Ron Chaplin wrote on his Juilliard recordings of Mozart and Schubert:

>I like the Mozart: very pleasant works, very tuneful, but, for me,
>nothing very memorable; something nice to put on while having company or
>reading.
>
>it sounds as if the Juilliard is sleepwalking through the Mozart.
>With the Schubert, the quartet laces into the music.

I'm not much of a fan of the Juilliard Quartet, and their Mozart, in my
opinion, is not a viable refection of what the Mozart string quartets have
to offer.  My advice to Ron is to check out the Endellions on Virgin or
Lindsays on ASV (modern instruments), and the Festetics on Arcana, Salomon
on Hyperion, or Mosaiques on Astree to sample period performances.  After
that, Ron might still not have high regard for the Mozart quartets, but at
least he would have tried out the best available.

>Soooooo, I was wondering if it would be a useful exercise to discuss
>which genre (orchestral, instrumental, chamber, vocal, opera, etc.)
>a composer excelled in.  Which form should I listen to begin to
>really experience the essence of the comosers work?

That's a lot to chew on.  Concerning essence, I think that Mozart's essence
is in all the genres Ron mentioned.  But, his most immediately appealing
works would be his concertos, particularly his piano concertos, and the
clarinet concerto.  As for Schubert, his essence is best displayed in his
piano works, chamber compositions, and lieder.  I know this won't receive
much agreement, but I feel that his symphonies don't come close to
representing his most inspired works.  I prefer his operas to the
symphonies.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]