The irony is that in some cases these were famous people who became 'secondary' to main figures as with Telemann, or the opposite as with Bach senior. It is sad that in the arts there seems to be a 'theory of the species', to make an odd comparison, in which artists are subjected to the changes of fashion and taste. What an unpredictable path that is! A change at the time must be made, by the composers under royal patronage, to not risk being 'too revolutionary' in their compositions. Is interesting that artists are able to cope with this- thus showing that the finer arts requiere a huge deal of intellectual effort, that they are not just 'playing the notes'. Truly remarkable contributions to history were those made by CPE Bach!
sorry to be so offtopic but does someone know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account?? I was dumb lost my login password. I appreciate any assistance you can give me.
@Kyler Walter I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and Im trying it out atm. I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
Brian Knapp Originally written for strings alone and continuo in 1756 *(Wq 177),* CPE later added two each of flutes, oboes and horns *(Wq 178),* so both are authentic, and everyone can choose which they prefer; the symphony was first published in 1759. However, the sound, whilst superficially resembling some aspects of sturm und drang, it is in fact a typical product of CPE’s very particular empfindsamer Stil. This symphony was written about ten years before the mainly - but not entirely - Austrian sturm und drang period (c.1765 - 1775), and it has some striking features which are at first hearing perhaps reminiscent of sturm und drang: - sudden dramatic contrasts in harmony, texture and dynamics; - chromatic turns; - volatility; - an Empfindsamkeit aesthetic of attempting to stir emotions. Wq 177/178 also retains some old fashioned features such as use of Baroque ritornello form in the first movement, but it clearly pre-dates the normally accepted sturm und drang repertoire by some years, and these features are more in line with CPE’s very personal Empfindsamkeit aesthetic (= dynamic expression, sensibility, sensitiveness, sentimentality, intimacy, and so forth). In short: empfindsamer Stil is about inner expression; Sturm und drang is about outward gesture. It is a fantastic piece; at the time, the composer Hasse said it was the best symphony he knew, but it is not sturm und drang you hear, it’s uniquely CPE and his empfindsamer Stil.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 What about Joseph Kraus and Franz Josph Haydn? Didn't they use the Sturm und Drang style for at least part of their composing carreers? What about Sturm und Drang Romanticism? Did not such composers a Julius Rietz, J B Gross, and J W Kaliwoda have Sturm und Drang style in some of their music? For example - Gross's and Rietz's cello concertos and Kalliwoda's symphony number 7. Setting exact dates for such movements seems to always leave out important exceptions.
Brian Knapp Sturm und drang is a term adopted at the start of the 20th century to describe some very particular characteristics, features and mannerisms of some music written between c.1765 - 1775 by composers largely - but not entirely - centred on Vienna. The greatest works in this style are by Joseph Haydn* who wrote about nineteen symphonies containing to a greater or lesser degree, sturm und drang features; these are most clearly evident in the minor key works such as: Symphonies 26, 39, 49 written between 1765 and 1768; 44 (1771); 45 (1772); 52 (1772/3). Mozart wrote one symphony in this style, Symphony 25 in g minor (K183). And there are others by composers such as Vanhal, Dittersdorf, JC Bach - another one-off work, Opus 6 No 6 - and many others. Kraus, like Mozart’s later minor key music such as the d minor of Don Giovanni, or the g minor Symphony 40 (K550), or Boccherini’s magnificent c minor symphony, is not sturm und drang; neither are the symphonies of Frank Beck or Carlos d’Ordonez, nor Gluck’s seminal Don Juan of 1761, which predate sturm und drang, nor again in the next age, any of Beethoven’s stormy music. All these composers wrote turbulent, passionate minor key music, as did the composers you list yourself; however, whilst any minor key music from any age will inevitably have some shared characteristics, sturm und drang is very specific and it exists or not as explained above ie only in the composers listed as examples - there are others too - and between the dates stated. At the risk of becoming very lengthy, the particular details to listen for that identify a work as sturm und drang are: Greater use of contrapuntal forms, techniques and counterpoint, Contrasting dynamics, Greater accentuation, Bold unison, forte, opening figures, gestures and statements, Expansion of form and use of different forms - for example sonata da chiesa, Greater use of dissonance and more extreme modulation, Greater use of minor keys, and unusual keys, Surprising use of effects, pauses, and silence, Driving intense rhythms, frenzied figurations, tremolandos and jagged, broken patterns with wide leaps in melodic and thematic material, Greater use of syncopation, Longer melodic and harmonic lines, Changes in orchestration, Wider use of contrasting emotions, Greater feeling of tension, Et cetera In short; whilst some of these features are common to much minor key music from any age; collectively they describe the Viennese sturm und drang of c.1765 - 1775 and are best exemplified in the Haydn symphonies listed above. Sturm und drang suited Haydn, hence a large number of symphonies; it suited Mozart less well, hence only one attempt - he developed his own very personal style of minor key music, as did Beethoven, and both of these composers to a degree, had elements of sturm und drang inherent in their own individual styles - the same is true of Kraus too. The minor key works you list from other later composers are minor key works, not sturm und drang, nor indeed as was my original point, was any of the music of CPE Bach. Hope that helps. * Ditch the baptismal ‘Franz’ it’s superfluous; do you refer to Johannes Chrisostomus Wolfgang Theophilus when referring to Mozart ?
Hello folks. I have commented on Elaine's posts before and I couldn't remain silent here. As with many (most) artistic movements, the (comparatively) modern nomenclature we assign to a 20-or-so year category of cultural activity--Sturm und Drang--is an approximation and is without hard borders. The Sturm und Drang style itself is but one niche within a much larger cultural movement called (in English) the anti-Enlightenment. Spurred in some measure by non-German thinkers (like Hume) who asserted the primacy of feeling and sentiment over the prevailing German value of logic and reason, the anti-Enlightenment touched all the arts and letters. Two great torchbearers of the musical anti-Enlightenment were Gluck and, particularly, CPE Bach, whose anti-Enlightenment tendencies were so acute that his ouevre represents a style nearly unique to him called the Empfinsamkeit, or the "affected style", which title itself was only coined in 1768. Now, as both Haydn and Mozart themselves attested in writing, their impetus to experiment with the style which would later be called "Sturm und Drang" was inspired by the "affected" works of CPE Bach, one of which is the symphony in e minor here. So, Brian and others, only the closest reading of the definition of Sturm und Drang would exclude this CPE Bach symphony. Would it be a few years until the height of this phenomenon? Yes, to be exact. But seeing as Sturm und Drang is but a small subset of a much wider trend, and that CPE is the father of the style (Haydn's and Mozart's description, not mine), only a tiny elasticity to our terms allows for CPE Bach to be included in this category.
@@joshsussman9432 Thanks so much for the clarification. Was there any later style in the 19th century that was called Sturm und Drang Romanticism? I have seen people on You Tube us this term.
@@MrLandale I think the point I was trying to make, was that of all the composers of the mid/late 18th century Classical style, CPE and Mozart are polar opposites with absolutely nothing in common. It would be difficult to name two more different Classical composers than CPE Bach and Mozart. CPE and Mozart never met, their music is totally different - which can be identified after about four bars of either - and their lives similarly could not have been more strikingly different. You’re quite right, this is a very fine symphony; I simply did not understand the need to mention Mozart which in your comment was implying a link which simply does not exist.
Curiously about 30 bars before the end of the first movement is an 10-bar stretch of melody & harmony (written 1755-6, Berlin) which was lifted note-for-note by Christof Willibald von Gluck in his overture for Iphigenia en Tauride (1779) for Paris…the exactness of the transcription leaves no room for doubt in this case…but shews that C.Ph.E. Bach’s music was well known to Gluck his famous contemporary German which is reflected in Baron van Swieten’s Sunday soirées (10am to 4pm) where the music of J.S. Bach, Handel & C.Ph.E. Bach and others of the late baroque were performed - often arranged for string quartet to be played live at these gatherings
Chill Tunezzz This is a typical CPE Bach empfindsamer Stil work - it is not sturm und drang. Whilst they superficially share some common characteristics, they are not the same thing. You’re right though, it’s a fantastic piece; but of the former style, not the latter!
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Elaine Blackhurst, I agree that it is not an explicitly "Sturm und drang," and understand that contrasted textures and unexpected harmonic changes are not always markers of a sturm und drang piece. I do, however, challenge the notion that their common characteristics are superficial. I would say that the momentum found in the more typically "empfindsamer" passages display the key featues of sturm und drang and the "chiaroscuro" effect which it seeks to achieve. Would you not agree that the time of C.P.E Bach's writing, and his contemporary influences could not qualify this piece as somewhat "Sturm und drang?" Either way I belive we are, for the most part, in agreement. It is an excellent piece of music. -Ted
@@tedboulting-williams4529 Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting comment. You will come across a number of comments and replies I have written in order to help listeners understand better a composer who is not quite straightforward, nor whose wavelength is easy to tune into; if interested, and you look through some of them, then you find more detailed explanations of my view on what is quite a complex issue. Two points may help: firstly that CPE Bach’s North German empfindsamer Stil emanated from Berlin and Hamburg, both of which may as well have been on a different musical planet from sturm und drang Vienna; I think the links between the two are often overstated - hence my ‘…superficial links’. What is true is that there was a shared *reaction* to the prevailing lightweight galant and rococo music which was to be found all over Europe;* this reaction is to be found elsewhere as well, for example in some of the works of Gluck in the very early 1760’s such as Don Juan and Orfeo, neither of which are empfindsamer Stil nor sturm und drang, but which were massively influential. Secondly, it is often useful to consider CPE Bach’s Empfindsamer aesthetic as being about *inner sensitivity* - this is made explicitly clear of you read the relevant sections of his Versuch - whilst Haydn’s sturm und drang is about *outward gesture,* a characteristic found in other sturm und drang works such as the one-off attempts by Mozart - Symphony 25 (K183), and JC Bach Opus 6 No 6. Hope that’s useful in some way. * This is a common characteristic which you are absolutely correct, is not superficial.
Sturm und Drang, as it applies to 18th century music, is much more than minor keys and tremolos, sudden changes in dynamics, and irregular phrasing. This attempt to categorize music with certain characteristics into neat little boxes in order to pacify small minds sets my teeth on edge!
David Horsman Not really comparable with Mozart; barely a note of CPE could ever be mistaken for Mozart and vice-versa. Two completely different composers in every respect.
@@Sshooter444 Even if we are comparing quality, comparing Mozart with CPE Bach is like comparing red with blue, or Italian food with Indian! My point was, that in discussing CPE Bach, Mozart is actually pretty irrelevant.
@@Yakudo14 That is my point exactly, and comparing the two cuisines in some sort of ranking competition is mindless stupidity that in the end comes down to personal preference. I love both ‘Italian’ and ‘Indian’ cuisine, though in truth neither exist as regional variations are so strong that they deserve their own labels.
Doug Betula CPE Bach was *not* ‘a great influence on Mozart’; I think you may be confusing him with his half-brother JC who was clearly a huge influence on the young Mozart. Not a single note of CPE could possibly ever be mistaken by anybody as being written by Mozart (and vice-versa). However, CPE’s ‘Versuch’* *was* a great influence on everyone from its first publication (in two parts) in 1753 and 1762. CPE was an important influence on Haydn, and the aforementioned Versuch on everybody, including both Mozart, and Beethoven who was still referring to it in the early 19th century. * Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Incorrect. This account of a meeting between W.A. Mozart and C.P.E. Bach is by Johann Friedrich Rochlitz and is from Für Freunde der Tonkunst (1824). -When Mozart visited Leipzig a few years before his death, he had passed through Hamburg shortly before, and there he had taken pains to visit Bach, by then already advanced in years; he heard Bach improvise a few times on his Silbermann instrument. During a musical soirée at the home of Doles Mozart was asked by his host for his opinion of Bach’s playing, as the conversation was entirely concerned with such matters. The great man replied with his characteristically Viennese candour and directness; *He is the father, we are the children. Those of us who know anything at all learned it from him;* anyone who does not admit this is a ……(this last word seemed to be connected in some way that I did not understand). What he did, Mozart continued, would be considered old fashioned now; but the way he did it was unsurpassable. Mozart was well aware of C.P.E Bach and his music had, in his own words, a great influence upon him.
@@kennethdower7425 There's one thing most people tend to forget: C.P.E. Bach was the first modern keyboard technique scholar. Even modern textbooks tend to give fingerings for many scales and chords which were first gathered together and printed in C.P.E.'s "Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen" ("An Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments"). The treatise became an instant best-seller when the first edition was published in 1753, requiring a reprint which served as an occasion for a second edition revision in 1759 even before the second part concluding the work came out in 1762. This was not enough though and third edition of the first part was published in 1787 with the revised second part coming ten years later. When Mozart died in 1791 C.P.E. was already considered the ultimate expert on keyboard technique across the whole continent.
Paweł Małecki A thoughtful and knowledgeable comment; it is this manual - the Versuch - that was the one area that CPE was a major influence across Europe and on many composers from the mid-18th century and beyond. Many subsequent manuals on keyboard playing acknowledged the Versuch and used the it as a starting point; it is still in print today and used by scholars, and by students and professional pianists performing music of the period. I have a copy of the Versuch and refer to it often, I have a small number of CPE’s keyboard works in my repertoire - in short, I do know something about this topic. Additionally, we know that Beethoven was still using the Versuch in the early 19th century as his pupil Czerny tells us that Beethoven told him to get a copy and to study it, along with the associated teaching materials.
In 1905, the Belgian musical bibliographer Alfred Wotquenne (Wq) complied a thematic catalogue of the works of CPE Bach. Therefore, rather like the K (Kochel) numbers for Mozart, or Hob. (Hoboken) numbers for Haydn, the Wq numbers clearly and easily identify each of the composer’s works. In 1989, Eugene Helm (H) produced a second, entirely different, but updated catalogue of CPE’s works, so rather confusingly, sometimes you will find either a Wq number, or an H number, and sometimes both.
@@lukejones7842 You’re right to refer to the pitch; however keys were important to composers in the eighteenth century - and beyond - and meant different things. This symphony was conceived in e minor. Check out Christian Schubart’s ‘Characteristics of Musical Keys’ (1806) which is easily available if you search it, and is a fascinating read.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 hmm I get that keys are important to composers because of the different sonorities, timbre exc But in their time before a set concert pitch they would have tuned to themselves so would have been a different key for every performance. Please correct me if I'm wrong
This is an inventive, exciting, and very pleasing work. CPE Bach is one of my favorite composers.
CPE Bach had an amazing ability but is rarely heard today . He inspires the soul.
Fantastic performance. My god. Such an abrasive piece. Wonderful.
I would pay good money to hear this in concert. Sad, really, that there are a lot of good composers out there that have been forgotten to time.
The irony is that in some cases these were famous people who became 'secondary' to main figures as with Telemann, or the opposite as with Bach senior. It is sad that in the arts there seems to be a 'theory of the species', to make an odd comparison, in which artists are subjected to the changes of fashion and taste. What an unpredictable path that is! A change at the time must be made, by the composers under royal patronage, to not risk being 'too revolutionary' in their compositions. Is interesting that artists are able to cope with this- thus showing that the finer arts requiere a huge deal of intellectual effort, that they are not just 'playing the notes'. Truly remarkable contributions to history were those made by CPE Bach!
sorry to be so offtopic but does someone know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account??
I was dumb lost my login password. I appreciate any assistance you can give me.
@Anders Santana instablaster =)
@Kyler Walter I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and Im trying it out atm.
I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Kyler Walter It worked and I now got access to my account again. I'm so happy:D
Thank you so much, you saved my ass :D
I prefer this version with the winds. I think that the winds add very nicely to Sturm and Drang sound.
Brian Knapp
Originally written for strings alone and continuo in 1756 *(Wq 177),* CPE later added two each of flutes, oboes and horns *(Wq 178),* so both are authentic, and everyone can choose which they prefer; the symphony was first published in 1759.
However, the sound, whilst superficially resembling some aspects of sturm und drang, it is in fact a typical product of CPE’s very particular empfindsamer Stil.
This symphony was written about ten years before the mainly - but not entirely - Austrian sturm und drang period (c.1765 - 1775), and it has some striking features which are at first hearing perhaps reminiscent of sturm und drang:
- sudden dramatic contrasts in harmony, texture and dynamics;
- chromatic turns;
- volatility;
- an Empfindsamkeit aesthetic of attempting to stir emotions.
Wq 177/178 also retains some old fashioned features such as use of Baroque ritornello form in the first movement, but it clearly pre-dates the normally accepted sturm und drang repertoire by some years, and these features are more in line with CPE’s very personal Empfindsamkeit aesthetic (= dynamic expression, sensibility, sensitiveness, sentimentality, intimacy, and so forth).
In short:
empfindsamer Stil is about inner expression;
Sturm und drang is about outward gesture.
It is a fantastic piece; at the time, the composer Hasse said it was the best symphony he knew, but it is not sturm und drang you hear, it’s uniquely CPE and his empfindsamer Stil.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 What about Joseph Kraus and Franz Josph Haydn? Didn't they use the Sturm und Drang style for at least part of their composing carreers? What about Sturm und Drang Romanticism? Did not such composers a Julius Rietz, J B Gross, and J W Kaliwoda have Sturm und Drang style in some of their music? For example - Gross's and Rietz's cello concertos and Kalliwoda's symphony number 7. Setting exact dates for such movements seems to always leave out important exceptions.
Brian Knapp
Sturm und drang is a term adopted at the start of the 20th century to describe some very particular characteristics, features and mannerisms of some music written between c.1765 - 1775 by composers largely - but not entirely - centred on Vienna.
The greatest works in this style are by Joseph Haydn* who wrote about nineteen symphonies containing to a greater or lesser degree, sturm und drang features; these are most clearly evident in the minor key works such as:
Symphonies 26, 39, 49 written between 1765 and 1768;
44 (1771);
45 (1772);
52 (1772/3).
Mozart wrote one symphony in this style, Symphony 25 in g minor (K183).
And there are others by composers such as Vanhal, Dittersdorf, JC Bach - another one-off work, Opus 6 No 6 - and many others.
Kraus, like Mozart’s later minor key music such as the d minor of Don Giovanni, or the g minor Symphony 40 (K550), or Boccherini’s magnificent c minor symphony, is not sturm und drang; neither are the symphonies of Frank Beck or Carlos d’Ordonez, nor Gluck’s seminal Don Juan of 1761, which predate sturm und drang, nor again in the next age, any of Beethoven’s stormy music.
All these composers wrote turbulent, passionate minor key music, as did the composers you list yourself; however, whilst any minor key music from any age will inevitably have some shared characteristics, sturm und drang is very specific and it exists or not as explained above ie only in the composers listed as examples - there are others too - and between the dates stated.
At the risk of becoming very lengthy, the particular details to listen for that identify a work as sturm und drang are:
Greater use of contrapuntal forms, techniques and counterpoint,
Contrasting dynamics,
Greater accentuation,
Bold unison, forte, opening figures, gestures and statements,
Expansion of form and use of different forms - for example sonata da chiesa,
Greater use of dissonance and more extreme modulation,
Greater use of minor keys, and unusual keys,
Surprising use of effects, pauses, and silence,
Driving intense rhythms, frenzied figurations, tremolandos and jagged, broken patterns with wide leaps in melodic and thematic material,
Greater use of syncopation,
Longer melodic and harmonic lines,
Changes in orchestration,
Wider use of contrasting emotions,
Greater feeling of tension,
Et cetera
In short; whilst some of these features are common to much minor key music from any age; collectively they describe the Viennese sturm und drang of c.1765 - 1775 and are best exemplified in the Haydn symphonies listed above.
Sturm und drang suited Haydn, hence a large number of symphonies; it suited Mozart less well, hence only one attempt - he developed his own very personal style of minor key music, as did Beethoven, and both of these composers to a degree, had elements of sturm und drang inherent in their own individual styles - the same is true of Kraus too.
The minor key works you list from other later composers are minor key works, not sturm und drang, nor indeed as was my original point, was any of the music of CPE Bach.
Hope that helps.
* Ditch the baptismal ‘Franz’ it’s superfluous; do you refer to Johannes Chrisostomus Wolfgang Theophilus when referring to Mozart ?
Hello folks. I have commented on Elaine's posts before and I couldn't remain silent here. As with many (most) artistic movements, the (comparatively) modern nomenclature we assign to a 20-or-so year category of cultural activity--Sturm und Drang--is an approximation and is without hard borders. The Sturm und Drang style itself is but one niche within a much larger cultural movement called (in English) the anti-Enlightenment. Spurred in some measure by non-German thinkers (like Hume) who asserted the primacy of feeling and sentiment over the prevailing German value of logic and reason, the anti-Enlightenment touched all the arts and letters. Two great torchbearers of the musical anti-Enlightenment were Gluck and, particularly, CPE Bach, whose anti-Enlightenment tendencies were so acute that his ouevre represents a style nearly unique to him called the Empfinsamkeit, or the "affected style", which title itself was only coined in 1768.
Now, as both Haydn and Mozart themselves attested in writing, their impetus to experiment with the style which would later be called "Sturm und Drang" was inspired by the "affected" works of CPE Bach, one of which is the symphony in e minor here. So, Brian and others, only the closest reading of the definition of Sturm und Drang would exclude this CPE Bach symphony. Would it be a few years until the height of this phenomenon? Yes, to be exact. But seeing as Sturm und Drang is but a small subset of a much wider trend, and that CPE is the father of the style (Haydn's and Mozart's description, not mine), only a tiny elasticity to our terms allows for CPE Bach to be included in this category.
@@joshsussman9432 Thanks so much for the clarification. Was there any later style in the 19th century that was called Sturm und Drang Romanticism? I have seen people on You Tube us this term.
One hell of a first movement.
It’s style is known as empfindsamer stil or sensitive style
A great symphony by "CPE". Yeah, it was composed in 1756. That year is familiar to many, the birth year of a another well known composer :)
The Rheumatic Musician 1756 was the first year of the Seven Years War which is equally irrelevant.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I'm sorry for not being relevant enough in my comment.
mozart
@@MrLandale
I think the point I was trying to make, was that of all the composers of the mid/late 18th century Classical style, CPE and Mozart are polar opposites with absolutely nothing in common.
It would be difficult to name two more different Classical composers than CPE Bach and Mozart.
CPE and Mozart never met, their music is totally different - which can be identified after about four bars of either - and their lives similarly could not have been more strikingly different.
You’re quite right, this is a very fine symphony; I simply did not understand the need to mention Mozart which in your comment was implying a link which simply does not exist.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Is this so importent to you?
Curiously about 30 bars before the end of the first movement is an 10-bar stretch of melody & harmony (written 1755-6, Berlin) which was lifted note-for-note by Christof Willibald von Gluck in his overture for Iphigenia en Tauride (1779) for Paris…the exactness of the transcription leaves no room for doubt in this case…but shews that C.Ph.E. Bach’s music was well known to Gluck his famous contemporary German which is reflected in Baron van Swieten’s Sunday soirées (10am to 4pm) where the music of J.S. Bach, Handel & C.Ph.E. Bach and others of the late baroque were performed - often arranged for string quartet to be played live at these gatherings
Great symphony! Love the "Storm and Drive" 1st movement. Really fantastic. One of the best pieces of it's kind in my opinion.
Chill Tunezzz
This is a typical CPE Bach empfindsamer Stil work - it is not sturm und drang.
Whilst they superficially share some common characteristics, they are not the same thing.
You’re right though, it’s a fantastic piece; but of the former style, not the latter!
@@elaineblackhurst1509
Elaine Blackhurst,
I agree that it is not an explicitly "Sturm und drang," and understand that contrasted textures and unexpected harmonic changes are not always markers of a sturm und drang piece.
I do, however, challenge the notion that their common characteristics are superficial. I would say that the momentum found in the more typically "empfindsamer" passages display the key featues of sturm und drang and the "chiaroscuro" effect which it seeks to achieve.
Would you not agree that the time of C.P.E Bach's writing, and his contemporary influences could not qualify this piece as somewhat "Sturm und drang?"
Either way I belive we are, for the most part, in agreement. It is an excellent piece of music.
-Ted
@@tedboulting-williams4529
Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting comment.
You will come across a number of comments and replies I have written in order to help listeners understand better a composer who is not quite straightforward, nor whose wavelength is easy to tune into; if interested, and you look through some of them, then you find more detailed explanations of my view on what is quite a complex issue.
Two points may help: firstly that CPE Bach’s North German empfindsamer Stil emanated from Berlin and Hamburg, both of which may as well have been on a different musical planet from sturm und drang Vienna; I think the links between the two are often overstated - hence my ‘…superficial links’.
What is true is that there was a shared *reaction* to the prevailing lightweight galant and rococo music which was to be found all over Europe;* this reaction is to be found elsewhere as well, for example in some of the works of Gluck in the very early 1760’s such as Don Juan and Orfeo, neither of which are empfindsamer Stil nor sturm und drang, but which were massively influential.
Secondly, it is often useful to consider CPE Bach’s Empfindsamer aesthetic as being about *inner sensitivity* - this is made explicitly clear of you read the relevant sections of his Versuch - whilst Haydn’s sturm und drang is about *outward gesture,* a characteristic found in other sturm und drang works such as the one-off attempts by Mozart - Symphony 25 (K183), and JC Bach Opus 6 No 6.
Hope that’s useful in some way.
* This is a common characteristic which you are absolutely correct, is not superficial.
バッハ一族の､素晴らしい音源に感無量です。👏👏‼
Beautiful performance ! Thank you :)
Wunderbar, Sturm und Drang in Reinform!
…except it’s not the essentially Viennese sturm und drang, but CPE’s highly personal North German empfindsamer Stil.
Sturm und Drang, as it applies to 18th century music, is much more than minor keys and tremolos, sudden changes in dynamics, and irregular phrasing. This attempt to categorize music with certain characteristics into neat little boxes in order to pacify small minds sets my teeth on edge!
A composer who is neglected but is as good as Mozart as he looked forward with his technique .
David Horsman
Not really comparable with Mozart; barely a note of CPE could ever be mistaken for Mozart and vice-versa.
Two completely different composers in every respect.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 he didnt compare them, except in quality
@@Sshooter444
Even if we are comparing quality, comparing Mozart with CPE Bach is like comparing red with blue, or Italian food with Indian!
My point was, that in discussing CPE Bach, Mozart is actually pretty irrelevant.
@@elaineblackhurst1509Both Indian and Italian food can be quality
@@Yakudo14
That is my point exactly, and comparing the two cuisines in some sort of ranking competition is mindless stupidity that in the end comes down to personal preference.
I love both ‘Italian’ and ‘Indian’ cuisine, though in truth neither exist as regional variations are so strong that they deserve their own labels.
I knew right away it was Constable :)
Splendida !!!!DI CHI È IL QUADRO ???
Cyclic work
Sturm und Drang was neo-Vivaldi-ism
A highly original perception; pray tell more.
I actually think this is a spot-on take
@@willcwhite Hey are you the same Will White from the Classical Gabfest?
@@ianw1976 but of course! :)
@@willcwhite Ha! Good username spotting on my end.
Pozdrawiam kulturoznastwo UMK
He was a great influence on Mozart.
Doug Betula
CPE Bach was *not* ‘a great influence on Mozart’; I think you may be confusing him with his half-brother JC who was clearly a huge influence on the young Mozart.
Not a single note of CPE could possibly ever be mistaken by anybody as being written by Mozart (and vice-versa).
However, CPE’s ‘Versuch’* *was* a great influence on everyone from its first publication (in two parts) in 1753 and 1762.
CPE was an important influence on Haydn, and the aforementioned Versuch on everybody, including both Mozart, and Beethoven who was still referring to it in the early 19th century.
* Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Incorrect. This account of a meeting between W.A. Mozart and C.P.E. Bach is by Johann Friedrich Rochlitz and is from Für Freunde der Tonkunst (1824).
-When Mozart visited Leipzig a few years before his death, he had passed through Hamburg shortly before, and there he had taken pains to visit Bach, by then already advanced in years; he heard Bach improvise a few times on his Silbermann instrument. During a musical soirée at the home of Doles Mozart was asked by his host for his opinion of Bach’s playing, as the conversation was entirely concerned with such matters. The great man replied with his characteristically Viennese candour and directness; *He is the father, we are the children. Those of us who know anything at all learned it from him;* anyone who does not admit this is a ……(this last word seemed to be connected in some way that I did not understand). What he did, Mozart continued, would be considered old fashioned now; but the way he did it was unsurpassable.
Mozart was well aware of C.P.E Bach and his music had, in his own words, a great influence upon him.
@@kennethdower7425 There's one thing most people tend to forget: C.P.E. Bach was the first modern keyboard technique scholar. Even modern textbooks tend to give fingerings for many scales and chords which were first gathered together and printed in C.P.E.'s "Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen" ("An Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments"). The treatise became an instant best-seller when the first edition was published in 1753, requiring a reprint which served as an occasion for a second edition revision in 1759 even before the second part concluding the work came out in 1762. This was not enough though and third edition of the first part was published in 1787 with the revised second part coming ten years later. When Mozart died in 1791 C.P.E. was already considered the ultimate expert on keyboard technique across the whole continent.
Paweł Małecki
A thoughtful and knowledgeable comment; it is this manual - the Versuch - that was the one area that CPE was a major influence across Europe and on many composers from the mid-18th century and beyond.
Many subsequent manuals on keyboard playing acknowledged the Versuch and used the it as a starting point; it is still in print today and used by scholars, and by students and professional pianists performing music of the period.
I have a copy of the Versuch and refer to it often, I have a small number of CPE’s keyboard works in my repertoire - in short, I do know something about this topic.
Additionally, we know that Beethoven was still using the Versuch in the early 19th century as his pupil Czerny tells us that Beethoven told him to get a copy and to study it, along with the associated teaching materials.
büyüleyici
efsane
What does "Wq" mean?
In 1905, the Belgian musical bibliographer Alfred Wotquenne (Wq) complied a thematic catalogue of the works of CPE Bach.
Therefore, rather like the K (Kochel) numbers for Mozart, or Hob. (Hoboken) numbers for Haydn, the Wq numbers clearly and easily identify each of the composer’s works.
In 1989, Eugene Helm (H) produced a second, entirely different, but updated catalogue of CPE’s works, so rather confusingly, sometimes you will find either a Wq number, or an H number, and sometimes both.
!!!
Goyesco
This is technichally in d# minor
Only if you are listening in modern pitch
@@Sshooter444 relative to concert pitch
@@lukejones7842
You’re right to refer to the pitch; however keys were important to composers in the eighteenth century - and beyond - and meant different things.
This symphony was conceived in e minor.
Check out Christian Schubart’s ‘Characteristics of Musical Keys’ (1806) which is easily available if you search it, and is a fascinating read.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 hmm I get that keys are important to composers because of the different sonorities, timbre exc
But in their time before a set concert pitch they would have tuned to themselves so would have been a different key for every performance.
Please correct me if I'm wrong