The Greatest Symphony and the Greatest Violin Concerto

We wonder together, Juji.

If I had to pick or face the California Collar, I would say that the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto and--

*Is hanged for not having a favorite symphony*

You are all so yesterday! The greatest Violin Concerto's are those of Paganini. Sometimes, he makes me cry. ALL of his concerto's are sentimental with loads of good melodies, good orchestration, virtuoso technique and originality. I strongly reccomend the recordings of Shmeul Ashkenazy to anyone who is new with Paganini.

Some feats:

- Sliding on 2 strings while changing position (ex. major third to a minor third)

- Incredibly fast music, played as overtones.

- Incredible leaps

- Super fast arpeggios

- Chromatics and scales worked into the melody.

- Plucking and bowing at the same time (at a HEAVY speed)

Above all, Paganini has written some VERY charming melodies. I weep before the great one! Paganini the master of melody!

*shrug* I don't know why people enjoy bashing Tchaikovsky...I think it's just because he wasn't appreciated at his time, and people feel the need to continue it, regardless of his music...*cough*...right...

anyway, for best symphony I'm going to have to go with the Sibelius 2...wonderfully written....

and what about the Mahler 1?!? Personally, I think the 1 trumps his others. I'm also a tchaik 4 fan...

and for violin concerto, I'm going to have to go with the Barber. And, of course, the mend and beethoven are close seconds.

In terms of Violin Concertos I can't comment other than to say I hate the instrument as a concerto instrument.

As far as a Symphony, Mahler's 2nd Symphony (Resurection) is way above anything Tchaik, Beethoven, Prokofiev, Shotakovich, Brahms, and Hayden wrote. He had a perception of spiritual enlightenment that is unparralelled within the composers' world. No composer has ever reached that height. And I love Tchaikovsky, I can't get enough of his 2nd, 6th, 4th, 1st, 5th, 3rd (in that order). But Mahler was able to surpass that.

Mozart's symphonies are great, but easily overshadowed by other giants like Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Dvorak, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, etc.

That's quite a statement. I just listened to some Mahler and it just sounds like tiresomely plodding, rambling nonsense, like a million advertising jingles stuck together. Perhaps what I need is some guidance on what to listen for. To be frank, it strikes me as a case of quantity over quality ... the kind of thing that would excite a Bernstein.

It would do me a great favor if you would list a handful of symphonies from those composers that would you rate above Mozarts. I would also appreciate it if you also provided some instruction as to what it is that you feel makes those symphonies "great". Thanks.

That's quite a statement. I just listened to some Mahler and it just sounds like tiresomely plodding, rambling nonsense, like a million advertising jingles stuck together. Perhaps what I need is some guidance on what to listen for. To be frank, it strikes me as a case of quantity over quality ... the kind of thing that would excite a Bernstein.

It would do me a great favor if you would list a handful of symphonies from those composers that would you rate above Mozarts. I would also appreciate it if you also provided some instruction as to what it is that you feel makes those symphonies "great". Thanks.

I don't see why anyone would bother, considering all you would do is say "Nah Mozart is better. Thanks for playing!" and that'd be it. Why not go look them up yourself and decide invariably that Mozart is superior?

Cheap shots? Me? What!

"Tiresomely plodding, rambling nonsense"?! Are you reffering to Mozsrt now? I think it's a very accurate description of his work.

"Tiresomely plodding, rambling nonsense"?! Are you reffering to Mozsrt now? I think it's a very accurate description of his work.

Even Bernstein would disagree.

In this clip he describes how Mozart used "free chromaticism" and "wild, atonal sounding" passages without abandoning musicality. Here he discusses Mozart's Symphony # 40 (G Minor):

Bernstein then says that if he had to point to one work that "symbolized in itself the essence of the whole Faustian experience of man since the Rennaisance" this would be it. Clearly this guy is a master of self-promotion (he probably wrote the line the night before and rehearsed in front of a mirror) but that's quite a statement:

It's great that you like Mozart. That doesn't mean you have to make it known in every post. Chill.

It's great that you like Mozart. That doesn't mean you have to make it known in every post. Chill.

Are you saying I should I refrain from responding to those who replied to my post?

No, I'm saying that it's entirely unnecessary to go around repeating the same thing you always say, "Mozart is the best and no one can ever surpass him."

No, I'm saying that it's entirely unnecessary to go around repeating the same thing you always say, "Mozart is the best and no one can ever surpass him."

1) I've never made such a simple unqualified statement. Please read my past posts. I've only said that Mozart had the greatest musical mind, not that his music was always the best.

2) Isn't the purpose of this entire thread to state which is the best symphony? Someone suggested that a large number of composers have written better symphonies than Mozart and I asked for an explanation of that statement since my experience with the music of some of those composers has been less than satisfactory. My post was perfectly within the purpose of this thread. The sentiment expressed in the last four posts addressed to me by others (you included) in this discussion forum have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.

1) I've never made such a simple unqualified statement. Please read my past posts. I've only said that Mozart had the greatest musical mind, not that his music was always the best.

2) Isn't the purpose of this entire thread to state which is the best symphony? Someone suggested that a large number of composers have written better symphonies than Mozart and I asked for an explanation of that statement since my experience with the music of some of those composers has been less than satisfactory. My post was perfectly within the purpose of this thread. The sentiment expressed in the last four posts addressed to me by others (you included) in this discussion forum have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.

Actually, your signature says it, and in a rather unflattering and insulting manner for the rest of us.

And I can think of so many symphonies that are "better" in my opinion than Mozart's. Does it make me right? No. Does it make YOU right? Even less so.

What's annoying about your posts isn't that you continuously (ad nauseam, actually) repeat that Mozart is the best, and no one compares to him, and blah blah blah...

It's that you do it without giving any reason for us to be interested in what you have to say.

You just sound like a narrow-minded little fan-boy who blindly repeats something he read in some opinionated book one day.

BOOOOORING.

actually, your signature says it, and in a rather unflattering and insulting manner for the rest of us.

Yeah, your [seraphim's] signature is pretty silly really.

Sure, Mozart was a genius, but that doesn't make subsequent great composers into mediocrities. They're still great composers. You need to be a little less na

I don't know if Mozart really was a Genious. Very little of his music is original. No one can come up with 41 symphonies of original material in a lifetime. He had incredible technique of music which enabled him to compose. But his music is very "the same." I think the Requiem is an interesting exception to the rule, even though it has it's banalities at times. Though this may be because 80% of it wasn't written by Mozart himself.

And yes, in case no one noticed, I do not like Mozart.

Though this may be because 80% of it wasn't written by Mozart himself.

Care to elaborate? I'm not challenging you, I know nothing about this and would simply like to know more... Can you prove that?

He may be referring to the fact that Mozart's music was made up of traditional conventions and that formulas wrote the music rather than him for the most part. (Though it's arguable how much creativity vs how much influence went into his compositions, it's not something we can really know exactly. Though he copied and took a lot from other composers of his time and previous, so did everyone else.)

But what's interesting by Mozart is the entire evolution of his style over the years until he began experimenting and his music started to sound very differently. And then he died. Lame.

Though I guess it's easier to generalize and ignore that Mozart was a living breathing person who learned and grew as he lived and that invariably that growth as an artist is also reflected in his pieces as time went by.

Actually, your signature says it

On the contrary, the signature says the best among us, meaning people on this forum, and is particularly pointed at people who claim mozarts music was a result of some theoretically derived formula (goes back to some of my earlier discussions on this forum with Mozart-bashers). If you read my earlier posts the reason for this signature will become abundantly clear.

, and in a rather unflattering and insulting manner for the rest of us.

So when someone says that they consider Mahler better than anyone of us do you (and should I) feel equally insulted?

And I can think of so many symphonies that are "better" in my opinion than Mozart's. Does it make me right? No. Does it make YOU right? Even less so.

How does that make me any less right than you?

What's annoying about your posts isn't that you continuously (ad nauseam, actually) repeat that Mozart is the best, and no one compares to him, and blah blah blah...

I've never said that his music was the best. In fact, I've provided evidence that might contradict such a claim.

It's that you do it without giving any reason for us to be interested in what you have to say.

So in the future, instead of qualifying my statements or providing examples of music or quotes from respected composers and conductors (I think I'm the only one here who bothers to do that) I'll just make broad, simplistic statements like "mahler is far beyond Tchaikovsky" or composers w, x, y and z were far better than Mozart.

You just sound like a narrow-minded little fan-boy who blindly repeats something he read in some opinionated book one day.

BOOOOORING.

Sad to see you descend to personal insults.

I was actually reffering to S

Though I guess it's easier to generalize and ignore that Mozart was a living breathing person who learned and grew as he lived and that invariably that growth as an artist is also reflected in his pieces as time went by.

Based on your past posts, this appears to be directed at me but it's quite mistaken. I've never said that mozart did not develop over time. What I said is that he didnt let a book or some collection of theories tell him which note to write next. What he learned pver time he internalized so well that it forged his imagination and his music flowed from that imagination rather than from a formula. Music like his cannot be created through automation. Many have tried and the results have been embarrassingly bad.

I don't know if Mozart really was a Genious. Very little of his music is original. No one can come up with 41 symphonies of original material in a lifetime. He had incredible technique of music which enabled him to compose. But his music is very "the same." I think the Requiem is an interesting exception to the rule, even though it has it's banalities at times. Though this may be because 80% of it wasn't written by Mozart himself.

And yes, in case no one noticed, I do not like Mozart.

What's remarkable is that people on this forum who know better but are quick to attack me without reading my posts have not corrected you.

This really shouldn't have turned into a huge conversation on whether Mozart was good or not, I apologize. But, just to clarify, Mozart wrote in the accepted "forms" of the 18th century. He followed sonata form, wrote fugues as they had been written since the baroque period, followed Haydn's example in his string quartets, and and wrote in the traditional symphony form that was to hold for years. So yes, Mozart did use "formulas."

I don't know if Mozart really was a Genious. Very little of his music is original. No one can come up with 41 symphonies of original material in a lifetime. He had incredible technique of music which enabled him to compose. But his music is very "the same." I think the Requiem is an interesting exception to the rule, even though it has it's banalities at times. Though this may be because 80% of it wasn't written by Mozart himself.

And yes, in case no one noticed, I do not like Mozart.

Check your facts. And not on wikipedia.

This really shouldn't have turned into a huge conversation on whether Mozart was good or not, I apologize. But, just to clarify, Mozart wrote in the accepted "forms" of the 18th century. He followed sonata form, wrote fugues as they had been written since the baroque period, followed Haydn's example in his string quartets, and and wrote in the traditional symphony form that was to hold for years. So yes, Mozart did use "formulas."

Check your facts. And not on wikipedia.

And formulas that he got out of other composers. So replace "theory books" with "Bach (family)" and "Haydn" and you have the same exact result.

;P

This really shouldn't have turned into a huge conversation on whether Mozart was good or not, I apologize. But, just to clarify, Mozart wrote in the accepted "forms" of the 18th century. He followed sonata form, wrote fugues as they had been written since the baroque period, followed Haydn's example in his string quartets, and and wrote in the traditional symphony form that was to hold for years. So yes, Mozart did use "formulas."

Writing in a certain style is completely different from creating music through the use of formulas or theories. Mozart wrote in the styles in which he was paid to compose. What's remarkable is how much creativity comes through despite such restrictions. Bernstein did a fabulous breakdown of the 40th symphony and the remarkable concepts within such as how in one atonal sounding passage mozart uses all twelve chromatic tones except for the tonic.

And formulas that he got out of other composers. So replace "theory books" with "Bach (family)" and "Haydn" and you have the same exact result.

;P

A musical form gives you (at best) a skeletal structure but the notes don't write themselves. The melody, the counterpoint, the chord progressions, transitions, etc.... and how they all tie together comes entirely from ones imagination. If this was all so simple and "automatic" then anyone could have written the first movement of the 40th symphony or the last movement of the 41st. The fact is, no one has. Haydn spent his remaining years trying and failing.