For Ralph: Finally heard a work by Dittersdorf!

[jbuck919]

Yes, XM Radio was broadcasting the (immortal) Serenade in F Major. To be fair to it, I gave it my entire attention (red queen goes on black king). What a treat!

And Ralph was right in a comment he made to me when we were at a Mostly Mozart concert last summer: You can definitely hear the influence of D. on Mozart. The minuet of this work sounds for all the world like the principal inspiration for A Musical Joke.

[CharmNewton]

Yes, XM Radio was broadcasting the (immortal) Serenade in F Major. To be fair to it, I gave it my entire attention (red queen goes on black king). What a treat!

And Ralph was right in a comment he made to me when we were at a Mostly Mozart concert last summer: You can definitely hear the influence of D. on Mozart. The minuet of this work sounds for all the world like the principal inspiration for A Musical Joke.

And your point is...?

John

[jbuck919]

Yes, XM Radio was broadcasting the (immortal) Serenade in F Major. To be fair to it, I gave it my entire attention (red queen goes on black king). What a treat!

And Ralph was right in a comment he made to me when we were at a Mostly Mozart concert last summer: You can definitely hear the influence of D. on Mozart. The minuet of this work sounds for all the world like the principal inspiration for A Musical Joke.

And your point is...?

John

Dittersdorf sucks, and as with a lot of composers who are not even worthy background music, I can't understand why they even record him. I'll go further than that: I don't know why there are even performing editions. Who would bother with such a thing?

Satisfied now? Ralph also used to have a standing joke about gefilte fish hatcheries in the Hudson. I think he actually likes Dittersdorf, sort of, though I can't imagine why, which is why I tried to make my obvious point with a smile until someone made me say it in plain and unregretted English.
Also John

[keaggy220]

Yes, XM Radio was broadcasting the (immortal) Serenade in F Major. To be fair to it, I gave it my entire attention (red queen goes on black king). What a treat!

And Ralph was right in a comment he made to me when we were at a Mostly Mozart concert last summer: You can definitely hear the influence of D. on Mozart. The minuet of this work sounds for all the world like the principal inspiration for A Musical Joke.

And your point is...?

John

Dittersdorf sucks, and as with a lot of composers who are not even worthy background music, I can't understand why they even record him. I'll go further than that: I don't know why there are even performing editions. Who would bother with such a thing?

Satisfied now?

Also John

Just to be clear - you like Mozart more than Dittersdorf, right?

[Ralph]

To each his/her own.

[Corlyss_D]

Dittersdorf sucks, and as with a lot of composers who are not even worthy background music, I can't understand why they even record him.

Chapter 25 of "John doesn't like anyone who isn't friggin' genius."

Dont you ever get tired of pissing on others' enthusiastic enjoyment of composers who aren't Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Brahms?

[jbuck919]

Dittersdorf sucks, and as with a lot of composers who are not even worthy background music, I can't understand why they even record him.

Chapter 25 of "John doesn't like anyone who isn't friggin' genius."

Dont you ever get tired of pissing on others' enthusiastic enjoyment of composers who aren't Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Brahms?

I have to think (I certainly hope) that this perfectly worthless composition that is its own parody is the low end of Dittersdorf. You know perfectly well that I esteem composers of the second rank such as Vivaldi and Telemann, though perhaps not the way you do. But this was way, way way below that. In fairness, they could have played an early Mozart serenade or divertimento and I would not have thought much more of it, but not to the point where I was actually distracted by the banality.

While we're on the subject, are people supposed to develop an interest in classical music in order to cultivate its low end? That strikes me as making about as much sense as learning to read in order to get a lifetime of pleasure out of Stephen King.

[Gurn Blanston]

JB,
I think the problem is that people don't appreciate your style of humor. I guess I'm the only one that really gets your tongue-in-cheek style in the way you intend. I never fail to get a big laugh when you rant off on this topic, in fact, it's one of the main reasons that I came back to posting here.

Imagine, if you will, that the only Mozart you had ever heard was one of those early serenades/divertimentos that you so recently disparaged. And decided right then that Mozart wasn't worthy of your Hall of Fame. Wouldn't that be a pity?

Cheers,

[Sergeant Rock]

While we're on the subject, are people supposed to develop an interest in classical music in order to cultivate its low end? That strikes me as making about as much sense as learning to read in order to get a lifetime of pleasure out of Stephen King.

Yeah, about as much sense as learning to read and then confining yourself to four authors...because you deem them the only worthies in a thousand years' worth of literature.

John, you've got possibly the narrowest, most exclusive taste in music of anyone I've ever encountered. I pity you...really, dude. You seem to take far more pleasure in finding music to disparage than finding reasons to love music.

Sarge

[johnQpublic]

Most Ditters is third rate. It's trite and unimaginative.

Personally, I have always thought Ralph's "enthusiasm" for him is all "tongue-in-cheek".

[Ralph]

Most Ditters is third rate. It's trite and unimaginative.

Personally, I have always thought Ralph's "enthusiasm" for him is all "tongue-in-cheek".

*****

No.

[jbuck919]

Most Ditters is third rate. It's trite and unimaginative.

Personally, I have always thought Ralph's "enthusiasm" for him is all "tongue-in-cheek".

*****

No.

Don't worry, JohnQ, it took me most of my time being a member here to figure that out myself. Had to work my way through Ralph sneaking in so-and-so being head of the Dittersdorf Department at Juilliiard and such, don't you know.

Am I allowed to smile again?

[Wallingford]

Y'know, John, I can scarcely wait for your response on my upcoming listening to the 3 Boccherini LP's I'm about to purchase......I've been wanting like anything to up my intake of this (I believe he is) supreme master. I used to think you were sincere about the "courage" I showed in mentioning him & Boccherini in the same sentence as Haydn & Handel. I'm now just stunned.

[jbuck919]

Y'know, John, I can scarcely wait for your response on my upcoming listening to the 3 Boccherini LP's I'm about to purchase......I've been wanting like anything to up my intake of this (I believe he is) supreme master. I used to think you were sincere about the "courage" I showed in mentioning him & Boccherini in the same sentence as Haydn & Handel. I'm now just stunned.

The other day I learned that Boccherini was so great a cellist that he would fill in for violinists, playing the cello in the violin range. This was, of course, after I had to endure one of his, yes, insipid and inglorious pieces over XM.

When I asked you whether you named yourself after Wallingford Riegger, you asked me why you would bother with a twelve-tone composer. Ralph routinely makes disparaging remarks about Elliott Carter. You all get away with such Oscar-Wilde-like flippancy and I get raked over the coals every time I suggest that there was mediocre and even dreadful music written between 1600 and 1897 (before Monteverdi and after Brahms, in my opinion, the rules are different, but that's another subject).

Contrary to popular belief, I don't go out of my way to disparage composers. You can take one or two threads in which I've expressed some frustration as typical, but they are not; they just seem that way because they irk people who disagree with me or who think art is a matter of I'm ok, you're ok. When did I ever mention Boccherini before I was thus provoked? But Ralph, who in general has impeccable taste, has made this a running train of thought to the point where we might have some young or newer posters who think they should spend their scarce funds on Dittersdorf rather than the huge universe of truly great art that awaits them.

[johnQpublic]

With Boccherini being prolific, a number of his works are merely routine, but his better works surpass the best of Dittersdorf, so the chances are Wallingford, you'll get some nice selections.

[jbuck919]

With Boccherini being prolific, a number of his works are merely routine, but his better works surpass the best of Dittersdorf....

There was a bit of critic's doggerel that appeared in the 18th century about a rivalry between two composers. One of them was Handel, so he's out of the picture here, but the other was a forgotten composer (until someone here decides to resurrect him as another lost genius ) named, to rhyme with Boccherini, Bononcini. The famous couplet which applies here but not to those two was:

Strange that all this fuss should be
Twixt Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

[CharmNewton]

...But Ralph, who in general has impeccable taste, has made this a running train of thought to the point where we might have some young or newer posters who think they should spend their scarce funds on Dittersdorf rather than the huge universe of truly great art that awaits them.

I listened to three of Dittersdorf's Symphonies (4-6) after Ovid's Metamorphoses and while a few of the quicker movements could have been, well, quicker, the music was engaging and original. Melodically it was beautiful and harmonically rich. Writing catchy allegros may not have been Dittersdorf's strongest suit (at least at the tempi chosen by Hanspeter Gmur) but I found this music, composed in 1783, far from boring.

I don't care that you disliked the piece that you heard. You can say that in a few words. But to disparage the entire body of a composer's work, and Dittersdorf composed more symphonies than Haydn, based on a single hearing of a single work is a bit much, don't you think?

John

[jbuck919]

...But Ralph, who in general has impeccable taste, has made this a running train of thought to the point where we might have some young or newer posters who think they should spend their scarce funds on Dittersdorf rather than the huge universe of truly great art that awaits them.

I listened to three of Dittersdorf's Symphonies (4-6) after Ovid's Metamorphoses and while a few of the quicker movements could have been, well, quicker, the music was engaging and original. Melodically it was beautiful and harmonically rich. Writing catchy allegros may not have been Dittersdorf's strongest suit (at least at the tempi chosen by Hanspeter Gmur) but I found this music, composed in 1783, far from boring.

I don't care that you disliked the piece that you heard. You can say that in a few words. But to disparage the entire body of a composer's work, and Dittersdorf composed more symphonies than Haydn, based on a single hearing of a single work is a bit much, don't you think?

John

Yes, I'll grant you that (surprise, surprise!). Now perhaps you can explain to me why I was hearing over one of the few broadcast media available in the US for this kind of thing a piece that I have already stated must be at the low end artistically of the composer's output (at least I hope to God so).

That is beside the point, however, and I am going to risk being even more blunt than usual. Who in his right mind spends countless hours listening to the output of a composer more prolific than Haydn (I'm taking your word for it) on the chance of finding something that might serve as a pleasant piece of background music, when Haydn himself is laid out by the judgment of posterity on a silver platter? If you want Dittersdorf, lobby for more recordings of the complete Haydn symphonies and then listen to the weaker ones of those as your background music. And then listen to the others, which in a way Dittersdorf never could, or we'd be hearing him in the concert hall, command absolute attention.

[Ted]

John Writes :

Melodically it was beautiful and harmonically rich.

Couldn’t agree more.
At his worst he’s no worse than Haydn is at his worst-- which is a far cry from WAM at his worst but still no too shabby

[johnshade]

~
Try this sample of Dittersdorf:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5_W1oY7VHNU

~

[CharmNewton]

...Who in his right mind spends countless hours listening to the output of a composer more prolific than Haydn (I'm taking your word for it) on the chance of finding something that might serve as a pleasant piece of background music, when Haydn himself is laid out by the judgment of posterity on a silver platter?

Those for whom the "Surprise" no longer holds a surprise, the "Miracle" is no longer a miracle and no longer hear a drumroll in the "Drumroll". It's nice to learn what other composers of the period were offering to listeners and get a flavor of the times.

Your decision to pan Dittersdorf after one solitary listening to a Serenade is your loss.

John

[John F]

Actually, John Byrom's doggerel is:

Some say compared to Bononcini
That mynheer Handel’s but a ninny;
Others aver that he to Handel
Is scarcely fit to hold a candle.
Strange all this difference should be
’Twixt Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Or:

Some say, that Seignior Bononchini
Compar'd to Handel's a mere Ninny;
Others aver, to him, that Handel
Is scarcely fit to hold a candle.
Strange! that such high Disputes shou'd be
'Twixt Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Take your pick.[/quote]

[Ralph]

...But Ralph, who in general has impeccable taste, has made this a running train of thought to the point where we might have some young or newer posters who think they should spend their scarce funds on Dittersdorf rather than the huge universe of truly great art that awaits them.

I listened to three of Dittersdorf's Symphonies (4-6) after Ovid's Metamorphoses and while a few of the quicker movements could have been, well, quicker, the music was engaging and original. Melodically it was beautiful and harmonically rich. Writing catchy allegros may not have been Dittersdorf's strongest suit (at least at the tempi chosen by Hanspeter Gmur) but I found this music, composed in 1783, far from boring.

I don't care that you disliked the piece that you heard. You can say that in a few words. But to disparage the entire body of a composer's work, and Dittersdorf composed more symphonies than Haydn, based on a single hearing of a single work is a bit much, don't you think?

John

Yes, I'll grant you that (surprise, surprise!). Now perhaps you can explain to me why I was hearing over one of the few broadcast media available in the US for this kind of thing a piece that I have already stated must be at the low end artistically of the composer's output (at least I hope to God so).

That is beside the point, however, and I am going to risk being even more blunt than usual. Who in his right mind spends countless hours listening to the output of a composer more prolific than Haydn (I'm taking your word for it) on the chance of finding something that might serve as a pleasant piece of background music, when Haydn himself is laid out by the judgment of posterity on a silver platter? If you want Dittersdorf, lobby for more recordings of the complete Haydn symphonies and then listen to the weaker ones of those as your background music. And then listen to the others, which in a way Dittersdorf never could, or we'd be hearing him in the concert hall, command absolute attention.

*****

It's a bit more complex. When the predecessor to the New York Philharmonic gave its first concert in 1842 a symphony by Kalliwoda was performed? Why? Because that composer's works were very much in demand and were regularly offered in Europe. Today only specialists and rabid CD collectors are familiar with Kalliwoda. The music isn't any less interesting - it's simply fallen off the concert stage.

I'm told that Dittersdorf IS performed and broadcast with some frequency in Germany. WHy? Because it's good music.

[Febnyc]

Naxos has at least four CDs of Dittersdorf Sinfonias. This makes it easy to get to know more of "the flavor of the times," as poster CharmNewton suggests. And it's a good suggestion because this music is very appealing - even quite powerful in parts (in the "named" Sinfonias). There is nothing banal or weak about these works.

Furthermore, the cpo label treats us to some of Dittersdorf's Quartets. I find these not as immediate as the orchestral works, but they're still worth hearing.

Ralph mentions Kalliwoda. I defy anyone to listen to Kalliwoda's symphonies and not be impressed. These, like the Vorisek symphonies, are pioneering works of their time. I don't know why they all fell out of popularity but it certainly isn't due to the quality of the composing.

[jbuck919]

...But Ralph, who in general has impeccable taste, has made this a running train of thought to the point where we might have some young or newer posters who think they should spend their scarce funds on Dittersdorf rather than the huge universe of truly great art that awaits them.

I listened to three of Dittersdorf's Symphonies (4-6) after Ovid's Metamorphoses and while a few of the quicker movements could have been, well, quicker, the music was engaging and original. Melodically it was beautiful and harmonically rich. Writing catchy allegros may not have been Dittersdorf's strongest suit (at least at the tempi chosen by Hanspeter Gmur) but I found this music, composed in 1783, far from boring.

I don't care that you disliked the piece that you heard. You can say that in a few words. But to disparage the entire body of a composer's work, and Dittersdorf composed more symphonies than Haydn, based on a single hearing of a single work is a bit much, don't you think?

John

Yes, I'll grant you that (surprise, surprise!). Now perhaps you can explain to me why I was hearing over one of the few broadcast media available in the US for this kind of thing a piece that I have already stated must be at the low end artistically of the composer's output (at least I hope to God so).

That is beside the point, however, and I am going to risk being even more blunt than usual. Who in his right mind spends countless hours listening to the output of a composer more prolific than Haydn (I'm taking your word for it) on the chance of finding something that might serve as a pleasant piece of background music, when Haydn himself is laid out by the judgment of posterity on a silver platter? If you want Dittersdorf, lobby for more recordings of the complete Haydn symphonies and then listen to the weaker ones of those as your background music. And then listen to the others, which in a way Dittersdorf never could, or we'd be hearing him in the concert hall, command absolute attention.

*****

It's a bit more complex. When the predecessor to the New York Philharmonic gave its first concert in 1842 a symphony by Kalliwoda was performed? Why? Because that composer's works were very much in demand and were regularly offered in Europe. Today only specialists and rabid CD collectors are familiar with Kalliwoda. The music isn't any less interesting - it's simply fallen off the concert stage.

Ralph is pulling our leg again. Kalliwoda is Adowillak spelled backwards as in Gobaerts and Streabog, which I remember only from my elmentary school piano method by Schaum or is that Muahcs? Come to think of it, Dittersdorf is really Frodserttid. Truly great composers have names that cannot be pronounced by English speakers when they are spelled backwards. I mean, Hcab? Dnyah?

Friends, Ralph.