Bach vs. Beethoven!

[Scriptavolant]

I'd rather consider Beethoven's first piano concertos to be virtuosic for the sake etc etc. Not his 4th and certainly not his 5th.
And I think Bach Keyboard concertos has very little to do with Romantic concertos. The aesthetical problem of a balanced integration between orchestra and soloist wasn't raised before Late-classical, Early Romantic period, that is not before the basso continuo practice had died.

And if we're talking about virtuosic onanism, there are at least two names that come into my mind..but let's not twist the knife in the wound 

[Gabriel]

The aesthetical problem of a balanced integration between orchestra and soloist wasn't raised before Late-classical, Early Romantic period, that is not before the basso continuo practice had died.

May I ask what, in your opinion, did Mozart do in this respect?

[Larry Rinkel]

A variation of "the form is the content, and the content is the form". Sounds clever, but remains a claim, I think, as it can´t be "proved".

My point is that what you're calling form and content are differences in your response to the work, not aspects of the work itself. It's not a clever McLuhanesque slogan at all. The same point can be made with regards to literature, where people often try to extract a "meaning" from a poem, as if it can be reduced to a few nuggets of wisdom that are divorced from the language. As I said earlier, a melody may move you, but the melody is the sum total of all the musical elements (pitch, rhythm, harmony, articulations, etc.) used to create it. I'm more than willing to grant you can approach the work emotionally or intellectually or both at different times, but not that this indicates a form-content dichotomy within the work itself.

[Scriptavolant]

May I ask what, in your opinion, did Mozart do in this respect?

For my taste his achievements in the Piano Concerto are unequalled. To me the K595 in B flat major is the greatest piano concerto ever.

[prémont]

My point is that what you're calling form and content are differences in your response to the work, not aspects of the work itself. .. I'm more than willing to grant you can approach the work emotionally or intellectually or both at different times, but not that this indicates a form-content dichotomy within the work itself.

Now you are much more clear, and now I can partially agree with you. I consider it to be self-understood, that my claimed "dichotomy" is a consequence of our human psychological mechanisms. But I dare to say, that these mechanisms exert their effects not only upon the listener, but upon the musicians and the composers as well. Music can´t express anything at all by itself, but as we have got rather strong culturally inherited musical emotional associations (compare f.x. the so called "affektlehre"), music acquires a more or less common accepted emotional content (at least in our western culture), and the composers know this and of course use it in composition. I have not claimed that the "content" of music was anything else than the affect or emotion it provokes in us as intended by the composers. Music is as much a psychological as a technical phenomenon.

[Haffner]

For my taste his achievements in the Piano Concerto are unequalled. To me the K595 in B flat major is the greatest piano concerto ever.

Outstanding choice, S. And I'm pretty much with you on this one. Pretty much any of the PCs after and including k467.

[George]

Outstanding choice, S. And I'm pretty much with you on this one. Pretty much any of the PCs after and including k467.

Don't you mean K466? 

[karlhenning]

Form and content are two aspects of the piece;  there is some degree of overlap;  yet, too, they address different planes.  It isn't like a pie-graph (Form 19%, Content 81%);  there is neither exact sharing/complementation, nor clean opposition.

An earlier comment that musical content determines form (that, for instance, there is always one best form for any particular musical content), is not always applicable in the same way or degree.  It is not difficult to find a given musical artifact ('content') which readily inhabits a variety of musical forms/contexts.

[Haffner]

Don't you mean K466? 

Actually, now that I stopped being "duh" and writing without thinking, yes George. And sincere thanks for the correction!

[George]

Actually, now that I stopped being "duh" and writing without thinking, yes George. And sincere thanks for the correction!

*Breathes a sigh of relief*

[Gabriel]

For my taste his achievements in the Piano Concerto are unequalled. To me the K595 in B flat major is the greatest piano concerto ever.

Thanks for your reply, to which I agree wholeheartedly in its first part. On the specific favourite concerto we could have some differences.

[karlhenning]

No great composers achievements are ever "equalled" by the achievements even of other great composers.  "Equation" has no meaning here.

Just saying.

I love the great Mozart piano concerti.  And I love the Liszt concerti, the Chopin concerti, the Saint-Saëns concerti, the Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Rakhmaninov, Prokofiev and Stravinsky concerti.  It is technically correct to say that Mozart remains "unequalled," but I do not at all consider that to mean that any of these other concerti are in the least "second tier."

[karlhenning]

(Gosh, and here I didn't even mention the Beethoven piano concerti, and he's in the title of the thread . . . .)

[prémont]

No great composers achievements are ever "equalled" by the achievements even of other great composers.  "Equation" has no meaning here.

Yes, I think you could say, that every great composer has got his own personal style, where he is unequalled. The personal style is the characteristic trait of a great composer, and the reason, why we often recognize him at once, even if we don´t know the work in question.

[BachQ]

I love the great Mozart piano concerti.  And I love the Liszt concerti, the Chopin concerti, the Saint-Saëns concerti, the Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Rakhmaninov, Prokofiev and Stravinsky concerti.  It is technically correct to say that Mozart remains "unequalled," but I do not at all consider that to mean that any of these other concerti are in the least "second tier."

Elgar's Piano Concerto ......

[karlhenning]

Wicked, mon vieux, wicked! 

[Ten thumbs]

In my opinion, D minor, the integration of piano and orchestra in Mozart's music is exemplary not just in the minor-keyed concerti, but in general in the mature concerti. He had a "concertante" logic which was, by the way, not only important for the concertos, but also for his operas.

When I was young, Mozart was God, Bach and Beethoven his angels. I would add that many of the concertos you criticize for their virtuosity actually have a very sound underlying structure. The embellishments are merely added to suit public taste. The very essence of the Baroque was embellishment and Classicism returned to simple uncluttered style.

[Gabriel]

When I was young, Mozart was God, Bach and Beethoven his angels. I would add that many of the concertos you criticize for their virtuosity actually have a very sound underlying structure. The embellishments are merely added to suit public taste. The very essence of the Baroque was embellishment and Classicism returned to simple uncluttered style.

Sorry, but I guess I don't remember the concertos I criticized for their virtuosity.

[BachQ]

The embellishments are merely added to suit public taste.

Of course, but if the embellishments are extraneous to the underlying motivic and organic structure of the piece, then they would be excised and excluded by Brahms, Beethoven, and, to a great extent, Mozart.

[Norbeone]

Of course, but if the embellishments are extraneous to the underlying motivic and organic structure of the piece, then they would be excised and excluded by Brahms, Beethoven, and, to a great extent, Mozart.

And Bach, to go back further.