play the violin to sound like a violin
Ah Cheng
the sake of imitating human voices or it's no longer a valid point ? I
wonder why people prefer music -making as slow as possible and they call it
"expressive." it's plaguing the young students in my point of view. in that
case, we are just playing the violin to sound like a violin(or other
instruments as well)...Jascha
EPalladino
as "profound." Therefore "profound" music had to performed in a ponderous
and reverential manner. This had a tendency to slow performances up,
especially of earlier music that had once been played faster, but had become
defined as a "classic." This was most evident in the performance of
Baroque music as evidenced by performances of Handel's Messiah from the 19th
century to the beginning of the "period instrument" movement. But this
phenomenon happened to later music as well. Performances of Beethoven's 9th
symphony often became slower and slower as the symphony took on greater
"meaning."
But there is another trend that I have noticed. And that is in the
"historically informed practice" or "period instrument" movement to assume
that if Baroque music has been performed too slow since the 19th century,
now we must perform it as fast as possible. I have heard recent recordings
of Messiah that sound as if they are trying to sing the whole work on one
breath. This frentic type of pace doesn't serve the music either. As a
choral singer myself, I think we need to find some kind of middle ground
between these two trend. Beth
Ah Cheng wrote in message <6sqj0u$q...@netnews.hinet.net>...
piper
<jasc...@ms19.hinet.net> wrote:
>what is the purpose of playing an instrument now?
Enjoyment, as always. If one doesn't like it, there are much easier
ways to earn a living.
> are we playing music for
>the sake of imitating human voices or it's no longer a valid point ?
Sure it is! But that's not the whole story. Instruments can also do
things voices can't. In addition, while the song is one of the musical
paradigms for instrumentalists, the dance is the other.
> I
>wonder why people prefer music -making as slow as possible and they call it
>"expressive."
Care to name names and give examples? I often hear the reverse -
people playing slow movements too fast and light. This has been
especially true of "historically informed" (original instruments)
groups. Taruskin has documented the lack of authenticity of fast tempi
for Adagios and connected it with a post-Stravinsky aesthetic of
unexpressivity. It would seem that we are in disagreement.
> it's plaguing the young students in my point of view. in that
>case, we are just playing the violin to sound like a violin(or other
>instruments as well)...Jascha
If you're talking about a purely technical approach to the instrument,
and one without knowing or caring about matters of style, Gidon Kremer
would exemplify this. Just listen to how he makes the Scherzo of
Prokofiev's Violin Concerto No. 1 a light, exercise-like piece of pure
virtuosity in his recording! But that's WRONG! If he cared to listen
and learn from any of the recordings of the great violinists of the
first half of this century, he might understand that Prokofiev scherzi
are _dances macabres_, and can NOT under any circumstances be played
as light, virtuosic confections!
Regards,
Michael
JackH35785
two violin virtuoso "rivals" (they were actually good friends) Heifetz vs.
Francescati. The argument was always that Heifetz was "mechanical", precise,
perhaps even "cold" where Francescati's playing was "lyrical", warm, "from the
heart", et al.
Then if you want to get to violin playing as a "physical sport" for it's sheer
energy, try Gioconda De Vito. You say WTH is GDV ? She was a professor of
violin at Accademia di Santa Cecilia. She recorded the Brahms with
Schwartz/Philharmonia way back in 53' on a RCA HMV LP.
I'll bet she has to "tune" at every "rest stop" and probably has new strings
for every performance ! ! It's fun to hear her play with such vigor and
"athletic bravado."
Jack
Ray Lanthier
with metronome markings.
Usually the composer has a good reason for these marking and they are meant to be taken seriously.
Good music should have contrasts - variety - all fast would get just as tedious as all slow.
The Bach partitas have slow-fast alternate dance-like movements and are anything but boring.
No human voice, I have ever heard could imitate them.
Ah Cheng wrotee
> what is the purpose of playing an instrument now? are we playing music for
> the sake of imitating human voices or it's no longer a valid point ? I
> wonder why people prefer music -making as slow as possible and they call it
> "expressive." it's plaguing the young students in my point of view. in that
piper
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tempo, or the "speed" of a performance, especially in classical pieces is dictated by the composer
>with metronome markings.
[snip]
Usually it isn't; for example, it isn't in the case of the Bach
partitas you cited in the snipped part. As far as I know, Beethoven
was the first composer to use metronome markings.
Michael
Joshua Kaufman
Could that be because....the metrinome wasn't invented until then! Wow,
what a concept...
But seriously, I personally have issues with Conductors that feel they
need to take pieces way out of tempo than what the composer asks for (if
a number is given). Most of the time, the MM markings are there for a
reason, and should be honored.
Although, sometimes they seem a bit odd, like Flight of the Bumblebee at
152?? That's WAY too slow...
-Joshua
--
User of the name Aerith... Master bad punner... Composer of 8 opi....
Player of FF series... Worshiper of Nobuo Uematsu... Watcher of Sailor
Moon... Member of the Ellipsis Faction... Proprietor of the ellipsis...
ICQ#: 5404138 AOL-IM: TerraEpon
"Is the whole world going bonkers or is it just me!?!"
- Serena on Sailor Moon (eps. 54)
"As you can see, this is a Playstation black disk. Cut number 1 contains
computer data, so please, don't play it. But you probably won't listen
to me, will you?"
- Alucard, when you put C-SOTN in a CD-player
piper
<kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:
>piper wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:37:06 -0700, Ray Lanthier
>> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Tempo, or the "speed" of a performance, especially in classical pieces is dictated by the composer
>> >with metronome markings.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Usually it isn't; for example, it isn't in the case of the Bach
>> partitas you cited in the snipped part. As far as I know, Beethoven
>> was the first composer to use metronome markings.
>
>Could that be because....the metrinome wasn't invented until then! Wow,
>what a concept...
[snip]
Uh, yeah, that was my point!
ML
Ray Lanthier
piper wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:37:06 -0700, Ray Lanthier
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Tempo, or the "speed" of a performance, especially in classical pieces is dictated by the composer
> >with metronome markings.
> [snip]
>
> Usually it isn't; for example, it isn't in the case of the Bach
> partitas you cited in the snipped part. As far as I know, Beethoven
> was the first composer to use metronome markings.
>
> Michael
Ray Lanthier
germane to the point I was making.
I will neither research nor argue the facts any further - although I too am an avid performer of
classical works. And I do remember and can produce classical sheet music with metronome markings
that were not Beethoven.
It is certainly the case that musical editors and publishers placed their own metrone markings on
music that they published.
I am quite aware of Beethoven's pioneering this practice.
My statement about Bach - had to do with the tempi - not the markings.
When markings appear - historically - is irrelevant to the original post that I was answering.
Technically Beethoven does not belong to the classical period. He belongs to the romantic period -
but in this case - romantic semantic.
It is sufficient that such markings exist on a large number of pieces whether they belong
musicologically to a particular period - or not.
This is a side issue to delight the wanna be musicologist with the possibility of making a technical
point.
Bill Palmer wrote:
> In article <35F88608...@earthlink.net> you write:
> >I said "usually". Bach is baroque not classical.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but the only place I see "usually"
> in your post is in "Usually the composer has a good reason", not in
> your assertion about classical pieces having their tempi dictated by
> composer-supplied metronome markings.
>
> Also, it *hasn't* been my experience as an avid performer and student
> of classical works that most pieces have composer-supplied metronome
> markings; they usually have general tempo/character indications, such
> as "andante", or "allegro moderato", not "d = 92". Plenty of editors
> have seen fit to add metronome markings, which may make it seem
> otherwise. Most authentic metronome markings I see post-date the
> classical period.
piper
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I said "usually". Bach is baroque not classical.
OK, a confusion of terms. I thought you were using the term "classical
music" broadly, not only in terms of Mozart, Haydn and contemporaries.
By the way, if you use the term to refer to the "Classical style" of
Mozart and Haydn, you're still wrong. Sorry to be so "picky", but your
remarks were certainly misleading as far as I was concerned.
Michael
Ray Lanthier
composers?
How is that logically relevant to the point I was making - that in a lot of cases - metronome markings
relieve the problem of "how slow" to play? Whether that point was later or earlier is of concern only to
encyclopedists (Yes it's a word - look it up) and musicologists in search of thesis acceptance.
In the case of historical classicism Italian indications such as "Allegro vivace" do have conventional
stylistic meanings that can be interpreted as metronome markings - and have been by musical editors and
publishers.
My statement about Bach made no mention of metronome markings nor implied any such connection.
So the "wrongness" is in the invalid inference.
The attribution of "classical" to Beethoven is not dead wrong as can be attested by the inclusion of that
composer in Charles Rosen's book "The Classical Style".
This annal obssessive pre-occupation with semantic distinctions is probably common among the "academic"
performers and teachers of classical music.
Perhaps it's that mentality which leads to the dogmatic musicianship that Ah Cheng is complaining about.
It is precisely that kind of academicism that Mozart and Beethoven held in contempt, and rightly so.
Mozart was the subtle rebel, mocking the tight-assed snobs with parodies they didn't even recognize.
Beethoven was less subtle.
Music is an art not an elitist compendium of trivia.
piper
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>This is an historical-academic question - which is not the question I was answering - nor is it
>germane to the point I was making.
[snip]
Which was what? I think your first point was that :
> >> >Tempo, or the "speed" of a performance, especially in classical
> >pieces is dictated by the composer
> >> >with metronome markings.
Since this is incorrect, I and some other readers got confused about
what your main point was. Please give us the indulgence of reminding
us what it was.
Regards,
Michael
Brian Newhouse
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"What is the misunderstanding? The precise point in history when metronome
markings were added by
"composers?
"How is that logically relevant to the point I was making - that in a lot
of cases - metronome markings
"relieve the problem of "how slow" to play? Whether that point was later
or earlier is of concern only to
"encyclopedists (Yes it's a word - look it up) and musicologists in search
of thesis acceptance
"In the case of historical classicism Italian indications such as
"Allegro vivace" do have conventional
"stylistic meanings that can be interpreted as metronome markings - and
have been by musical editors and
"publishers.
[snip to save screen space]
"Music is an art not an elitist compendium of trivia.
Sneer as you like at "musicologists in search of thesis acceptance" and
"elitist compilers of trivia". Somebody has to go back and reconstruct
those conventional stylistic meanings behind those tempo
indications--assuming there _are_ tempo indications (there aren't
always)--so we can figure out what a reasonable metronome marking would
have been had there been a metronome around at the time the music was
composed. Publishers and editors don't necessarily know any better than
we do; they may simply be passing down directions from edition to edition
that a particular performer and/or teacher came up with on a particular
occasion having only the faintest knowledge of those conventional
stylistic meanings. Figuring those things out is the sort of thing that
musicologists do; and in order to do it, they have to dig around for
whatever they can find about tempo, be it performing treatises, personal
correspondence, or even period music boxes. That's a lot of trivia to
compile, and a mean, dirty, elitist job it is <grin>--but somneone has to
compile it.
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net
piper
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>What is the misunderstanding? The precise point in history when metronome markings were added by
>composers?
>How is that logically relevant to the point I was making - that in a lot of cases - metronome markings
>relieve the problem of "how slow" to play?
[snip]
I didn't think that was your point. That either means that I and the
others who misinterpreted (?) you are idiots, or/and that you wrote
unclearly. It's clear what you prefer to think.
>This annal obssessive pre-occupation with semantic distinctions is probably common among the "academic"
>performers and teachers of classical music.
>Perhaps it's that mentality which leads to the dogmatic musicianship that Ah Cheng is complaining about.
>It is precisely that kind of academicism that Mozart and Beethoven held in contempt, and rightly so.
>Mozart was the subtle rebel, mocking the tight-assed snobs with parodies they didn't even recognize.
>Beethoven was less subtle.
>Music is an art not an elitist compendium of trivia.
And you're a snot, too. Anti-intellectualism is not part of
musicianship. If you want to be willfully ignorant, I hope that you
don't invite me to your next concert. The best musicians are those who
clearly explicate the text, and you can't do that unless you
understand it well - which means you know more than just the notes on
the page, which means that you have had some theoretical/musicological
education and done some research.
Although I'm primarily a performer and secondarily a teacher of music
(academic, if you like), I'm also a writing tutor. A little clarity in
written expression, and enough humility to be willing to further
explain yourself when you've written unclearly, is profitable to
everyone.
As far as your accusations that I'm somehow a "dogmatic musician", I
have no idea what you think you mean by that, but it's a ridiculous
accusation, as are all your other wild and unfounded accusations.
Apparently, anyone who might seem to be disagreeing with you in any
way upsets you so much that you feel obligated to attack him
personally. I hope you feel better now.
Michael
fj...@columbia.edu
Thank you.
Ray Lanthier
It was a general, albeit vague, reference to metronome markings as an additional aid to deciding on
tempi. The reference was vague because its was not logically necessary to my main point. - That
there are objective ways of determining tempo.
Fault finders are unpersuadable.
I do not suffer from an inability to articulate. - Besides music - poetry and philosophy are my
avocations.
"Publishers and editors don't necessarily know any better than
we do; they may simply be passing down directions from edition to edition"
conventions - and classicism is based on generally accepted conventions.- (sonata form - dominant
to tonic cadences etc...) and there are bad editors who blindly follow their predecessors. Just as
there is agreement on what are the "authentic" period instruments there can be concensus on what
were the accepted tempi appropriate to those instruments, and styles of composition.
Boy what a tangent!
Brian Newhouse wrote:
>
Ray Lanthier
I have specified them quite clearly in the post you just responded to.
"Clarity" is relative to a purpose.
One may speak loosely (colloquially) on subjects that are not critical , and academically on subjects in
which details are relevant.
We can't always speak in academese,nor is it necessary.
Nobody was confused about my point. You made a technical objection to how I made my point by the parsimony
about the history of metronome markings .
You inferred that I thought Bach had specified metronome markings.
There is nothing to logically justify that inference. You were not confused, you were finding fault. Admit
it.
Ray Lanthier
Ray Lanthier
Ray Lanthier
Ray Lanthier
piper
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Idiocy and unclear writing are not the only options.
>I have specified them quite clearly in the post you just responded to.
>"Clarity" is relative to a purpose.
>One may speak loosely (colloquially) on subjects that are not critical , and academically on subjects in
>which details are relevant.
>We can't always speak in academese,nor is it necessary.
>Nobody was confused about my point. You made a technical objection to how I made my point by the parsimony
>about the history of metronome markings .
>You inferred that I thought Bach had specified metronome markings.
>There is nothing to logically justify that inference. You were not confused, you were finding fault. Admit
>it.
No dice. You made a false statement, and including a misleading
reference further down. Nor was I the only one who remarked on the
falsehood of your statement, though I guess you can't remember things
that were posted a few days ago.
Colloquialism is fine. Inaccuracy and misleading statements should be
clarified. You did. Fine. Now shut up.
Michael
Cigarnose
Ray Lanthier writes: <<Tempo, or the "speed" of a performance, especially in
classical pieces is dictated by the composer
with metronome markings.
be taken seriously.>>
Actually, this is not true. Most composers of the Classical era did NOT write
in metronome markings. The only tempo and character markings were the Italian
words used to indicate such. It wasn't until Beethoven and after that composers
began to use metronome markings at the head of their scores. However, these
markings were never meant to be absolutes. Factors such as the particular
acoustic of the concert venue would be influencing factors for choosing tempi,
for example. Composers would also change their minds later on as to what the
tempo should be. Beethoven is a famous example of this. Metronome markings are
only meant as guides, not the final word. Read what Richard Strauss had to say
about metronome markings as well. Also, Stravinsky's recordings of his own
music very often pay little heed to his own markings.
Nardo
Cigarnose
Ray Lanthier writes: <<And I do remember and can produce classical sheet music
with metronome markings
that were not Beethoven.>>
If you are referring to music before Beethoven, then what you have are editors'
markings, not that of the composer.
Nardo
Cigarnose
Ray Lanier writes: <<Technically Beethoven does not belong to the classical
period. He belongs to the romantic period ->>
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you so often, but once again, your statement
is not quite correct. Beethoven DOES technically fall into the Classical
period. He only began to stretch music into the Romantic realm. I would
classify him as the bridge between the two periods.
Nardo
Deryk Barker
:
: Ray Lanier writes: <<Technically Beethoven does not belong to the classical
'classical period' arose among German writers in the 19th
century by analogy with the Weimarer Klassik created by Goethe
and, to a lesser extent, Schiller. Blume extended the
boundaries of this putative period back to the middle of the
18th century and forward to include all Schubert's
works...That there was a 'classical idiom' shared by Haydn,
Mozart and, to an extent, Beethoven is more generally agreed
than is the existence of a 'classical period' (IMS New York
Congress, 1961). That haydn more than anyone else created this
idiom is also generally agreed.
The New Grove.
None of H. M or B would have recognised the term 'classical' as
applying to them any more than Vivaldi or Bach would have recognised
the term baroque (originally applied to architecture of the period).
These terms are all post-facto, generally imposed by musicologists and
music historians. We should not get too pedantic about them.
--
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Music does not have to be understood|
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada| It has to be listened to. |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 250 370 4452 | Hermann Scherchen. |
Cigarnose
Deryk Barker writes: <<None of H. M or B would have recognised the term
'classical' as
applying to them any more than Vivaldi or Bach would have recognised
the term baroque (originally applied to architecture of the period).>>
Of course not. The point is that even if the term were applied later, that
doesn't change the stylistic school to which these composers belong.
<<These terms are all post-facto, generally imposed by musicologists and
music historians. We should not get too pedantic about them.>>
I don't see where the pedantry enters. Style is style, and history tends to put
similar styles into similar categories.
Nardo Poy / Orpheus Chamber Orchestra
piper
>
>Deryk Barker writes: <<None of H. M or B would have recognised the term
>'classical' as
>applying to them any more than Vivaldi or Bach would have recognised
>the term baroque (originally applied to architecture of the period).>>
>
>Of course not. The point is that even if the term were applied later, that
>doesn't change the stylistic school to which these composers belong.
[snip]
Nardo, I always like to ask my Music Appreciation students what people
in the "Middle Ages" called their period. My students always come up
with the truth: People at that time called their period "The Present;
Now; Modern Times (etc.)". But to you, that would seem to be
immaterial. Perhaps you would say that it's more accurate to call it
the "Middle" Ages without thinking about the fact that no-one alive
then would have used such a term, since they had no idea what future
period their present was the "Middle" to, if you see my point. Perhaps
you'd say that "The fact that the term `Middle Ages' was applied later
doesn't change the fact that it was all one period" (a HIGHLY
DEBATABLE point). The idea that a retrospective view of the past is
more accurate than a current, living view of it was at the time is
bizarre, to say the least. Do you have a positivistic view of history,
such that the labels that historians retrospectively give to
retrospectively (re-)defined "stylistic schools" are objective facts
and more important than the views of the people who lived at the time?
Or perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Respectfully,
Michael
Cigarnose
Piper writes: <<Nardo, I always like to ask my Music Appreciation students
what people
in the "Middle Ages" called their period. My students always come up
with the truth: People at that time called their period "The Present;
Now; Modern Times (etc.)". But to you, that would seem to be immaterial.>>
Correct.
<<Perhaps you would say that it's more accurate to call it
the "Middle" Ages without thinking about the fact that no-one alive
then would have used such a term, since they had no idea what future
period their present was the "Middle" to, if you see my point.>>
I undersatnd your point, but I don't understand its relevance to the central
point of the discussion, which is about into which style Beethoven's music
falls. I'm referring to harmonic language, form, orchestration and the like.
With the exception of Beethoven's very late works, I understand his music to
be that which falls into the category of what we now call the Classical period.
His late works begin to point strongly to what we refer to as the Romantic
period, but to me is not really completely of that world. I don't quite get
what makes this concept so bizarre to you. If this is the case, then most of
the music world thinks in a bizarre fashion (but that's another discussion
;-)).
Nardo
piper
>
>Piper writes: <<Nardo, I always like to ask my Music Appreciation students
>what people
>in the "Middle Ages" called their period. My students always come up
>with the truth: People at that time called their period "The Present;
>Now; Modern Times (etc.)". But to you, that would seem to be immaterial.>>
>
>Correct.
So we know where we stand.
><<Perhaps you would say that it's more accurate to call it
>the "Middle" Ages without thinking about the fact that no-one alive
>then would have used such a term, since they had no idea what future
>period their present was the "Middle" to, if you see my point.>>
>
>I undersatnd your point, but I don't understand its relevance to the central
>point of the discussion, which is about into which style Beethoven's music
>falls. I'm referring to harmonic language, form, orchestration and the like.
>With the exception of Beethoven's very late works, I understand his music to
>be that which falls into the category of what we now call the Classical period.
[snip]
And so, the fact that, as I understand from my readings, he was
considered the most radical Romantic of his generation is immaterial
to you. Your history is ahistorical!
Michael
Cigarnose
>And so, the fact that, as I understand from my readings, he was
>considered the most radical Romantic of his generation is immaterial
>to you.
I'd like to know what sources you are reading, my friend. I'd love to know who
considers him to be thus.
>Your history is ahistorical!
I supposeI should tell that to all my music history teachers at the
conservatories I attended, all who were extremely knowledgable and respected
men in their fields.It seems they know nothing about their subject matter. As a
performing musician of nearly 30 years in the profession and a great deal of
experience, I believe I should have a working knowledge of musical styles.
Beethoven was a transitional composer, beginning as a Clasical composer and
opening the door to Romanticism. If you want to talk of radical Romantics, look
in the direction of the likes of Berlioz.
Nardo
piper
>
>>And so, the fact that, as I understand from my readings, he was
>>considered the most radical Romantic of his generation is immaterial
>>to you.
>
>I'd like to know what sources you are reading, my friend.
E.T.A. Hoffmann and Hector Berlioz, for 2. They were writing during
Beethoven's time and immediately afterwards. But please don't ask me
for specific citations, because I read most of their stuff in the
library and don't have the books and articles handy.
> I'd love to know who
>considers him to be thus.
Berlioz DEFINITELY did. He had to try (and fail) to explain
Beethoven's alleged "excesses" to the conservative Parisians. Even one
of Beethoven's other friends in Paris, Cherubini, is said to have
admitted that he "couldn't understand" some of Beethoven's music,
though he and Beethoven certainly respected each other (as well they
should have).
The Parisians were able to understand Rossini's music much better than
Beethoven's. Rossini, by the way, is another interesting example of a
"transitional" composer: certainly, he is in many ways a Romantic
composer, but I heard an interview on RAI Italian TV with an
impressive Italian conductor (sorry, I forgot his name) who was
conducting La Cenerentola in Italy. He said that Rossini was, in
effect, the last Baroque composer, and that his operas are best
understood by reference to the Affections, with each aria presenting
one emotion. This really struck me as true, and this is what gives the
lie to those who think that Rossini operas are nothing but display.
Just like in Handel or Vivaldi, the display is part of the emotional
expression.
>>Your history is ahistorical!
>
>I supposeI should tell that to all my music history teachers at the
>conservatories I attended, all who were extremely knowledgable and respected
>men in their fields.
Knowledgeable, but with a linear view of history as a(n inevitable?)
straight line of "progress," I think. Gombrich and some other art
historians have had another view of history for some time. They
discuss each artist in relation to the work s/he knew: in other words,
that of his/her predecessors and contemporaries. They also discuss the
work in relation to the expectations and conventions of its own time
(part of Reception History, as I'm sure you know).
> As a
>performing musician of nearly 30 years in the profession and a great deal of
>experience, I believe I should have a working knowledge of musical styles.
I am truly sure that you do, indeed. I am a performer myself, not as
experienced as you, and I don't doubt that you perform Beethoven with
a great deal of understanding and with good style, and doubtlessly
very beautifully. I have the utmost respect for Orpheus. I don't mean
to insult you in any way; please understand that.
Nevertheless, I disagree with your view of history. I maintain that we
should regard previous periods in history not only from our 1998
rearview mirror (which is of course inevitable), but also by trying to
understand the way people at particular times viewed those times.
Deciding that we must understand previous periods better than those
alive at those times simply because we can look back at their times
and retroactively (re)categorize them strikes me as a type of
present-centric arrogance.
>Beethoven was a transitional composer, beginning as a Clasical composer and
>opening the door to Romanticism.
I agree somewhat, but what does "Classical" mean to you other than
most of Mozart and Haydn's work? Was C.P.E. Bach, their contemporary,
a "Classical" composer? He lived until 1788 and was a very big
influence on Beethoven, as old Ludwig said many times. If you trace a
line from C.P.E. Bach's "Sturm und Drang" style to Beethoven's
Romanticism, you get a much different view of history than the
"traditional" Haydn/Mozart->Beethoven view. I think that while the
influence of Haydn and Mozart in the work of Beethoven and Schubert is
very important, things are much more complicated than such a
straight-line and limited view of musical "schools" would suggest. I
also think that not only C.P.E. Bach, but Haydn and even Mozart can be
considered "transitional" composers; indeed, the whole period from
around 1730 until some ways into the 19th century can be considered a
period of flux during which there was no one style in clear ascendency
throughout Europe. Other periods of flux would be the late 16th/early
17th centuries, and the time since the beginning of Modernism and
continuing to this day. If there's no consensus on matters of style,
isn't it a transition to something else? It's just that, naturally,
none of us knows what new consensus may arise in the future. They
didn't know it then; we don't know it now.
> If you want to talk of radical Romantics, look
>in the direction of the likes of Berlioz.[..]
...who was Beethoven's big champion in Paris as a critic, and the most
radical Romantic of the generation immediately following Beethoven. If
you haven't read much of Berlioz's writings, I heartily recommend
them. He was extremely funny as well as being a great critic.
Was Beethoven influenced by the "Classical Style"? Yes, insofar as
there was one. But what's more important, the outward form, or the
content? Mahler's 6th Symphony is in 4 mvts., the 1st and last mvts.
are in what by then (and not in Beethoven's time) was called
"Sonata-Allegro Form", the slow mvt. is in ABA song form, and the 2nd
mvt. is a scherzo. Is it "Classical" because of its form, or
Romantic/Post-Romantic because of its content? Where do you draw a
line?
It's all very complex, and it should be: Life is complex. History can
be simple and false or complex and real, like the life it is
ostensibly chronicaling.
Michael