Symphonic style development

[Gurn Blanston]

Regarding the discussion in the "Haydn at Mozart's Death" thread, where we got so off topic;
I was just reading "The Compleat Mozart" by Neal Zaslaw (why doesn't someone write the equivalent on B? Must I do everything myself?;-)) and in the introduction to the section on M's symphonies, Zaslaw makes the point that "many people believe that the development of M's symphonies from first to last marks the development of Mozart as a composer from beginning to end. This is far from the truth, actually it marks the development of the SYMPHONY in that time period, from its beginnings as an overture and occasional entertainment to a concert mainstay". This is precisely the point that I was trying to make in the other thread, that one cannot compare works from different times because they are written for entirely different reasons and with an entirely different frame of reference. One must compare contemporaries who are writing for the same reasons and audience. What other points of view exist out there, I think this is an interesting discussion point for those of us who, intentionally or by default, are historians, after all.
Regards,
Gurn

[lysander]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Regarding the discussion in the "Haydn at Mozart's Death" thread, where we got so off topic;
I was just reading "The Compleat Mozart" by Neal Zaslaw (why doesn't someone write the equivalent on B? Must I do everything myself?;-)) and in the introduction to the section on M's symphonies, Zaslaw makes the point that "many people believe that the development of M's symphonies from first to last marks the development of Mozart as a composer from beginning to end. This is far from the truth, actually it marks the development of the SYMPHONY in that time period, from its beginnings as an overture and occasional entertainment to a concert mainstay". This is precisely the point that I was trying to make in the other thread, that one cannot compare works from different times because they are written for entirely different reasons and with an entirely different frame of reference. One must compare contemporaries who are writing for the same reasons and audience. What other points of view exist out there, I think this is an interesting discussion point for those of us who, intentionally or by default, are historians, after all.
Regards,
Gurn

If you are saying that the history of the symphony can largely be traced through the history of the development of Mozart's musical development in this genre, then, largely I agree. And of course, this is very true for Beethoven who took up the baton after Mozart.
I think the real difficulty arises after the
phenomenon of Beethoven and the 9th symphony, where I cannot see the symphony develops under Schubert or Brahms, who were writing in the same symphonic tradition . This is by no means a criticism of Schubert and Brahms as I admire their music , particularly Brahms. By the way, was not Brahm's 1st symphony dubbed Beethoven's 10th.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by lysander:
....I think the real difficulty arises after the phenomenon of Beethoven and the 9th symphony, where I cannot see the symphony develops under Schubert or Brahms, who were writing in the same symphonic tradition . This is by no means a criticism of Schubert and Brahms as I admire their music , particularly Brahms. By the way, was not Brahm's 1st symphony dubbed Beethoven's 10th.

Lysander,
Yes, quite right. I would point out 2 things though that make a difference in this;
a) Schubert was a contemporary, and great admirer of, B, so there could be no natural progression in their musical styles as they were writing in parallel. S died only 1 year after B, and all of his symphonies were already composed by the time of B's death (his last, the great C Major (9th) was begun in 1825 and completed at unknown time, certainly before 1828.
b) Brahms was an aberration in the Romantic Age, since his music was classical in style with many more elements of the great classicists than of his contemporaries, so he serves as a poor example of the Romantic, almost as though he was born in the wrong time for his output.

But the point that one cannot compare B's symphonies with Mozart's or Haydn's is once again a case, not of the quality of composition, but of the different needs of the symphonic style in particular. To use Mozart in particular, all of his symphonies before #25 were written to serve an entirely different purpose than as entertainment in the concert hall, so they bear little relationship to B's, all of which were written for the latter purpose. And only Haydn's last ones, written when Mozart was near death and immediately afterwards were written for the concert hall. It was a cultural thing, and when they began writing for the concert hall, they had to invent their own rules and styles, as they had no earlier model to follow, which of course B did. Thus my previous statement of "apples and oranges", which I stand by. Now, if you really wanted to make an argument about B's symphonic superiority, you would pick a Romantic composer other than Brahms and have at it. When you can favorably compare something to all that comes AFTER, you have demonstrated superiority beyond a reasonable doubt!! ;-))
Regards,
Gurn

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
When you can favorably compare something to all that comes AFTER, you have demonstrated superiority beyond a reasonable doubt!! ;-))
Regards,
Gurn

Are you saying that B's symphonies were not surpassed by after him? Wasn't Brahms stylistically capable of surpassing B? I'm not saying he did.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Regarding the discussion in the "Haydn at Mozart's Death" thread, where we got so off topic;
I was just reading "The Compleat Mozart" by Neal Zaslaw (why doesn't someone write the equivalent on B? Must I do everything myself?;-)) and in the introduction to the section on M's symphonies, Zaslaw makes the point that "many people believe that the development of M's symphonies from first to last marks the development of Mozart as a composer from beginning to end. This is far from the truth, actually it marks the development of the SYMPHONY in that time period, from its beginnings as an overture and occasional entertainment to a concert mainstay". This is precisely the point that I was trying to make in the other thread, that one cannot compare works from different times because they are written for entirely different reasons and with an entirely different frame of reference. One must compare contemporaries who are writing for the same reasons and audience. What other points of view exist out there, I think this is an interesting discussion point for those of us who, intentionally or by default, are historians, after all.
Regards,
Gurn

I think I would be more inclined to follow the development of the Symphony and the Sonata-Allegro form through Haydn's output as it spans a greater time and reaches back towards the originators of the symphony (the Bachs, Sammartini, etc.). There is a different level of growth with Haydn than Mozart in that Haydn spans a greater time period with more musical change in the world at the time. Bach and Handel still flourished at the beginning of his carreer and at the end Schubert and Beethoven are marking the path. I think the changes in Mozart's symphonic development are a bit abrupt for me (nonetheless, I enjoy his later symphonies a great deal) while Haydn had little surprises and innovations throughout a great deal of his output. But then, perhaps I am little biased as I prefer Haydn's music to Mozart's in most cases.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

I think I would be more inclined to follow the development of the Symphony and the Sonata-Allegro form through Haydn's output as it spans a greater time and reaches back towards the originators of the symphony (the Bachs, Sammartini, etc.). There is a different level of growth with Haydn than Mozart in that Haydn spans a greater time period with more musical change in the world at the time. Bach and Handel still flourished at the beginning of his carreer and at the end Schubert and Beethoven are marking the path. I think the changes in Mozart's symphonic development are a bit abrupt for me (nonetheless, I enjoy his later symphonies a great deal) while Haydn had little surprises and innovations throughout a great deal of his output. But then, perhaps I am little biased as I prefer Haydn's music to Mozart's in most cases.

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. Then when the statement came up in the Zaslaw book that began this thread, I sort of went that way since it was congruent with the point I was trying to make earlier. However, Haydn was undoubtedly the progenitor of the modern symphony, and if one were making arguments concerning relative worth of symphonies, the Haydn's from #82 to 92 (the pre-Londons) could be fruitfully compared to Mozart's final 5 (36, 38, 39, 40 & 41) in a fair comparison of apples to apples (no pun intended ;-)).
My impression is that Haydn was one of the earliest to use the symphony as a concert piece instead of an overture or to kill time at church, and I think that this is because Haydn was sequestered at Esterhaszy (sic) most of the time (in this period) and was fortunate to work for a man who appreciated his efforts and encouraged innovation. What might Mozart have done in similar circumstances? Or Beethoven? Of course we cannot know, but I suspect that they would have affected the course of Western music even more than they actually did, which is already incalculable. But to sum up, could Haydn have written the g minor in 1788? Probably. Did he? No. And I don't think that "The Bear" is its equivalent either in depth or emotion. That's only my opinion, I may be wrong.
Best Regards,
Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
Are you saying that B's symphonies were not surpassed by after him? Wasn't Brahms stylistically capable of surpassing B? I'm not saying he did.

Chop,
Unquestionably this is what I am saying. While I agree with you that there were talented composers A.B. (after Beethoven), especially Brahms, I would listen to ANY Beethoven symphony in preference to ANY symphony written A.B.. I hate to make categorical statements such as this, but there it is. I think that it is easy to say that something is better than something that came before, but more difficult to say that something is better than anything that came after, but despite the exposure of my position here, I will go on record (or CD as the case may be ;-)) as saying it anyway. Once again, that is my opinion, I may be wrong.
Regards,
Gurn

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
I would listen to ANY Beethoven symphony in preference to ANY symphony written A.B

Well, yes, this is true unquestionably, at least if we obey our 'visceral reactions'.

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Chop,
Unquestionably this is what I am saying. While I agree with you that there were talented composers A.B. (after Beethoven), especially Brahms, I would listen to ANY Beethoven symphony in preference to ANY symphony written A.B.. I hate to make categorical statements such as this, but there it is. I think that it is easy to say that something is better than something that came before, but more difficult to say that something is better than anything that came after, but despite the exposure of my position here, I will go on record (or CD as the case may be ;-)) as saying it anyway. Once again, that is my opinion, I may be wrong.
Regards,
Gurn

But still, you're being too unbalanced to the side of Beethoven, and I'd like to read solid arguments to defend B's position of "supreme in front of all what was written after him", not only visceral reactions, and a refutation to the idea that B and B can be compared because they worked with the same purpose, and very similar aesthetics.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
To use Mozart in particular, all of his symphonies before #25 were written to serve an entirely different purpose than as entertainment in the concert hall, so they bear little relationship to B's, all of which were written for the latter purpose. And only Haydn's last ones, written when Mozart was near death and immediately afterwards were written for the concert hall. It was a cultural thing, and when they began writing for the concert hall, they had to invent their own rules and styles, as they had no earlier model to follow, which of course B did. Thus my previous statement of "apples and oranges", which I stand by. Now, if you really wanted to make an argument about B's symphonic superiority, you would pick a Romantic composer other than Brahms and have at it. When you can favorably compare something to all that comes AFTER, you have demonstrated superiority beyond a reasonable doubt!! ;-))
Regards,
Gurn

In Reference to the symphony I'm not sure about this - your argument seems to be that the quality of the music depends on the function. If that is the case then one would expect a deterioration rather than an improvement - if one is writing for the population as a whole as opposed to writing for a smaller cultivated audience, surely these earlier works would be more sophisticated and have less popular appeal? As it is the opposite is the case - with Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven their later Symphonies are generally considered greater than their earlier works. This I think is down to their artisitic growth rather than the different cirumstances they may have been composing in. I think the real division of purpose was between chamber music and symphonic music.

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

[urtextmeister]

When I listen to a symphony, I try to take into account when the music was written, and what the composer's personal struggles might have been.
I am fascinated by Shostakovitch's symphonies because I imagine what it must have been like to have Stalin watching over your shoulder as you compose. In his particular situation, what he did was amazing. The way he could weave irony in and out of his music, how he would mask the pain of oppression behind a "triumphant" march...
Are his symphonies better or worse than those of Beethoven? When I am immersed in listening to either composer, the thought never enters my mind.
This is not to say that I take an anti-intellectual approach and say we should not compare composers, but the context of a composers life is very important. To say Beethoven is better than Mozart sounds a bit like a playground discussion about superheros.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
When I listen to a symphony, I try to take into account when the music was written, and what the composer's personal struggles might have been.
I am fascinated by Shostakovitch's symphonies because I imagine what it must have been like to have Stalin watching over your shoulder as you compose. In his particular situation, what he did was amazing. The way he could weave irony in and out of his music, how he would mask the pain of oppression behind a "triumphant" march...
Are his symphonies better or worse than those of Beethoven? When I am immersed in listening to either composer, the thought never enters my mind.
This is not to say that I take an anti-intellectual approach and say we should not compare composers, but the context of a composers life is very important. To say Beethoven is better than Mozart sounds a bit like a playground discussion about superheros.

Urtextmeister,
Well, yes, of course it does. This is my whole point! Or at least it was what got me started on this, the statement that B's symphonies were far superior to Mozart's. I disagreed then, and I do now. What is being expressed by these statements is that B provokes a more intetnse visceral reaction on the part of the listener who made the statement, and if it had been expressed that way I could live with it, since one cannot dispute personal reactions to anything, especially music. Your statements about Shostakovich are perfect examples of this; you know the history and it colors your reaction to the music. I don't see you saying that S wrote better symphonies than B, which would be disputable, but that you react favorably and empathetically to what you are hearing, which is the purpose of music, I think. My own opinion of the music involved is that Mozart's last 3 symphonies, which were written nearly simultaneously in the summer of 1788 stand as one of the greatest musical accomplishments of all time, and I don't personally compare them to anyone else's. I went on to say that if you DID compare them, it could only be with something contemporaneous, such as Haydn's output of the same time period. It is not fair to compare them to someone who composed well after his death. I think this is a fair and defensible point of view to maintain.
Regards,
Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
In Reference to the symphony I'm not sure about this - your argument seems to be that the quality of the music depends on the function. If that is the case then one would expect a deterioration rather than an improvement - if one is writing for the population as a whole as opposed to writing for a smaller cultivated audience, surely these earlier works would be more sophisticated and have less popular appeal? As it is the opposite is the case - with Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven their later Symphonies are generally considered greater than their earlier works. This I think is down to their artisitic growth rather than the different cirumstances they may have been composing in. I think the real division of purpose was between chamber music and symphonic music.

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).]

[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.

[Rod]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
This is not to say that I take an anti-intellectual approach and say we should not compare composers, but the context of a composers life is very important. To say Beethoven is better than Mozart sounds a bit like a playground discussion about superheros.

What have you to say considering Beethoven himself got himself involved in such playground tomfoolery?

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