Grasshopper

Well, you picked quite a challenging example... the most beautiful Adagio among the 23 (or 27 if we include the first 4, which are transcriptions) Piano Concertos, and one of Mozart's most beautiful works overall. On the Concerto K488 here on debaser, there’s also an excellent review written by a guy who, despite signing as GeorgeWBush, knew what he was talking about. Too bad it was only for a brief time on this site.

@NOfake: about the average quality of classical music. In my area, there is a radio station (Radio Toscana Classica, born from a branch of the glorious Radio Montebeni) that broadcasts classical music 24 hours a day. Having to fill such a wide time span, it necessarily has to draw from lesser-known composers and lesser works by the more famous ones. I can assure you that, even for a passionate listener like me, there are sometimes hours of really insignificant broadcasts: works by contemporary court musicians of Mozart, who are (justly) unknown to most (Stamitz, Dittersdorf, various Italians like Porpora, Jommelli, Salieri, etc.), charming but emotionally insubstantial. Yet, reading any biography of Mozart, one can discover with horror that in fickle Vienna at the end of the eighteenth century, these now completely or almost forgotten musicians were more "in vogue" than Mozart himself. Hence the discussion about the filter of time, which, let it be understood, is not infallible.

@Tinybanks: if those few snippets of samples under a minute were enough to disturb you, I can assure you that listening to the entire Quartetto K 421 will blow you away. It’s a work that entirely demolishes the somewhat worn-out cliché of “jolly Mozart.” But it’s certainly not the only one. As for the rest, you have been, and still are, far too generous towards me: if you liked this review less than the others, you have every right to give me a 4 or even a 3 (honestly, I don’t think I deserve a 2 or a 1), that’s for sure.

@saputello: For Mozart, I would distinctly separate two periods. In the first phase, there is a production of works not always memorable, like many of the symphonies before No. 25 in G minor, some of the early Piano Concertos (but not No. 9 "Jeunehomme," a masterpiece on par with the later ones), the very "Milanese" string quartets I mentioned, etc. However, in the subsequent phase, we might try to find some fillers in the symphonies after No. 35 "Haffner," in the Piano Concertos after No. 20 K 466, and in the string quartets after the series dedicated to Haydn. No matter how strictly one scrutinizes, with the least possible bias from passion, it won't be easy. Therefore, overall, I would say that, yes, the overall Mozartian output is enormous and not always composed of masterpieces, but that the negligible works are almost exclusively concentrated in the "youthful" period, which, given he was a child prodigy, can largely be labeled "childish." Later on, Mozart will become increasingly selective, and alongside a significant numerical decline in compositions, there will be an ever more consistent quality.

Regarding the interpretation, when I started talking about it, I realized that I had already written down about 2 A4 pages and I cut it a bit brutally. The sound of the Alban Berg Quartet is perhaps my favorite in its genre. The cohesion is perfect, yet it doesn’t become fusion: the voices of the four strings are absolutely distinguishable. The sensual vibrations of the cello are particularly accentuated, especially in more modern quartets like the Beethoven ones (Op. 132 above all), but the personality of this quartet also imposes itself in these Mozartian gems, while not distorting what Mozart expresses. To draw a parallel, I would say that this interpretation can be likened to the impetuous and pre-Beethovenian renditions of Symphonies No. 40 and 41 conducted by Bernstein, which I reviewed at the time.

@Nofake: I believe it's possible, and in one case I even did it (Dmitri Shostakovich - Symphony No. 7 "Leningrad", overall beautiful but "spoiled" in part by a pompous and celebratory finale). Broadening the discussion, there are Symphonies by Haydn (who was one to churn them out, not by chance he wrote 104!) that could even deserve a 3. In short, not all classical music is of excellent levels, but the filter of the centuries has ensured that only the best has reached us.

@Hal: in fact, the introduction with Bach has little to do with it. It's just a gimmick to present the lute.

@Tinybanks: one of the few flaws of debaser is that the samples are anonymous, even though a title is requested when sending them. Anyway, you got it right: their sequence, as always in my case, follows the text of the review. So, getting into the details: 1) Fugue BWV 996; 2) Sarabande BWV 996; 3) Bourrèe BWV 996 (the one by Jethro Tull); 4) Gigue BWV 996; 5) Fugue BWV 997; 6) Sarabande BWV 997; 7) Gigue-Double BWV 997; 8) Sarabande BWV 995; 9) Gavotte (the first) BWV 995; 10) Prelude BWV 999; 11) Fugue BWV 1000.

Anchio is obviously a learned neologism that stands for "anch'io."

Verdi, Goodman, and I also contribute with "my" Bach. How wonderful: great music is back on Debaser! The reference to Benny Goodman on the 5th relates to the collections I have and the historic concert from 1938, I believe, in New York, which has only one flaw—the typical sound of the era.