surprised at the reference of the G minor fugue subject from Bach's WTC I in the introduction. the rhythm in the second section reminds me of the A flat major fugue from WTC II
Good catch! I originally thought of it as derived from the theme by Paer, but the quotation of the G minor fugue is so direct that it seems Moscheles was drawing a clever connection between the two. The second section is Paer's theme, though I haven't been able to trace its origin based on the title page. It's definitely reminiscent of Bach's A-flat fugue now that you mention it.
Very nicely played, thanks for sharing. Indeed Moscheles is an excellent composer and for instance his etudes op 70 are highly inventive and valuable in my opinion. Also, if you liked this piece you may want to check another rondoletto, namely « il était un p’tit homme » op 3 by Alkan (also in A major and written at the same period). There is already a delightful recording available on yt by Fumecri Himecri, but I would be happy to hear your version too. Cheers!
What a nice little piece! I have always been a bit suspicious of how music history/appreciation is taught as a series of "great" works, almost like scientific breakthroughs instead of showing what kind of music was most popular. So thank you for this small curative.
We uphold the great works for all the same reasons that we hold up the great paintings by artists of the past. It's not meant to show the popular music of the time, it's meant to show the classics, the genius works in the repertoire. It's called "classical music", not "historic music" for a reason my friend.
I agree with you. I disliked the book "The Classical Style" by Charles Rosen because he simply dismisses composers other than Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. I believe that gives a rather skewed perspective on how musical style develops and changes. I don't think that popularity is necessarily the most important criterion, but picking out a few "great works" or "great paintings" or "great books" is no way to study music, art or literature, in my opinion. It leaves out the context.
@laurencefinston7036 Yes! It also overinflates the reputation of "great" composers by creating a vacuum around them. J.S. Bach was a master of counterpoint, but he was also a devoted student of other composers' works. His skill did not come out of nowhere. (Also, there are many great contrapuntists rarely discussed by comparison: Gombert, Agricola, Ockeghem. Earlier in style, of course) A book I enjoyed is A History of Musical Style by Richard Crocker, which has many interesting insights in that regard, although I wouldn't say he dug into now-obscure works. I would heartily recommend it.
@@benis9684 If I may politely disagree, I do not think this is a coherent definition of Classical music. For example, Beethoven wrote much dance music that is not considered comparable to his "great" ("serious") works. Would those fail to be categorized as classical music? I doubt any would say they are not classical works. Similarly, would this definition of classical mean that there could be no such thing as a contemporary classical composer (because they would need to be creating the "best" music), and that has not yet determined? Or could two works by the same composer in the same style, one more successful or lauded than another, be such than one is Classical music and the other is not? I don't think that is the case. Classical music is -- in my view-- a style, or collection of styles technically oriented around motives and voice leading and historically supported by the church, government (royalty), or aristocracy/upper classes. Too many excellent works are neglected in the Canon of great works, which is specifically what I like about this channel's emphasis on obscura. Thank you for the stimulating discussion, by the way!
@@SpellswordMusic Thank you. The library across the street from me has it. I will take a look tomorrow. I think it would be difficult to understand what sets Bach apart without some knowledge of his predecessors and contemporaries. There are many good Baroque composers. You can be an excellent composer without being as good as Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven or Schubert. I recently bought some music by Pachelbel with the intention of making a video, just so there would be something else out there other than the Canon and Gigue in D, beautiful as it is (when it's not being massacred). Of course, I know other people have, too, but not a great many. It was said of Arthur Sullivan that he wanted to be a Bach, but was only an Offenbach. As it happens, I like Offenbach's music very much (and Sullivan's). There's room for them all. Besides, Bach didn't write any comic operas or operettas.
It doesn't surprise me at all. I play a lot of popular music of different eras and a lot of it is well-constructed. In particular, in the German and Austro-Hungarian tradition, many composers of popular music were very well-trained musicians. This was true up to the 1930s. The music of operetta composers like Strauss (Sohn), Lehar, Kalman and others is, in my experience, always well-constructed and enjoyable to play. There's a lot of German and Alpine popular music that I never heard of before coming to live in Germany and many gems to be discovered in it. I'm sure the same is true of other places. Unfortunately, the tradition of music education is something that didn't survive and now it's more-or-less the same here as everywhere else.
Well, even Chopin was percieved as a composer of popular music in his time...(and this is the guy whose late songs are practically Modernist in style, like those by Hugo Wolf- who was from Debussy and Satie's generation).
"When most people think of 1820s piano music, they imagine the late sonatas of Beethoven and Schubert, but those works took decades to gain broad recognition-you wouldn’t have heard them at a typical public performance in the early 19th century." I mean, might be a bit novice of me to ask, but weren't sonatas more intended as pieces to be played in private scenarios like salons rather than concert music?
There were varying degrees of public performance, so like private salons were still public performances, performances to families, friends and acquaintances, etc. Then fully public recitals were beginning to gain traction around this time ahead of Liszt and his contemporaries. The obviously you've large scale concerts, etc. But it is still true that Beethoven and Schubert’s sonatas were rarely heard at this point in ANY form of public recital, esp. the bigger and more involved works, and you'd be more likely to hear lighter, shorter, less innovative music (which isn't a slight I might add).
Thank you so much for this first recording! The rondoletto is beautiful indeed!
surprised at the reference of the G minor fugue subject from Bach's WTC I in the introduction. the rhythm in the second section reminds me of the A flat major fugue from WTC II
Good catch! I originally thought of it as derived from the theme by Paer, but the quotation of the G minor fugue is so direct that it seems Moscheles was drawing a clever connection between the two. The second section is Paer's theme, though I haven't been able to trace its origin based on the title page. It's definitely reminiscent of Bach's A-flat fugue now that you mention it.
Very charming!
Great discovery!
Nice little bagatelle!
Perfect!
Moscheles is actually one of the better forgotten B Grade compossrs. Check his Sonata in F Sharp Minor and Symphony. ❤
Very nicely played, thanks for sharing. Indeed Moscheles is an excellent composer and for instance his etudes op 70 are highly inventive and valuable in my opinion. Also, if you liked this piece you may want to check another rondoletto, namely « il était un p’tit homme » op 3 by Alkan (also in A major and written at the same period). There is already a delightful recording available on yt by Fumecri Himecri, but I would be happy to hear your version too. Cheers!
What a nice little piece!
I have always been a bit suspicious of how music history/appreciation is taught as a series of "great" works, almost like scientific breakthroughs instead of showing what kind of music was most popular.
So thank you for this small curative.
We uphold the great works for all the same reasons that we hold up the great paintings by artists of the past. It's not meant to show the popular music of the time, it's meant to show the classics, the genius works in the repertoire. It's called "classical music", not "historic music" for a reason my friend.
I agree with you. I disliked the book "The Classical Style" by Charles Rosen because he simply dismisses composers other than Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. I believe that gives a rather skewed perspective on how musical style develops and changes. I don't think that popularity is necessarily the most important criterion, but picking out a few "great works" or "great paintings" or "great books" is no way to study music, art or literature, in my opinion. It leaves out the context.
@laurencefinston7036 Yes! It also overinflates the reputation of "great" composers by creating a vacuum around them. J.S. Bach was a master of counterpoint, but he was also a devoted student of other composers' works. His skill did not come out of nowhere. (Also, there are many great contrapuntists rarely discussed by comparison: Gombert, Agricola, Ockeghem. Earlier in style, of course)
A book I enjoyed is A History of Musical Style by Richard Crocker, which has many interesting insights in that regard, although I wouldn't say he dug into now-obscure works. I would heartily recommend it.
@@benis9684 If I may politely disagree, I do not think this is a coherent definition of Classical music. For example, Beethoven wrote much dance music that is not considered comparable to his "great" ("serious") works. Would those fail to be categorized as classical music? I doubt any would say they are not classical works.
Similarly, would this definition of classical mean that there could be no such thing as a contemporary classical composer (because they would need to be creating the "best" music), and that has not yet determined? Or could two works by the same composer in the same style, one more successful or lauded than another, be such than one is Classical music and the other is not?
I don't think that is the case.
Classical music is -- in my view-- a style, or collection of styles technically oriented around motives and voice leading and historically supported by the church, government (royalty), or aristocracy/upper classes.
Too many excellent works are neglected in the Canon of great works, which is specifically what I like about this channel's emphasis on obscura.
Thank you for the stimulating discussion, by the way!
@@SpellswordMusic Thank you. The library across the street from me has it. I will take a look tomorrow. I think it would be difficult to understand what sets Bach apart without some knowledge of his predecessors and contemporaries. There are many good Baroque composers. You can be an excellent composer without being as good as Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven or Schubert. I recently bought some music by Pachelbel with the intention of making a video, just so there would be something else out there other than the Canon and Gigue in D, beautiful as it is (when it's not being massacred). Of course, I know other people have, too, but not a great many.
It was said of Arthur Sullivan that he wanted to be a Bach, but was only an Offenbach. As it happens, I like Offenbach's music very much (and Sullivan's). There's room for them all. Besides, Bach didn't write any comic operas or operettas.
It doesn't surprise me at all. I play a lot of popular music of different eras and a lot of it is well-constructed. In particular, in the German and Austro-Hungarian tradition, many composers of popular music were very well-trained musicians. This was true up to the 1930s. The music of operetta composers like Strauss (Sohn), Lehar, Kalman and others is, in my experience, always well-constructed and enjoyable to play.
There's a lot of German and Alpine popular music that I never heard of before coming to live in Germany and many gems to be discovered in it. I'm sure the same is true of other places.
Unfortunately, the tradition of music education is something that didn't survive and now it's more-or-less the same here as everywhere else.
Well, even Chopin was percieved as a composer of popular music in his time...(and this is the guy whose late songs are practically Modernist in style, like those by Hugo Wolf- who was from Debussy and Satie's generation).
"When most people think of 1820s piano music, they imagine the late sonatas of Beethoven and Schubert, but those works took decades to gain broad recognition-you wouldn’t have heard them at a typical public performance in the early 19th century."
I mean, might be a bit novice of me to ask, but weren't sonatas more intended as pieces to be played in private scenarios like salons rather than concert music?
There were varying degrees of public performance, so like private salons were still public performances, performances to families, friends and acquaintances, etc. Then fully public recitals were beginning to gain traction around this time ahead of Liszt and his contemporaries. The obviously you've large scale concerts, etc.
But it is still true that Beethoven and Schubert’s sonatas were rarely heard at this point in ANY form of public recital, esp. the bigger and more involved works, and you'd be more likely to hear lighter, shorter, less innovative music (which isn't a slight I might add).