Symphonic style development

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
What have you to say considering Beethoven himself got himself involved in such playground tomfoolery?

Not with Mozart, Haydn, Bach and Handel he didn't - he recognised and praised their genius and reserved his scathing comments for mediocrity.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
Well, I don't mean quality, perhaps I expressed myself poorly (hope not ;-)). Many of M's early "symphonies" were 3 or 4 movements from divertimentos or serenades that he took out and made into a fuller orchestration. As you know, divertimentos were written as light entertainment, table music, and were not really intended to be gut-wrenching concert pieces. That is all I am saying. As for quality, they were brilliant in their execution and use of the forms available to him. And after all, when you are 16-20 years old, how much "gut-wrench" can you put into music? As for the population as a whole, I don't think that M ever did that. These were commissions from rich noblemen and the Archbishop for evening entertainment, or in the case of the singspiel overtures and church music, this same class of people constituted the audience there too, no? So the audience was the same, it was merely the venue that changed. Certainly the "quality" improved with age, it could not help doing so as he was exposed to more musical influences, and when he finally shed the Italianate influence that marked his earlier work and developed his own style, but I don't see this as the major influence on the symphony, I see the different purpose of the outcome, the beginning of "concert hall" playing of symphonies, as the main change between, for example, K 135 (in D major, the overture to Lucio Silla issued as a stand-alone symphony) and K 550. Absolutely, M learned a lot about music between those times, and lived a lot too, but the whole purpose of writing those 2 pieces of music was entirely different, and this is reflected in every aspect of them. Was one a higher quality piece of music than the other? Sure, impossible for it not to be given the 15 years between their composition times. Was it because of their usage in totally different venues? Well, I think this is a major contributing force in that difference, much larger of a factor than it is given credit for. As it happens, I am quite fond of divertimentos and serenades, I think they were among M's best output, but they served a different purpose than later symphonies, so they simply do not provoke the same visceral reaction, nor were they intended to.
Best Regards,
Gurn

PS - I am looking to replace my ragtag collection of M's symphonies with one complete set. Which would you recommend, the Mackerras?

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited June 22, 2003).]

I appreciate what you are getting at and I certainly agree with your comments in another post that to say Beethoven's symphonies are better than Mozart's or Haydn's is rather pointless because all three produced examples that can be regarded as masterpieces. I also agree that you can hardly fairly compare a work such as Mozart's 1st symphony to Beethoven's 1st. On the other hand I don't see the relevance of the date thing or the entertainment argument in this context beyond historical interest - yes Mozart wrote these lighter pieces, but it is perfectly possible to pick out early examples such as symphony no.25 in G minor and 29 in A which are more expressive. With Haydn too this happens earlier in his career 1767-1773 (symphonies 39,44,45,48,51) before a reaction sets in and a return to a more 'entertainment' style follows prior to the great flowering of the 1780s and 90's. I still see the main argument as being that of artistic growth rather than purpose - take Schubert who appeared to be writing symphonies for no purpose at all with no hope of a performance in sight!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited June 22, 2003).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chris:
I think if you are looking for a complete set of Mozart Symphonies, the best you can possibly do is the Academy of Ancient Music/Hogwood set.

Chris,
Thanks for that input. I will try to listen to an example of the Hogwood before I make a commitment. There are so many sets out there, and the only one I have read a good review of is the Mackerras, but I have heard other positive things about Hogwood in different works, so this could be good for me.
Thanks again,
Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
I appreciate what you are getting at and I certainly agree with your comments in another post that to say Beethoven's symphonies are better than Mozart's or Haydn's is rather pointless because all three produced examples that can be regarded as masterpieces. I also agree that you can hardly fairly compare a work such as Mozart's 1st symphony to Beethoven's 1st. On the other hand I don't see the relevance of the date thing or the entertainment argument in this context beyond historical interest - yes Mozart wrote these lighter pieces, but it is perfectly possible to pick out early examples such as symphony no.25 in G minor and 29 in A which are more expressive. With Haydn too this happens earlier in his career 1767-1773 (symphonies 39,44,45,48,51) before a reaction sets in and a return to a more 'entertainment' style follows prior to the great flowering of the 1780s and 90's. I still see the main argument as being that of artistic growth rather than purpose - take Schubert who appeared to be writing symphonies for no purpose at all with no hope of a performance in sight!

Peter,
Well, I think that the "Little g minor" (#25) is Mozart's first great symphony, and the first one where he appeared to be writing it as a standalone cencert piece, so we certainly have no argument there. My only point about the date and history thing vis-a-vis the earlier one is in my opening statement, that the history of Mozart's symphonies is more a reflection of the symphony in general than it is a reflection of Mozart's growth as an artist. I admit that I tried to make this statement go on and cover my point of view from an earlier discussion in a different thread, but that was rather self-serving of me perhaps. I think that M's art was already highly developed even in the beginning, and that it is the symphony that changed, not him. I cannot put it more succinctly than that. This is where the historical aspect comes in.
Regards,
Gurn

PS - Have you heard examples of the Hogwood set and the Mackerras, and if so, which do you think is a better choice. I am quite content with authentic period instruments, especially for Mozart, but don't wish to compromise quality for authenticity, if you take my meaning.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Chris,
Thanks for that input. I will try to listen to an example of the Hogwood before I make a commitment. There are so many sets out there, and the only one I have read a good review of is the Mackerras, but I have heard other positive things about Hogwood in different works, so this could be good for me.
Thanks again,
Gurn

Also, it is the most complete set I am aware of. It has pretty much everything. For example, there were two versions of Symphony No. 40 - and both are included! 19 discs full of great music.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
Well, I think that the "Little g minor" (#25) is Mozart's first great symphony, and the first one where he appeared to be writing it as a standalone cencert piece, so we certainly have no argument there. My only point about the date and history thing vis-a-vis the earlier one is in my opening statement, that the history of Mozart's symphonies is more a reflection of the symphony in general than it is a reflection of Mozart's growth as an artist. I admit that I tried to make this statement go on and cover my point of view from an earlier discussion in a different thread, but that was rather self-serving of me perhaps. I think that M's art was already highly developed even in the beginning, and that it is the symphony that changed, not him. I cannot put it more succinctly than that. This is where the historical aspect comes in.
Regards,
Gurn

PS - Have you heard examples of the Hogwood set and the Mackerras, and if so, which do you think is a better choice. I am quite content with authentic period instruments, especially for Mozart, but don't wish to compromise quality for authenticity, if you take my meaning.

I'm afraid I can't help you in your choice of complete Mozart Symphony sets as I only have individual works - I have heard Mackerras live with the Hanover band doing the Requiem and Great C minor mass - this was impressive.

I totally agree with your points about the development of the symphony and of course it is connected directly to the development of the orchestra and the classical style as a whole. However I still think comparisons are possible to make - for example why is it that Haydn achieved such great heights 1767-1773 only to go on to produce another 20 symphonies 1773-1781 of uneven quality? Your point about Mozart's symphonies is I think half right because his development as an artist surely plays a part!! Charles Rosen puts it thus in relation to Haydn
"There is however a genuine progress in style between early and late Haydn: the younger Haydn is a great master of a style that only imperfectly realises what the language of his time had to offer, the later is the creator of a style that is an almost perfect instrument for exploiting the resources of that language." In other words it is his development as an artist rather than the changes in style that can be compared with other composers.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited June 23, 2003).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Sorrano,
I certainly cannot quibble with that, I am a huge Haydn fan myself. I was only talking about Mozart in this context because the original spur was that "Beethoven's symphonies are vastly superior to Mozart's", and that is what got me into this fix at the first.

Perhaps we should change that quote to being, "Beethoven's symphonies are vastly different to Mozart's." When one begins to rate the music in comparison with others then there is a need for qualification in that rating system.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chris:
Also, it is the most complete set I am aware of. It has pretty much everything. For example, there were two versions of Symphony No. 40 - and both are included! 19 discs full of great music.

Chris,
Now you are really tempting me. Obviously you have figured out where my interest lays ;-))
Regards,
Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Perhaps we should change that quote to being, "Beethoven's symphonies are vastly different to Mozart's." When one begins to rate the music in comparison with others then there is a need for qualification in that rating system.

I can certainly live with that, especially since it is not my quote in the first place! If it had been phrased in that careful manner, this whole discussion would never have happened. Wait, that may be a good thing... ;-)
Regards,
Gurn

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Not with Mozart, Haydn, Bach and Handel he didn't - he recognised and praised their genius and reserved his scathing comments for mediocrity.

Well, from my observation of the purchasing habits of patrons of HMV Oxford Street classical music dept, what is mediocre to some is gold to others!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well, from my observation of the purchasing habits of patrons of HMV Oxford Street classical music dept, what is mediocre to some is gold to others!

I'd suggest it was even more apparent in the other departments of HMV.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I'd suggest it was even more apparent in the other departments of HMV.

Tut, tut, you're going beyond the scope of this forum again Peter! It is bad enough in the CM dept alone!



------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
.... However I still think comparisons are possible to make - for example why is it that Haydn achieved such great heights 1767-1773 only to go on to produce another 20 symphonies 1773-1781 of uneven quality? Your point about Mozart's symphonies is I think half right because his development as an artist surely plays a part!! Charles Rosen puts it thus in relation to Haydn
"There is however a genuine progress in style between early and late Haydn: the younger Haydn is a great master of a style that only imperfectly realises what the language of his time had to offer, the later is the creator of a style that is an almost perfect instrument for exploiting the resources of that language." In other words it is his development as an artist rather than the changes in style that can be compared with other composers.

Peter,
Yes, I think that Haydn shows his development in a more obvious way than does Mozart. Perhaps the time element must enter in here, in the sense that Haydn started composing much more nearly to the beginning of the Age (approx. 1750 give or take a couple) and the language itself had a longer way to go towards development, which he was of course instrumental (no pun) in occasioning. Another aspect of Haydn's employment that has an opposite effect of the one discussed earlier is that he had to do well right from the start. Surely a lot of pressure on the man (he was in his early 20's at the time, and far from mature musically). I personally see a lot more of his artistic growth in the String Quartets than in the symphonies, his early ones were merely divertimentos, his later ones masterpieces, and every stage in between. Look at the improvement between Opp. 9 & 17, then 20 & 33. And Op 64 is a whole 'nother stage, culminating in the late period full-blown classical style quartets. I think he painted his orchestral works in much broader (coarser) strokes, and the change is not so marked unless you play "The Philosopher" and follow it up immediately with "Military", for example, then you see a change for sure, but from work to work it is not so obvious as with the quartets. And I still think Haydn's exceptional circumstances put him in a position where he was writing symphonies as concert pieces long before anyone else was, so he is kind of an aberration. J.C. Bach might be more typical, and he never did change from the light-hearted entertainment mode with his symphonies, which Mozart did approx. after #24. In any case, I do think this is a good comparison, and I enjoy the opportunity of getting your viewpoint, and it not being based on "X is better than Y".
Best Regards,
Gurn

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
Yes, I think that Haydn shows his development in a more obvious way than does Mozart. Perhaps the time element must enter in here, in the sense that Haydn started composing much more nearly to the beginning of the Age (approx. 1750 give or take a couple) and the language itself had a longer way to go towards development, which he was of course instrumental (no pun) in occasioning. Another aspect of Haydn's employment that has an opposite effect of the one discussed earlier is that he had to do well right from the start. Surely a lot of pressure on the man (he was in his early 20's at the time, and far from mature musically). I personally see a lot more of his artistic growth in the String Quartets than in the symphonies, his early ones were merely divertimentos, his later ones masterpieces, and every stage in between. Look at the improvement between Opp. 9 & 17, then 20 & 33. And Op 64 is a whole 'nother stage, culminating in the late period full-blown classical style quartets. I think he painted his orchestral works in much broader (coarser) strokes, and the change is not so marked unless you play "The Philosopher" and follow it up immediately with "Military", for example, then you see a change for sure, but from work to work it is not so obvious as with the quartets. And I still think Haydn's exceptional circumstances put him in a position where he was writing symphonies as concert pieces long before anyone else was, so he is kind of an aberration. J.C. Bach might be more typical, and he never did change from the light-hearted entertainment mode with his symphonies, which Mozart did approx. after #24. In any case, I do think this is a good comparison, and I enjoy the opportunity of getting your viewpoint, and it not being based on "X is better than Y".
Best Regards,
Gurn

Again I agree with much of what you say - your point about Haydn's quartets is valid and I suppose with Beethoven it is his sonatas that provide a parallel re. artistic growth. I still think it possible to make comparisons but only in the context of the language used so you can take something like Haydn's Symphony 103 and Mozart's Jupiter Symphony and compare them to Schumann or Brahms Symphonies - i.e compare what they achieved within the classical language to Schumann, Brahms in the Romantic.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Beyond Within]

I think it all comes down to the purpose of the symphony and what aesthetics are trying to be expressed.

There seem to be (from my reading) three categories of purpose. For the aristocrate/monarchy, for the general public, and for the self. When written for aristicrates the music seems to be more like technical exercises in style and form than emotionally impacting music. The closer to the self, the more emotional it gets because as you get increasingly personal feeling is all that could take over. Which brings me to this point: If you want perfectly executed classical than the most obvious preference would be mozart due to his incredible natural talent and mastery. But for emotional appeal it is always beethoven because he even said many times he wrote to get what was in him out, and to satisfy himself, if he didnt get it out he would be tortured.

Also, it depends how you define "development", for some people Beethoven or Wagner is too much to digest and to them Mozart was the pinnacle in everyway. So thats always something to consider...please excuse repetition in my post, i think i presented the same idea in three different ways,,