No sh*t I tot the 2 have some kind similar energy, and both are my favourite. These are the most "lirih" melody (I don't know the word in English, it was Indonesian)
@@leonhardeuler6811 amazing concerto as well. It's one of my favorites too, also played by Europa Galante. RV517 also reminds me very much of some dresden concerti, even though there is no clear historic connection between them.
Words for anyone who knows a bit of musicology and loves Vivaldi's music seriously: most of Vivaldi's music is a copy made by a contemporary musician or by someone in his friends' circle. This applies also to many of Vivaldi's compositions in the Foa-Giordano Collection. The fact that the RV212 is a copy made in Amsterdam does not hinder its reliability as a source. In fact, there is no reason to doubt the information coming from it, as there is no reason to doubt that the concert was performed in Padua during the feast of St Anthony and in 1712. Michael Talbot has never suggested anything different from what I am stating, not least because doubting a source in the absence of another one is silly. He simply uses a bit of necessary historical caution that comes along with dealing with sources that we cannot verify in any other way, but that is not tantamount to doubting the source itself. If we consider the Mss in the Turin collection as "originals" (being many of them copies) than the RV212 is the original that we have of Vivaldi, although it is made by a copyist, as much of Vivaldi's music that has survived to us. Only someone who knows very little or nothing at all about the material tradition of Vivaldi's music would insinuate that we possess all the originals by Vivaldi.
"Most of Vivaldi's music is a copy made by a contemporary musician or by someone in his friends' circle. This applies also to many of Vivaldi's compositions in the Foa-Giordano Collection." ->Most of these non autograph sources found in the Turin collection are ostensibly by copyists, not musicians or friends per se, although of course, they could be both. Copies made in close collaboration with the composer can also be considered more authoritative, whereas the ones made by court musicians in distant Dresden are another matter, though the case of Pisendel is of course special. It is still not a primary source by any standard, and so, not as authoritative as something written from Vivaldi's pen. There are hundreds of such works in Turin though. What is your point? "The fact that the RV212 is a copy made in Amsterdam does not hinder its reliability as a source." ->That depends on your methodology. Ryom had a strict methodology (see "Les manuscrits de Vivaldi" where he explains this in detail). But RV212 is a copy that was made God knows where, and is presently held in Dresden. That is a fact. I don't know where you are headed with Amsterdam. "Michael Talbot has never suggested anything different from what I am stating, not least because doubting a source in the absence of another one is silly." You think so. "He simply uses a bit of necessary historical caution that comes along with dealing with sources that we cannot verify in any other way, but that is not tantamount to doubting the source itself." That is true. But it is precisely a question of chronology, not of history, and you were the one vaguely correcting me about chronology. I am not vaguely correcting you. I am stating hard facts, whereas you are stating fuzzy facts. As it happens, the Ryom catalogue has here: presumably 1712. And this is not doubting a source for the sake of it. It is assigning the correct degree of authoritativeness to a secondary source. "Only someone who knows very little or nothing at all about the material tradition of Vivaldi's music would insinuate that we possess all the originals by Vivaldi." That is good for us both. Neither of us has insinuated such a thing! :) :) :)
The publication in Amsterdam of 12 concerts (L'Estro Armonico) and several other documents, as well as several scores found at a Venetian fair, all are sufficient for specialists to understand Vivaldi's music, and thus attest to other possible discoveries. In fact, copyists were not lacking around a composer, who, with this economy of effort, could create much more.
Wow. Everything that “works” for strings by Vivaldi is here in this concerto. Thanks for uploading. Curious about the crossed-out sections; were they just cut for performance time reasons? (I know the recording includes them anyway; I’m just curious as to the historical reason for the cuts.)
In my view, and this is purely my opinion based on observation, these are the kinds of cuts that Vivaldi would make after the fact, on a routine basis, not to shorten the piece (as is probably the case with the string concertos, some of which feature very heavy cuts) but to improve it, i.e. they were compositional decisions. The pruning seems to have been an integral part of the compositional process, and he would do so for a variety of reasons, but there was undoubtedly a mechanical aspect to his composing so quickly, and I think he often revised with that in mind as a matter of course.
Esse início poderia ser visto como Elefantes marchando, boa inventividade. Beethoven fez um baixo "como Elefantes" para contrabaixos em sua 5a Sinfonia.
1:49 same problem as RV210, I suppose? And this is Carmignola too, I am baffled. You've written "Played as first written or copied in [the] autograph score" but Why???
You can differentiate between two types of emendations on Vivaldi's manuscripts. Some deletions were made during the composition of the work: the bars were deleted even before the accompanying parts were composed. Other deletions seem to have made some time after the work was composed, and so it can be said to exist in two "versions": the first draft, and the emended version. This is not to say that the first reading was actually copied into parts and executed in that state, though it is a possibility. So "same problem"? Yes and no. RV 210 clearly exists in two separate versions, clearly devised at different times, and probably for a different class of performer or context of performance; yet it received only one catalogue number/letter, which is bound to create some confusion when one does not possess the complete catalogue, but hears two very different versions being played. But different problem, because here the two versions do not differ nearly as much, and the striking out of the parts was done on what looks like a neat copy, and not a composition copy, so you cannot tell as easily when it was made, but you can guess why, and it is for different reasons. So you do not suppose right, even though you were being sarcastic. You ask why the interpreters are playing the earlier reading. Because they can, I guess. They said as much in the liner notes, and I said so on the video, so I don't see a "problem". You know what you are hearing, and you can see it. I find it rather interesting to see, and hear, what was first written there and eventually omitted. Someday I will post the final version (which Biondi has recorded) but in this case the differences are rather small and there are more pressing matters. When I say "final version", this is also a supposition, because we do not have the slightest idea of what we have in that archive. Further emendations could have been made when the score was copied into parts. Or the true "final" version of the score could have gone to the patron who ordered it, and we are left with an intermediate version. Who knows.
@@DelVivaldi I do appreciate the long commentary, believe me, but being an expert on Vivaldi myself I find most of it misplaced and not serious in the least. There is not a single established chronology for Vivaldi's manuscripts exception made for those published and a few which we know where they were performed because Vivaldi tells us (RV212). That being said, all this talking about "previous" and "latter" version and the kind of revision is really guest-work. The work of Paul Everett on the chronology of Vivaldi's manuscripts led nowhere. So, please, don't do this. I do appreciate the channel, I really, do, but the more I listen to what you have to say to justify these poor musicological choices the more I feel uneasy.
@@stellario82 What did Vivaldi tell us about RV 212 exactly? The assertion that it was composed precisely in 1712 is not certain, and does not come from Vivaldi or anything he has written on any piece of paper. He merely wrote "for the feast of the tongue of St. Anthony in Padua" or something to that effect. (Edit: Actually, he did not write this either. The only autograph source has simply "Con:to".) The date of 1712, or 1715, is guess-work (and not guest-work). It could have been any year, although it was probably before 1716. But there is no guess-work about the "previous" and "later" (not latter) versions of RV 210, because the previous reading is obviously the one that was struck out, and the later one is the one that was written over the pre-existing notes, or appended in new bars, or new folios, which the eye can readily observe. No guess-work here. We even have a printed source, with all evidence pointing to the fact that the printed edition came from manuscripts prepared and sent by Vivaldi himself. Those manuscripts have disappeared, but on the manuscript we have, of Op. 8 no. 11, it is self-evident that corrections that _give_ the reading of Opus 8 are _anterior_ and corrections that _deviate_ from Opus 8 are _posterior_ to the time Vivaldi prepared Opus 8 for publication. The work of Paul Everett on rastrology might have led nowhere, but his hypothesis about the history of opus 8 (which was the subject being discussed, although you posted your reply in the wrong comments section), has not been proved or disproved. (Edit: to my knowledge. See: "Vivaldi: The Four Seasons and other concertos, op. 8", Cambridge University Press, 1996.) If you want to know, the datings I provide are from the Ryom catalogue, and most of them are headed "probably". Probably. They are not definitive nor are they my personal invention. You can criticize my choice of interpretation, that I accept. It is not the purpose of this channel to discuss my taste in Vivaldian interpretation, but fine. I make the videos, I choose the interpretation. This is not a musicological choice but a personal one. However, you will not succeed in stifling me with your pretensions of being a Vivaldi expert. We know nothing of each other, and as far as I am concerned, you seem to confuse a lot of things. And if you have a grudge with Paul Everett or Vivaldian musicology in general, please take it elsewhere, or at least refrain from patronizing me. Thank you very much and have a good day.
@@DelVivaldi I am not discussing your taste in Vivaldi's interpretation and never made any claims about you or the channel you manage. Actually, I praised it many times. Unfortunately, all that you say only proves that you are an amateur in musicology. In truth, You know zero about Vivaldi. If you look at the original RV212, in fact, it is clearly written on it "1712" (right under concerto: Concerto fatto per la Solennita' di S. Antonio in Pad[u]a / 1712) look for yourself: ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/5/5b/IMSLP380786-PMLP528058--Mus.2389-O-74-_Concerto_RV_212.pdf (from IMSLP Library)
@@stellario82 I advise you not to post links if you want your messages to be seen, because these messages often get blocked automatically. Turning to the matter at hand, the Dresden score that you proffer is not even autograph, as it is in the hand of Pisendel. Hence what I have written: that it was most probably composed before 1716, or more precisely, "in or before 1716/17", the years of Pisendel’s sojourns in Venice, Pisendel who _probably_ obtained this work during those years. Because it is not in Vivaldi’s hand, and for other reasons, the date of 1712 has been put into question, even by Michael Talbot. Do you also profess to know more than Michael Talbot? You wrote that this is what Vivaldi tells us; Vivaldi does not tell us this. You have started looking like a troll quite a few posts ago, and after reiterating your compliments here and on the other page, trying to mask your intellectual dishonesty, you now proceed to tell me I know "zero" about Vivaldi. Is that all the nuance you are capable of? What you have demonstrated most eloquently so far is the measure of your own pretentiousness.
HD VERSION: ruclips.net/video/_yG0gIYgQro/видео.html
The squeaks Carmignola makes during solos are the best ever. Simply a master of bow control
There's something special about Vivaldi and the key of E Minor.
My favorite Vivaldi Violin concerto, after Rv.580
Agreed! Out of all the performances on RUclips I love this one the best.
ruclips.net/video/GWZTyiMXulQ/видео.html
Indeed one of the best concertos. I actually prefer the revised version, played by Europa Galante. it's a shame RV281 is not so famous.
No sh*t I tot the 2 have some kind similar energy, and both are my favourite. These are the most "lirih" melody (I don't know the word in English, it was Indonesian)
@@valerigershon72 My favorite is rv 517 (double Violin concerto g minor)
Both the 1st and 3rd movements are in a fugal form.
@@leonhardeuler6811 amazing concerto as well. It's one of my favorites too, also played by Europa Galante. RV517 also reminds me very much of some dresden concerti, even though there is no clear historic connection between them.
AAAAAAAAAAAA THAT'S SO PERFECT ANTONIOOOOO (greatest artist of all time)
I could be listening to this great composer night'n day. Rv 281 one of muy favorites.
Vivaldi brings so much bliss to my soul!
Ouvir e ver os próprios escritos de Vivaldi, me sentir algo especial em meu coração
A true work of genius. Thank you Antonio Vivaldi
I could be listening to this great composer night and day.
ES.EMOCIONANTE.VER.LAS.PARTITURAS.DE.VIVALDI.Y.MUCHO.MAS.LA.MUSICA.GRACIAS.POR.COMPARTIRLO
THANK YOU for posting all these superb interpretations and with the autograph scores…. 💙
Il mio Maestro! 💮🌟😍
Congratulations on your first video with 10,000 views! ❤
Mi favorito de las horas de Vivaldy... La verdad esta versión en este canal me encantó demasiado... Felicidades👏
Thank you! I was looking for this sheet music for years!!! It's one of his best compositions
Ennesimo capolavoro di Don Antonio!
IL GRANDE VIVALDI, MI MANCA. LO TROVERÒ IN PARADISO ESSENDO LUI UN PRETE.
Words for anyone who knows a bit of musicology and loves Vivaldi's music seriously: most of Vivaldi's music is a copy made by a contemporary musician or by someone in his friends' circle. This applies also to many of Vivaldi's compositions in the Foa-Giordano Collection.
The fact that the RV212 is a copy made in Amsterdam does not hinder its reliability as a source. In fact, there is no reason to doubt the information coming from it, as there is no reason to doubt that the concert was performed in Padua during the feast of St Anthony and in 1712. Michael Talbot has never suggested anything different from what I am stating, not least because doubting a source in the absence of another one is silly. He simply uses a bit of necessary historical caution that comes along with dealing with sources that we cannot verify in any other way, but that is not tantamount to doubting the source itself. If we consider the Mss in the Turin collection as "originals" (being many of them copies) than the RV212 is the original that we have of Vivaldi, although it is made by a copyist, as much of Vivaldi's music that has survived to us.
Only someone who knows very little or nothing at all about the material tradition of Vivaldi's music would insinuate that we possess all the originals by Vivaldi.
"Most of Vivaldi's music is a copy made by a contemporary musician or by someone in his friends' circle. This applies also to many of Vivaldi's compositions in the Foa-Giordano Collection."
->Most of these non autograph sources found in the Turin collection are ostensibly by copyists, not musicians or friends per se, although of course, they could be both. Copies made in close collaboration with the composer can also be considered more authoritative, whereas the ones made by court musicians in distant Dresden are another matter, though the case of Pisendel is of course special. It is still not a primary source by any standard, and so, not as authoritative as something written from Vivaldi's pen. There are hundreds of such works in Turin though. What is your point?
"The fact that the RV212 is a copy made in Amsterdam does not hinder its reliability as a source."
->That depends on your methodology. Ryom had a strict methodology (see "Les manuscrits de Vivaldi" where he explains this in detail). But RV212 is a copy that was made God knows where, and is presently held in Dresden.
That is a fact. I don't know where you are headed with Amsterdam.
"Michael Talbot has never suggested anything different from what I am stating, not least because doubting a source in the absence of another one is silly."
You think so.
"He simply uses a bit of necessary historical caution that comes along with dealing with sources that we cannot verify in any other way, but that is not tantamount to doubting the source itself."
That is true. But it is precisely a question of chronology, not of history, and you were the one vaguely correcting me about chronology. I am not vaguely correcting you. I am stating hard facts, whereas you are stating fuzzy facts. As it happens, the Ryom catalogue has here: presumably 1712. And this is not doubting a source for the sake of it. It is assigning the correct degree of authoritativeness to a secondary source.
"Only someone who knows very little or nothing at all about the material tradition of Vivaldi's music would insinuate that we possess all the originals by Vivaldi."
That is good for us both. Neither of us has insinuated such a thing! :) :) :)
The publication in Amsterdam of 12 concerts (L'Estro Armonico) and several other documents, as well as several scores found at a Venetian fair, all are sufficient for specialists to understand Vivaldi's music, and thus attest to other possible discoveries. In fact, copyists were not lacking around a composer, who, with this economy of effort, could create much more.
Wonderful ....bravissimo.....
Thank you very much. Very interesting.
Stunning
Wow. Everything that “works” for strings by Vivaldi is here in this concerto. Thanks for uploading. Curious about the crossed-out sections; were they just cut for performance time reasons? (I know the recording includes them anyway; I’m just curious as to the historical reason for the cuts.)
In my view, and this is purely my opinion based on observation, these are the kinds of cuts that Vivaldi would make after the fact, on a routine basis, not to shorten the piece (as is probably the case with the string concertos, some of which feature very heavy cuts) but to improve it, i.e. they were compositional decisions. The pruning seems to have been an integral part of the compositional process, and he would do so for a variety of reasons, but there was undoubtedly a mechanical aspect to his composing so quickly, and I think he often revised with that in mind as a matter of course.
❤️💐
Magnificent 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
awesome,
Fantastic and magnificent ✨️
The first movement is in Allegro.
But there is no indication of tempo.
Please upload Violin Concerto in E Major, RV 268.
A beautiful and original work of great character. It is on my shortlist.
Played by Accademia Bizantina and Ottavio Dantone, not by the Venice Baroque Orchestra.
Of course. Sorry about that, and thanks for noticing me.
@@DelVivaldi You're welcome! 😉
Esse início poderia ser visto como Elefantes marchando, boa inventividade. Beethoven fez um baixo "como Elefantes" para contrabaixos em sua 5a Sinfonia.
Does anyone have the sheet music to this? I can't find it anywherw
1:27
1:01
2:07
@@exequielconx perfection
1:49 same problem as RV210, I suppose? And this is Carmignola too, I am baffled. You've written "Played as first written or copied in [the] autograph score" but Why???
You can differentiate between two types of emendations on Vivaldi's manuscripts. Some deletions were made during the composition of the work: the bars were deleted even before the accompanying parts were composed. Other deletions seem to have made some time after the work was composed, and so it can be said to exist in two "versions": the first draft, and the emended version. This is not to say that the first reading was actually copied into parts and executed in that state, though it is a possibility.
So "same problem"? Yes and no. RV 210 clearly exists in two separate versions, clearly devised at different times, and probably for a different class of performer or context of performance; yet it received only one catalogue number/letter, which is bound to create some confusion when one does not possess the complete catalogue, but hears two very different versions being played.
But different problem, because here the two versions do not differ nearly as much, and the striking out of the parts was done on what looks like a neat copy, and not a composition copy, so you cannot tell as easily when it was made, but you can guess why, and it is for different reasons. So you do not suppose right, even though you were being sarcastic.
You ask why the interpreters are playing the earlier reading. Because they can, I guess. They said as much in the liner notes, and I said so on the video, so I don't see a "problem". You know what you are hearing, and you can see it. I find it rather interesting to see, and hear, what was first written there and eventually omitted. Someday I will post the final version (which Biondi has recorded) but in this case the differences are rather small and there are more pressing matters.
When I say "final version", this is also a supposition, because we do not have the slightest idea of what we have in that archive. Further emendations could have been made when the score was copied into parts. Or the true "final" version of the score could have gone to the patron who ordered it, and we are left with an intermediate version. Who knows.
@@DelVivaldi I do appreciate the long commentary, believe me, but being an expert on Vivaldi myself I find most of it misplaced and not serious in the least. There is not a single established chronology for Vivaldi's manuscripts exception made for those published and a few which we know where they were performed because Vivaldi tells us (RV212). That being said, all this talking about "previous" and "latter" version and the kind of revision is really guest-work. The work of Paul Everett on the chronology of Vivaldi's manuscripts led nowhere. So, please, don't do this. I do appreciate the channel, I really, do, but the more I listen to what you have to say to justify these poor musicological choices the more I feel uneasy.
@@stellario82 What did Vivaldi tell us about RV 212 exactly? The assertion that it was composed precisely in 1712 is not certain, and does not come from Vivaldi or anything he has written on any piece of paper. He merely wrote "for the feast of the tongue of St. Anthony in Padua" or something to that effect. (Edit: Actually, he did not write this either. The only autograph source has simply "Con:to".) The date of 1712, or 1715, is guess-work (and not guest-work). It could have been any year, although it was probably before 1716.
But there is no guess-work about the "previous" and "later" (not latter) versions of RV 210, because the previous reading is obviously the one that was struck out, and the later one is the one that was written over the pre-existing notes, or appended in new bars, or new folios, which the eye can readily observe. No guess-work here. We even have a printed source, with all evidence pointing to the fact that the printed edition came from manuscripts prepared and sent by Vivaldi himself. Those manuscripts have disappeared, but on the manuscript we have, of Op. 8 no. 11, it is self-evident that corrections that _give_ the reading of Opus 8 are _anterior_ and corrections that _deviate_ from Opus 8 are _posterior_ to the time Vivaldi prepared Opus 8 for publication.
The work of Paul Everett on rastrology might have led nowhere, but his hypothesis about the history of opus 8 (which was the subject being discussed, although you posted your reply in the wrong comments section), has not been proved or disproved. (Edit: to my knowledge. See: "Vivaldi: The Four Seasons and other concertos, op. 8", Cambridge University Press, 1996.) If you want to know, the datings I provide are from the Ryom catalogue, and most of them are headed "probably". Probably. They are not definitive nor are they my personal invention.
You can criticize my choice of interpretation, that I accept. It is not the purpose of this channel to discuss my taste in Vivaldian interpretation, but fine. I make the videos, I choose the interpretation. This is not a musicological choice but a personal one.
However, you will not succeed in stifling me with your pretensions of being a Vivaldi expert. We know nothing of each other, and as far as I am concerned, you seem to confuse a lot of things. And if you have a grudge with Paul Everett or Vivaldian musicology in general, please take it elsewhere, or at least refrain from patronizing me. Thank you very much and have a good day.
@@DelVivaldi I am not discussing your taste in Vivaldi's interpretation and never made any claims about you or the channel you manage. Actually, I praised it many times. Unfortunately, all that you say only proves that you are an amateur in musicology. In truth, You know zero about Vivaldi. If you look at the original RV212, in fact, it is clearly written on it "1712" (right under concerto: Concerto fatto per la Solennita' di S. Antonio in Pad[u]a / 1712) look for yourself: ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/5/5b/IMSLP380786-PMLP528058--Mus.2389-O-74-_Concerto_RV_212.pdf (from IMSLP Library)
@@stellario82 I advise you not to post links if you want your messages to be seen, because these messages often get blocked automatically.
Turning to the matter at hand, the Dresden score that you proffer is not even autograph, as it is in the hand of Pisendel. Hence what I have written: that it was most probably composed before 1716, or more precisely, "in or before 1716/17", the years of Pisendel’s sojourns in Venice, Pisendel who _probably_ obtained this work during those years. Because it is not in Vivaldi’s hand, and for other reasons, the date of 1712 has been put into question, even by Michael Talbot. Do you also profess to know more than Michael Talbot? You wrote that this is what Vivaldi tells us; Vivaldi does not tell us this.
You have started looking like a troll quite a few posts ago, and after reiterating your compliments here and on the other page, trying to mask your intellectual dishonesty, you now proceed to tell me I know "zero" about Vivaldi. Is that all the nuance you are capable of? What you have demonstrated most eloquently so far is the measure of your own pretentiousness.
Is it just me or it is just la stravaganza 2 or smth
8:28
10:23