What's so difficult about Mozart?

[Snuffel]

I've been following the Queen Elizabeth competition here in Belgium. In the semi finals all the candidates have to play a Mozart concerto. While the technical standards in the other repetoire are very high and sometimes astonishing (check out the 16 year old Wen-Yu Shen playing Petroeska for example www.vrt.be/vrt_master/kew/home) they nearly all struggle with Mozart giving wooden, charmless, nervy performances with many small technical fluffs. Is this maybe a reflection on the way young pianists are being trained today? Is there too much emphasis on technique at the expense of musicality?

[rachfan]

I think it's attributable to several factors.  First, much of Mozart's writing seems deceptively simple, but is actually complex.  As such the aim of making runs in Mozart, for example, sound like "strings of pearls" is often not as easy to achieve as one would hope.  Then too, the ornaments were written in a time of lighter action keyboards.  It is more difficult to play them smoothly on the heavier action modern pianos.  There are also the dictates of classical era "performance practices" that weigh on pianists' minds when performing.  That's why no risks are taken in competitions, and why the playing seems so mechanical and homogenized.  Yet another reason: if you have large hands, you're in trouble with Mozart before you even start.  Finally, the lines of Mozart's writing are so clean, that it leaves the pianist no place to hide--fluffs are readily apparent to the listener.  In the thicker textures of the Romantic and Neo-Romantic composers, the pianist can more easily cover up and gloss over errors.  Other than all this, playing Mozart is extremely easy!

[amee]

In Mozart, everything must have a certain simplicity and spontaniety in it.  Mozart once said the best performance of his music he had ever heard "made him forget he had composed it".  This was because the performer played it with such spontaniety it was like he had improvised it on the spot.

[MzrtMusic]

"The sonatas of Mozart are unique; they are too easy for children, and too difficult for adults."

Artur Schnabel

[Noah]

What did you think about the finalists ? I'm a bit surprised that some of these guys made it to the finals, mainly because of the way some played their Mozart concerto.
As to the answer to your question, I think Mozart is very difficult because it is very subjective, and also you can't hide anything. If someone playing Mozart is in a bad day, you'll hear it immediately

[roman]

Well mozart is the king of Classical Music and still is King.  No one will replace Mozart's music, for me as a pianist, I'm now working on Mozart's Fantasia in D-Minor, and I tell you if you look at the notes, you will laugh at how easy it is, but when you sit down and work for 3 hours straight and try to make it better and better, and in the end when you finally have achieved perfection, you will be shocked at the beauty of Mozart.

Mozart doesn't have anything fancy or crazy in his music, it's all simple and neat, but to play it like it's supposed to be played, you must achieve "perfection".

Mozart's music is perfection, Mozart's music is probably the most highpoint in human history.  I can sure bet you there isn't some Martzart on Mars composing beatiful symphonies and concerto's like Mozart.

[BoliverAllmon]

Agreed, Fantasia looks so simple, but the end product is difficult to accomplish with any kind of beauty. When one does accomplish this though it is as if the heavens opened up and a heavenly choir begins to sing.

Boliver Allmon

[Snuffel]

This is maybe changing the subject a little but after the finals of the QE competition there was an interesting discussion about the changing makeup of the finalists over the years.  
In particular the number of good  European and US candidates is getting smaller with each event.
The main points were - up to about 10 years ago the competition was dominated by the Russians, in general they were much better prepared tehnically and were more mature musically than the Europeans and Americans. There were also candidates from Asian countries who whilst being technically sound were musically niave and were almost always eliminated in the first round.
This has now changed, the Russians are no longer as strong, and although the competition was won by a German, 7 out of the 12 finalists were Asian and you certainly can no longer question their musicianship. Incidently there was not an American in sight.
Why is this? I think that the answer may lie in the way kids are trained and the other demands on their time. To build a really solid technique requires a lot of time, particularly during the teenage years, I have two teenage children and after allowing for school, homework, sports practice etc. they simply would not have time for more than an hour or two practice per day, I guess that the pattern is similar in the USA.
I would be particulary interested to hear from forum members from the Asian countries about how you are training your young talent as clearly you are doing something differently.

[jmanpno]

It's about the ability to do everything.  Not just one thing.

Yes I'm sure I want to respond.

The more I read this board, the more I feel i know it all lol

Not really, but stilll...

[bombergal1]

Because his music was so precisely written and any mistakes stand out like a sore thumb.  Also his techniques are difficult (lots of scales and broken chords).

[pianoplayjl]

The rhythm in his music. There is such a wide variety of notes in his music. IMO Mozart's music is not deceptively hard. It is hard already when I look at his scores. It once took me 3-4 weeks to understand a grade 5 Mozart piece.

JL

[danhuyle]

No clean get aways. Demands a lot of coloring of notes.

[jamaicaway]

Amazing. I had exactly the same reaction a couple of years ago when I attended the Busoni competition in Italy. The finalists were required to play a Mozart concerto, and they were almost uniformly dreadful: loud, bombastic, no phrasing, ugly ornaments. These were the same pianists who had given spectacular performances of Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Liszt et al. The Mozart was obviously ignored in the judges’ ratings.
On the other hand, I have heard children perform Mozart superbly at various music schools in the Boston area where I live. They played with spontaneity and ease, without the technical hangups that we all seem to develop as we overtrain and overpractice. And they seemed to enjoy it.
I think Mozart is difficult because:
You have to love every note, because technique and experience will not carry you through.
At the same time, your basic technique has to be flawless, even to execute the simple scales and arpeggios, which are so exposed.
Even though your playing must be flawless on the surface, you also have to articulate the underlying drama (like an opera).
There are too many things you have to do perfectly, with no safety nets, and yet you have to be spontaneous.
I think the piano parts of the violin sonatas are among the most difficult pieces to play.

[teccomin]

I havent touched Mozart for almost 10 years. The last time I played Mozart was the twinkle variations, and I found it really easy. Over the years I have played the Prokofievs, Chopins, Ravels etc and when I went back to the twinkle variations, I actually find it really hard. I did the runs okay, but I am not satisfied with the sound I am making. It feels like I am trying too hard to force a good sound, which in the end backfired.