Gurn's Classical Corner

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, a number of pages back Gurn brought up the composer below w/o much response - there is a thread on Vanhal that has not received much 'serious' attention, so tonight I left a post (quoted below) in that thread after receiving a 'new' recording of Piano Quintets by him today - thought that those on the Gurn Classical Thread might be interested - Dave 

Crikey, Dave, that looks like a nice disk! Can I take it out for a spin?   Vanhal is not particularly noted (probably for no good reason) for his keyboard works, scarcely any of them have been recorded (as I discovered a couple of years ago when I looked for solo sonatas). So this might be as close as I can get. Thanks for the tip.



----------------
Listening to:
Malcolm Binns - Op 101 Sonata #28 in A for Fortepiano 3rd mvmt - Langsam und sensuchtvoll - Zeitmass der ersten nicht zu sehr, und mit Entschlossenheit

[Gurn Blanston]

Very interesting Gurn, but this would extend the upper limit of your timeframe much further than 1830. Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, Dvorak, Grieg, Tchaikovsky (to mention but a few names) certainly fall within those boundaries. Even Rachmaninoff!

Where do you draw the line then?

Well, quite early on in this thread, I made the rather controversial remark that I didn't believe there was or should be a separation between the Classical and the Romantic. I didn't get any takers on some sort of debate of the issue, and it slipped away. But here is my take anyway.

On musicological grounds it can't be justified. And even from an art history perspective, Romanticism was a literary movement, not a musical one. In Germany, there were many musicians who attempted to apply Romantic attitudes to music, and wrote lengthy treatises about how music was merely an ultra-pure form of literature. So if Romanticism can be applied to music at all, really, it is only German Romanticism applied to German music, and then the others who tried to copy them. This was a time that was far more a Nationalistic Music Era than anything else. The true classicists were trying to make a universal music (when he went to England, Haydn is quoted as saying that he wasn't concerned about not speaking English, his music spoke to everyone for him...). Classicism made a conscious attempt to NOT be 'national', but to be appreciable to all nationalities. It was only in the second half of the 19th century that one begins hearing (with a vengeance) about German, Italian and French music styles again. In my little 'time line' that I posted earlier, the point I am really trying to make with 'classical' and 'romantic' there is more about absolute or representative music than it is about anything structural in the music itself. Chromaticism and harmonic structure, more or less formal structure in the music itself (sonata form), these things are evolutionary, not revolutionary.  The earlier forms of sonata-allegro, dominant-tonic-dominant etc. moved on and became more complex, just like any other system. In physical systems it is called entropy; chaos increases with complexity. So even though you had a steady lineage of great composers, many of whom you named (and it's no coincidence that they are among my favorite Late Classical composers either) like Mendelssohn, Brahms and Dvorak who tried to pull music back to the simplicity of the more nearly Classical times, the natural inertia of change was continually and inexorably pulling it forward. Until it, like any physical system, collapsed in on itself around the end of the 19th century and homophony supported by tonality ceased to be a viable system any more. I don't discount the few troglodytes of the 20th century who attempted a comeback, but let's face facts: time's arrow points in only one direction.

Sorry for the long paragraph, I had all this stuff in my head and it came out in a rush. Bet you're sorry you asked now.





----------------
Listening to:
Malcolm Binns - Op 106 Sonata #29 in Bb for Fortepiano 3rd mvmt - Adagio sostenuto

[Maciek]

What about Chopin? "National", tonal, not German and first half 19th c.

[Florestan]

Sorry for the long paragraph, I had all this stuff in my head and it came out in a rush. Bet you're sorry you asked now.

Keep the money in your pocket, you need it for new acquisitions!  
This is a very thoughtful post which invites careful consideration.

On musicological grounds it can't be justified. And even from an art history perspective, Romanticism was a literary movement, not a musical one. In Germany, there were many musicians who attempted to apply Romantic attitudes to music, and wrote lengthy treatises about how music was merely an ultra-pure form of literature. So if Romanticism can be applied to music at all, really, it is only German Romanticism applied to German music, and then the others who tried to copy them.

Not sure I can agree without qualifications. The way I see it, Romanticism --- I apply this term in its musical embodiment (let's pretend, for the sake of discussion, that musical Romanticism did exist) --- had two undercurrents: one "conservative", represented by the lineage (Schubert)-Schumann-Mendelssohn-Chopin-Brahms-Dvorak and their followers, which balanced the "Literary" approach to music with the "Classical" one (or, as in the case of Chopin and Brahms, rejected it alltogether), and one "radical", represented by the lineage Berlioz-Liszt-Wagner-Mahler and their followers, which rejected firmly the "Classical" approach and developed the "Literary" one. Interestingly enough, both pretended to build upon Beethoven's legacy.

(Of course, this is just a simplistic scheme: overlapping between the two camps was as common as internal quarrels and dislikes within them: Liszt and Schumann were in friendly terms all along, Chopin had no use for Schumann, Berlioz strongly opposed any association with Wagner who in turn broke with Liszt. In all this embroglio, Bruckner stands as an isolated figure --- my opinion is that with all his penchant for Wagner's novelties, he was in his heart a "conservative").

Now, a few comments on "Literary approach".

Generally speaking, musicians of the Classical Age had little education about, and interest in, matters outside music. Haydn and Mozart themselves had no interest in poetry, philosophy or sciences. The world had to wait for Beethoven and Schubert to see composers actively interested and engaged in intellectual pursuits outside their trade.

Things changed dramatically after 1830, when a whole new generation of musicians who were much better educated and much more open, intellectually speaking, than their predecessors became active. Schumann, Berlioz, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Wagner were avid readers of poetry and philosophy or were involved in multifaceted artistic circles of painters and writers. It was inevitable that this intellectual efflorescence made its way into their music.

A telling, although unjustly harsh, comment in this respect is made by Adrian Leverkuhn, the imaginary composer from Thomas Mann's masterpiece Doktor Faustus: the main merit of Romanticism is that it took the music away from its state of communal brassband and inserted it into the general intellectual movement of the epoch. (quoted from memory).

This is not to say that the Classicists were somehow intellectually inferior to the Romantics, but it helps putting things into perspective.

This was a time that was far more a Nationalistic Music Era than anything else.

Yes, music connected with the general spirit of the age, which was Romantic Nationalism.

The true classicists were trying to make a universal music (when he went to England, Haydn is quoted as saying that he wasn't concerned about not speaking English, his music spoke to everyone for him...). Classicism made a conscious attempt to NOT be 'national', but to be appreciable to all nationalities.

This is true as well. Again, music was linked with the general spirit of the age, which was Enlightenment Universalism.

It was only in the second half of the 19th century that one begins hearing (with a vengeance) about German, Italian and French music styles again.

Yes and there emerged other styles, previously unheard of: Russian, Scandinavian etc. But, nationalistic intents aside, I think the music itself speaks as universally as any of the Classical Era.

In my little 'time line' that I posted earlier, the point I am really trying to make with 'classical' and 'romantic' there is more about absolute or representative music than it is about anything structural in the music itself. Chromaticism and harmonic structure, more or less formal structure in the music itself (sonata form), these things are evolutionary, not revolutionary.  The earlier forms of sonata-allegro, dominant-tonic-dominant etc. moved on and became more complex, just like any other system. In physical systems it is called entropy; chaos increases with complexity. So even though you had a steady lineage of great composers, many of whom you named (and it's no coincidence that they are among my favorite Late Classical composers either) like Mendelssohn, Brahms and Dvorak who tried to pull music back to the simplicity of the more nearly Classical times, the natural inertia of change was continually and inexorably pulling it forward. Until it, like any physical system, collapsed in on itself around the end of the 19th century and homophony supported by tonality ceased to be a viable system any more. I don't discount the few troglodytes of the 20th century who attempted a comeback, but let's face facts: time's arrow points in only one direction.

Interesting analogy, but I have to ammend it a bit. I've seen the entropy mentioned also in the thread about classical music's death, but it's always rather incorrecly applied (the engineer in me is speaking now. ). The second law of thermodynamics, which is where the whole concept of entropy originates, states that entropy of an isolated system tends to increase or stay the same; it never decreases as long as the system remains isolated. And that's the key word that prevents the concept to be applied in any open system. Music as a whole is such an open system: it receives "energy" and "information' from a lot of other systems and that is why it did not die around 1850, when the "Literary approach" injected new life in it; neither did it die around 1910, when the "Schoenberg approach" injected new life in it etc, and this is why I see no reason to lament its incoming death. (I apologize for this digression)

That being said, the "Classical approach" around 1900 was certainly an isolated system (within a larger open system). No wonder it faded away. On the other hand, tonality itself wasn't, and tonal music continued far into the 20th century and not just as a relic of the past, avant-garde extremism and propaganda notwithstanding. Enescu, Prokofiev, Ravel, Bartok, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss, de Falla and a bunch of others cannot be dismissed as mere retrogrades.

BTW, "troglodyte" in Romanian has a completely different meaning than in English, namely "wretched, miserable, barbarian". When I first read your last sentence I was really angered to have Rachmaninoff called as such, but then I googled for the English word and calmed down. We're still friends!  0:)

And on this optimistic tone I now conclude my long post, hoping that it makes some sense to you and others here.  

[Florestan]

What about Chopin? "National", tonal, not German and first half 19th c.

Now,  I can hardly wait Gurn's reply... 

[Gurn Blanston]

What about Chopin? "National", tonal, not German and first half 19th c.

Umm... he's the exception that proves all the rules? Being Polish, he was bound to go his own way? Hard to include every anomaly in any unified theory. He was a forerunner of things in some ways, a conservative in others. I don't know, really, I don't give Chopin a lot of thought. Probably ought to. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Now,  I can hardly wait Gurn's reply... 

You know that was a hard one. I didn't see YOU jumping on it.

I enjoyed your reply. It will await this evening before I have a chance to rebut, although I see our points of disagreement are few and far between. And some of the things you say are also things that I thought about but didn't include, although they agree with my POV.

[Florestan]

You know that was a hard one. I didn't see YOU jumping on it.

Oh, I didn't jump on it because I happen to agree with Maciek's description: Chopin is a rather strange beast, completely unclassifiable. He revered Bach and Mozart, stuck more or less to traditional forms, had only disdain for the "teutonic" Schumann, yet he is one of the pillars of Romanticism. 

I enjoyed your reply. It will await this evening before I have a chance to rebut, although I see our points of disagreement are few and far between. And some of the things you say are also things that I thought about but didn't include, although they agree with my POV.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[Dr. Dread]

I don't give Chopin a lot of thought.

My Haydn string quartet box is coming USPS instead of UPS. Yay for me! 

[Florestan]

I don't give Chopin a lot of thought.

Give him a lot of listening instead! 

[Dr. Dread]

Give him a lot of listening instead! 

I really love Chopin. LOVE

[SonicMan46]

My Haydn string quartet box is coming USPS instead of UPS. Yay for me! 

Dave - Kodaly box, I assume!  I would like to obtain a complete box of the SQs, and this offering looks like the ticket!  I have it on my 'wish list' @ MDT - being offered for $69 (plus S&H); just need to add a few more items to make the postage reasonable across the pond - Dave 

[Dr. Dread]

Dave - Kodaly box, I assume!  I would like to obtain a complete box of the SQs, and this offering looks like the ticket!  I have it on my 'wish list' @ MDT - being offered for $69 (plus S&H); just need to add a few more items to make the postage reasonable across the pond - Dave 

I paid $89 at Amazon.

[Gurn Blanston]

Give him a lot of listening instead! 

That's what I do. I have just, so far, not included him in my reckoning of history, since he IS rather unique.

My Haydn string quartet box is coming USPS instead of UPS. Yay for me! 

Yay for you indeed. Hope it comes soon. Are you planning on starting at the beginning, the end or at random? 

[Dr. Dread]

Are you planning on starting at the beginning, the end or at random? 

Good question. I have no idea. I never know what I'm going to do. It's interesting that way.

[Gurn Blanston]

...I never know what I'm going to do...

Huh, I thought it was just ME that never knew what you were going to do...

Hey, random is good too. Better in fact. Since they were released that way and I bought them that way, that's the way I learned them too.

[Dr. Dread]

Huh, I thought it was just ME that never knew what you were going to do...

Hey, random is good too. Better in fact. Since they were released that way and I bought them that way, that's the way I learned them too.

I really doubt I can make it through a box this size before setting it aside.

[karlhenning]

I really doubt I can make it through a box this size before setting it aside.

I've sure taken my sweet time with the symphonies.

[Dr. Dread]

Okay, here's how it works:

Dave gets a box set. He either rips all, some or none of it, depending on time and inclination. If it happens to get ripped, it may end up on his iPod for work purposes, depending on his mood. If a particular piece is brought into focus through message boards or magazines, whatever, he will pull it up and listen to it. Otherwise, it's a free-for-all.

[karlhenning]

I'm on a work-from-home routine tomorrow;  probably I'll pop in the next Haydn symphnoy disc for First-Listen Friday.