Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, thanks for your comments but I'm not sure what you meant by crash and burn. What happened to Haydn during the waning years of his life?

Not during, after. Through most of the 19th century and into the 20th, Haydn was a forgotten man. His music was scarcely played, he was spoken of very patronizingly as a merry old man who wrote nothing but jolly feel-good music, not worth the attention of a 19th century connoisseur. You should be aware, though, that Mozart got basically the same treatment, so it wasn't specifically about Haydn. There are many good articles about this phenomenon, the problem is they are all written by musicologists so they are practically incomprehensible. My blog is only up to 1792 now, but one day I will be up to the century from 1810 to 1909 and I will spell it all out. It isn't pretty. Especially if you aren't a fan of 19th century music or culture, as I am not.   

[carlito77]

Not during, after. Through most of the 19th century and into the 20th, Haydn was a forgotten man. His music was scarcely played, he was spoken of very patronizingly as a merry old man who wrote nothing but jolly feel-good music, not worth the attention of a 19th century connoisseur. You should be aware, though, that Mozart got basically the same treatment, so it wasn't specifically about Haydn. There are many good articles about this phenomenon, the problem is they are all written by musicologists so they are practically incomprehensible. My blog is only up to 1792 now, but one day I will be up to the century from 1810 to 1909 and I will spell it all out. It isn't pretty. Especially if you aren't a fan of 19th century music or culture, as I am not.   

Gurn, you should write a book.

[North Star]

It isn't pretty. Especially if you aren't a fan of 19th century music or culture, as I am not.   

Well, I have to wonder whether it will look pretty to someone who finds a fair bit to appreciate in 19th century culture...
This happened to Rococo painters too, of course. In with Delacroix, Friedrich and Turner, out with Boucher, Fragonard and Watteau.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, you should write a book.

Thanks, I will take that suggestion to heart! 

Well, I have to wonder whether it will look pretty to someone who finds a fair bit to appreciate in 19th century culture...
This happened to Rococo painters too, of course. In with Delacroix, Friedrich and Turner, out with Boucher, Fragonard and Watteau.

It shouldn't, it should be a source of embarrassment. I haven't always been put off by the 19th century, it wasn't until I discovered more about it. Yes, painters be damned too! Of course, there were lots of reasons for this change, but the big ones were the demise of pan-Europeanism with the rise of Nationalism, and the Class realignments brought on by the fall of the Aristocracy and the rise of a nouveau riche middle - upper class. To my way of thinking, The Enlightenment brought about its own downfall by causing people to think. As soon as that happened, they realized how screwed they were and things just had to change!  There was probably more than that, but for MY purposes, that was all it took to sink Classic Art and Music.

[Florestan]

Fortunately, we are in AD 2016. There is no reason not to enjoy both Haydn and Liszt or both Watteau and Friedrich. 

[Wakefield]

Gurn, you should write a book.

Thanks, I will take that suggestion to heart! 

I recall I loved this quote when, 25 years ago, I watched Basic Instinct:

Nick: How's your new book coming along?
Catherine: It's practically writing itself.

[North Star]

It shouldn't, it should be a source of embarrassment. I haven't always been put off by the 19th century, it wasn't until I discovered more about it. Yes, painters be damned too! Of course, there were lots of reasons for this change, but the big ones were the demise of pan-Europeanism with the rise of Nationalism, and the Class realignments brought on by the fall of the Aristocracy and the rise of a nouveau riche middle - upper class. To my way of thinking, The Enlightenment brought about its own downfall by causing people to think. As soon as that happened, they realized how screwed they were and things just had to change!  There was probably more than that, but for MY purposes, that was all it took to sink Classic Art and Music.

Certainly Enlightenment led directly to Romanticism. I don't see how there was anything faintly resembling sinking in art or music, though, with composers like Schumann, Chopin, Berlioz, and Mendelssohn. As for visual arts, the principal direction during the 19th century was up, or that's how I perceive it anyway.

Fortunately, we are in AD 2016. There is no reason not to enjoy both Haydn and Liszt or both Watteau and Friedrich. 

Exactly.

[Florestan]

Certainly Enlightenment led directly to Romanticism.

Just as Napoleon directly engendered German nationalism.

I don't see how there was anything faintly resembling sinking in art or music, though, with composers like Schumann, Chopin, Berlioz, and Mendelssohn.

Weber, Schubert, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak, Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner... Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi... Franck, Bizet, Saint-Saens, Faure, Chausson... Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Taneyev... etc etc etc.

The 19th century was simply glorious --- not only in music but also in literature and painting.

I should start the Florestan´s Romantic Drawing Room thread.

[North Star]

Just as Napoleon directly engendered German nationalism.

Ah yes, Napoleon - the poster child of Enlightenment thought.  0:)

Schubert, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak, Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner... Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi... Franck, Bizet, Saint-Saens, Faure, Chausson... Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Taneyev... etc etc etc.

The 19th century was simply glorious --- not only in music but also in literature and painting.

I only focused on the first-generation Romantics, and not the predecessor Schubert, or what followed, but yes, lots of good stuff, by some of the composers you mention, too. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Fortunately, we are in AD 2016. There is no reason not to enjoy both Haydn and Liszt or both Watteau and Friedrich. 

Absolutely! Enjoy, not enjoy; one of the wonders of Liberty! 

[Gurn Blanston]

I recall I loved this quote when, 25 years ago, I watched Basic Instinct:

[Gurn Blanston]

Certainly Enlightenment led directly to Romanticism. I don't see how there was anything faintly resembling sinking in art or music, though, with composers like Schumann, Chopin, Berlioz, and Mendelssohn. As for visual arts, the principal direction during the 19th century was up, or that's how I perceive it anyway.
Exactly.

A change doesn't have to be "sinking" to cause a person to like or dislike it relatively. I find much 19th century music to be overly verbose, and I don't get nearly as much enjoyment out of most symphonies, for example, where a movement can last longer than an entire Classic Era symphony! I hope you aren't saying that I'm not entitled to that for myself. There are plenty of good tunes though, I completely agree with that. As for the art, I rather like Baroque or Rococo classic representational art. I really like 19th century art at about the time that Impressionism came along. In between, there was plenty of good stuff. I don't see the degeneration in painting that I see in music. We all like what we like.

[Scion7]

re: Basic Instinct

I remember another part from that film much better.   

[Gurn Blanston]

Just as Napoleon directly engendered German nationalism.


Weber, Schubert, Liszt, Brahms, Dvorak, Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner... Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi... Franck, Bizet, Saint-Saens, Faure, Chausson... Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Taneyev... etc etc etc.

The 19th century was simply glorious --- not only in music but also in literature and painting.

I should start the Florestan´s Romantic Drawing Room thread.

Napoleon directly engendered a lot of things. I wouldn't limit the Nationalism thing to just Germany, the whole continent (think Italy, the Austro-Hungarian empire, France etc.) all underwent huge political change.

You really need to look into Romanticism though. There is German Romanticism and then there is everything else. They are not the same, so you shouldn't lump all those people under one heading. Think 1848. While in America everyone was heading for California, in Europe, they were all consolidating into countries whose names we know today.

Personally, I preferred the pan-European era...



(PS - I like your Romantic Drawing Room idea. this would be a great topic to start it out with, considering how non-Haydnish it is!)

[North Star]

A change doesn't have to be "sinking" to cause a person to like or dislike it relatively.

I agree, but that's how you phrased it.

I find much 19th century music to be overly verbose, and I don't get nearly as much enjoyment out of most symphonies, for example, where a movement can last longer than an entire Classic Era symphony! I hope you aren't saying that I'm not entitled to that for myself. There are plenty of good tunes though, I completely agree with that.

There certainly is much verbosity in some 19th century music, and indeed in orchestral and operatic music in particular. But there's obviously much more to 19th century music than that, with chamber music, lieder and short piano pieces. But yes, frivolity was expunged from 'serious' music.

As for the art, I rather like Baroque or Rococo classic representational art. I really like 19th century art at about the time that Impressionism came along. In between, there was plenty of good stuff. I don't see the degeneration in painting that I see in music. We all like what we like.

Oh, the Baroque was a great period for visual arts, there's no doubt about that, with artists like Rembrandt, Vermeer, Rubens, van Dyck, Caravaggio, and Velázquez. And there's plenty of beautiful Rococo art too, of course. "About the time Impressionism came along" must mean, apart from the early efforts of those people, the Barbizon school, among other things? I'm quite partial to them myself.

You really need to look into Romanticism though. There is German Romanticism and then there is everything else. They are not the same, so you shouldn't lump all those people under one heading. Think 1848. While in America everyone was heading for California, in Europe, they were all consolidating into countries whose names we know today.

Very true indeed.

(PS - I like your Romantic Drawing Room idea. this would be a great topic to start it out with, considering how non-Haydnish it is!)

Agreed.

[Scion7]

Personally, I preferred the pan-European era...

How old are you??!   

[Florestan]

(PS - I like your Romantic Drawing Room idea. this would be a great topic to start it out with, considering how non-Haydnish it is!)

Agreed.

Thanks for the encouragement. I´ll do it one of these days. Stay tuned. 

[Jo498]

The 19th century brought the "small forms" in music to full fruition: Schubert's lieder and what follows in that genre, the piano pieces by Chopin, Schumann and others. It is a fairly skewed way to describe romantic music as generally "verbose" (There are very few symphonies before Bruckner longer than Beethoven's 3rd or 9th and most romantic concerti until Brahms are on a considerably smaller scale than Beethoven's violin concerto of 5th piano concerto.)

It is also untrue that Haydn was forgotten; he was highly thought of by e.g. Mendelssohn and Brahms and several of his works like the late oratorios, some of the late symphonies and string quartets remained in the repertoire (and Gurn knows that, of course, he just loves to exaggerate).
Of course he was overshadowed by Beethoven (and to some extent by Mozart) but this is simply the way of the world as long as most music played is roughly contemporary, even of Mozart's greatest operas some (Cosi fan tutte and Idomeneo) were virtually forgotten until the 20th century.

[Gurn Blanston]

The 19th century brought the "small forms" in music to full fruition: Schubert's lieder and what follows in that genre, the piano pieces by Chopin, Schumann and others. It is a fairly skewed way to describe romantic music as generally "verbose" (There are very few symphonies before Bruckner longer than Beethoven's 3rd or 9th and most romantic concerti until Brahms are on a considerably smaller scale than Beethoven's violin concerto of 5th piano concerto.)

It is also untrue that Haydn was forgotten; he was highly thought of by e.g. Mendelssohn and Brahms and several of his works like the late oratorios, some of the late symphonies and string quartets remained in the repertoire (and Gurn knows that, of course, he just loves to exaggerate).
Of course he was overshadowed by Beethoven (and to some extent by Mozart) but this is simply the way of the world as long as most music played is roughly contemporary, even of Mozart's greatest operas some (Cosi fan tutte and Idomeneo) were virtually forgotten until the 20th century.

  Well, yes, of course, I do exaggerate a teeny bit. But neither was he as well treated as you are seeming to imply either.

For Mozart, Don Giovanni  and Die Zauberflöte never left the repertoire. The only really durable instrumental works were the minor key ones, like the d minor piano concerto and the g minor symphony. Much of the remainder were considered to be 'rococo bon-bons'.

As for Haydn, while there were the occasional acknowledgements of his greatness, by and large they were made in a very condescending sort of way. But you're right, nothing is ever 100%, and I wasn't meaning to imply that.

If you have access to the Cambridge Companion to Haydn, you should read this essay, Haydn and posterity: The long nineteenth century by James Garrett. It is eye-opening just how harsh the jostling to get into the 'Canon of Great Works' really was! 

[Florestan]

If you have access to the Cambridge Companion to Haydn, you should read this essay, Haydn and posterity: The long nineteenth century by James Garrett. It is eye-opening just how harsh the jostling to get into the 'Canon of Great Works' really was! 

Thanks to Google Books it can be read online and this is a very good thing, because actually the article presents a much more cautious and nuanced picture than Gurn´s. 

Some excerpts:

One misconception is that a uniform picture of Haydn was articulated throughout the period: that commentators were united in wiewing Haydn as aesthetically and culturally irrelevant.

[T]he views of a handful of well-known figures - Berlioz, Schumann and Wagner - do not represent those of the majority, nor do they provide a true indication of Haydn´s music in contemporary concert life.

In spite of the lack of enthusiasm for Haydn´s music on the part of many commentators, his music (or rather, a small proportion of it) was regularly performed throughout the ninteeenth century; indeed, a key factor motivating lukewarm reviews was their perceived ubiquity in the concert hall.

The notion that Haydn´s music was superseded was the product of the dialectical systems employed by these authors: it would be mistaken to assume that their stances reflect a wider hostility or indifference to the composer.

[T]he marginalization of Haydn by some of the most prominent nineteenth century critics represents only one side of the picture: the enduring cultivation of his music in the concert hall and its prominence in schools and domestic settings, while harder to quantify, are no less important.

The final lines read thus:

[...]one thing is clear: to regard Haydn´s posthumous fate as a tale of decline and fall, especially in the century following his death, is an oversimplification that hampers our understanding of his cultural significance.

Moreover, Garrett stresses that his essay focuses almost exclusively on the German-speaking world and that the situation was different in continental Europe, Britain and North America, although he doesn´t go into details.

All this is quite far from the "nineteenth century´s all-out war on Haydn", as Gurn put it a few years ago.