I like Boccherini's Early Works. The Best of Boccherini presents a great collection of his early works. Later on, he became too much like Haydn imo. But he was full on Galante early on with lots of energy.

As for CPE Bach, I like his Symphonies, Sinfonias, and Hamburg Concertos. All made in the early 1770's.

And finally Telemann. I really enjoy his Tafelmusik and Trumpet Concertos. Other Composers to check out include Carl Stamitz, Dittersdorf. and etc.

 

Later on, he became too much like Haydn imo.

But as a general rule I find the 'gallante' or early Classical Style often more entertaining than the 'late' Classical style, and many works of Haydn do fall into this category, despite the fact that he is probably the most important figure involved in changing the language into the late Viennese Classical style. Particularly excellent early works of his in the gallante style include symphonies 27 and 14, and probably some quartets as well, although I am less familiar with those. CPE Bach and Stamitz are also very good, but neoshredder has already covered those :lol:

 

C. P. E. Bach is too important to ignore. He is, more than any other composer, the link between the baroque and Viennese classicism (i. e., between his father and Haydn.). His works formed a great part of Mozart's early musical training as well.

 

CPE Bach has to be one of the most criminally underrated composers in the common practice period.

 

I think the originators of chamber music à la the string quartet, quintet, etc. were also unsurpassed in its development, to date. Yet not unequalled, I should add.

 

I love it. The galante style was the new style breaking away from the Baroque. It was so new that many embraced it totally, including Johann Christian Bach who was a friend of the Mozarts, and young Wolfgang was the greatest of them all! So much for new music being unacceptable to new audiences.

 

I've always tended to be partial to those transitional periods in music history such as the galante or early Baroque or Gothic (Ars Subtilior).

One truly outstanding composer of music in the galante style was Giovanni Battista Sammartini (not to be confused with his brother, Giuseppe Baldassare Sammartini whose music was much more old fashioned).

The best recording of Giovanni's music I've encountered is this disc (on the Stradivarius label) which I'm sure is long out of print but absolutely worth tracking down:

 

One truly outstanding composer of music in the galante style was Giovanni Battista Sammartini (not to be confused with his brother, Giuseppe Baldassare Sammartini whose music was much more old fashioned).

OMG Two G.B. Sammartinis??? That's as bad as today, when we have two post-tonal John Adams! But thanks for the tip on the recording, I'll be looking for it.

 

The early Classical style was a revolution against the Baroque style, in some senses a more radical revolution than the modernist one at the beginning of the 20th century (some might argue. I don't think so, but I do think it yielded the most profound changes in the way music was thought about by most people).

The early Classical style is a huge simplification of style from the complexity of Baroque counterpoint, giving great emphasis on melody, transparent accompaniment and, wait for it, simplicity. CPE was able to make it more sophisticated, but of course it is Haydn with his op. 20 in 1772 that really began to bring counterpoint back into the classical style. In his op. 33 in 1781 he invented a new kind of counterpoint, more subtle, and more suitable to the emerging "Viennese" classical style (if I may call it that).

Perhaps it is this simplicity that people don't like? Also, the galante aimed to charm in its music, and charm is a quality that is not highly valued in artwork very much these days, except in small doses when someone like Mozart or Schubert turns their hand to it. It is, however, much more genuinely experimental than more mature styles, and when people go on about originality and being innovative, CPE Bach is surely the one to go to. Or Haydn, though he was less of a revolutionary, his influence is as strong as anyone's.

 

Personally, I hear Boccherini's chamber music as a counterpart to Vivaldi's chamber orchestrations (as with the Mannheim school by direct comparison), and not as a revolutionary simplification of the Baroque. I find it to be a more subtle difference. This may have to do with how it is played nowdays.

 

I must confess to being largely ignorant of Boccherini's output, a flaw which I intend to correct when I have time (and money lol). However, I think it is worth remembering that revolutions don't tend to happen out of nowhere. A late Schoenberg piece sounds utterly different to Verklärte Nacht, however listening to his output from beginning to end I don't think it would be so easy to say "this is massively different to what came before". Even in works like the Eroica and Tristan you can see where they come from comparing them to works of a similar period (by the same composer of course). There are important shifts, but things take time to consolidate.

Briefly surveying Boccherini's work, it strikes me that there is a similarity to Vivaldi. This is probably ethnic more than anything else - neither were German and most composers from this time are German. Just compare JS and JC Bach. That is a huge difference in style. Boccherini is also quite late - he is younger than Haydn! Still there is something slightly Baroque there and I am going to be a bit boring and suggest that this was because of where he lived - outside of the main hustle and bustle of musical life - and certainly Germany.

Compare CPE Bach and Telemann. They both achieve (in my opinion) quite similar goals, and their music has a lot that is similar. A similar aesthetic perhaps. But there is also (and also in my opinion) a fundamental difference in how they achieve this goal. Despite Charles Rosen's disgraceful dismissal of the early Classical style I will stick by his opinion that the Classical style is generally characterized by a kind of 'arc' of tension - where there is a sort of central climax - whereas the Baroque style is primarily additive and cumulative in its effect.

 

If you like Stamitz, you will like Boccherini's early output. Quite similar imo.