Joseph Previte ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>Deryk Barke writes:
>
>>Now tell me the piano concertos K488 and K491 are on the same emotional
>>plane...
>
>Or for that fact, compare K466 or K271.  Mozart was a composer I came to
>appreciate slowly.  I was initially underwhelmed by his seeming simplicity
>and facility, but have grown to be very appreciative and greatly enjoy his
>genius.  I believe his ingenuity and cleverness in his writing is easily
>overlooked by people who seek a more complex idiom.

I've said this before, but I think on another list:  my problem is with
those who would canonise Mozart, who consider his every musical utterance
to be a supreme manifestation of genius; I have even heard a fairly
well-respected and educated musician tell an audience that Mozart composed
flawlessly, without erasure or crossing out.  Mostly, yes, but the ms.
of K.491 I think it is, shows a different case altogether.

For me, Mozart's greatest music is as great as any anyone has ever
composed; but I'd far rather listen to a Haydn symphony than most of
Mozart's (exc.  29, 34 and the last 4) - but far rather a piano concerto
by Mozart than one by Haydn.

It looks to me rather like another manifestation of the North American "one
is all you need" syndrome.  Tscanini was the only conductor you needed to
bother with, Heifetz the only violinist, Horowitz the only pianist.  There
are only 3 tenors worth hearing, etc, etc, "The only Classical CD You'll
ever need".

Would it be handy if there was only one composer you needed to bother
with?

Deryk Barker
[log in to unmask]