Kraus Symphony VB 142 | Giovanni Antonini | Kammerorchester Basel (Haydn2032 live) 

I had no idea he wrote it for Haydn.

Ctenomy cool

En effet c’est très beau et surtout cela ne ressemble ni à Haydn ni à Mozart et annonce Beethoven

It’s probably more accurate to say that Kraus reworked, or revised the symphony for Haydn when he visited Eszterhaza. Kraus took a symphony originally written the year before and made the following changes: - originally in c# minor, Kraus transposed it down to the more manageable c minor; - added an obbligato bassoon, and two extra horns; - added a slow introduction; - removed the minuet altogether; - the thematic material is also more developed. Kraus felt that Haydn’s orchestra was one of the best he had heard during his four year musical tour of Europe of which this trip to Eszterhaza to visit Haydn was part; he would have enjoyed hearing a top orchestra playing the work which Haydn did whilst Kraus was with him. In the revised form, the work was dedicated to, and as explained above, performed by Haydn who praised the work ‘especially written for me’, in the highest terms, and described Kraus as ‘…the fist genius I ever met’. See my original comments above if interested, where the work is discussed in more detail.

You are so right! Have you discovered Bernhad Crusell? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_HtXSeZlnuE.html

We get what we deserve unfortunately. Even classical station are driven by commercial demands. Admiration of certain composers bordering on mania has damaged our appreciation of the wider field.

*Joseph :-)

Of course I know Kraus. There are a lot of recordings of his works and I was in his birthtown in Germany. Haydn did know him too. It's simply great.

Yes, Krauss was a very good neglected composer. I'm rather fonder of Vanhal's music, though.

John Kusske Vanhal’s symphonies up to the end of the ‘sturm und drang’ period (c.1775) are interesting and compare well with most composers except Haydn and Mozart’s K183. Vanhal stopped writing symphonies after about 1780 and I think the general quality of his music declined, apart possibly from his religious music. Kraus wrote most of his greatest music after he moved to Stockholm in 1778. In short and slightly simplistically: whilst contemporaries, Vanhal is better judged pre-1780, Kraus post-1780!

We want to keep him like that. Hidden.

I quite agree-I heard this on that same Turnabout LP and in later years sought out as much of his music as I could find. Tho' certainly accomplished, with moments of beauty and force-this symphony is the peak of the rest. Sad-perhaps longer life would have brought more treasures-certainly if he had become familiar with, and influenced by, Haydn's London symphonies...

bloodgrss My pet theory about Kraus is that had he moved to Vienna in 1778 when he left Germany, rather than to the relative isolation of Stockholm, then his development as a composer would have been as spectacular as that of Mozart when he moved to that city from Salzburg.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 I think your theory is right...

Actually, I believe it was a Nonesuch LP, and it was paired with a symphony by the Italian composer Gaetano Brunetti. Like Kraus, Brunetti was an immigrant, in this case from Italy to Spain. The performers were the Solisti di Milano with Angelo Ephrikian conducting.

His works are an equal to Mozart and Haydn. They have such a highly developed harmonic centre and ingenious melodies but most importantly the most satisfying resolutions at the end of each movement.

О ,да!!!

And a NO conductor.

Elaine Blackhurst thank you for the all the information you have provided about this piece. Interestingly, the recording by Concerto Koln does include the harpsichord continuo along with the expanded format you mentioned. It is indeed a great piece and sadly largely ignored 😔

Mario Fonseca You are welcome, I am glad you found my notes useful. Regarding the addition of a harpsichord; you will find performances of works by Mozart and Haydn - and their contemporaries - where conductors today still choose to add a harpsichord; any competent harpsichordist would be able to realise the bass and provide the continuo if the conductor decides that s/he wants one. There are no extant original manuscripts, nor scores from the Eszterhaza archives with any figured bass markings; additionally, there is no record of any harpsichordist being employed at either Eisenstadt or Eszterhaza in the manner CPE Bach for example was employed as a continuo player by Frederick the Great in Berlin. Haydn did however play any required keyboard parts as needed - the harpsichord for the opera recitatives, or the organ in church for example, and even the occasional solo spot! During the symphonies, it is generally agreed that Haydn played the violin - his best instrument. If interested, the subject has been most widely investigated by James Webster. Haydn sometimes requires a quite deliberately sparse texture, Mozart is generally more dense and so does not need the harpsichord for different reasons; the Kraus symphony likewise has a dense texture which means that the harpsichord filling in chords is again really not necessary. The use of a harpsichord in mid/late 18th century symphonies is a widely debated issue; I enjoy recordings both with and without it as part of the continuo though there are wide differences as to the extent of its use. Trevor Pinnock in his fine series of nineteen ‘sturm und drang’ symphonies uses a very discrete harpsichord in each case, whilst Roy Goodman in the significant number of symphonies he completed in his unfinished and aborted ‘complete’ series uses an ever present and very forward and to my ears, intrusive harpsichord that transforms the whole orchestral texture. In short; in this magnificent series by Antonini, a harpsichord continuo would add nothing, and from the evidence, it is almost certain that Haydn did not use them at Eszterhaza, and Kraus would not have expected one to be used either; the harpsichord would have seemed old-fashioned to both composers.

Thank YOU! Elaine, although I believe harpsichord continuos are worth saving.

bruce anderson The evidence seems so to point to Haydn not using a harpsichord continuo at Eszterhaza (James Webster in particular, but others too). That said, his symphonies were performed all over Europe and I am sure that it was used in some, indeed many contemporary performances, particularly in the 1760’s and early 1770’s; any later than that, and it would have seemed rather old-fashioned. We are fortunate to have so many very good recordings available and I suspect most listeners who enjoy music from this period will, like myself, have performances on cd both with and without the harpsichord. I will be interested to hear Antonini’s performances of Symphonies 6, 7, and 8 (the ‘Le Matin’, ‘Le Midi’, ‘Le Soir’ trilogy’) where my current first choice recording is that of the Freiburger Barockorchester directed by Petra Mullejans which does use a harpsichord. In summary: there is probably room for both approaches, and the quality of the performances in both formats depends on rather more than the presence or not of the harpsichord continuo.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 A blessing for your vigorous exposition and docent-like hacks. This composer, neglect, and I certainly applaud your kudos for Maestro et alia. I accept the possibility the harpsichord may appear as an anachronism; however I do not believe, IMHO, the instrument ever reached it's fullest development, certainly as changing tastes evolved. Please continuo w/your candle of light as I relish Haydn/2032. Aside, I enjoy Freiberger and Akademie alte Musick Berlin because of their calvary-charges of Bach, Telemann, etc. That is idiosyncratic, of course. de gustibus...thank you

@Elaine Blackhurst Musicology, history and criticism bearing much of the responsibility for this very slanted and biased "Mozartian view" of the classical period, which usually neglects and often totally excludes the great contributions of many other wonderful composers. Many people often make comments such as "this sounds like Mozart", when in fact its Mozart's music itself that sounds like many of the great and earlier classical pieces written by a large number of other composers . Mozart himself being the grand imitator of the classical era, possessing the faculty of being able to write in the style of virtually any other composer whilst retaining his own unique style and sound: a thing well recognized by music critics and historians.

@@stefanstamenic3640 Your comment refers generally to a ‘very slanted and biased “Mozartian view” ‘ which is clearly a personal opinion and viewpoint, which I trust has not been applied to my discussion of Kraus as it would be a gross misunderstanding of what I have written. It is also true that Mozart is often mistakenly used today as a reference point in relation to other late-18th century music, often to the point of irrelevant absurdity. Therefore, I do agree though that because of Mozart’s popularity today, and because he is so well known, your point is a view that is quite common, but often either mistaken, or over-stated. Otherwise, you make some valid points; you have read enough of my comments elsewhere to know that I am very well aware of the important contributions to the development of the Classical style by a wide range of composers besides Mozart and Haydn. I agree absolutely that RU-vid is awash with comments by listeners who imagine that they hear Mozart in almost every Classical commonplace, whether melodic, rhythmic, harmonic, chromatic, or anything else! Such comments normally come from those who enjoy music, but have not had the opportunity to study it in any depth; RU-vid can be useful to gently educate, or suggest alternative views.

I'm not sure that Mozart was that well known in late 1783. He had composed several masterpieces by then (most notably Die Entführung aus dem Serail which premiered in july 1782), but then discovered Bach and struggled a lot at that time figuring out how to compose fugues during 1783. Before leaving for Vienna in 1780 he did not compose for one full year, so basically he disappeared from the map. I believe Mozart's success really bloomed in 1784 (thanks to his many piano concertos and sonata). Also, if you consider Mozart's taste for provocation, it wouldn't be surprising that Kraus would simply have been advised against meeting Mozart. They were also both 27 years old. I guess any composer at the time was more eager to look forward their elders than any peer struggling the same way to get some kind of recognition. Unless you're settled in the same place and are looking for friends. Which was not the case of Kraus. Haydn's citation mentioning that Kraus was the first genius he met also prooves that he himself had not met Mozart at the time (because he did consider Mozart a genius as well). Why would Kraus have met Mozart if Haydn (who used to travel to Vienna every now and then) did not even bother?

@@herved.2063 Some really interesting speculations; one of the things I am trying to get my head around is exactly how well known Mozart really was - as a composer, rather than as a performer - outside a small number of colleagues and friends, and outside a small number of locations such as Vienna, Mannheim, Munich and Prague, during the last ten years of his life. Haydn found Mozart virtually unknown in London in the first half of the 1790s, and Marc Vignal’s research into the 335 concert programmes at the Concert spirituel in Paris between 1781 and 1790 show that Haydn’s music featured 191 times compared to about a dozen for Mozart. These two points are surprising to many today, but are perhaps a useful reminder to be a little more circumspect about back-dating Mozart’s fame as a composer a little too enthusiastically, and without due care regarding the actual facts. That said, I do believe that Kraus knew some of Mozart’s work - Die Entfuhrung for example. I suspect that Mozart’s phenomenal popularity and fame today - arguably *the* most popular and famous of all composers* - has been anachronistically back-dated slightly to a time when it did not really exist to anything like the degree it does today - hence Haydn probably not meeting him until 1783, and Kraus not seeking him out whilst in Vienna whilst he was there, also in 1783, either before or after his trip to see Haydn at Eszterhaza (or at least not waiting until Mozart’s return from Salzburg and Linz). It would be interesting to hear other views on this fascinating topic. * Otherwise, probably Beethoven.

Thank you for introducing me to Anton Fils, I never would have found him if it wasn't for your comment!!!

@@kanelbullenochkakan2322 There are some interesting composers writing some of the very earliest symphonies of the new Classical period in the 1740’s, 50’s and early 60’s. You might like to check out for starters: Sammartini, Johann Stamitz, Richter, Holzbauer, Fils, Wagenseil, Monn, Gassmann, Beck, d’Ordonez. These composers provide an interesting background and context to the early symphonies of Haydn, and the first efforts of Mozart.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you so much!

@@kanelbullenochkakan2322 If you like Fils (I agree he's awesome), check out Pieter Van Maldere's stuff.

violinhunter2 I think that had Kraus moved to Vienna in 1778 rather than the relative isolation of Stockholm, then his development as a composer might have been as spectacular as that of Mozart after he decided to move there from Salzburg.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 Yes. When one pursues a goal there are three possible outcomes: One loses interest and moves on to other things, one succeeds, or, one runs out of time. Ultimately, both of these men achieved success - Mozart to a much greater degree - although not in their lifetime, when it really matters. Mozart has fed thousands upon thousands of musicians and impresarios but he died a pauper. That is just not fair. God owes us an explanation.

violinhunter2 The main goal of composers before Beethoven was to earn a living by writing, selling, performing and publishing works as a sideline to fulfilling the duties of their contracts and terms of employment - JS Bach or Haydn’s extant contracts being typical examples, or CPE Bach’s very different responsibilities in Berlin, then Hamburg being a variant of this. The struggles of a Mozart or WF Bach without the backing of a patron, or church or court post illustrate well the difficulties of 18th century composers’ struggles to survive, which were rather more important than pursuing any artistic dreams. Mozart was not alone in dieing almost penniless; Dittersdorf and Boccherini to name just two contemporary composers were in similarly desperate straights by the end. It was only really with Beethoven - and later 19th century composers - that a composer was able to follow freely his own artistic and musical goals, though even he was heavily dependent on a string of aristocratic patrons. It should be mentioned though, that from 1790, Haydn with the support of his Eszterhazy pension and only very nominal duties, had also in effect become an independent, freelance composer. Haydn could accept or not any commissions he chose, made a good income from his two extremely lucrative tours to England, concerts in Vienna, and having his works published all over Europe.

If Kraus is Zelenka, then Haydn is Telemann LOL.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 good point, Vivaldi died penniless as well, 50 years prior to Mozart's own demise in the same city of Vienna.

An extraordinary, and very fine symphony - agreed; however to my ears, this symphony is entirely Classical in every respect. Beware the dangers of thinking that Classical music can only resemble delicate porcelain figures, and that something must be Romantic - or foreshadows the Romantics - if it has passion, stormy or dreamy characteristics, explicit emotional expression, and so forth. ‘Romantic characteristics’ are also evident - but in a different form - in Classical period music as well which itself expresses all the emotions usually linked to the 19th century, but in its own way. However when ‘Classical’ music itself does not sound quite like what is perceived to be the ‘norm’ of music written between c.1750 - 1800 (especially if you think of some of the lightweight galant and rococo sounds), it does not become Romantic because it has departed from the perceived Classical norm. Other examples of non-mainstream Classical sounds that remain however quintessentially Classical would be: Gluck’s seminal Don Juan, CPE Bach’s empfindsamer Stil, and the c.1765-1775 ‘sturm und drang’ movement evidenced by about nineteen Haydn symphonies, Mozart’s K183, and works by a number of other composers such as Dittersdorf and Vanhal.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 well said. if anything this piece contains quite a bit of older (Baroque) styles and tropes, which I absolutely love.

Haydn described Kraus as the first genius he ever met (Kraus visited him at Eszterhaza in 1783, and wrote this fine c minor symphony especially to be presented to Haydn and performed there). And in a rare comment in French Haydn wrote: ‘J’y reconnais Kraus. Quelle profondeur de pensees - quel talent classique’. Later, Haydn lamented Kraus’ death on the same terms as that of Mozart: ‘Too bad about that man, just like Mozart! They were both so young’. In short, your comment places you in good company.

T.J. White My two lengthy contributions at the top of these comments answer and explain your query about the continuo precisely.

Leonardo Mauretti Hai ragione; anche, la differenza tra i più grandi compositore egli altri è quasi sempre più evidente nei movimenti lenti.

Some interesting points, but ‘...this very slanted and biased “Mozartian” view’ clearly does not apply to anything I have written here or elsewhere. I am very well aware of the very particular and specific contributions, and the importance of both Mozart and Haydn to the development of the 18th century Classical style, as well as the importance of a significant number of their contemporaries. I have added a different response to the same comment you have posted elsewhere under this performance.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 Tell us, how does a musical idea come about? Why are you relativizing Haydn's statement ("The symphony he wrote here in Vienna especially for me will be regarded as a masterpiece for centuries to come...")? Do you personally know better than Joseph Haydn to compose symphonic music? Amadeus Mozart did not have any of his original musical ideas!

@@stefanstamenic3640 I absolutely cannot understand the point you are trying to make.

​@@elaineblackhurst1509

That’s because his name is Kraus, not Haydn or Mozart - Beethoven is not relevant as he is a generation later. Judge and enjoy composers on their own merits and for who or what they are, rather than the degree to which they come close to today’s perceived ‘norm’ ie Haydn and Mozart. It is interesting to note that neither Haydn (‘too scientific’; ‘a din to flay the ears’; ‘tricks and nonsense’*), nor Mozart (‘too many notes’*), were exempt from criticism in their own lifetimes, though today, between them, they represent almost 100% of concert programming of late 18th century music and therefore represent a ‘norm’ today that did not exist in their own time. If you want tunes, I could suggest any number of contemporary composers for you to try, it’s simply not what Kraus was about - though he does have his own very personal melodic language - but there are many other beauties to discover for those with ears to hear. * Too his eternal shame, both these utterances are from Joseph II.

I've heard this symphony twice now, 10 minutes later I couldn't whistle you any melodies from it, compare that to any of the minor Symphonies of Mozart or Haydn. Not saying it's bad, just not the same level.

Sshooter444 I’d probably go for adjectives like ‘interesting’, ‘different’, ‘worthwhile’ and so on. Mozart and Haydn are who they are because it is impossible to find contemporary works, including minor key works, that match Mozart’s 25 (or 40 from a little later), or a string of Haydn’s Sturm and Drang works including 26, 44, 45, 49 for example (or 78, 80, 83 or 95 from later). Some of Kraus’ works however would figure in my ‘best of the rest’ list; I do think he has a very distinctive musical language that sets him a little apart from many of his contemporaries - with repeated listening you may find that you appreciate him better. Regarding this symphony, it was a significant reworking of a very good work and could have been intended for Haydn to perform at Eszterhaza - there is some debate as to whether it was this symphony or one in D major, though I think it more likely to be this c minor one. Kraus clearly went to a lot more trouble over this work than was normal for composers at the time. It represents Kraus trying his best, trying to impress Haydn - which it did - and showcasing what he could do. Outside Mozart and Haydn, I would place it high in any list of ‘best of the rest’ of 18th century symphonies’. My feeling is that had Kraus moved to Vienna as did Mozart, rather than to the relative isolation of Stockholm, to where he moved in 1778, about three years before Mozart’s move to Vienna, then Kraus would have developed as a composer as spectacularly as did Mozart after he escaped from Salzburg. Whilst Stockholm and the court of Gustav III were far more enlightened and stimulating than Salzburg, had he gone to Vienna instead, we may not have spoken of Mozart and Haydn as we do today, but Mozart, Haydn and Kraus. As it is, Kraus is well worth investigating if you are interested in music of this period, but ultimately, the list of great works is far too short to challenge the supremacy of Mozart and Haydn.

tune whistle-ability is an incredibly narrow assessment rubric. you'll miss some of the greatest music ever written, but to each his/her own.

@@petermerelis You make a really good point; the piece I usually use to illustrate this is the easy opening prelude in C major from Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier Book 1 (BWV 846) which lots of people recognise, but across it’s rhythmically repetitive 35 bars, it has absolutely no melody whatsoever. Just to push home the point, he disses the melody-seekers again in the following c minor prelude (BWV 847). There are a million other examples - could almost become a fun challenge (atonal music however being disqualified).

I really cannot follow the points you are trying to make nor the conclusions you appear to have drawn from my comments; it is therefore impossible to respond or discuss further. ‘How does a musical idea come about?’ I have no idea, nor have ever discussed such a question. ‘Why are you relativizing...?’ If I knew what this meant I could perhaps respond. ‘Do you know personally better than Joseph Haydn...? I have never suggested that I do; it is also a very strange understanding of what I have written to suggest that I have even implied such a ridiculous idea. ‘Amadeus’ Mozart ??

And yet, part of the appeal of Beethoven is the surprises that he throws in. If everything is inevitable, then you misunderstand his music. So many of the modulations and other things happen only because they were unexpected.

Whilst listening to an eighteenth century symphony by Kraus, it is quite wrong to start talking about Beethoven who came from a different age and is therefore utterly irrelevant. To be honest, in terms of music, I’m not sure I understand what is meant by ‘no sense of inevitability’. Kraus was writing in a very particular eighteenth century musical language; Beethoven’s was entirely different as were the other composers I listed or any others you may choose to add. This endless setting up of composers in some sort of hierarchy and competion is wrong ; each should be judged and enjoyed on his (or her), own merits. To put it another way: comparing Bach, Mozart and Wagner is like comparing three different colours of the rainbow - what’s the point ?

@@elaineblackhurst1509 I disagree. You can judge each composer on their merits, but that inherently makes a hierarchy. Say I give Schubert a 7/10 and Beethoven a 9/10 (not necessarily my feelings, though they're not that far off); Beethoven comes out better than Schubert, even if I wasn't comparing them to begin with. Also, Beethoven absolutely has things that can be compared to more modern composers. That's why literally every Romantic composer was so preoccupied with building on Beethoven; why Brahms took 21 years to write his first symphony. Beethoven wrote in a more developed version of the fashionable style at the time of Kraus, so it's not that different. Of course, it's silly to judge Wagner on the standards of first species counterpoint, but some things can be compared between him and Bach. And with Beethoven. And there are absolutely composers from since Beethoven's time who completely failed where Beethoven succeeded: Schumann, on more than one occasion, for example. Fine, there are also much better composers than Schumann around, but that's not the point. What I'm getting at is that there are certain things in music that don't change, and so can be validly compared. That's why Bach's Brandenburg Concerti can be compared to Strauss' Oboe Concerto and we can talk about how the structure of one works better than that of the other. The harmony - eh, that's kind of different. Orchestration too. But the _music_ (by which I mean the phrasing, the expression, and so on) is easily comparable. I can compare the emotional impact of a starter and a dessert, and I can validly say "oh, this naan bread is overcooked, while my ice cream is soft but not melted", and that puts the ice cream ahead of the naan bread. Anyway, I feel like I've started rambling, so I'm gonna stop now. But my point is you can absolutely compare the two. (Although if you want a proper comparison, Kraus vs Haydn or Mozart may be a fairer one). In any case, I like this piece.

All great composers have a sense of inevitability.

klop422 Your thoughtful response deserves a considered reply, with some of your points I agree, though if you re-read my original comments, I think you have misunderstood some of what I said. For example: you begin ‘I disagree’ but then immediately follow by saying ‘you can judge each composer on their merits’ - exactly the point I made! Regarding a hierarchy, I do think it is unnecessary and wrong; I insist that it is pointless to compare a Schubert song with a Monteverdi madrigal with a Verdi aria and try to rate them 1, 2, 3. Works should be appreciated in their own right, the level of appreciation will be personal and subjective. You spoke about later composers building on Beethoven, you are obviously correct though the real foundations were laid initially by Haydn (and then Mozart, and then Haydn further); modern music began with the monumental work done by these composers - and others - in establishing the sonata, symphony, string quartet, opera along with the forms that have lasted until the present day. Beethoven grappled with the musically intellectual challenges posed by Haydn - and in a different way with Mozart - throughout his life; for Beethoven, Haydn posed questions, Mozart provided answers. The greatness of Beethoven is that he took up these challenges and then set the bar so high, he in effect intimidated later composers or sent them, like Berlioz, down highly individual cul-de-sacs. Many later composers were so awed by Beethoven they simply went in different directions or like you say about Brahms, spent a lifetime agonising over it. There is a danger in thinking of music as developing as a straightforward linear progression, Beethoven is not ‘a more developed version of Kraus’, back to my original point - they are from different ages and not comparable. James Ackerman has written: ‘What is called evolution in ...(music)..should not be described as a series of steps towards a solution to a given problem, but a succession of steps away from one or more original statements of a problem’ (Art and Architecture 1963). To obsess with progress, means that Tschaikovsky must be greater than Handel, or Shostakovich than Palestrina, to me this is simply nonsense. It is possible to compare contemporary composers to a degree, but even then, you need to be very aware of what you are comparing. The popular, ubiquitous - awful! - Mozart sonata K545, even though a mature work was written for a pupil and will come a very poor second to some of the sonatas Haydn wrote for Teresa Jansen in London - a highly talented professional pianist playing on brand new, big sounding, technically advanced Broadwood pianos. Similarly, Haydn’s Eszterhaza operas, written for Prince Nicholas will always struggle against Mozart’s operas written to earn him money in Vienna or Prague. If melody is key for you in appreciating a work, or poise and balance, musical density clothed in a wonderful orchestration, then you’re likely to prefer Mozart; if you are interested in motivic development, third related keys, free form and journeys to very remote keys, and disruption of expectation, then you will find more in Haydn. Even with two apparently similar and contemporary composers like these, I find it difficult to compare because I appreciate different things more in each composer. These are the sort of differences I enjoy in listening to composers of all periods, Mozart tends to be more popular than Haydn because his charms are more obvious. When Haydn abandons the key signature altogether because the modulations have gone so far and the score would be almost unintelligible due to the double sharps and so on, he writes ‘con licenza’ - it looks like you’re in C major, in fact you’re so far away it could be something from the 20th century; the quartet players see it, but all except the most astute listener is likely to hear or appreciate it. I could have done a similar comparison between Beethoven and Schubert, Prokofiev and Stravinsky or any number of others but what they would all have had in common is pointing out the particular greatness of each; greatness however is a subjective judgement and personal to each individual, and long may that remain the case. It’s good to discuss these things, thank you; by the way, I like the Kraus symphony too!

Vai a lavorare tu, capra. Che se sei qui a dar fiato alla bocca vuol dire che tanto impegnato non devi essere

Luc7 Luc7 È insolito che gli orecchie inglesi siano migliore degli orecchie italiani, ma il tuo commento è totalmente sbagliato ed ingiusto. Quest’ esecuzione è fantastico, ed è l’esecuzione che mi piace di più di tutti.