# Vivaldi, 1 concerto 400 times?



## Perotin

Stravinsky supposedly made the folowing comment on Vivaldi: "Vivaldi did not write 400 concertos; he wrote one concerto 400 times." Why is Vivaldi's music so repetitive? One idea, that comes to my mind, is that back then in the baroque period, composers (and people in general) were not viewed as an individual personalities and hence were not expected to be original and inventive. The notion of an artist as a creative individual only appeared in romantic era. Artist was just a craftsman, who must please the audiance with enjoyable music. Telemann also falls into this "one piece repeated hundreds of times" category, I think. On the other hand, Bach also wrote about 200 cantatas, but he didn't repeat himself, his cantatas are quite versatile. So, is that Vivaldi's weakness or can we see that as something typical of his period?


----------



## Ukko

Neither a weakness, nor typical, nor repetitive. One need only pay attention.


----------



## clavichorder

I don't find Bach cantatas to be much more diverse or inspired than Vivaldi concertos or even Telemann overture suites. Its just the same thing but more "overbuilt" and not purely instrumental. I would like JS Bach more if I could get away from all this unfair elevation of his music, which is pretty blown out of proportion.

What Hilltroll said can apply to much older music. You do have to pay attention to more subtle differences. And it is worth it. You'll get more out of that in the long run than you will in discrediting the music.

However, to soften my post, of course if its not your thing, then don't stress about it. But there are those of us who really get into it and appreciate this stuff.


----------



## Novelette

Take away the "circle of fifths" progression and 2/3 of Vivaldi's non-vocal music evaporates. =\


----------



## neoshredder

I don't see that. Vivaldi wrote many Concertos with their own unique sound. And now you're putting Telemann in there as well?


----------



## BurningDesire

Stravinsky said lots of really stupid things, but he wrote amazing music so we can forgive some of it (not all of it though).


----------



## Sid James

What you're talking about, Perotin, is 'sewing machine' music. Telemann is a good example. I think Vivaldi too. Even the 'greats' did lots of rehash - Handel, Mozart even J.S. Bach. The Baroque and Classical Eras did have many conventions that where more or less adhered to. Of course, these composers did move away from these conventions in a good deal of their works, and I think that's what makes them great. Not some obscure trio sonata or something that's same to a dozen or more others they did, but its their unique works that make them stand out from the many composers from back then who where (is it fair to say) lesser lights of their era.

Let's face it, much of the stuff from back then does sound the same, basically because it is, in terms of the conventions. They used these same kind of chord progressions in many of their works. Of course we can offer examples like Rebel's _Les Elements _or stuff like the sturm und drang symphonies of Haydn, C.P.E. Bach and Mozart as being uber dissonant for the time, but they are not typical of their output as a whole (& I think Wolfie did only sturm und drang symphony, the 25th in G minor, and its one of his most popular works - along with the 40th in G minor - simply because it stands out from most of his other symphonies as different and unique).

There's obvious things like this that's not said on this forum, maybe to protect people from being discomfited (as I recently and periodically get abused by a 'trio' of members here who I've singled out many times) or maybe cos its like treading on eggshells. But read even the most basic books on classical music, and it does describe this type of 'sewing machine' music or 'music made to order.'

http://www.talkclassical.com/19502-music-made-order.html


----------



## neoshredder

Sid James said:


> What you're talking about, Perotin, is 'sewing machine' music. Telemann is a good example. I think Vivaldi too. Even the 'greats' did lots of rehash - Handel, Mozart even J.S. Bach. The Baroque and Classical Eras did have many conventions that where more or less adhered to. Of course, these composers did move away from these conventions in a good deal of their works, and I think that's what makes them great. Not some obscure trio sonata or something that's same to a dozen or more others they did, but its their unique works that make them stand out from the many composers from back then who where (is it fair to say) lesser lights of their era.
> 
> Let's face it, much of the stuff from back then does sound the same, basically because it is, in terms of the conventions. They used these same kind of chord progressions in many of their works. Of course we can offer examples like Rebel's _Les Elements _or stuff like the sturm und drang symphonies of Haydn, C.P.E. Bach and Mozart as being uber dissonant for the time, but they are not typical of their output as a whole (& I think Wolfie did only sturm und drang symphony, the 25th in G minor, and its one of his most popular works - along with the 40th in G minor - simply because it stands out from most of his other symphonies as different and unique).
> 
> There's obvious things like this that's not said on this forum, maybe to protect people from being discomfited (as I recently and periodically get abused by a 'trio' of members here who I've singled out many times) or maybe cos its like treading on eggshells. But read even the most basic books on classical music, and it does describe this type of 'sewing machine' music or 'music made to order.'
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/19502-music-made-order.html


It's not the same. It's similar in style as every Era has their unique sound. This is one of those things that I diisagree strongly with you on. But you aren't going to see anything extreme. Just variations. Just enough to make that piece unique. The same goes for the Classical Era.


----------



## tgtr0660

Stravinsky was a great composer. He made great music. 

A great composer. Great music. 

Composer. Music. 

That's it.


----------



## neoshredder

tgtr0660 said:


> Stravinsky was a great composer. He made great music.
> 
> A great composer. Great music.
> 
> Composer. Music.
> 
> That's it.


Not as great as Vivaldi though.


----------



## Ondine

Perotin said:


> " Why is Vivaldi's music so repetitive?


OMG... I hear completely different concertos between the Bassoon ones, Op. 3 -L'Estro Armonico-& Op 9 -La Cetra- between many others like those for wind instruments. The flavours are really different but is like trying good wines. 'Taste' is needed to be developed.


----------



## quack

The other point about what Stravinsky said was that little was known of Vivaldi's output except a lot of similar concertos, his vocal music was still obscure at the time.

I personally don't see what is wrong with writing the same thing 400 times if it is good, and there is variety to them even if it is not immense. Some people are able to constantly reinvent themselves and try different things, like Stravinsky, other people find a niche and keep doing what works for them or others.

There is the romantic era idea that the artist is a striver after beauty and truth in whatever ways possible whereas before they were mere workmen, but that is pretty much just a romantic fantasy. Artists have been going their own ways since time in memorial, sometimes they get a sympathetic patron/critic/audience but mostly they get lost to history.


----------



## KRoad

I too hear the repetitive quality in V's concertos - some listeners apparently not. He was a "formulaic" writer if ever there was one. A producer of pleasing "product" to be sure - but formulaic nonetheless. If any one is interested I can go into more detail in musicological terms - but then I will have to consult the books just so I get the explanation right and I'd rather avoid this. So... please, believe me.


----------



## Perotin

It's interesting to compare Beethoven, Mozart and Vivaldi in terms of repetitiveness. Different Beethoven's works convey different emotions and different musical ideas. With Mozart, the majority of his pieces evoke the same feeling, but are rich in ideas. With Vivaldi, mostly all works are similar, both in terms of feelings and musical ideas. I do like Vivaldi's style and find quite many of his peices brilliant, but if we erased three quarters of his oeuvre, we would lose nothing, I think. But it is a pity, if Vivaldi had been capable of producing more diversity in his music, he would have probably been on the same level as Bach or Händel, thus, he is only a second rate baroque composer, I'm afraid. All the Vivaldi lovers, please, don't get offended.


----------



## Rapide

Sid James said:


> What you're talking about, Perotin, is 'sewing machine' music. Telemann is a good example. I think Vivaldi too. Even the 'greats' did lots of rehash - Handel, Mozart even J.S. Bach. The Baroque and Classical Eras did have many conventions that where more or less adhered to. Of course, these composers did move away from these conventions in a good deal of their works, and I think that's what makes them great. Not some obscure trio sonata or something that's same to a dozen or more others they did, but its their unique works that make them stand out from the many composers from back then who where (is it fair to say) lesser lights of their era.
> 
> Let's face it, much of the stuff from back then does sound the same, basically because it is, in terms of the conventions. They used these same kind of chord progressions in many of their works. Of course we can offer examples like Rebel's _Les Elements _or stuff like the sturm und drang symphonies of Haydn, C.P.E. Bach and Mozart as being uber dissonant for the time, but they are not typical of their output as a whole (& I think Wolfie did only sturm und drang symphony, the 25th in G minor, and its one of his most popular works - along with the 40th in G minor - simply because it stands out from most of his other symphonies as different and unique).
> 
> There's obvious things like this that's not said on this forum, maybe to protect people from being discomfited (as I recently and periodically get abused by a 'trio' of members here who I've singled out many times) or maybe cos its like treading on eggshells. But read even the most basic books on classical music, and it does describe this type of 'sewing machine' music or 'music made to order.'
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/19502-music-made-order.html


Music "sounding the same" can be said of any period if one is not familiar with it. Some even say all classical music sound the same. The last time I checked, you are not a big fan of the Baroque ("wig music" was your description), so it is not surprising you arrived at such a conclusion.

Finally, what are those "things like this that's not said"? Best to come clean rather than not out in the open for a friendly discussion. The last time I checked, you often stated you prefer to write down your thoughts openly.

One more thing - as you suggested there existed plenty of "music made to order", then it implies there were music NOT made to order. Can you elaborate what music NOT made to order might be?


----------



## Arsakes

La Stravaganza Concertos, Wind Concertos, The Seasons Concertos are all different and I have heard around 15 more concertos from him that all are also different.


----------



## neoshredder

Perotin said:


> It's interesting to compare Beethoven, Mozart and Vivaldi in terms of repetitiveness. Different Beethoven's works convey different emotions and different musical ideas. With Mozart, the majority of his pieces evoke the same feeling, but are rich in ideas. With Vivaldi, mostly all works are similar, both in terms of feelings and musical ideas. I do like Vivaldi's style and find quite many of his peices brilliant, but if we erased three quarters of his oeuvre, we would lose nothing, I think. But it is a pity, if Vivaldi had been capable of producing more diversity in his music, he would have probably been on the same level as Bach or Händel, thus, he is only a second rate baroque composer, I'm afraid. All the Vivaldi lovers, please, don't get offended.


You are free to your opinion but your opinion is WRONG!


----------



## neoshredder

KRoad said:


> I too hear the repetitive quality in V's concertos - some listeners apparently not. He was a "formulaic" writer if ever there was one. A producer of pleasing "product" to be sure - but formulaic nonetheless. If any one is interested I can go into more detail in musicological terms - but then I will have to consult the books just so I get the explanation right and I'd rather avoid this. So... please, believe me.


Please do explain. While you're at it, explain why the others are less formulaic.


----------



## KRoad

neoshredder said:


> Please do explain. While you're at it, explain why the others are less formulaic.


Can I take the easy way out and, as a starting point, refer you to a source that, should others care to enter into the debate, can be used as a starting point (either for or against) the said repetitive nature of V's concertos - which incidentally I enjoy, all be it in moderation owing to the said "sameness"?

Burkholder/Grout/Palisca: A History of Western Music (8th Edition) pp. 423 - 426.

BTW: Your tone is rather belligerent, Neo. Are you looking for a squabble per chance?


----------



## neoshredder

KRoad said:


> Can I take the easy way out and, as a starting point, refer you to a source that, should others care to enter into the debate, can be used as a starting point (either for or against) the said repetitive nature of V's concertos - which incidentally I enjoy, all be it in moderation owing to the said "sameness"?
> 
> Burkholder/Grout/Palisca: A History of Western Music (8th Edition) pp. 423 - 426.
> 
> BTW: Your tone is rather belligerent, Neo. Are you looking for a squabble per chance?


This thread idea was looking for a squabble. And no I'm not going somewhere and find that book. It's like Ondine said. "The flavours are really different but is like trying good wines. 'Taste' is needed to be developed.". Thus you aren't listening to the music close enough if you think it's all the same. And btw my tone is not beligerent. I'm saying things as politely as I can that I strongly disagree with you. If I get reported for questioning someones opinion, I don't know what to say.


----------



## neoshredder

Btw all Eras get tiresome to me after awhile. I like variety of every Era and even different genres. That doesn't mean each Era is the same. It just means I'm looking for something radically different.


----------



## BurningDesire

Perotin said:


> It's interesting to compare Beethoven, Mozart and Vivaldi in terms of repetitiveness. Different Beethoven's works convey different emotions and different musical ideas. With Mozart, the majority of his pieces evoke the same feeling, but are rich in ideas. With Vivaldi, mostly all works are similar, both in terms of feelings and musical ideas. I do like Vivaldi's style and find quite many of his peices brilliant, but if we erased three quarters of his oeuvre, we would lose nothing, I think. But it is a pity, if Vivaldi had been capable of producing more diversity in his music, he would have probably been on the same level as Bach or Händel, thus, he is only a second rate baroque composer, I'm afraid. All the Vivaldi lovers, please, don't get offended.


I find Handel to be more second-rate than Vivaldi.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> I find Handel to be more second-rate than Vivaldi.


Have you listened to Handel's Concerti Grossi Op. 6?


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Have you listened to Handel's Concerti Grossi Op. 6?


a bit. Didn't really do anything for me. X3


----------



## Ondine

neoshredder said:


> Have you listened to Handel's Concerti Grossi Op. 6?


Sure. I enjoy the entire Op. 6, but I keep with Vivaldi. After Mozart, I think Vivaldi is one of my first choices, too.


----------



## moody

The answer to the problem is simple,if you don't like it after trying properly---don't listen.
I(f you come on here saying what you said you wlii be devoured by stalwarts such as Clavichorder and Neoshredder. 
It's all horses for courses really'


----------



## neoshredder

moody said:


> The answer to the problem is simple,if you don't like it after trying properly---don't listen.
> I(f you come on here saying what you said you wlii be devoured by stalwarts such as Clavichorder and Neoshredder.
> It's all horses for courses really'


I assume you would become a stalwart as well if I started insulting 19th Century music. And I do have some negative words to describe 19th Century music.


----------



## KRoad

neoshredder said:


> This thread idea was looking for a squabble. And no I'm not going somewhere and find that book. It's like Ondine said. "The flavours are really different but is like trying good wines. 'Taste' is needed to be developed.". Thus you aren't listening to the music close enough if you think it's all the same. And btw my tone is not beligerent. I'm saying things as politely as I can that I strongly disagree with you. If I get reported for questioning someones opinion, I don't know what to say.


Then, in the interests of avoiding an unseemly on-line squabble or even worse, let me say... Neoshredder, you are absolutely correct in your assertions, sir. Well done and thank you for sharing your insight and good taste.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> I assume you would become a stalwart as well if I started insulting 19th Century music. And I do have some negative words to describe 19th Century music.


At times it could be a bit excessively awesome. Hell, its almost cool enough to give Rainbow Dash a run for her money.


----------



## Sid James

Another thing I'd add, a thing I've mentioned on the forum before, is that the vast majority of music in the Baroque and Classical eras was done in the major key. Only about 10 per cent (if even that) was written in the minor keys. This was stated by a professor of music here at a public lecture about the Classical Era. I did a thread dealing with these issues below:
http://www.talkclassical.com/14330-use-major-minor-keys.html

There was some deal of uniformity in these eras, but of course as I said earlier the big name composers, the greats, the innovators (& that includes Vivaldi) where able to transcend these conventions in many of their works. Particularly their well knwon works, the majority of listeners like them because they stand out from the rest of their output. With Vivaldi, its obvious, stuff like The Four Seasons, L'estro Armonico, La Stravaganza and sacred works like the Gloria and Dixit Dominus really stand out.

& yes Rapide uniformity can also be a strength in terms of it being a sign of a composer having a unique hard to replicate sound. But what I'm saying is that to get a fundamental grasp on these eras, one does not have to listen to every last work by these composers. But maybe that's another issue and reflecting on what we in former times where bludgeoned with by certain people who are adamant that one has to listen to every note of a composer's output to draw these basic conclusions. I find that absurd, in any case life is too short for me to listen to all of Vivaldi's concertos to do that.


----------



## moody

neoshredder said:


> I assume you would become a stalwart as well if I started insulting 19th Century music. And I do have some negative words to describe 19th Century music.


You do really get things wrong don't you, it's a compliment--look it up.


----------



## moody

neoshredder said:


> I assume you would become a stalwart as well if I started insulting 19th Century music. And I do have some negative words to describe 19th Century music.


I thought I'd answered this,but I'll do it again.
That was meant as a compliment not an insult to you--look it up why don't you ?
I don't know what's happening the above was not here just now.


----------



## Vaneyes

Tony V. need not be reduced to Glass, Adams, or JS Bach levels.


----------



## moody

Vaneyes said:


> Tony V. need not be reduced to Glass, Adams, or JS Bach levels.


What a shuddery thought.


----------



## Rapide

Vivaldi wrote that many concertos because at the timethese concertos were TOTALLY NEW. Nothing sounded like at the time. And obviously his audiences loved it. That's why he wrote so many throughout his life.


----------



## Ukko

neoshredder said:


> I assume you would become a stalwart as well if I started insulting 19th Century music. And I do have some negative words to describe 19th Century music.


Hah. _neo_, you managed to make your response just obscure enough to convince _moody_ that you don't know the meaning of 'stalwart'. You may need to apply the word to the Texas Rangers.


----------



## tgtr0660

Vivaldi's 1 concerto in 400 have lasted quite a long time. I know that's no measure of the quality of the art but since it's mostly classical afficionados who hear recordings of his music (except the 4 seasons) and every day we have more and more of them (including non-concertante works, like operas) I assume classical afficionados have always been idiots, or the guy had something. 

Stravinsky was a great composer. But , other than for writing Le Sacre du Printemps Redux, I wouldn't take his advice on any matter as if they were sacred words.


----------



## neoshredder

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. _neo_, you managed to make your response just obscure enough to convince _moody_ that you don't know the meaning of 'stalwart'. You may need to apply the word to the Texas Rangers.


I was being positive as well.


----------



## Novelette

Perhaps the concertos are susceptible to this criticism.

But listen to Vivaldi's operas and vocal music, all substantially unique and excellent works!


----------



## neoshredder

Novelette said:


> Perhaps the concertos are susceptible to this criticism.
> 
> But listen to Vivaldi's operas and vocal music, all substantially unique and excellent works!


La Stravaganza and the Four Seasons are quite awesome though. Anyways, he always has enough interesting things to keep me listening. Even if he loved the Allegro's too much.


----------



## Novelette

Agreed, Neoshredder. The repetitious macrocosm only disguises the incredible subtlety in all of Vivaldi's works. A discerning ear will reveal harmonies astounding in their ceaseless inventiveness.

My favorite violin concerto is "Il Piacere", even if, by the standards of his other violin concerti, it is unremarkable--it has a special place in my heart.


----------



## moody

While driving to London today I heard some facts (?) about Vivaldi. The figure was actually 399,apart from that he was excused his priestly duties so that he could concentrate on music. But he was teaching at a girls' school and tended to take two of them wherever he went. If this is true no wonder his music sounds all the same ---if it does--- he had other things on his mind no doubt ?


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> While driving to London today I heard some facts (?) abnout Vivaldi. The figure was actually 399,apart from that he was excused his priestly duties so that he could concentrate on music. But he was teaching at a girls' school and tended to take two of them wherever he went. If this is true no wonder his music sounds all the same ---if it does--- he had other things on his mind no doubt ?


Yeah. Probably traveled by coach; the girls' nattering probably drove him bonkers.


----------



## Sid James

moody said:


> While driving to London today I heard some facts (?) about Vivaldi. The figure was actually 399,apart from that he was excused his priestly duties so that he could concentrate on music. But he was teaching at a girls' school and tended to take two of them wherever he went. If this is true no wonder his music sounds all the same ---if it does--- he had other things on his mind no doubt ?


Yeah tongues where wagging in Venice when the red priest had two young women - I think music students - living with him in the same house. The house is still standing. & yes, I think he also never did the 'usual' priestly duties, eg. he never delivered a mass/service. He comes across as an interesting fellow, but I think that 'hard knowledge' about his life is sketchy due to the usual paucity of info/documents. There was a novelist who in recent times (20th century) wrote a book about some imagined meeting between the likes of Vivaldi and Louis Armstrong. So Vivaldi has kind of entered the popular culture like that, way beyond just his music.

& in terms of Stravinsky's quote, anyone know the context of it? Eg. the words around it? Igor said many things that put people off like this, but sometimes he was joking. & it seems to me if any sort of music fan is sensitive to people joking about the music they love, its classical fans. Well, not all of them, but geez on this forum, aren't we liable to get on our hobby horses about people saying things like Igor, or you read opinions of many composers past and present, and if it was said on this forum, it would most likely be controversial. In any case I know Stravinsky was influenced by Baroque and Classical Era composers in his neo-classical period (his longest period, roughly spanning the time between the two world wars). He knew the music of these composers inside out. & of course if you get that familiar and close to anything, you will notice certain patterns, certain repetitions. Its part and parcel of this sort of process of rigorous study & scholarship. I think we can all kind of relate to this, even if we haven't studied music but other things.


----------



## KenOC

Sid James said:


> Igor said many things that put people off like this, but sometimes he was joking.


Or maybe he just craved attention! Some claim that he participated in arranging the "riot" at the premiere of the Rite of Spring. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity; just spell the name right, please. :lol:


----------



## tgtr0660

^Or maybe his opinion, though valuable in music, was still just his opinion.


----------



## Corvus

If you want completely different sounding Vivaldi concertos try the two discs of his late concertoes. "Vivaldi: Late Violin Concertos, Giuliano Carmignola", really good stuff!


----------



## PetrB

Let's see, written in an era when one was not expected to write a new piece in a new vocabulary each time, hired and treated as ancillary household help, the kitchen staff more necessary, and not being given nine or more months between time of request / commission to delivery date might just have a wee bit to do with it.

Remember, Bach cranked out one cantata a week as requirement of his job as kapellmeister; not much time to think of anything very 'different' or innovative, eh?

They are, Vivaldi or Bach, 'different.'

It is only about the 1900's and later that a composer began to be expected to 're-invent' their self from one piece to the next.

Great composers have quipped or 'proclaimed' hundreds of things, including statements insupportable, or conflicting with what actually came about in later history, whatever they said or predicted to the contrary notwithstanding 

It is time to not give those composer statements so much credence. Benjamin Britten thought, no, _greater than that believed,_ that "Artists should not talk." -- meaning composers should not explain their work, or comment on other composers work, at least not to the press.


----------



## ozradio

BurningDesire said:


> I find Handel to be more second-rate than Vivaldi.


 You did not say that!


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> Let's see, written in an era when one was not expected to write a new piece in a new vocabulary each time, hired and treated as ancillary household help, the kitchen staff more necessary, and not being given nine or more months between time of request / commission to delivery date might just have a wee bit to do with it.
> 
> Remember, Bach cranked out one cantata a week as requirement of his job as kapellmeister; not much time to think of anything very 'different' or innovative, eh?
> 
> They are, Vivaldi or Bach, 'different.'
> 
> It is only about the 1900's and later that a composer began to be expected to 're-invent' their self from one piece to the next.
> 
> Great composers have quipped or 'proclaimed' hundreds of things, including statements insupportable, or conflicting with what actually came about in later history, whatever they said or predicted to the contrary notwithstanding
> 
> It is time to not give those composer statements so much credence. Benjamin Britten thought, no, _greater than that believed,_ that "Artists should not talk." -- meaning composers should not explain their work, or comment on other composers work, at least not to the press.[/QUOTE
> 
> I think that Liszt was a bit earlier than 1900.


----------



## Cnote11

Simply: No


----------



## KenOC

moody said:


> I think that Liszt was a bit earlier than 1900.


True, but since he was writing the "music of the future" he always added 50 years or so.


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> Simply: No


No?--what are you saying "no " to ?


----------



## moody

KenOC said:


> True, but since he was writing the "music of the future" he always added 50 years or so.


I'm coming to the conclusion that I understand nothing you say. Must be age ,I was 75 yesterday.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> ...
> It is time to not give those composer statements so much credence. Benjamin Britten thought, no, _greater than that believed,_ that "Artists should not talk." -- meaning composers should not explain their work, or comment on other composers work, at least not to the press.


Maybe, but as with many things, people tend to focus on the controversial statements. Stravinsky expressed admiration for music by the next generation of composers (eg. Boulez and Takemitsu). But seldom is that discussed around here. He had a long life, he said many things, some things contradictory. I think that's ok, many of them did that. We can all interpret what they said, I don't think these guys said what they said was gospel.

In any case the Vivaldi quote has become part of popular culture. Its probably an attribution to Stravinsky. As I said, I'd like to know what context he said it in. The onus is not on me to find it, I am asking the question openly to anyone who knows or has time to find out.

Of course composers have been critics in the past - Berlioz, Schumann, Hugo Wolf. IN some cases, their criticism got them in hot water at the time. Eg. Wolf's infamous quote that the one cymbal clash in Bruckner's 7th is worth more than all of Brahms' symphonies put together. Plus the serenades, to add insult to injury. Of course its situated within the context of the Brahms vs. Bruckner feud raging in Vienna at the time. & Wolf shot himself in the foot, after these comments Brahms withdrew his earlier support from the younger composer. So they alienated people then, as they do now, these kinds of controversial statements. But I think its just important to be able to speak one's mind. Nothing is right or wrong strictly speaking in terms of opinions about music - they're all just opinions.

In any case, it doesn't matter to me that much. Vivaldi is dead, so is Stravinsky. Unlike Wolf and Brahms, they weren't even living at the same time. I find it wierd how this is such a big deal, talking what you think about a dead composer. Or are they untouchable like sacred cows, I wonder? Are they perfect in every way?


----------



## KenOC

moody said:


> I'm coming to the conclusion that I understand nothing you say. Must be age ,I was 75 yesterday.


Not intentional. Some of us are born opaque, some achieve opacity, and others have opacity thrust upon them.


----------



## Rapide

Sid James said:


> In any case, it doesn't matter to me that much. Vivaldi is dead, so is Stravinsky. Unlike Wolf and Brahms, they weren't even living at the same time. I find it wierd how this is such a big deal, talking what you think about a dead composer. Or are they untouchable like sacred cows, I wonder? Are they perfect in every way?


No need to wonder, I can tell you right now that dead composers were human beings - flawed human beings - but creative composers. There is a clear separation in mind between between the two. Most listeners whom I have come across in the real world *do not* presume like your post that they were "sacred cows".


----------



## moody

KenOC said:


> Not intentional. Some of us are born opaque, some achieve opacity, and others have opacity thrust upon them.


I must give way to you on this because you are most certainly a master of opacity.


----------



## Sid James

Rapide said:


> No need to wonder, I can tell you right now that dead composers were human beings - flawed human beings - but creative composers. There is a clear separation in mind between between the two. Most listeners whom I have come across in the real world *do not* presume like your post that they were "sacred cows".


I agree, seriously. I know classical listeners in real life, who also of course listen to other types of music. I can say what I want to them, what I genuinely think about music, but if I say/said some of these things online, I get attacked. I get called ignorant, biased, hypocritical, you name it. So its online I'm talking about mostly. Even on this thread, you got people getting into the dichotomy of elevating one over another (Stravinsky vs. Vivaldi, is it now?). & do you remember a few months back, all the antagonism over Mozart?

Yeah there are sacred cows alright. Plenty. Pick virtually any composer who has some following on this forum. But its easy to shoot the messenger rapide.

But as I said, look online (eg. google the Vivaldi quote) and you get heaps of results. Some say its the same concerto 400, 500, 600, etc. times. This is like the quote supposedly by Stockhausen about 9/11 being a work of performance art. Very hard to find some source that gives the quote in context, let alone a reliable source.


----------



## neoshredder

Sid James said:


> Let's face it, much of the stuff from back then does sound the same, basically because it is...


Comments like these are why people get mad. Just saying...


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> Comments like these are why people get mad. Just saying...


Well, Vivaldi was commonly known in his own time as "Prete Xerox."


----------



## neoshredder

KenOC said:


> Well, Vivaldi was commonly known in his own time as "Prete Xerox."


Speaking of sounding similar, how about those Haydn Symphonies. lol


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> Speaking of sounding similar, how about those Haydn Symphonies. lol


My father developed a taste for Haydn symphonies late in life. My mother said they all sounded the same...

Another guy who really cranked the stuff out was Telemann, who may have been the most prolific composer of all time with at least 3,000 works. He had some incentive as his wife had amassed some pretty substantial gambling debts, and he was trying to avoid bankruptcy -- which he did, but only with the help of friends.


----------



## Sid James

neoshredder said:


> Comments like these are why people get mad. Just saying...


Well I also said many positive things about Vivaldi or the Baroque/Classical Eras in general. I was trying to be balanced but I think there is a grain of truth in this saying. Well, for me there is, but my opinion is just an opinion. I backed it up in my posts on this thread. People can take it or leave it, just like anything else others say on this thread.


----------



## quack

Sid James said:


> But as I said, look online (eg. google the Vivaldi quote) and you get heaps of results. Some say its the same concerto 400, 500, 600, etc. times.


This seems to be the source of the much repeated quote:



> Are you interested in the current revival of eighteenth-century Italian masters?', and Stravinsky replies: 'Not very. Vivaldi is greatly overrated - a dull fellow who could compose the same music over and over.'
> 
> Robert Craft, "Conversations with Igor Stravinsky" (Garden City, New York, 1959), p. 76


And he also used this well worn analogy:



> "sewing machine performances of Vivaldi"
> 
> Robert Craft, Stravinsky: Chronicle of a Friendship (New York, 1972), p.178


Although it is suggested he is just copying Dallapiccola, who arranged some Vivaldi sonatas and is supposed to have said something about them being the same 500 times. But then Dallapiccola is in no way famous enough to ascribe the quote to.

Also: Happy birthday moody!


----------



## RogerWaters

Perotin said:


> Stravinsky supposedly made the folowing comment on Vivaldi: "Vivaldi did not write 400 concertos; he wrote one concerto 400 times." Why is Vivaldi's music so repetitive? One idea, that comes to my mind, is that back then in the baroque period, composers (and people in general) were not viewed as an individual personalities and hence were not expected to be original and inventive. The notion of an artist as a creative individual only appeared in romantic era. Artist was just a craftsman, who must please the audiance with enjoyable music. Telemann also falls into this "one piece repeated hundreds of times" category, I think. On the other hand, Bach also wrote about 200 cantatas, but he didn't repeat himself, his cantatas are quite versatile. So, is that Vivaldi's weakness or can we see that as something typical of his period?


Repetitiveness is a feature of any music that adheres to a particular form, such as Vivaldi's Ritornello style which is, as many know, a series of 4 or 5 motives or themes (usually moving from the tonic to the 5th or dominant in a major concerto and back again for the final motive) played by the full ensemble broken up by soloing which does the key shifting. Now there are variations one can make: modulating to different keys as opposed to the 5th, letting the full ensemble do the modulation as opposed to the soloist sometimes, etc. It MUST be fair to say that Vivaldi did not have as much variation, opposed to, say, Bach.

Moreover, there is usually the exact same or very similar moods conveyed by each of his concertos. You have to listen to a much larger volume of works to get the same variation in mood you might get from Bach. Finally, when it comes to his 'majestic' middle movements, there is never anything approaching the emotional depth of Bach or mozart in his piano concertos.

Some of his cello concertos are quite moving, though, I must say.


----------



## Pugg

RogerWaters said:


> Repetitiveness is a feature of any music that adheres to a particular form, such as Vivaldi's Ritornello style which is, as many know, a series of 4 or 5 motives or themes (usually moving from the tonic to the 5th or dominant in a major concerto and back again for the final motive) played by the full ensemble broken up by soloing which does the key shifting. Now there are variations one can make: modulating to different keys as opposed to the 5th, letting the full ensemble do the modulation as opposed to the soloist sometimes, etc. It MUST be fair to say that Vivaldi did not have as much variation, opposed to, say, Bach.
> 
> Moreover, there is usually the exact same or very similar moods conveyed by each of his concertos. You have to listen to a much larger volume of works to get the same variation in mood you might get from Bach. Finally, when it comes to his 'majestic' middle movements, there is never anything approaching the emotional depth of Bach or mozart in his piano concertos.
> 
> Some of his cello concertos are quite moving, though, I must say.


Nice first post, welcome to Talk Classical.


----------



## RogerWaters

Pugg said:


> Nice first post, welcome to Talk Classical.


Thank you and greetings!


----------



## Omicron9

I don't quite hear the same sameness in Vivaldi as I do in Mozart. For me, and in my opinion <flame suit on>, Mozart composed the same piece 600 times.

Just one dude's opinion. :tiphat:

-09


----------



## eugeneonagain

Omicron9 said:


> I don't quite hear the same sameness in Vivaldi as I do in Mozart. For me, and in my opinion <flame suit on>, Mozart composed the same piece 600 times.
> 
> Just one dude's opinion. :tiphat:
> 
> -09


You and that Stravinsky fellow are as bad as one another!


----------



## larold

Didn't we just go through this territory in the dunce forum "Vivaldi Pretty Samey"? I'd recommend anyone subscribing to Stravinsky's theory that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times give an ear to this:

-- Domine ad adjuvandum me RV 593

-- Stabat mater with Andreas Scholl

-- The Four Seasons played by Galway

-- Concerto for Flute and Bassoon "La Notte P. 342 (not the flute concerto from Op. 10)

-- Concerto Grosso in D P. 444/RV 532a played by ASMIF and Marriner

-- Dixit Dominus RV 544

-- Concerto in B flat major for violin and cello RV 547

-- Concerto for Violin in B minor Op. 8 No. 10 "La Caccia" RV 362

-- Concerto for Flute in D major Op. 10 No. 3 "Il Gardellino" RV 428

-- Concerto in E flat major for Violin "La Tempesta di Mare" RV 253

-- Concerto for 3 Violins in A major "Per eco in Iontana" RV 552

-- Concerto for Flute Op. 10 No. 2 "La Notte" RV 439

-- Concerto in G for Violin, 2 Flutes, 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, Strings and Continuo P. 383

Try finding recordings by Renato Fasano and Virtuosi di Roma in any of the concertos. The reason to try finding recordings by Renato Fasano and Virtuosi di Roma in any of the concertos is because, more than just about any other Baroque composer, Vivaldi's music has been disfigured beyond recognition by the period performance crowd.

Far from a sewing machine sound, this style often interprets Vivaldi's music as if it is being played by a computer rather than a human being. A couple recent books indicate the reason for this is today's music students in universities and conservatories are trained to be players, not musicians. They are trained to play, not interpret or message music.

I once saw Fischer-Dieskau teaching students how to sing lieder. It seemed strange to me he never mentioned volume, pacing or anything technical. Everything he said was about how to interpret and relay the text/poetry. That isn't how people are taught to do music at higher levels of learning anymore.

Furthermore, just about nothing is known of Vivaldi's life except he wrote pretty much everything for youngsters living in a home for wayward or castoff girls, none of whom were professional musicians. But that doesn't stop anyone from disfiguring his music by rendering it lifeless in performance on recordings and in concerts using today's styles.

Vivaldi's music, when played wonderfully, is full of expressive nuance and has a certain romantic swagger. Today's performers tend to play him like they are computers. This is one reason his music all sounds the same to a lot of people.


----------



## RogerWaters

larold said:


> Try finding recordings by Renato Fasano and Virtuosi di Roma in any of the concertos. The reason to try finding recordings by Renato Fasano and Virtuosi di Roma in any of the concertos is because, more than just about any other Baroque composer, Vivaldi's music has been disfigured beyond recognition by the period performance crowd.


And why, on this theory of yours, would the period performance crowd have not also disfigured Bach, Telemann, Corelli, Albinoni, Buxtehude, Pachabel, and Handel?


----------



## Guest

RogerWaters said:


> Repetitiveness is a feature of any music that adheres to a particular form, such as Vivaldi's Ritornello style which is, as many know, a series of 4 or 5 motives or themes (usually moving from the tonic to the 5th or dominant in a major concerto and back again for the final motive) played by the full ensemble broken up by soloing which does the key shifting. Now there are variations one can make: modulating to different keys as opposed to the 5th, letting the full ensemble do the modulation as opposed to the soloist sometimes, etc. It MUST be fair to say that Vivaldi did not have as much variation, opposed to, say, Bach.
> 
> Moreover, there is usually the exact same or very similar moods conveyed by each of his concertos. You have to listen to a much larger volume of works to get the same variation in mood you might get from Bach. Finally, when it comes to his 'majestic' middle movements, there is never anything approaching the emotional depth of Bach or mozart in his piano concertos.
> 
> Some of his cello concertos are quite moving, though, I must say.


Just wanted to add my compliments to a really first rate post unless however you actually are THE Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame and this is you having your bass tuned by keyboardist Rick Wright -

in which case I retract my compliment on the admittedly spurious grounds that if you're not able to tune your own instrument you are hardly qualified to randomly offer any and all musicological analyses however well-reasoned and well-written. If you're not THE Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame than please accept my heartfelt apologies for casting aspersions on your character and your good name. And as Pugg mentioned earlier - welcome! - I look forward to reading further postings...

And oh, by the way, if you actually are THE Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame I find it deeply ironic that if one substitutes the words "Pink Floyd" for any of the composers listed within this forum all of the commentary is still intellectually and musicologically valid.

It also works quite well when you substitute "Enya" for "Vivaldi" in any of the postings contained within this forum but I'll be keeping that opinion to myself thank you very much - no need risking banishment with my very first posting but you have to admit that the musical similarities are nearly as disconcerting as the physical resemblance - compare the photo of Enya with the painting of Vivaldi by William Hogarth (1697 - 1764) -


----------



## philoctetes

Isn't Igor guilty of his own accusation? He and Vivaldi are two of the most recognizable composers in history. I've always found a pot and kettle element to that quote. And being so recognizable AND inventive is neither easy nor faulty.


----------



## Larkenfield

Perotin said:


> Stravinsky supposedly made the folowing comment on Vivaldi: "Vivaldi did not write 400 concertos; he wrote one concerto 400 times."


Yes, but Vivaldi was quoted as saying of Stravinsky, "At least my concertos didn't require the sacrifice of 400 virgins." :cheers:


----------



## Triplets

Omicron9 said:


> I don't quite hear the same sameness in Vivaldi as I do in Mozart. For me, and in my opinion <flame suit on>, Mozart composed the same piece 600 times.
> 
> Just one dude's opinion. :tiphat:
> 
> -09


Dude
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and keep in mind that I listen to a heck of a lot by both Vivaldi and Mozart. However, there is infinitely more variety in Mozart's oeuvre than in Vivaldi


----------



## geralmar

For me Stravinsky's statement ranks with Irving Kolodin's infamous snotty putdown of Korngold's 1947 violin concerto as "more corn than gold". Kolodin, incidentally, was a critic I usually admire; but his condescending quip permanently besmirched Korngold's reputation. Stravinsky's target was at least long dead. Korngold died in 1957.


----------



## gardibolt

Stravinsky didn't have the advantage of hearing all the marvels by Vivaldi that are gradually being released by Naive in their Vivaldi Edition. There's really a wonderful range of music in these pieces, and Igor wasn't doing Antonio justice. I much prefer Vivaldi to Bach with his dreary religious mania.


----------



## Heck148

Vivaldi wrote 38 concerto for bassoon...that's 38 different concerti, not the same one x38. there is wonderful variety in these works, even tho Vivaldi mainly sticks to the 3 mvt format....naturally some are more inspired than others, but they are all enjoyable, and in NO WAY identical.


----------



## bbq15

As posted previously, the quote from Stravinsky is;

"*Vivaldi is greatly overrated-a dull fellow who could compose the same form so many times over.*"

* How did this (imo) absurd claim by Stravinsky happen? One reason is because Stravinsky's comment was made in 1959 and the Vivaldi revival had not become widespread until the 1950s. Every composer, even a great one, has created music which is less popular/interesting. In 1959 there had not yet been enough time to rank Vivaldi's output in terms of quality and popularity except for the Four Seasons.

Today, after decades of performances and music on the internet, Stravinsky's claim can quickly be refuted.
- It is known now that Bach transcribed 11 Vivaldi concertos and it's accepted that Bach was not "a dull fellow". 
Compare the Bach/Vivaldi organ transcriptions BWV 593 & 596. Those are obviously different compositions. Add Bach's concerto for four keyboards BWV 1065 (based on Vivaldi) & we have 3 distinguishable works. Add the Four Seasons, some Vivaldi concertos for strings for religious events; Concerto Funebre RV 579, Madrigalesco RV 129, al Santo Sepulcro RV 169, flute concertos like La Tempesta di Mare RV 433, La Notte RV 439, Il Gardellino RV 428, the concerto for 2 oboes RV 535, for two cellos RV 531, for Bassoon RV 484, the violin concerto for Suzuki recitals RV 317, concertos for diverse instruments RV 558, RV 554, RV 577.
In addition some chamber works like the opus 1 #12 trio sonata (La Follia) and the cello sonata RV 40.
After a while many distinctive Vivaldi works pile up.

Even though I have been exploring classical music for many decades, I am still making new discoveries for several composers especially with Bach and Vivaldi. YouTube is very helpful with that; where the selection of less known works is vast and some gems have gotten several views which brings things to my attention.

With the pressure of time Bach and Vivaldi both repeated themselves. (So did Mozart.) More often Bach has more unusual modulations and he focuses on counterpoint being influenced by Buxtehude and the Renaissance composers. While Bach can be emotional he is often contemplative and intellectual. His themes are usually more integrated. 
Vivaldi in his time was innovative and widely influential with his version of the ritornello structure. In his comfort zone Vivaldi is a lyrical, composer influenced by Monteverdi and the Italian school. He is directly emotional. What he has is a distinctive style which is a hallmark of the best composers. Yes, it is using circular progressions. But in his best works he uses these themes in a creative way.


----------



## ojoncas

They are like from the same family, but each with its differences. Maybe you’re just not into it. I dont get tired from his concertos style ever, I don’t know how exactly he does that, but that’s how it is. That’s why he’s so great.


----------



## SARDiver

ojoncas said:


> They are like from the same family, but each with its differences. Maybe you're just not into it. I dont get tired from his concertos style ever, I don't know how exactly he does that, but that's how it is. That's why he's so great.


I love Pink Floyd, particularly when David Gilmour was essentially alone in writing and producing the music. From "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" through "The Division Bell", and into his solo work in "Rattle That Lock", the sounds are familiar, but no two songs are ever the same. There are detectable threads, repetitive guitar chords, and vocal intonations that are hauntingly familiar from album to album.

I view Vivaldi in a similar thread. The works are familiar from piece to piece, but varied enough to hold interest, and the reason it holds my interest is because the foundation is good.

Beethoven is my absolute favorite composer, but there is a familiarity in his works that cannot be missed, if you have learned his style. Vivaldi's style is perhaps easier to detect, but I see no reason to denigrate his volume of works over that familiarity.


----------



## Enthusiast

Did I see somewhere that Vivaldi made a living by selling bespoke concertos to the tourists (to Venice) of his time and that many of the resulting works were necessarily recycled older works rather than genuinely new pieces?


----------



## millionrainbows

Vivaldi lived in a time of the collective mind; artists had helpers and large studios that cranked out copies. Beethoven is the big "individual" who was supposed to be a new kind of hero.
If you wanna hear good Vivaldi, go to Carmignola. This is the way it's supposed to be. More emphasis on the performer. This is when the score was not gospel, but a blueprint for performance. Music was alive, in the air, and not frozen in granite as "masterpieces." Music was nothing without performance. People and artists knew who they were: cogs in some larger institution, before Man's ego took over, and heroic bombast set in.

In light of later events, such as the near destruction of Europe in WWII, and the hydrogen bomb, perhaps it is better to have "wallpaper music" than it is to have "masterpieces" on the wall. Man, and his individuality and heroism, is vastly overrated. Humble yourselves before the Age of Gods! The "Age of Man" is over!

Schoenberg had 479,001,600 possible tone rows to choose from.


----------



## lachlan1415

Novelette said:


> Take away the "circle of fifths" progression and 2/3 of Vivaldi's non-vocal music evaporates. =\


This is very true. If I hear another circle of fifths progression by Vivaldi I might just puke. Utterly boring and uninventive in my opinion. I don't even really know why he's considered a good composer at all. I don't really think the four seasons is that interesting tbh, after 1 listen I've had enough.


----------



## larold

_If I hear another circle of fifths progression by Vivaldi I might just puke. Utterly boring and uninventive in my opinion. I don't even really know why he's considered a good composer at all. I don't really think the four seasons is that interesting tbh, after 1 listen I've had enough._

I've performed a lot of Vivaldi. I think had you done the same you wouldn't hold this opinion in part because the level of invention is extraordinarily high.

As to the progression of fifths, if you listen to Vivaldi and/or read his scores you will note he primarily writes in halves and quarters.


----------



## SARDiver

lachlan1415 said:


> This is very true. If I hear another circle of fifths progression by Vivaldi I might just puke. Utterly boring and uninventive in my opinion. I don't even really know why he's considered a good composer at all. I don't really think the four seasons is that interesting tbh, after 1 listen I've had enough.


Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I just got back into the forum after a couple of years away. Thanks to a friendly admin, I could reset my password and update the dead-email address.


I'll tell you why he's considered a good composer: Most people couldn't care less about the "circle of fifths progression". They enjoy the music. Perhaps our ears aren't as educated or discerning as yours (not meant to be sarcasm.) I remember a scene in "Mr. Holland's Opus", in which "Holland" plays "Louie, Louie", by The Kingsmen. It's a repetitive rhythm, with totally incomprehensible lyrics, but it's FUN. Vivaldi is an entry-level classical composer, but it's about as deep as 95% of people will ever get. I think the Four Seasons is very enjoyable, but I'm simply not bothered by the things you find boring.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

There's the classic metaphorical distinction between artists as hedgehogs or foxes; foxes devise many different techniques and strategies for achieving their aims, but hedgehogs adopt one that works extremely well. Vivaldi was a hedgehog. There's no shame in that. Many great, great artists are hedgehogs; it just means that you have to really like the one thing they did great to love them. Foxes have something of a different problem in that, given their variety/versatility, you may find yourself having radically different opinions on their different works.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SARDiver said:


> Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I just got back into the forum after a couple of years away. Thanks to a friendly admin, I could reset my password and update the dead-email address.











I remember seeing your posts in the thread Bach versus Beethoven


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There's the classic metaphorical distinction between artists as hedgehogs or foxes; foxes devise many different techniques and strategies for achieving their aims, but hedgehogs adopt one that works extremely well. Vivaldi was a hedgehog. There's no shame in that. Many great, great artists are hedgehogs; it just means that you have to really like the one thing they did great to love them. Foxes have something of a different problem in that, given their variety/versatility, you may find yourself having radically different opinions on their different works.


Presumably you are just talking about his concertos - and it is known that some of those were hack works while many were serious compositions but all might be the product of a hedgehog - but he also wrote a great many operas and choral works. All sound like Vivaldi but that is no bad thing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> Presumably you are just talking about his concertos - and it is known that some of those were hack works while many were serious compositions but all might be the product of a hedgehog - but he also wrote a great many operas and choral works. All sound like Vivaldi but that is no bad thing.


I remember listening to the Hyperion collection of his sacred choral music many years ago and really enjoying it. I haven't gotten around to his operas, but I know the Naive's Vivaldi series has released 20-30 of them by now.


----------

