# The Classical Style



## Guest (Mar 17, 2013)

I've just been digging into Charles Rosen's book, "The Classical Style". Now, I have lots of 'issues' with this book including its often esoteric tilting which assumes we all know what Rosen is talking about. It is a difficult read, IMO, but does yield some interesting ideas.

Apropos the idea that classical era composers were not 'confessional' (whatever that means) and did not write directly from their own emotions and experiences I quote Rosen re Haydn:

"What would once have been called the high seriousness of this deliberately popular style needs to be seen clearly: the artistic PERSONALITY of "Papa Haydn" that the composer CREATED - surely as much in response to his OWN NEEDS as to those of his public - had more than its jocular, genial side. the moments of sentimental poetry are far more frequent than the grossly humorous effects."(p.344)

and

"(The piano trio) is one of the finest examples of Haydn's ability to create an emotion THAT WAS COMPLETELY HIS OWN and that no other composer, not even Mozart, could duplicate - a feeling of ecstasy that is completely unsensual, almost amiable."(p.355).

Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, according to Charles Rosen, were all composers of the 'classical style'. In much of Beethoven's writing there is as much or as little of 'himself' in the works as in the other two composers, IMO. Listening, for example, to "The Hunt" Piano Sonata - this is purely abstract music. It was named by somebody else, as far as I'm aware.

When considering all these issues of 'emotion' in music we need to remember that music is essentially a three-way paradigm: composer - performer - listener. The notes on the page, of themselves, cannot contain emotion but the performer may render them so, to a greater or lesser degree. He/she may have done a great deal of research about the composer's life at the time of composition and made an interpretive decision based on this research. The audience will filter the performance through the prism of their own understanding, not only of the particular composer's other works but about his life in toto.

In short, none of this experience exists in isolation and we render music a disservice (IMO) by suggesting that this or that temperamental mindset or cultural proclivity influenced the particular composer at a given moment in time. Sure, these come into the equation but we are still dealing with sentient human beings who write music they want to relay to others. While there is a performer there is also the notion, as it were, of him or her being another kind of composer - interpretively.

I used to hold play texts up to my students in the classroom, for example, when studying Shakespeare. I'd say to them, "this text has another life and you won't experience that life until you step into a theatre, so our understanding of the printed word can only take us so far".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Listening, for example, to "The Hunt" Piano Sonata - this is purely abstract music. It was named by somebody else, as far as I'm aware.


It may have been named by somebody else, but the name was obvious. The last movement is clearly an example of "hunt music," a genre that had been around for a long time and seems to have been popular. IMO anyway!

I agree that Rosen's book is interesting and thought-provoking. Especially of interest were his observations of how the classical style in instrumental music was heavily influenced by opera.


----------

