Piano concertos by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

They were championed by Donald Tovey in his Essay on the Classical Concerto in 1903, and later by Cuthbert Girdlestone and Arthur Hutchings in 1940 (originally published in French) and 1948, respectively.

Hans Tischler published a structural and thematic analysis of the concertos in 1966, followed by the works by Charles Rosen, and Daniel N. Leeson and Robert Levin.

These works, with their alternation of orchestral tutti and passages for solo display, in turn, owe their structure to the tradition of Baroque operatic arias, from which the first movements of Mozart's piano concertos inherited their basic ritornello form.

This work shows a decisive advance in the organisation of the first movement, as well as demonstrating some irregular features, such as the dramatic interruption of the orchestral opening by the piano after only one-and-a-half bars.

In order to win applause one must write stuff which is so inane that a coachman could sing it, or so unintelligible that it pleases precisely because no sensible man can understand it.

[3]This passage points to an important principle about Mozart's concertos, that they were designed in the main to entertain the public rather than solely to satisfy some inner artistic urge.

Written for his pupil Barbara Ployer to play, K. 449 is the first instrumental work by Mozart that shows the strong influence of his operatic writing.

The next concerto, K. 456 in B♭, was for a long time believed to have been written for the blind pianist Maria Theresia von Paradis to play in Paris.

It is a dark and passionate work, made more striking by its classical restraint, and the final movement, a set of variations, is commonly called "sublime.

The next work, K. 537 (the "Coronation"), completed in February 1788, has a mixed reputation and possibly is the revision of a smaller chamber concerto into a larger structure.

The form of Mozart's piano concerto first movements has generated much discussion, of which modern instances were initiated by the highly influential analysis provided by Tovey in his Essay.

In broad terms, they consist of (using the terminology of Hutchings): This structure is rather easy to hear when listening, particularly because the ends of the exposition and recapitulation are typically marked with trills or shakes.

The reason for this, as Tovey remarked, is that the purpose of the Prelude is to generate a sense of expectation leading towards the piano entry, and this must come from the music itself, not just from the title on the top of the page.

If a complete sonata form were imposed on the Prelude, then it would take on a life of its own, so that when the piano entry occurs, it would be rather incidental to the overall structure.

Rather than the Prelude being a "preliminary canter" (Hutchings) of the themes of the concerto, its role is to introduce and familiarise us with the material that will be used in the ritornello sections, so that we get a sense of return at each of these.

In other words, Mozart normally generates his middle sections by shuffling, condensing and modulating his thematic material, but not by taking a simple theme and genuinely developing it into new possibilities.

However, such a structure does not lend itself to creating an overall unity in the movement, and Mozart thus attempts various ways (with greater or lesser success) of overcoming this problem.

The performance of Mozart's concertos has become a topic of considerable focus in recent years, with various issues such as the size of the orchestra and its instrumentation, the cadenzas, role of the soloist as continuo and improvisation of the written piano part all coming under scrutiny.

The more intimate works, for example, K. 413, 414, and 415, were ideal for performance in the salon of an aristocratic music-lover: Mozart himself advertised them as possible to play "a quattro", i. e. with just a string quartet accompanying the piano.

The rise in interest in authentic performance issues in the last few decades has, however, led to a revival of the fortepiano, and several recordings now exist with an approximate reconstruction of the sound Mozart might have himself expected.

It seems likely, although it is not absolutely certain, that the piano would have retained its ancient keyboard basso continuo role in the orchestral tuttis of the concertos, and possibly in other places as well.

Conversely, other scholars, notably Robert Levin have argued that real performance practice by Mozart and his contemporaries would have been considerably more embellished than even the chords suggested by the figuration.

[12] Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the concertos is the extent to which Mozart (or other contemporary performers) would have embellished the piano part as written in the score.

Furthermore, there are several very "bare" parts in the concerto scores that have led some to deduce that the performer is meant to improvise embellishments at these points, the most notorious being towards the end of the F♯-minor second movement of No.

In 1840, evidence was published from two brothers, Philipp Karl and Heinrich Anton Hoffmann, who had heard Mozart perform two concertos, Nos.

Of the later composers (especially after Beethoven, who noted Mozartian procedure), only Brahms paid attention to his classicism as expressed in the formal structure of these works.

Mozart's piano concertos are filled with assured transition passages, modulations, dissonances, Neapolitan relationships and suspensions.

The list of notable names that have contributed cadenzas to the concertos (e.g., Beethoven, Hummel, Landowska, Britten, Brahms, Schnittke, etc.)

A few parts of André's collection remained for a long time in private hands; hence, in 1948, when Hutchings compiled the whereabouts of the autographs, two (Nos.

The entire Prussian State collection of autographs was evacuated during World War II to the eastern front, where they disappeared and were feared lost until the 1970s.