Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Not that Haydn was a cold and dry philosopher who eschewed any emotion, was he? 

No, not at all. But he did write music in a different aspect from what Beethoven did. Not least because Beethoven was consciously writing for posterity while Haydn was fulfilling this week's commissions. Emotion in Classical style was different, it was perhaps drawn out of the listener by the composer because it was expected that the listener was an active participant in the whole affair. By Late Beethoven's time, things had begun to swing more towards the composer showing you what HIS emotions were, and listening became a more passive affair. At least, that's what I infer from reading. I'm not always right.



----------------
Now playing:
Bruce Hungerford - Op 053 Sonata #21 in C 2nd mvmt - Adagio molto - 3rd mvmt - Allegretto moderato

[Florestan]

Emotion in Classical style was different, it was perhaps drawn out of the listener by the composer because it was expected that the listener was an active participant in the whole affair.

Boy, how I miss the opportunity to tell a string quartet violist: "Hey, that's not how you should play it!" or to say loudly during a symphonic concert: "Horns, you are completely out of touch with the music!"

The romantic mythology and mindset turned us music lovers into passive absorbers of whatever bad music His Majesty the Artist deems fit to present us...  we shouldn't make any noise in the Temple of Great Music... Bah, humbug! 

Beethoven himself, were he to arise from the dead and attend a contemporary concert, would recoil in horror at our habits... 

[DavidRoss]

Boy, how I miss the opportunity to tell a string quartet violist: "Hey, that's not how you should play it!" or to say loudly during a symphonic concert: "Horns, you are completely out of touch with the music!"

The romantic mythology and mindset turned us music lovers into passive absorbers of whatever bad music His Majesty the Artist deems fit to present us...  we shouldn't make any noise in the Temple of Great Music... Bah, humbug! 

Beethoven himself, were he to arise from the dead and attend a contemporary concert, would recoil in horror at our habits... 

Ancestor worship, innit?

[Gurn Blanston]

Boy, how I miss the opportunity to tell a string quartet violist: "Hey, that's not how you should play it!" or to say loudly during a symphonic concert: "Horns, you are completely out of touch with the music!"

The romantic mythology and mindset turned us music lovers into passive absorbers of whatever bad music His Majesty the Artist deems fit to present us...  we shouldn't make any noise in the Temple of Great Music... Bah, humbug! 

Beethoven himself, were he to arise from the dead and attend a contemporary concert, would recoil in horror at our habits... 

Umm, well perhaps not THAT active. More like taking the music and doing with it as you will intellectually. After all, certainly I, and possibly you (I don't know) wouldn't have even heard Haydn's music when it was new. Invitations from Esterhazy to the lower classes were probably pretty thin on the ground. I struggle with musical rhetoric even now, back then (when it was expected that you knew it) my education would have been virtually non-existent. Folk music for me, lad.



----------------
Now playing:
Bruce Hungerford - Op 109 Sonata #30 in E 2nd mvmt - Prestissimo

[Florestan]

Ancestor worship, innit?

Well, I really mean it. I have attended "Die Fliedermaus" at the Romanian National Opera in Bucharest, Romanian singers singing in Romanian --- and I did not understand a single word of the arias. Can you imagine? I was sitting in the sixth front row and could not understand a single damn sung word. I wished I had the opportunity to stand and shout out loud "Sing clear, you rascals, or be gone!". 

[Florestan]

Umm, well perhaps not THAT active. More like taking the music and doing with it as you will intellectually. After all, certainly I, and possibly you (I don't know) wouldn't have even heard Haydn's music when it was new. Invitations from Esterhazy to the lower classes were probably pretty thin on the ground.

One of the very few --- note it  well, very few --- reasons I think our era is better than Haydn's. 

[Gurn Blanston]

One of the very few --- note it  well, very few --- reasons I think our era is better than Haydn's. 

Yes, well that and penicillin.



----------------
Now playing:
Bruce Hungerford - Op 109 Sonata #30 in E 3rd mvmt - Andante molto cantabile ed espressivo

[Florestan]

Yes, well that and penicillin.

[Al Moritz]

Thanks a lot, Gurn, for your further comments regarding orchestration.

Emotion in Classical style was different, it was perhaps drawn out of the listener by the composer because it was expected that the listener was an active participant in the whole affair. By Late Beethoven's time, things had begun to swing more towards the composer showing you what HIS emotions were, and listening became a more passive affair.

I would put it a bit differently. I am not so sure about the emotion issue, I think more in terms of musical structure. Haydn's music impresses itself on the listener more from within (including the works written in "popular" style), whereas Beethoven's (symphonic) music impresses itself on the listener from the outside. Or, to put it in other words, Haydn's music needs to be listened *into*, whereas at least a superficial and sufficiently satisfying impression of Beethoven's greatness can be gained simply from listening *at* the music, which requires much less effort. Of course, it is not detrimental to the Beethoven (symphonic) experience at all to listen *into* the music as well. Beethoven's genius lies in the combination of bold, grand, 'public' gestures with immense inventiveness and refinement in developing them.

But in fact, in relation to the above Beethoven's string quartets work quite similarly as Haydn's symphonies (and string quartets). Of course, Beethoven's string quartets are far less popular than his symphonies...

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks a lot, Gurn, for your further comments regarding orchestration.

My pleasure. As you can tell, I am no musician, I am an hobbyist historian. I can only offer that if you read enough and listen enough, you can come to grips with some things like orchestration. For my own benefit, I hope that my naïvete allows unalloyed enjoyment. It has worked so far.

I would put it a bit differently. I am not so sure about the emotion issue, I think more in terms of musical structure. Haydn's music impresses itself on the listener more from within (including the works written in "popular" style), whereas Beethoven's (symphonic) music impresses itself on the listener from the outside. Or, to put it in other words, Haydn's music needs to be listened *into*, whereas at least a superficial and sufficiently satisfying impression of Beethoven's greatness can be gained simply from listening *at* the music, which requires much less effort. Of course, it is not detrimental to the Beethoven (symphonic) experience at all to listen *into* the music as well. Beethoven's genius lies in the combination of bold, grand, 'public' gestures with immense inventiveness and refinement in developing them.

But in fact, in relation to the above Beethoven's string quartets work quite similarly as Haydn's symphonies (and string quartets). Of course, Beethoven's string quartets are far less popular than his symphonies...

I think we are expressing the same end result, just getting at it via a different path. What you are terming "listening *at*" is the same as what I could only think of as "passive listening". Either way, the listener is presented with a done deal. Earlier music was much more demanding in its listening requirements, however its far more limited audience was capable of dealing with it on the composer's terms. When music's audience expanded exponentially in the early 19th century, the composer didn't take a chance that they wouldn't be able to digest the music. The contrast between 1775 and 1850 is so great that one can scarcely call it all the same thing; performance of music.



----------------
Now playing:
BBC Scottish SO / Atherton  Lawrence Power (Viola) - Hindemith WoO 'Trauermusik' for Viola & Orchestra

[Florestan]

Earlier music was much more demanding in its listening requirements, however its far more limited audience was capable of dealing with it on the composer's terms. When music's audience expanded exponentially in the early 19th century, the composer didn't take a chance that they wouldn't be able to digest the music. The contrast between 1775 and 1850 is so great that one can scarcely call it all the same thing; performance of music.

I'm not quite sure I get it, Gurn. As a hobbyist historian, and a very knowledgeable one at that, could you contrast a specific 1850 performance with a specific 1775 performance? What did the former have, that the latter missed, and viceversa?

[Gurn Blanston]

Ah, y'ere a tough one, Florestan.

Here are a couple of scenarios. It is my way to have you read between the lines a bit. But the pertinent information is there, only lacking a bit of imagination to make it live.

1783.
Esterhazy Palace. Two gentlemen dressed in the latest style (Florestan & Blanston, elegant and very wealthy foreigners) are seated drinking port in a most elegant drawing room. Over near the pianoforte, Prince Esterhazy is chatting with some visitors from Vienna. At the keyboard, a uniformed and bewigged fellow, chatting with some ladies, toying with the keys now, as his part in the evening's entertainment is over. As a long time retainer to the Prince, and having attained some fame on his own, he is now allowed to mingle a bit with the guests...

Florestan: Well, Blanston, that was highly interesting. That Haydn fellow seems to play the pianoforte as well as he does everything else musical.

Blanston: Indeed! That little symphony earlier, the one in D major, was quite brilliant. It was the keyboard sonatas that intrigued me, though. I am very pleased that the Prince saw his way clear to invite us tonight!

F: Quite so. There were several things about that last sonata that really caught my ear. You noticed that it was in D major also, I'm sure. But the strangest thing to me was that it had the shortest exposition and the longest development of any work I ever heard. I don't know how many measures were in the second part, but there were clearly only 8 in the first part, and then it was followed by the longest way around to home that was ever devised, I daresay!

B: Yes, it was one of the most convincing rhetorical orations, I, for one, firmly believed that he would never get back to the major in the end via that route, but he did try to cadence three different times until he found the proper opening sequence on the fourth try and there it was. I'll say this, the man has some wit about him!

F: Yes, it was wonderfully satisfying to hear him struggling for it and finally finding the right sequence. Pity that so few composers these days can state such a wonderful argument as that. The Prince was generous tonight, there are at least 20 people here to enjoy this. Life is good, and so is this port. I believe I'll have another...


January 15, 1860
Kärntnertortheater, Vienna. Two well-dressed, middle-aged men are sitting after intermission, waiting for the second half of the concert to begin. They are Gurn Blanston, a visiting merchant from Dublin and his host, Florestan Biedermeier, an importer from right here in Vienna. Blanston's ever present cigar is emitting a fine, fragrant blue thread up to the beautiful ornate ceiling. This is the first ever 'subscription' concert of the new Vienna Philharmonic Society, which has been around for several years now but never managed to get it together. Under the baton of the opera house director, Carl Eckert, they are establishing a new tradition....

FB: Well, Blanston, what did you think of that Brahms serenade?

GB: Well, Florry m'lad, I have to say, that touched me deeply. Possibly that Brahms chap has a future, although I hear that he and the Wagner faction aren't getting along too well. But that serenade was quite good, reminded me of that good, old time music that I heard in London when I was a boy.

FB: Yes, well Wagner is the future, you know. One day, all operas will be like his. There really isn't much of a future at all for absolute music. You should hear the way that Liszt can paint a picture of hell with a few diminished minor chords. In any case, the fact that we now have this wonderful hall to showcase new music, and we can pick only the cream of the music of the past and have it played by this tremendous orchestra means that the best music can live forever!

GB: But Florry, if you eliminate most of the old music, won't you soon run out of music for this orchestra?

FB: Oh no, not at all!  Most of the best music hasn't even been written yet. Oh, they're dimming the lights. I can hardly wait for this Raff symphony...

The dates and places are historically accurate. And the music and such. The conversation in each scenario is based on what I feel that history is telling us. The sonata at Esterhazy is Hob 16_42 in D major. It is considered by rhetoricians to be a nearly perfect example of Classical declamation. The finale has an introduction of 8 measures, and then takes an additional 93 (!) measures to get to a final cadence. Along the way, Haydn proposes numerous solutions for the 'how to get home' problem, trying them out and finding them wanting. Eventually he starts out again 'right' and voila! Home. It is a joke after all, brilliantly told. But the audience was actually able to appreciate it. They studied rhetoric in school. They knew how it applied to music. They were expected to know. And fortunately for us, we were both frightfully well-to-do and the Prince asked us in. Else we would have been home that evening listening to our Haydn CD's yet again...

At the end of the 18th century, rhetoric in general, not just in music, disappeared from the landscape of all but the most refined universities. Simultaneously, the aristocracy went down the same rabbit-hole and the middle class took over the remains of 'culture'. And in order to make a buck entertaining the lot of them (thousands rather than dozens), sonic museums were built, municipal orchestras established, and above all, a 'Canon of Western Music' established. And before long, music that couldn't stand the rigors of regular performance at the museum simply disappeared. And composers realized that if they didn't make every piece that they wrote "entirely new and original", they would never achieve artistic acceptance. Anyway, that's a whole other issue.

I hope this extended ramble made at least a bit of sense to you or anyone else.  What I have in my head and what I can get down on 'paper' are usually not quite the same thing...




----------------
Now playing:
Quartetto Esterhazy - Hob 03 34 Quartet in D for Strings Op 20 #4 1st mvmt - Allegro di molto

[Florestan]

Ah, y'ere a tough one, Florestan.

I'm so glad I challenged you! I was expecting you to come up with a little gem and voila! --- you did..  0:)

Here are a couple of scenarios. It is my way to have you read between the lines a bit. But the pertinent information is there, only lacking a bit of imagination to make it live.

Consciously or inconsciously, you crafted them to correspond to their time: the first is a sonata form and the second a piano fantasy. 

1783.
Esterhazy Palace. Two gentlemen dressed in the latest style (Florestan & Blanston, elegant and very wealthy foreigners) are seated drinking port in a most elegant drawing room.

Right from the start, my favourite part.  (Short but effective exposition, almost like a Mannheim rocket, lieber Gottfried Uwe Reinhardt Nepomuk!)

Over near the pianoforte, Prince Esterhazy is chatting with some visitors from Vienna. At the keyboard, a uniformed and bewigged fellow, chatting with some ladies, toying with the keys now, as his part in the evening's entertainment is over. As a long time retainer to the Prince, and having attained some fame on his own, he is now allowed to mingle a bit with the guests...

Florestan: Well, Blanston, that was highly interesting. That Haydn fellow seems to play the pianoforte as well as he does everything else musical.

Blanston: Indeed! That little symphony earlier, the one in D major, was quite brilliant. It was the keyboard sonatas that intrigued me, though. I am very pleased that the Prince saw his way clear to invite us tonight!

F: Quite so. There were several things about that last sonata that really caught my ear. You noticed that it was in D major also, I'm sure. But the strangest thing to me was that it had the shortest exposition and the longest development of any work I ever heard. I don't know how many measures were in the second part, but there were clearly only 8 in the first part, and then it was followed by the longest way around to home that was ever devised, I daresay!

B: Yes, it was one of the most convincing rhetorical orations, I, for one, firmly believed that he would never get back to the major in the end via that route, but he did try to cadence three different times until he found the proper opening sequence on the fourth try and there it was. I'll say this, the man has some wit about him!

F: Yes, it was wonderfully satisfying to hear him struggling for it and finally finding the right sequence. Pity that so few composers these days can state such a wonderful argument as that. The Prince was generous tonight, there are at least 20 people here to enjoy this.

Great development, carefully contructed and elegantly expressed. 

Life is good, and so is this port. I believe I'll have another...

As for the coming home, it's as delightful as the beginning of the journey. 

January 15, 1860
Kärntnertortheater, Vienna. Two well-dressed, middle-aged men are sitting after intermission, waiting for the second half of the concert to begin. They are Gurn Blanston, a visiting merchant from Dublin and his host, Florestan Biedermeier, an importer from right here in Vienna. Blanston's ever present cigar is emitting a fine, fragrant blue thread up to the beautiful ornate ceiling. This is the first ever 'subscription' concert of the new Vienna Philharmonic Society, which has been around for several years now but never managed to get it together. Under the baton of the opera house director, Carl Eckert, they are establishing a new tradition....

FB: Well, Blanston, what did you think of that Brahms serenade?

GB: Well, Florry m'lad, I have to say, that touched me deeply. Possibly that Brahms chap has a future, although I hear that he and the Wagner faction aren't getting along too well. But that serenade was quite good, reminded me of that good, old time music that I heard in London when I was a boy.

FB: Yes, well Wagner is the future, you know. One day, all operas will be like his. There really isn't much of a future at all for absolute music. You should hear the way that Liszt can paint a picture of hell with a few diminished minor chords. In any case, the fact that we now have this wonderful hall to showcase new music, and we can pick only the cream of the music of the past and have it played by this tremendous orchestra means that the best music can live forever!

GB: But Florry, if you eliminate most of the old music, won't you soon run out of music for this orchestra?

FB: Oh no, not at all!  Most of the best music hasn't even been written yet. Oh, they're dimming the lights. I can hardly wait for this Raff symphony...

This Gurn sounds like he might have been the son of the older one, the Eszterhazy's guest, while Mr. Florestan here certainly has no kinship whatsoever with his namesake above. 

The dates and places are historically accurate. And the music and such. The conversation in each scenario is based on what I feel that history is telling us. The sonata at Esterhazy is Hob 16_42 in D major. It is considered by rhetoricians to be a nearly perfect example of Classical declamation. The finale has an introduction of 8 measures, and then takes an additional 93 (!) measures to get to a final cadence. Along the way, Haydn proposes numerous solutions for the 'how to get home' problem, trying them out and finding them wanting. Eventually he starts out again 'right' and voila! Home. It is a joke after all, brilliantly told.

Why, thanks a lot. I wasn't familiar with this sonata. It sounds fascinating and I'll surely investigate it attentively.

But the audience was actually able to appreciate it. They studied rhetoric in school. They knew how it applied to music. They were expected to know. And fortunately for us, we were both frightfully well-to-do and the Prince asked us in.

Absolutely correct. But this raises an interesting question: if Haydn wrote his music for an audience of connoisseurs --- as he did --- then does it follow that someone whose knowledge of rhetoric is sparse, to put it mildly, will never be able to fully understand and appreciate it?

Else we would have been home that evening listening to our Haydn CD's yet again...

Well, that wouldn't have been bad either --- but I'd have dearly missed our conversation... and Eszterhazy's excellent port, naturally. 

At the end of the 18th century, rhetoric in general, not just in music, disappeared from the landscape of all but the most refined universities.

Alas! But then again, it was the very general mentality that changed, so no surprise. One of the most authoritative witnesses of that change, Herr Hegel, said something to the effect that trying to preserve the cultural forms of the past is hopeless when the very substance of the spirit has changed.

Simultaneously, the aristocracy went down the same rabbit-hole

Well, I think I'll amend this "simultaneously" part a bit: at least in the German States, first and foremost in Austria, the aristocracy retained its position and influence long into the 19th century. At one end we have the aristocratic support Beethoven received and at the other King Ludwig's enthusiastic promotion of Wagner, with a good measure of others, notably the Thurn und Taxis, in between.

and the middle class took over the remains of 'culture'.

Sorry, but this needs amendment, too. You make it sound as if the old culture was destroyed in some sort of catastrophy and the bourgeoisie --- I use this term very losely and without any pejorative undertone --- took over its debris. I don't think this is the case. After all, for all direct testimonies we have, the artistic tastes of the bourgeoisie at large were rather conservative and it is exactly in those times that the term "philistine" has been coined. Besides, hardcore Romantics such as Schumann and Berlioz suffered from, and fought against, exactly this philistine spirit of the bourgeoisie. 

And in order to make a buck entertaining the lot of them (thousands rather than dozens), sonic museums were built, municipal orchestras established,

Now, that's a rather simplistic --- and unsympathetic, dare I say --- explanation of why public orchestras appeared. Certainly the bourgeoisie's need for entertainment played its part, but I think other forces must be taken into account as well. As the aristocracy slowly but steadily lost its social role, the composers and musicians were no more in the service of this or that aristocrat, who secured them a position and the opportunity to compose and perform, so they needed something else to replace the "ancien regime", and they found it in the municipal orchestras, which thus appear to me not as a mere vehicle of the bourgeoisie's entertaining whims but as a common space built on common interest and a logical consequence of the social changes in effect. After all, there are many Romantic orchestral works with little, if any, entertaining value for a typical bourgeois.

and above all, a 'Canon of Western Music' established.

For this we cannot be grateful enough, since much of Haydn's work would have been lost forever without it. 

And before long, music that couldn't stand the rigors of regular performance at the museum simply disappeared.

Well, this is rather self-contradictory. On one hand, the old music was no more fashionable and the tastes of the new audiences went in other directions; on the other hand, the very same audience kept some old music in such reverence and awe that it deemed fit to canonize it and to painstakingly catalogue each and every scrap of paper on which Haydn or Mozart penned a tune. Something is lost on me here.

Besides, which were those rigors you mention?

And composers realized that if they didn't make every piece that they wrote "entirely new and original", they would never achieve artistic acceptance.

I beg to differ, once again. Liszt was an enormously popular composer and the bourgeois flocked to his concerts and accepted him widely. Yet most of his compositions consisted of nothing else than, or mainly,  paraphrases and caprices on the music of others --- nothing entirely new and original in them.

Mendelssohn was hugely popular in that most bourgeois of all bourgeois countries, Victorian England --- yet his music, for all its beauty, is nothing like entirely new and original.

Now, I wonder: had Haydn not come up with something new, original and surprising in every new symphony he composed, would Esterhazy have continued to keep him in his service?

Anyway, that's a whole other issue.

Actually it's not quite other, at least not from me, and I'll explain you why.

It is my impression --- and if I'm mistaken, please correct me --- that you regard the Romantic era with a certain aloofness: you have little, if any, sympathy for (a) its social backbone, the bourgeoisie, as contrasted with the aristocracy, (b) the musical forms and products specifically tied to Romanticism and (c) the musical infrastructure we inherited from that time.

If this be the case, I cannot agree with you in these points.

First, for all its defaults and sins, the bourgeoisie has the merit of making music --- and art in general --- accessible to a much wider audience than at any time in the past. If we, "middle-class" or "proletarians" as we are, are today able to listen to whatever music suits our tastes, it is precisely because of the social revolution signalled 200 years ago by the rising star of bourgeoisie.

Besides, not every aristocrat was an Eszterhazy, nor every bourgeois a philistine. The aristocratic era "gave" us Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and a plethora of other outstanding composers --- and for this I am grateful. But I'm equally grateful to the bourgeois era for "giving" us Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Brahms, Liszt, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler and a plethora of other outstanding composers. 

Moreover, I deplore the passing of those days when each and every bourgeois home featured at least one musical instrument which was daily used; those days when even the most musically opaque pater familias felt that ensuring a modicum of musical education to his offsprings was something desirable; when music was still a live experience in all its incarnations and the recordings did not yet replace the piano reductions.

Secondly, the musical forms specifically engendered by Romanticism did not appear out of the blue from the whim of the bourgeoisie. The old, strict forms could simply not accommodate specifically Romantic feelings and ideas, such as the love of nature, the primacy of intuition and passion over reason and constraint, the fusion of music and literature a.s.o. It was only too natural that new forms appeared who could convey all the above in a more appropriate and direct way. There's nothing strange in this, nor anything to be feared or regarded unsympathetically.

Third, I am only too grateful to the bourgeois era for "giving" us the public orchestras and concerts and for setting in motion the advent of the recording industry. How could I, who delight in a concert hall, or in the comfort of my home, of my favourite music, condemn or disdain the era who is at the very origin of my delight?  0:)

There --- I felt I was long due to do it: singing the musical praises of the bourgeoisie, that is. 

I hope this extended ramble made at least a bit of sense to you or anyone else.

If yours was an extended ramble, I fear to inquire into how you call my reply. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm so glad I challenged you! I was expecting you to come up with a little gem and voila! --- you did..  0:)

Consciously or inconsciously, you crafted them to correspond to their time: the first is a sonata form and the second a piano fantasy. 

 
Pleased you enjoyed. I did make an effort to stay within the time frames presented (except for the CD's, of course. )

Right from the start, my favourite part.  (Short but effective exposition, almost like a Mannheim rocket, lieber Gottfried Uwe Reinhardt Nepomuk!)

Great development, carefully contructed and elegantly expressed. 

As for the coming home, it's as delightful as the beginning of the journey. 

Clearly our heroes are having a good time, and why not? I would be all a'twitter if we could relive that moment in time. One of the ladies at the piano talking to Haydn was actually the beneficiary of that sonata. She wrote to a friend (in a letter that is preserved) that Haydn played it for her at Esterhazy and dedicated and presented her with it. Just think, it could have been the Blanston Sonata...

This Gurn sounds like he might have been the son of the older one, the Eszterhazy's guest, while Mr. Florestan here certainly has no kinship whatsoever with his namesake above. 

The origins of the Blanston Clan are lost in the mists of time. They are unchanged and unchanging. The Biedermeier's, though, were very reflective of their particular eras. Their very mutability is what made them ideal subjects for this essay...

Why, thanks a lot. I wasn't familiar with this sonata. It sounds fascinating and I'll surely investigate it attentively.

IIRC, the 3 of them together are called The Bosler Sonatas. They were composed in 1783.

Absolutely correct. But this raises an interesting question: if Haydn wrote his music for an audience of connoisseurs --- as he did --- then does it follow that someone whose knowledge of rhetoric is sparse, to put it mildly, will never be able to fully understand and appreciate it?

That is precisely the main argument against "authenticity", as you may know. In the late 20th century there has been a burst of interest in understanding musical rhetoric. There are at least a couple of books on it, one that I know of is called approximately "Rhetoric in Haydn's Music" by Tom Beghin.  If you studied rhetoric at all and the the basic principles of it, then you can learn how to apply it to music. I can't apply it myself because I don't know enough about the structure to recognize the opportunities. Which is the point, I guess. But I certainly understand it when it's written out for me, like the essay in "Haydn & His World" that I got this info from. 

Well, that wouldn't have been bad either --- but I'd have dearly missed our conversation... and Eszterhazy's excellent port, naturally. 

It's good to be da King! 

Alas! But then again, it was the very general mentality that changed, so no surprise. One of the most authoritative witnesses of that change, Herr Hegel, said something to the effect that trying to preserve the cultural forms of the past is hopeless when the very substance of the spirit has changed.

The end of the Enlightenment, the beginning of the Industrial Age, the civilized world was turned on its head in the first half of the 19th century. Much of that was to the good, but some of it was freakin' horrible!

Well, I think I'll amend this "simultaneously" part a bit: at least in the German States, first and foremost in Austria, the aristocracy retained its position and influence long into the 19th century. At one end we have the aristocratic support Beethoven received and at the other King Ludwig's enthusiastic promotion of Wagner, with a good measure of others, notably the Thurn und Taxis, in between.

Sorry, but this needs amendment, too. You make it sound as if the old culture was destroyed in some sort of catastrophy and the bourgeoisie --- I use this term very losely and without any pejorative undertone --- took over its debris. I don't think this is the case. After all, for all direct testimonies we have, the artistic tastes of the bourgeoisie at large were rather conservative and it is exactly in those times that the term "philistine" has been coined. Besides, hardcore Romantics such as Schumann and Berlioz suffered from, and fought against, exactly this philistine spirit of the bourgeoisie. 

Yes, certainly, I was taking a shortcut to save typing.   In the Austro-Hungarian and German states, change didn't come about until at least 1848. In the big picture of history, 50 years is a damned fast change, albeit not simultaneous. As to whether the old culture was destroyed or not, I think it depends on who you were and your position in it. The death of the patronage system, the beginnings of "art for art's sake", the quest for immortality by artists; these were all contributing factors to the destruction of the prevailing culture. If 'destruction' is what has you down, then let me call it evolution then (or de-evolution as our friend Josquin would say : ). This can't devolve into a semantic debate; I'm not talking about essentially picking up the tattered pieces, but things like museums in general (not just sonic ones) didn't exist for paintings and art. It was a cultural change.

Now, that's a rather simplistic --- and unsympathetic, dare I say --- explanation of why public orchestras appeared. Certainly the bourgeoisie's need for entertainment played its part, but I think other forces must be taken into account as well. As the aristocracy slowly but steadily lost its social role, the composers and musicians were no more in the service of this or that aristocrat, who secured them a position and the opportunity to compose and perform, so they needed something else to replace the "ancien regime", and they found it in the municipal orchestras, which thus appear to me not as a mere vehicle of the bourgeoisie's entertaining whims but as a common space built on common interest and a logical consequence of the social changes in effect. After all, there are many Romantic orchestral works with little, if any, entertaining value for a typical bourgeois.

That's as may be; simplicity doesn't mandate inaccuracy. Other than opera houses, concert halls didn't exist. Other than theater orchestras, municipal symphonies didn't exist. That's why Beethoven had to scrounge up musicians himself to premiere his 9th symphony in 1824. The information about the Vienna Philharmonic I got from their own website. I know I seem cynical, but from my POV, if it wasn't because there was money to be made being an impresario and putting on concerts, then it wouldn't have been successful. Publicly funded performance venues may very well have been a source of civic pride, as you say. But if they had been a money losing proposition, then they wouldn't have happened.

For this we cannot be grateful enough, since much of Haydn's work would have been lost forever without it. 

Well, this is rather self-contradictory. On one hand, the old music was no more fashionable and the tastes of the new audiences went in other directions; on the other hand, the very same audience kept some old music in such reverence and awe that it deemed fit to canonize it and to painstakingly catalogue each and every scrap of paper on which Haydn or Mozart penned a tune. Something is lost on me here.

Besides, which were those rigors you mention?

Very true. Although what was found wanting in some works by the Romantic generation could well have been precisely what was their appeal to the generation for which they were written. And if we today find those same works wanting, it only shows that our sensibilities and sympathies are far more closely allied to people who lived closer to our times than to the generations that came before. If you could project Classical/Enlightenment sensibilities forward in time (neat trick!) then I think you would find that Mozart would have been disgusted with much of the Romantics, just like Beethoven was with those of his contemporaries whom he heard. I am not making personal value judgments here, I'm just saying that failing to please the Romantics enough to "make the Canon" does not mean that the music had no value. The fact of the matter is that only a few works of Haydn OR Mozart made the cut in terms of actual performance. They may have revered Haydn, but they didn't play a hell of a lot of his music.

I beg to differ, once again. Liszt was an enormously popular composer and the bourgeois flocked to his concerts and accepted him widely. Yet most of his compositions consisted of nothing else than, or mainly,  paraphrases and caprices on the music of others --- nothing entirely new and original in them.

Mendelssohn was hugely popular in that most bourgeois of all bourgeois countries, Victorian England --- yet his music, for all its beauty, is nothing like entirely new and original.

Oh, I was projecting out past 1860. The results weren't apparent from the beginning, but they were felt strongly later on. I have an interesting book that discusses this phenomenon. I'll meditate on it and remember which it is and dig it out. Liszt was not affected anyway, I was thinking more like Schönberg...

Now, I wonder: had Haydn not come up with something new, original and surprising in every new symphony he composed, would Esterhazy have continued to keep him in his service?

I can't suppose, since he did.   Haydn has lots to say about being original. You should check it out, I think you would find it very interesting. An author to look for is Elaine Sisman.

Actually it's not quite other, at least not from me, and I'll explain you why.

It is my impression --- and if I'm mistaken, please correct me --- that you regard the Romantic era with a certain aloofness: you have little, if any, sympathy for (a) its social backbone, the bourgeoisie, as contrasted with the aristocracy, (b) the musical forms and products specifically tied to Romanticism and (c) the musical infrastructure we inherited from that time.

If this be the case, I cannot agree with you in these points.

First, for all its defaults and sins, the bourgeoisie has the merit of making music --- and art in general --- accessible to a much wider audience than at any time in the past. If we, "middle-class" or "proletarians" as we are, are today able to listen to whatever music suits our tastes, it is precisely because of the social revolution signalled 200 years ago by the rising star of bourgeoisie.

Nothing is all good, and conversely... there is much to love in that era. But when I review the period from 1760 to 1830 and compare it to 1830 to 1900, I find a lot more to like musically in the earlier 60 years than in the later 70. Does that mean I don't like anything about the later 70? Hell no! I can list 7 composers who wrote some stuff I can certainly live with.     As for making value judgments about the people/culture itself, I don't. It is what it is. They are our ancestors, after all, so denying ones roots is self-defeating.

Besides, not every aristocrat was an Eszterhazy, nor every bourgeois a philistine. The aristocratic era "gave" us Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and a plethora of other outstanding composers --- and for this I am grateful. But I'm equally grateful to the bourgeois era for "giving" us Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Brahms, Liszt, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler and a plethora of other outstanding composers. 

Ditto. Well, not Mahler...     

Moreover, I deplore the passing of those days when each and every bourgeois home featured at least one musical instrument which was daily used; those days when even the most musically opaque pater familias felt that ensuring a modicum of musical education to his offsprings was something desirable; when music was still a live experience in all its incarnations and the recordings did not yet replace the piano reductions.

Double ditto. I was brought up with a piano in the house. And other instruments. Family music making time was great fun. It is a gaping hole in modern society to not have that any more.

Secondly, the musical forms specifically engendered by Romanticism did not appear out of the blue from the whim of the bourgeoisie. The old, strict forms could simply not accommodate specifically Romantic feelings and ideas, such as the love of nature, the primacy of intuition and passion over reason and constraint, the fusion of music and literature a.s.o. It was only too natural that new forms appeared who could convey all the above in a more appropriate and direct way. There's nothing strange in this, nor anything to be feared or regarded unsympathetically.

Third, I am only too grateful to the bourgeois era for "giving" us the public orchestras and concerts and for setting in motion the advent of the recording industry. How could I, who delight in a concert hall, or in the comfort of my home, of my favourite music, condemn or disdain the era who is at the very origin of my delight?  0:)

There --- I felt I was long due to do it: singing the musical praises of the bourgeoisie, that is. 

If yours was an extended ramble, I fear to inquire into how you call my reply. 

I have to leave this now, so I can't reply your last. I will be back this evening though. Interesting and enjoyable time.

[DavidRoss]

Great minds, etc.: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17875.msg485632.html#msg485632

If you'll excuse me, gentlemen, there's a Haydn sonata I need to track down.

[Gurn Blanston]

Great minds, etc.: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17875.msg485632.html#msg485632

If you'll excuse me, gentlemen, there's a Haydn sonata I need to track down.

David,
I am really truly interested to know if you can hear and absorb the rhetorical aspects of that sonata. Obviously you wouldn't do it all at once, first listen and without a score, but the plethora of little things, like starting over when something doesn't work, for example. It is the whole point of the thing from Haydn's POV.    I freely admit, it is a major struggle for me. Good thing I like the hell out of the music!   

[Gurn Blanston]

Florestan,
Now, to continue a bit where I left off this morning. The demands of my work sometimes crowd out the pleasure of musical discussion. I don't understand it...    

Secondly, the musical forms specifically engendered by Romanticism did not appear out of the blue from the whim of the bourgeoisie. The old, strict forms could simply not accommodate specifically Romantic feelings and ideas, such as the love of nature, the primacy of intuition and passion over reason and constraint, the fusion of music and literature a.s.o. It was only too natural that new forms appeared who could convey all the above in a more appropriate and direct way. There's nothing strange in this, nor anything to be feared or regarded unsympathetically.

Yes, certainly that is true. One can almost see a dividing line very shortly after the turn of the century when suddenly a crop of composers (obviously ones who had been composing all along) suddenly began to turn from sonatas to such 'new' things as "potpourris" and many more fantasias than previously. Certainly there were fantasias and capriccios before (just look at the output of CPE Bach!). But now they were the norm. And the various other names were merely fantasias in thin disguise. I read something interesting about Carl Maria von Weber (who is my personal candidate for "Father of Romantic Music"). He found it very difficult indeed to compose in 'sonata form', so any time he composed something that 'required' a sonata-allegro first movement, he always wrote the rest of it first and then forced himself to sit down and finally write the opening movement. Eventually he dispensed with sonata form altogether. And several other contemporaries (2 names that jump off the page are Hummel & Spohr) also went full out with less structured forms. But there were certainly others who are chronologically Romantics, but whose music is structured Classically, and I will just throw Mendelssohn's name into the mix and you can decide for yourself. As it happens, I am as big a fan as there is of all 4 of those composers, so no animus from me. However, when you get down to the other end of the century, if you take Brahms out of the mix, you will be hard pressed to name a German composer who has much appeal for me. My Romantics mostly spoke Russian.

Third, I am only too grateful to the bourgeois era for "giving" us the public orchestras and concerts and for setting in motion the advent of the recording industry. How could I, who delight in a concert hall, or in the comfort of my home, of my favourite music, condemn or disdain the era who is at the very origin of my delight?  0:)

There --- I felt I was long due to do it: singing the musical praises of the bourgeoisie, that is. 

If yours was an extended ramble, I fear to inquire into how you call my reply. 

But do you see that the music post <>1850 was being tailored for the concert hall? It has lost the intimacy that it once had, and also the interactivity between composer and audience. In the 18th century, the performer was totally unimportant (to the audience), and only to the composer insofar as he/she had the technical capability of conveying the music properly. In the 19th century, the performer was everything. From the time that Dussek turned his piano sideways so that the women in the audience could enjoy his splendid profile,  through the violin pyrotechnics of Paganini and the piano ones of Liszt, it was the virtuoso who totally dominated the music scene. You shouldn't doubt me here, despite the fact that I'm not writing a book with footnotes, there is documentation aplenty for this. And what I mean by music that didn't stand up to the concert hall is music that didn't have the virtuosity necessary to show off a player to best advantage. And once the audience got used to this, then they didn't care for much of the older music either. Haydn was actually not the darling of these people, he was considered a wise old pedant, a bewigged poop who was a lackey of the ruling classes. The intricacies that so fascinated his contemporaries held no interest for audiences. The only ones who appreciated Haydn were composers and a few critics, which were all that was left of the kenner.

I know this all sounds like I'm really down on all this progress, but actually I'm not. I try to judge each age for what it is, sui generis. So I'm not making a value judgment, merely stating the reality of what was. If I say that I don't like Wagner's music particularly, it isn't because I like Haydn's so much, it's because I don't like Wagner's.  But of Wagner's contemporaries, I am extraordinarily keen on Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Smetana and of course, the titanic Brahms (along with a host of Russians). Maybe you weren't saying that I fail to appreciate Romantic music, but in case you were thinking it, please don't. I am just picky about it, because I don't care for a lot of long-winded poop.

OK, so what else shall we talk about?   I didn't think you were rambling earlier, BTW, but in case it helps, I went ahead and extended my typing more than usual... 

Cheers, amigo,



----------------
Now playing:
Cerasi, Carole - Hob 16 42 Sonata in D for Fortepiano 1st mvmt - Andante con espressione

[Florestan]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies, Gurn!

IIRC, the 3 of them together are called The Bosler Sonatas. They were composed in 1783.

Will surely look for them.

That is precisely the main argument against "authenticity", as you may know. In the late 20th century there has been a burst of interest in understanding musical rhetoric. There are at least a couple of books on it, one that I know of is called approximately "Rhetoric in Haydn's Music" by Tom Beghin.  If you studied rhetoric at all and the the basic principles of it, then you can learn how to apply it to music. I can't apply it myself because I don't know enough about the structure to recognize the opportunities. Which is the point, I guess. But I certainly understand it when it's written out for me, like the essay in "Haydn & His World" that I got this info from. 

Curiously enough, the Communist educational dogma regarded rhetoric as a remnant of the... bourgeois past, unsuitable for a healthy education of the working class and not be taught in schools. My autodidactic knowledge of it is very superficial, so I can't say that this is what I really like in Haydn's music. 

The end of the Enlightenment, the beginning of the Industrial Age, the civilized world was turned on its head in the first half of the 19th century. Much of that was to the good, but some of it was freakin' horrible!

I'm not particularly fond of the Enlightenment, one of the reasons being precisely that it engendered the Industrial Age. 

That being said, you might find it intriguing that, were I to choose when to be born, I'd unhesitatingly say: 1772 (that is, two hundred years earlier than in reality). 

That's as may be; simplicity doesn't mandate inaccuracy. Other than opera houses, concert halls didn't exist. Other than theater orchestras, municipal symphonies didn't exist. That's why Beethoven had to scrounge up musicians himself to premiere his 9th symphony in 1824. The information about the Vienna Philharmonic I got from their own website. I know I seem cynical, but from my POV, if it wasn't because there was money to be made being an impresario and putting on concerts, then it wouldn't have been successful. Publicly funded performance venues may very well have been a source of civic pride, as you say. But if they had been a money losing proposition, then they wouldn't have happened.

Well, here you have Smith's "invisible hand" at work in a most magnificent manner: the profit-seeker impressarios made good money out of publicly funded venues and orchestras, while orchestras, composers and music lovers had more and more opportunities to perform, compose and hear music.   

Now, the quality of that music covered the whole range, from the most vulgar and bombastic to the most spiritually uplifting, but the good news was that accessibility improved as time went by.

Very true. Although what was found wanting in some works by the Romantic generation could well have been precisely what was their appeal to the generation for which they were written. And if we today find those same works wanting, it only shows that our sensibilities and sympathies are far more closely allied to people who lived closer to our times than to the generations that came before.

Agreed. And this can be seen in a strikingly manner from the fact that heavy metal fans are far more likely to appreciate Wagner than Haydn and Mahler than Mozart; some of them even altogether dismiss anything that can be performed with less than a hundred musicians, having chamber music in absolute horror.   

Now, that's indeed a cultural change that smells like involution, or even utter destruction, to me --- but if it is a direct result of the Romantic era or has other causes I wouldn't know.

If you could project Classical/Enlightenment sensibilities forward in time (neat trick!) then I think you would find that Mozart would have been disgusted with much of the Romantics, just like Beethoven was with those of his contemporaries whom he heard.

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. But this argument applies to Romantics as well. Would Schumann have appreciated Stockhausen? Would Berlioz have appreciated Berg? I don't know, but I tend to think that not too much.

I am not making personal value judgments here, I'm just saying that failing to please the Romantics enough to "make the Canon" does not mean that the music had no value.

QFT.

Haydn has lots to say about being original. You should check it out, I think you would find it very interesting. An author to look for is Elaine Sisman.

Thanks, will check it out.

Nothing is all good, and conversely... there is much to love in that era. But when I review the period from 1760 to 1830 and compare it to 1830 to 1900, I find a lot more to like musically in the earlier 60 years than in the later 70. Does that mean I don't like anything about the later 70? Hell no! I can list 7 composers who wrote some stuff I can certainly live with.    

You like what you like, period. It's a matter of taste, inclinations, education --- in short, a matter of personality. Far from me to try to turn you into a Mahlerite.  0:)

Double ditto. I was brought up with a piano in the house. And other instruments. Family music making time was great fun. It is a gaping hole in modern society to not have that any more.

This is one of the greatest cultural (and I daresay even social and moral) "destructions" in the modern world --- and clearly it is not a Romantic inheritance.

The demands of my work sometimes crowd out the pleasure of musical discussion. I don't understand it...    

You should have been a historian of music specialized in the Classical era. 

Yes, certainly that is true. One can almost see a dividing line very shortly after the turn of the century when suddenly a crop of composers (obviously ones who had been composing all along) suddenly began to turn from sonatas to such 'new' things as "potpourris" and many more fantasias than previously. Certainly there were fantasias and capriccios before (just look at the output of CPE Bach!). But now they were the norm. And the various other names were merely fantasias in thin disguise. I read something interesting about Carl Maria von Weber (who is my personal candidate for "Father of Romantic Music"). He found it very difficult indeed to compose in 'sonata form', so any time he composed something that 'required' a sonata-allegro first movement, he always wrote the rest of it first and then forced himself to sit down and finally write the opening movement. Eventually he dispensed with sonata form altogether. And several other contemporaries (2 names that jump off the page are Hummel & Spohr) also went full out with less structured forms.

Interesting. You see, my "theory" is that Classical and Romantic ar not that much strictly artistic labels as constant inclinations of the human mind. Haydn couldn't help being Classic just as Liszt couldn't help being Romantic. Florestan can't help liking Mahler's music just as Gurn can't help disliking it. What gives the character of an entire period is the prevailing mood and mentality which act like both a filter and a framework.

Well, for some people, those who were Romantically inclined long before Romanticism burst out, the filter was too thick and the framework too narrow. Those three fellows you mentioned certainly qualify.

But there were certainly others who are chronologically Romantics, but whose music is structured Classically, and I will just throw Mendelssohn's name into the mix and you can decide for yourself.

I agree completely.

As it happens, I am as big a fan as there is of all 4 of those composers, so no animus from me. However, when you get down to the other end of the century, if you take Brahms out of the mix, you will be hard pressed to name a German composer who has much appeal for me. My Romantics mostly spoke Russian.

Not a bad thing at all. 

But do you see that the music post <>1850 was being tailored for the concert hall?

Certainly, just as music pre <>1850 was tailored for the aristocratic or bourgeois salons. The filter and the framework changed and it couldn't have been any other way.

It has lost the intimacy that it once had, and also the interactivity between composer and audience.

True and to a certain extent deplorable.

Maybe you weren't saying that I fail to appreciate Romantic music, but in case you were thinking it, please don't.

I don't --- and didn't all along.   0:)

These are the points where I felt I had to add a comment. I left out from this reply those paragraphs of yours with which either I agree completely or have quibbles not worth mentioning.

OK, so what else shall we talk about?  

Rhetorical devices and metaphysical assumptions in Haydn's "The Philosopher" Symphony? 

Now that's something that really demands the intimacy of a face-to-face, glass-of-port-in-hand conversation. 

BTW, hardcore internet fora users as we are, don't you feel that the intimacy and the interactivity of the old days friendly meetings is lost? Related: writing letters used to be an art in itself, without which nobody could pretend to be an educated person; while writing e-mails or sms is nothing of the sort, on the contrary.

[Gurn Blanston]

BTW, hardcore internet fora users as we are, don't you feel that the intimacy and the interactivity of the old days friendly meetings is lost? Related: writing letters used to be an art in itself, without which nobody could pretend to be an educated person; while writing e-mails or sms is nothing of the sort, on the contrary.

Greatly enjoyed your reply. I will think about any possible rebuttals and address them later. Meanwhile, as to this, there is no question. As recently as 15 years ago I purchased a new typewriter which I used extensively for about 3 years to write weekly letters to my parents and friends from home. Then suddenly everyone had email and the typewriter got stuck off in a closet.    However, the writing style persisted. You can always tell a person of that generation by their writing style in a post. I read some of my old posts (or even my newer ones that are more extensive) and find that I still try to make them conversational like a letter. The youngsters who were raised on PMs and IMs and texting and the like, simply don't bother with that stuff. So it goes...

[mc ukrneal]

Greatly enjoyed your reply. I will think about any possible rebuttals and address them later. Meanwhile, as to this, there is no question. As recently as 15 years ago I purchased a new typewriter which I used extensively for about 3 years to write weekly letters to my parents and friends from home. Then suddenly everyone had email and the typewriter got stuck off in a closet.    However, the writing style persisted. You can always tell a person of that generation by their writing style in a post. I read some of my old posts (or even my newer ones that are more extensive) and find that I still try to make them conversational like a letter. The youngsters who were raised on PMs and IMs and texting and the like, simply don't bother with that stuff. So it goes...

Dear Gurn,

I must agree. Why, Aunt Gertrude was telling me just yesterday that young Mr Mahler had sent her youngest two invitations. Of course, we both know that she is the worst of gossips. But still, she is a pleasant sort, and one musn't blame Mr. Mahler too much. After all, the follies of youth!!

But I was thinking about what you wrote earlier about intimacy and I cannot entirely agree. One must not forget that salon music was still very much in voque and there are many composers post 1850 that write most intimate music for the 'lay person' to play. Some of it is quite exquisite, though not all of it attracts the listener equally. 

But even if we were to focus on larger scale pieces (it was less than a month ago that I saw Mr. Humperdinck's wonderful opera, Hansel and Gretal - I am sure you would just love this), many of the pieces with 'pyrotechnics' were popular for quite some time. It is only later in the 19th century or early 20th century that many of these pieces began to disappear from the concert hall. I personally believe that we must not ignore the roll that fads have in this dreadful situation.

Well, the post man has arrived to collect the mail, so I must cut short my letter. Our best to you and the family (don't forget to try the new cookie recipe we sent you - they are pure heaven). I hope you manage to get away from work in time to sit with us at Mr. Mahler's new symphony premiere, but we'll hold a spot for you as long as we can (and we understand that they may play some Hadyn quartets in the foyer as we wait, and we know how how much you like those)!!

Ever Your Friend,
Ukrneal