Agree, on the tempos.

From uncle Widipedia: "Czerny, a devout Catholic, also composed many religious pieces. These works include a number of Masses and hymns."

He also published a set of 6 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 603, and a set of Voluntaries (yes, English-style Voluntaries!), Op. 698. Both sets are published by AR editions.

Here's the D-minor Prelude and Fugue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUkHnXN81Bk

MJO: It's hard to say.

Even such important and excellent composers like Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Telemann, Bruhns, Purcell, Charpentier, Couperin, and Lully can get forgotten behind the trinity of Bach-Vivaldi-Handel.

I know in the case of Handel his oratorios had entered the Canon of English music even before his death--a rare example at that time. But, why did Bach and Vivaldi get the special billing rather than the others? But even Bach and Vivaldi were all but forgotten until the mid-to-late 19th century---I think it was just The Well-Tempered Clavier that saved Bach's reputation (but then again, WTC is just Bach's "Op. 299", if you will).

I suspect that when it comes to the 19th century, there is a certain amount of Legend and Hero-worship going on. In his lifetime, Mozart was just considered one of the group of good musicians working in Vienna, along side, Salieri, Eybler, Gasmann, and others. His fame, as we know it today, didn't really begin until after his death when the legends surrounding his early death began to circulate--this also was lucky for F.X. Sussmayr, the most minor or minor composers in Vienna, otherwise he'd be long forgotten, too. Beethoven had his heroic battle against his tragic deafness. Etc.

And people want something new all the time. In one of the YouTube comments on one of the Symphonies, I forget which one, someone made a comment along the lines of "Too bad this wasn't composed 30 years earlier; Mendelssohn was already on the scene when this was written." Many of the good (dare I say, excellent) composers who were still writing in a late-classical/early-romantic style in the mid-19th century, of which Czerny is one, were bound to be forgotten in the inevitable march of progress--after all, it's what happened to Bach!

Also, we tend to remember the highlights of things: we forget that not every work of Mozart is a masterpiece, indeed, some of it is relentlessly boring (I think the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola is one such piece); but then we listen to Eybler or Hummel and compare there average level of composition with Mozart's highlights. The same with Beethoven: we remember the exciting bits, but forget the moments of bad trumpet-writing, the awkward vocal parts, etc., and then we find fault with the orchestration of his students (Czerny & Moscheles).

In short, I don't know.

not Brahms

is just fine by me.

(I do love some of his stuff, but I am glad only Brahms writes like Brahms...)

There is a musicologist whose clips are on YouTube who theorizes that that Czerny’s metronome markings are actually meant to be half as fast as they are usually interpreted. See e.g. https://youtu.be/DO-N-k5-qkI

Schoenbergian

(I don't know Winters, so this is a serious question):

Are Winters' ideas a serious joke, like Peter Schikele's, or are they intended to be serious and only taken to be a joke by those who know the field?

Without wishing to start an argument:

1) The theory is extremely controversial.

2) Wim Winters's theory is actually Lorenz Gadient's theory, as outlined in his treatise Takt und Pendelschlag: which is that the metronome indications given by many, though not all, 19th century composers, such as Beethoven, Czerny, Moscheles, Hummel, Schumann, Chopin, and others, used the so-called "Metrical Use" of the metronome, wherein the note-value given in the metronome equation gives the Takt (Time), and the number the speed of the Taktheile (Parts of the Time), so that two ticks of the metronome (a left and a right together) form a unity. E.g. If the metronome equation is half=108, this is to be interpreted as quarter-note 108, with each tick representing a quarter-note of the two-fold unity of the half-note. This is called the "Double-beat" theory. This theory jumps-off from the work of Willem Talsma.

3) This theory isn't a 'joke' in anything other an a colloquial meaning of the word, i.e. as being an object of ridicule. The theory is taken quite seriously by its proponents, Gadient and Winters, and a number of adherents.

4) L. Gadient is not the only one to think this way: Marcel Punt (writing under the Pseudonym: Henrico Stewen) published his doctoral thesis: "The Straube Code" on the metronome marks of Reger, he also wrote a paper on the metronome marks of Franck; conductor Maximianno Cobra, a student of Talsma, also has a similar theory, which he calls the "Tempus" theory; there is also a similar theory by Dutch conductor Harke de Roos.

Bach's son also commented that his father's organ playing was slow and stately.

Jacques van Oortmerssen (+2015) maintained that the passagework in works of the Stylus Fantasticus (the general style of organ Fantasias, Toccatas, & Praeludia in the Buxtehude-Bruhns-Bach school) should be played con discrezione: with discretion/modesty; that is, rhetorically, deliberately, following the accentuation of the line (which is not necessarily that of the meter/time-signature), without undue haste; it isn't there for virtuosity's sake.

Are Czerny's sacred works available anywhere?

On IMSLP only one setting of Pange Lingua is available, in a collection of Sacred Music compilined by Rosewig: Concentus Sacri, pg. 143: But there is says "Arr. from Czerny" (emphasis added); not having seen Czerny's set of Page Lingua settings, I don't know how much arranging Rosewig did---this might even be an arrangement for voices of an instrumental piece.

http://ks.petruccimusiclibrary.org/files/imglnks/usimg/7/73/IMSLP394350-PMLP638204-Rosewig_concentus_sacri.pdf

He also has a four-hand piano transcription of Mozart's Requiem, believe it or not.

It's quite nice!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QhcTku21ck

Frankly I am tired of the dominance of composers like Beethoven, (especially in this year) admittedly a great, but we so lose out of the richness of many fine lesser composers.