Deep thought in Classical Era Music?

[Gurn Blanston]

I don;t think I would agree (at least not entirely). Mozart's Magic Flute is very much connected with philosophy. The ideas of freemasonry were in most ways less common I think, and certainly to put them in an opera like this quite unusual. I've also seen references that talk about the opera connected to enlightenment philosophy. I also don't subscribe to the idea that Wagner or some later romantic pieces are deeper. They are different. After all, the Ring can be taken as a fantasy story with morals rather than a philosophical message per se.

But The Magic Flute is in no sense of the word a conventional opera, so conventions don't apply to it. Whereas Don Giovanni IS a conventional opera in most ways, within the latitude of the discretion of the composer/librettist. So any generalizations that you or I can make about 1 of these works doesn't necessarily apply at all to the other. Other than that Mozart wrote the music for both of them....

[Karl Henning]

So Mozart goes to da Ponte, and says, "Look, I've had a troubled relationship with my father, and this is a demon I am particularly keen to exorcise, so what I want you to do with our new libretto is as follows . . . ."

[kishnevi]

So Mozart goes to da Ponte, and says, "Look, I've had a troubled relationship with my father, and this is a demon I am particularly keen to exorcise, so what I want you to do with our new libretto is as follows . . . ."

I deduce that Amadeus was part of last night's entertainment...

[From Florestan, several replies down in the thread now:]

This puzzles me greatly. Harpsichord, along the violin, is perhaps the quintessential Baroque instrument. Tons of great music were written for it, scores of treatises were published on how to play it, conductors used it for conducting, there was no cultivated amateur who could not play it, there was no well-to-do home without one. It was hugely popular and held in high esteem. I would say that in terms of hierarchy it was at the very top.

I think understand what Mandryka was referring to: the fact (or at least, the conventional wisdom) that up until Bach featured the harpsichord in Brandenburg 5,  the harpsichord when not played as a solo instrument (as in Bach's own Suites, Partitas, etc.) was used almost totally as a continuo instrument in relation to the other members of the ensemble, and Brandenburg 5 thereby represents the moment when the harpsichord became a solo or concertino instrument, moving so to speak from the back row to the front row in one leap.   

Mind you, I don't infer from this what Mandryka says, and it does assume, at the least, that Brandenburg 5 preceded, among other things, Bach's own keyboard concertos (in the form we know them today, as keyboard concertos) in terms of composition/recomposition/transcription from originals.

[Karl Henning]

. . . and it does assume, at the least, that Brandenburg 5 preceded, among other things, Bach's own keyboard concertos (in the form we know them today, as keyboard concertos) in terms of composition/recomposition/transcription from originals.

Whereof, I confess I do have my doubts.

[Mandryka]

And how do we know that this is specifically what he meant by the solo harpsichord?

SOrry for replying so late -- I didn;t see the post here.

What we know is that prior to Brandenurg 5 the harpsichord had only been used for the most low grade roles in concertos, just keeping the rhythm and providing a bit of harmonic support. In BC5/i everything looks like a regular flute concerto, a sort of contest between flute and the rest -- it's a real surprise that the keyboard takes over in such a shocking way -- are there any previous examples of stylus phantasticus cadenzas from any instruments like that? Flute of course was a noble instrument, a traditional solo concerto instrument.

[Mandryka]

You might find this article on the Brandenburg Concertos informative.  It was written by Philip Pickett, an English musician, recorder player and director of early music ensembles, notably The New London Consort.

The problem with that Philip Pickett article is that there's not much by way of justification for the idea that Bach and his listeners would have heard the music in those terms -- he may have some historical evidence up his sleeves but he doesn't let us see it very often. So it's tempting to say that his ideas are just the creation of his own imagination.

The same, by the way, for a lot of Harnoncourt's writings.

[Florestan]

The problem with that those Philip Pickett Mandryka article posts is that there's not much by way of justification for the idea that Bach and his listeners would have heard the music in those terms [...[. So it's tempting to say that his ideas are just the creation of his own imagination.

There, fixed. 

[Mandryka]

It would have been interesting to specify some conductors who omitted the finale. The reason itself, that the opera should end when the title character dies, is not very convincing. Kind of saying "we know better than Mozart how it should be".

In my view it's essential not to leave out the vaudeville. The finale transforms it from comedy to problem play (problem opera) Like Shakespeare's problem plays, Hamlet, Troilus, Measure for Measure  etc, DG explores deep philosophical ideas without really providing solutions.

It's Shakespeare who provides the precedent for using dramatic forms to explore ethics in modern times; Euripades before him.

[Mandryka]

There, fixed. 

I knew you would do that as I was typing it.

But it's not fair!!!!!

[Florestan]

I knew you would do that as I was typing it.

I saw it coming, too. 

But it's not fair!!!!!

Why not? Why is Pickett wrong about Brandenburg 5 being about Hercules, and you are right about it being about social equality? 

[Florestan]

It's Shakespeare who provides the precedent for using dramatic forms to explore ethics in modern times; Euripades before him.

If for you modern means 1600 AD or 450 BC, then between you and me it's only a chronological misunderstanding... 

[Mandryka]

I think historians do say that Shakespeare was a modern -- but I may be wrong. Someone must know. Modern begins in the 16th century.

Can someone change the title of this thread to "Deep thought in pre-romantic Era Music" There's things to be said about ideas in Renaissance music too, Dowland for example.

[Florestan]

I think historians do say that Shakespeare was a modern

Be it as it may and historians aside, my question still remains:

Why is Pickett wrong about Brandenburg 5 being about Hercules, all the while you are right about it being about social equality?

[Karl Henning]

Can someone change the title of this thread to "Deep thought in pre-romantic Era Music" There's things to be said about ideas in Renaissance music too, Dowland for example.

What if you make the case first, and then petition for the change? ; )

[kishnevi]

SOrry for replying so late -- I didn;t see the post here.

What we know is that prior to Brandenurg 5 the harpsichord had only been used for the most low grade roles in concertos, just keeping the rhythm and providing a bit of harmonic support. In BC5/i everything looks like a regular flute concerto, a sort of contest between flute and the rest -- it's a real surprise that the keyboard takes over in such a shocking way -- are there any previous examples of stylus phantasticus cadenzas from any instruments like that? Flute of course was a noble instrument, a traditional solo concerto instrument.

Well, if you're describing it that way, then (in the context of Brandenburg, which of course was part of Prussia, the flute becomes a reference to Frederick the Great (who was of course a more than competent flautist), and the concertos therefore can be read as coded messages urging the Margrave of Brandenburg to overthrow Frederick and take the throne for himself.

So we now see Bach revealed as a political intriguer!

[kishnevi]

In my view it's essential not to leave out the vaudeville. The finale transforms it from comedy to problem play (problem opera) Like Shakespeare's problem plays, Hamlet, Troilus, Measure for Measure  etc, DG explores deep philosophical ideas without really providing solutions.

It's Shakespeare who provides the precedent for using dramatic forms to explore ethics in modern times; Euripades before him.

Shakespeare was not alone; much of Elizabethan and Jacobean theater focused on explorations of ethical dilemmas.   Just about every major dramatist of the era produced at least one play that equal Shakespeare's explorations.  Shakespeare differed from his contemporaries in a way to parallel to Mozart--he produced a far superior product, in terms of stagecraft, poetry, and characterization, using the same tools and usually addressing the same problems as the others did.

Edit: if you want to read a true problem play,  try Webster's White Devil and Duchess of Malfi, and Tourneur's Revenger's Tragedy.

Second edit: I got sidetracked by the Bard of Avon, but I meant to say I do agree with you about the need to retain the vaudeville, and why.

[Mandryka]

Well, if you're describing it that way, then (in the context of Brandenburg, which of course was part of Prussia, the flute becomes a reference to Frederick the Great (who was of course a more than competent flautist), and the concertos therefore can be read as coded messages urging the Margrave of Brandenburg to overthrow Frederick and take the throne for himself.

So we now see Bach revealed as a political intriguer!

You know that Brandenburg 5 is a revision of BWV1050a, and that the early version has a shorter cadenza. It's as if Bach was deliberately making the music more disturbing and and unconventional in the version for the Margrave.

The sort of social equality that Bach was expressing in BWV 1050 probably had more to do with the order in the next world -- I don't think Bach was proposing social equality in this world. There are some margin notes which Bach made in his Bible which suggest this.

[Mandryka]

Shakespeare was not alone; much of Elizabethan and Jacobean theater focused on explorations of ethical dilemmas.   Just about every major dramatist of the era produced at least one play that equal Shakespeare's explorations.  Shakespeare differed from his contemporaries in a way to parallel to Mozart--he produced a far superior product, in terms of stagecraft, poetry, and characterization, using the same tools and usually addressing the same problems as the others did.

Edit: if you want to read a true problem play,  try Webster's White Devil and Duchess of Malfi, and Tourneur's Revenger's Tragedy.

Second edit: I got sidetracked by the Bard of Avon, but I meant to say I do agree with you about the need to retain the vaudeville, and why.

Do we know whether Mozart was aware of any of these problem plays? Is there a tradition of morally "problematic" drama in Italian or German literature?

I've never read Webster or Tourneur, but I remember reading the Duchess of Malfi at school -- I loved it , but I don't remember it as containing unresolved moral questions. I'll look at it again sometime (it was on in London recently but I didn't go.)

Actually I may have looked at the Tourneur years and years ago when I was very interested in Hamlet -- but I can't remember much about it now. I used to be interested in the idea that Hamlet was a Problem Play, not really a tragedy (the problem being about whether to be "God's scourge and minister")

Re Mozart, I read Robins Landon's book on the Masons today. It's not very helpful really -- one thing it did say which I didn't know was that Haydn joined the same lodge as Mozart. It's not clear from my initial reading of  the book what prompted the two of them to join. The book is very very short.

[Chaszz]

The better question would be: during that time, did the concept of (musical) personal, deep utterances exist? 

I think it did, in religious music. The relationship one had with Christ was presumed to be personal and deep. Especially after Luther, and even in Counter-Reformation art, where I think of all the piercings of the heart that Christ supposedly caused. And this intimate relationship was expressed, among other forms, in music. The Enlightenment composers wrote deep, meditative great religious music just as Bach did, if quite less frequently. Whether or not they were personally dedicated Christians is beside the point as to what they were doing as they composed. In fact, in the 18th century a good dose of deism or agnosticism was not necessarily incompatible with Christianity, as Jefferson demonstrates.

And if a composer could knowingly use deep, personal feelings in religious music, would he necessarily have carefully walled himself off from them, and the idea of them, when writing other kinds of music? Of course, the Romantic concept of extreme self-expression did not exist, but to deny composers all intentions toward depth and philosophic meaning is a bit extreme in the other direction, I think. These guys had brains, after all.   

[Chaszz]

I must say that I am absolutely convinced that for Bach music was a discourse. And we can find what was the discourse for him in his letters. I mean syntax. And he probably had nothing against making his thoughts as deep as it is possible. But I don't believe he believed that these thoughts could be personal.

Again, as I wrote before, his approach to religion and his relationship to Christ were personal, and this is reflected in his music. The texts of his cantatas are full of references to the personal relationship between him and his Savior, which are often tenderly reflected in the music and instrumentation. Although he didn't write the words, he selected and often commissioned them.