Gurn's Classical Corner

[Gurn Blanston]

Hi Gurn - thanks for the comments!  As we know, many of these works from this mid-18th period were let's say 'wide open', i.e. written w/ many possibilities, i.e. single vs. multiple instruments and for different instruments, so these works are of interest for this variety!  Bottom line seems to be that these works could be played alone on keyboard or combined w/ some strings!  LOVE IT! Is the 18th century the only period that such variety and freedom was available for choosing HOW to perform a composer's composition(s)?  Dave

Dave,
Yes, I love it too. Great deal of freedom, nothing 'written in stone'. Things actually composed (like some of Mozart's piano concertos) so they could be played by anything from a full orchestra to a piano quartet and nothing lost!

Well, I think that the Classical wasn't all of it, it was the end of it though. Post-Beethoven, freedom disappeared. Written out cadenzas and all. I think it was a bit of a step back for music, even though the intent behind it was a good one; to keep the music pure. But look how many works of Bach for which there is no sure knowledge of what instrument he intended. And even of Haydn, for that matter. Everything about the 19th century militated towards inflexibility, even in music. Sad but true. I think that's why I don't care much for post-Schubertian music (with a few exceptions to prove the rule).



----------------
Now playing:

  Tini Mathot (Fortepiano) \ Andrew Manze (Violin) \ Jaap ter Linden (Cello) - Hob 15_11 Trio in Eb for Keyboard & Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[chasmaniac]

This Immerseel guy continues to turn my crank. Now it's Mozart who sounds brand new to me. (A BRO bargain, by the way.) Simply and energetically gorgeous.

[asin]B00006JIPV[/asin]

[SonicMan46]

This Immerseel guy continues to turn my crank. Now it's Mozart who sounds brand new to me. (A BRO bargain, by the way.) Simply and energetically gorgeous.

[asin]B00006JIPV[/asin]

Hi Chas - that looks like a great disc so I went to Amazon to checkout some reviews which led to some googling of the Sony DRM rootkit fiasco of a few years back - check out this old GMG thread HERE - should be fine if just played on your stereo; and do not know if in newer releases of this disc whether Zig Zag removed this nasty from the recording?  Although I own a number of Zig Zag CDs (and love the label), I was not sure about their relationship w/ Sony?  Dave

[chasmaniac]

Hi Chas - that looks like a great disc so I went to Amazon to checkout some reviews which led to some googling of the Sony DRM rootkit fiasco of a few years back - check out this old GMG thread HERE - should be fine if just played on your stereo; and do not know if in newer releases of this disc whether Zig Zag removed this nasty from the recording?  Although I own a number of Zig Zag CDs (and love the label), I was not sure about their relationship w/ Sony?  Dave

That was a good little thread. Thanks. There is indeed a small SDRM imprint on the discs themselves. I'll make sure they never see the inside of my computer. Happily, I use trusty old TASCAMs for most of my listening anyway. May others be warned!

[PaulSC]

Dave,
Yes, I love it too. Great deal of freedom, nothing 'written in stone'. Things actually composed (like some of Mozart's piano concertos) so they could be played by anything from a full orchestra to a piano quartet and nothing lost!

Well, I think that the Classical wasn't all of it, it was the end of it though. Post-Beethoven, freedom disappeared. Written out cadenzas and all. I think it was a bit of a step back for music, even though the intent behind it was a good one; to keep the music pure. But look how many works of Bach for which there is no sure knowledge of what instrument he intended. And even of Haydn, for that matter. Everything about the 19th century militated towards inflexibility, even in music. Sad but true. I think that's why I don't care much for post-Schubertian music (with a few exceptions to prove the rule).

You know, I'm not sure that's true. Even if you look at all the arrangements the second-Viennese-school composers made of each other's works, you've got more than a few exceptions. And of course later in the twentieth century there are plenty of examples of music whose instrumentation is wide open, but I can imagine there are plenty of other reasons why you wouldn't care much for it.

[Gurn Blanston]

You know, I'm not sure that's true. Even if you look at all the arrangements the second-Viennese-school composers made of each other's works, you've got more than a few exceptions. And of course later in the twentieth century there are plenty of examples of music whose instrumentation is wide open, but I can imagine there are plenty of other reasons why you wouldn't care much for it.

Yeah, I was moving ahead into the 19th century but not really beyond. I have no doubt that you are correct about some things that are newer than that, although I admit to a bit of surprise about it. I would believe that it is not based in the same concept that prevailed in early music, which is that the composer really didn't know who was going to show up that day, so he left it an open question. Or, in that Mozart example, he wanted to make sure the publisher could sell as many scores as possible so he wrote it in a most flexible way in terms of instrumentation. That may be closer to the 2nd Viennese idea. Don't know.

[PaulSC]

Yeah, I was moving ahead into the 19th century but not really beyond. I have no doubt that you are correct about some things that are newer than that, although I admit to a bit of surprise about it. I would believe that it is not based in the same concept that prevailed in early music, which is that the composer really didn't know who was going to show up that day, so he left it an open question. Or, in that Mozart example, he wanted to make sure the publisher could sell as many scores as possible so he wrote it in a most flexible way in terms of instrumentation. That may be closer to the 2nd Viennese idea. Don't know.

Oh, I'm sure you're right that the concepts had shifted. One common pattern with works of the second Viennese school is the reduction of large orchestral scores into versions for solo piano, piano plus voice, or chamber ensemble. I don't know a great deal about what motivated these, but it seems likely that performances by a full orchestra of this ultra-modern music were so rare that versions for reduced forces filled a gap, enabling some kind of public performance to take place. Or not so public: Schoenberg's Society for Private Musical Performance presented chamber-ensemble arrangements of several orchestral works by Webern, Berg, and Schoenberg.

Examples of this pattern include:

[Florestan]

Well, I think that the Classical wasn't all of it, it was the end of it though. Post-Beethoven, freedom disappeared. Written out cadenzas and all. I think it was a bit of a step back for music, even though the intent behind it was a good one; to keep the music pure. But look how many works of Bach for which there is no sure knowledge of what instrument he intended. And even of Haydn, for that matter. Everything about the 19th century militated towards inflexibility, even in music. Sad but true. I think that's why I don't care much for post-Schubertian music (with a few exceptions to prove the rule).

Gurn, you love freedom and flexibility so much and it is a good thing; why would you then object to using a piano for Bach or Haydn? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, you love freedom and flexibility so much and it is a good thing; why would you then object to using a piano for Bach or Haydn? 

Because it sounds like crap.

You are talking about flexibility over time, which is not a desirable thing to me. I am talking about flexibility within a time frame, constrained by the necessities of the day, but none of them unforeseeable. If I (a Baroque composer) write a melodic line that can be played by a violin, an oboe, a flute or recorder with equally melodious results, and I do this because on any given day in the music room, that's who might be there, then that is simply foresightful (and rather clever). If I saw the future well enough to know about what the instruments of that time could do and sound like, then that is something entirely different. And I would submit to you that they couldn't, even the smart ones like Bach.

[Karl Henning]

Because it sounds like crap.

Bach on the piano? Does not! ; )

[Gurn Blanston]

Bach on the piano? Does not! ; )

Sez you.   0:)

[Karl Henning]

Oh, yeah? Yer mother wears a perruque! : )

[Gurn Blanston]

Oh, yeah? Yer mother wears a perruque! : )

Well, her bald spot was a problem, can't blame her....

[Karl Henning]

Carolyn Jones wore a wig for the role of Morticia Addams, too.

[Gurn Blanston]

Carolyn Jones wore a wig for the role of Morticia Addams, too.

No surprise, but notice that Morticia played Bach too; on the harpsichord!! 'nuff said.

[Florestan]

You are talking about flexibility over time, which is not a desirable thing to me.

But this would basically bar contemporary dilettanti from playing any Baroque and Classical music at all. Not anyone today can have a harpsichord or a clavichord in their home. If they're fortunate enough in terms of money and space they'll have a (cottage) piano. For someone whose supply of both is very short even an electronic keyboard might do just fine. So, they pick up Bach, or Scarlatti, or Haydn, or Mozart, or Boccherini and are preparing to give it a try - when suddenly they hear Gurn admonishing them: No, don't do it at all! It'll sound like crap and it's not what they had in mind when composing their music. They meant flexibility but only for their contemporaries. Sorry, you were born too late for that. I would submit to you that this is as un-Baroque-ish and un-Classical-ish as it gets, given that much, if not most, of that music was written precisely for cultivated amateurs. 

[Leon]

Bach on the piano? Does not! ; )

I agree.  I have been enjoying some recent Angela Hewitt CDs quite a bit.

[Gurn Blanston]

But this would basically bar contemporary dilettanti from playing any Baroque and Classical music at all. Not anyone today can have a harpsichord or a clavichord in their home. If they're fortunate enough in terms of money and space they'll have a (cottage) piano. For someone whose supply of both is very short even an electronic keyboard might do just fine. So, they pick up Bach, or Scarlatti, or Haydn, or Mozart, or Boccherini and are preparing to give it a try - when suddenly they hear Gurn admonishing them: No, don't do it at all! It'll sound like crap and it's not what they had in mind when composing their music. They meant flexibility but only for their contemporaries. Sorry, you were born too late for that. I would submit to you that this is as un-Baroque-ish and un-Classical-ish as it gets, given that much, if not most, of that music was written precisely for cultivated amateurs. 

Yes, but no. You are carrying things beyond my much more humble view. My thing is this; anyone can do anything they want to do, I'm only going to invest my money in things that I like. IOW, if YOU want to have unprotected sex, it isn't ME that's gonna get Schuberted by it.   It may very well sound like crap when they play it too, but as long as it is their cottage and not mine, where's the harm? I am a very, very laissez-faire kind of guy.   0:)

[Karl Henning]

No surprise, but notice that Morticia played Bach too; on the harpsichord!! 'nuff said.

Dude, the harpsichord in the Addams house emphasized their eccentricity : )

I don't recall that Lurch ever played Bach on the 1503 Krumpnik, come to thing on 't . . . .

[Florestan]

Gurn, do you play any instrument?