A magnificent cheering first part followed by an an entertaining adagio and menuetto, then a convincing finale make it an interesting symphony. Thank you !
This is Dittersdorf at his most progressive and buoyant. He is starting to move musical boundaries in parts of this work that only Mozart was achieving at the time. It is assumed that he wrote around 120 symphonies (more than Haydn) although some are lost. This work would be a worthy addition to today's concert hall repertoire. Great choice of upload.
David A An interesting perspective but you overstate the case somewhat in your first two sentences. This worthwhile half-set of symphonies - six of the set of twelve are lost - is interesting but is clearly typical of Dittersdorf; it is not moving any musical boundaries. This work is so clearly short of almost all of Haydn’s symphonies and many of those of Mozart, particularly 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39 - 41 as to make any comparison invidious and it is better to enjoy these lovely works on their own terms and leave Mozart and Haydn out of it. That said, Dittersdorf’s music is unfailingly attractive, and these six extant Ovid symphonies are fine works.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I agree it is poor form to say this composers' music "sounds like" another, and I get quite frustrated when people do this tirelessly on You Tube. But that's not quite what I meant. I was talking about the progressive style of Ditterdorf's writing. There is evidence in this work that his development had advanced from originally Austro-Italian towards a writing technique used mainly by Mozart, especially in the symphonies you mention. I was not comparing the finished article, merely observing the alteration in the style of composition. As for Haydn - I only used his name in conjunction with the actual number of symphonies Dittersdorf wrote. Some people don't realise that he wrote more than Haydn, but I didn't say any of his are better (or worse for that matter). I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression of the point I was trying to make.
David A Your comments are thoughtful and interesting, thank you, that is why I replied. Discussion is good to enhance everyone’s understanding of these lesser known but interesting composers. I also agree with your comments about comparisons though sometimes they become inevitable. Let me explain further some subsequent thoughts. These six symphonies are dated c.1783 (possibly a little later), this makes them roughly contemporaneous with Haydn 76-78, and 79-81, and Mozart 35 (Haffner) and 36 (Linz). They were published in 1786 alongside Haydn’s Paris symphonies (82-87), and Mozart’s 38 (Prague). My problem with your original comment was labelling Dittersdorf’s six Ovid symphonies as: 1. ‘progressive’, 2. ‘starting to move musical boundaries’, and in a way that 3. ‘...only Mozart was achieving at the time’. I find that in comparison to these contemporary works by Mozart and Haydn, there is very little that is progressive; nothing that is moving boundaries; and arguably there is more of both in the Haydn works than in those of Mozart, though Mozart himself had moved to a completely new level with his symphonies from 35 onwards as well. It is therefore incorrect to say that developments were such that *’only’* [my emphasis of your word] Mozart was achieving at the time - an absurd observation in regards to the symphony in that it disregards Haydn. Mozart’s contributions to the development of the symphony after about 1780 were enormous, but he was not alone - you simply cannot talk meaningfully about the development of the 18th century symphony and omit Haydn. Ditterdorf’s works are unfailingly attractive, he was a competent, effective, and highly professional composer who wrote beautifully for the classical orchestra. However, his works betray an extraordinary lack of inner tension and forward momentum; there is very little development of themes and even less of motivic development. There is an overuse of conventional figures such as scalic runs and arpeggios - examples of what I see as his limitations. I would also question the degree to which he grew and developed as a composer throughout his life, and have always considered him to be a composer like Boccherini and Michael Haydn to name just two contemporaries, whose development over their composing careers was relatively limited. It is difficult with all three of these composers to identify accurately an early work from a late work. In contrast, Mozart and Haydn clearly grew and developed year on year, often spectacularly; in Dittersdorf, this growth and development was far less evident. You are absolutely right about the huge number of symphonies written by Dittersdorf, many of which are fine works, many of those I know contain original and unusual ideas, written often in different styles and using unusual structures; unfortunately, history has judged him harshly. It is a shame so few of his works are played or even available on cd. Reading over what I have just written, it reads perhaps slightly critically on both Dittersdorf and your original comment, which was not the intention. The aim was to try to explain why I think Dittersdorf is not an ‘A’ list composer, and to try to put him in a context with Mozart and Haydn who inevitably tend to cause all other contemporary composers’ works to struggle in comparison. I have known these lovely works for many years, they are works I treasure; everyone needs to enjoy them on their own terms for what they are - beautifully crafted, 18th century symphonies but written by a composer who, at the time was successful. If you read his biographical details, exactly because of the lack of development of his style I mentioned earlier, he had fallen out of fashion and into debt by the end of his life, overtaken by the music of others.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Dear Elaine, thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to give me such an extensive reply. My knowledge has increased in consequence. I thoroughly agree that Dittersdorf didn't make the A listing but I think we both agree that his work definitely has its merits. It's lovely to discuss such matters with you. David x
David A You’re very welcome - you’re right, it’s good to discover other people’s opinions and perspectives; Dittersdorf is an interesting and unfailingly attractive composer whose works deserve to be better known. You may or may not know about one of Dittersdorf’s best claims to fame today: Michael Kelly - a tenor who sung a number of Mozart’s roles, in his ‘Reminisces’ (1826), recorded that he attended a quartet party in 1784. Kelly wrote that he remembers: ‘The players were tolerable; not one of them (except for Dittersdorf), excelled on the instrument he played, but there was a little science among them which I dare say will be acknowledged when I name them: First violin - Haydn Second violin - Dittersdorf Viola - Mozart Violoncello - Vanhal I was there, and a greater treat, or more remarkable one cannot be imagined’. Whilst the other three were all competent players, Dittersdorf in fact had a virtuoso technique and it is more than possible that Kelly muddled his 1st and 2nd violin players and that Dittersdorf played 1st violin rather than Haydn. In short; enjoy Dittersdorf and carry on exploring; you’ll make some interesting discoveries.
Ein brillanter Komponist der Barocken Aera ! Man hört noch den gravitätischen Schreittanz der Renicance um Gefühl unjd machmal schon Anklänge an die kommende Klassische Aera. thanks for loading.
Poor Ditters! Always playing the second violin! But, he is not the generic composer that most people think he is. To be honest, he composed a lot of boring music, but also a handfull of true gems. Like this symphony!
Thanks for your comment. I think he was a composer who composed so much that he did not even realize that many of his works contained the same theme with small variations. However, his music was listened at the time, and he had his period of glory. I listen to his music, sometimes with pleasure, sometimes not.
Jean-Baptiste Des Prez I agree with every word of your thoughtful comment but I do wonder about the ‘...always playing the second violin’ story. According to Michael Kelly’s ‘Reminisces’, published in 1826, ie over forty years after the famous quartet party at Stephen Storace’s residence in Vienna (c.1784), he lists the players as: Haydn (1st violin); Dittersdorf (2nd violin); Mozart (viola); Vanhal (‘cello). Whilst the other three were all competent string players, Dittersdorf in fact had a professional and virtuoso technique and was by far the best player; in the early 1760’s, he was considered the finest violinist in Vienna, appearing frequently as a concerto soloist. I wonder if Kelly writing about this most famous of quartet parties mixed up the two violin players; would it not make more sense if Dittersdorf had actually played 1st violin? * Perhaps Dittersdorf did not always play second violin! * Haydn did however say of himself that he was competent ‘...to play a concerto neatly’.
Listening to some composers it is easy to understand why they have not remained in memory over the centuries. Frankly, this symphony presents no reason for excitement when listening.
I HAVE VERY HIGH ESTEEM FOR SYMPHONIES!!!! THEY ARE THE BEST LISTENING!!!! THANKS FOR UPLOADING THIS!!!!
Thank you, I'm glad you appreciate this symphony.
Bravo miss sibarit 101!! Excellent collection and performances!! Sotiris Andreou.(Guitarist).
A magnificent cheering first part followed by an an entertaining adagio and menuetto, then a convincing finale make it an interesting symphony. Thank you !
Thank you too!
THX, finally i found this wonderfull symphony here 🥰
Thank you too! I'm glad you like Dittersdorf's symphonies.
This is Dittersdorf at his most progressive and buoyant. He is starting to move musical boundaries in parts of this work that only Mozart was achieving at the time. It is assumed that he wrote around 120 symphonies (more than Haydn) although some are lost. This work would be a worthy addition to today's concert hall repertoire. Great choice of upload.
David A
An interesting perspective but you overstate the case somewhat in your first two sentences.
This worthwhile half-set of symphonies - six of the set of twelve are lost - is interesting but is clearly typical of Dittersdorf; it is not moving any musical boundaries.
This work is so clearly short of almost all of Haydn’s symphonies and many of those of Mozart, particularly 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39 - 41 as to make any comparison invidious and it is better to enjoy these lovely works on their own terms and leave Mozart and Haydn out of it.
That said, Dittersdorf’s music is unfailingly attractive, and these six extant Ovid symphonies are fine works.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I agree it is poor form to say this composers' music "sounds like" another, and I get quite frustrated when people do this tirelessly on You Tube. But that's not quite what I meant.
I was talking about the progressive style of Ditterdorf's writing. There is evidence in this work that his development had advanced from originally Austro-Italian towards a writing technique used mainly by Mozart, especially in the symphonies you mention. I was not comparing the finished article, merely observing the alteration in the style of composition.
As for Haydn - I only used his name in conjunction with the actual number of symphonies Dittersdorf wrote. Some people don't realise that he wrote more than Haydn, but I didn't say any of his are better (or worse for that matter). I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression of the point I was trying to make.
David A
Your comments are thoughtful and interesting, thank you, that is why I replied.
Discussion is good to enhance everyone’s understanding of these lesser known but interesting composers.
I also agree with your comments about comparisons though sometimes they become inevitable.
Let me explain further some subsequent thoughts.
These six symphonies are dated c.1783 (possibly a little later), this makes them roughly contemporaneous with Haydn 76-78, and 79-81, and Mozart 35 (Haffner) and 36 (Linz).
They were published in 1786 alongside Haydn’s Paris symphonies (82-87), and Mozart’s 38 (Prague).
My problem with your original comment was labelling Dittersdorf’s six Ovid symphonies as:
1. ‘progressive’,
2. ‘starting to move musical boundaries’, and in a way that
3. ‘...only Mozart was achieving at the time’.
I find that in comparison to these contemporary works by Mozart and Haydn, there is very little that is progressive; nothing that is moving boundaries; and arguably there is more of both in the Haydn works than in those of Mozart, though Mozart himself had moved to a completely new level with his symphonies from 35 onwards as well.
It is therefore incorrect to say that developments were such that *’only’* [my emphasis of your word] Mozart was achieving at the time - an absurd observation in regards to the symphony in that it disregards Haydn.
Mozart’s contributions to the development of the symphony after about 1780 were enormous, but he was not alone - you simply cannot talk meaningfully about the development of the 18th century symphony and omit Haydn.
Ditterdorf’s works are unfailingly attractive, he was a competent, effective, and highly professional composer who wrote beautifully for the classical orchestra.
However, his works betray an extraordinary lack of inner tension and forward momentum; there is very little development of themes and even less of motivic development.
There is an overuse of conventional figures such as scalic runs and arpeggios - examples of what I see as his limitations.
I would also question the degree to which he grew and developed as a composer throughout his life, and have always considered him to be a composer like Boccherini and Michael Haydn to name just two contemporaries, whose development over their composing careers was relatively limited.
It is difficult with all three of these composers to identify accurately an early work from a late work.
In contrast, Mozart and Haydn clearly grew and developed year on year, often spectacularly; in Dittersdorf, this growth and development was far less evident.
You are absolutely right about the huge number of symphonies written by Dittersdorf, many of which are fine works, many of those I know contain original and unusual ideas, written often in different styles and using unusual structures; unfortunately, history has judged him harshly.
It is a shame so few of his works are played or even available on cd.
Reading over what I have just written, it reads perhaps slightly critically on both Dittersdorf and your original comment, which was not the intention.
The aim was to try to explain why I think Dittersdorf is not an ‘A’ list composer, and to try to put him in a context with Mozart and Haydn who inevitably tend to cause all other contemporary composers’ works to struggle in comparison.
I have known these lovely works for many years, they are works I treasure; everyone needs to enjoy them on their own terms for what they are - beautifully crafted, 18th century symphonies but written by a composer who, at the time was successful.
If you read his biographical details, exactly because of the lack of development of his style I mentioned earlier, he had fallen out of fashion and into debt by the end of his life, overtaken by the music of others.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Dear Elaine, thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to give me such an extensive reply. My knowledge has increased in consequence. I thoroughly agree that Dittersdorf didn't make the A listing but I think we both agree that his work definitely has its merits.
It's lovely to discuss such matters with you. David x
David A
You’re very welcome - you’re right, it’s good to discover other people’s opinions and perspectives; Dittersdorf is an interesting and unfailingly attractive composer whose works deserve to be better known.
You may or may not know about one of Dittersdorf’s best claims to fame today: Michael Kelly - a tenor who sung a number of Mozart’s roles, in his ‘Reminisces’ (1826), recorded that he attended a quartet party in 1784. Kelly wrote that he remembers:
‘The players were tolerable; not one of them (except for Dittersdorf), excelled on the instrument he played, but there was a little science among them which I dare say will be acknowledged when I name them:
First violin - Haydn
Second violin - Dittersdorf
Viola - Mozart
Violoncello - Vanhal
I was there, and a greater treat, or more remarkable one cannot be imagined’.
Whilst the other three were all competent players, Dittersdorf in fact had a virtuoso technique and it is more than possible that Kelly muddled his 1st and 2nd violin players and that Dittersdorf played 1st violin rather than Haydn.
In short; enjoy Dittersdorf and carry on exploring; you’ll make some interesting discoveries.
Bravo!, this music lets me recognize that I have no talent in comparison to such fine and enjoable symphonys .
Great composer,full of life. Like very much his strings chamber music with Kubin Quartet.-
🌹
Ein brillanter Komponist der Barocken Aera ! Man hört noch den gravitätischen Schreittanz der Renicance um Gefühl unjd machmal schon Anklänge an die kommende Klassische Aera. thanks for loading.
Thank you for yours nice comments and for subscribing to my channel. Welcome!
@WQ673 war Dittersdorf kein klassischer Komponist?.
Isn't this the Sinfonia #6, not 5? Or is my Naxos recording with the Failoni Orchestra wrong?
On the Naxos CD, Symphonies 5 and 6 were reversed. I remember Naxos reporting this change somewhere, but I don't remember where Naxos did it.
Poor Ditters! Always playing the second violin! But, he is not the generic composer that most people think he is. To be honest, he composed a lot of boring music, but also a handfull of true gems. Like this symphony!
Thanks for your comment.
I think he was a composer who composed so much that he did not even realize that many of his works contained the same theme with small variations. However, his music was listened at the time, and he had his period of glory. I listen to his music, sometimes with pleasure, sometimes not.
@@sibarit101 yes, i have the same feeling, considering how prolific he was. But the Ovids' metamorphoses cycle are definitly among his better works.
Jean-Baptiste Des Prez
I agree with every word of your thoughtful comment but I do wonder about the ‘...always playing the second violin’ story.
According to Michael Kelly’s ‘Reminisces’, published in 1826, ie over forty years after the famous quartet party at Stephen Storace’s residence in Vienna (c.1784), he lists the players as:
Haydn (1st violin);
Dittersdorf (2nd violin);
Mozart (viola);
Vanhal (‘cello).
Whilst the other three were all competent string players, Dittersdorf in fact had a professional and virtuoso technique and was by far the best player; in the early 1760’s, he was considered the finest violinist in Vienna, appearing frequently as a concerto soloist.
I wonder if Kelly writing about this most famous of quartet parties mixed up the two violin players; would it not make more sense if Dittersdorf had actually played 1st violin? *
Perhaps Dittersdorf did not always play second violin!
* Haydn did however say of himself that he was competent ‘...to play a concerto neatly’.
Listening to some composers it is easy to understand why they have not remained in memory over the centuries. Frankly, this symphony presents no reason for excitement when listening.