# In the shadow of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

Whenever there's talk about classical era, these three names always pop up with all the rest being persistently left out. I assume, these were not the only talented composers of the period. What are some other great composers of classical era? I'll nominate three: C. P. E. Bach, Luigi Boccherini and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. Which are your favourites? In case you can't remeber any, here's the Wikipedia list.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

If only Mozart and Haydn hadn't been so terribly prolific. I've been exploring their works recently a bit more seriously, listening to dozens of piano sonatas, symphonies and quartets, but in terms of their entire oeuvres, I haven't even made a dent in them yet. Even not counting the operas. I suppose one could dedicate an entire lifetime familiarizing oneself in depth with Mozart or Haydn. Or Beethoven, for that matter. And there will always be obscure, esoteric pieces by Mozart and Haydn, rarely played, that will, I suppose, legitimize further preoccupation with them instead of exploring their contemporaries.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Perhaps my favourite non-warhorse is Hummel. One might also mention Clementi. And let us not forget Salieri! 

And then, as guitar enthusiast, I could mention Sor, Giuliani, Carulli etc.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Aargh, double post...


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Thing is, the others just aren't very good. That's why they're in the shadow. Schubert didn't have any problem becoming well-known and climbing out of that shadow, but then he was a genius.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

There are of course, other composers, but after Haydn and Mozart at the top, the next level of competency is a steep drop down, very steep.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I can see the arguments for Domenico Scarlatti, but most of those I admire on the list of composers seen as a transition from Baroque to Classical (Tartini, Hasse, Rameau, Albinoni, Valentini, Leclair, Telemann, Rebel, etc...) strike me as being far more Baroque than anything else. Of the other "Classical" composers those I admire most would include:

Gaetano Donizetti
Gioachino Rossini
Christoph Willibald Gluck
Luigi Boccherini
Carl Maria von Weber
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
Luigi Cherubini
Johann Nepomuk Hummel
Johann Christian Bach
Michael Haydn
Joseph Martin Kraus

Then there must be a special place for Giovanni Battista Pergolesi who was truly pointing the way toward classicism... especially with his absolutely marvelous _Stabat Mater_... before he died so young.

There are also several composers that I would add as I suspect on the basis of the few works I know by them that they might surely be worthy of further investigation:

Carl Stamitz
Johann Stamitz
Franz Anton Hoffmeister
Franz Krommer
Louis Spohr
Andreas Goepfert
Josef Mysliveček
Muzio Clementi
John Field
Fernando Sor
Anton Reicha


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Thing is, the others just aren't very good.

Really? And that's based upon...?

Donizetti, Rossini, Gluck, Boccherini, Weber, C.P.E. Bach, J.C. Bach, Cherubini, Hummel, Kraus... none of them were very good?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)




----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)




----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)




----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I would have to divide classic period into two categories, a kind of post-baroque with a lot of harpsichord use and smaller ensembles, and then later the more fortepiano oriented works of Beethoven and his contemporaries. This is an arbitrary division that relates more to style than to time period in my mind.

For the "post-baroque" style I enjoy Joseph Martin Kraus and Michael Haydn the most.

For the Beethoven-like, moving toward the romantic, I enjoy John Field and Johan Neowhatsitsname Hummel.

C.P.E. Bach I'm afraid I still consider baroque. I know he is very much a part of early classical, but it still sounds baroque to me, so . . . But then most of Mendelssohn's String Symphonies sound baroque to me, as does a lot of Stravinsky and even some Schoenberg.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)




----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

What about Schubert! Depends on the era you're referencing but he lived 1797-1828 which crosses over Beethoven. 
Paganini? Though admittedly he's a bit later.

Or Boccherini


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Thing is, the others just aren't very good.
> 
> Really? And that's based upon...?
> 
> Donizetti, Rossini, Gluck, Boccherini, Weber, C.P.E. Bach, J.C. Bach, Cherubini, Hummel, Kraus... none of them were very good?


I meant compared with the best of Mozart and Beethoven. These two set the standard for the classical era, and I've yet to hear anything by any of those you listed that would even begin to compare.

You're also not being entirely fair in including composers like Weber and Rossini, who were, like Schubert, no longer part of the conservative classical tradition that Beethoven still upheld.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


>


One that composes such a beautiful piece must not be forgotten!


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I have negligible exposure to Telemann and even more sketchy exposure to Rameau: both sound decidedly Baroque to my novice ears. Mozart and Haydn represent the Classical style for me. Each had an output of vast dimension, more than I could ever hope to absorb, characterized by a recognizable personal style and predictable excellence. It isn't until after Beethoven, who is listed as the second (!) Classical→Romantic transition composer in the Wikipedia table the OP refers to, that my listening begins to broaden out considerably to include more composers. These composers have more identifiable personal stylistic traits.

Perhaps with more exposure to the Classical era composers, I might learn to recognize more difference in their respective offerings. I am not seeking a generalist exposure, but one aimed at identifying the next three or four MAJOR players in the Classical era, in terms of importance to the development of music and a legacy of a recognizable personal style and predictable excellence. Some of the names already mentioned are familiar to me and worthy of future exploration.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Consider exploring the CPO catalog:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/l/CPO

No other label is as committed to finding the best works and composers from that era. While they do record later (and some excellent earlier) composers, Classical era seems to be the heart of their catalog. They seem to have especially committed themselves to recording lesser-known composers. And the sound quality is consistently excellent.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

StLukes list is a great start. I would add just one name - Christian Cannabich.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I meant compared with the best of Mozart and Beethoven. These two set the standard for the classical era, and I've yet to hear anything by any of those you listed that would even begin to compare.

That's like suggesting that no composers of the Baroque except Bach and Handel were very good because none could match Bach or Handel at their best. Gluck's finest operas may not rival Mozart's finest... but then again... probably only Wagner could pull off that feat. Mozart and Haydn achieved more works of the highest caliber than any other composers not only of the Classical era... but of any era... with but a few exceptions. Even so, Gluck, Weber, Boccherini, etc... at their finest are damn fine.

You're also not being entirely fair in including composers like Weber and Rossini, who were, like Schubert, no longer part of the conservative classical tradition that Beethoven still upheld.

There are no clear breaks in the development of the arts where we can state without hesitation that everything from this point on is "Classical" or "Romantic". Weber, Rossini, Donizetti, and Beethoven clearly pointed toward Romanticism... pushing the boundaries of the traditional Classical musical structures... but then again... so did Haydn and Mozart.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I guess that our historical thinking is not yet fully democratized. We still think of eras or periods in terms of successions of emperors or dynasties. So that we can create continuous lineages like Bach - Mozart/Haydn - Beethoven - (then nobody, really, a scramble for the crown) - Wagner/Brahms - Schoenberg/Stravinsky - The End.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have negligible exposure to Telemann and even more sketchy exposure to Rameau... It isn't until after Beethoven, who is listed as the second (!) Classical→Romantic transition composer in the Wikipedia table the OP refers to, that my listening begins to broaden out considerably to include more composers. *These composers have more identifiable personal stylistic traits.*

No... rather it is that you have an admittedly negligible exposure to the earlier composers. Individual composers among the Romantics and Post-Romantics, like any other musical genre/style, would likely seem to lack unique individual voices until the listener delves deeper into the music. I know when I first started listening to Jazz it initially struck me as all sounding the same. Today I cannot imagine mistaking Ellington for Monk or Miles Davis.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Alypius said:


> Consider exploring the CPO catalog:
> 
> http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/l/CPO
> 
> No other label is as committed to finding the best works and composers from that era. While they do record later (and some excellent earlier) composers, Classical era seems to be the heart of their catalog. They seem to have especially committed themselves to recording lesser-known composers. And the sound quality is consistently excellent.


CPO is also known for their efforts in the Baroque repertoire... especially of composers beyond Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I am enjoying the videos you posted, SOhio! I started with the dreamy Gluck and have just heard the enticing Boccherini! There is definitely a unique style to these works. They're not just copies of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. Next up: Cherubini and von Weber.

And I know CPO as a label specializing in obscure Romantic era composers and works


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

A couple of months ago, I asked one of our local Classical-era experts, bejart, to recommend some string quartets from the era besides those of Haydn and Mozart. Here are the recommendations he (and others) gave me:
http://www.talkclassical.com/32339-masterpieces-off-beaten-track-2.html#post675987


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think one of the problems with trying to expand the listening horizons of listeners is that too many names, often unnecessarily obscure ones, are dropped at once. I would find it to be more helpful to know the next two or three composers of the era to know exhaustively. Think of it as a desert island game and you have to pick the top two after Haydn and Mozart (I'm thinking of Beethoven and Schubert as Romantic era), because the island has a volcano that is rumbling, so you only have time for the two next greatest (I suppose the easy way to do this would be to scan the TC Recommended Lists and see who is listed  ).


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Perotin said:


> Whenever there's talk about classical era, these three names always pop up with all the rest being persistently left out. *I assume, these were not the only talented composers of the period.* What are some other great composers of classical era? I'll nominate three: C. P. E. Bach, Luigi Boccherini and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. Which are your favourites? In case you can't remeber any, here's the Wikipedia list.





StlukesguildOhio said:


> *That's like suggesting that no composers of the Baroque except Bach and Handel were very good because none could match Bach or Handel at their best.*


By only mentioning these three NO ONE is saying or even suggesting that there weren't others who were incredibly talented and gifted. I wonder why everything must be a lump-sum game for so many people. These three were GIANTS, and by doing so, the OP is correct: They do cast shadows on their contemporaries. How that translates to no other of their contemporaries is good or wonderful is beyond me.

I never understood how people hear or read a statement like this: _*"Porterhouse and Filet are the two best cuts of beef."*_ and somehow distill it down to and infer that you must be saying _*"There are no other good cuts of beef besides Porterhouse and Filet."*_ Yet I see people doing this all the time everywhere.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mozart and Haydn achieved more works of the highest caliber than any other composers not only of the Classical era... but of any era... with but a few exceptions. Even so, Gluck, Weber, Boccherini, etc... at their finest are damn fine.


I can't see anywhere on this thread that someone is claiming anything different.

V


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I meant compared with the best of Mozart and Beethoven. These two set the standard for the classical era, and I've yet to hear anything by any of those you listed that would even begin to compare.
> 
> That's like suggesting that no composers of the Baroque except Bach and Handel were very good because none could match Bach or Handel at their best. Gluck's finest operas may not rival Mozart's finest... but then again... probably only Wagner could pull off that feat. Mozart and Haydn achieved more works of the highest caliber than any other composers not only of the Classical era... but of any era... with but a few exceptions. Even so, Gluck, Weber, Boccherini, etc... at their finest are damn fine.
> 
> ...


'Very good' is a relative term. It's like the IMDB rating. You don't give every movie you liked a 10.

Your point concerning Mozart's merits in the field of opera is irrelevant, as I'm not interested in comparing the genre contributions of composers but the best of everything they composed. Thus, Mozart may have been one of the two greatest opera composers, but he was still only one of the ~15 greatest composers in terms of his highest achievements.

With respect to classifying different eras, I'm merely following Charles Rosen, whom I consider to be the highest authority so far who has written extensively on the classical and romantic eras.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I believe Mozart and Haydn are at the top of the heap because they deserve to be, and by a very wide margin. Chandos issued a large series of recordings named "Contemporaries of Mozart" (Matthias Bamert cond.) that had generous selections of symphonies and concertos from the other significant composers active ca. 1750-1800. There's *nothing* in this series that poses any real competition to the greater works of Mozart or Haydn -- most of the works sound like simple pattern-making with no apparent character.

As Leopold Kozeluch (one of the composers who gets a disc in the Chandos set) said on Mozart's death: "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."

Note: Composers such as Gluck and the Bach boys are not represented on these discs!


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I see OPs appreciation of Dittersdorf hasn't been echoed yet, so I will do that! I was also just now listening to Carl Stamitz's Flute Concerto, which I adore!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> You're also not being entirely fair in including composers like Weber and Rossini, who were, like Schubert, no longer part of the *conservative classical tradition that Beethoven still upheld*.


Beethoven, the revolutionary, "upheld conservative classical tradition"? I'm not too sure about that one.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Beethoven, the revolutionary, "upheld conservative classical tradition"? I'm not too sure about that one.


You should read The Classical Style by Charles Rosen.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> You should read The Classical Style by Charles Rosen.


Ok, but what about the other heaps and heaps of literature that declare Beethoven a revolutionary composer who didn't adhere to strict "conservative classical tradition"? How can a composer who had one foot in the _Romantic Era_ and the other in the _Classical Era_ uphold conservative classical tradition? I'm genuinely curious. The "math" just doesn't seem to add up, is all.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

By only mentioning these three NO ONE is saying or even suggesting that there weren't others who were incredibly talented and gifted. I wonder why everything must be a lump-sum game for so many people.

_Quote Chordalrock: "Thing is, the others just aren't very good."_

Ummm... that seems to be exactly what was being said.

_Quote StlukesguildOhio: Mozart and Haydn achieved more works of the highest caliber than any other composers not only of the Classical era... but of any era... with but a few exceptions. Even so, Gluck, Weber, Boccherini, etc... at their finest are damn fine._

I can't see anywhere on this thread that someone is claiming anything different.

Perhaps a little closer reading is in order.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _Quote Chordalrock: "Thing is, the others just aren't very good."_
> 
> Ummm... that seems to be exactly what was being said.
> 
> Perhaps a little closer reading is in order.


Let's not forget that Chordalrock corrected himself when he posted this:



Chordalrock said:


> I meant compared with the best of Mozart and Beethoven.


If someone types _"The color was blue"_ and then in another later post says, _"I meant the color was purple."_ I think it unfair to keep claiming that he or she said it was blue. We all misspeak from time to time.

So yes, a little closer reading is in order.

V


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Ok, but what about the other heaps and heaps of literature that declare Beethoven a revolutionary composer who didn't adhere to strict "conservative classical tradition"? How can a composer who had one foot in the _Romantic Era_ and the other in the _Classical Era_ uphold conservative classical tradition? I'm genuinely curious. The "math" just doesn't seem to add up, is all.


I think the argument was that later composers no longer used the sonata form properly, and thus didn't belong in the same group with Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven experimented with a more Romantic style briefly - I think with his song cycle if my memory serves me - but then returned to Mozart's and Haydn's tradition with his late works, while the younger generation was already composing music in new styles. This made him conservative.

I haven't read any of those other books you mysteriously allude to without mentioning their titles, so I can't comment.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Chandos issued a large series of recordings named "Contemporaries of Mozart" (Matthias Bamert cond.) that had generous selections of symphonies and concertos from the other significant composers active ca. 1750-1800. There's *nothing* in this series that poses any real competition to the greater works of Mozart or Haydn -- most of the works sound like simple pattern-making with no apparent character.

That may be true. I've only heard a few things from that series. There are, however, more than a few works by composers beyond Haydn and Mozart who composed music that is far more than simple pattern making. Michael Haydn's masses are wonderful... check out this disc:










Pergolesi's _Stabat Mater_ is simply stunning. Gluck's best operas certainly hold their own against all but Mozart's 4 finest operas. J.C. Bach's arias are definitely worth hearing... especially performed by Philippe Jaroussky:










Boccherini and Hummel surely need no defense. And try out Kraus' "Symphonie funebre"


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I haven't read any of those other books you mysteriously allude to without mentioning their titles, so I can't comment.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's common knowledge that Beethoven was a revolutionary composer who helped bring in the _Romantic Era_. Do you really need me to cite the sources for that statement? You have never heard or read that before?


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Pergolesi's _Stabat Mater_ is simply stunning.


Yes, it is! I've never heard the Kraus piece, I will have to check that out.

V


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Some comments on Stluke's post:

- Joseph Haydn himself said that Michael composed better religious works than he did. I'm not familiar with them, but certainly FJH's opinion is worth something!

- Pergolesi, Gluck, and JC Bach are not represented in the Chandos set (as I mentioned WRT the latter two).

- Hummel's not really a "contemporary of Mozart." And Boccherini? Well, better than the average run of composers of his time for sure, even if contemporaries saddled him with the sobriquet "wife of Haydn." :lol:


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Varick said:


> Let's not forget that Chordalrock corrected himself when he posted this:
> 
> If someone types _"The color was blue"_ and then in another later post says, _"I meant the color was purple."_ I think it unfair to keep claiming that he or she said it was blue. We all misspeak from time to time.
> 
> ...


I think this is a pretty pointless discussion. The great composers that came after Beethoven didn't strive to compete with the legacy of Salieri or Clementi, nor did they derive inspiration from them. I don't mind people deriving pleasure from third-rate composers - some would say I do this myself - but I'm also glad to helpfully point out that listening to those composers is a waste of time for most people.

Personally, I find a lot more character in a number of vulgar game music compositions than the sophisticated but bland music of wannabe Mozarts. Mozart was an orange, and they're not apple enough for me to care about their music.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's common knowledge that Beethoven was a revolutionary composer who ushered in the _Romantic Era_. Do you really need me to cite the sources for that statement? You have never heard or read that before?


I'm not interested in popular catch phrases like "Beethoven was the first Romantic". If you can find an expert on classical music arguing at book-length that Beethoven was closer or as close to Chopin as he was to Haydn, then we can talk.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm not interested in popular catch phrases like "Beethoven was the first Romantic". If you can find an expert on classical music arguing at book-length that Beethoven was closer or as close to Chopin as he was to Haydn, then we can talk.


Straw Man Fallacy

Who said that Beethoven was closer to Chopin than Haydn? I certainly didn't, I didn't even insinuate it. Beethoven, had one foot in Classical and the other in Romantic. *It's a gradient, not a black & white dichotomy of Classical and Romantic*, of course he's not going to sound more like Chopin than Haydn. That's just silly. Why would someone who *unknowingly* helped (he wasn't the only one, even Mozart could be considered a Romantic Precursor) bring in a new era of music sound like a Pure Romantic who was born 40 years later?

Keep in mind the only issue I had with your statement was the use of the word "Conservative".


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm not interested in popular catch phrases like "Beethoven was the first Romantic". If you can find an expert on classical music arguing at book-length that Beethoven was closer or as close to Chopin as he was to Haydn, then we can talk.


Do the numerous musicologists/critics/etc. who aren't Charles Rosen not matter? Everyone who's not Mr. Rosen just spews "popular catch phrases"?

Also, that's the *reverse of the Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy*. They're both equally fallacious, I might add.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> With respect to classifying different eras, I'm merely following Charles Rosen, whom I consider to be the highest authority so far who has written extensively on the classical and romantic eras.


Claiming Beethoven as "classical" is no more historically accurate than claiming him as "romantic." It's much more complicated musically speaking, and much more complicated historically speaking and philosophically speaking -- in terms of the construction of those historical categories.

*Mozart as a Romantic*: From Richard Taruskin, _Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_, Vol 3 of _The Oxford History of Western Music_, p. 641-643: After a long quotation from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's _Confessions_ (who really defined in that time what was meant by "romantic"), Taruskin notes that in the late 18th century: "To be romantic meant valuing difference and seeking one's uniqueness. It meant a life devoted to self-realization. It meant believing that the purpose of art was the expression of one's unique self, one's 'original genius,' a reality that only existed within ... The only musical works we have encountered so far that could conceivably satisfy these requirements were the late symphonies of Mozart ... Not coincidentally, then, *Mozart became for the critics of his own time and shortly thereafter the first and quintessential romantic artist*, the more so since music was widely regarded as the most essentially romantic of all the arts." After analyzing for several pages the early 19th-century music critic E.T.A. Hoffman's discussion of romanticism in music, Taruskin summarizes Hoffman's views on Haydn and Mozart: "The gifted composers' or geniuses to whom music owed its emancipation, Hoffmann declared, were *Mozart and Haydn, the first true romantics.* As 'the creators of our present instrumental music,' they were 'the first to show us the art in its full glory.' But whereas Haydn 'grasps romantically what is human in human life,' Mozart reveals 'the wondrous element that abides in inner being.' ... To sum it all up in a single pair of opposing words, it was Mozart, according to Hoffmann and his contemporaries, who made the crucial breakthrough--from the (merely) beautiful to the sublime."

*Classisch und Romantisch*: From Richard Taruskin, _Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_, Vol 3 of _The Oxford History of Western Music_, p. 646: "Nowadays it is conventional, of course, to call Mozart and Haydn 'classic' composers rather than 'romantic' ones, and even to locate the essence of their 'classicism' in the 'absoluteness' of their music... This is due, in part, to a changed perspective... Historical hindsight eventually led to a new periodization of music history that came into common parlance around 1840, parsing the most recent phase of that history into a 'Classical' period and a 'Romantic' one, with the break occurring around 1800. One of the earliest enunciations of this dichotomy, for a long time almost universally accepted by historians, was an essay 'Classisch und Romantisch' (1841), by Ferdinand Gelbcke (1812-92). The music of the late eighteenth century was a 'Classical art' for Gelbcke because like all classical art it was 'object-centered, contemplative rather than expressive' and--cliche of cliches!--because it struck a balance between form and content... Mozart, for Hoffmann, a dangerous and 'superhuman' (i.e., sublime) artist, was by Gelbecke's time the very epitome of orderly values:



> 'That composure, that peace of mind, that serene and generous approach to life, that balance between ideas and the means of expression which is fundamental to the superb masterpieces of that unique man, these were the most blessed and fruitful characteristics of the age in which Mozart lived, characteristics that we have imperceptibly yet gradually lost.'


The view may be anachronistic, and it is surely forgetful of romanticism's original import (to say nothing of the actual conditions of Mozart's life). But like 'Gregorian chant' .... the misnomer 'Classical period'--corresponding exactly to what the earliest romantic critics called the earliest romantic phase of music--may be too firmly ensconced in the vocabulary of musicians to be dislodge by mere factual refutation. Nor is it without its own historical truth, so long as we remember that *what we now call 'classical' virtues, especially the virtues of artistic purity and self-sufficiency, are really romantic values in disguise*."

*Beethoven as Romantic? Classical? or a Watershed?*: From Richard Taruskin, _Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_, Vol 3 of _The Oxford History of Western Music_, p. 647-648: "Like so many distinctions that try to pass themselves off as 'purely' artistic, the Classic/Romantic dichotomy thus has a crucial political subtext. 'Classic' was the age of settled aristocratic authority; 'romantic' was the age of the restless burgeoning bourgeoisie. Yet even without looking beyond the boundaries of music, *no one in the nineteenth century could evade the sense that a torrential watershed had intervened between the age of Mozart and Haydn and the present.* Even Hoffmann, writing a generation before Glebcke, acknowledged that a momentous metamorphossis had taken place, although he saw it as a culmination of a prior 'romantic' tendency rather than a 'classic' one. A difference of degree can be so great, nevertheless, as to be tantamount to a difference in kind, and so it was for Hoffmann when he compared the work of Mozart and Haydn, 'the creators of our present instrumental music,' with that of 'the man who then looked on it with all his love and penetrated its innermost being--Beethoven!'"

E.T.A. Hoffmann, "Beethoven's Instrumental Music" (1813):


> "The truth is that, as regards self-possession, Beethoven stands quite on a par with Haydn and Mozart and that, separating his ego from the inner realm of harmony, he rules ove rit as an absolute monarch. In Shakespeare, our knights of the aethetic measuring-rod have often bewildered the utter lack of inner unity and inner continuity, although for those who look more deeply there springs forth, issuing from a single bud, a beautiful tree, with leaves, flowers, and fruit; thus, with Beethoven, it is only after a searching investigation of his instrumental music that the high self-possession inseparable form true genius and nourished by the study of the art stands revealed."


From Richard Taruskin, _Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_, Vol 3 of _The Oxford History of Western Music_, p. 651: "Was Beethoven really responsible for all of this? ... He became the protagonist and the beneficiary of an attitude that had been growing for almost half a century by the time he began making a name for himself, and that ultimately reflected changing social and economic conditions over which he had no more controle than any other musician. His music *was clearly affected by it; if it had not existed he would have composed very differently (in all likelihood more like Mozart). But by the force of his career and his accomplishments, and by the commanding mythology that grew up around his name, he mightily affected it in turn; without him it might not have achieved the authority his powerful example conferred upon it. In the 'Beethoven watershed' we have one of the clearest example of symbosis between a powerful agent and the intellectual milieu in which he thrived."*


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I would even add the complete text of E.T.A Hoffmann's analysis of Beethoven.

http://www.cengage.com/music/book_c...MO/assets/ITOW/7273X_INT_07_ITOW_Hoffmann.pdf


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Do the numerous musicologists/critics/etc. who aren't Charles Rosen not matter? Everyone who's not Mr. Rosen just spews "popular catch phrases"?
> 
> Also, that's the *reverse of the Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy*. They're both equally fallacious, I might add.


Dies, I agree with your assessment of the claims. I personally would defend Rosen as a first-rate historian, but not necessarily how certain of his readers may choose to read him. As you note, a mere appeal to authority is insufficient. I would have quoted from Rosen himself, but I'm at home and don't have his two excellent studies in my library here at home.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Haydn and Mozart were no fools and were quite aware of their superiority in composing. Mozart in particular could be quite sharp-tongued in that regard. Here he is, writing Leopold about a composer we still enjoy today:

"About the Clementi Sonatas. They are valueless as compositions as everyone who plays or hears them will recognize. Clementi is a charlatan like all Italians."


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Alypius said:


> Dies, I agree with your assessment of the claims. I personally would defend Rosen as a first-rate historian, but not necessarily how certain of his readers may choose to read him. As you note, a mere appeal to authority is insufficient. I would have quoted from Rosen himself, but I'm at home and don't have his two excellent studies in my library here at home.


It's been a while, so my distillation of Rosen may have been inaccurate in the details, but the general drift of it was accurate. Here's Rosen:

"The Romantic style did not come from Beethoven, in spite of the great admiration that was felt for him, but from his lesser contemporaries and from Bach."

This suggests that his "lesser contemporaries" were already closer to the romantics than was Beethoven, making Beethoven a conservative.

Another quotation:

"Of all his contemporaries Beethoven seems to have preferred one of the most conservative and classicizing of all, Cherubini."

Of course, citing an authority isn't enough for establishing hard facts in a logically sound fashion, but it's usually the best anyone can do. I happen to think Rosen is the pre-eminent writer on this topic, so it makes perfect sense that I would resort to him. If you think I should produce a logical proof to support my position, you should first produce a logical proof to support yours. Have fun.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Rosen is going against common school of thought by calling Beethoven the revolutionary a "conservative". You're also claiming that Rosen's thoughts on the matter (since he's "the preeminent writer in this topic") is logical proof and all the others who claim Beethoven wasn't a conservative isn't proof enough. Those other writers, the non-preeminent ones, well, those just offer up "popular catchphrases". Even though Rosen seems to be the only academic to call Beethoven a "conservative". Every critic, biographer, journalist, musicologist, and music historian that I've read have claimed otherwise.

You then go on to offer these two quotes as your proof:



> "The Romantic style did not come from Beethoven, in spite of the great admiration that was felt for him, but from his lesser contemporaries and from Bach."





> "Of all his contemporaries Beethoven seems to have preferred one of the most conservative and classicizing of all, Cherubini."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but what does Beethoven preferring a classical conservative composer have to do with *anything*? Beethoven admired Handel above all, does that mean Beethoven wrote in the style of Handel or that since Beethoven preferred Handel, Beethoven was a conservative? Using this same offered-up "proof" as logic, I could go and say that Brahms "preferred Beethoven above all", as did Wagner, Berlioz, etc. Even Mahler's two of his three most preferred composers were Beethoven and Mozart. Is this proof that Berlioz, Wagner and Mahler wrote in Beethoven's style or that they were conservatives? Of course not, so I'm very puzzled as to how that quote shed any light whatsoever on the subject.

Furthermore, Alypius, posted some excellent information on the subject, it seems you entirely ignored that fact. You say, "_you should first produce a logical proof to support yours. Have fun._". Logical proof was already presented and like I said, Rosen is going against common school of thought. It's logical to assume that the majority of other critics/musicologists/conductors/etc feel Beethoven was not a "conservative", i.e., the "grain" that Rosen is going against. You posted two small quotes from Rosen and then you claim you need proof showing otherwise, showing that Beethoven was not a "conservative".

Ok, including the quotes that Alypius provided, how about Matthew Guerrieri, Boston Globe music critic and author of "The First Four Notes", from an NPR article:



> "I think that the Romantic era is another thing that we just sort of take for granted, because they've kind of always been there for us. But it's amazing how many of these ideas were new around the time that Beethoven was writing music. The whole idea that music picks up where language leaves off - which is pretty much a cliche nowadays - that was a very specific Romantic idea, and it's one that lasted. Also, the idea that the artist is somehow more privileged in accessing these things beyond language, in accessing the sublime, in accessing glimpses of the divine, however you want to characterize it. A lot of the ideas we use to talk about music are these ideas."


How about the Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra,



> "Ludwig van Beethoven is one of the most widely recognized and admired composers in the history of Western music, and served as an important bridge between the Classical and Baroque era styles he admired and the Romantic style his music would come to personify".


How about Beethoven's Ninth symphony, when he introduced human voices for the very first time into a symphony. That is not "conservative". The entire symphony isn't conservative, especially the final movement and that isn't merely because of the introduction of human voices, but its actual movement form, he changes the very "nature and architecture of the form". From Mahlerian's Blog on Beethoven's 9th:



> "Many musicologists have attempted to explain this movement's overall structure. One of the most common of these explanations is that of the "symphony within a symphony". The "movements" of this would correspond to the four major section groupings given above, being a first movement theme and variations, scherzo, andante with inner fugue, and finale."


(From Wikipedia's article on Beethoven's 9th, which cites a source, Richard Taruskin, someone Alypius already cited and quoted, by the way)



> "The Ninth Symphony influenced the forms that Bruckner used for the movements of his symphonies. Bruckner's Symphony No. 3 is in the same D minor key as Beethoven's 9th and makes substantial use of thematic ideas from it. The colossal slow movement of Bruckner's Symphony No. 7, "as usual", takes the same A-B-A-B-A form as the 3rd movement of Beethoven's symphony, and also uses some figuration from it."


John Eliot Gardiner's words, from an interview from his 1994 Beethoven cycle:



> "Beethoven's concept of orchestral sound, immediately arresting, bizarre even, and his concept of symphonic shape is unmistakably his own. He may have drawn on elements from other composers but his whole way of handling material is entirely new."


It's a wonderful interview, it's worth purchasing the bargain-priced cycle just for the interview. Gardiner goes on even more about how UN-conservative Beethoven was.

Furthermore, one not need look further than Beethoven's Late String Quartets, I urge you to find proof that this body of work is "conservative". A body of work that bewildered the people who first heard them at their premieres. A body of work that is sometimes off-the-walls strange, in form and in expression. This already non-conservative body of work also contains a work that Igor Stravinsky described as "_an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever._", the Grosse Fuge, but the same can be said for all the Late Quartets. I urge you to watch all of the videos from this BBC video series, but I'll provide some quotes from the video on Beethoven String Quartet No. 14, Op. 131, by Howard Goodall:



> "Some of this music sounds like it could have been written in the 20th century, not back in the 1820s, but now or 50 years ago. It's so strange and out of its time..."


I urge you to watch the rest of the videos on Beethoven's Late String Quartets and 9th symphony.

I must reiterate, your _proof _is going against the common school of thought, by that very fact alone, it's evident that the *other* critics/musicologists/etc say the opposite, that Beethoven *wasn't *a conservative. I didn't really have to go through the trouble of gathering these quotes to prove that. Now, if you want to say that Charles Rosen's is the end-all be-all, and that everyone who says otherwise isn't really proof because they aren't Mr. Rosen, then there's nothing I can say about that.

I have an interview between Germany's preeminent music historian, Joachim Kaiser, and conductor Christian Thielemann where they discuss Beethoven's 9th symphony at length, from this Blu-ray. If you like, I can watch it again and transcribe the pertinent quotes for you. Please let me know, it's be a pleasure to watch it again anyway.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

You seem to be very invested in this topic. I'm not. Perhaps it's time for me to bow out.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Defending Rosen for a bit, as I understand it his point is not that Beethoven was a conservative, but rather that he drew the Classical style out to its furthest limits rather than taking part in the then nascent Romantic style of Weber and Spohr. If one conceives of musical style as a straight line of development, then of course Beethoven is an "advance" on his predecessors, but one does not have to view history in this way. By the time of Bach's death, for example, the pre-classical "Galant" style was already the primary trend in music.

Either way, terms like conservative and radical are problematical.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Defending Rosen for a bit, as I understand it his point is not that Beethoven was a conservative, but rather that he drew the Classical style out to its furthest limits rather than taking part in the then nascent Romantic style of Weber and Spohr. If one conceives of musical style as a straight line of development, then of course Beethoven is an "advance" on his predecessors, but one does not have to view history in this way. By the time of Bach's death, for example, the pre-classical "Galant" style was already the primary trend in music.
> 
> Either way, terms like conservative and radical are problematical.


That makes a lot of sense and it certainly does clear things up. You're definitely right about certain terms being problematic, on that subject, let's talk about atonal music! haha. 

To clarify, it certainly wasn't my intention to attack Rosen's views, it was only an attempt to point out that there are _other _people who have weighed in differently on the subject and that that information shouldn't be considered _lesser _information.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Defending Rosen for a bit, as I understand it his point is not that Beethoven was a conservative, but rather that he drew the Classical style out to its furthest limits rather than taking part in the then nascent Romantic style of Weber and Spohr. If one conceives of musical style as a straight line of development, then of course Beethoven is an "advance" on his predecessors, but one does not have to view history in this way. By the time of Bach's death, for example, the pre-classical "Galant" style was already the primary trend in music.
> 
> Either way, terms like conservative and radical are problematical.


Let me second the way Mahlerian has characterized Rosen's account. I'm more familiar with Rosen's later _The Romantic Generation_ (1995), which centers its discussion around Chopin especially. He has an extremely insightful and quite specific understanding of the "romanticism" of that generation. I had read around in his earlier _The Classical Style_ (1972) -- i.e. not cover-to-cover because I was interested not in his large generalizations about the "classical era" in general but about his tracing quite specific developments, notably in the string quartet. This afternoon I have gone back and read the longish 50 page chapter on what he means by the "classical style" and am just finishing up his 60-page chapter on Beethoven.

Rosen's Beethoven is no conservative. The key word in his title is, as Mahlerian notes, "style". He sees Beethoven radically reworking the elements of the "classical style". And while Beethoven may inspire a later generations, his "style" (I would use the word "musical vocabulary") plays off an earlier generation -- but in deeply idiosyncratic and often revolutionary ways.

As soon as I can carve out a little time, I will post here some key passages. He is eminently quotable. At the same time, Rosen's thought is carefully nuanced and deeply rooted in musical specifics. For him, such musical specifics matter. (I too tend to be wary of grand generalizations about historical eras and epochs -- I want specifics, I want evidence). Rosen repeatedly cites the problems with the grand generalizations. He is a wonderfully lucid writer, full of insights, and not an authority that one can readily cite for ideological purposes.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Alypius said:


> Let me second the way Mahlerian has characterized Rosen's account. I'm more familiar with Rosen's later The Romantic Generation (1995), which centers its discussion around Chopin especially. He has an extremely insightful and quite specific understanding of the "romanticism" of that generation. I had read around in his earlier The Classical Style (1972) -- i.e. not cover-to-cover because I was interested not in his large generalizations about the "classical era" in general but about his tracing quite specific developments, notably in the string quartet. This afternoon I have gone back and read the longish 50 page chapter on what he means by the "classical style" and am just finishing up his 60-page chapter on Beethoven.
> 
> *Rosen's Beethoven is no conservative. The key word in his title is, as Mahlerian notes, "style". He sees Beethoven radically reworking the elements of the "classical style". And while Beethoven may inspire a later generations, his "style" (I would use the word "musical vocabulary") plays off an earlier generation -- but in deeply idiosyncratic and often revolutionary ways. *
> 
> As soon as I can carve out a little time, I will post here some key passages. He is eminently quotable. At the same time, Rosen's thought is carefully nuanced and deeply rooted in musical specifics. For him, such musical specifics matter. (I too tend to be wary of grand generalizations about historical eras and epochs -- I want specifics, I want evidence). Rosen repeatedly cites the problems with the grand generalizations. He is a wonderfully lucid writer, full of insights, and not an authority that one can readily cite for ideological purposes.


This was wonderfully insightful, Alypius, thank you for clearing this up even more, the middle paragraph (in bold) especially.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Actually, Mozart, Haydn, and especially Beethoven are the exception. In this era of pre-democracy, with the elite in power, to be anonymous was the best credential. So, in this sense, they are 'failures' to the true spirit of the era, which was anonymity, under the radar, don't make waves, just craft it well, nothing fancy, keep it cool, detached...


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

A discussion appeared in earlier posts about Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven_ (New York: W.W. Norton, 1972). I had read parts of it, but my earlier interests in it were more focused on my interests especially in the string quartet and the concerto. I have gone back and been reading its introductory and methodological sections in light of the discussion on this thread. Let me post some notes that I have taken that may prove helpful to understanding fairly common discussion points that appear not only on this thread but more broadly on this forum.

First, a word about Charles Rosen (1927-2012): Rosen was a very gifted pianist (he has recordings that span the repertoire and include contemporary avant-garde -- his earliest recording was of Martinu; he later recorded Boulez's complete piano sonatas, which won him awards). He was a first-rate musicologist. Actually his Ph.D. was in French literature, but he first made his career as a concert pianist. He was more a self-taught musicologist -- but a highly gifted writer, as it turned out. His own deep orientation to the piano colors to some degree his analytics - so piano examples often spring to mind for him more than symphonic or string quartet (though he does explore the full range). This book needs to be read alongside his much later _Romantic Generation_ (1995). He has very definite views about what, musically speaking, constitutes the "romantic style." One other word about this book - which is, quite rightly, recognized as a classic and has been since its publication (it won the 1972 National Book Award): Here he largely ignores social context. His focus on the music, and often enough on rather technical aspects of the music. By the time he later wrote _Romantic Generation_ he had somewhat shifted his historical analyses to include social context (history, philosophy, literature, social milieux). He clearly knew the 18th-century social context, but he, for whatever methodical reason, did not include in this particular study.

In the Introduction, one can see him wrestling with the problem: He knows that there are lots more "classical" composers he should probably deal with given his claims about a "classical style," but it's clear he doesn't really want to be exhaustive in a historical sense. He wants to keep his focus on the triumvirate of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. He musters an interesting argument for doing only those three, but his exclusion of other classical era composers would likely meet some tough criticism today. He argues for a distinctive clustering of musical practices and vocabulary as constituting the "classical style." Part I is introductory / methodological; he defends his choices and tries to name the distinctiveness of the late 18th-century musical vocabulary, particularly the sonata form, from its later developments; and surveys briefly the baroque background. Part II is the defining of the "classical style" itself, both structurally and in its inner coherence. Part III is Haydn (string quartets, symphony) up to the death of Mozart; Part IV is "serious opera"; Part V is Mozart (concerto, string quintet, comic opera); Part VI is later Haydn (piano trio, church music); Part VII is Beethoven. Note after defining the "classical style," he is interested in how it works out in terms of genre. Also the substance of the book is on Haydn and Mozart, and Beethoven is portrayed as the remarkable but decidedly idiosyncratic transformer (as opposed to culmination) of the classical style. He does not really think of Beethoven as a "romantic" composer on rather technical musical vocabulary grounds rather broader historical or biographical ones. If I read him right, he thinks that Beethoven may have served later Romantic as a personal exemplar and model of freedom, but in terms of musical style Beethoven had so exhausted the classical inheritance as to force later composers in a different direction, notably, explorations of chromaticism. Also he reads later Beethoven as a musical curmugdeon who didn't like certain new trends that would come to shape the later "romantic vocabulary," which he sees arising from lesser knowns such as Weber, Hummel, and others. I should add that he doesn't think of any of the big three as "conservative." Quite the opposite. He constantly highlights how innovative each of the three are - how they are set apart from their contemporaries.

With that as an overview, I follow up with some posts of key quotes.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Continuing on Rosen's _The Classical Style_: In defending his focus on Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, Rosen points to the unique cultural milieu of late 18th-century Vienna. That city-centeredness matters, he believes. As I mentioned in earlier posts, he is uneasy with grand definitions of epochs and periods; he is more interested in the nitty-gritty musical details.

*Defining an Artistic Style and the Focus on late 18th-century Vienna:* Rosen, _Classical Style_, p. 19, first quotes the early 19th-century music critic E.T.A. Hoffman: "Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven ... developed a new art, whose origins first appear in the middle of the eighteenth century..."

Rosen then adds:

"This new art is, partly by convention, called the classical style. *It was not E.T.A. Hoffman's name for it: Haydn and Mozart were, for him, the first 'romantic' composers.* Whatever the name, the originality of this new style and its integrity were felt very early. Nevertheless, the concept of a style does not correspond to an historical fact but answers a need: it creates a mode of understanding. That this need was felt almost at once belong not to the history of music but ot the history of musical taste and appreciation. The concept of a style can only have a purely pragmatic definition, and it can at times be so fluid and imprecise as to be useless. Confusion of levels is the greatest danger. For example, to compare High Renaissance painting, envisaged as the work of a *small group of artists* in Rome and Florence and an even smaller group of Venetians, with Baroque painting, conceived as international and as stretching over more than a century and a half, could only lead to methodological chaos, however fruitful the individual observations it may suggest. The scope of the context is not arbitrary, and it is essential to distinuish between the style of a small group (French Impressionism, Ockeghem and his disciples, the Lake Poets) and the more 'anonymous' style of an era (nineteenth-century French painting, late fifteenth-century Flemish music, English Romantic poetry.). This distinction, however, is harder to make in fact than in theory: *the style of what is sometimes called the High Baroque in music (from 1700 to 1750) is international, and has no group that corresponds in importance and cohesion to the three classical Viennese composers (none of whom was from Vienna).* Yet the High Baroque provided a coherent and systematic musical language which could be used by the three classical figures and against which they could measure their own language."

A comment on this: I admire what he is trying to do here and appreciate the methodological problems. He doesn't want to write an encyclopedia. Note his city-centeredness or circle-centeredness. Here on this forum people tend to make grand sweeping generalizations about historical eras, about "tonal music" or "romanticism" or "modernism" or whatever. In this study, Rosen recognizes all the hazards of that. He notes that while we may speak in grand generalizations about the "High Renaissance" as some grand 150-year period, the real key to studying it is best centered on a relatively small cluster of painters who moved in and out of the cities of Florence and Rome in the late 15th and early 16th century. In a similar way, "Baroque" painting is associated in a similar way with a small group of painters in the city of Venice. He notes similar small clusters of musical genius: the French "impressionists"; Ockeghem and his disciples. Rosen thinks we do better if we speak in less grandiose terms, focusing on artists who, often enough, knew each other and spoke a similar musical language. Because they did, their differences (and genius) can be charted with greater precision. Artistic genius and artistic revolutions are so often local affairs. They take place in small "hot-house" environments in which artists rub shoulders with one another, compete against one another, with rivalries sometimes friendly, sometimes bitter, and take their cues from an even more complicated set of publics (circles of aficionados, critics; publics, both elite patrons and broader social groups, who are willing to finance the artists' efforts directly and also to support the institutions -- music halls, music publishers, universities, etc -- that house and celebrate their artistic efforts and train performers to perform their music).

The grand evolutionary, single-direction histories that various posters sometimes venture on this forum miss all this, I believe. They don't see the quirkiness, the local revolutionary character, of artistic history. The arts don't really evolve; they change. Also: How local artists create is one thing, how their work comes, at a later time, to become an icon for a whole era or country is something very very different -- which Rosen alludes to in passing here: "That this need was felt almost at once belong not to the history of music but ot the history of musical taste and appreciation." As I noted, attunement to social context is, in practice, less a part of Rosen's narrative in this book. This social contextual reading appears more in his later _Romantic Generation_. I should that just such a social-historical reading of musical history is central to Richard Taruskin's big _Oxford History of Western Music_--which is one of the reasons I admire his work. It is also central to Alex Ross' popular _Rest Is Noise_.

More to come.


----------



## ToneDeaf&Senile (May 20, 2010)

Here's a symphonic movement by a composer now considered obscure. I'm rather fond of it. It's the finale of Vojtech JÍROVEC's Symphony in E-flat major. Jirovec lived 1763-1850. The symphony was written 1794. It's not a great work, but full of good humored rambunctiousness. Much sturm und drang, which would be somewhat outdated when it was written. But it never fails to bring a smile to my face. Truth to tell, I'd as soon hear this movement as some early lesser Mozart/Haydn.

WARNING: Audio quality isn't the best: http://digit.nkp.cz/audio/Hudba_2/internet/VJ4.mp3


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

A few more key passages from Rosen. These focus on Beethoven:

*Beethoven-Classical or Romantic?:* Rosen, _Classical Style_, p. 381: "The question of Beethoven's position as a 'classical' or 'Romantic' composer is generally ill-defined, *additionally complicated by the fact that Haydn and Mozart in the early nineteenth century were called 'Romantic' composers as often as anything else*. It is not a question that would have had any meaning during Beethoven's own lifetime, and it is difficult to give it a precise significance today... *Every period of time is traversed by forces both reactionary and progressive: Beethoven's music is filled with memories and predictions. Instead of affixing a label,* it would be better to consider in what context and against what background Beethoven may be most richly understood."

*The Devil in the Details:* Rosen, _Classical Style_, 381-382: "That Haydn and Beethoven, or Schumann and Beethoven, used the same details or worked within forms that resemble each other, implies no sort of musical kinship if the details have entirely different meanings or if the forms function in different ways and for different ends. Meaningless resemblances between composers can be found wherever sought for. Until we know how the details work and to what purpose, comprehension can only be, not simply provisional (for that is what it is at best), but illusory... Beethoven often appears to speak too directly for us to admit the possibility that we have misunderstood him."

*Dominant-Tonic of the Classical Style & Beethoven's Modifications:* Rosen, _Classical Style_, 382-383: "For example, in his frequent evasion of strict dominant-tonic relations within a single movement, Beethoven may seem to be closer to Schumann, Chopin and Liszt in the most successful, least academic forms than to Haydn and Mozart. In almost any work of Haydn and Mozart, the twin poles of tonic and dominant are firmly maintained: an increase of tension at the opening almost always implies the imminent establishment of the dominant as a secondary tonality; the more remote harmonies are played, not only against the tonic, but against the polarity of the tonic-dominant as a continual point of reference; resolution always goes to the tonic through the dominant. This polarity has a much less fundamental role in the work of the first generation of Romantic composers, and sometimes disappears completely: the A flat Ballade of Chopin never employs E flat major, and the F minor Ballade has little to do with either C major (or mino) or A flat major....

Almost from the beginning of his career as a composer, Beethoven attempted to find substitutes for the dominant in the classical tonic-dominant polar relation. His first efforts were prudent, not to say timid: he does, indeed, go to the dominant by the end of the exposition of his early sonatas, but often before doing so, he establishes a more remote key first: in op. 2 no. 3, the dominant minor; in op. 10 no. 3, the submediant minor. The establishment of a succession of tonalities is typical of the early style of Beethoven, and illustrates its closeness to the loose, additive forms of his contemporaries...

After the _Waldstein_ Sonata, Beethoven is almost as likely to use the more remote mediant and submediant keys as to employ a straightforward dominant. The logical possibilities of these keys within a diatonically conceived aesthetic may be said to be exhausted in his works: only chromaticism could further enlarge the filed. More astonishing than their frequency are the imaginative resources which Beethove calls upon in the use of these substitute dominants and the variety of ways of arriving at them. Their effects cannot be easily subsumed in any simple formula: sonata movements like those of the Waldstein, the Hammerklavier, the op. 111, the Ninth Symphony, and teh Quartets op. 127 and op. 130 all use a mediant or submediant key for very different expressive purposes."

*Beethoven as Unclassical Classicist:* Rosen, _The Classical Style_, 385-386: "That Beethoven's musical language remained essential classical-or, better, that he started with a late and diluted version of classicism and gradually returned to the stricter and more concise form of Haydn and Mozart-does not mean that he stood outside his time, *or that his conception of classical form was the expression of an outlook identical to the late eighteenth century's.* To cite only one trait, his music often has sententious moral earnestness that many people have found repellent, and which is presented with an enthusiasm far more typical after the French Revolution than of the _douceur de vivre_ [="sweetness of living"] that preceded it. *Much of his music, too, is autobiographical, sometimes openly so, in a way unthinkable before 1790* if not presented playfully; it is embarrassing when historians read into the music of Haydn and Mozart the kind of directly personal significance appropriate to Beethoven and other nineteenth-century composers. Yet it is certain that Beethoven assumed a position not only contrary to the fashion of his time, but also in many ways against the direction that musical history was to take. *He was perhaps the first composer in history to write deliberately difficult music for a great part of his life.* Not that he ever set his face against popular success, or lost hope of achieving it despite the uncompromising difficulty of his work. The fame and love that his music inspired during his lifetime were, in any case, considerable; but the ovations he received at the premieres of the Ninth Symphony and Missa Solemnis-works apparently difficult enough to understand even today and which must have been almost disastrously executed when first played, to judge by the reports-are more a testimony to the respect in which the elderly composer was held than to a genuine acceptance of the music itself. *No composer before Beethoven ever disregarded the capacities of both his performers and his audience with such ruthlessness.* The first of his truly 'difficult' works, his stumbling blocks for critics, were written soon after the first signs of deafness, while the earliest works-even when they were found startlingly original or eccentric-won an almost immediate acceptance."


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Alypius said:


> *No composer before Beethoven ever disregarded the capacities of both his performers and his audience with such ruthlessness.* The first of his truly 'difficult' works, his stumbling blocks for critics, were written soon after the first signs of deafness, while the earliest works-even when they were found startlingly original or eccentric-won an almost immediate acceptance."


Good stuff and very interesting, particularly this last passage. Thanks for sharing, Alypius!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Haydn and Mozart were no fools and were quite aware of their superiority in composing. Mozart in particular could be quite sharp-tongued in that regard. Here he is, writing Leopold about a composer we still enjoy today:
> 
> "About the Clementi Sonatas. They are valueless as compositions as everyone who plays or hears them will recognize. Clementi is a charlatan like all Italians."


I find Mozart's comments hilarious. He just dissed everyone at will, hehe.


----------



## dnug (Sep 5, 2014)

How about Leopold Kozeluch? What's the truth on him


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

*Georg Christoph Wagenseil* seems not to have been mentioned yet and deserves to be if the music on this 2 disc set is representative:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Perotin said:


> Whenever there's talk about classical era, these three names always pop up with all the rest being persistently left out. I assume, these were not the only talented composers of the period. What are some other great composers of classical era? I'll nominate three: C. P. E. Bach, Luigi Boccherini and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. Which are your favourites? In case you can't remeber any, here's the Wikipedia list.


You mentioned a Bach son. Another was Johann Christian Bach. His music and early Mozart were indistringuishable.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

J.L. Dussek
Dittersdorf
C.P.E. Bach.
Now I've written this I realised that they all wrote pieces I've played in exams, so I'm probably quite biased.


----------

