Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

All jokes aside, and very seriously now, dear Gurn, I really can't make any head or tail of the above. Would you be so kind as to clarify what you meant? TIA.

OK, well try this and see if it makes more sense to you. I could have been been easier on you by saying "the 19th century" instead of "the Romantics" but it isn't supposed to be easy.    

Music in the 19th century went from being a really small cottage industry, which is just what it was outside of Church and Court. When it became a mass-market commodity, all the various appendages, like formal criticism, definitions down to the nth degree (often wrong: viz. 'sonata') and a clear separation between musicians and "everyone else". I'm sure you have read some musical analyses. Unless you have a music theory degree I am unaware of, do you think that shit was written for you or me to understand? I think not. They didn't talk that way in the 18th century. The musical relationships were there, of course, but they didn't use highly technical terms to describe them. They also didn't have a hierarchy of works that deserved to be played over and over again and everything else be damned. All of that stuff is a product of the 19th century. It is called evolutionary progress. Quite honestly, I don't care for it. Schenker sounds too close to 'chancre' for me to be comfortable around him, I can fairly say that.

[Florestan]

OK, well try this and see if it makes more sense to you. I could have been been easier on you by saying "the 19th century" instead of "the Romantics" but it isn't supposed to be easy.    

Music in the 19th century went from being a really small cottage industry, which is just what it was outside of Church and Court. When it became a mass-market commodity, all the various appendages, like formal criticism, definitions down to the nth degree (often wrong: viz. 'sonata') and a clear separation between musicians and "everyone else". I'm sure you have read some musical analyses. Unless you have a music theory degree I am unaware of, do you think that shit was written for you or me to understand? I think not. They didn't talk that way in the 18th century. The musical relationships were there, of course, but they didn't use highly technical terms to describe them. They also didn't have a hierarchy of works that deserved to be played over and over again and everything else be damned. All of that stuff is a product of the 19th century. It is called evolutionary progress. Quite honestly, I don't care for it. Schenker sounds too close to 'chancre' for me to be comfortable around him, I can fairly say that.

Thanks a lot. You do have (apparently...  ) some points. Stay tuned for my reply.

[Florestan]

Music in the 19th century went from being a really small cottage industry, which is just what it was outside of Church and Court.

Had you and I been born in 1732 in exactly the same station in life, and exactly the same geographical area, we were actually born, what wouldf have been our chances to hear Haydn's music? I don't know your answer, but mine is "Three unqualified cheers for the 19th century bourgeoisie and its cultural posterity!"

When it became a mass-market commodity, all the various appendages, like formal criticism, definitions down to the nth degree (often wrong: viz. 'sonata') and a clear separation between musicians and "everyone else".

When it became that, what? Where is the verb? 

I'm sure you have read some musical analyses.

I usually avoid them, as they are far beyond my knowledge and interest.

Unless you have a music theory degree I am unaware of, do you think that shit was written for you or me to understand?

Although it doesn't logically follow from anything you wrote above, I assume that by "that shit" you mean 19th Century / Romantic music

I think not.

Then you must think harder.

They didn't talk that way in the 18th century.

You don't talk the way an 18th Century man of your trade talked --- assuming your trade existed back then.

The musical relationships were there, of course, but they didn't use highly technical terms to describe them.

Although it doesn't logically follow from anything you wrote above, I assume that by "highly technical terms" you mean 19th Century / Romantic music / criticism.

Now, please tell me what are the "highly technical terms" used here:

http://www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm#sym3

They also didn't have a hierarchy of works that deserved to be played over and over again and everything else be damned.

Assuming you mean "they, the 18th century", you're shooting yourself in both feet! Had it not been for the 19th Century / Romantic cult of geniuses and reverence of the past, I very much doubt that either you or I would have been able to hear a iota of Haydn's music.

All of that stuff is a product of the 19th century.

For which the 19th Century be praised forever and ever, amen!

[Florestan]

serious human and cultural issues, including religious belief, war, pastoral, the times of day, longing for home, ethnic identity and the hunt.

All those, and many more, applies to Liszt's music as well.

[Mahlerian]

OK, well try this and see if it makes more sense to you. I could have been been easier on you by saying "the 19th century" instead of "the Romantics" but it isn't supposed to be easy.    

Music in the 19th century went from being a really small cottage industry, which is just what it was outside of Church and Court. When it became a mass-market commodity, all the various appendages, like formal criticism, definitions down to the nth degree (often wrong: viz. 'sonata') and a clear separation between musicians and "everyone else". I'm sure you have read some musical analyses. Unless you have a music theory degree I am unaware of, do you think that shit was written for you or me to understand? I think not. They didn't talk that way in the 18th century. The musical relationships were there, of course, but they didn't use highly technical terms to describe them. They also didn't have a hierarchy of works that deserved to be played over and over again and everything else be damned. All of that stuff is a product of the 19th century. It is called evolutionary progress. Quite honestly, I don't care for it. Schenker sounds too close to 'chancre' for me to be comfortable around him, I can fairly say that.

It is probably true that music criticism as applied to individual works did not exist the way then that it does now, but that is a reflection of the idea of the work as something more than ephemeral.  Naturally, music theory written in highly erudite language existed in the 18th century (Fux) and the 16th century (Zarlino), and earlier.  This served both a pedagogical and a philosophical purpose for the writers and readers of the time, and a valuable historical one today.  These treatises tended to be very precise about the terms they used, and extremely technical (just try reading any of the truly theoretical parts of these books).

[Gurn Blanston]

Please don't make me go through one of these 100 point posts. Life is too short!

Had you and I been born in 1732 in exactly the same station in life, and exactly the same geographical area, we were actually born, what would have been our chances to hear Haydn's music? I don't know your answer, but mine is "Three unqualified cheers for the 19th century bourgeoisie and its cultural posterity!"

Unless you happened to be there for other reasons, they would have hovered between slim and none. Maybe in America my chances would have been better, but since CD's were still in the formative stages... There were musical performances in Boston which the public could attend. America was much more egalitarian than Europe, even then. So my chances would have been better than yours, for what it's worth.

When it became that, what? Where is the verb? 

The verb is that it then became more easy to get to hear, but much harder to truly understand.

I usually avoid them, as they are far beyond my knowledge and interest.

Well duh, that's my point. They shouldn't be far beyond your knowledge. And they wouldn't be if any effort at all had been made to make them comprehensible for a person of above average intelligence who merely lacks formal training.

Although it doesn't logically follow from anything you wrote above, I assume that by "that shit" you mean 19th Century / Romantic music

No, there you go assuming again. I meant the sort of writing which attends 19th century music. The stuff you don't read because it is above your pay grade.

You don't talk the way an 18th Century man of your trade talked --- assuming your trade existed back then.

True, language has evolved too. It has become for more variegated and also far less precise. Words frequently mean the opposite of what they used to mean, which shows intellectual laziness on the part of speakers and writers. 'Ultimate' means 'final', not 'greatest'. There are thousands of other examples but I've typed enough already.

Although it doesn't logically follow from anything you wrote above, I assume that by "highly technical terms" you mean 19th Century / Romantic music / criticism.

Sure, why not?

Now, please tell me what are the "highly technical terms" used here:

http://www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm#sym3

I can give you a dozen more examples if you like. Surely you can see that something which was begun when Berlioz was already a grown man, though young still, had not yet reached the full potential that it has today? The seed had been planted, the tree hadn't overtaken the garden yet.

Assuming you mean "they, the 18th century", you're shooting yourself in both feet! Had it not been for the 19th Century / Romantic cult of geniuses and reverence of the past, I very much doubt that either you or I would have been able to hear a iota of Haydn's music.

For which the 19th Century be praised forever and ever, amen!

No, the 18th century had no such thing as a 'Canon of Western Music'. It wasn't even on their radar. Don't read something in there where I didn't say it. If I wanted to construct and type up an airtight argument with you, I would spend more than 10 minutes on it. I really don't though, I am simply not that interested in either attacking your position or defending my own. You should listen to more music.

[Gurn Blanston]

It is probably true that music criticism as applied to individual works did not exist the way then that it does now, but that is a reflection of the idea of the work as something more than ephemeral.  Naturally, music theory written in highly erudite language existed in the 18th century (Fux) and the 16th century (Zarlino), and earlier.  This served both a pedagogical and a philosophical purpose for the writers and readers of the time, and a valuable historical one today.  These treatises tended to be very precise about the terms they used, and extremely technical (just try reading any of the truly theoretical parts of these books).

True, Fux (and Mattheson, for example) were very technical for their time. But I have read Strunk's Source Reading in Music History and found it far more digestible than anything written today. I read it and learned a lot from it. But if you try Elements of Sonata Theory by Hepkoski & Darcy, as fine as book as it is reputed to be, I couldn't get past page 1. It uses a language which only the most well-educated theoretician can comprehend. Gradus ad Parnassum is Dr. Seuss comparatively.

[Mahlerian]

True, Fux (and Mattheson, for example) were very technical for their time. But I have read Strunk's Source Reading in Music History and found it far more digestible than anything written today. I read it and learned a lot from it. But if you try Elements of Sonata Theory by Hepkoski & Darcy, as fine as book as it is reputed to be, I couldn't get past page 1. It uses a language which only the most well-educated theoretician can comprehend. Gradus ad Parnassum is Dr. Seuss comparatively.

The pedagogical (and more famous) second part of Gradus ad Parnassum, yes, but the first part is entirely theoretical, going on at length regarding the various mathematical proportions realized in sounding intervals, the basis in harmonic ratios, etc.  That part particularly draws on earlier treatises of the kind I mentioned.  Music theory has been around since music notation has existed.

Speaking for myself, I learned to pick up on the basics of music analysis relatively quickly.  Good analysis serves to elucidate what is heard.

[Florestan]

it then became more easy to get to hear, but much harder to truly understand.

"Music does not have to be understood, it needs to be listened to!"  --- Hermann Scherchen

Well duh, that's my point. They shouldn't be far beyond your knowledge. And they wouldn't be if any effort at all had been made to make them comprehensible for a person of above average intelligence who merely lacks formal training.

Well, precisely. Nobody needs any formal knowledge of musical theory or rhetoric in order to get what Hunnenschlacht is about. It might as well be about the Battle of Königgrätz or the Battle of Stalingrad  -- -- any sentient and knowledgeable person can make of it whatever s/he fancies, the umkistakable sense of struggle and aftermath is there for any any sentient and knowledgeable person to experience.

I strongly reject the idea that one needs formal training and above average intelligence in order to get / feel / understood Romantic music (or any other type of music, for that matter).

No, there you go assuming again. I meant the sort of writing which attends 19th century music. The stuff you don't read because it is above your pay grade.

I don't know about you (rhetorical figure all along, \I know you very well  ), but I'd rather read things that contradict my own views than things that agree with them. I much prefer being intellectually challenged than being intellectually stagnant.

True, language has evolved too. It has become for more variegated and also far less precise. Words frequently mean the opposite of what they used to mean, which shows intellectual laziness on the part of speakers and writers. 'Ultimate' means 'final', not 'greatest'. There are thousands of other examples but I've typed enough already.

Wittgenstein vindicated, ossia Humpty Dumpty Linguistics for Dummies. 

I can give you a dozen more examples if you like. Surely you can see that something which was begun when Berlioz was already a grown man, though young still, had not yet reached the full potential that it has today? The seed had been planted, the tree hadn't overtaken the garden yet.

It has always striked me as peculiarly odd that the Romantic theory of music was already penned long before any Romantic composer (in the contemporary acception of the term) was born.

Wackenroder, Novalis, Hoffmann --- they preceded the Romantic composers by at least 10 or 20 years. All they knew as contemporary music was (quite a few) Haydn and Mozart and (early) Beethoven --- so I am firrmly convinced that they heard in their music things we are unable to hear anymore.

No, the 18th century had no such thing as a 'Canon of Western Music'. It wasn't even on their radar.

Precisely my point. Had it not been for the Romantic cult of genius and the subsequent 'Canon of Western Music', Haydn would have been as forgotten today as JS Bach was in the 1820s. Not to mention Vivaldi --- he'd not have been even a footnote in the history of music.

You should listen to more music.

I listen to music daily and nightly. It's just that I also like to think about it. 

[Karl Henning]

"Music does not have to be understood, it needs to be listened to!"  --- Hermann Scherchen

A binary fallacy  0:)


Really:  Just because a great artist makes an assertion, doesn't make the assertion an unassailable truth.

[Florestan]

A binary fallacy  0:)


Really:  Just because a great artist makes an assertion, doesn't make the assertion an unassailable truth.

Absolutely, and I didn't present it as such. I should have used an emoticon, actually.

[Karl Henning]

Absolutely, and I didn't present it as such. I should have used an emoticon, actually.

No worries; early in the day yet here, old dear.

[Karl Henning]

And anyway, as Игорь Фëдорович plentifully underscores, the artists, even when dead wrong, are often of interest for the odd insight.

[North Star]

You can enjoy a wine without any technical knowledge of hydrocarbons - you can even know a great deal about wine without significant knowledge of hydrocarbons.

[Karl Henning]

I'll speculate that, for me, if I knew about hydrocarbons (or, what little I know about hydrocarbons) does not affect how, or the degree to which, I enjoy the wine.

But understanding music does enrich my enjoyment, or, it is one of the layers of my enjoying the music.  Does anyone else need that understanding?  That's for them to say, I suppose.

[Gurn Blanston]

Just for the record, and despite any efforts to paint my opinions as something they aren't, I don't think you need to be an expert on theory to enjoy music either. If I did, I would be in a very poor posture. My comments were strictly aimed at the way that theory has become more and more arcane over the last 2 centuries, to the point where if it isn't your specialty, you can scarcely understand it at all. And it didn't used to be that way, and I think music has not gotten better for it, which should have been the only reason to do something like that.   If you read the essay, you won't find anything in it that states, avers, avows or postulates anything else.

[Florestan]

Just for the record, and despite any efforts to paint my opinions as something they aren't, I don't think you need to be an expert on theory to enjoy music either. If I did, I would be in a very poor posture. My comments were strictly aimed at the way that theory has become more and more arcane over the last 2 centuries, to the point where if it isn't your specialty, you can scarcely understand it at all. And it didn't used to be that way, and I think music has not gotten better for it, which should have been the only reason to do something like that.   If you read the essay, you won't find anything in it that states, avers, avows or postulates anything else.

I clearly misunderstood you. You refered to theory while I took it to refer to music. Things are clear now and I quite agree. My apologies.

[Karl Henning]

Just for the record, and despite any efforts to paint my opinions as something they aren't, I don't think you need to be an expert on theory to enjoy music either. If I did, I would be in a very poor posture. My comments were strictly aimed at the way that theory has become more and more arcane over the last 2 centuries, to the point where if it isn't your specialty, you can scarcely understand it at all. And it didn't used to be that way, and I think music has not gotten better for it, which should have been the only reason to do something like that.   If you read the essay, you won't find anything in it that states, avers, avows or postulates anything else.

Well, I should not dare to put on any music theory dog, either.

[Gurn Blanston]

I clearly misunderstood you. You refered to theory while I took it to refer to music. Things are clear now and I quite agree. My apologies.

No problem at all, dear fellow. I simply wanted it to be clear at the end that this is what I was talking about, not the music itself. The music clearly grew too, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, I should not dare to put on any music theory dog, either.

Well, more than me!  Chromatic Completion, Karl. Or if you will Khromatic Kompletion, Carl. What say you, you theory hound?!