  In the one with the
Turkish Rondo, this movement seems completely incongruent to me.  A few
rate alongside Haydn's/Beethovens but not many.

>For good symphonies, surely you would look to Haydn, not Mozart? You are
>so very right there (with a few exceptions).

Dave also said that Bach's(?) famous Toccatta and Fugue was a bad work.
Yet, for many people this is THE work that is synonymous with Bach.  And,
I have trouble explaining why I like Bach as this is the one work that is
emotionally stimulating.

So I think this brings us full circle.  It was fun constructing a list of
criteria.  But ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  So long
as they think for themself and are not guided by the "received view".

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]