# Handel and Vivaldi



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I love Bach and he is one of my favorite composers. He is also regarded as the "greatest" Baroque composers if not the greatest composer of all time. One could argue that Handel and Vivaldi are generally considered a notch below Bach. This is really what I don't understand. Handel and Vivaldi are fine composers, and I don't dislike their music, but really I see no difference in quality between these two and Purcell, Rameau, Corelli, Lully, Telemann, and other Baroque composers.

So my question is, what about Handel and Vivaldi makes them "better than" other Baroque composers?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Rameau is up there with Bach as far as I'm concerned, and he sticks out from your list of "others" (presumably considered "lesser" Baroque composers). Handel and Vivaldi? A notch below them. But then again I don't really like Handel a whole lot.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Vivaldi is not generally considered to be better than Rameau. Vivaldi is more POPULAR than Rameau, which is not quite the same thing.

What makes Handel better than Rameau? I dunno, I guess maybe I feel like he's not working as hard to figure out where to go next.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

As far as I know, Vivaldi basically invented (or at least perfected) the Baroque concerto form. That's probably one of the reasons why he is considered a major composer. 

Vivaldi's concerto form is based on alternations between ritornello and solo episodes. Many later Baroque composers (Bach, Telemann) were influenced by this formal design, employing similar forms in their own concertos. In fact, Bach thought so highly of Vivaldi's concertos that he arranged some of them for keyboard, presumably as a way of studying the formal layout of these works.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Concerning Händel the answer is simple: just listen to his works. And I mean other works then the usual suspects. I'm not a specialist of the other composers you mentioned but I think the output of Händels' masterpieces compared to the others sets him indeed up there with Bach (for me personally that is).

And putting Corelli at the same level is just not right. He made some very fine music that has had a significant influence on violin playing at the time (violin sonatas and concerti grossi opus6) but his oeuvre is very limited compared to Händel, Bach and Telemann for example.

I consider Telemann a bit the "Haydn" of the Baroque era; apparently very important and huge oeuvre but he doesn't really get to me, a bit boring.

I can't say I know enough about Purcell, Rameau and Lully to make a personal judgement but from what I already heard of them they probably have to join forces to get next to Händel.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll just offer my line-up from the list:

1. Bach
2. Handel - the man was born to compose for voice and orchestra.
3. Telemann
4. Rameau
5. Lully
6. Purcell
7. Corelli
8. Vivaldi - I respect the fact that he has a large following, but his music does nothing for me.

If Louis Couperin was on the list, I'd place him just below Telemann.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"Handel AND Vivaldi"???

Anyone placing Vivaldi at the same exalted level as Handel is simply not paying attention, IMHO.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> Concerning Händel the answer is simple: just listen to his works. And I mean other works then the usual suspects. I'm not a specialist of the other composers you mentioned but I think the output of Händels' masterpieces compared to the others sets him indeed up there with Bach (for me personally that is).
> 
> And putting Corelli at the same level is just not right. He made some very fine music that has had a significant influence on violin playing at the time (violin sonatas and concerti grossi opus6) but his oeuvre is very limited compared to Händel, Bach and Telemann for example.
> 
> I consider Telemann a bit the "Haydn" of the Baroque era; apparently very important and huge oeuvre but he doesn't really get to me, a bit boring.


Haydn is indeed very important. It's questionable at best whether Telemann is even moderately important.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

To Vivaldi's credit, he foreshadowed the invention of US Classical Public Radio.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> Concerning Händel the answer is simple: just listen to his works. And I mean other works then the usual suspects. I'm not a specialist of the other composers you mentioned but I think the output of Händels' masterpieces compared to the others sets him indeed up there with Bach (for me personally that is).
> 
> And putting Corelli at the same level is just not right. He made some very fine music that has had a significant influence on violin playing at the time (violin sonatas and concerti grossi opus6) but his oeuvre is very limited compared to Händel, Bach and Telemann for example.
> 
> ...


Yep, clearly haven't heard enough Rameau, 'cuz he can take on Handel by himself.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

hpowders said:


> "Handel AND Vivaldi"???
> 
> Anyone placing Vivaldi at the same *exalted* level as Handel is simply not paying attention, IMHO.


no pun intended?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> no pun intended?


Only my hairdresser knows for sure and she is sworn to silence!


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

In my pantheon, Handel and Bach (just barely) are equals. Vivaldi is in the next tier. F. Couperin and Telemann immediately follow.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I love Bach and he is one of my favorite composers. He is also regarded as the "greatest" Baroque composers if not the greatest composer of all time. One could argue that Handel and Vivaldi are generally considered a notch below Bach. This is really what I don't understand. Handel and Vivaldi are fine composers, and I don't dislike their music, but really I see no difference in quality between these two and Purcell, Rameau, Corelli, Lully, Telemann, and other Baroque composers.
> 
> So my question is, what about Handel and Vivaldi makes them "better than" other Baroque composers?


It is simple. Bach may be the best composer of all times, but Handel is in the top ten for sure. Vivaldi in the top 15. Handel's Messiah may be the second best choral work ever written in history with the mass of Bach number 1.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Those pantheons above have a serious lack of Rameau.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Handel and Vivaldi.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> Those pantheons above have a serious lack of Rameau.


That's your conclusion, this is about two other composers..


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> That's your conclusion, this is about two other composers..


No, one of the posts mentioned several other Baroque composers.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Haydn is indeed very important. It's questionable at best whether Telemann is even moderately important.


Enlightening. I'll consider listening to less Telemann in the future; wouldn't want to spend much time with a questionable musical entity.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> No, one of the posts mentioned several other Baroque composers.


If another one jumps in the water, do you jump also?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pugg said:


> That's your conclusion, this is about two other composers..


Can't agree. The original post opened the doors for any and all baroque composers.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> No, one of the posts mentioned several other Baroque composers.


What is lacking or not is all based in personal taste and opinion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pugg said:


> If another one jumps in the water, do you jump also?


Depends on who is jumping. If it's a lovely female, I'm going in.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> If another one jumps in the water, do you jump also?


If you can make a post even without anyt...oh, wait...


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Richard8655 said:


> What is lacking or not is all based in personal taste and opinion.


And it is my opinion that y'all need more Rameau in your lives!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> And it is my opinion that y'all need more Rameau in your lives!


Nossir! We need more Liszt!

"As the closing strains began I saw Liszt's countenance assume that agony of expression, mingled with radiant smiles of joy, which I never saw in any other human face except in the paintings of Our Saviour by some of the early masters; his hands rushed over the keys, the floor on which I sat shook like a wire, and the whole audience was wrapped with sound, when the hand and frame of the artist gave way.

"He fainted in the arms of the friend who was turning over the pages for him, and we bore him out in a strong fit of hysterics. The effect of this scene was really dreadful. The whole room sat breathless with fear, till Hiller came forward and announced that Liszt was already restored to consciousness and was comparatively well again."

Now _that _would be worth buying tickets for!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The most important composer of the Baroque era after Bach (by far) is Monteverdi. 

Rameau wrote an important harmonic treatise and some lovely music, but he is no where near the level of Bach. His music has needed to be revived twice already and he still isn't that widely known. He was an important composer but lets not get carried away.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> The most important composer of the Baroque era after Bach (by far) is Monteverdi.
> 
> Rameau wrote an important harmonic treatise and some lovely music, but he is no where near the level of Bach. His music has needed to be revived twice already and he still isn't that widely known. He was an important composer but lets not get carried away.


Monteverdi is up there with Bach and Rameau too, don't worry!


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Enlightening. I'll consider listening to less Telemann in the future; wouldn't want to spend much time with a questionable musical entity.


 Don't listen to less Telemann, just listen to more Haydn.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> And it is my opinion that y'all need more Rameau in your lives!


Apparently so. We'll have to change our ways!


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

tdc said:


> Rameau wrote an important harmonic treatise and some lovely music, but he is no where near the level of Bach.


"Lovely" is an absurdly trivializing adjective for the composer of "Castor and Pollux."


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Magnum Miserium said:


> "Lovely" is an absurdly trivializing adjective for the composer of "Castor and Pollux."


In comparison to Bach's music it is the best I can do.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> In comparison to Bach's music it is the best I can do.


All because the French lost the Franco-Prussian war...


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> All because the French lost the Franco-Prussian war...


On the other hand Debussy is better than Schönberg because they won WWI.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Handel was a stupendous genius. I think comparing him with Bach is not really the point as their styles are pretty divergent as Handel wrote in the Italian opera genre which he then applied to his other choral works. Vivaldi is pleasant enough but comes some way behind the incredible genius of Handel. Just listen to Lorraine Hunt Lieberson singing 'Angels ever bright and fair' to get the point. Was anything more beautiful?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Don't listen to less Telemann, just listen to more Haydn.


I already listen to more Haydn than Telemann.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Handel was a stupendous genius. I think comparing him with Bach is not really the point as their styles are pretty divergent as Handel wrote in the Italian opera genre which he then applied to his other choral works. Vivaldi is pleasant enough but comes some way behind the incredible genius of Handel. Just listen to Lorraine Hunt Lieberson singing 'Angels ever bright and fair' to get the point. Was anything more beautiful?


Beautiful indeed.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Handel was a stupendous genius. I think comparing him with Bach is not really the point as their styles are pretty divergent as Handel wrote in the Italian opera genre which he then applied to his other choral works.


I think you hit it on the nose.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Some not so great things said about Vivaldi. The Four Seasons is an incredible achievement. I can't pick any instrumental work from Handel at that level. Both are great.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Sorry but for me that over-eggs the pudding as far as "The Four Seasons" is concerned. It's a very attractive work of high quality, but IMO Handel's Concerti Grossi are every bit its equal.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> no pun intended?


I resent the pun-icious intention of that re-Mørk.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

neoshredder said:


> Some not so great things said about Vivaldi. The Four Seasons is an incredible achievement. I can't pick any instrumental work from Handel at that level. Both are great.


Nothing to add so + 1


----------



## itarbrt (Feb 9, 2017)

I'll say that they are two great ooera composer . For chamber and orchestral works I think they come from two different schools : the southern italian 17th for Handel and the northern italian for Vivaldi . The 1st use more concertato/concertino mood ( Corelli , Vitali , Martini ... ). The other more solistic mood ( Albinoni , Marcello , ... ). It's true they know the two ways . The 1'st use a melodic treatment very accademic and serious . The other is more free and the balance is reached by solo-tutti contrast . It's true that Vivaldi died in Dresden bringing over there his path .


----------

