Mozart is Easier to Play than Any Other Composer

[pianoperfmajor]

Mozart is easier to learn, play, and perform than most other composers.  I'm sick of people's arguments saying he's 'musically' difficult.  That's so untrue.  I've got news for you: Rachmaninoff is incredibly musically difficult AND technically difficult.  Mozart features simple scalar lines and simple chords.  And I'm not talking out my ass either.. I have played a great deal of Mozart including several of his sonatas and two of his piano concerti (C major k 467 and B flat major k 595).  I open for dicussion..

[Mozartian]

 

[shoshin]

You're lucky then. I can only play K545

[nicco]

Mozart is easier to learn, play, and perform than most other composers.  I'm sick of people's arguments saying he's 'musically' difficult.  That's so untrue.  I've got news for you: Rachmaninoff is incredibly musically difficult AND technically difficult.  Mozart features simple scalar lines and simple chords.  And I'm not talking out my ass either.. I have played a great deal of Mozart including several of his sonatas and two of his piano concerti (C major k 467 and B flat major k 595).  I rest my case for dicussion..

Well this just makes me a bit sad to read. Seeing that you have played such great works, one would think that you had understood the richness that lies in mozarts compositions. Mozart is very different from rachmaninoff, liszt or any other composer. He is very individual in his style, and he demands a special technique. Maybe playing the right notes in the correct tempo isnt hard for you, but thats only 20 % of the job in mozart. Everybody can learn to play right notes, not many understand the meaning of them.

[stevie]

agreed partially, mozart is technically easy, the texture is transparent though so like in bach, you are more 'naked'

but again, with this logic, mistakes are obvious in liszt etudes to me too, depends how good your ear is.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Perhaps Mozart is easier to bash out, but not evoke the music. It has to be delicate, elegant, dramatic, colorfull and very clear. Just like the classic style art, very precise, and lucid. Hope this helps.

[pianoperfmajor]

Don't get me wrong guys.  I do fully appreciate the musical genius that is mozart, and I love his compositions.  My point here is simply that his music is generally technically easier than most other major composers, and musically not necessarily more difficult. 

You miss my point nicco and debussy symbolism..  I understand that playing the correct notes is only 20% of the job, but that's not unlike other composers.  The problem is, people either overrate the technique required to play mozart, or they revert to your arguments, saying he is much more 'musically demanding' making him equal in difficulty overall to others, or simply 'difficult in a different way.'  I disagree.

[mikey6]

I really can't be bothered explaining my reasoning to you coz if you have decided to 'rest you're case' on you're pitiful arguement then there really is no point.

[debussy symbolism]

Every composer is different. Of course you would not play Mozart as you would Rachmaninov, or Bach or Beethoven. There fore you can't really say that one is easier than the other because they are all different. I don't see why someone would classify any composer, especially the most known ones as easy, it doesn't make sense. It is like saying, which composer is better. There is no answer because there simply isn't one. If Mozart wanted to write a work that resembled that of Rachmaninov, he could. If Mozart wanted the work to sound very dramatic and complicated, he could. Same goes for other composers. Their work may not sound exactly like Mozart's but it will still prove their own creativity.

[piazzo23]

Mozart is easier to learn, play, and perform than most other composers.  I'm sick of people's arguments saying he's 'musically' difficult.  That's so untrue.  I've got news for you: Rachmaninoff is incredibly musically difficult AND technically difficult.  Mozart features simple scalar lines and simple chords.  And I'm not talking out my ass either.. I have played a great deal of Mozart including several of his sonatas and two of his piano concerti (C major k 467 and B flat major k 595).  I open for dicussion..

I must agree with you.

[steveie986]

Don't get me wrong guys.  I do fully appreciate the musical genius that is mozart, and I love his compositions.  My point here is simply that his music is generally technically easier than most other major composers, and musically not necessarily more difficult. 

You miss my point nicco and debussy symbolism..  I understand that playing the correct notes is only 20% of the job, but that's not unlike other composers.  The problem is, people either overrate the technique required to play mozart, or they revert to your arguments, saying he is much more 'musically demanding' making him equal in difficulty overall to others, or simply 'difficult in a different way.'  I disagree.

But I agree with you on this point. Mozart SUCKS (especially the piano sonatas). Glenn Gould thinks so, why shouldn't you?

Love you lots.

 

[debussy symbolism]

But I agree with you on this point. Mozart SUCKS (especially the piano sonatas). Glenn Gould thinks so, why shouldn't you?

Love you lots.

 

Whilest I understand and appreciate other peoples opinions and tastes of music, I am however appaled by your comment about Mozart.

[steveie986]

Whilest I understand and appreciate other peoples opinions and tastes of music, I am however appaled by your comment about Mozart.

jt, jt

(just trolling)

[pita bread]

Assuming the same quality of interpretation and performance, Rachmaninoff will always be harder than Mozart.

[arensky]

Satie is much easier, except for "Vexations"  

[debussy symbolism]

Satie is much easier, except for "Vexations"  

Actually, Satie requires a very fine touch to evoke his music. Yes it is fairly simple technically from what I know, but a real sensitive touch is required to play Satie's music correctly, as with Mozart.

[krittyot]

If Mozart is easy to play as many people here claimed, then why there are so few great Mozart pianists? Also, calling his piano composition sucks is just pure ignorant in my opinion. I consider the A mojor sonata (K.331) as one of the greatest piano sonatas ever composed particularly the 1st movement. Not to mention his Piano Concerti where, according to many musicians, you truly discover the genius of Mozart.

Horowitz rarely attempted to play Mozart is his life time until the late 70s. The same goes to Rubinstein. Rubinstein recorded alot of Mozart is his late life, but very little prior to 1950s. This is not to say these pianists just started to like Mozart when they get very old. The answer is "NO". Horowitz once mentioned "nowadays, young pianists play Mozart horribly". For me, Mozart's music has never been easy to play. If you think that playing every single note with perfect balance is the only main difficulty in Mozart's piano works, that's an invalid answer. Anyway, I assume many people especially in this thread only care about the notes.

Regarding Glenn Gould, I don't know exactly how much he disliked Mozart and I don't care, but one thing I know for sure Gould has zero understanding towards Mozart; thus screwing the beauty of the sonatas so badly. You can tell right from the beginning how Gould Mozart sounds.

To many, Mozart is the greatest composer of all. To quote from Haydn, "the greatest composer known to me in person, or by name". Chopin also have great admiration for only 2 composers, Bach and Mozart. Liszt, Beethoven, Schumann and to name a few all have great respect for Mozart.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"His music is clear yet subtle, deep without pondering, beautiful without being ornamental and it speaks of humanity yet it is warmed by a touch of divinity all within a very logical and coherent structure.

His music, more than any other composer, is capable of touching the hearts of very different people, from the simple man to the intellect, with each seeing a different image of themselves in his music.

What is even more profound about his music is that after some listening you start sensing the sadness behind the joy and the joy behind the tragic with hope always being a central theme to his music.

He was the earliest romantic composer in many ways, decades ahead of his time in intensity of expression. "


'nuff said.

[nicco]

Bingo krittyot. I hope mr pianoperfmajor understands that technique is not just speed and correct notes, but also the way you play them. This is what makes mozart very hard musically.

[steveie986]

Dayum, this forum is easy to troll.

[bearzinthehood]

Only when it comes to Mozart.  The slightest peep out of anyone that might be interpreted as bashing their precious Mozart attracts a frenzied mob.

[invictious]

Mozart:

Immature
Difficult exaggerated by people
Children's music
Predictable
interesting at first, boring later

Well his musical style NEVER matured since he was 4.

Unlike Mozzie, Beethoven's musical style matured, e.g. Appassionata.

However, wrong notes are very obvious in Mozzie's work

[steveie986]

Mozart's piano sonatas do not exist except through Glenn Gould (peace be upon Him). He brought them to life. His playing is so nuanced, subtle, full of wondrous dynamic control and miraculous phrasing. So sweet, so Mozartian, so angelic. Ah, build me a stairway to Paradise.

[steveie986]

Mozart:

Immature
Difficult exaggerated by people
Children's music
Predictable
interesting at first, boring later

Well his musical style NEVER matured since he was 4.

Unlike Mozzie, Beethoven's musical style matured, e.g. Appassionata.

However, wrong notes are very obvious in Mozzie's work

Amen, brother!!! I can play dem Sonatahs wiv mah toes.

[krittyot]

Mozart:

Immature
Difficult exaggerated by people
Children's music
Predictable
interesting at first, boring later

Well his musical style NEVER matured since he was 4.

Unlike Mozzie, Beethoven's musical style matured, e.g. Appassionata.

However, wrong notes are very obvious in Mozzie's work

May your soul rest in peace.

[e60m5]

I can understand high-school-aged wannabe pianists running around and denouncing Mozart as easy, facile, simplistic, superficial, or whatever.

What I can't understand is a supposed piano performance major doing so. If the quality of the education you receive at whatever institution you currently attend leads you to form such conclusions as these, then its products perhaps speak for itself.

[bearzinthehood]

Mozart's piano sonatas do not exist except through Glenn Gould (peace be upon Him). He brought them to life. His playing is so nuanced, subtle, full of wondrous dynamic control and miraculous phrasing. So sweet, so Mozartian, so angelic. Ah, build me a stairway to Paradise.

Hilariously Glenn Gould didn't like Mozart's sonatas.

I also like the incredible snob factor associated with Mozart.

[supertonic]

Put it this way, Mozart is technically easier, literally, therefore I will definitely choose one in the exam situation (to ensure one fluent piece, at least), but it's more difficult to play one good enough to impress, no matter how much you practice;  unless you can play the "soul" out of the music (in fact sometimes even get worse with relentless brainless practice because you will get bored and the performance just become more souless and flat, and sounds like "children music") . 
For the romantic pieces, once you practice and practice and get over the technical bit, the performance will sound "impressed" automatically and sounds like "grown-up music" at least.
When I was young, I do like Chopin, Rach, Beeth etc because they sounds so impressive! But now I do like Mozart more and more because I really love the tinge of "innocent" in his music, which is missing wen you get older. Maybe if you don't fnd piano sonatas attractive enough, try the violin+piano sonatas, they are magical! Also, your taste will change with your age, experience etc. There is no right or wrong and no good or bad.

[teresa_b]

I agree with the people who implied the question of "Who's easier?" is just barking up the wrong tree.  It isn't a particularly valid question, except in the very narrow terms of "How quickly can you learn the notes." 

There's room for different preferences in music, so if you don't like Mozart, then by all means play something else.  (Gould was a very strange genius who played Mozart absolutely abysmally.  It's good he loved Bach, but if he didn't like Mozart--well, no one said genius came with insight in a general way--one can have genius in one area and not in another.)

It's true that many concert artists have avoided performing Mozart because of the transparency and the difficulty of getting it just right. 

With maturity and long study comes insight.  "Bashing" any composer, especially one of the all-time greats, is just a silly pastime.  (But a cat may look at a king, as Lewis Carroll said.   )

Teresa

[anda]

Put it this way, Mozart is technically easier, literally, therefore I will definitely choose one in the exam situation (to ensure one fluent piece, at least), but it's more difficult to play one good enough to impress, no matter how much you practice;  unless you can play the "soul" out of the music (in fact sometimes even get worse with relentless brainless practice because you will get bored and the performance just become more souless and flat, and sounds like "children music") . 
For the romantic pieces, once you practice and practice and get over the technical bit, the performance will sound "impressed" automatically and sounds like "grown-up music" at least.

i completely agree. mozart's works are indeed "easiest" to memorize - however, i honestly find it much easier to play, for instance, chopin or prokofieff.
my teacher says there are works which will play themselves once you learn them (and provided you have a minimum musical decency) and there are works you have to play yourself. i believe most mozart works fall in the second category.

(imo)

[pagim]

I've said that Mozart's Sonatas is much easier than Beethoven's one, but his musicality is so high, his symphonies, sonates, concertos or even a variations and children piece or Opera works are much more complex than you could understand. I'm a Concert class pianist which first, I plays Mozart and others which my audiences satisfied and happy to hear that, but later on, I started to bring out my characteristics and my own emotional which almost like Beethoven and Liszt.  Anyway, I still think Mozart is extreme genius!!

[jas]

Only when it comes to Mozart.  The slightest peep out of anyone that might be interpreted as bashing their precious Mozart attracts a frenzied mob.

Frenzied mob? The responses this guy got are much more sensible than the original post.

I genuinely find Mozart more musically difficult than almost any other composer I could name. It's so hard to make it sound right. I've always been very impressed by people who can play Mozart well. My high school piano teacher was very un-strict with me, she let me play my Romantic stuff all I wanted, though she did browbeat me into playing Bach now and again. And although I would have complained about it then, I think if I had played Mozart back then I'd find it easier now to play not just him, but most other composers, too.
I don't think you should underestimate his importance in such a way; he has an important place in muslcal history and had a significant influence on much of what came after him. Don't dismiss him as "easy" just because your fingers don't feel like they're going to drop off when you play his music, there's more to it than that.

Jas

[gyzzzmo]

You hardly can compare mozart with liszt nor rachmaninoff.
The styles are totally different. Liszt and rachmaninoff are more about the great lines of the story and mozart (bach too) is much more subtle and miniscure changes in dynamics.

[prometheus]

one would think that you had understood the richness that lies in mozarts compositions.

Does that mean the music needs to be very difficult? Why can't music that is easy to play be rich?

You know, it is kind of sad that people think this way. One starts to wonder on what basis people reason.

[piazzo23]

I thought the original post was about how people tend to exagerate the musical difficulty of playing Mozart. Not to say Mozart sucks!!!

[emmdoubleew]

Mozart is easier to learn, play, and perform than most other composers.  I'm sick of people's arguments saying he's 'musically' difficult.  That's so untrue.  I've got news for you: Rachmaninoff is incredibly musically difficult AND technically difficult.  Mozart features simple scalar lines and simple chords.  And I'm not talking out my ass either.. I have played a great deal of Mozart including several of his sonatas and two of his piano concerti (C major k 467 and B flat major k 595).  I open for dicussion..

here it comes:

IN YOUR GODDAM OPINION

I'm absolutely terrified of performing mozart piece my level, I have so much trouble with the phrasing, the dynamics, the amount of time between the notes (yes), the rests, the melodic voices, the feel of different sections, etc... How do you think it makes me feel when someone says "I"m sick of people saying mozart is hard, it's easy"?

I can play Chopin and Beethoven two levels about me but can't even play Mozart my own level. Maybe I just relate to the kind of music Beethoven and Chopin were trying to makek, hence have an easier time interpreting them.

Another thing, try looking at the kind of repertoire people perform at recitals: very very seldom Mozart. Mozart is scary to play for most people, I don't understand what "arguments" there is to be sick of. If you're sick of our opinions, that's really your problem, not mention it's completely closeminded.

[maxy]

Mozart owns all of us.  A genius.

[letters]

lets face it, its a bit poofy to listen to, but mozart requires and extremely specific touch to be played. The precision that needs to go into it is phenomenal BUT at the same time there needs to be feeling and expression in the playing too, unlike some bach. he was a total genius though. i think the problem was that gould tried to play mozart like bach and beethoven, but mozart should be played in a completely different way.

[026497]

Mozart is easier to learn, play, and perform than most other composers.  I'm sick of people's arguments saying he's 'musically' difficult.  That's so untrue.  I've got news for you: Rachmaninoff is incredibly musically difficult AND technically difficult.  Mozart features simple scalar lines and simple chords.  And I'm not talking out my ass either.. I have played a great deal of Mozart including several of his sonatas and two of his piano concerti (C major k 467 and B flat major k 595).  I open for dicussion..

Yep, Mozart is easier to play, but, for CHILDREN only! not adult. if you have a 'pure' mind, you'll have no difficulties in playing Mozart. coz Mozart 'is' always a kid!

[gorbee natcase]

This is simple to explain. If you make a mistake with Mozart, it ruins the whole piece. as with Rachmaninov, its unlikely to be noticed.

So the presure to get every note, Every dynamic etc.. right puts enormous pressure on the performer thus making it difficult in a very different way

[gonzalo]

MOZART IS EASY TO PLAY ON A FORTEPIANO...  In nowadays pianos we try to imitate the fortepiano's sound and that's why we say it's difficult, apart from the technical difficulties.

[arensky]

This is simple to explain. If you make a mistake with Mozart, it ruins the whole piece. as with Rachmaninov, its unlikely to be noticed.

So the presure to get every note, Every dynamic etc.. right puts enormous pressure on the performer thus making it difficult in a very different way

Exactly.

 

[keri_hui]

people usually say that they are Easy for Children but hard of pianists

what we have to do is to try to make everything perfect in a song, and even mozart you can't play it perfect. I shall say it is hard for all of us to play the composers' work perfectly, even when playing mozart.  Maybe mozart is relatively easy when comparing to other composers( there's difficulties on the dynamics thing.) Usually its teacher who says that they are Easy for Children but hard of pianists, because most of the students  think that mozart is easy.But what i think is that its relatively easy but not very easy, and pianists always want to make their performance perfect.. i hope you get what i mean

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i think having this double standards regarding the playing of mozart by children and by professionals is true and good to have.

------------------
you see, the innocence of mozart's music is difficult for the adult pianists because we try to make it come alive (with all the dynimics and phrasing, etc.) but we are always careful to keep it at a certain level of simplicity. to keep the simplicity and yet, come out in full colors and imaginations is really hard to combine. that's why we need it to be sparkling in every note (each has to mean a thing) or else all we play are just the pure notes. it is as delicate as chopin's music IMO. and both require a certain personality to be able to pull off well. one has to be charmingly playful but also elegant, well-mannered but also without pretense.

the more simple a thing is, the more difficult it is to do. besides having to achieve technical perfection with a transparent kind of piano writing, what else could you do with just a few notes in order to make it sound interesting?

a rachmaninoff prelude is surely easier than a movement of mozart's sonata. the former requires you most importantly your rhythmic precision and notes, dynamics, etc... if one has the patience and the right tools or technique, then all you would ever need is feeling and fire, backed up by some intellectual level. this you can achieve in time. you can even plan out a time table for it, but surely, you will achieve it.  on the other hand, with mozart, a certain "atmosphere" (i'm at a loss for the better word) in one's playing is required of the pianist. without this, the playing will be just purely notes. the most important thing to consider is that we can't really say when or how we can achieve that "atmosphere" coz we don't know how to achieve such. some pianists just happen to have it.

i'm almost close to saying that playing mozart (and chopin, IMO) requires only some kinds of personalities of pianists. actually, this i truly believe in. i don't say that other composers are "easier" (whatever that means), it's just that there are many ways of playing them and still they will sound great.

i actually have double standards when listening to recordings of mozart (especially chopin): 1) those which are colorful and interesting, 2) those which i simply feel that the "have it".

clara haskil and alicia delarrocha i admire most for their mozart. alfred brendel and murray perahia come second. with chopin, i'm 'crazy for ivan moravec', hehe, and also zimerman, of course. but the former is a more personal touch IMO.

i consider myself a bad player of chopin and mozart. however, that doesn't stop me from playing them coz i love their works.

[kaiwin]

I disagree with you, Mozart is hard because the right "notes" must be heard when you play it. Not just playing it out. Everything has to be precise and every mistake can be heard.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

I disagree with you, Mozart is hard because the right "notes" must be heard when you play it. Not just playing it out. Everything has to be precise and every mistake can be heard.

i don't think we are disagreeing with anything at all. although mozart is not just all about being precise (simply because every mistake can be heard), there's more to that. but yes it is the first requirement, to be able to play with great precision. (but i think that in every piece, that should be the goal, ideally)

[prometheus]

Is there any music that does allow mistakes?

[crazy for ivan moravec]

as written on the score- none.

as performed - forgive human limitations
 

[musik_man]

I think the best way to explain Mozart would be this.  Imagine that two states exist.  The first will be a nearly perfect interpretation.  Something like Glenn Gould's Goldbergs or Cziffra's Hungarian Rhapsodies.  The second will be a player piano.  All the notes are there but no interpretation.  Now, imagine a scale with 100% as Gould/Cziffra and 0% as player piano.  Chopin and Rachmaninov would begin to sound good very early on, say at 20-30%.  Mozart on the other hand would be lifeless until say 70%(these are completely arbitrary numbers btw.)  Playing Chopin at 100% would be no easier than playing Mozart at 100%, but Chopin at 50% sounds much better than Mozart at 50%.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

I think the best way to explain Mozart would be this.  Imagine that two states exist.  The first will be a nearly perfect interpretation.  Something like Glenn Gould's Goldbergs or Cziffra's Hungarian Rhapsodies.  The second will be a player piano.  All the notes are there but no interpretation.  Now, imagine a scale with 100% as Gould/Cziffra and 0% as player piano.  Chopin and Rachmaninov would begin to sound good very early on, say at 20-30%.  Mozart on the other hand would be lifeless until say 70%(these are completely arbitrary numbers btw.)  Playing Chopin at 100% would be no easier than playing Mozart at 100%, but Chopin at 50% sounds much better than Mozart at 50%.

nice way of putting it but i don't quite agree with the last statment. it is easy to sound crappy with chopin as with mozart.

well, actually it's a matter of standards that we're dealing with here. we've heard so many good chopin and mozart players that we've somehow formed a "standard and good" way of playing it. other composers seem to be more explorable since they remain unexhausted by pianists. i don't know, that seems to be in my head right now, just an opinion.

[sauergrandson]

Antonio Alderete, my piano teacher (he's almost a god) told me: If you want to know if anyone is a good pianist, ask him to play K. 545 2nd movement.