Boccherini: String Quartets Op.26 

Realmente las composiciones de Bocherini son elegantísimas y refinadas, sobre todo sus minuetos. Es musica para el alma.

@@bayardobriceno9401 Absolutamente!

Condivido del tutto.

Most Certainly he was!

@@frauncisshakespeare438 All praise for Boccherini is not enough!

You're welcome! We also have a Boccherini playlist, you can check it out here: ru-vid.com/group/PL_qM1lclHDwUlJpZlm4L_hsoNjNJxc7a-

Hello Mr. Paredes I hope all is well with you. I also love string quartets and came to them via Haydn. I knew only Boccherini' Guitar Quintets but like now also his string quartets very much. Many thanks to Brilliant Classics.

@@fransmeersman2334 I have come via Haydn, Mozart and Schubert. I have loved Boccherini's Guitar compositions for over 40 years. Thanks again to Brilliant Classics! We love you!

Thank you for listening, we're glad you enjoyed

한국에도 이작곡가가 인기가 있습니까?

Francis Foong They are not ‘better than Haydn’; different is a better word. The quartets of Haydn - and Mozart too - we’re written for an entirely different audience and for a different purpose. When subjected to critical analysis, Boccherini’s quartets quite simply are miles off those of Haydn. Boccherini was a fine, professional performer, musician and composer but his music was almost entirely written for entertainment alone and as you’ve discovered, he was very successful at it. Exactly the same comments would apply if you tried to compare Boccherini’s quintets with those of Mozart. In one respect however, you are right; there is barely a note Boccherini wrote that I would not call ‘magical’ - he is a fine composer.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 🙄

@@frauncisshakespeare438 In my last sentence, I described Boccherini as ‘...a fine composer’, and his music as ‘magical’. Your reply makes no sense, and you’re criticism is nonsense - a rarely achieved double accolade.

​@@elaineblackhurst1509 I will return your own reply to yourself, with a small amendment, in saying that Quote:- "Your reply makes no sense, and you’re criticism is nonsense - a rarely achieved "Triple" accolade" -in this case. In that your comments make no real-sense! Firstly you assume to correct 'Francis Foong's' remark (i.e., "Magical music. Better than Haydn.") in replying quote - "They are not ‘better than Haydn’; different is a better word." When what he meant was quite clear (-if you read between the lines, that is!). Secondly you then make the assumption that quote: "his (Boccherini') music was almost entirely written for entertainment alone ". Which raises the simple and rather obvious question -which Composers works weren't written for entertainment- of one kind or another? Then, going back, you state - quote:- "When subjected to critical analysis, Boccherini’s quartets quite simply are miles off those of Haydn. " If they are "Miles off" of Haydn and Mozart" then why do you later state that -quote:- "In one respect however, you are right; there is barely a note Boccherini wrote that I would not call ‘magical’ - he is a fine composer."? Lastly to return to your cerebral remark quote:- "When subjected to critical analysis, Boccherini’s quartets quite simply are miles off those of Haydn", end quote. And what is this "Critical Analysis" you refer to, and who is/are the Analysts making these "Critical Judgements". Critical Analysis (an endeavor usually suited for idiots of one kind or another) is more often a profession pursued by those sub-intellectuals who lack any true talent - other than "Criticism of Others" - far more gifted than themselves! These being the displaced inept crowd of credentialed quasi-intellectuals who often reduce Music" ( i.e., a "Living Art" ) to a set of patterns on paper - to be taxonomically, or otherwise reduced to abstract and statistical formulas - i.e., "Critical-Analysis" , of the "written notes", or score; (as if the music itself can be found engraved on the staves)-which however when brought to Life in Performance and Sound -then reveals "Magic" as you yourself say. And which Sounds provides great inspiration, enjoyment, and often a relief from life's many burden's So Please do make up your mind - one way or the other. Finally I do not take back my first comment, other than in stating this - it is clear that you appreciate Boccherini's works, but you haven't yet deprogrammed your mind -from the long established Academic Quackery, the Memes and Propaganda, concerning the alleged supremacy of Haydn and Mozart, in particular, as being somehow the most gifted and highest genius' of the Classical Period. Whereas what is now coming to light is the fact that neither of these two deserve many of the false accolades and lauds which they have been given, (in respect of their "assumed" superior genius) due to the dominance of the opinions of a few (Music Historians- and "Critics" etalia) as to whose music is the best - due to their possessing a "higher genius" than the rest of the classical field. As for Luigi Boccherini -Haydn referred to him as a "Genius"; and later in life Haydn "sought him out" in hoping to correspond with him! Beethoven referred to Boccherini as the greatest living Composer (prior to Boccherini's death)! The music critics of the day, generally saw Haydn and Boccherini as equals! In certain quarters Boccherini was recognized as being the superior of the two. Mozart wasn't even a close third let alone an equal of the latter two. Boccherini was published both in London and Paris, on an ongoing regular basis; Boccherini formed the very first (Classical) traveling string quartet; making him in effect the "Father of the Classical String Quartet", not Haydn as claimed! In short Boccherini's Genius, as embodied in his wonderful works, is now being returned to its true status - that of a unique and singular light that shone forth during the classical period - "Magic" as you say; quote;- "there is barely a note Boccherini wrote that I would not call ‘magical’ "! And for that I most heartily congratulate and agree with you! As to this particular set of quartets it is one of a few similar lighter string ensemble works ( a minor opus, as Boccherini called these lighter works) - "written for a particular audience". But it is by no means typical of the profundity and depth that is to be found within many of Boccherini's greater Opus'. So then let peace and harmony prevail between us .....All's well that ends well -for now!

... lavorando in Spagna.

Adriano: atribuir a Haydn la paternidad del cuarteto o de la sinfonía es puro pan-germanismo. Haydn es mi compositor favorito a años luz de los demás excepto Bruckner, io so filo-tedesco! Haydn no es el padre del cuarteto, pero sus cuartetos son un mundo aparte con respecto a los contemporáneos, incluído el salzburgués. En Don Luigi no hay ni atisbor de desarrollo motívico, de tensión dramática, de arquitectura formal viva... a pesar de su belleza, claro.

@@pepehaydn7039 Signor Pepe, per interpretare il significato ed il senso (o i significati ed i sensi) servono dei concetti, o delle categorie, sia di ordine razionale che di carattere sentimentale (o, forse, si potrebbe dire anche "spirituale). Ma, prima, occorre una sensibilità aperta e possibilmente non condizionata. Per quanto mi riguarda, credo nella positività ed indispensabilità della convivenza sociale, culturale, dei generi e degli autori, piuttosto che nelle contrapposizioni inconciliabili. Lei fa benissimo ad apprezzare Haydn e ad essere"filo-tedesco. Si trova senz'altro in ottima compagnia. Anch'io apprezzo Haydn, e non solo ......

Hola. Lo de filo-tedesco era una ironía. Precisamente lo que criticaba es que nos han hecho creer que en la historia de la música existe una especie de columna vertebral Bach - Mozart - Haydn - Beethoven - romanticismo alemán - dodecafonismo y que todo lo demás es accesorio, adyacente, ramas del árbol. Y ESTO ES UNA FALSEDAD.

Gentile signor Pepe, premesso un doveroso grazie per la Sua interessante interlocuzione, non ho difficoltà a dirLe che sono d'accordo con Lei nel deplorare la narrazione che riduce la storia della musica - in continuo divenire e, quindi, suscettibile di ogni ampliamento, ri-sentimento e ri-pensamento - a pochi (benché grandi e grandissimi) musicisti di lingua tedesca. Troppe volte, ciò che è presentato come "storia della musica" è soltanto "letteratura sulla letteratura musicale" che non fa altro che parlarsi addosso, in assenza di un autentico ed esauriente rapporto conoscitivo con gli autori, le loro opere e gli interpreti, che ne danno chiavi di lettura, rendendo la musica fruibile anche a chi sia sprovvisto di nozioni specifiche.

I would agree Sir. Boccherini seems to exude grace and sophistication at a more regular pace than Haydn.

I agree .. to quote your good self -"the genius of Boccherini does not equal that of Haydn" ... whereas ...it far surpasses Haydn's genius. You are merely parroting the orthodox view, in stating, as many others do... that Haydn was a greater Genius than was Boccherini. It may surprise you that Haydn himself would not agree with your view; he considered Boccerini the greater Genius (Haydn sought out Boccherini, in order to regularly correspond with him; due to Haydn's great respect for Luigi's superior genius. And when asked as to who was the greatest living composer (i.e., pre-1805) Beethoven replied Boccherini. No disrespect to you sir , but the sheer number of individuals who merely repeat (parrot) the othodox wisdom (so-called) merely demonstrates that the majority do not think, nor feel for themselves. There isn't a single piece among Haydn's chamber works which even surpasses Bocchereini's average equivalent .... let alone Boccherini's very best. Boccherini achieved many things in music which no other Classical Composer approached in terms of innovation, variety, subtltey, refinment, and pure creative invention. One has to train -equally- the "head", "ear", and "heart" to fully appreciate Boccheini's works for the outstanding Genius they embody. Even Beethovens' greatest quartets do not surpass the unique purity, refinement of invention, innovation, subtltey, and overal creative quality of that which Boccherini's similar works typically embody. The ear and mind of the majority is trained and "programmed" to "believe" that a certain style of "Classical Sound" and "Form" is the best, i.e., Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Boccherini stood alone, unique and above these latter three, along with the remaining field of classical and early Romatic composers. It takes time, and an opening of oneself to a new and greater depth of awareness and consciousness to "get" just what it was that Boccherini embodied as a Genius of the very very highest standing; along with the superior nature of his Genius above the latter ... as I just described. His subtltey, refinement , grace, purity and sheer creative range of musical "invention" had no Classical peer. One has to "acclimatize" oneself to the refined air of the higher ground upon which he stood ... in order to first begin to appreciate the celestial qualitites embodied within his works. My respects to you for your appreciation of Boccherini though; which, in itself, is a very worthy quality, and a rare one too. No disrespect intended sir, you merely presented the opportunity to have your view, rightfully and deservedly, challenged.

@@frauncisshakespeare438 Boccherini is a fine composer, but the orthodox views you criticise, which accord greater stature to Mozart and Haydn - then to Beethoven in the next generation - are orthodox for a reason.