# Best non-Ludwig works from 1800-1825



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

These years were pretty much dominated by you-know-who. But other composers were writing as well. Who are your favorite composers, and your favorite pieces, from 1800-1825, aside from you-know-who? (Or, should that be you-know-whom? Anyway...)


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

The 3 string quartets by Juan Crisóstomo de Arriaga are up there with the very best and of course the work list of masterpieces by Schubert during that period is too long to enumerate.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Andolink said:


> The 3 string quartets by Juan Crisóstomo de Arriaga are up there with the very best and of course the work list of masterpieces by Schubert during that period is too long to enumerate.


Yes, Arriaga's quartets seem to have been written about 1822, when he was 16. Amazing!

Schubert's list 1800-1825? Long but not all that long, I think, to join Liudwig. Please list his works!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Schubert's list 1800-1825? Long but not all that long, I think, to join Liudwig. Please list his works!


Of course Schubert died only 20 months after Beethoven. He was a mere 31 years of age. Born in 1797, Schubert was a babe when Beethoven was composing his first six string quartets (and these were not Beethoven's first works!) and his first couple of symphonies. Beethoven was in full adulthood throughout Schubert's life to age 30; if Schubert began composing at age 10, he had only 21 years to work, only half of those in maturity.

Still, Schubert's list of works is astounding. I often wonder how he could have composed all that he did, considering that composition demands time to jot notes in ink on score paper. What we hear as a half-hour piano sonata must have taken many days to notate; and a quartet or symphony expands the time practically by the number of instruments added. Schubert must not have slept, or he jotted notes in his sleep. But what remains most astonishing is not necessarily the amount of notes Schubert composed in his short life time (a seemingly impossible number if one calculates the time it would take to hand notate all of Schubert's scores), but that nearly all of those notes create masterpieces. Has any other composer (with the possible exception of Mozart) such a claim to make?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course Schubert died only 20 months after Beethoven. He was a mere 31 years of age... Has any other composer (with the possible exception of Mozart) such a claim to make?


Yes indeed. Schubert died at 31 years old, a year after Beethoven passed. And yet, such a legacy he left us! A poll on another site has Schubert splitting the 1820s with Beethoven, when that master was at his peak. Again, amazing.

1 - Schubert: String Quintet in C major D.956 (1828)
2 - Schubert: "Winterreise" D.911 (1827)
3 - Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor Op.125 "Choral" (1824)
4 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata #32 in C minor, Op.111 (1821-22)
5 - Schubert: String Quartet #15 in G major D.887 (1826)
6 - Beethoven: String Quartet #14 in C-sharp minor Op.131 (1826)
7 - Beethoven: String Quartet #15 in A minor Op.132 (1825)
8 - Schubert: Symphony #9 in C major D.944 "Great" (1826)
9 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata #30 in E major Op.109 (1820)
10 - Schubert: Fantasia in F minor for piano four hands D.940 (1828)


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Beyond Schubert, and the other lost-too-young of that era, Arriaga, there are plenty of good pieces from that time period.

Creeping in, just: Haydn's last two masses
Crusell's Clarinet Concertos
Mehul's Symphonies (these are really rather good!)
A lot of stuff by Weber
Mendelssohn's String symphonies
Rossini operas by the bucketload
Vorisek's wonderful Symphony in D. I have it coupled with Arriaga's Symphony, which incidentally is just as impressive as his String Quartets, I'd say.....

How many of these might compare with Ludwig or Franz is of course up for debate. And wasn't Chopin starting to produce decent stuff by then too?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

According to Beethoven himself, the greatest composer of his time was Cherubini. He wasn't aware of Schubert when he made this remark though.

Apart from these three, the good guys that come to my mind are Rossini, Weber and Hummel. I'm not so familiarized with other composers of the period though.

Weber's _Der Freischütz_ surely is something I think.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

Georges Onslow. you have to go up to 1835 but he was accordingly to the critics back then on the same level of craftmanship in chamber music as Mozart-Beethoven-Haydn. NOw he is almost but forgotten, well not played often...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The lesser known Wolfl (1773-1812) Op 25 Sonata (1805). Here is the wonderful somewhat Beethoven-sounding Adagio. Note particularly the very Beethoven sounding development at 3:55.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Mendelssohn composed his famous octet for strings in 1825. Hummel's _Missa Solemnis_ in C is also a fine work - Hummel succeeded Haydn as _kappelmeister_ to Prince Esterházy and this work, composed in 1806, can stand alongside Haydn's late masses.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Allerius said:


> *According to Beethoven himself, the greatest composer of his time was Cherubini.* He wasn't aware of Schubert when he made this remark though.
> 
> Apart from these three, the good guys that come to my mind are Rossini, Weber and Hummel. I'm not so familiarized with other composers of the period though.
> 
> Weber's _Der Freischütz_ surely is something I think.


Great composers are usually quite sound in their judgements. From Beethoven's time onwards it is rare for composers of note to praise now obscure figures to the skies. Ludwig seems to have reserved his admiration for mainly Mozart and Handel, and Haydn perhaps - from the 18thC - I am not aware that he held in high esteem any other composer from that era - he was fond of Salieri - but says nothing as such about his music. So upon what are his comments on Cherubini based I would like to discover. can anyone recommend a cherubini work that will knock my socks off and make me understand Beethoven?

Mozart respected some composers from the 18thC - notably Joseph and Micheal Haydn. But his true esteem was for Bach and the stories that have come down about his astonishment at discovering Bach's music makes sense to us today. He must have admired handel's ability to arrange The Messiah so we can safely say his tope 3 composers had we been able to ask him would have been Handel Bach and J Haydn and this view is consistent with modern estimation of musical history.

But Beethoven's comment on Cherubini? Come on then please supply a link to a great Cherubini work I need to understand this.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> But Beethoven's comment on Cherubini? Come on then please supply a link to a great Cherubini work I need to understand this.


"Among all the composers alive Cherubini is the most worthy of respect. I am in complete agreement, too, with his conception of the 'Requiem,' and if ever I come to write one I shall take note of many things." (Beethoven in the 1820s)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> The lesser known Wolfl (1773-1812) Op 25 Sonata (1805). Here is the wonderful somewhat Beethoven-sounding Adagio. Note particularly the very Beethoven sounding development at 3:55.


Wolfl is remembered mostly from his piano duel with Beethoven in the late 1790s. Most writers of liner notes would have us believe the Ludwig demolished Wolfl, but it may not have seemed that way at the time. Here's the AMZ account:

"...After we have featured the ladies first, as we should, let us discuss the gentlemen. Among these, Beethoven and Wölffl create the most excitement. Opinions as to the advantages of the one over the other are divided here. However, it appears as if the larger party is tending towards the latter. I want to try to point out the characteristics of both, without taking part in the ensuing argument.

"Beethoven's play is exceedingly brilliant, but less delicate and at times somewhat unclear. He shows himself to best advantage in free improvisation. And here the lightness and at the same time firmness in the sequence of his ideas is really quite extraordinary. B. instantly varies every theme, and not only in its figures. Since the death of Mozart who will always remain the non plus ultra in this, I have never found this kind of pleasure to the degree with which B. provides it. In this, Wölffl is inferior to him.

"However, Wölffl has at his disposal a thorough musical learnedness and true dignity in composition. He performs movements that appear nearly impossible to execute with a lightness, precision, and distinctness that is truly amazing. Of course, the large structure of his hands is an advantage in this. His performance is purposeful everywhere, pleasing and caressing in the adagios and equally far from the extremes of sparseness and overcrowding-this is why one can not only admire him but also enjoy him. That Wölffl's unassuming and pleasing behavior gains over Beethoven with his sometimes haughty manner is very natural..."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Among all the composers alive Cherubini is the most worthy of respect. I am in complete agreement, too, with his conception of the 'Requiem,' and if ever I come to write one I shall take note of many things." (Beethoven in the 1820s)


Cherubini wrote a number of masses which are among the best choral works of their time. They are serious in tone - Beethoven would have liked that - often imaginative, and more to my taste than Haydn's. He also wrote a fine symphony, some excellent quartets, and operas. _Medea_ is certainly impressive as sung by Callas, even if in the bastardized Italian version with recitatives by Lachner. Brahms considered it a high achievement in dramatic music.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

My favorite non-Beethoven works from the period would have to be Anton Reicha's - the 36 fugues, the fugal etudes (recently recorded by Ivan Ilić), the wind quintets, the string quartets... I think he was the most original composer of the era after Beethoven - a fascinating experimental approach to composition, temepered by Reicha's devotion to Classical ideals of balance and harmony as represented by Haydn.

There are a lot of treasures in Clementi's late piano works, too - the _Didone Abbandonata_ sonata, for one. I believe quite a few of his piano sonatas were composed between 1800 and 1825, and many of them are delightful, imaginative pieces of music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Cherubini wrote a number of masses which are among the best choral works of their time. They are serious in tone - Beethoven would have liked that - often imaginative, and more to my taste than Haydn's. He also wrote a fine symphony, some excellent quartets, and operas. _Medea_ is certainly impressive as sung by Callas, even if in the bastardized Italian version with recitatives by Lachner. Brahms considered it a high achievement in dramatic music.


I did listen to some of the requiem on you tube just now - half of it anyway. It's an attractive work - but in my view there's a huge gulf between this choral work and the great choral works in the repertoire - Bach and Mozart's best masses - Beethoven's Missa Solemnis etc.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Kuhlau wasn´t mentioned -
there are some fine works, including

- _Piano Concerto_, rather Beethovenian (1812) 



- _3 Piano Quartets_, the first two being from before 1825 



 (the marco polo recording is better IMO)
- _3 Flute Quintets_, including no.2 (1823) 



- _3 Fantasias for Solo Flute _


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

stomanek said:


> I did listen to some of the requiem on you tube just now - half of it anyway. It's an attractive work - but in my view there's a huge gulf between this choral work and the great choral works in the repertoire - Bach and Mozart's best masses - Beethoven's Missa Solemnis etc.


Your opinion. I recognize that I don't know much of Cherubini yet, but the fact that Beethoven and Brahms (among others) had him in high steem makes me want to know his works, not attack him. And I would never bash a work by a famous composer (even it he was famous only in his time) by listening to it partly and only once.

Also, the fact that a composer is largely forgotten now doesn't mean that his works aren't good. Vivaldi, Mahler and even J.S. Bach had to be rediscovered, and I don't think that there are any doubts about their genius. What if there are other great composers waiting to be rediscovered?

About your comparison of Cherubini with Mozart and Bach: I think that it's pointless, for the discussion here is about compositions from 1800 to 1825 and Beethoven said that "Among all the composers _*alive*_ Cherubini is the most worthy of respect."


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Allerius said:


> Your opinion. I recognize that I don't know much of Cherubini yet, but the fact that Beethoven and Brahms (among others) had him in high steem makes me want to know his works, not attack him. And I would never bash a work by a famous composer (even it he was famous only in his time) by listening to it partly and only once.
> 
> Also, the fact that a composer is largely forgotten now doesn't mean that his works aren't good. Vivaldi, Mahler and even J.S. Bach had to be rediscovered, and I don't think that there are any doubts about their genius. What if there are other great composers waiting to be rediscovered?
> 
> About your comparison of Cherubini with Mozart and Bach: I think that it's pointless, for the discussion here is about compositions from 1800 to 1825 and Beethoven said that "Among all the composers _*alive*_ Cherubini is the most worthy of respect."


For me it is not necessary to listen to entire works to understand the essential quality of a work. It would for example - be pointless to listen to all four movements of a symphony if the first movement is disappointing. Some works provide hints that repeated listenings are necessary - and I make my own judgement about this. I did not hear anything in 20 minutes of Cherubini that made me think listening to the whole work would be worthwhile. We all have our own way in music. I very rarely experience jaw dropping moments when I listen to composers outside of the canon. The last time was V.Williams wasps overture and I now am a RVW fan.

Beethoven may have been saying Cherubini is the best of a bad bunch.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

stomanek said:


> For me it is not necessary to listen to entire works to understand the essential quality of a work. It would for example - be pointless to listen to all four movements of a symphony if the first movement is disappointing...


That's a rather surprising statement. I would have missed some amazing symphony movements, especially when it comes to lesser-known works, if I had quit after the first movement.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DaveM said:


> That's a rather surprising statement. I would have missed some amazing symphony movements, especially when it comes to lesser-known works, if I had quit after the first movement.


Well - I have to use my judgement. I dont have time to plough through works that seem to offer no promise in the first 10-20 minutes. I have under my belt the symphonies of Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaik, Sibelius, Mahler, Dvorak, Franck, RVW, Elgar, Shost, Walton.

Rach sy I tried the 1st mvt test and didnt like. I was forced at a concert to sit through all of rach 2 and still didnt like. I think it's a fair strategy and I dont think I have missed much - if I have - I'll let it go. I prefer to listen to composers who pen a good 1st mvt


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Well - I have to use my judgement. I dont have time to plough through works that seem to offer no promise in the first 10-20 minutes. I have under my belt the symphonies of Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaik, Sibelius, Mahler, Dvorak, Franck, RVW, Elgar, Shost, Walton.
> 
> Rach sy I tried the 1st mvt test and didnt like. I was forced at a concert to sit through all of rach 2 and still didnt like. I think it's a fair strategy and I dont think I have missed much - if I have - I'll let it go. I prefer to listen to composers who pen a good 1st mvt


How many listens, generally, before you decide a movement/work is no good?


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

stomanek said:


> For me it is not necessary to listen to entire works to understand the essential quality of a work. It would for example - be pointless to listen to all four movements of a symphony if the first movement is disappointing. Some works provide hints that repeated listenings are necessary - and I make my own judgement about this. I did not hear anything in 20 minutes of Cherubini that made me think listening to the whole work would be worthwhile. We all have our own way in music. I very rarely experience jaw dropping moments when I listen to composers outside of the canon. The last time was V.Williams wasps overture and I now am a RVW fan.
> 
> Beethoven may have been saying Cherubini is the best of a bad bunch.


With all my respect, this statement (10 to 20 min, 1st movement) is somehow wired, because, is well known, that in many symphonies and concerts, the ''hammer'' movement is the second one (the andante, adagio, Lento, Langsam, etc.) A statement maybe I could agree with you is that, before Beethoven, the 3rd movements of the symphonies, weren't so interesting or motivating. But, to say something like this, you MUST listen the whole thing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Rach sy I tried the 1st mvt test and didnt like. I was forced at a concert to sit through all of rach 2 and still didnt like. I think it's a fair strategy and I dont think I have missed much - if I have - I'll let it go. I prefer to listen to composers who pen a good 1st mvt


Don't disregard Rach 3. His best symphony in my view and the first movement is great, this work is quite different in character than the first 2 symphonies.

As far as the OP my vote goes to Weber's _Der Freischütz_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> ...As far as the OP my vote goes to Weber's _Der Freischütz_.


Beethoven liked it too. "The little man, otherwise so gentle -- I never would have credited him with such a thing. Now Weber must write operas in earnest, one after the other, without caring too much for refinement! Kaspar, the monster, looms up like a house; wherever the devil sticks in his claw we feel it." (To Rochlitz, at Baden, in the summer of 1823)


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Beethoven's period overflowed with great music from other composers. Many of my favorites were written circa 1800-25 including:

Franz Josef Haydn *Harmonie mass* (1802)
Haydn *Battle of the Nile *(unsure when he wrote it; the battle itself occurred 1798) -- a cantata akin to his Nelson mass.

Johann Nepomuk Hummel *Octet-Partita in E flat* (1803)
His two wonderful *Grand Serenades Opp. 63 and 66* came along 1828

Franz Krommer *Octet-Partitas Opp. 79, 69, 57 and 78 *(1802)
Krommer *Clarinet Concerto in E *(1803)
Krommer *Octet-Partitas Opp. 73, 76* (1809)

Jan Ladislav Dussek *Piano Sonatas Op. 45* (1800) *Op. 35-2* (1806)

Gioachino Rossini *Flute Quartets* (1804)
Rossini *Messe di Gloria* (1820)

Luigi Cherubini *Requiem in C minor*, which Beethoven requested by played at his funeral, came along 1817. His wonderful *In Paradisum*, often linked on recordings of the requiem, was written 1807.

No compositions dates are listed for Johann Triebensee's wonderful *Concertino in E flat major for Cembalo, Wind Octet and Double Bass* and his *harmoniemusik from Mozart's Don Giovanni* but they were certainly written during the period.

I couldn't find a composition date for Josef Fiala's *Divertimento in D Sharp*; it too was during the period.

Another wonderful piece I just learned, Francois Boieldieu's *Concerto for Harp and Orchestra in C*, came just before in 1795.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

larold said:


> ...Another wonderful piece I just learned, Francois Boieldieu's *Concerto for Harp and Orchestra in C*, came just before in 1795.


There's also his Piano Concerto. Not sure of the date, but likely not too far from the Harp Concerto. He lived from 1775-1834. His most well known work was the opera La Dame Blanche (1825), rarely performed or recorded theses days.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

larold said:


> Beethoven's period overflowed with great music from other composers. Many of my favorites were written circa 1800-25 including:
> 
> Franz Josef Haydn *Harmonie mass* (1802)
> Haydn *Battle of the Nile *(unsure when he wrote it; the battle itself occurred 1798) -- a cantata akin to his Nelson mass.
> ...


Perhaps 'good' is a better adjective for much of the music on this list rather than 'great'?


----------

