Mozart sonatas

I've been analyzing some Mozart sonatas and didn't know they were so simple, I mean they are 2 + 2 = 4. I thought WTF they are all the same thing but after hearing them again just for joy I allmost cryed they are justo so...... (sorry, no word exists for this). I mean even the name M.O.Z.A.R.T makes me laugh for sweetnes his an angel.

Yeah, Mozart was pretty good.

Aye, sometimes they can really touch you, but other times Mozart's style just doesn't appeal to me.

simplicity and beauty are two completely different things. Some of mozarts pieces are just so right on.

I think I may know how you feel jsoldi. Mozart can be a marvel of clarity, of what is absolutely right in music, and taking the time to study him in depth can reveal things that seem miraculous. I have tried to emulate his aesthetic in my own music to the extent I'm able, with varying degrees of success. I've long since despaired of ever getting it absolutely right, because I'm not Mozart.

Lately I find myself restless and hungry for something less perfect, yet still satisfying. I'm studying the Mannhein symphonists again, as well as other composers of the Galant/Rococo aesthetics. I've also taken an intense liking to Anton Reicha (1770-1836), a contemporary and friend of Beethoven who was highly individual in his musical expression, much the way composers such as Boccherini and Scarlatti were (though for different reasons; the latter were Italian expatriates who settled in Spain and came by their individuality through isolation, whereas Reicha spent his career in Vienna and Paris in the thick of musical society and still went his own way...a very different path from Beethoven, by the way, who respected him greatly).

I guess I find myself wanting to explore a different corner of the same Classical box I've sealed myself into, diametrically opposite from the one Mozart occupies.

Rainbows, I don't think jsoldi was casting aspersions at Mozart here. I assumed from his tone that he was sharing his awe at the wonderful simplicity of Mozart's approach as he observed it while analyzing his sonatas - a sentiment some of us share. I know that when I find something amazing, I like to share it with others.

Being that you are new here, I'm a bit surprised at your attitude. If you like, you could always raise the level of conversation a knotch by saying something helpful yourself.

Here's hoping that your experience of YC improves from here. As a senior member here, I can tell you that there is much of value here if you're open to it. Of course, I'm firmly of the belief that most people create their experience, and it usually mirrors their own attitude. What are you looking for, anyway?

Just because I'm a stickler (and a jerk)...

Mozart didn't have 600 opus numbers... he has around 700 pieces to his catalogue's name (or something around there).

Ok, I've said it.

To comment on the actual topic, however- I find Mozart to embody simplicity... in a good way. His themes have a very "tunelike" quality to them and he almost never abandons himself in his piano concertos to sheer virtuosity. I'm playing his first flute concerto (in G), and nothing is hard there, it's definately in the "I need to practice this two or three times before I perform it technically" category, but it's so beautiful, it's worth weeks of practice to get the interpretation "just right."

Unfortunately, I have found myself unable to foster anything more than an appreciation of Mozart's innate ability to compose balanced, pleasant music. In lack of the inborn taste for his music that J.L. Graham (and possibly Jsoldi) possesses, it's proved incredibly difficult for me to grow into a liking of his style.

I don't want to make sweeping aspersions as to why I don't enjoy Mozart's output (partly because I daresay they'll be precisely the reasons others adore it), except to say that had Mozart not died at such an horrifically young age, I may well have been telling quite a different story. To continue the thread of discussion however (and completely contravene the noble promise I made at the start of this paragraph), it's precisely the balance and 'simplicity' of Mozart's music that fails to move me. I find it oh-so-easy to listen to, but nigh impossible to listen to. With the exception of the opening of the Dissonance Quartet, the Adagio and Fugue (either for string quartet or two pianos) and Symphonies 40 & 41, I've found most Mozart rather uninteresting. If anyone can suggest output of his that's similar to these, then I'll certainly give it a try. Sadly, the majority I've encountered to this date falls into the 'super-naive theme' / 'aeroplane-takeoff music' category.

I feel inclined to concur with Alma Mahler, when she wrote, after an 1899 performance of a Mozart Symphony that, 'Times have changed. Nowadays nobody wants such hyper-naive themes.'

Mozart neither. Check KV 511, A rondo in A minor which is VERY untypical for his style, written in 1787 it showcases traces of a quasi anachronistic polystylism. One of the parts of the rondo is done entirely in counterpoint (not just any counterpoint, but Bach's exact style near the end) the cadence is very untypical for using a napolitan subdominant chord in a progression which constitutes the only singe example of such usage for the entire Vienna Classic period, nevermind that the form is uncertain and includes a lot of elements later found by the beginning of the romantic period, such as fake harmonies, faux bourdon in chromantics, etc etc. The beginning itself is VERY untypical for Mozart or the Vienna classic, you can hear it right away.

Also very atypical for composers to even write single pieces (at the time), but since the rondo was written before any sonata, it couldn't be integrated into a sonata because the sonata would be extremely weird because of the elements in the rondo (As the most important movement is the FIRST movement in a sonata, it'd be REALLY strange if the first two would be less strange than the ending. He'd have to write the other movements just as strange (for his style) or write them as to compensate for the ending, which would be also atypical.)

Mozart started to get really interesting, then he died. Lame.

I'm familiar KV511, it's very interesting, though I'm not convinced that it's quite as 'untypical' as you imply. The fact is, this very experimentation is a hallmark of the late Mozart's style. I'd not noticed any Bach pastiche in KV511, but his Fugue in G minor (KV401-375e) showcases Mozart's seemingly underexploited skill for neo-baroque counterpoint brilliantly. Actually, I've always thought KV511's opening statements are rather suggestive of Chopin.

If you're interested, other less orthodox pieces of Mozart I've enjoyed are:

The 'Modulating prelude' in F major-E minor (KV deest)

Eine kleine Gigue in G (KV574)

Allegro in G min (KV312-590d)

Kleiner Trauermarsch in C min (KV453a)

Each of these works hints at developments which would take another half-century to reappear, and, as I'm sure you're aware, most were written around the time Mozart started drawing heavily upon the late baroque tradition. In all honesty, I think the music I'll like is there, hidden amidst Mozart's nigh-superhuman oeuvre. I just need to locate it.

I'm familiar KV511, it's very interesting, though I'm not convinced that it's quite as 'untypical' as you imply. The fact is, this very experimentation is a hallmark of the late Mozart's style. I'd not noticed any Bach pastiche in KV511, but his Fugue in G minor (KV401-375e) showcases Mozart's seemingly underexploited skill for neo-baroque counterpoint brilliantly. Actually, I've always thought KV511's opening statements are rather suggestive of Chopin.

If you're interested, other less orthodox pieces of Mozart I've enjoyed are:

The 'Modulating prelude' in F major-E minor (KV deest)

Eine kleine Gigue in G (KV574)

Allegro in G min (KV312-590d)

Kleiner Trauermarsch in C min (KV453a)

Each of these works hints at developments which would take another half-century to reappear, and, as I'm sure you're aware, most were written around the time Mozart started drawing heavily upon the late baroque tradition. In all honesty, I think the music I'll like is there, hidden amidst Mozart's nigh-superhuman oeuvre. I just need to locate it.

Well, if you got a score on you, the Bach-sounding part is measure 163 till 173. It's VERY clear what he was basing the section on (2 voice inventions, which Mozart is known to have studied in depth.)

Either way, it IS atypical for the entire period, and compared to his early work it's very strange. I mean the form is already very very strange, it's no bow-rondo or sonata-rondo, and there are passages such as the chromatic faux bourdon in measure 69 which can't be analyzed with functional harmony at all. Nevermind that, ontop of this he adds passing notes. It's very disorienting, and to the audience of his time it must've sounded extremely difficult to hear. It also explains the rather long pedals at the end of these passages, as Mozart was still working with the principle of balance (the pedal is longer because the parts where harmony is unclear are already long, and many.)

Besides the Kleine Gigue, there's a Menuett (KV 355) which he wrote in 1789, again as a single movement thing (he couldn't place it in a sonata, for the same reasons as the rondo in A minor.) It's also extremely weird for the style and it contains no trio (which is to establish a very simple harmony/form to contrast the experimental/more elaborate harmony and motive work that comes before), which is very strange. But upon further analysis, it's also clear that he worked the purpose of the trio within the two parts of the Menuett, such as the last 5 measures from the first part, and the last 5 from the second.

The second part has a very characteristic dissonance at the very beginning (suspension, yet it's not heard as such) and the piece itself uses augmented chords in which is not very typical for the Vienna classic harmony.

And so on~ It's very fun stuff to analyze.

PS: Oh, of course, check out the works for clock organ if you haven't, haha.

Yes, KV355 is surprising; I certainly agree that it's atypical for the entire period of Mozart's output. I do however continue to assert that the bizarre sorts of thing you list above are exactly the kind Mozart appears to have found most interesting in the years before his death. Even the first subject of Symphony No. 40 reveals the broad spectrum of invention sought to explore at that time; the alarming rapidity with which the orchestra leaves the tonic, the unclear harmonic centre, the fact that the melody isn't centred around the tonic or dominant, instead begining on the submediant....

I agree, it's marvellous to analyse.

Yes, KV355 is surprising; I certainly agree that it's atypical for the entire period of Mozart's output. I do however continue to assert that the bizarre sorts of thing you list above are exactly the kind Mozart appears to have found most interesting in the years before his death. Even the first subject of Symphony No. 40 reveals the broad spectrum of invention sought to explore at that time; the alarming rapidity with which the orchestra leaves the tonic, the unclear harmonic centre, the fact that the melody isn't centred around the tonic or dominant, instead begining on the submediant....

I agree, it's marvellous to analyse.

Well, obviously it's the direction he was heading into. Very backwards and forwards at the same time, but it doesn't represent either his overall style nor the time he lived in if we go by statistics. That's what I mean.

I agree, though we'll never know in which direction he was truly headed. What makes me pensive is that these works represent a style that could have been! Thankfully, they weren't a musical dead end. Other composers took up the pen more or less where Mozart left off, even if it took some time.

As well as the great pieces already listed, I suggest listening very closely to the slow movements of the late symphonies - especially the last three or four and especially the Jupiter's slow movement. It's full of very odd things.

Also worth checking out (as a curiosity) is the Suite in the style of Handel K.399.

Whether or not it is actually in the style of Handel is up for debate, but it's a great piece of neo-baroque.

Btw, I think if anything is na

I think there can be something quite alluring to music that is "unbearably perfect". It's not something that lets you easily dive into, like a Schumann piece for example, because of its perfect, "glossy" surface, but that's exactly what makes it mysterious again. (Not unlike Debussy, for example). Everything fits so well that you don't even notice all the curious details and structural intricacies. It plays with beauty and seduction, but still never lets you get quite into it, like a mirror. It's exactly this aspect that makes music like this so fascinting to me.

It is however something that much music just doesn't succeed in. There's lots of music that seems to go for "perfection" which does nothing for me and ends up simply sounding boring. In Mozarts music it's the combination of this outward perfection and simplicity with inner structural refinement to a great degree and possibly something third, artistic, undefineable, which again is in my opinion quite similar to Debussy's music.

Mozart isn't very easy to listen to... because it's so easy.

P.S. I find nothing wrong with the term "naive". I don't find it negative in the least. Many of the artists (not just musicians) I enjoy most have been called "naive" and even with some justification. I find naivity desirable.

Well, I have to agree that Mozart hit his stride about the mid 1770's with some early exceptions. A sonata which is a precurser to the Romantic era (among others) is the Sonata in a minor. The development section of the first movement is quite "experimental" for Mozart for the contrasts of pp anf ff and the harmonic movement and thematic development. Also, the second movement in F major was very unusual harmonic choice for his time (with that great middle section in c minor and the seconds -- one of my favorite musical moments!). You really start to hear stuff like that when you get toward the end of Beethoven's early period.

Also a sonata I always find fascinating and where Mozart seems forward looking when using very old fashioned devices --- the Sonata in D major, K 576. The canonic treatment of the themes create such odd harmonic movement due to how soon the second voice starts (in the end it serves a very orthodox purpose -- to move to the dominant but at times you wonder if you are in the ii/II area). The second movement has this neo baroque improvisatory line that seems to obliterate the melody (and there is a chromatic movement spread between various voices -- see mm 26 - 30). The only movement that is traditional is the third mvmt.

Also, I disagree that Mozart's phrase and bar structure tends to 2 + 2. Some of his works yes but the majority in his maturity no. For example, the Sonata in F KV 332 opening theme 11 2/3 long (4+4+3 2/3). It seems 2+2 or 4+4 because Mozart in this instance finds ways to delay the arrival to cadence. I do think some of it was the influence of CPE Bach and to a lesser extent Hadyn.

But I don't listen to his works often -- though he is always a great reference.

I adore the sonata in A minor, to the extent that I found the time to learn it a couple of years agi. One the problems I (not an especially proficient pianist) found with most of the others was that despite being hugely fiddly, they generally sounded far easier to play than they really were.

It seems, strangely, that most of the works people have picked out are the minority that I've found approachable. I'm listening to the Clarinet Concerto in A as I write this, and it's growing on me.

Zetetic -

Actually that is a common problem with the Hadyn Sonatas (starting from 1771) and the Mozart sonatas. It is quite easy to get careless with the articulations and play them with a moire late romantic gesture (a good example is playing the cadences correctly. Any undue emphasis on the tonic chord when it is written a shorter value than the dominant preceding it can result in a premature sense of finality which, in turn, can have the phrase sound very square). BTW, don't underestimate your pianism the a minor sonata is one of the most difficult Mozart sonatas to play well - especially the second movement.

I just wanted to thank everyone who has recommended pieces by Mozart. I mainly listen to Beethoven onwards, with the occasional time travel back to Bach. Now I have wonderful Mozart pieces in my listening repetoire, thanks again fellas.

I'm listening to KV399 currently, and was just about to write a praiseworthy review of the opening Ouverture-Allegro (it appears the suite was left unfinished), when I heard three, consecutive parallel fifths blare out from my PC speakers! Other than that hiccough though, the work is really rather interesting.

So what about'em parallels? It builds CHARACTER.

Brahms kept a catalogue of P5s and 8ves because when a genius does it, there might well be a good reason behind it. ;)

Also - which passage? (what bars?)

Actually that is a common problem with the Hadyn Sonatas (starting from 1771) and the Mozart sonatas.

And how. I've been trying to learn a Haydn sonata for a year; deceptively difficult. I gave up on the Beethoven Op. 14 in G I was messing with.

Some of the most difficult pre-late Romantic keyboard music to play very well is Hadyn --- especially the late sonatas. Partly because it works much better on the pianoforte (The Viennese ones not the English broadwoods which led to the modern pianos - the Viennesse ones had a lighter frame -- I believe all wood. I know this only because I had the rare opportunity to write for one) and the articulations.

Hmm the Op14 no 1 has a tough 1st movement because the theme is so rhythmically strange --- you really have to count. Anyway I am going off topic. Keep at the sonatas.