Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

This ongoing discussion has rather informed my thoughts for this latest essay. Not from an argumentative POV, of course, but strictly as a desire to provide information to any and all who are interested in the thoughts of the time. Please have a read, it's short (for me)

Le Siècle des Lumières beyond France

Thanks,

[Mandryka]

Thanks for doing that.

This idea of the expressive, meaning creating self which is so central to Sturm und Dang, I know it's sometimes presented as if it popped up out of nowhere in the 1770s, as if it just  popped  into the minds of Herder and Goethe. But I bet that's not right. I just looked at the preface to Chuck Taylor's big book on Hegel and he suggests that the idea was present in Diderot, but he doesn't pursue it. This is where I feel very conscious of how much I've forgotten -- I studied with Charles Taylor for a term when he was in the UK in the 1980s but it's so long ago it's all gone now.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks for doing that.

This idea of the expressive, meaning creating self which is so central to Sturm und Dang, I know it's sometimes presented as if it popped up out of nowhere in the 1770s, as if it just  popped  into the minds of Herder and Goethe. But I bet that's not right. I just looked at the preface to Chuck Taylor's big book on Hegel and he suggests that the idea was present in Diderot, but he doesn't pursue it. This is where I feel very conscious of how much I've forgotten -- I studied with Charles Taylor for a term when he was in the UK in the 1980s but it's so long ago it's all gone now.

No, certainly nothing, especially a major cultural idea, is without its antecedents. What is irritating (I'm sure it is to you too, more than just to me) is the easy hooking together of ideas as though, since they are convenient to each other, they must then be cause and effect. It is intellectual laziness which allows that mode of thought.

And the musical S&D was the blatant creation of a musicologist (St. Foix) writing for the 1909 centennial of Haydn's death. When he could find no reason (as though one is needed) for Haydn to begin to write more expressively, he first posited an Immortal Beloved, and lacking a target to pin it to, came up with S&D. In the 19th century, the trope of artist as composer came about, and late Romantics were absolutely determined to employ the same logic for the 'Classicists' as they felt they knew for the 'Romantics'. Despite the entire concept being totally a stranger to the 18th century.

The problem arises because many ideas are quick in the creation and long in the elimination...

[Gurn Blanston]

I forgot to mention yesterday, I added the next chapter to the chronology of the symphonies for those who are interested. Hope it works for you!

Chronology of the Symphonies part 5 - 1782 - 89

[Wakefield]

"... a wonderful little song, composed gratis for a young lady."

I need to follow this story, Gurn! It sounds tasty. 

Excellent essay with clever notes about the context. I loved the painting of Lemonnier, btw; I didn't know it.

Great work, as usual, amigo mío. 

[Gurn Blanston]

"... a wonderful little song, composed gratis for a young lady."

I need to follow this story, Gurn! It sounds tasty. 

Excellent essay with clever notes about the context. I loved the painting of Lemonnier, btw; I didn't know it.

Great work, as usual, amigo mío. 

Thank you very kindly, Gordito. I think you can find a larger version of that painting easily, now that you know of it. I am limited to 800 pixels with pictures, and try to go smaller for formatting reasons, but that is barely enough to appreciate the symbolism of the sunlight, which is really the main focus of the painting if you note its position. I wish salons existed even today, it would be a strong enticement for me to move to the city. Well, almost.

Would you be surprised then to see that both Haydn and Beethoven each wrote a Lied about a poodle dog? It amuses me to a fault.

[Cosi bel do]

In response to the discussion in the previous few posts (and that derives from Gurn's latest essay, with which I don't completely agree)...

I'm afraid you're all looking for the impossible thing, which is to find what or who generated sturm und drang or protoromanticism, in Europe, and exactly when and how. There's no year when a phenomenon appears, and attributing it to one person, even Goethe or Herder, is just a reconstruction.

The question of sensitivity, feelings, expression, is fundamental to the Lumières, and not without ties with political ideas concentrating on the individuals, their feelings, their rights, their aspirations. It is particularly true in France where the Lumières blossomed, and I'd cite Rousseau's very particular relationship to the notion of nature, and his attempts at fiction (La Nouvelle Héloïse).
Diderot is interesting, not for his "expressionism", but as one of the inventors of the "drame bourgeois" (with Beaumarchais) that breaks conventions of the classic theatre (and its strongest representants in the 17th century and early 18th were French), and represents "actual" people,. This theatre influenced many operas (the best examples being Mozart's Nozze and Cosi, but also and even more Beethoven's Fidelio).
The 18th is not classicism anymore, asthetically: it is not in literature, it is not in art (just think about Watteau, about Boucher, about how art in France became kind of a caricature of what classical 17th art was, and transformed mythology, perspectives and other elements as mere excuses to represent erotic scenes). It is not in music either, and this change is what we see happening first and foremost in the works of Haydn (and, also, of CPE Bach, of Gluck, etc.). It is not as visible as in literature and theatre, where authors had more freedom (mainly because of their social position, less dependent to the courts or aristocracy in general), but it is a little more than in visual arts. Also, many musicians travelled a lot and were therefore under direct influences of such changes happening at the same time (but in different ways) in different countries of Europe. And it was also the case of Haydn. So, it's no wonder that Haydn showed how music could express feelings, represent "vulgar" or "natural" subjects (a hen, a lark...). In a way, he was among the first European artists to participate in this evolution, before being kind of conservative when still expressing timidly the beauty of nature in his almost pagan oratorio The Seasons, when romanticism was already taking shape and burying all this naïveté.

Of course, he is also "classical" in the sense of the style explored by Rosen, it is just a question of vocabulary. There is a very particular style in the music of the late 18th century, and it was named "classical" mainly because it was just between the "baroque" and the "romantic" eras.
But how history of music is written derives from the vocabulary of German historians, who consider that almost everything between 1600 and Goethe is "baroque", only as a chronological denomination. But if you consider things in a more detailed way, and try to reveal how music was tied to other forms of art, baroque is only one of the elements of the classical aesthetics of the 17th century (the word was never used to describe musicians of the 18th century, either by themselves or contemporaries), that is progressively transformed under the influence of the Lumières into a more expressive art, dominated by the expression of feelings, of desires, by the strength of nature, by "real" people as opposed to mythological figures... All that under the socio-economic influence, also, of the rising "bourgeois" social category (or class...) and therefore as a consequence, also, of the many transformations in economic and social structures in Europe (what has been since called the first industrial revolution, and, also, of course, the result of the first globalization after its first two centuries of development).

[Wakefield]

What's odd though is that sometimes -- like in 86 -- he's so much more intense. I think -- see whether you agree -- I'm never really sure I understand these style ideas -- romantic, classical etc. 

Sometimes Mozart's music seems quite uncomfortable in some performances (PC 24, 20; K310; K563). I don't know enough about the classical period to comment about how stylish (to use premont's wonderful word)Bezuidenhout is.  The view that baroque style is really about order -- is that disputed by academics? It wouldn't be hard to find examples of performances which were't particularly stable, which were more abut unresolved tensions in counterpoint etc. But how stylish they are I wouldn't like to say.

Even Gould didn't like Gould in Chopin. He didn't want to have the recording released but his estate defied his wishes.  I too quite like Arrau in the 3rd sonata -- best of all in the live one on youtube.

Just standing back a little, I've seen people say that they are interested in HIP becauae HIP performances have proved the most satisfying. At least I've heard them say that hen talking about Bach. If you're right about Haydn and Bruggen, then the HIP way isn't the best way for me today in Haydn -- I would say.

I hope you're wrong about Haydn.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not, but this won't change anything of the music itself.

Your issue isn't with this humble listener, but with Haydn or, if we are optimistic, with some performances of his music.

Il messaggero non é importante. 

[Gurn Blanston]

In response to the discussion in the previous few posts (and that derives from Gurn's latest essay, with which I don't completely agree)...

I'm afraid you're all looking for the impossible thing, which is to find what or who generated sturm und drang or protoromanticism, in Europe, and exactly when and how. There's no year when a phenomenon appears, and attributing it to one person, even Goethe or Herder, is just a reconstruction.

The question of sensitivity, feelings, expression, is fundamental to the Lumières, and not without ties with political ideas concentrating on the individuals, their feelings, their rights, their aspirations. It is particularly true in France where the Lumières blossomed, and I'd cite Rousseau's very particular relationship to the notion of nature, and his attempts at fiction (La Nouvelle Héloïse).
Diderot is interesting, not for his "expressionism", but as one of the inventors of the "drame bourgeois" (with Beaumarchais) that breaks conventions of the classic theatre (and its strongest representants in the 17th century and early 18th were French), and represents "actual" people,. This theatre influenced many operas (the best examples being Mozart's Nozze and Cosi, but also and even more Beethoven's Fidelio).
The 18th is not classicism anymore, asthetically: it is not in literature, it is not in art (just think about Watteau, about Boucher, about how art in France became kind of a caricature of what classical 17th art was, and transformed mythology, perspectives and other elements as mere excuses to represent erotic scenes). It is not in music either, and this change is what we see happening first and foremost in the works of Haydn (and, also, of CPE Bach, of Gluck, etc.). It is not as visible as in literature and theatre, where authors had more freedom (mainly because of their social position, less dependent to the courts or aristocracy in general), but it is a little more than in visual arts. Also, many musicians travelled a lot and were therefore under direct influences of such changes happening at the same time (but in different ways) in different countries of Europe. And it was also the case of Haydn. So, it's no wonder that Haydn showed how music could express feelings, represent "vulgar" or "natural" subjects (a hen, a lark...). In a way, he was among the first European artists to participate in this evolution, before being kind of conservative when still expressing timidly the beauty of nature in his almost pagan oratorio The Seasons, when romanticism was already taking shape and burying all this naïveté.

Of course, he is also "classical" in the sense of the style explored by Rosen, it is just a question of vocabulary. There is a very particular style in the music of the late 18th century, and it was named "classical" mainly because it was just between the "baroque" and the "romantic" eras.
But how history of music is written derives from the vocabulary of German historians, who consider that almost everything between 1600 and Goethe is "baroque", only as a chronological denomination. But if you consider things in a more detailed way, and try to reveal how music was tied to other forms of art, baroque is only one of the elements of the classical aesthetics of the 17th century (the word was never used to describe musicians of the 18th century, either by themselves or contemporaries), that is progressively transformed under the influence of the Lumières into a more expressive art, dominated by the expression of feelings, of desires, by the strength of nature, by "real" people as opposed to mythological figures... All that under the socio-economic influence, also, of the rising "bourgeois" social category (or class...) and therefore as a consequence, also, of the many transformations in economic and social structures in Europe (what has been since called the first industrial revolution, and, also, of course, the result of the first globalization after its first two centuries of development).

I won't reply your entire post, since I agree with much of it. Some things I must correct though: The fact is I couldn't care less about Sturm und Drang, I wish only it would disappear as a red herring which distracts people from what the music itself is doing. There is no real connection between literary S&D and music.

I don't agree though about Haydn's proposed insertion of musical images into his music. Such visual images as a hen, a lark and a bear are completely not of Haydn at all. They were proposed and codified by 19th century observers. This is why I say so strongly that this belief system which has sprung up around Haydn is total crap, a construction of a different time. And it panders to the imagination of moderns just as it did Romantics, and creates expectations in the listening for things which don't even exist except in some fevered imagination.

Other than that, of course, we are in total agreement. 

[Wakefield]

Thank you very kindly, Gordito. I think you can find a larger version of that painting easily, now that you know of it. I am limited to 800 pixels with pictures, and try to go smaller for formatting reasons, but that is barely enough to appreciate the symbolism of the sunlight, which is really the main focus of the painting if you note its position. I wish salons existed even today, it would be a strong enticement for me to move to the city. Well, almost.

Yes, I found a picture with better resolution. I needed to see the sunlight over the heads.

Would you be surprised then to see that both Haydn and Beethoven each wrote a Lied about a poodle dog? It amuses me to a fault. )

As usual, i guess the real target wasn't the puppy, but the lovely lady holding it against her chest. 

[Cosi bel do]

I don't agree though about Haydn's proposed insertion of musical images into his music. Such visual images as a hen, a lark and a bear are completely not of Haydn at all. They were proposed and codified by 19th century observers. This is why I say so strongly that this belief system which has sprung up around Haydn is total crap, a construction of a different time. And it panders to the imagination of moderns just as it did Romantics, and creates expectations in the listening for things which don't even exist except in some fevered imagination.

Yes that's stupid of me not to have thought about what I was writing on this case of nicknames. I know most of these nicknames don't derive from Haydn himself. Still, I'm not clear whether their origin is always dated with certainty. I don't know what the most reliable source on this is ?

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes that's stupid of me not to have thought about what I was writing on this case of nicknames. I know most of these nicknames don't derive from Haydn himself. Still, I'm not clear whether their origin is always dated with certainty. I don't know what the most reliable source on this is ?

I have only picked up this information en passant, sometimes authors don't consider it worth mentioning, I suppose. But I will tell you a generalization: fully 90% come from 19th century music publishers and critics/reviewers. In one of my essays I wrote about this, although there listing the actual authentic names. They are few. Among the symphonies, the Times of Day set and Tempora mutantur may possibly be the only ones, at least all I can remember right now. Of the remainder, the ones I have seen dated seem to originate in the early 19th century, when Haydn was still a 'hot name' in composing. The English were the most frequent abusers.

[kishnevi]

Personal note. 

The musical work which to me best expresses Sturm und Drang is....
Brahms PC 1.

[Sergeant Rock]

Yes that's stupid of me not to have thought about what I was writing on this case of nicknames. I know most of these nicknames don't derive from Haydn himself. Still, I'm not clear whether their origin is always dated with certainty.

We have a certain date for "The Cat" (99 E flat): 8 Dec 2011 

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,54.msg583345.html#msg583345


Sarge

[Jo498]

Sure, we have to work with categories to communicate (and I am also reasonably convinced that categories like "electron" and "african elephant" refer to real distinctions in nature). But it's another thing in cultural history and in my impression "baroque", "classical/classicism", "romanticism" in music are often problematic and not all that helpful in the end.
I assume that all of us here usually know better, but one still finds "courtly" as a characterization of music when this is obviously mostly true for the 17th and 18th (and earlier) centuries (technically it was frequently true until about 100 years ago as many court orchestras and operas were still associated with the courts of Austria and German states, just think of the Meininger Hofkapelle and Brahms and King Ludwig of Bavaria and Wagner) but also obviously vacuous. Because the musical differences between Lully and Haydn are not to be explained by the differences of courtly live in Versailles 1670 vs. Eisenstadt 1770. Or at least I would not expect an explanation I find musically illuminating from socio-historical analysis of those courts. And while baroque music has lots of things in common over more than a 100 years there are also huge differences between contemporaries. (Take "classical" restrained, perfectionist Corelli and mannered, fanciful, over the top Biber.)
Similarly in the second half of the 18th century we have the decorative ("courtly") aspect, we have the "Empfindsamkeit" of CPE Bach who wrote both a "Farewell to my clavier" as well as "CPE Bach's emotions expressed in a clavier fantasy", we have Rousseau's polemics against the artificial and the striving for "natural" expression of emotions etc. Just lots of competing strains, so it is not a miracle that we would find several of them in Haydn without being able to give a straight chronological ordering of phases like "Sturm & Drang".

[Gurn Blanston]

Personal note. 

The musical work which to me best expresses Sturm und Drang is....
Brahms PC 1.

  Amen!   0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

Sure, we have to work with categories to communicate (and I am also reasonably convinced that categories like "electron" and "african elephant" refer to real distinctions in nature). But it's another thing in cultural history and in my impression "baroque", "classical/classicism", "romanticism" in music are often problematic and not all that helpful in the end.
I assume that all of us here usually know better, but one still finds "courtly" as a characterization of music when this is obviously mostly true for the 17th and 18th (and earlier) centuries (technically it was frequently true until about 100 years ago as many court orchestras and operas were still associated with the courts of Austria and German states, just think of the Meininger Hofkapelle and Brahms and King Ludwig of Bavaria and Wagner) but also obviously vacuous. Because the musical differences between Lully and Haydn are not to be explained by the differences of courtly live in Versailles 1670 vs. Eisenstadt 1770. Or at least I would not expect an explanation I find musically illuminating from socio-historical analysis of those courts. And while baroque music has lots of things in common over more than a 100 years there are also huge differences between contemporaries. (Take "classical" restrained, perfectionist Corelli and mannered, fanciful, over the top Biber.)
Similarly in the second half of the 18th century we have the decorative ("courtly") aspect, we have the "Empfindsamkeit" of CPE Bach who wrote both a "Farewell to my clavier" as well as "CPE Bach's emotions expressed in a clavier fantasy", we have Rousseau's polemics against the artificial and the striving for "natural" expression of emotions etc. Just lots of competing strains, so it is not a miracle that we would find several of them in Haydn without being able to give a straight chronological ordering of phases like "Sturm & Drang".

Yes, we are stuck with it (I am a good summer up of things!). My personal irritation with labels of this type, not least THIS label, is the expectations which are aroused in the listener which then affect his/her view of a performance. An example, which got us started on this road, is the Brüggen S&D performances which weren't Sturmier enough for the listener. Or perhaps not Drangier enough, I couldn't tell. 

Your comparison of Corelli and Biber is spot on as far as Baroque goes, and I would go one further and compare the violin concertos of Bach v Vivaldi.

[Jo498]

I am still only about halfway through the thread, but one thing I realized is that there is quite a bit of Haydn beyond the "obvious" collections (Symphonies, string quartet, piano sonatas etc.). So my holiday suggestion is that everyone interested should name 3-5 lesser known pieces and recordings they particularly recommend and think likely to be overlooked even by longtime Haydn fanciers. I do not want to exclude anything beforehand, but I think we should leave out symphonies, quartets, piano sonatas, piano trios, the oratorios, the 6 late Masses and the concertos for cello and trumpet.
Looking forward to your dark horse candidates!

[chasmaniac]

Oooh, 6 Sonatas for Violin and Viola and a smattering of the folksong arrangements.

[Que]

Agreed.  More off-the-beaten-path suggestions:

[asin]B000002BZN[/asin]
[asin]B0000029VE[/asin]
Q