Classical Music Forum banner

What's your rating of this piece?

  • It's one of the worst pieces I've heard till now

    Votes: 0 0%
  • Extremely low, but there are worse pieces

    Votes: 0 0%
  • Very low

    Votes: 0 0%
  • Quite low

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Not so low and not so high

    Votes: 0 0%
  • Quite high

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Very high

    Votes: 5 29%
  • Extremely high, but there are better pieces

    Votes: 5 29%
  • It's one of the best pieces I've heard till now

    Votes: 5 29%

Mozart - KV 482 - Piano Concerto No. 22

1.7K views 11 replies 8 participants last post by  Neal  
#1 ·
I've just launched a new poll for my competition about film music: Best Original Dramatic Score - 1998


What do you think about this piece? Best recordings? Write everything you want about it.

Piano: Alfred Brendel
Orchestra: Academy of St Martin in the Fields
Conductor: Sir Neville Marriner



 
#3 ·
So do I, it's too many options and ratings are better without a middle option (that is the # of choices should be even) because uncertain people go too often for the middle option, if there is one.

It's one of my favorite Mozart concerti. Although the c minor has an even bigger orchestra (+ oboes), this one seems the most luxurious in woodwind writing with passages in the slow movement sounding like a wind serenade. Like the preceding one it can be a bit "cool", i.e. not as "personal" as e.g the following one in A major or the #27. But esp. movements 2+3 with the contrasts and woodwind sections are just stunning.
 
#6 · (Edited)
So do I, it's too many options and ratings are better without a middle option (that is the # of choices should be even) because uncertain people go too often for the middle option, if there is one.
Is it not a good thing if there is a middle option and you are not forced to unbalance yourself towards a negative or positive rating?

Is not also a good thing that there is an equal number of positive and negative options (specularity)? In the previous model there were only two negative options ("horrible" and "quite bad"), but there were three positive options ("good", "very good", "excellent").

Is it not a good thing that the new words are more open to interpretation? What does "horrible" mean? If a piece has a nice tune and someone votes "horrible", you might have the impression that the voter is saying that the tune is horrible, while in reality maybe he thinks only that the piece is boring and unoriginal and he doesn't care too much about "nice tunes".

Finally, is not a good thing that there is now the possibility to say that a piece is not only excellent, but one of the best pieces of classical music? Or that a piece is excellent but there are still better pieces?
 
#4 ·
So do I. The change seems to me to have confused matters rather than clarified them.

As for K482: wonderful piece, like most of the mature Mozart concertos. I particularly enjoy Perahia's recording with the ECO. The closing bars of the slow movement, where C major sunlight breaks in a couple of times, are positively heartrending in Perahia's hands.