# Classical music from the perspective of artistic assumptions of the period



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I guess we all know what classicism (not only in music, but in all arts) was all about. 

In architecture we can clearly see influence of ancient temples and other beautifully constructed important buildings. The same is with other visual arts: painting and sculpture refers to the ancient ideas, themes; sometimes even contemporary figures were presented as ancient ones.

What about the music? Basically we can tell that classical music took few influences from other arts: no mad expression (usually), regime of forms, etc. 

But how many of us really connect Mozart, Haydn and others (not to mention Ludwig Van) with antic and general back to it's ideas? Would such connection make sense?

Music of this era seems rather frivolous and light-hearted. More, I don't ever imagined Haydn and likes of him reading ancient poets and writers like Horace with great rapture and putting their essential spirit into music. 

I don't feel it, I do not see reasonable causes for which we should believe that it was different.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Good point... I think composers were more bound to the prevailing trends of their time before the post-Beethoven era than during/after. Musicians couldn't hope to work freelance at the time. I think this is something which Mozart pioneered, but only Beethoven was the first to manage a financially successful freelance career. Before this time, composers were their to please their aristocratic employers. It was the Romantic era that brought in music appreciation for its own sake, because the emerging middle classes took a great interest into music and experimentation and the use of more exotic influences was encouraged.

I actually have some trouble distinguishing between the Age of Enlightenment and the Romantic era at times. I used to think Romanticism represented a reaction against the French Revolution and enlightenment ideas, yet this was the time that the urban middle classes obtained the freedom they were hoping for and hereditary rule was becoming more and more a thing of the past. Some people even say Napoleon (before he declard himself 'emperor') was a romantic...I can't make head or tail of it.


----------



## Cauder (Dec 29, 2009)

Apparently the music since classicism is the one and only piece of art that freed itself from the period's patterns. Of course not entirely but it seems that music has become "an art out of art" standing beyond ideology, some ideas, fashion etc. Music is for sure connected with trends in culture at the time but it lives for itself. I think classical composers took a few influences from other arts to their compositions but not to represent specific period but to develop their music to another level. I feel like that maybe I'm wrong, whoah :O


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

The chief "classical" element in "classical" music, as I understand is the Classical Greek notion of beautiful proportion. Sonatas, rondos, etc. were the Golden Section of 18th century music. Simplicity, or clarity, a sort of no-frills aesthetic, was also present.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

kmisho said:


> The chief "classical" element in "classical" music, as I understand is the Classical Greek notion of beautiful proportion. Sonatas, rondos, etc. were the Golden Section of 18th century music. Simplicity, or clarity, a sort of no-frills aesthetic, was also present.


That's exactly the kind of point I would have made. I think the most important thing to recognise is simplicity - a kind of musical equivalent of regular polygons. If you look at the turn some classical music took after the First World War - i.e. away from the bombast of Romanticism in preference for Classicism - it demonstrates that the music is light-hearted, (usually) emotionally neutral and not too challenging.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Il Seraglio said:


> Good point... I think composers were more bound to the prevailing trends of their time before the post-Beethoven era than during/after. Musicians couldn't hope to work freelance at the time. I think this is something which Mozart pioneered, but only Beethoven was the first to manage a financially successful freelance career. Before this time, composers were their to please their aristocratic employers. It was the Romantic era that brought in music appreciation for its own sake, because the emerging middle classes took a great interest into music and experimentation and the use of more exotic influences was encouraged.
> 
> I actually have some trouble distinguishing between the Age of Enlightenment and the Romantic era at times. I used to think Romanticism represented a reaction against the French Revolution and enlightenment ideas, yet this was the time that the urban middle classes obtained the freedom they were hoping for and hereditary rule was becoming more and more a thing of the past. Some people even say Napoleon (before he declard himself 'emperor') was a romantic...I can't make head or tail of it.


All composers of any period are influenced by the prevailing styles of the time. In most places the classical style largely supplanted the baroque very quickly in the second half of the 18th century. As a new style it tried to forge its own way and therefore started from a relatively simple position. But it grew quite complex through the 1770s and 1780s. To say music of this period is frivolous like Aramis does is a huge generalisation. The classical style with its more dramatic conflict of ideas is in some ways more 'modern' than baroque music and helped pave the way for romanticism. In general it has an optimistic sound in keeping with the Age of Enlightenment (when the rest of Europe started catching up with Britiain and abolishing serfdom, restricting monarchs' power etc  ).


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Music of this era seems rather frivolous and light-hearted.


I used to think that too, for many years, but I now see that I was listening for the wrong things, or in the wrong way, and I believe I now understand at least partly why. I came to the classical era after already having swallowed many of the Romantics (Wagner, Elgar, Sibelius, Puccini ...), and coming from that perspective Haydn and Mozart did indeed seem light, frivolous and formulaic. I was looking (in my ignorance) for the kind of emotional expression that I found in (some) Romanticism, and, naturally, failed to find it.

Many years went by, and my ignorance persisted. But quite recently I found myself investigating the Baroque period in some depth and ended up drowning myself in Handel, Lully, Charpentier, Couperin, Rameau, Vivaldi. These people, of course, are steeped in Classical myth - a specifically Baroque kind of steeping, but still. Suddenly, coming from 'below', like this, rather than from 'above', Mozart seems to click into place (and I expect Haydn will now, too, when I start with him). From this new perspective, his operas (to take them as an example) are seen as a genuine, brilliant, and dramatic development of earlier operatic forms, growing out of the Baroque precursors. Far from being simpler, they're more complex. The development from the rigid alternation of recitative and da capo aria represents a substantial advance both in musical and dramatic terms. The shift in subject matter is also significant, in that it grows out of the generalised, mythic context of the characters in Baroque operas, to real flesh and blood characters that you might actually meet out on the street.

I think what I'm saying is that even with my relatively limited exposure to this stuff, I'm starting to realise that the roots of Classicism are essentially sown in the Baroque: there's a feeling of inevitablility about how one leads to the other, and the world of classical myth seems only just beneath the surface. The gap between Mozart and Handel seems a lot less formidable than the gap between Mozart and Wagner.


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I used to think that too, for many years, but I now see that I was listening for the wrong things, or in the wrong way, and I believe I now understand at least partly why. I came to the classical era after already having swallowed many of the Romantics (Wagner, Elgar, Sibelius, Puccini ...), and coming from that perspective Haydn and Mozart did indeed seem light, frivolous and formulaic. I was looking (in my ignorance) for the kind of emotional expression that I found in (some) Romanticism, and, naturally, failed to find it.
> 
> Many years went by, and my ignorance persisted. But quite recently I found myself investigating the Baroque period in some depth and ended up drowning myself in Handel, Lully, Charpentier, Couperin, Rameau, Vivaldi. These people, of course, are steeped in Classical myth - a specifically Baroque kind of steeping, but still. Suddenly, coming from 'below', like this, rather than from 'above', Mozart seems to click into place (and I expect Haydn will now, too, when I start with him). From this new perspective, his operas (to take them as an example) are seen as a genuine, brilliant, and dramatic development of earlier operatic forms, growing out of the Baroque precursors. Far from being simpler, they're more complex. The development from the rigid alternation of recitative and da capo aria represents a substantial advance both in musical and dramatic terms. The shift in subject matter is also significant, in that it grows out of the generalised, mythic context of the characters in Baroque operas, to real flesh and blood characters that you might actually meet out on the street.
> 
> I think what I'm saying is that even with my relatively limited exposure to this stuff, I'm starting to realise that the roots of Classicism are essentially sown in the Baroque: there's a feeling of inevitablility about how one leads to the other, and the world of classical myth seems only just beneath the surface. The gap between Mozart and Handel seems a lot less formidable than the gap between Mozart and Wagner.


There were most certainly advances over the Baroque period. The full development of the complicated Sonata form, which pretty much ruled Western music for the next hundred years, occurred here.

But it's also true that Classicism was in many ways a reaction to the Baroque, inverting or rejecting many of its premises. Even today the term Baroque is used to mean excessive, effusive, busy. Classicism denied all this in favor of clarity and formalism.

Back to the original post, it's true that some of the Classical arts imitated Greek Classicism rather literally. Architecture was imbued with a Greek look, for example. What we now think of as Classical music had no resemblance to ancient Greek music. So the Greek elements in Classical music were, as a couple of us pointed out, philosophical/aesthetic. This does set it apart from the rest of Classicism in a certain way.

Now let's jump ahead 150 years to the birth of "modernism". Interestingly, some music of this time obtained it's modern-seeming sound by deliberate imitation of ancient and far-flung folk musical elements, something Classical composers did not do.

The myriad ways culture evolves is a truly interesting thing.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

kmisho said:


> Now let's jump ahead 150 years to the birth of "modernism". Interestingly, some music of this time obtained it's modern-seeming sound by deliberate imitation of ancient and far-flung folk musical elements, something Classical composers did not do.


Yes, but even today's availability of knowledge about music of ancient Greece and Rome is much less than XXth century knowledge about music of more distant cultures which inspired modernism and, later, minimalism. As far as I know most of Greek music (like two famous Dolphic Hymns) were discovered and translated much too late for classical period to be influenced by it. Shame! But still, an interesting thought.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Music of this era seems rather frivolous and light-hearted. More, I don't ever imagined Haydn and likes of him reading ancient poets and writers like Horace with great rapture and putting their essential spirit into music.
> 
> I don't feel it, I do not see reasonable causes for which we should believe that it was different.


I guess I am the direct opposite to that. Nearly all that I listen to are of late Baroque, Classical and the lastest - early Romantic. It is interesting that you describe music of this era as "rather frivolous". In my opinion, a Handel or a Mozart opera can be put on par, at least, in terms of musical expression, character development and characterisation as any opera you might select. Their "average" audience in those days tended to be the upper echelons of their society, who also knew very well the classical stories, myths and biblical themes of which say, the bases of the operas and oratorios they were listening to. Composers drew upon these as a source of inspiration to write some of the most beautiful music to express the characters' emotions, and when listened today, it is even more astounding that these pieces - often around two centuries plus old - are as uplifting and rewarding as when they were first performed.

I guess that's why we _now_ see more of say, Handel's operas researched, revived, performed and recorded than ever before.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

kmisho said:


> But it's also true that Classicism was in many ways a reaction to the Baroque, inverting or rejecting many of its premises. Even today the term Baroque is used to mean excessive, effusive, busy. Classicism denied all this in favor of clarity and formalism.
> 
> Now let's jump ahead 150 years to the birth of "modernism". Interestingly, some music of this time obtained it's modern-seeming sound by deliberate imitation of ancient and far-flung folk musical elements, something Classical composers did not do.


'Deliberate' is definitely the word. The classical style was obviously influenced by folk music at times (eg alot of Haydn's music) but it was integrated into the overall style whereas later there was more wholesale borrowing of folk music.

Beethoven mentioned that he liked Handel's use of the simplest means for the greatest effect and that reflects what the classical era stood for. Of course it developed increasing sophistication over a very short period while still aiming for a clarity of expression. Its influence lasted well beyond its period obviously.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Very interesting topic, but it led to an even more interesting one, namely, the locus of the stylistic differences between two consecutive periods in music: Baroque and Classicism. Not taking into account all the diverse problems of periodization in general, I'd just like to agree with those who said that clarity and simplicity were the main concern for composers of the classical period, and first and foremost Haydn and Mozart.
Evidently there was a demand for "simplicity and clarity", since the Baroque polyphonic textures were getting a little too complex for the public taste. And so, homophony replaced polyphony, but it didn't remain "clear and simple" for very long. Because complexity doesn't necessarily mean polyphony. It can also be reached through complex and distant harmonic excursions within a homophonic frame. And that's what happened with Beethoven and with late Mozart.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

danae said:


> ... Because complexity doesn't necessarily mean polyphony. It can also be reached through complex and distant harmonic excursions within a homophonic frame. And that's what happened with Beethoven and with late Mozart.


And more especially with late Schubert.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Artemis said:


> And more especially with late Schubert.


Of course, but I was talking about composers of the "classical style". Schubert is a little beyond that.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

danae said:


> Of course, but I was talking about composers of the "classical style". Schubert is a little beyond that.


Ah yes, but so too was Beethoven, at least according to some opinion on this Board and elsewhere. Personally, I don't believe that Beethoven was ever a Romantic, and Schubert was only so in regard to his lieder and possibly in his last symphony, and at a stretch in the "Unfinished". It was mainly in Schubert's piano solo and late chamber music, which remained essentially classical in style, that he explored novel key relationships. But I'm not arguing with you, just adding my two-penneth ...


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

starry said:


> 'Deliberate' is definitely the word. The classical style was obviously influenced by folk music at times (eg alot of Haydn's music) but it was integrated into the overall style whereas later there was more wholesale borrowing of folk music.
> 
> Beethoven mentioned that he liked Handel's use of the simplest means for the greatest effect and that reflects what the classical era stood for. Of course it developed increasing sophistication over a very short period while still aiming for a clarity of expression. Its influence lasted well beyond its period obviously.


True. I wasn't thinking of that. The difference in the modern and classical approach was that the moderns borrowed from "exotic" folk forms that made their music seem alien. The classicists borrowed more from their own local folk music...which gave their music a more "pop" feel.


----------

