The Classical Style

[DavidW]

Okay I've been restricting my music to classical era music and I've started reading Rosen's book on the Classical Style.

I thought it would be neat to discuss things with my fellow gmgers that I'm interested in or want a second opinion on, or don't understand.  It would be neat to talk about Classicism.

I thought this would be a good thread for any sort of discussion about the classical era not already covered by recordings and composer threads.  The only thing that I would like to avoid is the discussion of recordings and also would like to not engage in list making.  I'm not trying to be offensive, it's just that we already have threads to suit that purpose.

I want to emphasize that this is not a reading group thread, it just gives *me* a focus.  I'm hoping that topics branch topics naturally, we'll see.

I put this in the beginner's room because (a) I am in the beginner mode of requesting opinions, advice and knowledge and (b) because this thread won't be so easily pushed off the front page like it would in other rooms.

[DavidW]

Okay my first batch of questions--

1. This actually came from an off topic remark on a Mahler/Bruckner thread.  Do you think that Mozart's motivic development is more difficult to follow than Haydn and Beethoven?  I don't have any problem with most of his orchestral music, but Mozart's chamber music can be tricky to follow at times.  Haydn, in contrast, doesn't seem quite as difficult to follow.  Or is this the case of me focusing on a few works that give the wrong picture?  For Mozart, it's later chamber works like his quintet for piano and winds that have been on my mind, and for Haydn his Op 33 String Quartets.  I could be misled.

[DavidW]

Now this is from Rosen.

2. E.T.A. Hoffman thought of Mozart and Haydn as the first Romantic composers.  Do you agree with this view or disagree?  Why?  In their purity of style they certainly stood out but I'm at a complete loss as to what he was thinking or meant by that.  This also brings me to the point of view that some take-- you can only appreciate these great composers (Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven) by comparison to the mediocre majority of their contemporaries.  I already know Rosen's opinion, but I'm interested in hearing yours-- would you agree, disagree, or think that is misleading and settle on a more complex answer?

I have more questions, but I want to see if we can have some fun with these, or others proposed by other posters.

[George]

Okay my first batch of questions--

1. Do you think that Mozart's motivic development is more difficult to follow than Haydn and Beethoven? 

2. Or is this the case of me focusing on a few works that give the wrong picture? 

1. No I don't find Mozart's motivic development harder to follow. Because of Mozart's strict use of form, I find his works to be very logical and easy to follow. I haven't noticed more of a problem with the later works, but I do notice that they are more developed and dense.

2. I think so.

Have you tried starting with the piano sonatas (then the violin sonatas, then the trios, etc)? Or with the string quartets? Perhaps listening to a given chamber genre from the early works forward would help fine-tune your listening? 

[BachQ]

Now this is from Rosen.

2. E.T.A. Hoffman thought of Mozart and Haydn as the first Romantic composers. 

Gurn would have a cow over the thought of Mozart / Haydn being "romantic."

LvB was the first "romantic" (with his Eroica Symphony).

[George]

Now this is from Rosen.

2. E.T.A. Hoffman thought of Mozart and Haydn as the first Romantic composers.  Do you agree with this view or disagree? 

How does E.T.A. Hoffman define "Romantic" composer?

In their purity of style they certainly stood out but I'm at a complete loss as to what he was thinking or meant by that.  This also brings me to the point of view that some take-- you can only appreciate these great composers (Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven) by comparison to the mediocre majority of their contemporaries.  I already know Rosen's opinion, but I'm interested in hearing yours-- would you agree, disagree, or think that is misleading and settle on a more complex answer?

On the one hand, I can see that perhaps he meant that with Haydn and Mozart, we see a stronger emphasis placed on the expression of emotion. I can agree with that, but I think romantic composers offer more than that. They offer looser use of form, wider range of dynamics and larger scaled performances. On the other hand, if Mozart and Haydn were the first Romantic composers, then where does that leave the classical period? Does Hoffmann propose that there was no Classical period in music history?

[BachQ]

On the other hand, if Mozart and Haydn were the first Romantic composers, then where does that leave the classical period? Does Hoffmann propose that there was no Classical period in music history?

Salieri ........

[George]

Gurn would have a cow over the thought of Mozart / Haydn being "romantic."

LvB was the first "romantic" (with his Eroica Symphony).

The more I listen to LvB, the more I see him as an extension of the composers who came before him rather than connections to those who came after him. When I listen to Haydn, I often wish the music would push a bit harder, like Beethoven does. Haydn's music reminds me of Beethoven more than any post-Beethoven composer does.

Also, I would say that to me the relationship between a composer and his predecessors and/or his successors seems more practical than discussing arbitrary distinctions as Romantic or Classical. As one looks a bit closer at many of the composers in these periods, exceptions seem to surface to such an extent that the labels lose much of their usefulness.

   

[Mark G. Simon]

Now this is from Rosen.

2. E.T.A. Hoffman thought of Mozart and Haydn as the first Romantic composers. 

You have to understand that E.T.A. Hoffman died in 1822, so he had no knowledge of the music we most commonly think of as "romantic". Even Schumann and Chopin were but lads then. But Romanticism, as a movement in literature, was already in full swing and the composers that most fully fell in line with the movement's themes such the idealization of nature and emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason were Beethoven and Weber, and no doubt there are others whose names are but footnotes today. About Beethoven, Hoffman said "Beethoven's music sets in motion the lever of fear, of awe, of horror, of suffering, and awakens just that infinite longing which is essence of romanticism." Mozart and Haydn were the two composers who had a big influence on Beethoven and so Hoffman would have seen the seeds of Beethoven's romanticism in their work.

[George]

You have to understand that E.T.A. Hoffman died in 1822, so he had no knowledge of the music we most commonly think of as "romantic". Even Schumann and Chopin were but lads then. But Romanticism, as a movement in literature, was already in full swing and the composers that most fully fell in line with the movement's themes such the idealization of nature and emphasis on emotion as opposed to reason were Beethoven and Weber, and no doubt there are others whose names are but footnotes today. About Beethoven, Hoffman said "Beethoven's music sets in motion the lever of fear, of awe, of horror, of suffering, and awakens just that infinite longing which is essence of romanticism." Mozart and Haydn were the two composers who had a big influence on Beethoven and so Hoffman would have seen the seeds of Beethoven's romanticism in their work.

Good point. 

[Gurn Blanston]

The Classico-Romantic period really began life as a fusion between the lighter, reactionary (to Baroque, that is) galant music that could be exemplified by J.C. Bach & early Mozart, and the heavily sentimental and emotional Empfindsang music that could be represented by C.P.E. Bach. Haydn first, and later Mozart, took these two quite different styles and synthesized them into what we now call "Viennese High Classical" or the "First Viennese School". It serves the purpose well to use these 4 as models because they are all so representative of the time, among the very best composers then, and their music is easily obtainable today to listen to. One should do so, it is a very enjoyable educational experience.

I am not a music theorist, so whatever I have got wrong can be easily corrected by those who are. But one of the early hallmarks of galant music is that, because it was dance music, it had an even number of beats in a measure, and an even number of measures in a phrase, etc. This is what gives it the characteristic, rounded off rhythm that lets you pick it out pretty fast, and follow the various developments as you mention, David. But Haydn took and started going to irregular rhythms, and phrases or irregular length, i.e. instead of 8 + 8 + 8, he would use 9 + 7 + 8, so this broke up what came to be viewed as rhythmic monotony. And the reason that a lot of people find "classical" era music boring is exactly that, there is a regularity to it that we tend to not get involved in. Many of the main composers of the time, the ones who were really popular then, like Vanhal and Ditters to name a couple that we really like here at GMG ( ),  did exactly that. And one of the complaints that the contemporaries of Haydn and Mozart had about them, when they say their music was a bizarre joke (which they did, early and often) stemmed from just that point. The false recapitulations and other scherzi of Haydn came later

Anyway, there are two things that really make the best classical era music stand out: great use of orchestral dynamics (Introduced by Jomelli in Munich or Mannheim around 1750) which simply wasn't done in instrumental music before then, and this irregular phrase length which was probably not invented by Haydn, but was certainly exploited by him on a large scale, and taken up by Mozart after he moved to Vienna in 1781. Of course, that just scratches the surface of this subject, but it's a start.

I like Mark's answer about what Hoffman thought Romanticism was. Clearly it was NOT what WE think of as Romanticism. And in his terms, he may very well have been right. After all, the "Young Werther" book by Goethe that is reputedly the early beginning of the literary Romantic movement was written <> 1771, and the Stürm und Drang movement in music was roughly around that time, before and after, in fact, and the popular notion that the two were connected may not be factual, but they DID both stem from a cultural phenomenon that was apparently widespread enough in Greater Germany at the time to affect both music AND literature. A common ancestor, as it were. 

[johnQpublic]

Only in some of late Haydn (The Creation) and late Mozart (Requiem) can one discern hints of the Romantic.

[Mozart]

Okay my first batch of questions--

1. This actually came from an off topic remark on a Mahler/Bruckner thread.  Do you think that Mozart's motivic development is more difficult to follow than Haydn and Beethoven?  I don't have any problem with most of his orchestral music, but Mozart's chamber music can be tricky to follow at times.  Haydn, in contrast, doesn't seem quite as difficult to follow.  Or is this the case of me focusing on a few works that give the wrong picture?  For Mozart, it's later chamber works like his quintet for piano and winds that have been on my mind, and for Haydn his Op 33 String Quartets.  I could be misled.

Haydn wrote his themes to develop them into something good, while Mozart started out with perfection and just tweaks it a bit. I find Haydn harder to follow but then again I limit myself to like Mozart 80 percent of the time.

[Mozart]

Salieri ........

Salieri is a hater.

If it helps Ive heard Mozart was quite the kisser.

[Grazioso]

As a supplement to the technical and historical issues Gurn raises:

By and large, I think Classical-era music might be said to be social, public, external, extroverted. It's listener-centered music, music for shared, public occasions. Oppose that to the presumed Romantic focus on personal expression, on powerful individual statements of the composer's inner life. In a sense, that's music about the artist that happens to be overheard by audiences. The individual voice is foregrounded. An oversimplification, to be sure, but I think it's a valid and helpful distinction. You can listen to more than a few Mozart adagios, for example, and hear something very much akin to the latter. It begins to sound more like one man putting his (strong) emotions on display than "just" an entertainment for public consumption.

[karlhenning]

LvB was the first "romantic" (with his Eroica Symphony).

So Sturm und Drang was not at all "romantic"?

[Gurn Blanston]

So Sturm und Drang was not at all "romantic"?

No, it was very much so...

[karlhenning]

. . . one of the early hallmarks of galant music is that, because it was dance music, it had an even number of beats in a measure, and an even number of measures in a phrase, etc. This is what gives it the characteristic, rounded off rhythm that lets you pick it out pretty fast, and follow the various developments as you mention, David. But Haydn took and started going to irregular rhythms . . . .

Ah-ha! He was Hungarian! 

Most enjoyable post, Gurn!  Bring it on!

[DavidW]

Have you tried starting with the piano sonatas (then the violin sonatas, then the trios, etc)? Or with the string quartets? Perhaps listening to a given chamber genre from the early works forward would help fine-tune your listening? 

Start with early works, I like that idea, I think maybe the early string quintet...

[Que]

Ah-ha! He was Hungarian! 

Most enjoyable post, Gurn!  Bring it on!

Haydn was born in what was then, and still is today, Austria - in Rohrau (Niederösterreich).
I know M forever was of the opinion that Haydn was Hungarian, but then he thought of Austrians as Germans...so he lost me on that.

Q