Haydn's Haus

[Karl Henning]

I don't like the notion of "progress" because it usually involves the assumption that, in a timeline, "the next thing is always a better thing."

So, as long as we manage the assumptions, it is potentially a useful notion.  Generally, a good composer's art waxes better over time;  in some way, this should be recognized as a sort of Progress 

[Gurn Blanston]

So, as long as we manage the assumptions, it is potentially a useful notion.  Generally, a good composer's art waxes better over time;  in some way, this should be recognized as a sort of Progress 

FWIW, I feel this implies a stasis in the art which may or may not exist. 'Better' as compared to what? One might well ask. For if composer A got better, his contemporary, Composer B either followed suit (along his own path) or failed to do so, given the background for comparison stayed the same. I know that sounds bizarre, but to make a case of it:

Call 'A' Haydn, to give him a name. Let us say that the average music, composer B, of 1755 is represented by Georg Wagenseil, a very popular and highly considered composer of his time. Give him a numeric value to represent his status. W=8 (out of 10). When Haydn's works were first reaching general circulation in 1758, he was rather quickly held in very high esteem because he quickly mastered Wagenseil's idiom, and was rather innovative in advancing the idiom. So, one can fairly give him a 9, since his work was considered superior to one of the finest composers of the day.

Now, zoom ahead to 1785. Call composer B Mozart. For a true connoisseur of 1785 Vienna, Mozart was recognized as a 10. There weren't many true connoisseurs, but they knew their stuff! Haydn, universally popular at the time, was still considered by connoisseurs to be a 9 because he didn't go for the melodic panoply which exemplified Mozart.

So, a 9 over 8 in 1758 and a 9 under 10 in 1785. What advance has been made through time?  Yet who can deny that Haydn's music advanced between 1758 and 1785?

I suppose you will all say that this must only make sense to me, and I don't doubt there is a better explanation out there for the concept, but I don't doubt the phenomenon is real.

[North Star]

"Everyone has talent at 25. The difficulty is to have it at 50." -Edgar Degas.

I don't think assigning those numeric values is all that, but while Mozart and Haydn both grew better with time, Mozart did so more rapidly when they were contemporaries. The fact that the competition developed doesn't mean that Haydn didn't also develop.
Another matter is that artists don't always develop to create more valuable, 'better' work.

[Karl Henning]

Another matter is that artists don't always develop to create more valuable, 'better' work.

Expand on this?  (I am not sure this was what you meant, but it put me in mind of a quip about Mendelssohn's "starting out a genius, and winding up 'a major talent'.")

[Karl Henning]

Expand on this?  (I am not sure this was what you meant, but it put me in mind of a quip about Mendelssohn's "starting out a genius, and winding up 'a major talent'.")

Well, and your Degas quote, really . . . .

[Gurn Blanston]

"Everyone has talent at 25. The difficulty is to have it at 50." -Edgar Degas.

I don't think assigning those numeric values is all that, but while Mozart and Haydn both grew better with time, Mozart did so more rapidly when they were contemporaries. The fact that the competition developed doesn't mean that Haydn didn't also develop.
Another matter is that artists don't always develop to create more valuable, 'better' work.

Well, they are just arbitrary numbers I put there to make a point. Relative to the prevailing artistic standard of the time, Haydn was the Peak in 1760, and even though he certainly developed a major amount between times, it is possible that despite his "advance", he was actually off-peak relative to the artistic standard of 1785 when we look back at it now. Which is the point I'm trying to make, that 'advancement' and 'progress' aren't necessarily tied to what we retrospectively would call 'improvement'.

[Karl Henning]

[...] Which is the point I'm trying to make, that 'advancement' and 'progress' aren't necessarily tied to what we retrospectively would call 'improvement'.

Oui.

[North Star]

Oui.

+1

Expand on this?  (I am not sure this was what you meant, but it put me in mind of a quip about Mendelssohn's "starting out a genius, and winding up 'a major talent'.")

Artists have started to repeat themselves without adding any value to their earlier works, and on the other hand some have had more or less fine careers without actually ever 'topping' their earlier efforts. And then there are some who just stop, like Sibelius. We now know that his decision to stop composing had a good deal to do with health and family issues, but nonetheless he stopped and burnt the Eighth Symphony. I ought to name proper examples to back this up, but can't think of any at the moment. 

[Karl Henning]

No, there are certainly examples, and if to my view they seem like exceptions, rather they are exceptional in the class of front-ish-rank artists.  Rossini, e.g., perhaps.

[Florestan]

Rossini, e.g., perhaps.

You beat me to it.

[North Star]

No, there are certainly examples, and if to my view they seem like exceptions, rather they are exceptional in the class of front-ish-rank artists.  Rossini, e.g., perhaps.

I did think of Rossini, but even thought he stopped writing operas, he did write during the later parts of his life, and not necessarily less worthy material than before.

[Karl Henning]

Glad I thought to add perhaps! 

[Wakefield]

... And then there are some who just stop, like Sibelius. We now know that his decision to stop composing had a good deal to do with health and family issues, but nonetheless he stopped and burnt the Eighth Symphony.

As an aside, I have always had great interest in artists who decide to destroy their work, particularly burning it. I recall a joke of Borges: his maid (the famous Fanny) accidentally burnt the first manuscript of his book of essays titled The Size of my Hope (El tamaño de mi esperanza). According Borges, she did it because she thought that was a pornographic book...     

BTW, I think that Alfred North Whitehead got a good approach to the concept of "progress" in "matters of the Spirit" when in 1929 wrote that "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

[Florestan]

BTW, I think a Alfred North Whitehead got a good approach to the concept of "progress" in "matters of the Spirit" when in 1929 wrote that "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

That´s a quite nice bon mot, but what is its musical equivalent? That the safest general characterization of the European musical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Hildegard von Bingen, perhaps? 

[Wakefield]

That´s a quite nice bon mot, but what is its musical equivalent? That the safest general characterization of the European musical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Hildegard von Bingen, perhaps? 

Curiously, I think the name of Plato is almost irrelevant: he was first, but wasn't "the better." He simply talked first and touched almost every relevant issue because the issues are always the same. That's the reason why "progress" is a non-sense in spiritual matters. Every newcomer (when is a true creator) faces the old problems (and expressive needs) as if they were totally new. Only the "instruments" change, but the old questions (and needs of expressing pain, happiness, sorrow) are always the same; that's a good reason, in addition, to reconstruct the instruments of the past (HIP claim) in order to fully understand the responses of the past. My current signature also gives an approach to these sweeping generalizations.     

[George]

So, for a complete set of the piano sonatas on a modern piano, who do you guys recommend?

Buchbinder seems like the best price, how is his set?

[Gurn Blanston]

So, for a complete set of the piano sonatas on a modern piano, is McCabe still the best?

McCabe is very reliable, but I am told that this is the way to go these days:

[asin]B00BHEG6CO[/asin]

I don't know if it a decision which lends itself to listening to samples... 

[George]

Thanks, Gurn!

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks, Gurn!

You're welcome, George.  Sarge says even I would like it, so it must be pretty OK.

[Karl Henning]

(* chortle *)