Symphonic style development

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by 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,,

Beyond,
Thanks for your post. I think you are correct in dividing up the audience this way. One thing we overlook (some of us anyway) is the depth of knowledge of the listeners in those times. Their grasp of musical structure and language was far greater than the majority of listeners today (please, no one take umbrage, I only mean most, not all). The aristocrats were generally connoisseurs, who not only understood all the nuances of the music, but in all probabiltiy could play it as well as the musicians did. In order to please them required a tremendous talent on the part of a composer. To balance that out, the general public (but really, not too general after all, perhaps "bourgoisie" would be better) wanted something to "tap their toes" to. And everyone wanted a certain amount of emotion, as it was becoming the style in post-baroque times to be somewhat expressive, so to please everyone took a real masterpiece. It is a historical fact that Beethoven was respected and admired as a master of music, but by and large he was not loved because he didn't really care about pleasing everyone. This is why his music has stood for so long, because he did not compromise to make it easier for the musicians, the critics or the listeners. He wrote what he felt, and the rest be damned. I admire this tremendously, I think it is B's greatest distinguishing trait as a composer; he did not compromise. Mozart did, and admitted he did, and his music is no less beautiful for it, because his genius lay in writing music that could satisfy the whole audience, and who else can say that?
That's my opinion, I may be wrong,
Best Regards,
Gurn

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited June 25, 2003).]

[lysander]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Beyond,
Thanks for your post. I think you are correct in dividing up the audience this way. One thing we overlook (some of us anyway) is the depth of knowledge of the listeners in those times. Their grasp of musical structure and language was far greater than the majority of listeners today (please, no one take umbrage, I only mean most, not all). The aristocrats were generally connoisseurs, who not only understood all the nuances of the music, but in all probabiltiy could play it as well as the musicians did. In order to please them required a tremendous talent on the part of a composer. To balance that out, the general public (but really, not too general after all, perhaps "bourgoisie" would be better) wanted something to "tap their toes" to. And everyone wanted a certain amount of emotion, as it was becoming the style in post-baroque times to be somewhat expressive, so to please everyone took a real masterpiece. It is a historical fact that Beethoven was respected and admired as a master of music, but by and large he was not loved because he didn't really care about pleasing everyone. This is why his music has stood for so long, because he did not compromise to make it easier for the musicians, the critics or the listeners. He wrote what he felt, and the rest be damned. I admire this tremendously, I think it is B's greatest distinguishing trait as a composer; he did not compromise. Mozart did, and admitted he did, and his music is no less beautiful for it, because his genius lay in writing music that could satisfy the whole audience, and who else can say that?
That's my opinion, I may be wrong,
Best Regards,
Gurn

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited June 25, 2003).]

Yes, I think a lot of these themes are reflected in the whole movement of classical music from the chamber ensemble mode to the orchestral symphonic concert hall one.
Basically chamber music was music designed and written for a coterie of musically learned and appreciative persons, either the musicians themselves or their aristocratic patrons. It was music written expressly for somewhat highbrow select and selective group of performers and audience. It really mirrors the shape of European society in the age of the ancein
regime - top down, cliqueish, and exclusive and that is not in anyway to criticise some of the brilliant chamber work of say, the earlier Haydn. Of course the French Revolution brings in the many headed demos and the sense that music, like politics, is for everyone. Romanticism adds to this of course greatly by breaking down barriers and stressing that all human beings are equal and the the important thing in the arts and music is to get in touch with the sense of the sublime, both out there and in oneself.
Beethoven of course is the central figure in all this from a musical point of view.
The idea is that music, like the destiny of man and the reshaping of society can no longer be confined in the drawing rooms of the nobility and that music has a far greater importance than merely being decorative to amuse a few aristos.
It would be fascinating to know what Beethoven himself thought of this transition from the world of chamber music to this oceanic sense of music's further horizons which can only be expressed in the concert hall playing to hundreds of people.
A world that Beethoven of course, largely brought about himself.
Beethoven really did I think, give music back to the people in the widest sense of the term, and also, the wider play of human emotions and the depth of human emotions which again Beethoven brought about in music really blows away the rather narrow range of emotions that chamber music expressed.
Beethoven's later chamber music is very profound of course, but that is music that was written when the classical chamber music world was already pretty much moribund, and he wrote these works as a personal statement with the backcloth very much being the immense revolution in musical expression in the symphonies that were played in the concert halls for everyone.




[This message has been edited by lysander (edited June 25, 2003).]

[Beyond Within]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
One thing we overlook (some of us anyway) is the depth of knowledge of the listeners in those times. Their grasp of musical structure and language was far greater than the majority of listeners today (please, no one take umbrage, I only mean most, not all). The aristocrats were generally connoisseurs, who not only understood all the nuances of the music, but in all probabiltiy could play it as well as the musicians did. In order to please them required a tremendous talent on the part of a composer.

This makes much a greater difference than most people really think. Before I was a musician a lot happened which I wasnt aware of in the music. When I listened to a song it was basically for vocals and catchy "riffs". Once I picked up guitar I payed attention to solos a lot more which caused for my tastes to get finer and finer. (this concerns metal/instrumental guitar) Now I get bored whenever I listen to a song like that which has sloppy musicianship, or is simple in execution. Then I started learning about compositional technique (pedal point, counterpoint, chord structures ect.) from that point I starting REALLY enjoying classical much more. When beethoven would do really subtle smooth chord changes, for me that made it so much more amazing. I could fully understand and respect the effort and skill put into the craft. Previously I didnt feel this, my enjoyment was not as thick. This is why most music now is either super complex and written for musicians (Jazz/modern classical) or its very simple for the mainstream. The best music (to me) is a balance of these two, which is ofcourse beethoven in the classical music, and Nevermore/Megadeth in the metal/rock genre.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
This makes much a greater difference than most people really think. Before I was a musician a lot happened which I wasnt aware of in the music. When I listened to a song it was basically for vocals and catchy "riffs". Once I picked up guitar I payed attention to solos a lot more which caused for my tastes to get finer and finer. (this concerns metal/instrumental guitar) Now I get bored whenever I listen to a song like that which has sloppy musicianship, or is simple in execution. Then I started learning about compositional technique (pedal point, counterpoint, chord structures ect.) from that point I starting REALLY enjoying classical much more. When beethoven would do really subtle smooth chord changes, for me that made it so much more amazing. I could fully understand and respect the effort and skill put into the craft. Previously I didnt feel this, my enjoyment was not as thick. This is why most music now is either super complex and written for musicians (Jazz/modern classical) or its very simple for the mainstream. The best music (to me) is a balance of these two, which is ofcourse beethoven in the classical music, and Nevermore/Megadeth in the metal/rock genre.

Beyond,
It is interesting that you are a musician; I think, as you say, that this is a big advantage to you in appreciating the finer qualities of the music. I can only say here that I am absolutely delighted that one doesn't HAVE TO BE a musician for this to occur, since I am certainly not one, barely even a wannabe. It has been very difficult to teach myself the rudiments of score reading to where I can follow along with most pieces, at least to a point, and enough theory to be able to know a broken chord from a rising triplet! But this has not dampened my enthusiasm, I admire and appreciate well written music, at least for the sounds if not for getting the joke in the average scherzo, even when it is explained to me. Oh well. I was always, from earliest times, blessed/cursed with the ability to easily grasp or master nearly anything that I determined to do. The 2 great blessings of my maturity have been the discovery of golf, the most difficult sport, bar none, that man has ever devised, and classical music, which has so many layers upon layers of texture that no matter what you know about it, or how far you advance in it, you never truly master the whole subject. These 2 things that are so hard for me have given me more pleasure than all the other, easily grasped subjects with which I wasted my youth. One of life's great dilemnas, I suppose, is "why did I wait so long" to find these two things? So it goes.
Best Regards,
Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

Lysander (My dear Ms. Hathaway ;-))
Your mastery of the prosaic medium simply astounds me at times! I can scarcely keep up with the number of themes presented in your exposition. However, I quite agree with the overall sentiment expressed, particularly of the great change in music during B's lifetime, which made for a more democratic representation among those with access to music. I note that your philosophy of music being the lingua franca of the 19th century precisely mirrors that of the post enlightenment philosophers who elevated music from the lowest art form to the highest in the estimation of the intelligentsia of the time. As much as you will hate it, I will say that this is precisely anti-classical and pro-romantic, as I read in Cooper just last night. So you are an incorrigible romantic after all, just as I suspected all along. ;-))))

Best Regards,
Gurn

[lysander]

Well, thanks for that Gurn,
I agree that classical music does become one of the highest art forms under the influence of Beethoven and that he takes pre-existing musical forms to new heights
of depth and expression and thereby transmutes them into something alltogether
greater in the symphonic mode especially.
All I would like to say very briefly, is that the extraordinary genius of Beethoven could take the fairly tired and worn out medium of the chamber music form, sonatas, string quartets etc. where one would think that he would not be particularlly interested, given his is astonishing accomplishments with the symphonic form in the concert hall as a medium for the most sublime emotions and sentiments and with that chamber music form that really belonged to another age, re-energize and transform it from its diletantte salon associations and make it the vehicle of the most profoundly moving and intimate of personal expression and tragedy, withour parallel in the chamber music repertiore past or present.
Indeed I would go so far as to say that Beethoven saved the chamber music form by giving it a new identity, but nobody has ever, either before him, or since, ever equalled his fantastic achievements in just this one form of musical expression.
lt always amazes me that a composer who achieved so much in the symphonic form reaching out to more and more people even in his life time in the concert hall in a very egalitarian anti-aristocratic manner, could even think there was anything worth saving in the aristocratic narrow world of chamber music. But then that is what a genius is, he sees possibilities and opportunities in the most unlikeliest of places.
Beethoven's symphonies are born in the age of revolution and romanticism, whereas chamber music was a product of the ancien regime and the status quo.
Beethoven the revolutionary, nevertheless adopted chamber music for his own purposes, but the question still puzzles me, where did he expect his chamber works to be performed? Surely not in a salon with a few aristos, and yet, surely not in the concert hall in front of hundreds for such incredibly intimate pieces.
With a few close friends perhaps?. But then would he have approved of their world wide popularity, and isn't a bit like Shakespeares Sonnets, being read and studied by millions, when they were only written to be in private circulation and not published, because of their intimate nature?
Any thoughts?.



[This message has been edited by lysander (edited June 27, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by lysander:

Beethoven the revolutionary, nevertheless adopted chamber music for his own purposes, but the question still puzzles me, where did he expect his chamber works to be performed? Surely not in a salon with a few aristos, and yet, surely not in the concert hall in front of hundreds for such incredibly intimate pieces.
With a few close friends perhaps?. But then would he have approved of their world wide popularity, and isn't a bit like Shakespeares Sonnets, being read and studied by millions, when they were only written to be in private circulation and not published, because of their intimate nature?
Any thoughts?.

I'm not sure that Beethoven adopted the quartet for purposes different to those of Haydn or Mozart.
All the chamber music was intended for a small audience - Yes aristos who kept private quartets such as Razumovsky would have performed the works in their palaces, but beyond that there was a large number of amateur musicians (particularly amongst the rising middle classes)who would have performed them privately and with friends - an example of this is the 'Schubertiads'.

The same also applies to the sonatas, only one of the piano sonatas is known to have had a public performance in Beethoven's lifetime.

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

[Gurn Blanston]

Anne,
I tend to agree with Peter here, what we need to get straight around here is cause and effect. B wrote his string quartets, for instance, for precisely the same reasons that Mozart and Haydn did. This was primarily to fulfill commissions (I'm talking her the first 13) from wealthy patrons and to please himself and his musician friends. The fact that string quartets became considered a suitable subject for concerts was not actually in his control, but it happened contemporaneously with his peak of output. According to Winter (B Quartet Companion) it was not just B that benefitted from this explosion of interest, but Mozart in particular and Haydn nearly as much, so it was general. After B's death the cult of hero worship took over (the same happened with Mozart, he was never more popular in his lifetime as he was in the decade immediately following his death) and his quartets became famous. This movement was particularly pronounced in England where quartet performance peaked in the mid-19th century. I don't think that the chamber music ever was popular enough to become "stale", I prefer to think of it as "rarified", since it had no outlet of expression whatsoever outside the salon. I would venture that the general public didn't even know that string quartets existed until 1830 or so. As Peter says, the Schubertiad was a tyical venue, and unbelievably exclusive. This diary entry from the English composer Steven Storace is particularly telling in this regard;
I gave a quartet party for my friends. The players were tolerable; not one of them excelled on the instrument he played, but there was a little science among them, which I dare say will be acknowledged when I name them;

First Violin... Joseph Haydn
Second Violin... Baron Dittersdorf
Cello... Vanhall
Viola.... W.A. Mozart

The audience consisted of myself, (poet) Casti and (composer) Paisello...


God, I would have loved to be there!!! The 4 leading composers in Vienna at the time playing their own compositions! And this was a typical string quartet "concert". So it was a cultural change, and not one that B caused, but rather one that he took advantage of. Schuppanzigh, the great fiddler who introduced so many of B's quartets is credited with organizing the very first professional quartet, but his rationale for doing it was not because he had access to all of B's work, but because he developed an audience for quartets in general, and benefitted greatly from having B's works available.

I could go on, but won't, taking pity as I do on the poor reader here. I would just add though, anyone who finds Haydn or Mozart stale in the medium of string quartet must be jaded indeed! We must give credit where it is due, I'm afraid.
Best Regards,
Gurn

[lysander]

Gurn,
I read with interest and agree with what you and Peter are saying. I would not presume to give the impression that the chamber music of the ancien regime did not contain some wonderful great works, such as Haydn'd string quartets. Nevertheless, I think there is a sense in which, with Beethoven, and but for Beethoven, chamber music as such would possibly have died out.
It is simply that the symphonic form as developed by 'B' is a colossal new dimension in western music that utterly superseded the chamber music form and in my humble opinion, but for Beethoven recognizing the unique qualities of individual expression in the sonata and string quartets, the form would have faded away. This is not a criticism of chamber music as I really enjoy listening to Haydn's string quartets. I was merely trying to comment on the development of western music and always welcome and continually delighted by the learned percipient insights afforded to me by fellow contributors on this subject all for the betterment of my understanding.


ps. I am not really Anne Hathaway but -Good Queen Bess, and any disobedient knave or 'colonist' will be sent to the Tower.






[This message has been edited by lysander (edited June 28, 2003).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by lysander:

Gurn,
I read with interest and agree with what you and Peter are saying. I would not presume to give the impression that the chamber music of the ancien regime did not contain some wonderful great works, such as Haydn'd string quartets. Nevertheless, I think there is a sense in which, with Beethoven, and but for Beethoven, chamber music as such would possibly have died out.
It is simply that the symphonic form as developed by 'B' is a colossal new dimension in western music that utterly superseded the chamber music form and in my humble opinion, but for Beethoven recognizing the unique qualities of individual expression in the sonata and string quartets, the form would have faded away. This is not a criticism of chamber music as I really enjoy listening to Haydn's string quartets. I was merely trying to comment on the development of western music and always welcome and continually delighted by the learned percipient insights afforded to me by fellow contributors on this subject all for the betterment of my understanding.

ps. I am not really Anne Hathaway but -Good Queen Bess, and any disobedient knave or 'colonist' will be sent to the Tower.

Indeed, but I prefer Anne, among other reasons than for its simple beauty, it is easier to type ;-))
I understand your point here, and indeed I was just reading in Cooper that B took a certain amount of "flak" from the critics of the time for his Op 1 trios because he tried to make them too symphonic thus they were pretentious (their words, not mine), so to say that he was attempting to incorporate symphonic styles and standards into chamber music has some validity. Innumerable other examples of this tecnique can be cited throughout the accompanied sonatas, trios &c., and I would say that he was quite successful in this regard. And indeed, since the future of chamber music lay in the concert hall rather than in the salon, this could have only been a help. My only dispute with you at this point is whether or not chamber music was a dying breed. You say yes, I say no. Of course we cannot prove it one way or the other, since history has proven that the chamber work is still here, and as popular as ever, but the why's of it are hidden from us. I can only say that since I am not nearly so keen on orchestral music, if chamber music and solo sonatas &c had died out, I would still be listening to Pink Floyd today, what a blow for me!! ;-))
Regards,
Gurn

[lysander]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Indeed, but I prefer Anne, among other reasons than for its simple beauty, it is easier to type ;-))
I understand your point here, and indeed I was just reading in Cooper that B took a certain amount of "flak" from the critics of the time for his Op 1 trios because he tried to make them too symphonic thus they were pretentious (their words, not mine), so to say that he was attempting to incorporate symphonic styles and standards into chamber music has some validity. Innumerable other examples of this tecnique can be cited throughout the accompanied sonatas, trios &c., and I would say that he was quite successful in this regard. And indeed, since the future of chamber music lay in the concert hall rather than in the salon, this could have only been a help. My only dispute with you at this point is whether or not chamber music was a dying breed. You say yes, I say no. Of course we cannot prove it one way or the other, since history has proven that the chamber work is still here, and as popular as ever, but the why's of it are hidden from us. I can only say that since I am not nearly so keen on orchestral music, if chamber music and solo sonatas &c had died out, I would still be listening to Pink Floyd today, what a blow for me!! ;-))
Regards,
Gurn

Yes, I suppose 'Anne' is a more euphonic name.
I am pleased to hear that you have moved on since your 'Pink Floyd' days. I have mentioned my views on rock music and regard all that rubbish that the Beatles and Elvis Presley churned out as marking a sad decline in musical tastes and in fact depriving classical music of an important younger audience.
Thank God, chamber music IS still with us because Beethoven made it a unique means of personal expression and communication.





[This message has been edited by lysander (edited June 29, 2003).]