However I can't help feel feel unconvinced about the genre of the concertos in particular the concertos that don't involve a piano or a group of multiple soloists (such as a concerto grosso) or a non-solo based concertos (like a ripieno concerto). In fact it probably solidify the idea that Haydn is a better composer than Mozart because Haydn is a great symphonist and Mozart never really contributed that much to that genre apart from his last three symphonies and a handful of picks from his later symphonies. Really from my ears symphonies as a genre >>>> solo concertos
Yes virtually all the concertos that Mozart wrote are great and a lot of them are just as great as a Haydn symphony but they are great despite the fact that they are a concertos not because of it. If they were rearranged into a 3 movement symphony the work would probably at least be just as good and more often then not much much better and maybe the idea that Mozart is a better composer than Haydn, I could have been more sympathetic to that idea if those works were converted into symphonies.
I think the big problem is the whole idea of double exposition form. Which involves an orchestral exposition where Theme 1 and Theme 2 played by the orchestra and then another solo exposition where Theme 1 and Theme 2 is played by the soloist plus a solo specific Theme 3. This then leads to a development section and then recapitulation as per what we expect from a sonata form movement.
The biggest problem with this form is that the orchestral exposition is almost always sounds better than the solo exposition. I can think of a few examples where the soloist exposition is equal to the orchestral exposition (all of them are piano concertos) but no examples whatsoever where the solo exposition is superior to the orchestral exposition.
Listening to the brilliant Horn Concerto No. 3 by Mozart. The orchestral exposition is absolutely a work of genius. The two themes are memorable and concise, the modulating bridge is masterful display of compact rapid modulation in a very brief time interval the cadence material/codetta has a theme that's even more memorable than the primary theme of the concerto that it feels like everything prior to the codetta is building up to that moment. Exposition is quite short only lasting for about 60 seconds but as Mozart famously said "There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less." It's a perfect example of compact, concise composing.
How can the solo exposition live up and follow that act. The answer is that it can't. The solo exposition is ultimately superfluous as everything that needs to be said has already been said in the orchestral exposition. The reason why it can't match the orchestral exposition is due to the inherent nature of a solo concerto in general. A single instrument in particularly an instrument that could only play (or predominantly play as per string instruments) one note at a time can never be as interesting as an ensemble of instruments working in collaboration complementing each other and in perfect sync with each other as for the solo to stand out the entire orchestra has to be reduced to quite and purely accompaniment role for the soloist to stand out. Really the solo exposition doesn't really exist for pure compositional reason, as the appeal of a solo concerto isn't purely music but the thrill of seeing a soloist display virtuosity to wow the audience. the results is that the soloist modify the original theme and add some superfluous and ultimately wanky elaboration of a theme and then alter and vary the theme that was already perfect itself. As the emperor famously said "there are simply too many notes"
The only real exception to this are the piano concertos or the concerto grosso.
The reason why the exception is that a single piano is perfectly capable of creating interesting music in of itself. a piano can compete with an entire orchestra. due to the ability to play harmonies ( which single note instrument are incompatible of doing) and it's large dynamic range and the sharp percussive sound of the piano means that an orchestra doesn't have to quiet down to give the soloist space to stand out. there is a reason why people say that the piano is a second orchestra. so the piano concerto is probably the only time where there is potential for the soloist exposition to create something as interesting as the orchestral exposition. similarly a group of soloist such as a string quartet/ trio/ etc that could exist within a concerto grosso are capable of creating a large body of work that are interesting in of itself. multiple soloist can create music that is interesting in of itself without the need for an orchestra. having a group of soloist participating with the orchestra can potentially be interesting.
This is why i don't believe it's possible for a solo concerto that does not involve a piano can possibly get a 5 star rating.