Donald Satz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>So, my bottom of the 2nd strategy is to adopt a "broad" view where an
>entire work gets one opinion, and reject a "micro" view where all the
>little pieces are closely looked at and rated.

First off, another poster mentioned the "profundity" issue:  let me make
it clear that I don't identify musical greatness with being "profound":
whatever these terms mean they don't mean the same thing to me at all.
For example, much of Haydn's music cannot be called profound by any stretch
of the meaning, but it is great music nevertheless, and to me often greater
than much of Mozart, profound or not.  As another example, there is nothing
profound about the second mvmnt of the D minor piano concerto we are
discussing, but it is a great movement, and when it's flow of serene
contemplation is interrupted, the interruption only enhances the musical
pleasure, does not distract from it, and the return of serenity becomes
all the more affecting as a result.  Also, this is an extremely melodious
movement; I don't underestimate melody, Mozart had a phenomenal gift for
it, and nowhere he used it to better effect than in the slow movements of
the piano concertos.  This movement (slow of the D minor) is a microcosm of
Mozart's genius:  melodic invention, dramatic flow, all handled masterfully
within a tightly controlled classical structure.

I must also reject the charge of "romantic-period" expectations from
Mozart's music.  This charge would be more appropriate to bring against,
eg, the criticism of Beethoven's Kreutzer sonata finale (that it is too
light compared to what went before).  I have no problem with "now,
something lighter," provided what is light is as good as the heavy stuff
that came before; there is no correlation between "light" vs "heavy" and
"good" vs "bad".

>Will Ulvi step to the plate in the top of the 3rd inning with a
>continuation of "micro" examples? Will he become "macro" man and slam
>entire works? Will he respond at all or just leave the stadium early to
>beat the crowds?

With my blood pressure conveniently up from listening to the new
Beethoven's 9th on Arte Nova (Zinman), I'll give it a shot:  It is easier
with early Mozart:  I don't find much worthwhile music in most of the early
piano sonatas (< K300, eg the sonatas K279-284), the early symphonies
(actually, most of the symphonies, with the exception of Nos 38-41, 25, 31,
35, and 36) and the early string quartets.  With later Mozart, I would
single out the piano trios as particularly bland works, esp K496 and K564
(although I am not 100% sure of the K numbers since my CDs are at home).
With late Mozart I am familiar with, most of my examples of unevenness
would come from within large-scale works, such as the examples I've already
given.  If you really insist on more examples of slamming entire works from
the late period, I'll have to go and do some listening to remind myself.

>The last ten minutes of each show will be devoted to the "sexual fantasies
>of classical musicians" -

As Richard Strauss was quoted on this list a few days ago:  "Don't look at
the trombones; it only encourages them." (I guess he meant it as advice to
conductors:)

Ulvi
[log in to unmask]