Chopin only wrote 2 piano concertos while Mozart wrote over 20 (except a first few as arrangements of other's work), among which some are the all time greatest and not surpassed or equaled by any but Beethoven's. so, from this aspect, Mozart is unquestionable the greatest. Chopin after all is from a different era, so that his piano music is much more advanced technically than Mozart's. they are not quite comparable in many aspects.

WHAT??¿¿?

You can't compare them. The answer is so obvious (signa )

?¿¿? ?¿¿? ?¿¿? ?¿¿?

Danor, I think your keyboard is broken.

First tell me what were the norms were in 1780 and then I'll show you how Mozart innovated in every genre he composed.

haha, don't get all the credit Brendan. I can do that too hehehe.

I think his keyboard is Spanish... ;-)

Calin

I think Mozart's music had great emotional depth. Even the sunniest of his major key movements often feature some have violent and/or pathetic outburst in a minor key that changes your entire perception of the opening material. His minor key sturm and drang works rival beethoven for the sheer effortlessness with which they create intensity.

I appreciate his smoothness, the way he manages to weave seamlingly unrelated ideas together and such a way that it seems perfect and completely impossible to improve. His style of musical development is a compelling mix of the procedural and the pre-fabricated. His style certainly has never been duplicated.

He went his own way at times. He was adventurous with form (eg. Variation openings and Finales of k331 and k491), harmony (eg. the little Gigue) and counterpoint (eg. Jupiter Symphony). I rate him as the master of the Sonata-Rondo. Certainly, every form he touched (which is basically every form that existed in his day) he advanced it in some way. His contemporaries sometimes complained that his music had "too many notes" (he lost commision for his piano quartets becuase they were too difficult) and they often found the emotional abivalence of his works diffuclt to grasp. IMO, it's really important to judge Mozart music in the context of his times.

Anyway enough Mozart advocacy, Chopin is great too. The first time I heard his etudes I was floored. It sounded like several instruments were being played. While practicing one of them my father said the same thing so I think his writing really broadened the voice of the instrument. I rate his etudes has the best things he wrote.

Yay! I though I was the only person that felt this way. The one that Beethoven clearly modelled after one of Mozarts (no 3 after no. 24) most clearly reveals the latter's superiority in this regard. In Mozart's concerto the piano sings, it's brilliant figuration evoking the outline of the main themes, in Beethoven's it makes loud barking outbursts in parallel octaves. Mozart's just seems smoother and more perfectly proportioned. Alot of his music feels that way.

[lol, I think I misread your post. What a difference the word 'but' makes. I don't think piano concertos is an area where Beethoven surpassed Mozart.]

What's wrong with happy music, by the way?
Sometimes I like Mozart precisely because his music is so happy, but this is not the only reason I like it.

Calin

OK. It seems like were having three discussions in one here. So, let's separate the three. I want to point out that I would not want to be without either Chopin OR Mozart. But, there are distinctions.

When it comes to overall musical content over a variety of genres, Mozart was the master. He wrote operas, symphonies, concertos, choral works, chamber music and instrumental music--all superbly. No composer in history has equalled Mozart's mastery over such a diverse group of works. Chopin wrote mostly solo piano works, a few songs, a very few chamber works, and two piano concertos which are incompetently orchestrated.

Mozart generally worked within the accepted forms of his time--but he was more than willing to bend the rules when it suited him. Take that A major Sonata, K. 331. It starts with a Theme and Variations, which is certainly not the norm. Chopin generally worked within accepted frameworks as well. Nearly every piece in his output has a generic title: Waltz, Mazurka, Nocturne, Sonata. No Kreisleriana-type works for Chopin!

Now we get to the discussion of pianistics. I feel there is no question here: Chopin was the greater innovator. His piano writing was so bizarre and revolutionary he had to compose two sets of Etudes just to catalogue it. As a friend of mine once said, if you compare what was being written previously, it would seem as if Chopin came from Mars. Very little of Mozart's piano works show any sign of pianistic invention. Clementi, a far weaker composer musically, was pianistically light years ahead of Mozart. So was D. Scarlatti.

Nicely summerised.

Allazart, i know you're all for Mozart, but i am all for Beethoven. so, don't make me argue with you .

I think you are forgetting that pianos were few and far between when Mozart started writing for them. Mozart had to make the transition from harpsichord to piano. He invented everything that he did on them. He set the standard, and did it so well that we still think of it as absolutely standard 300 years later.

Well, I never question his abilities as a composer and a pianist, but I don't think he realy did anything for music. I know that this is wrong, but it's my idea. I don't find originality in his music where as when you hear Beethoven, Mozart or Schubert, you realy see it there. His music just makes me sea sick :rolleyes: . I much prefer Mozart and Beethoven. Schnabel said upon being asked why he doesn't play Chopin: I don't like him, he doesn't offer me any problem or anything to think about." It's the same case for me, it doesn't offer me anything to think about, it's there for couple of minutes and then it's gone (for me).

I'll second that. Go Beethoven!!! and Mozart

same reason I don't care for the bulk of mozart's stuff.

I'll say this, being a pianist I much more enjoy playing chopin than mozart. But being a musician, I only like to listen to (and you could also say perform) pieces that I enjoy.

I'm selfish that way.

I guess it's whatever sounds better. Some chopin is and some is . So is some mozart.

That being said, I'm currently not working on any Chopin but am working on a Mozart sonata.

I am not aware of any accredited source which quotes such a statement from Schnabel. Indeed, in the 1920s, Schnabel played Chopin regularly. Vladimir Horowitz recalled a "magnificent" performance of Chopin's B-flat Sonata given by Schnabel in 1925.

Schnabel DID say that the reason he didn't play certain composers was that he preferreed to limit himself to music which was impossible to do justice to. Still, that didn't stop him from playing Chopin and Liszt during his early days. And let's not forget, just as much as anything by Mozart, Chopin's Polonaise-Fantasie is also "better than it can be played."

No, I'm not forgetting anything of the kind. As one who has played on both original and recreated "period" instruments, I well know the kind of "pianos" Mozart played. I stand by my previous statement: Clementi was light years ahead of Mozart in terms of the quality of his writing for the piano--and so was Haydn. D. Scarlatti didn't even have pianos at his disposal, and still his writing calls for modern fingering and modern technique.

Hank, Domenico Scarlatti HAD pianos at his disposal (at the court). Either those made by Bartolomeo Cristofori himself, or by his disciple.

Calin