Gurn's Classical Corner

[Gurn Blanston]

Eusebius,
Well, first off, if you were expecting an argument against that, you came to the wrong place.  

Inspired by a few other threads...

Call me a reactionary, but... it is my firm conviction, based partially on readings, partially on personal experience and partially on insights --- that in the Baroque, Classical and early Romantic eras (adopting the Gurnian timetable, that would be anything prior to 1850,give or take some fifty years ) music was much more interactive and user-friendly than it is nowadays. Moreover, the gap between "high brow" music and "pop" music back then was much smaller than it is nowadays.

As far as I know, you had back then 2 musics; church/opera/rarified audience music (Group 1) and folk music (Group 2), which would include the pop of today. Many composers of the first group did write some crossover hits, but they were thin on the ground. I think that dance tunes spanned both groups more than anything, and when the upper classes heard a dance they liked (Allemandes and contredanses, for example) then they appropriated them from group 2 to group 1. I don't know of a dance that went the other direction, although I may be ignorant.

What I mean is that most --- dare I say all? Gurn, whaddya say?--- composers of that times wrote a good part of their musical output targetting precisely the cultivated dilettanti of which there were plenty back then.

I certainly dare say it. This is always dependent on your inclusion of Church music into group 1. Otherwise, it is 3 groups and even then, the Churchers and the dilettanti can be equated in this instance.

Let us recall a most striking case in point: much --- if not all --- of Schubert's lieder and chamber music was written for the private enjoyment of his relatives and friends, all of whom were musically literate to the point of playing an instrument or singing.

And his earlier works were composed for the family exclusively, later the school, finally his 'circle' of friends. In every case, Kenner or Liebhaber. Now, it is a frequently glossed over thing that Schubert in his lifetime!! was one of the most published composers in Vienna. This is because while hundreds of his songs were published in the 1820's, none (I say none because it was so little) of his other music was. However, even his Lieder audience was very much capable of coming home from the music shop with a score and sitting down at the family piano and playing and singing these Lieder, many of which are not easy for professionals even today. So even there his audience is certainly refined.

Let us recall Goldberg Variations, --- se non e vero e ben trovatto --- which allegedly were written as a a cure for Count Kaiserling's insomnia...

Let us recall the innumerable Mozart's compositions for this or that instrument played by this or that Mademoiselle or Monsieur...

Let us recall Blavet's or Quantz's flute sonatas and concertos, written expressly for the cultivated French / German gentleman of the 18th century --- one for whom the flute was as familiar as the credit card is for the Western gentleman of the 21st century...

Let us recall Vivaldi's concertos, written for the female orphans at Ospedale delle Pieta without the slightest thought of immortality and preservation in mind...

Let us recall, generally, those times when music --- which back then was yet far from being "the Classical Canon" --- was not somet distant, esoteric and frightful thing, far and above from the judgment of the common educated people --- but on the contrary, something written exactly for the enjoyment and appraisal of common educated people... 

Well, Mozart would have been the first to tell you "hey, this is how I make my living". So most definitely in that day and age, music was composed for the elite. If you had a college education, you were damned sure elite. Probably the only major group of people who could be distinctly low-class and yet completely understand the music, and in fact be responsible for the creation of much of it without coughing up huge chunks of gold were the musicians. Haydn's string quartets before Op 50, most of Mozart's late chamber music, things of that nature were written for other musicians or for themselves, not for performance in public, but for sitting around on Saturday night having a good time, so to speak. But as for 'common, educated people', there is unquestionably a time period where that is a perfect definition of the audience. It is after Mozart though, and before Brahms. Even in England. The Haydn Salomon concerts were "public", but most of the public was excluded by class or financial status.

Let us recall those times when "pop" music --- i.e, folk music of Italians, Germans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards etc.  --- far from being opposed to "high brow music", was on the contrary a constant and sought-for source of inspiration for composers; those times when this or that "hit" of Haydn or Rossini made its way to the "masses"...

Yup, themes from folk music were all the rage. Haydn was big on it, and after him, lots of others.

...amd let us compare it with today's situation, when most "classical" music is written as if purposely to make "pop" audiences cringe in horror... and viceversa...

...and let us blame this sad state of things upon Late Romanticism, with its misplaced notions of an artistic genius far and above the common man; of the composer as some sort of high priest and / or philosopher, who has unique access to higher spiritual spheres and whose artistic products are not to be enjoyed and judged by every knowledgeable person, but only by his peers; with its cult for monumentality, for grand-scale works, its rejection of anything that cannot be expressed by less than 150 performers...

...and also upon what followed, namely more and more abstruse, more and more esoteric, more and more un-hummable, more and more ugly (in the proper meaning of the word) music --- as if the essential ingredients that have been feeding music for almost a thousand years, namely clearly recognizable melody, harmony and rythm were some kind of anathema, some kind of "aristocratic" and "bourgeois" features that must be smashed ...

Let's just blame the French and get it over with...    But seriously, I would say that art music was a victim of its own success. Humans as a species have a strong tendency towards making anything that is popular get bigger and bigger until it collapses under its own weight. So to say that the Romantics created a Jabba the Hut is hard to deny. Thousands will argue with your statements on the ugliness of modern music. I try to find vestiges of the old music that have lived on else been modified little enough to still recognize. 

Bottom line, I think that in no other historical time has ever been such a large gap between "classical" music and "pop" music as nowadays... between what "classical music" composers write and what "cultivated dilettanti" are able and willing to play... between Bach's goal "to delight and instruct" and... whatever goal contemporary composers might have in mind, Karl Henning aside.

Can't disagree with that. I remember a time in the 70's when an occasional pop song would incorporate a classical theme (Eric Carmen's "All by Myself" using the second movement theme from Rach-y PC 2 for example). But that didn't last long, it was just a fad. And I can't imagine a composer these days using even some good little themes from a Gaga tune. It would be nice, but it ain't happenin'.



----------------
Now playing:
Ruf \ Lautenberger &  Nielen \ Beyer 7 Berndt \ Uhl \ Koch \ Hoffman & Irmscher - Hob 07h 2 Concerto in G for 2 Lira organizzata (Naples Version) 2nd mvmt - Adagio ma non troppo

[Antoine Marchand]

Antoine,
If, as I suspect, that means "if it isn't true, at least it sounds good", then couldn't agree more!

I think it is a quite faithful translation, Gurn. It could also be translated as "if it's not true, at least it's well invented". 

[Gurn Blanston]

I think it is a quite faithful translation, Gurn. It could also be translated as "if it's not true, at least it's well invented". 

Ah yes, nuance.   In my head I was thinking "if it isn't true, it sounds like it should be" but I figured that was wrong. Still, if it wasn't true, it sounded as though it should have been.



----------------
Now playing:
Haydn, Franz Joseph - Hob 08 03 March for the Prince of Wales

[Antoine Marchand]

Ah yes, nuance.   In my head I was thinking "if it isn't true, it sounds like it should be" but I figured that was wrong. Still, if it wasn't true, it sounded as though it should have been.

Oh, I think that's perfect.

Sometimes, during some meetings, especially among lawyers, I like to shock the people and I say: "Truth is not a quality of facts, but of the logical propositions. In other words, the truth is an attribute of language, not of what we call "reality". Facts are not true or false, they simply exist or not". Incredibly, people invariably react indignant against this kind of statements... 

[Antoine Marchand]

Inspired by a few other threads...

Interesting ideas. I will see if I find some time to write some ideas of mine about these same issues. 

[chasmaniac]

Sometimes, during some meetings, especially among lawyers, I like to shock the people and I say: "Truth is not a quality of facts, but of the logical propositions. In other words, the truth is an attribute of language, not of what we call "reality". Facts are not true or false, they simply exist or not". Incredibly, people invariably react indignant against this kind of statements... 

And languages are plastic. When a word like "truth" acts as a totem, of course people will get hot and bothered about it.

Sounds like someone has been sitting up nights reading Carnap or Ayer!

[Gurn Blanston]

Oh, I think that's perfect.

Sometimes, during some meetings, especially among lawyers, I like to shock the people and I say: "Truth is not a quality of facts, but of the logical propositions. In other words, the truth is an attribute of language, not of what we call "reality". Facts are not true or false, they simply exist or not". Incredibly, people invariably react indignant against this kind of statements... 

Well, that is certainly true (or seems as though it should be). Of course, among people whose profession it is to make words become truth despite the reality, such a statement is anathema, since it illuminates the underlying fiber, which should never be done, at least, not out loud!   



----------------
Now playing:
Orchestra of the Mariinsky Theater / Gergiev  Gautier Capuçon  (Cello) - Tchaikovsky Op 33 Variations in A on a Rococo Theme for Cello & Orchestra pt 3 - Variation II: Tempo della Thema

[Antoine Marchand]

Sounds like someone has been sitting up nights reading Carnap or Ayer!

Yes, I love those guys of the Circle of Vienna and the Analytic philosophy, especially Bertrand Russell, G.E Moore and that ungrateful son named Ludwig Wittgenstein. I think the most important influence during my legal studies was Hans Kelsen, a Viennese positivist, IMO the most important legal philosopher of the XXth century. 

[chasmaniac]

Yes, I love those guys of the Circle of Vienna and the Analytic philosophy, especially Bertrand Russell, G.E Moore and that ungrateful son named Ludwig Wittgenstein. I think the most important influence during my legal studies was Hans Kelsen, a Viennese positivist, IMO the most important legal philosopher of the XXth century. 

I studied Russell's logical atomism and the Tractatus, and was attracted but not caught by them. I preferred the antifoundational screeds of later decades, including those of the ungrateful son! Thus my avatar's epigraph: Goethe's Faust via Wittgenstein's On Certainty.

[Florestan]

Eusebius,
Well, first off, if you were expecting an argument against that, you came to the wrong place.  

Actually I was sure I will receive your qualified approval, but had I posted it in a more populated thread I'd have been undoubtedly lacerated in the public square. 

Interesting ideas. I will see if I find some time to write some ideas of mine about these same issues. 

Please do.

[Gurn Blanston]

Actually I was sure I will receive your qualified approval, but had I posted it in a more populated thread I'd have been undoubtedly lacerated in the public square. 

Please do.

Yeah, that's what I figured.   Some of that stuff was controversial even for ME!      0:)



----------------
Now playing:
Czech PO \ Kletzki - Op 125 Symphony #9 in d 4th mvmt - Presto - Allegro assai - "Ode to Joy"

[Florestan]

Yeah, that's what I figured.   Some of that stuff was controversial even for ME!      0:)

I warned you about being provocative. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I warned you about being provocative. 

That's OK, I'll give you a forum for your completely OTT controversial views, you radical, you! 

[Opus106]

Some of that stuff was controversial even for ME! 

If you don't mind my asking, which were the parts that you found controversial? I don't intend to carry on arguing for or against anything that you may point out, it's just for the ol' curiosity's sake. You may PM me if you wish, if you feel that we are moving beyond the bounds of the Corner.

[Florestan]

If you don't mind my asking, which were the parts that you found controversial? I don't intend to carry on arguing for or against anything that you may point out, it's just for the ol' curiosity's sake. You may PM me if you wish, if you feel that we are moving beyond the bounds of the Corner.

No, Gurn, please reply here --- I'm interested as well. Oh, and Navneeth, please feel free to argue.  0:)

[Brian]

If you don't mind my asking, which were the parts that you found controversial?

Certain persons get their feathers very ruffled at any suggestion that ugliness in music and the modern negation of art as a source of comfort entertainment, have contributed to creating a greater distance between the artist and the audience.

I was pretty surprised to be reading that the late romantics are to blame for their sanctification of the composer as a sort of creative god who returns from the wilderness with Important Music, but it does make a lot of sense. However late romantic I may be myself!

[Gurn Blanston]

If you don't mind my asking, which were the parts that you found controversial? I don't intend to carry on arguing for or against anything that you may point out, it's just for the ol' curiosity's sake. You may PM me if you wish, if you feel that we are moving beyond the bounds of the Corner.

Oh no, I don't mind saying. I don't make value judgments about modern music as to its being ugly or not. As you can tell by the way I responded to that section, I neither agreed nor disagreed with Eusebius there. My personal belief is that my liking or disliking something neither adds to nor subtracts from its inherent 'beauty'. So I just let it go; someone, somewhere, finds it absolutely lovely!     However, I do agree with him vis-a-vis the disappearance of the desire to please the audience. If you read about Haydn, for example, you will see that if he didn't please the audience, he would have quit altogether. 



----------------
Now playing:
Costantino Mastroprimiano - Clementi Op 23 #2 Sonata in F 2nd mvmt - Adagio

[Florestan]

I don't make value judgments about modern music as to its being ugly or not.

That was indeed the most provocative part. For the record, I do like a lot of modern music. And Late Romantics as well. So please, gents, don't judge me too harsh.  0:)

[Opus106]

Oh no, I don't mind saying. I don't make value judgments about modern music as to its being ugly or not. As you can tell by the way I responded to that section, I neither agreed nor disagreed with Eusebius there. My personal belief is that my liking or disliking something neither adds to nor subtracts from its inherent 'beauty'. So I just let it go; someone, somewhere, finds it absolutely lovely!     However, I do agree with him vis-a-vis the disappearance of the desire to please the audience. If you read about Haydn, for example, you will see that if he didn't please the audience, he would have quit altogether.

Much appreciated.

[Gurn Blanston]

Certain persons get their feathers very ruffled at any suggestion that ugliness in music and the modern negation of art as a source of comfort entertainment, have contributed to creating a greater distance between the artist and the audience.

I was pretty surprised to be reading that the late romantics are to blame for their sanctification of the composer as a sort of creative god who returns from the wilderness with Important Music, but it does make a lot of sense. However late romantic I may be myself!

As much as it may surprise us today, critics didn't exist much before ETA Hoffmann, and then later ones like Hanslick held tremendous power to sway musical opinion. If you are interested in that phenomenon (the rise of the Canon of Great Music and art for art's sake and all that there) at all, I will do my best to find the title of the book I read on it several years ago now. It was really quite fascinating of itself, and when you see the state that music is in today, that's where the roots are.



----------------
Now playing:
Costantino Mastroprimiano - Clementi Op 23 #3 Sonata in Eb 1st mvmt - Allegro con vivicità