Haydn's Haus

[mc ukrneal]

You make a valid point, Jeffrey, and if that was Gordon's point, I heartily wish he had made it, and confined himself to it

There is the avuncular assurance (here, alas! a little disingenuous) that the matter is "childishly simple," yet in that brief statement, he loads negative baggage onto the word "progress" which is absolutely unchildlike.

Your point, that the Beautiful of its nature is timeless, and the idea of Progress does not apply, is (I should think) a given. But the assertion that there is no progress in the practice of art? (For the "childish simplicity" here strikes me as little more than lassitude.) Not the reasonably nuanced "there are aspects of the progress which I find æsthetically questionable," but just, "nope, ain't no sech thing."

In the Art of Music, alone, there are myriad facets of progress. (What, the fully chromatic concert harp is not an instance of progress? And once we acknowledge the obvious -- that it is progress -- is there anyone present who has a serious æsthetic problem with it?)

Let's bring this back to the thread topic. Who among us Haydn enthusiasts seriously believes that our "Papa" did not make progress in his practice of composition over a long and wonderfully productive career? Who denies that exposure to "Papa's" string quartets was a catalyst (I think I use that correctly) for progress in Mozart's composition

I shall pause and wait for an answer

I am not sure that I agree with you. If you were to substitute the word 'development' for the word 'progress', I think I could agree without issue. But progress - what is progress in this contect? I'm reminded of the story in Stephen Covey's book, where someone climbs a tree only to see the road is not being built to the destination. He comes down and explains they are going in the wrong direction, but everyone keeps going in the same direction, because they are making so much progress. Progress is too subjective for me, as it implies a direction that is more desired or desireable. Development is more neutral in this respect. Maybe the development is bad, but it is development nonetheless.

[George]

This needs to be made into a sticker I can buy.

A sure fire chick magnet . . . in a graveyard.

[Gurn Blanston]

AFAIK, the BAT is the only group who performs these works using the optional violin instead of the flute. Trio 1790 simply skip them altogether (there are some wonderful options if you want a list). Another group that says they use the violin is the Van Sweiten Trio on Brilliant, but in the event, they use the flute also.  I got rid of my BAT years ago, before this became an issue for me, so I can't swear that they do it on a fiddle, but I completely believe so, I have no memory of it being any other way.   

[Gurn Blanston]

I am not sure that I agree with you. If you were to substitute the word 'development' for the word 'progress', I think I could agree without issue. But progress - what is progress in this contect? I'm reminded of the story in Stephen Covey's book, where someone climbs a tree only to see the road is not being built to the destination. He comes down and explains they are going in the wrong direction, but everyone keeps going in the same direction, because they are making so much progress. Progress is too subjective for me, as it implies a direction that is more desired or desireable. Development is more neutral in this respect. Maybe the development is bad, but it is development nonetheless.

Perhaps you will look at my post and see if it says the same as you are doing. To me, the entire idea of some inexorable journey towards eventual perfection (if taken to the n^th degree) is wrong headed. Speaking of Haydn's career specifically, I think that the works he produced in the late 1750's were fully developed within the constraints of art as it existed in the late 1750's. They are not some misbegotten or immature stepping stone on the road to Classicism. And while no one here has said that, I put it out there because it has been the prevailing belief since the early 19th century, and even now is taught, albeit indirectly, in music history courses. It reminds me of Creationism....

[Gurn Blanston]

I have (AND ADORE) the BAT set, so I can check if you give me the Hob #'s.

15, 16 & 17, George.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, they are in there. (and as with the rest, played by a violin, cello and piano)

Thanks, George. Actually, only 2 of them are "violin optional", the 3rd is flute obbligato. But we'll let them slide with that. They are so good, after all.

[Madiel]

Hang on, are you sure the Trio 1790 skip them? I could have sworn that when I did a search they came up...

...ah yes. Faulty search that assumed that anything called 'complete' piano trios would have, you know, all the piano trios!

As for options for the flute trios, yes please.  The one I immediately noticed as easy to get hold of would be the Naxos one (Grodd, Rummel and Hinterhuber) but feel free to tell me all your best, esoteric choices! 

[Gurn Blanston]

Still composition is a craft.  Someone of Haydn's caliber could not help but learn from his practice over time and perfect the craft of his composition.  But all change is not progress.  I forget who said that, but it is true.

Yes, certainly the craftsman gets better with time, develops new ideas, abandons old ones etc. But does that constitute a qualitative change in the music? I suppose that would be the point of contention. However it misses the bigger point, that traditional musicology from the time of Haydn's death has labeled all of his earlier works, before the Op 33 quartets to be precise, as being deficient in some way. Full Classicism was only achieved at that point. And they go further in saying that this is what Haydn was striving for! Which is only now coming to be regarded as the bullshit that it really is. I am positing that each work at whatever time it was composed took full advantage of the composers art, within the framework of what that art comprised at the time. They were no "stepping stones" to anything!  That is historical revisionism and ex post facto twisting of reality to fit a philosophy.  I would like to go back in time to when he completed Op 33 and tell him 'I say, old man, you've just invented Classicism!'. To which he would of course, say 'Cool, I always wanted to do that'.   

[Gurn Blanston]

Hang on, are you sure the Trio 1790 skip them? I could have sworn that when I did a search they came up...

...ah yes. Faulty search that assumed that anything called 'complete' piano trios would have, you know, all the piano trios!

As for options for the flute trios, yes please.  The one I immediately noticed as easy to get hold of would be the Naxos one (Grodd, Rummel and Hinterhuber) but feel free to tell me all your best, esoteric choices! 

Not esoteric, but my favorites are La Gaia Scienza on Winter & Winter;



If you have good sources for cpo, you can do what I did when I first realized that the flute trios weren't going to be on the 1790 disk;



Both of those are excellent. With interesting things thrown in too.

If neither of those appeals to you, let me know, I have about 4 or 5 more, all of which are very good!

[mc ukrneal]

Perhaps you will look at my post and see if it says the same as you are doing. To me, the entire idea of some inexorable journey towards eventual perfection (if taken to the n^th degree) is wrong headed. Speaking of Haydn's career specifically, I think that the works he produced in the late 1750's were fully developed within the constraints of art as it existed in the late 1750's. They are not some misbegotten or immature stepping stone on the road to Classicism. And while no one here has said that, I put it out there because it has been the prevailing belief since the early 19th century, and even now is taught, albeit indirectly, in music history courses. It reminds me of Creationism....

It does seem we are in the same vein. But I do think composers generally improve as they write, not because the ability is any different, but because they are building upon experiences that help them write something that more closely matches their vision. I should add that these newer pieces are not necessarily better.

I CAN say this about progress - I am making very little, as I recently made a purchase which included a composer I swore I would not buy more of for at least a few years as I already have so much of his, but how could I resist this at Berkshire (at least, I think it's this one)...
[asin]B00475Q1W0[/asin]

[Gurn Blanston]

A composer learns his craft by composing.  And over time will gain more and more knowledge about and control of the writing.  What this means is he will more consistently achieve the music he imagines in his mind.   But we are really talking about different things: you are talking about styles and I am talking about a mastery of the skill of composing.  Transferring what Haydn heard in his mind (both early on and later in his career) to paper and in a manner which performers would interpret as he imagined it is all bound up in his craft.  We can never know what Haydn thought of his early works, but I would guess that he might recognize some places where (knowing what he knew later in life composing) he might re-write since at an earlier stage he was not as skilled at capturing what he heard in his head and what he put done on paper..

Yes, that's why I wasn't arguing with you, I was merely trying to explain my point. I will take it a step further since you have clarified it a bit, it is my opinion that when people say "this music is better than that music", they are not really talking about the craftsmanship of the music, but about the combination of style and musical ideas. This is why I don't really consider improvement in technique to be part of 'better', I just sort of take that as a given (without dreaming of saying it doesn't exist!! ).

Actually, late in life when he wasn't composing any more, he went through his scores and found things like the Mass in F from 1749. Breitkopf bought all that stuff up. Anyway, he took and added instrumentation (winds etc) to it to 'bring it up to modern standards', as he said.  It is MY opinion that the 55 intervening years of learning and experience did nothing at all for the piece, which is perfect with the original scoring of 2 violins & baßo. I say perfect here stylistically, since it has a lot of mistakes in the craftsmanship (parallel 5th and all that stuff), but perfect in its musical ideas and missa brevis style.   0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

It does seem we are in the same vein. But I do think composers generally improve as they write, not because the ability is any different, but because they are building upon experiences that help them write something that more closely matches their vision. I should add that these newer pieces are not necessarily better.

I CAN say this about progress - I am making very little, as I recently made a purchase which included a composer I swore I would not buy more of for at least a few years as I already have so much of his, but how could I resist this at Berkshire (at least, I think it's this one)...
[asin]B00475Q1W0[/asin]

Neal,
Yeah, while you were gone, San and I went down that road, more or less. Certainly craftsmanship is improved, never a doubt. But Haydn was a bottomless well of musical ideas, and his early ideas are every bit as 'good' as his later ones. He just continually developed different means to express them, and as they more closely matched our ideas of what 'ideal' music should be, then the more we can mentally apply the label 'better' to them.

That would appear to be an outstanding CD. Just for fun, you might next time listen with a view of whether you think the musical ideas expressed in 1771, 1781 and 1797 are all equally brilliant. Boy, those are some great quartets there!   

[Karl Henning]

Yes, certainly the craftsman gets better with time, develops new ideas, abandons old ones etc. But does that constitute a qualitative change in the music?

I should find it exceeding strange if the composer himself did not think so. This, though (to address in part, part of your post which I do not here cite), is not to say that the earlier works are necessarily deficient (or necessarily deficient).  I do not find anything deficient in even the earliest symphonies, though I think one is straining a point to claim that there was no progress made by the time of the London symphonies.

Where (much though I like the piece) I am inclined to think that there is a deficiency (though not fatal) in, e.g., the Beethoven Op.21 . . . what is the deficiency, exactly?  That it is insufficiently . . . like Beethoven, I suppose. In a way that I do not find even the earliest Haydn symphonies to be like himself.

It does seem we are in the same vein. But I do think composers generally improve as they write, not because the ability is any different, but because they are building upon experiences that help them write something that more closely matches their vision. I should add that these newer pieces are not necessarily better.

An important insight here (my part in the conversation was much delayed, because, hey, I had to work a full day on Saturday).  In my view (nor do I think it eccentric), of course the art is Progressing, because there is constantly a greater body of literature behind the creative soul, informing his work.  Is a Sibelius symphony "better" than a Beethoven symphony? Qua composition, the question is absurd. (There are facets, probably, whereby the question is not absurd.)  This ties in with how ultimately pathetic A Certain Former Member's goal is, of writing "just like Mendelssohn" in the 21^st century (apart from questions, very practical questions, of his notational and compositional competence) was.

[Karl Henning]

. . . In a way that I do not find even the earliest Haydn symphonies to be like himself.

Cor, what an infelicitous typo. In a way that I do not find even the earliest Haydn symphonies to be unlike himself, of course I meant.

[Gurn Blanston]

I should find it exceeding strange if the composer himself did not think so. This, though (to address in part, part of your post which I do not here cite), is not to say that the earlier works are necessarily deficient (or necessarily deficient).  I do not find anything deficient in even the earliest symphonies, though I think one is straining a point to claim that there was no progress made by the time of the London symphonies.

Well, the quality of quality is tough to pin down. The quality of which you speak here (which I agree with you, let it be said) can be illustrated easily enough. Hypothetically, you have the idea for inserting a deceptive cadence at the end of the development. The way you did it in your 2nd symphony is not the way you would do it in your 63rd. That is improved craftsmanship and yes, certainly qualitative improvement. But what I am after here is the idea of using a deceptive cadence there, and the stylistic sense that lets you know it is the right thing to do. The idea is the beginning of the art process. The continuation of the process comes in the style judgement. The execution of it is the culmination. So, what I am saying is that two out of three of these things are equally present from the beginning; the idea and the stylistic sense. The craftsmanship will certainly be improved,  I'm just not sure that this constitutes 'better music' with its corollary implication that what came before is deficient. It is difficult for me to express this more clearly, ignorant bastard that I am.

[Gurn Blanston]

Another saying, "you can't step into the same river twice", meaning in this context that composers will often choose not to revisit a piece of music, especially one from many years prior since it is impossible for them to re-enter their mind of that time.  A revision would most likely turn into a brand new work entirely (something that can be observed with Pierre Boulez's successive revisions of earlier works).  That said, I don't disagree with you, really, the early music is good for what it is as is the later music, and there is not much point (IMO) in attempting to compare one to the other.

For myself, I actually prefer the earlier style, in general, especially concerning the symphonies.

Yes, indeed you cannot. Given the intervening years, it would be impossible to recapture the muse which led to the original. It is analogous to *shudders* Mahler's "Beethoven's" Ninth. Given Haydn's great age, the distance in time isn't that much different either!

I suppose I have already tipped my hand on that score....

[Wakefield]

I note that you have not addressed any of my points. I thank you for conceding them. Your fencing here also underscores my point about your disingenuousness. I thank you for that, as well.

I thought your points had been aptly responded by Gurn in Reply #5770; so, I didn't consider necessary to repeat something similar.

Anyway, sorry if my last response was a bit rough, but I think you haven't noticed that "progress" is a notion ideologically biased: It's the assumption that human history is a triumphal march towards the perfection, with every new generation surpassing the achievements and skills of the previous one in every thinkable aspect. If you think this way, well, you're not alone because many illustrious men have thought so; but you should be aware that "progress" is not a "descriptive" notion, but a philosophical one, with its own history and origins in the XVII Century, as I said before, probably during the "Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns." 

[Madiel]

To qualitatively measure a piece of music, one must first work out what it was trying to achieve.  It is pointless to say that piece A doesn't do as good a job as piece B if it wasn't trying to do the same things as piece B.

[Mandryka]

If the CD is dead, I'm a necrophiliac.

Somehow that has reminded me of Anthony Powell's series of novels called Dance to the Music of Time, where one of the characters falls so much in love with a necrophiliac that she kills herself to please him.

[Gurn Blanston]

To qualitatively measure a piece of music, one must first work out what it was trying to achieve.  It is pointless to say that piece A doesn't do as good a job as piece B if it wasn't trying to do the same things as piece B.

This is a good observation and a point that hasn't been raised yet. One of the more interesting topics for essays in the Haydn literature is what consisted the audience for various genres of works at different times. And consequently what aspect of the music arose to meet a specific audience requirement. An example is the loud, attention getting introduction at the beginning of the quartets Op 71/74, since they were being played in a concert hall in London. This stylistic change is clearly tied to a goal (the fact that as a unit of music it dates back at least to the Italian opera overture isn't relevant). I would like to hear some thoughts about other examples.