Mozart's music was very influential and also beautiful, but many consider that his best works are only for Orchestra and Opera. His piano music was good, but if you compare his style of piano composition with that of Beethoven and Chopin, he is more or less degraded. I love Mozart's sonatas and rondos, but Beethoven's sonatas and Chopin's Waltzes overtake Mozart's pieces. Mozart is very much respected for his great work in composing 41 great symphonies. His overtures and operas are also great. In fact, I bought a book of Piano transcriptions of Mozart's 3 Operas. So, what I'm trying to say is, Mozart's music is respected, but only in the field of Orchestration. Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, etc were born to make Piano Music. (Beethoven is an exception, everything he composed was great).
Well keep in mind, Mozart is freakishly difficult to play well.
Certainly not the case, compared to most other concert repertoire. Schubert, on the other hand . . .
I agree that Schubert is difficult to play well, but you have to admit, something about the simplicity of Mozart, makes him hard to pull off in a performance. It's much harder than playing Chopin or Liszt well.
No, I do not have to admit anything of the sort. Four year old Korean girls play Mozart well. The same cannot be said of Liszt. There's nothing particularly simple about his music; some of his pieces, such as K. 280, K. 573 and K. 576, contain fairly tricky passages, from a technical perspective. Somehow, you are confusing a lack of density, dissonance and romantic gestaltation with "simplicity." The adage that Mozart is so difficult to play is borne of inferior pianists' egos: it is something for them to tell themselves in order to explain away their own difficulties with the work. It's so ass-backwards and counter-intuitive I think that others merely say it to be defiant, or sound as if they're oh-so-wise. When, in reality, they're anything but.
Actually, technically, Liszt is far more difficult than Mozart hahaha..
yet only play a limited amount of his compositions? Discuss.
Actually Mozart is indeed difficult to play well because it requires exceptional touch. There is no pedal, not very frequent legato sections, even in 2nd movements from Sonatas. Mozart needs to be played on the staccato side if anything and to do this cleanly and maintain the grace and elegance of his works is not easy at all. And you can compare composers on a difficulty level. Liszt has huge leaps, thundering octaves, fast folk melodies, these are traits of Liszt, Mozart normally has running melodic lines normally single notes, very rarely in 3rds even. Some octaves but never thundering over the keyboard. Yet he does have a unique grace that must be present to play his works well, and that is why many pianists stay away from his music. Also the fact there is no pedal at all turns many players off.
I go with the 'freakishly difficult to play well' line.
You don't have to miss many notes to turn a good performance into a bad one.
4 year old koreans DO NOT play Mozart well. I mean come on, college students play Liszt well, but they do not play Mozart well. Professionals play Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Ravel, Debussy, etc. well, but they seem to avoid Mozart. Unless you have a reputation for a brilliant Mozart, you do not have much room to talk
Why don't you try to actually explain how/why Mozart's music is difficult. But more importantly, you should just delete this whole thread, because your arguments are presupposed on a faulty base that Mozart is unpopular. The statement that pianists "avoid" Mozart is hilariously bizarre and inaccurate.Maybe you should be less stupid.
Mozart's writing for the piano is very exposed, i.e. textures are thin and you just feel naked playing it.
But Haydn, Scarlatti and Beethoven can be just as exposed, but, somehow, it doesn't feel so perilous to play!
I mean the Emperor Concerto is just one big (inspired!) Etude in E-flat, with every standard technical trick in the book exploited.
But it doesn't feel as scary as Mozart.
Maybe it's because Mozart is exposed, sparsely harmonized, and a very hard sell to audiences due to his soporific effect on the uninitiated.
Overtly refined and subtle? Maybe. Or just as often, in the predominantly tedious piano sonatas, verging on the uninspired? Many great pianists detest playing his works and find him overrated.
The operas, symphonies, some chamber works, yes, as great as music gets. Most of the concerti, as well. But the sonatas, etc.? Second-rate Mozart for the most part and way too scary to play, so why the hell bother?
We have a vast repertoire out there as pianists. Mozart is never my first choice in the classical period. Not worth the excessive trouble.
No, I do not have to admit anything of the sort. Four year old Korean girls play Mozart well. The same cannot be said of Liszt.
So, therefore, everybody should think like that, only because you suck at playing Mozart?Gah! I hate when people say "music is like this, and that's it" Who are you to decide?!I've loved Mozart almost all my life, and you come here and say that it's not as good as other music?
You say that four year old Korean girls do not play Mozart "well"; you do not back this statement up or provide evidence
There’s a popular quote by Artur Schnabel where he says that Mozart’s “too easy for children, too difficult for adults”. Not exactly empirical, nor evidential, but it’s a trustworthy reference at least.
LOL! You're either a troll or an ***. Probably both.
Have you heard children play Mozart? It's not very good...
Sorry, oh great one. Please tell me something more about me! And maybe you can say that half of Beethovens sonatas actually aren't that good.
Topic: Neglecting Mozart 