# Bomtempo, The Portuguese Beethoven



## conductorx (Jun 10, 2018)

Have you guys heard about João Domingos Bomtempo?
I started working on the critical editions for this composer.

Check out his first symphony!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Sure, I have six Bomtempo CD's:

Symphonies 1+2 (Portugalsom)
Piano concertos 1+3 (Portugalsom)
Piano concertos 2+4 (Portugalsom)
Requiem (Portugalsom)
Te Deum (Portugalsom)
Piano quintets (Movieplay)

I would rate his requiem highest of these compositions, but the others are worth giving a spin as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Based on this symphony Buontempo's music is nothing like Beethoven's - there's no thematic development or drama in the first movement, for one thing - but it's always nice to hear an unfamiliar composer from the past to enlarge our sense of the musical universe. The fourth movement is really charming and witty.


----------



## conductorx (Jun 10, 2018)

It's like Beethoven in the sense that does the transition between the classical and romantic periods. He still pushes boundaries, but Beethoven breaks them and goes even further towards unfamiliar territory... literally sometimes if we talk about harmonic plans.
It's funny that Bomtempo towards the end got closer to the Italian style and left the Viennese language and colors. Unfortunately his later works have not yet been recorded.


----------



## conductorx (Jun 10, 2018)

He has plenty more! He has a vast selection of works. Some of them have never been recorded or performed after his death!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

The ending melody would need just a few tweaks to be first rate. In a way the same could be said about the entire symphony.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> The ending melody would need just a few tweaks to be first rate. In a way the same could be said about the entire symphony.


That is a very polite way of calling a symphony second rate.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I don't know why but the general classical music community thinks it's somehow OK to give titles "the Swedish Mozart", "the Spanish Mozart", "the English Mozart", to Joseph Martin Kraus, Vicente Martin y Soler, Samuel Wesley respectively, but it's not OK to do the same with later composers like Beethoven.
I remember writing a post with the title "Charles Mayer, the Prussian Chopin" in another forum and receiving downvotes for it, -although I did it with no negative intent whatsoever, but just as a way to introduce the composer Mayer to people who were already familiar with Chopin.

I'm reminded of the quote by the British composer David Bruce (who runs a massive youtube channel), which he wrote in the forum I went to. I don't agree with the things he said, -except the last sentence, where I think he has a fair point:
"Most of all I enjoy the experimentalism and wild creativity of the 20th and 21st centuries. And how composers think about art and music philosophically and not just what sounds pretty. After that I enjoy the rigid structures found in some of the Baroque (Bach, especially). The Romantic period feels half-assed to me. Things are moving toward freer forms but you always end up back at the tonic. It feels like a big letdown to hear an interesting extended chord that safely resolves to a conventional sound. *It's also with the Romantic period that the idea of the Composer as a Great Man of Genius seems to really take hold of the public's imagination. A plague which we still suffer from today.*"

I remember some members on TC, Eva Yojimbo talking like Chopin "invented everything from nothing" in Romantic piano, and also Larkenfield saying several times how Mozart and Haydn sound too similar to their contemporaries and so they had pieces they didn't write "misattributed" to them, whereas Chopin did not. Even though the fact was that Chopin also had Op. post Waltzes F sharp minor (now attributed to Charles Mayer) E flat major (spurious; original composer still unknown) "misattributed" to him.
I once suggested that Johann Nepomuk Hummel sonata Op.81 in F sharp minor (1819) had a slow movement and fugal sections in the finale that reminded me of certain sections in late Beethoven, and how the ending of the B flat major Etude (21th) from the Op.125 set uses the pedal that reminded me of the Hammerklavier 1st movement, but some people apparently find the idea "some other composer in history wrote in a similar idiom as late Beethoven" blasphemous.
How many people in the general classical music community people today know the similarities of Chopin etudes and preludes to those of Joseph Christoph Kessler or Ignaz Moscheles? I've talked with many people (on TwosetViolin's channel) who couldn't accept Chopin being rated any lower than "place B" in composer rankings. None of them knew.

All this idea about how the rise of "artistic individuality", "imaginative freedom in art", "artists as heroes of personal struggle" came with Romanticism is great, but people sometimes take it too far, it becomes like obsessive wishful thinking.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> (...) the general classical music community thinks it's somehow OK to give titles "the Swedish Mozart", "the Spanish Mozart", "the English Mozart", to Joseph Martin Kraus, Vicente Martin y Soler, Samuel Wesley respectively, but it's not OK to do the same with later composers like Beethoven.


I don't think I agree with that. I know of a historical example of bestowing a title of not merely a regional Beethoven, but a sexual Beethoven :tiphat:



> Emilie Luise Friederika Mayer (* 14. Mai 1812 in Friedland (Mecklenburg); † 10. April 1883 in Berlin) war eine deutsche Komponistin.
> Sie war in ihrer Zeit hochgefeiert und galt weithin als der "weibliche Beethoven".


https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilie_Mayer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilie_Mayer


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why but the general classical music community thinks it's somehow OK to give titles "the Swedish Mozart", "the Spanish Mozart", "the English Mozart", to Joseph Martin Kraus, Vicente Martin y Soler, Samuel Wesley respectively, but it's not OK to do the same with later composers like Beethoven.
> I remember writing a post with the title "Charles Mayer, the Prussian Chopin" in another forum and receiving downvotes for it, -although I did it with no negative intent whatsoever, but just as a way to introduce the composer Mayer to people who were already familiar with Chopin.
> 
> I'm reminded of the quote by the British composer David Bruce (who runs a massive youtube channel), which he wrote in the forum I went to. I don't agree with the things he said, -except the last sentence, where I think he has a fair point:
> ...


Not blasphemous, but perhaps they (we) just don't see this alleged connection you do? I don't hear late Beethoven in Hummel at all. Perhaps there are some thematic resemblances here and there, but their styles are very different in my opinion.* Even wikipedia* states that "Hummel's music took a different direction from that of Beethoven".

*This article* makes a point about two *different* Viennese piano schools, one by Beethoven, and other by Hummel:

"In Czerny's memoire we can read the elements of two styles. He remembers clearly the most astonishing differences between Hummel and Beethoven. Although these memories date from the early 1840s, 40 years after the actual concert where he heard Hummel play, it gives us knowledge about two co-existing styles which were created, welcomed and which flourished under the wings of the biggest geniuses of the musical era.

To summarize, Beethoven's playing is defined by enormous power, character, unprecedented bravura and velocity, but Czerny also includes the negative comments of "Hummel supporters", namely that he abused the fortepiano, was deficient in purity and clarity, that he only produced confused noise through his pedaling and that his compositions were irregular, far-fetched, unnatural, without melody and irregular. And while we all have "forgiven" Beethoven for all the criticism he got and declare it the "late Beethoven style", we tend to forget that between 1801-1804 we cannot yet talk about the real late Beethoven who breaks all classical forms and harmonic progressions and who turns music upside down, shaking the aristocrats out of their well-combed wigs. One can be a genius by always pleasing with an unimaginable quality, remaining within the "wanted" and the "celebrated" category, every step always rewarded and inspired by his biggest talent. That is maybe the case with Mozart. The other type of genius has nothing to do with pleasing anyone. Moreover, (s)he is driven to create the new and unknown by straining and breaking borders and norms. In the case of Beethoven that created an enormous difference between his early and late style. It includes even a rapid influence in the development of pianos, a development larger than happened before him or after him. I tend to think that the contemporary positive as well as the negative impressions of Beethoven were rather reactions to a style which was constantly new and outrageous.

Czerny describes Hummel's performance an example of purity and clarity, elegance and tenderness, where difficulties were always calculated on the highest level, played with a beautiful tone and unifying Mozart's manner with the school of Clementi. Czerny also mentions the opinion of the "Beethovenists", who criticized Hummel for lacking real imagination, playing monotonous (= "hurdy-gurdy"), that his compositions were mere arrangements of themes by Mozart and Haydn, and last but not least that his fingers were on the piano like garden spider. Why the latter is important - besides shocking and maybe witty - I will detail later.

This memory by Czerny gives us a clear idea of Beethoven's and Hummel's compositional style, technique, character as a performer and it indicates a lot about each style. But there is something more important to read between the lines. He clearly admits the co-existence of the two schools by saying: "It seemed logical at the time that he [Hummel] claimed precedence as a player in the whole world, and soon two master factions formed which forcibly challenged each other." And he nicely admits how he was taken by Hummel's playing: "Hummel's playing influenced me to the extent that it stimulated me to a higher degree of purity and clarity."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> This memory by Czerny gives us a clear idea of Beethoven's and Hummel's compositional style, technique, character as a performer and it indicates a lot about each style. But there is something more important to read between the lines. He clearly admits the co-existence of the two schools by saying: "It seemed logical at the time that he [Hummel] claimed precedence as a player in the whole world, and soon two master factions formed which forcibly challenged each other." And he nicely admits how he was taken by Hummel's playing: "Hummel's playing influenced me to the extent that it stimulated me to a higher degree of purity and clarity."


Of course there are "stylistic differences" found between Beethoven and Hummel, if one looks for them. (like how there are between C.P.E Bach Fantasie Wq.67 and Mozart Rondo K.511 and which were both written in 1787. "Beethoven moved away from the chromaticism of late Mozart towards a broader harmonic style; it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'") 
The point I was making was that, in the general classical community, stylistic differences between late 18th century composers tend to be a lot more neglected than those between early 19th century composers. =) I suspect Czerny was in the "Beethoven camp" when he wrote the article you quote.

"While in Germany, Hummel published A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instruction on the Art of Playing the Piano Forte (1828), which sold thousands of copies within days of its publication and brought about a new style of fingering and of playing ornaments. Later 19th century pianistic technique was influenced by Hummel, through his instruction of Carl Czerny who later taught Franz Liszt. Czerny had transferred to Hummel after studying three years with Beethoven.
Hummel's influence can also be seen in the early works of Frédéric Chopin and Robert Schumann, and the shadow of Hummel's Piano Concerto in B minor as well as his Piano Concerto in A minor can be particularly perceived in Chopin's concertos. This is unsurprising, considering that Chopin must have heard Hummel on one of the latter's concert tours to Poland and Russia, and that Chopin kept Hummel's piano concertos in his active repertoire. Harold C. Schonberg, in The Great Pianists, writes "...the openings of the Hummel A minor and Chopin E minor concertos are too close to be coincidental". In relation to Chopin's Preludes, Op. 28, Schonberg says: "It also is hard to escape the notion that Chopin was very familiar with Hummel's now-forgotten Op. 67, composed in 1815 - a set of twenty-four preludes in all major and minor keys, starting with C major".
Robert Schumann also practiced Hummel (especially the Sonata in F-sharp minor, Op. 81), and considered becoming his pupil. Liszt's father Adam refused to pay the high tuition fee Hummel was used to charging (thus Liszt ended up studying with Czerny). Czerny, Friedrich Silcher, Ferdinand Hiller, Sigismond Thalberg, and Adolf von Henselt were among Hummel's most prominent students. He also briefly gave some lessons to Felix Mendelssohn."

/
A lot of passages in Liszt,
like these quick passages of alternating, overlapped hands:
Liszt Transcendental Etude No.10
Liszt Transcendental Etude no. 2
are found in Hummel, but not in Beethoven (and also not in Chopin).
Johann Nepomuk Hummel - Piano Concerto No. 2 in A minor, Op. 85 (1816)
These passages of repeated figures "where one voice stays and the other voice either descends or ascends"
Liszt Transcendental Etudes - No.9 'Ricordanza'
are also found in Hummel, but not in Beethoven (occasionally found in Chopin, such as Op.27 No.2)
Johann Nepomuk Hummel - Piano Concerto No. 2 in A minor, Op. 85 (1816)
/


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> *Of course there are "stylistic differences" found between Beethoven and Hummel*, if one looks for them. (like how there are between C.P.E Bach Fantasie Wq.67 and Mozart Rondo K.511 and which were both written in 1787. "Beethoven moved away from the chromaticism of late Mozart towards a broader harmonic style; it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'")
> The point I was making was that, in the general classical community, stylistic differences between late 18th century composers tend to be a lot more neglected than those between early 19th century composers. =) I suspect Czerny was in the "Beethoven camp" when he wrote the article you quote.
> 
> "While in Germany, Hummel published A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instruction on the Art of Playing the Piano Forte (1828), which sold thousands of copies within days of its publication and brought about a new style of fingering and of playing ornaments. Later 19th century pianistic technique was influenced by Hummel, through his instruction of Carl Czerny who later taught Franz Liszt. Czerny had transferred to Hummel after studying three years with Beethoven.
> ...


My point wasn't that Hummel wasn't influential, but that his style is different from Beethoven's. Two different schools of piano music. If you can agree to that, then I have nothing more to add.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why but the general classical music community thinks it's somehow OK to give titles "the Swedish Mozart", "the Spanish Mozart", "the English Mozart", to Joseph Martin Kraus, Vicente Martin y Soler, Samuel Wesley respectively, but it's not OK to do the same with later composers like Beethoven.
> I remember writing a post with the title "Charles Mayer, the Prussian Chopin" in another forum and receiving downvotes for it, -although I did it with no negative intent whatsoever, but just as a way to introduce the composer Mayer to people who were already familiar with Chopin.
> 
> I'm reminded of the quote by the British composer David Bruce (who runs a massive youtube channel), which he wrote in the forum I went to. I don't agree with the things he said, -except the last sentence, where I think he has a fair point:
> ...


oooohhh may I ask what forum that was on? I love Dave Bruce's channel and would like to stalk his forum posts.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> oooohhh may I ask what forum that was on? I love Dave Bruce's channel and would like to stalk his forum posts.




__
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/e14anh/_/f8muwr9
Sorry, my bad, it's a different person. I confused "davethecomposer" (the mod of r/composer) with "davidbrucecomposer" (the guy who runs the youtube channel), they're actually two different people.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/e14anh/_/f8muwr9


Thank You :tiphat:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I like Bomtempo's symphonies but Beethoven-like? No.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We could certainly fault Bomtempo for not being more like Beethoven if he were trying and failing to be more like Beethoven. Is that what he was doing?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, my bad, it's a different person. I confused "davethecomposer" (the mod of r/composer) with "davidbrucecomposer" (the guy who runs the youtube channel), they're actually two different people.


What is it with people adding "composer" to their name in nicks like that? Economic desperation, or vanity? I've seen a greater saturation of such nicks than I ever expected, and lo and behold, here are two more! I don't recall ever witnessing it with any other musical profession, or... any profession, for that matter---except for so-called "writers".


----------

