Haydn's Haus

[Elgarian]

Bearing in mind that the audience of that time was different than that of today, he sought their agreement (that is; approval) with his argument. Clearly he often won. The 19th century totally saw the end of this form of music appreciation, which is why it seems so foreign today as to be unlikely. But to the 18th century, it was simply the way things were.

This is (when I was bored by it) how I accepted music of the classical period to be. The irony here is that now I've found a deep pleasure in the music (and so, one might suppose, have finally begun to understand it), I no longer experience it as emotionless. Indeed, we were discussing a couple of weeks ago, Gurn, about what seemed to be Haydn's joyful response to life seeming to be characterised in the music. I find it hard to believe that that sense of joy is all pure pathetic fallacy.

But OK, OK, you mention that it has to be hard to believe, because I'm a post-romantic, not a denizen of the Age of Enlightenment. It's not actually possible for me to share that world view, and my incredulity isn't disproof. And yet ... just as today, I find the people who most claimed to be driven by rational thought are invariably those who are most blind to the effect of their emotions on their thinking, so I wonder about the Age of Enlightenment. I'm sceptical of their quasi-rational interpretations of what they thought they were doing. Dr Johnson was forever prey to his emotions. Boswell was pulled hither and thither by his, to such an extent that one wonders how much control he had over his life. I've never been particularly convinced that those (wonderful) guys really understood themselves, and the significance of their work. It wouldn't shock me to discover that such basic self-misunderstandings were endemic in the period.

I say this, merely thinking aloud to see where it takes me. The whole business seems rather insecure.

[Gurn Blanston]

This is (when I was bored by it) how I accepted music of the classical period to be. The irony here is that now I've found a deep pleasure in the music (and so, one might suppose, have finally begun to understand it), I no longer experience it as emotionless. Indeed, we were discussing a couple of weeks ago, Gurn, about what seemed to be Haydn's joyful response to life seeming to be characterised in the music. I find it hard to believe that that sense of joy is all pure pathetic fallacy.

But OK, OK, you mention that it has to be hard to believe, because I'm a post-romantic, not a denizen of the Age of Enlightenment. It's not actually possible for me to share that world view, and my incredulity isn't disproof. And yet ... just as today, I find the people who most claimed to be driven by rational thought are invariably those who are most blind to the effect of their emotions on their thinking, so I wonder about the Age of Enlightenment. I'm sceptical of their quasi-rational interpretations of what they thought they were doing. Dr Johnson was forever prey to his emotions. Boswell was pulled hither and thither by his, to such an extent that one wonders how much control he had over his life. I've never been particularly convinced that those (wonderful) guys really understood themselves, and the significance of their work. It wouldn't shock me to discover that such basic self-misunderstandings were endemic in the period.

I say this, merely thinking aloud to see where it takes me. The whole business seems rather insecure.

I totally don't look at it as being anything less than joyful, even if it's rhetorical. That word is fraught with meaning, but in 1780, none of those meanings were negative. Rhetoric merely provided a structure for expression. One can't sit down and say "I'm happy today, I'll write a tune, shall I?". And what if I wasn't happy today? I'm not going to inflict that on all my listeners.

"I am writing today because by the grace of God, my Prince has asked me to compose a symphony for his gala on Friday".

Rhetoric (in the good sense) provides me with a means to express my musical ideas. To make a joke based on your expectations of what you thought I was going to write. When the argument logically proceeded to here, I went there instead and left you shaking your head. HAW!

The mere fact that fixed structure created expectations in the listener was enough to provide a wealth of opportunities for the clever composer to play games with it.

One of the big differences in 'Romantic' style is that structure is far less fixed or formal. No one 'breaks a rule' because there aren't any. How can you have expectations then? How can I make a joke by foiling them? Can't do it, and can't understand now what Haydn was doing either. So screw him, he was just an old doofus anyway. That's what history says happened. Makes sense to me, although it is my words there and you probably wouldn't ever read it that way in a book.

[Elgarian]

I totally don't look at it as being anything less than joyful, even if it's rhetorical. That word is fraught with meaning, but in 1780, none of those meanings were negative. Rhetoric merely provided a structure for expression. One can't sit down and say "I'm happy today, I'll write a tune, shall I?". And what if I wasn't happy today? I'm not going to inflict that on all my listeners.

"I am writing today because by the grace of God, my Prince has asked me to compose a symphony for his gala on Friday".

Rhetoric (in the good sense) provides me with a means to express my musical ideas. To make a joke based on your expectations of what you thought I was going to write. When the argument logically proceeded to here, I went there instead and left you shaking your head. HAW!

I get this - I really do. It has similar characteristics to the witty crossword puzzle clue, where the word play and unexpected twists of meaning can produce a thrilling response in the solver.

One of the big differences in 'Romantic' style is that structure is far less fixed or formal. No one 'breaks a rule' because there aren't any. How can you have expectations then? How can I make a joke by foiling them? Can't do it, and can't understand now what Haydn was doing either. So screw him, he was just an old doofus anyway. That's what history says happened. Makes sense to me, although it is my words there and you probably wouldn't ever read it that way in a book.

Spot on, this, too. I'm with you all the way there, Gurn. So where, you (or I) might ask, is my problem? I think my concern is about the word 'expression', and what, exactly, is being expressed. And is what's really being expressed the same as the composer thinks is being expressed? So I'm confronting questions like: 'Is joy an emotion?'. If Haydn builds a musical structure that elicits joyfulness in him, and that also elicits joyfulness in us when we listen to it, has he not found (albeit inadvertently) a vehicle for expressing joy? Don't get me wrong - I'm acknowledging that the intention is entirely non-Romantic: that is, here are two people, composer and listener, contemplating the same object and being joyful about it. We're focused on the object, not the feeling. But still we do get the feeling. If I show you the loveliest stamp in my stamp collection,* my intention is to show you the stamp; but I won't be surprised if you go a bit weepy.

I'm almost tempted to wonder (if only to give people the fun of knocking it down) if Haydn is clearly saying 'Look at this', while the Romantic is very nearly saying 'Look at me'.


*I don't have a stamp collection, by the way.

[chasmaniac]

I'm almost tempted to wonder (if only to give people the fun of knocking it down) if Haydn is clearly saying 'Look at this', while the Romantic is very nearly saying 'Look at me'.

Hammer, meet the nail's head. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I get this - I really do. It has similar characteristics to the witty crossword puzzle clue, where the word play and unexpected twists of meaning can produce a thrilling response in the solver.

Spot on, this, too. I'm with you all the way there, Gurn. So where, you (or I) might ask, is my problem? I think my concern is about the word 'expression', and what, exactly, is being expressed. And is what's really being expressed the same as the composer thinks is being expressed? So I'm confronting questions like: 'Is joy an emotion?'. If Haydn builds a musical structure that elicits joyfulness in him, and that also elicits joyfulness in us when we listen to it, has he not found (albeit inadvertently) a vehicle for expressing joy? Don't get me wrong - I'm acknowledging that the intention is entirely non-Romantic: that is, here are two people, composer and listener, contemplating the same object and being joyful about it. We're focused on the object, not the feeling. But still we do get the feeling. If I show you the loveliest stamp in my stamp collection,* my intention is to show you the stamp; but I won't be surprised if you go a bit weepy.

I'm almost tempted to wonder (if only to give people the fun of knocking it down) if Haydn is clearly saying 'Look at this', while the Romantic is very nearly saying 'Look at me'.


*I don't have a stamp collection, by the way.

All interesting questions, well-deserving of a more knowledgeable response than I am probably capable of. But my gut feeling is that sharing my delight in something with you is not the same as doing something with the sole intent of delighting you (or irritating or any other reaction). We know from Haydn's own words that playing musical jokes on listeners was one of his main joys in life. He said as much several times.

I am totally in agreement with your last bit. Perhaps it is that (perceived) aspect of Romantic music that drives me towards Classical, which seems opposite to what many have said. I think Mozart was way more Haydnish than the Romantics who tried to co-opt him for themselves would have liked to believe. It is a basic difference in the way people perceived society in one century versus the subsequent one. We would all like to believe that the way we think now is the way that people have always thought. Clearly it is not so.

[Elgarian]

It is a basic difference in the way people perceived society in one century versus the subsequent one. We would all like to believe that the way we think now is the way that people have always thought. Clearly it is not so.

A statement worth carving on a tablet of stone and erecting in every art-critical marketplace. The failure to understand that has generated more nonsensical art criticism than ..., than ..., ... an automatic nonsensical criticism generator would.

One problem in resolving all this is the fact that Romanticism is such a gigantic undefinable sprawling thing. Clearly, my contentious statement about Romanticism (that the Romantic artist is saying 'Look at me') fails at the first hurdle. One only needs, in the visual arts, to look at someone like J.M.W. Turner - or in music, Brahms or Wagner, to recognise the falsity of it. Still, it might be worth extending it to something like 'look at how I see this'. But that's another story, and beyond the pale for this thread.

[Leo K.]

Kudos gentleman all, on this thread, for such a wonderful, thought out discussion. So many good points regarding classical and romantic music.

Particularly I like:

"I'm almost tempted to wonder (if only to give people the fun of knocking it down) if Haydn is clearly saying 'Look at this', while the Romantic is very nearly saying 'Look at me'."

"I think Mozart was way more Haydnish than the Romantics who tried to co-opt him for themselves would have liked to believe. It is a basic difference in the way people perceived society in one century versus the subsequent one. We would all like to believe that the way we think now is the way that people have always thought. Clearly it is not so."

"I am writing today because by the grace of God, my Prince has asked me to compose a symphony for his gala on Friday".

[Gurn Blanston]

Kudos gentleman all, on this thread, for such a wonderful, thought out discussion. So many good points regarding classical and romantic music.

Thanks, Leo. At first I thought that we might be going a bit far afield by going down that avenue. But in thinking about it, how can one divorce Haydn's reception history from the history of his music in general. The entire concept of that one statement (it isn't an exact quote, but a paraphrase) was so alien to the 19th century that the concept alone was enough to relegate Haydn to the 4th or 5th rank of composers. This despite the fact that his music was generally recognized by them as being so good that it never disappeared from concert programs! That in itself should be enough to give you some strange thoughts about The Romantic Generation, eh? 

[Elgarian]

Kudos gentleman all, on this thread, for such a wonderful, thought out discussion. So many good points regarding classical and romantic music.

One of the best I've had recently. It was a lot of fun bouncing stuff at Gurn and getting such interesting and knowledgeable returns. What I've particularly enjoyed is not that I resolved a few questions once and for all (I rarely if ever do that, at the best of times), but that I carried away a series of conflicting thoughts that I could chew over while riding my bike, washing the dishes, etc. leading to a possible fresh perspective; or rather, to a way of moving towards a possible fresh perspective. I haven't quite got answers, but I've got some different questions.

Incidentally, I've noticed that Europadisc are selling vols 2, 3 and 7 of the Festetics Haydn quartets at £10.50 each (an offer that runs out tomorrow), so I listened to some samples. Crikey - they really are not at all like the Mosaiques, are they? Better or worse? I can't say and don't care. It may be a non-question. Certainly they sound scrunchy, exciting, and vibrant. So I've ordered these three sets.

[Gurn Blanston]

Incidentally, I've noticed that Europadisc are selling vols 2, 3 and 7 of the Festetics Haydn quartets at £10.50 each (an offer that runs out tomorrow), so I listened to some samples. Crikey - they really are not at all like the Mosaiques, are they? Better or worse? I can't say and don't care. It may be a non-question. Certainly they sound scrunchy, exciting, and vibrant. So I've ordered these three sets.

That's a great bargain, Alan. Glad you could take advantage of it (I wish I could have got them for that!). You picked up on the difference just off the samples. As Antoine Marchand calls it, they sound like they're playing at a party (rather than a recital). That is the attraction for him, Que and myself (at least). And the sticking point for some others. No matter, you will either like them or not, but not because they aren't fun.

[Elgarian]

As Antoine Marchand calls it, they sound like they're playing at a party (rather than a recital). That is the attraction for him, Que and myself (at least).

Oh that's perfectly described. Even in the 30-second snippets I can tell that everyone present has been given a free balloon, and if there are free balloons on offer, then I want in. I'm quietly thinking that I may end up with the best of all possible worlds, actually, to get two ends of a spectrum like this. I had the Mosaiques in the player, and the Festetics on screen, playing the same 30 second samples alternately from each. (This is not a process called 'listening to music'; it's more like 'pin the tail on the donkey'.) But I tell you, there was some gasping and chuckling, and 'ooohing' and 'aaaahing'  going on.

[Gurn Blanston]

Oh that's perfectly described. Even in the 30-second snippets I can tell that everyone present has been given a free balloon, and if there are free balloons on offer, then I want in. I'm quietly thinking that I may end up with the best of all possible worlds, actually, to get two ends of a spectrum like this. I had the Mosaiques in the player, and the Festetics on screen, playing the same 30 second samples alternately from each. (This is not a process called 'listening to music'; it's more like 'pin the tail on the donkey'.) But I tell you, there was some gasping and chuckling, and 'ooohing' and 'aaaahing'  going on.

  Well, somewhere here, recently, I commented that the reason I liked the Mosaiques less was that they are too perfect. Which may well sound crazy on my part, but I like my Haydn well-played but a bit on the rollicking side. Festetics provide that. Minkowski does int he symphonies too. And others, of course. I just don't look at this as recital music. Instead, it's the music I live with. I want it out of the freakin' museum and in my living room.



----------------
Now playing:
Apollo Ensemble; Hsu - Hob 01_064 Symphony in A 1st mvmt - Allegro con spirito

[Leo K.]

Some Haydn that is a bit off the beaten track, at least for me, that I have recently acquired and enjoyed very much:

[asin]B0000057DU[/asin]

I'm really getting into this disk!!! Fantastic playing and mastering, and it contains one of my most treasured musical works, Haydn's Trumpet Concerto 

[TheGSMoeller]

I'm really getting into this disk!!! Fantastic playing and mastering, and it contains one of my most treasured musical works, Haydn's Trumpet Concerto 

Coincidence?      I have the oboe concerto right now! This disc along with Pinnock's Stabat Mater recording have been my most recent favorites from Papa Joseph.

[Leo K.]

Coincidence?      I have the oboe concerto right now! This disc along with Pinnock's Stabat Mater recording have been my most recent favorites from Papa Joseph.

Nice!

I also LOVE Pinnock's account of Stabat Mater. INcredible. 

[Leo K.]

(original cover?)

Another great, inspirational Haydn recording! I'm sure Gurn will get to this is due time, but I'd like to mention it and say, wow! It is a rare experience to hear these early works, Cantate from ca.1763-65!

The recording is wonderfully warm and detailed, and the performances are sharp and exciting, with much enthusiam. The works themselves, at least my first experience with the first cantata on the disk, is very much operatic.

[Elgarian]

I'm really getting into this disk!!! Fantastic playing and mastering, and it contains one of my most treasured musical works, Haydn's Trumpet Concerto 

This is going to cost me money again, isn't it Leo?

[Leo K.]

This is going to cost me money again, isn't it Leo?

Oops!  I have a feeling it might!

When I think 18th Century, and want to exist in that world, Haydn's Trumpet Concerto is about the perfect time capsule! And, it is a most beautiful reflective work, not without fun and charm.

[Gurn Blanston]

This is going to cost me money again, isn't it Leo?

Actually, that disk is generally available for a very few pounds, well worth it. There is another version that I haven't heard because it seemingly can't be purchased, and which is reputedly of a very high standard, but I always try to rec stuff you can actually buy, and this is the one to get. I do like the Hogwood version too, but I think to at least some degree, the authenticity is provided by the obvious struggle that the player has with the instrument, which he (to his credit) overcomes, but not without an ass-kicking along the way.







----------------
Now playing:
Vienna Philharmonic; Schmidt-Isserstedt - Op 125 Symphony #9 in d 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo, un poco maestoso

[Elgarian]

Actually, that disk is generally available for a very few pounds, well worth it.

Not a very few, at present. Having done the rounds, it seems I can get one for about £12 including postage (£10 if I order from the US), and the Hogwood is about the same. I'll wait a bit and keep my eye on things - I've spent far too much this month, taking advantage of immediate bargains.

Footnote: Just been listening to samples: I now realise how famous the trumpet concerto is! I just had never known what it was.