Haydn's Haus

[Karl Henning]

(Or mp3s. Some pop music acts are clearly embracing the death of the album format and the rise of the 'playlist'.)

As in, no attempt at collective flow, we need only worry about one song at a time?  You may be right at that 

[Karl Henning]

I mean, there are "concept albums" we can point to, which make that seem like Progress, no doubt about it!

[Florestan]

Dare I say it... it's time to start listening to CDs of popular music!

Oh, but I do, frequently. Their harmonic, rythmic and dynamic uniformity makes them perfect for background music while I drive. 

[Madiel]

I mean, there are "concept albums" we can point to, which make that seem like Progress, no doubt about it!

Oh, personally I am VERY much about album listening and 'album artists' - popular music artists that give every indication of conceiving their output at an album level. Song cycles, arguably.

A couple of my favourite artists were either slow to allow their music onto iTunes or expressed reservations about it, precisely because it was 'iTunes' and not 'iAlbums'. Some of them don't like the fact that people can buy and listen to songs in isolation.

But then, classical music artists don't all stick to the straight and narrow either. Whether it's swapping movements in symphonies (the Allegretto of Beethoven's 7th being shoved into his other symphonies during his lifetime) or lifting individual songs out of their contexts to be part of 'recitals'.

[Madiel]

Oh, but I do, frequently. Their harmonic, rythmic and dynamic uniformity makes them perfect for background music while I drive. 

Romanians are such kidders.

[Florestan]

Romanians are such kidders.

What makes you think I was kidding? Not wanting to derail this thread, see my reply on the other one.

[Mookalafalas]

Whatever Haydn's intention were, he certainly didn't write music for being recorded on CD. Now you have a big problem. 

  He wrote music to be heard and enjoyed by others.  And when he wrote it he had an idea of what it should sound like.  PI on CD should satisfy those requirements...

[Wakefield]

Whatever Haydn's intention were, he certainly didn't write music for being recorded on CD. Now you have a big problem. 

This time you're wrong, dear Andrei. Men always want a record (any of them) of their achievements and composers are not an exception.

Paraphrasing Mallarmé, I'd say: everything in Music happens in order to end up in a CD. 

[Karl Henning]

Well, Haydn could have imagined neither the modern piano, nor the CD.  If we argue that, because all composers want a record (of any kind) of their achievements, this consideration subsumes the CD -- how can we argue against the modern piano?

[Gurn Blanston]

This time you're wrong, dear Andrei. Men always want a record (any of them) of their achievements and composers are not an exception.

Paraphrasing Mallarmé, I'd say: everything in Music happens in order to end up in a CD. 

He certainly wanted a permanent record, that's why he wrote it down. The fact that a method of storing a realization was developed years after his death in mo way changes what his intentions were when he wrote it. In some ways I will disagree with Marshal McLuhan here: the medium is NOT the message! 

[Wakefield]

Well, Haydn could have imagined neither the modern piano, nor the CD.  If we argue that, because all composers want a record (of any kind) of their achievements, this considering subsumes the CD -- how can we argue against the modern piano?

Personally, I don't really argue against the modern piano, as I don't argue against the Hammond organ or the ukulele for the case.

I just think Haydn's music is better served with instruments that he could actually listen to. I think it's not arbitrary to assume that the music he imagined in his mind while he was writing, sounded more as a pianoforte than as a modern grand.

That said, no doubt his technical solutions for musical problems had in mind instruments of his own age. I never forget that these old composers were essentially practical men, not abstract theoreticians.   

[Wakefield]

He certainly wanted a permanent record, that's why he wrote it down. The fact that a method of storing a realization was developed years after his death in mo way changes what his intentions were when he wrote it. In some ways I will disagree with Marshal McLuhan here: the medium is NOT the message! 

I only disagree with the last part: McLuhan is our friend, PI are an essential part of the message! 

[Gurn Blanston]

I only disagree with the last part: McLuhan is our friend, PI are an essential part of the message! 

Yes, I don't disagree with him on everything, only that where we get our presentation from has changed in ways he couldn't imagine.   

[Pat B]

"Specimens"? So the downfall started when selling tickets began and the public was allowed in? I'm afraid my friend we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one (as you say).

To me it's cyclical. New opportunities are what keep the artistic engines running. If Haydn's "little den of chamber arts" is whisked away by a public gone mad with Haydn fever then I say let the walls crumble. If the Op.64 is anything to go by I'd say Haydn had no problems adapting to his new surroundings. To me the Op.64 is just what the musical doctor ordered: sophisticated, dapper, resourceful, and ready to be unleashed on the wider public.

I see this as two steps forward, one step back. It's great that more people gained access to his music. At the same time, something gets lost when the intimacy of the living room is replaced by the formality of the concert hall.

[Gurn Blanston]

I see this as two steps forward, one step back. It's great that more people gained access to his music. At the same time, something gets lost when the intimacy of the living room is replaced by the formality of the concert hall.

Wish I had said that...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I used that word intentionally to get a reaction from you. I like that!   

That's not playing fair! (but I like it!)

Also, you shouldn't think I don't like QM. They just aren't my favorite. 

Oh, it doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks about the QM. But painting them as a clown outfit is a gross mischaracterization. That's all.  

[Karl Henning]

Wish I had said that...

You will, Oscar. You will.

[Wakefield]

Speaking of PI, I think this disk claims a careful consideration:

[asin]ASIN: B001FENZAW[/asin]

Opus 77 & Opus 103

Delightful playing in fantastic sound quality.

http://edding-quartet.com/en/edding-quartet/

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I see this as two steps forward, one step back. It's great that more people gained access to his music. At the same time, something gets lost when the intimacy of the living room is replaced by the formality of the concert hall.

What you're saying echoes Gurn's post almost to the letter:

I like music for its original intention. Which is why I don't like full-blown modern orchestras playing music from 1775, Haydn or otherwise. Sure, it sounds great, not saying otherwise. It doesn't please me.

So I'm not sure I see your point, Pat B.

As I said, even the great Haydn himself took his exit from the living room and ventured into the waters of the greater public. No secret there.

So it's difficult for me to imagine Haydn putting the stops on anyone playing his pre-1775 music publicly. No step backward that I can detect in that.

[Pat B]

What you're saying echoes Gurn's post almost to the letter:

So I'm not sure I see your point, Pat B.

As I said, even the great Haydn himself took his exit from the living room and ventured into the waters of the greater public. No secret there.

So it's difficult for me to imagine Haydn putting the stops on anyone playing his pre-1775 music publicly. No step backward that I can detect in that.

My point was between the lines in Gurn's previous post, but not related to Gurn's comment about intention (which isn't even true for me). My statement was a simple one about the difference between small venues and large venues, and the relationship between performer and audience.

If you can't detect any trade-off in larger venues then we should probably agree to disagree.