|
NC |
Hob |
HRL |
Key |
Name |
Instruments |
|
65 |
68 |
65 |
Bb |
2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns & Strings |
|
|
66 |
67 |
68 |
F |
2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns & Strings |
|
|
67 |
69 |
67 |
C |
Laudon |
2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns in C alto, 2 Trumpets, Timpani & Strings |
|
68 |
66 |
66 |
Bb |
2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns & Strings |
Thou shalt not rant! Well, hell....
It is interesting to see, now and then, how an idea which arose ex post facto can color perceptions for a century and more, as though having the quality of antiquity also gives it validity. Why does this statement come into the picture now, while exploring Haydn's mid-1770's symphonies? Quite simply because our received notion about these works, if we have read so much as a liner note or had a conversation with another aficionado about them, is basically wrong!
I have already, in these pages, had a rant here and there concerning the judgmental attitude displayed by people who should know better. I believe once one has taken it upon himself to illuminate some cultural phenomenon for the rest of society, it is not then incumbent upon the writer to go further and to pass artistic judgments which, by their presence within books of fact, are given the aura of being fact themselves. They are in fact opinions, as all such judgments are. I dearly resent this practice, and so should you. It is up to you to decide whether this or that work is something you wish to listen to, and even enjoy. Yes, I'm talking about A. Peter Brown, H.C. Robbins Landon and Jens Peter Larsen, and many another of their time and background here. Although to give Brown his due, he seems mainly offended by the potential that there was some recycling done. Oh my!
And so, when I was researching the symphonies for this year, I suddenly ran hard up against the reef of this alleged reality; these works simply aren't up to the artistic standards of the Sturm und Drang symphonies, or the Paris or London ones either! Clearly Haydn was emotionally tired out, or had been chastised by his Prince for being outré, or was pandering to the lowest common denominator of an audience (I love that one!), or (Heaven forfend!) attempting to be popular and/or commercially successful! You can imagine how devastated I was to discover how these works, which I like, by the way, were so totally undeserving of my attention. *sigh*
In the book pictured, I found some succor in an essay by James Webster, seemingly the first, great open-minded guru of the current generation of musicologists. In his essay Between Sturm und Drang and Classical Style, Webster addresses exactly these concerns. I wasn't really aware of the history which led to this state of affairs; you may not be either. As you can readily imagine though, the problem stems, as so many do, from the Romantic way of thinking about music and art. Note that by the time this all takes place, Haydn and Mozart and their contemporaries are all quite dead, so they have no voice in the affair. The nut of the issue, though, is the belief that a piece of music is a...;
"...unique synthesis of form and content, necessity and independence. This ideal demands the artwork be complete and intelligible in its own terms, that it exclude everything superfluous and contingent, that it be incapable of alteration without violating its essence and that it stake a claim to the realms of spirituality as opposed to materiality, transcendence as opposed to quotidian reality. Analogously, it demands that the artist create solely according to his muse, and not for 'eternal' reasons. Hence, to be great, an artwork must be psychologically and historically 'authentic': fully and in all details an autonomous expression of its maker's personality, yet reflecting the social-philosophical reality of its time and place of origin."
Hot damn! Webster then goes on to explain in far greater detail than I will, how the application of these rules essentially eliminates all music from the time between Bach and Händel on the one end, and the acknowledged 'Classical Era' at the other, with the exception of a few symphonies and string quartets which will fall in with the ideals of absolute music as they are defined here. Above all things, any sort of pastiche which would include music composed for another purpose, or in collaboration with another person, any music to do with the theater or any other sort of entertainment reason at all, any music which wasn't a direct extension of the personality of the composer, is a priori excluded from being considered as art. It even excludes impure mixtures of music, such as keyboard trios which blended keyboard with strings. The philosophy of purity is stunningly exclusive!
That this philosophy managed, against all logical odds, to persist even into the late 20th century is clear from the writings of Landon, some of the quotes above (like the lowest common denominator audience) are his, right from Chronicle & Works vol. II. But if you took each of the postulated weaknesses of the symphonies of this period, like Webster has done, and refute them individually with facts as opposed to generalizations, you realize fairly quickly that to exclude these undeserving works from your listening rota because of what they aren't is hurting only your own potential to enjoy some fine music. Don't let the sort of negativity which pervades certain areas of music appreciation, Haydn or otherwise, stop you from discovering some fine music for yourself!
Next time we will take a look at the four symphonies of 1775. Hope you have a chance to give them a listen! OK, rant over...
Thanks for reading!