# German Music



## Roberto

We love German music - what is the history of Western music without it? What would our musicians be without it?

The music of Germany is so very great and powerful, that it seems to be the ne plus ultra, not just in music, but even in all the arts (hence the development to Wagner). Relatively little of it is merely 'delightful', whether one speaks of Mozart or whoever - it stirs the depths far too strongly for such a word.

Yet what seems joyous, at any rate in general, in Bach and Haydn and Mozart, is utterly changed in Wagner and Strauss. This is part of the greater German tragedy of course. Then the real aesthetic horrors begin.

I have been trying to understand this colossal phenomenon for years, of Romanticism in German culture, of the good and bad in German music. Perhaps there are others in the forum who are interested, and may be able to help me in what I find to be a fascinating but very troubling history.

It means so much, yet we understand it so little.


----------



## Aramis

There is no crisis after Wagner. If you can't stand it, it doesn't mean that it was some "aesthetic horror". It led music into new ways, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler then finally Schoenberg - where is tragedy in it? It's progress. Progress that had contemporary alternatives from France and Russia, so you can't say that it's infuence ruined music. 

I can't really dig what you are talking about, where you see the problem. Maybe you are simply one of those people that can't stand any classical music that isn't archaic monument like Mozart or Haydn. But why all this uproar?


----------



## Roberto

Well... I dont consider Mozart to be archaic. 

Of course there was a crisis, and a major one. I think the Second Viennese School is, on the whole, neurotic and desperate, and is an aesthetic response to the wasteland of the early 20th century. I dont mean that it doesnt have value or isnt expressive. But I try to look at the history of music as a whole

Everything German is tragic after 1900 - surely that is obvious

Wagner is not tragic but I agree with many that there is something hubristic about him

What interests me above all is the trajectory of German culture towards doom. What are the causes? Is it something to do with the Teutonic soul?


----------



## Aramis

> Everything German is tragic after 1900 - surely that is obvious


It's not. Strauss greatest operas were written after 1900 and they are both magnificent in themselves and are another step in taking opera into another level. Only Debussy and his _Pelleas_ is something compareabe. And there was a lot more.



> What are the causes?


I think the cause is your imagination. Ask Germans what happened to their culture in XXth century. I wonder how many will tell you that these were lean years in German art.


----------



## Roberto

Strauss is an extremely interesting figure - of course one of the greatest composers of his day, of course a man of genius. Elektra and other works are very powerful. He was able to develop from Wagner and Liszt.

And yet, this is just his problem .... Strauss is a Nietzschean, a Wagnerian: how can one listen to his works and not feel that there is something over-reaching and excessive? Decadent perhaps? 'Ein Heldenleben' somehow sums him up for me - in the sense that it is almost egomaniacal. Strauss was a highly successful man, but he too participates in the German tragedy after 1914, and, indeed, I think, even in some sense before then.


----------



## Roberto

Incidentally, you should read Barbara Tuchman on Strauss in her brilliant book 'The Proud Tower', where she writes about him in the context of the culture of the epoch


----------



## Aramis

All you are reffering to is your inner, subjective feeling. "Over-reaching and excessive" etc, etc. Too bad you can't look at Strauss and not think bout all those things you consider him to represent but, once again, why are you talking about doom of German culture and all those stuff if you have no reasonable facts to base your opinion on, just your (and few other people) personal view on this music?


----------



## Boccherini

Roberto said:


> Strauss is an extremely interesting figure - of course one of the greatest composers of his day, of course a man of genius. Elektra and other works are very powerful. He was able to develop from Wagner and Liszt.
> 
> And yet, this is just his problem .... Strauss is a Nietzschean, a Wagnerian: how can one listen to his works and not feel that there is something over-reaching and excessive? Decadent perhaps? 'Ein Heldenleben' somehow sums him up for me - in the sense that it is almost egomaniacal. Strauss was a highly successful man, but he too participates in the German tragedy after 1914, and, indeed, I think, even in some sense before then.


What do you mean Nietzchean? Is it because Wagner's philosophy or merely his music being bombastic?


----------



## Roberto

Nietzchean - Strauss was an admirer as we all know of N, whose Also Sprach he read with utter fascination. He was deeply influenced by N and his doctrine of the Superman, which I think emerges not just in Also Sprach but also in Ein Heldenleben, and also in the Alpine Symphony in some ways. His Elektra is partly a response to N's views on the Birth of Tragedy. Of course N was greatly influenced by Wagner and indeed influenced him in his turn, and W was Strauss's hero. 

So the three men are bound together as supreme exponents of German late Romanticism (with Schopenhauer and Schumann in the background). 

This helps to explain Strauss's extraordinary boldness and ambition. But I daresay even to many Germans there is something too wild and willful in Strauss, in the way he goes for huge effects and strained intensity. 

Is there something wrong with Strauss? I believe there is. A lot of great men have quite serious flaws


----------



## Argus

Aramis said:


> All you are reffering to is your inner, subjective feeling. "Over-reaching and excessive" etc, etc. Too bad you can't look at Strauss and not think bout all those things you consider him to represent but, once again, why are you talking about doom of German culture and all those stuff if you have no reasonable facts to base your opinion on, just your (and few other people) personal view on this music?


I agree with Aramis here.

Roberto, can you provide some examples of these 'aesthetic horrors' you speak of? Is this musical decline limited to the German nation?

I like plenty 20th century German music. The 1970's in particular were chock full of fresh and interesting music of Germanic origins. What have you listened to? I presume you dislike Stockhausens music.



Roberto said:


> It means so much, yet we understand it so little.


What does this sentence mean?


----------



## Boccherini

Argus said:


> Roberto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means so much, yet we understand it so little.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this sentence mean?
Click to expand...

"If I can't explain it to you rationally, it doesn't mean I'm bluffing." 
Makes perfect sense!


----------



## Roberto

I cannot get on with Stockhausen or the others of his generation I have listened to. After a bit of an effort I gave up, and stayed with the past (though have enjoyed music by Part who is not so far away perhaps).

I am not well informed in that area, but have recoiled from what I have heard, for the most part. 

My feeling is that in this country and America we have not suffered to the same extent musically, but then we did not have such a long way to fall either, from the towering, astounding achievements of Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries. The country which has produced the greatest and most vital music of the 20th century in the classical tradition is surely Russia. But with figures of the stature of Britten, Tippet and a few others we have not fared so badly. Britten is a major figure.

What did I mean by that sentence: well, put together the whole tradition of German music - it obviously 'means' a huge amount; yet who can interpret it all? There is so much there that it almost defies comprehension. It is far more than a succession of good pieces of music. So - how are we to resond to it? Who is there to guide us, really? I have plenty of questions that I would like answered.....


----------



## Argus

Roberto said:


> My feeling is that in this country and America we have not suffered to the same extent musically, but then we did not have such a long way to fall either, from the towering, astounding achievements of Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries. The country which has produced the greatest and most vital music of the 20th century in the classical tradition is surely Russia. But with figures of the stature of Britten, Tippet and a few others we have not fared so badly. Britten is a major figure.


Whilst Russia did provide some great composers in the last century, I'd have to say that the contribution of Americans to the evolution of music has been immeasurably greater, even if we limit the scope to the classical tradition. If we extend it to all music, then Britains output looks more respectable but America is still the clear dominant cultural force. Minimalism, Jazz, Blues, Electronic, Experimental, Rock and it's offshoots, Country, Hip Hop, modern 'Pop' all either emanated from or had major exponents from America in the last hundred or so years.

But in saying that it's a bit unfair on the Europeans. American has a much larger population than any single European country and a far higher level of cultural diversity within a single nation than any other on the planet.



> What did I mean by that sentence: well, put together the whole tradition of German music - it obviously 'means' a huge amount; yet who can interpret it all? There is so much there that it almost defies comprehension. It is far more than a succession of good pieces of music. So - how are we to resond to it? Who is there to guide us, really? I have plenty of questions that I would like answered.....


It 'means' a huge amount of what? And to who?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, it's just I fail to grasp whether you are asking a rhetorical question or you desire an answer.



> how are we to resond to it?


Listen.


----------



## Roberto

Firstly on America - I think you shoud keep the distinction between popular music and serious music. Of course America dominates in the popular modes, but not in the bigger forms. The rivalry between the various forms of music is a big subject in its own right

Re German music: well, perhaps I did not express myself very well. This is how I see it: I suppose most would agree that the German tradition since Bach and Handel dominated the music of the West until Strauss and Mahler, with its almost incredible brilliance and power and variety. I feel in awe of it all - it exerts a force upon all interested listeners. There are various ways of dealing with the challenges it presents, as a listener:

ignore it - which would be wrong
pick and choose here and there - unsatisfactory
try to appreciate it all - not really possible unless you have a lifetime
love some of it, rank the rest below in some kind of roughly descending order

If you play as well, that adds hugely to the variety of possible responses (and complicates things as well since there is the business of practising and performing).

Unless one can arrange these composers and their works in some way in one's mind (or should I say unless I do in my mind), then one (I) will start to feel pretty bewildered. If I don't have my clear reference points in the vast landscape, then I don't know where I am. And this whole landscape I want to have a clear outline - with its progressions and its different routes. Of course there is a lot that is controversial once you get past Beethoven (there's even quite a bit of debate about him), so things become less clear. 

One thing I have worked out - that the peak is in the 18th to early 19th century, for whatever reasons this may be (and I would like to know the reasons). So this music (Bach to Mozart/Schubert) appears to say more profound things. However, I am not quite sure what things it is saying. Part of the problem is to do with all music - that you cannot interpret it in words. I cannot very well explain why a Mozart piece really is one of the greatest ever written, though I do know that it is. I can say that it is more beautiful than others, or more touching, but others would simply tell me I am being subjective. I would argue that I am not, but that objectively the Mozart really is more beautiful and satisfying as a work of art. But... I cannot prove it by analysing the score and pointing to modulations and so forth, because this reveals nothing of effects; and I cannot prove the effects it has because I can only refer to my own experience of the music. 

This uncertainty in discussing a single piece by Mozart has then to be extended to all discussions of all significant German music, with the result that one is strangely mystified by the whole phenomenon. 

Perhaps what I am admitting is that I should have studied music full-time, in order to find the answers to some of these questions..... I think at the heart of my musings is the question - does music simply express emotions, and form patterns, or does it mean something more than these things? In other words, in what ways does it express the soul, the psyche? To what extent does it express the soul of a community or society? IN what ways can it be moral and immoral? and so forth

Any clearer??


----------



## Argus

Roberto said:


> Any clearer??


Crystal.



> Firstly on America - I think you shoud keep the distinction between popular music and serious music. Of course America dominates in the popular modes, but not in the bigger forms. The rivalry between the various forms of music is a big subject in its own right


To me, music is music. Like I said, even limiting the sample to 'serious' music with such a spread as Copland, Ives, Glass, Reich, Partch, Riley, Young, Cage, Babbitt, Barber, Bernstein, Korngold, Hovhaness, Gershwin, Carter, Branca and Harrison (And those are just the big names). When you add to that Coltrane, Davis, Ellington, Monk, Parker, Gillespie, Armstrong, Coleman, Leadbelly, Johnny Cash, Burt Bacharach, Cole Porter, Brian Wilson, Chuck Berry, Nile Rogers, George Clinton, Hank Williams, Dick Dale, Michael Jackson, Madonna and so on and so forth, it becomes difficult to make a case for any other country.



> One thing I have worked out - that the peak is in the 18th to early 19th century, for whatever reasons this may be (and I would like to know the reasons). So this music (Bach to Mozart/Schubert) appears to say more profound things. However, I am not quite sure what things it is saying. Part of the problem is to do with all music - that you cannot interpret it in words. I cannot very well explain why a Mozart piece really is one of the greatest ever written, *though I do know that it is*. I can say that it is more beautiful than others, or more touching, but others would simply tell me I am being subjective. I would argue that I am not, but that objectively the Mozart really is more beautiful and satisfying as a work of art. But... I cannot prove it by analysing the score and pointing to modulations and so forth, because this reveals nothing of effects; and I cannot prove the effects it has because I can only refer to my own experience of the music.


Well, I'm a staunch aesthetic relativist, so there's little point discussing these things with me, unless you want your idols stature repudiated.



> Perhaps what I am admitting is that I should have studied music full-time, in order to find the answers to some of these questions..... I think at the heart of my musings is the question - does music simply express emotions, and form patterns, or does it mean something more than these things? In other words, in what ways does it express the soul, the psyche? To what extent does it express the soul of a community or society? IN what ways can it be moral and immoral? and so forth


I am of the thought that music is just a selection of sounds, or a sound, arranged somewhere in time by thought or by chance. Emotions cannot exist within the music, only within ourselves.

Studying music may answer some questions but it will definitely lead to more questions being asked and many inevitably being left unanswered. Studying music will make you think you are writing better music or understanding music better, but in regards to the questions you talk about in your posts, it won't help you one bit.

So basically, if you want to produce or reproduce music, study music, if you want to listen to music, don't study music, and if you want to understand music, then, errrr, good luck.

And don't get me started on morality.


----------



## Roberto

Well that certainly cleared a few things up 

So we disagree profoundly!

It seems bizarre to me to consider Gershwin and Madonna just as 'music'; let alone adding some of the really big guns. Aesthetic relativism - no thanks



> I am of the thought that music is just a selection of sounds, or a sound, arranged somewhere in time by thought or by chance. Emotions cannot exist within the music, only within ourselves.


Disagree to the maximum here Emotions DO exist within the music!


> Studying music may answer some questions but it will definitely lead to more questions being asked and many inevitably being left unanswered. Studying music will make you think you are writing better music or understanding music better, but in regards to the questions you talk about in your posts, it won't help you one bit.


I wonder why you think that - have you studied music formally, or do you base this view on people who have?


----------



## Weston

I think you are simply trying to understand and quantify personal taste. Not everyone would agree with you that the peak of Western music (or German / Austrian music) was in the early 19th century. For me it is, but I have my own reasons and I realize they are neither universal nor concrete truths.

I see it this way. For many decades there were great innovators in Western music, perhaps by chance often in Germany and Austria, but in other cultures too. Beethoven's music was considered violent and frightening in his day. Wagner's music was satirized in cartoons as a flurry of disconnected notes flying through the air. Stravinsky's music literally caused a riot. However it did not take long for the public to catch up with these geniuses and embrace what they were doing.

Eventually the innovators reached a plateau of diminishing returns. Along comes the Second Viennese school. That was a hundred years ago and most of us_ still _have not embraced it. Let's face it, most of us never will except for an esoteric few. I don't think this is a cultural effect as much as it is an innovation barrier. Past a certain point, innovation is no longer shocking, rather it can be as boring as reading the phone directory backwards.

Perhaps your experience is similar to mine.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

It may be that in connection with the Protestant Reformation music in Germany got a 'leg up' over other European nations in the 16th Century.
From that point on a certain musical culture was developed with both formal instruction and informal village music making.
This culture nourished the Volk.
There may also be something in the German language itself in terms of rhythm and rhyme which has organic parallels in the brain with musical ability.
Even up through the first quarter of the 19th Century Germany held musical superiority over all other Western nations: France, Russia, and Italy finally caught up around c.1825.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The centers of art continually shift and move. The German/Austrian contingent indeed offers one of the most impressive achievements in the history of the arts. If I were to offer a personal list of the greatest composers of all time I might go quite a way until coming upon a non-Germanic composer:

Bach
Mozart 
Beethoven
Wagner
Handel
Schubert
Brahms
Haydn

... and arguably I could add Schumann, Mahler, Richard Strauss, and maybe even Bruckner to that list before coming to Verdi, Monteverdi, Tchaikovsky, or Debussy.

But such towering figures alone do not make an artistic milieu. Bach and Handel are undoubtedly the towering figures of baroque music... but what German composers do we have after them? Zelenka, Biber, Schutz, Telemann, Pachelbel, Praetorius...? All worthy composers... but then don't the Italians have Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Alessandro and Domenico Scarlatti (all arguably equal or greater composers) as well as Corelli, Allegri, Frescobaldi, Albinoni, Pergolesi, etc... Italy was such a musical center that Handel spent years there and many of the best German and French composers studied there as well.

Still, I won't argue the point that German/Austrian music was perhaps the greatest body of music from the baroque through the 19th century. I will question the notion that somehow this great tradition suddenly disintegrates before our eyes to be surpassed by such amateurish upstarts as the Russians and the Americans. 

First of all... I (surprisingly) agree with Argus that the American contributions to music in the 20th century is virtually impossible to beat if we include the achievements in jazz, blues, popular music, bluegrass, rock, etc... and I question the notion that there is a clear division between "classical" and "non-classical" music... there is only good and bad... and time will discern what music is worthy of survival and being labeled a "classic". However... limiting ourselves solely to traditional definitions of classical music... American music offers some marvelous composers: Hovhaness, Copland, Barber, Ives, Crumb, Carter, Glass, Rorem, Glass, Reich, etc... but I doubt these rival the contributions of Mahler, Richard Strauss, Zemlinsky, Hindemith, Korngold (who was German, not American), Joseph Marx, Max Bruch, Carl Orff, Hans Eisler, Kurt Weill, Karl Hartmann, Hans Werner Henze, Arnold Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Max Reger etc... This does not appear to be proof of a collapse of the tradition. 

On the other hand... what we may be seeing is that other nations are developing their own musical traditions that now rival the achievement of the German/Austrian contingent. Certainly the Russians (Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovitch, Alexander Gretchaninov, Glazunov, Reinhold Glière, Medtner, Roslavets, Sofia Gubaidulina, Schnittke, etc...) and undoubtedly the British (Elgar, Delius, Vaughan-Williams, Cyril Scott, Arnold Bax, William Walton, Moeran, Herbert Howells, Finzi, Rubbra, Malcolm Arnold, Tavener, Britten, James MacMillan, Tarik O'Regan, Thomas Adès, etc...) but also the French (Debussy, Ravel, Dukas, Satie, Koechlin, Tournemire, Varese, Poulenc, Messiaen, Dutilleux, Gérard Grisey, Tristan Murail, Pascal Dusapin, etc...) all have produced a body of music over the last century to rival the Germans... although I don't see a clear dominance... or superiority to the German achievements. And do we need such a clear dominance... a "champion" as it were? It's art not football.

But even if it were so... if the upstart American steal the torch as they very well may do... or if the next great body of classical music arrives in Latin-America or Japan or India what does it matter? I listen to music for the music... not for the nationality of the composer.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Roberto said:


> One thing I have worked out - that the peak is in the 18th to early 19th century, for whatever reasons this may be (and I would like to know the reasons). So this music (Bach to Mozart/Schubert) appears to say more profound things. However, I am not quite sure what things it is saying. Part of the problem is to do with all music - that you cannot interpret it in words. ...
> 
> Perhaps what I am admitting is that I should have studied music full-time, in order to find the answers to some of these questions..... I think at the heart of my musings is the question - does music simply express emotions, and form patterns, or does it mean something more than these things? In other words, in what ways does it express the soul, the psyche? To what extent does it express the soul of a community or society? IN what ways can it be moral and immoral? and so forth
> 
> Any clearer??


I would not mix both 18th and 19th centuries into one.

Sounds to me that you are attempting to objectively prove a Mozart piece (or whatever piece that you really admire/enjoy listening) offers a portrait of humanity in all respects.

Well, it's not primarily meant to be viewed that way, certainly at least as far as 18th century music was concerned, on a whole. Anyone reasonably familiar with 18th century composers would know that they were very pragmatic folks who got out of bed each day to write _entertainment music_, primarily because their jobs as employees (Bach, Haydn) or semi-freelance (Handel, Mozart later in life, Beethoven) demanded so. Majority of composers before Beethoven, were involved with music from an early part of their lives either because of their religious faith with the church (an important part of musical activities in the 18th century), or they were born into a musical family. The former demanded they wrote music to glorify their God, while secular activities were largely for private entertainment under aristocratic patronage, or public performances in an opera house. One should not assess 18th century music from the viewpoint of Romantic impressions from a century and later.


----------



## Boccherini

Roberto said:


> Well that certainly cleared a few things up
> 
> So we disagree profoundly!
> 
> It seems bizarre to me to consider Gershwin and Madonna just as 'music'; let alone adding some of the really big guns. Aesthetic relativism - no thanks
> 
> Disagree to the maximum here Emotions DO exist within the music!
> 
> I wonder why you think that - have you studied music formally, or do you base this view on people who have?


First of all, while not being an aesthetic relativist, I assume there's an objective border line for all, it's merely subjective where to place it, and it basically comes down to the question whether music (or art, in general) is autonomic - stands per se - not being affected by outer factors - or not. (Hmm, I should start a thread on that topic, it seems to be interesting what people think about it).

Secondly, and I agree with Argus about it, what do you mean that emotions exist within music? Emotion is merely a psychological phenomenon bounded within the psyche, and as far as I can tell, music - while being abstract - does not have a psyche, and therefore, and to answer you question (#14), music does not _express_ emotions, but _affects_ emotions. Could you elaborate that statement of yours?

To answer your question whether/how music can be moral and immoral, it's pretty simple, music that relays bad content is bad/immoral in some aspects, and music that relays good content is moral. Thus, and I'm pretty sure it would arouse a few/many attacks against me, for example, Wagner music, which undoubtedly relays bad/evil content, as a whole, is definitely immoral and those who listen to Wagner either have a few problems with morality or define this term differently than the common definition, or they belong to the aesthetic relativism school who preposterously insist to ignore the immoral content of several artistic creations. They might claim that it doesn't affect them, but history has proved the opposite.


----------



## Boccherini

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> It may be that in connection with the Protestant Reformation music in Germany got a 'leg up' over other European nations in the 16th Century.
> From that point on a certain musical culture was developed with both formal instruction and informal village music making.
> This culture nourished the Volk.
> *There may also be something in the German language itself in terms of rhythm and rhyme which has organic parallels in the brain with musical ability.*
> Even up through the first quarter of the 19th Century Germany held musical superiority over all other Western nations: France, Russia, and Italy finally caught up around c.1825.


Do you have evidences to base that theory on?


----------



## Sid James

I disagree that there has been a decline in Austro-German classical music in the last 100 years, quite the reverse. Some excellent composers have surfaced from there. Sure, the Nazi era was a huge setback for all of the arts (and more besides, more importantly, human rights), but this was over 60 years ago, so surely there has been plenty of time for reflection and recovery. Even things like what our parent's generation could hardly have believed (eg. the Berlin Wall coming down) have happened - change has become reality, if that makes sense.

I'm like St. Luke's above, I don't give a damn on where music comes from, or (like Argus) whether it's classical or otherwise. I don't elevate one country's or region's output over others. On the contrary, I am often interested in what composers of other nations with less of a classical tradition have been or are doing.

I also agree that the "emotion" in music is based upon the listener's own perception of it. I was recently at a concert with a friend, we both heard the same work from Australian composer Brett Dean, but we had (almost) completely different responses to it. On the whole, composers don't give everything to you on a plate - you as a listener have to make sense of it in your own way. Developing my perception of music is the best thing for me as a listener of classical music.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Boccherini said:


> _Do you have evidences to base that theory on?_


It's just a personal theory based on the scientific evidence that the parts of the brain (mid-cortex) which exercise linguistic ability also treat with music and mathematics.

(This has been thoroughly explicated from the mid-1990s with the so-called 'Mozart Effect'.)

Listening to Classical music stimulates the same neurons/synapses to 'fire' (i.e., exchange electro-chemical reacations [+/- charges]) as language and mathematics.

Therefore, since music is a type of 'language' as mathematics is a type of 'language', and since music is highly mathematical, I simply postulate that German speech may possibly have influenced German music.
There may be some connection.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Russians are cooler than Germans.

Russians own everyone.

Go Triple Entente!


----------



## Guest

I suspect, although I would have to research it, that much of the dominance of the music world that the Germanic composers enjoyed from Bach down to Beethoven and later might be due to where the wealth was at the time. I'm sure that the Protestant Reformation also had a hand in it. 

Composers were very much dependent on sponsors, or on customers, for their livelihood. Prior to the emergence of the Germans, much of the music passed down was of a religious nature, and thus was likely centered around the great religious focal points - hence Italy enjoyed a certain level of dominance for a time. With the renaissance also getting quite the kickstart in Italy, it also follows that the shifts in music would have occurred there. 

But Germany, or Germanic areas (Germany as we now know it is a relative newcomer to the scene), were the seat of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and much wealth existed there, even if a lot was decentralized. With the Reformation, and some more freedom, taking a greater hold in Germanic countries, as opposed to Italy, you were bound to have an even greater expansion. And then as the Austro-Hungarian Empire become a dominant force, with its focal point in Vienna, that would have been where artists congregated, where the most money and biggest audience would be. 

I think, also, that the greater proliferation of these German composers also owes much to the technology of the day. To publish and distribute the music of Mozart and Beethoven would have been, technologically, much easier than, say, that of Monteverdi or Vivaldi. And then, also, the nature of composing - much of what was composed earlier was very much made to order, for private individuals, and may have been sequestered, not allowing a broader dissemination. Bach's Brandenburg Concertos languished in a private collection for some time. Only later when other composers, like Mendelssohn, re-introduced Bach's works to a larger audience do we get this surge in interest in him. In his day, Telemann was a much more popular composer. 

I suspect, then, that it was the good fortune of the German composers to have come on to the scene at just the right time for their works to be spread to a much larger audience that had such a major impact on their relative popularity as compared to other nationalities.


----------



## Roberto

To Weston

There is far more than personal taste involved here: broad questions of aesthetic judgements cannot be reduced to personal taste even though of course it plays an important part – it is more a matter of personal and communal taste.

I think you’re right about innovation and that the 2nd Viennese school prized it far more than musicality, which they were willing to sacrifice. 

Not all the greats were radical innovators of course – neither Mozart nor Bach nor Schubert were, surely.

To Melmoth

I wonder (with Boccherini) how it could be shown that the German language itself influenced music, but I think there may be a connection

I don’t think the others caught up by 1825 – not until the great Russians of the 20th century (or perhaps Tchikovsky’s generation?)

To Stlukes

I agree completely with the first few paras, especially the comments about Italy and the wonderful music of that period. I disagree that there is not a pretty clear division between classical (formal? Serious?) music and popular.

We don’t need a clear dominance – but one often emerges. And it should be recognised when it does. And I think it matters a lot…. For example, if the torch were to be taken by the Japanese, I would be somewhat upset. 

To Harpsichord

Not a portrait of humanity in all its respects since no composer could ever possibly do such a thing. However, a very powerful expression of the soul and intellect – certainly. And I do not believe what you say about entertainment for a moment – there is a clear distinction in Mozart between light pieces such as Divertimenti and major works of his genius, which are of course both entertaining and sublime. Mozart was far too great to merely entertain, and Beethoven believed, I suspect, the same of himself, only possibly more so.

To Boccherini

Music is undoubtedly enormously influenced by the culture of the times, as indeed are the composers themselves made by the times in which they live. 

Music expresses emotions just as language does (although of course not in the same way). Just as a writer expresses his feelings in a poem or story, a composer expresses his feelings in music. Of course the emotion is not registered or felt until there is a listener or reader. The message must have a receiver. I am not saying music is a language exactly (a very complicated issue), but that it resembles a language in a number of respects. Music does not have a psyche – but it records happenings in the psyche of the composer, otherwise to would not be an art.

You are right about morality, but not I think about Wagner: some of his writings are immoral, but his music? That would be very difficult to prove.

To Andre

German music may well be recovering, but 60 years is not a long time. 

Seems strange to me not to give a damn where music comes from – what if it came from outer space? Or the boy next door?

I think it is more frequent to have disagreements about the emotional content of music firstly with modern music where it is often not clear; and secondly with music that is very unfamiliar


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I suspect, although I would have to research it, that much of the dominance of the music world that the Germanic composers enjoyed from Bach down to Beethoven and later might be due to where the wealth was at the time.

An interesting theory... but it is not supported by history. The French, British, and Spanish courts were all far wealthier, and the Italians incredibly supportive of the arts... especially in Venice, Florence, and Rome. We also find that there is no correlation with the other arts. In the Baroque era it was Italy (still since the Renaissance), Spain, and the Netherlands (and one might add the French) who dominated the visual arts: painting, sculpture, and architecture (which demand as much or more wealth than music), while France and Britain (and considering Cervantes, Calderon, Lope de Vega, etc... we might include the Spanish) dominated the field of literature. The first real major German contributions to literature since the middle ages would need to wait until Schiller and Goethe.

Composers were very much dependent on sponsors, or on customers, for their livelihood. Prior to the emergence of the Germans, much of the music passed down was of a religious nature, and thus was likely centered around the great religious focal points - hence Italy enjoyed a certain level of dominance for a time.

To an extent this is true... but you might remember that the wealthy churchmen as well as lords such as the Medici, Orsini, Gonzagas, Borgias, and Venetian Doges were all great collectors and supporters of secular art as well. Opera starts in Italy and Italy remains nearly an essential training ground for the aspiring composer.

But Germany, or Germanic areas (Germany as we now know it is a relative newcomer to the scene), were the seat of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and much wealth existed there, even if a lot was decentralized. With the Reformation, and some more freedom, taking a greater hold in Germanic countries, as opposed to Italy, you were bound to have an even greater expansion. And then as the Austro-Hungarian Empire become a dominant force, with its focal point in Vienna, that would have been where artists congregated, where the most money and biggest audience would be.

Actually, Germany was decimated by the 30-Years-War and the real wealth and power of the Holy Roman Empire shifts to the Spanish court. if there is a nation that succeeded as a result of the openness of the reformation, it was Holland... until the Spanish crack-down. Again, the biggest and wealthiest courts at this time (the Baroque) would be in Spain, France, and Britain... with Britain and France becoming the two dominant rivals as we move into the Classical and Romantic eras.

I think, also, that the greater proliferation of these German composers also owes much to the technology of the day. To publish and distribute the music of Mozart and Beethoven would have been, technologically, much easier than, say, that of Monteverdi or Vivaldi.

I'm not certain why you would think that... unless you are making assumptions about the access to the printing presses... in which case you would be gravely mistaken. Shortly after Gutenberg, presses sprang up like wildfires across Europe... especially in France, Britain, and Italy. Venice was one of the printing capitals of the world with the famous Aldine press that produced some of the most magnificent books and some of the first printed copies of literature in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

I'm not certain we can come up with a clear reason as to why the English language has produced such a wealth of literature... and yet lagged behind in both music and art until this last century... at which time the wealth and power of the British Empire was in decline. Neither can we clearly explain why a tiny island nation like Japan has produced such an amazing array of literature, art, architecture, and design that rivals or surpasses far larger nations. By the same token, I don't know that we might come up with a clear reason why so many of the greatest composers from the 1600s (and earlier) to the present have been from the Germanic lands... in spite of the far greater wealth and power centered in France, England, and Spain (where the hell is the Spanish music?!). Nor can we easily explain why the Germans of the same period lagged far behind (until the Romantic era) in literature and art... and yet also produced many of the leading figures in Philosophy? To an extent, art follows money. Such explains the current cultural dominance of the US... but it is only part of the equation.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

if the torch were to be taken by the Japanese, I would be somewhat upset...

Why? If it were to result in great music, why should you care?


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _the wealthiest courts at this time (the Baroque) would be in Spain, France, and Britain... _


In the 16th and 17th Centuries Spain and Holland were the richest.
Between the 17th and 18th Centuries we see the rise of Austria, France and Britain.
Prussia (Germany) didn't even begin to catch up till the mid-19th Century.

Bismarck never could have fought wars with Denmark, Austria, and France without the financial macinations of Bleichröder and his connections with the Rothschilds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleichroder


----------



## Boccherini

Roberto said:


> To Boccherini
> 
> Music is undoubtedly enormously influenced by the culture of the times, as indeed are the composers themselves made by the times in which they live.
> 
> Music expresses emotions just as language does (although of course not in the same way). Just as a writer expresses his feelings in a poem or story, a composer expresses his feelings in music. Of course the emotion is not registered or felt until there is a listener or reader. The message must have a receiver. I am not saying music is a language exactly (a very complicated issue), but that it resembles a language in a number of respects. Music does not have a psyche - but it records happenings in the psyche of the composer, otherwise to would not be an art.
> 
> You are right about morality, but not I think about Wagner: some of his writings are immoral, but his music? That would be very difficult to prove.


Yes, exactly as I said; A writer/composer-reader/listener-relationship might include emotions, but poem/music, per se, doesn't contain emotions in all respects. Therefore, it's incorrect to say that "Music expresses emotions" - implies its autonomic entity, the only one who have these psychological bugs is the reader/listener himself by interpreting it the way they're being affected.

Secondly, some of Wagner's writings are immoral? Do you make that seperation between the artist and his artistic creations? His whole conception was terribly immoral and therefore - considering he wasn't a hypocrite - all his creations, whether be philosophical or musical, are immoral. But as a matter of fact, you could simply watch his operas, especially the later ones.


----------



## Aramis

What writings by Wagner do you consider immoral? Have you actually read any? Or are you one of those silly creatures that follow the Wagner-Hitler-Jews stereothype?


----------



## Toccata

Aramis said:


> What writings by Wagner do you consider immoral? Have you actually read any? Or are you one of those silly creatures that follow the Wagner-Hitler-Jews stereothype?


Stirring up a hornets nest. Should be interesting.


----------



## Head_case

> "Music expresses emotions"


Not even OTT opera?!


----------



## Boccherini

Aramis said:


> What writings by Wagner do you consider immoral? Have you actually read any? Or are you one of those silly creatures that follow the Wagner-Hitler-Jews stereothype?


Hmm. I wonder whether you are one of those imbeciles who pretentiously cherry-picking and insist to ignore other factors when judging someone. Oh, the ignorance. I've already felt it here when several persons thought Hitler is not the greater mass murderer of all times.

I would assume that you won't deny the fact that the Godfather of Nazism was anti-semitic, and there are many evidences for that preverbial issue, but I would like to mention its highest and most outrageous achievement which is enormously moral: its _Das Judenthum in der Musik_. No, I'm not cherry-picking since there is no article of "it" that could demonstrate the opposite. Read it, it's tasteful. The article, while was firstly written under a pseudonym, pretend to explain the lack of sympathy among the German folk toward Jewish composers like Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer and it actually explains that the German public abhor Jews because of their appearance and weird behaviour, their "shrilling, creaking, buzzing" voices are intolerable and "we are, the german folk always instinctively felt that repulsion from being in touch with them". It's "interesting and formal" claim is that "Jewish can only create superficial music which affected by their religious music from their synagogues, which superficially imitates the real music which is rooted in the glorious german folk. How lovely. At the end of the enriching essay, it claims that "there is only one way to redeem the Jews from their terrible curse which lies on them -- Der Untergang!". How informative and rationally correct!

True, Godfather had a few jewish friends like Hermann Levi, Meyerbeer in his early days when Richard didn't have enough money, so his friend Meyerbeer helped him. The fact that the above article was partly directed to him doesn't have anything to do with it, of course, and many other friends. Yet, its ideas were not exceptional in its days.

There are many historians who claim that Hitler was significantly inspired by W's theories and music as well, especially by the late operas of him and particularly _Tristan und Isolde_. Pure ignorants or pure imbeciles insist to adhere to the pretentious manner of re-writing the history. What presumption!


----------



## Toccata

Boccherini said:


> Hmm. I wonder whether you are one of those *imbeciles* ...


Now if I had said that, I bet I would have been jumped on very heavily by you know who.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Well, Dr. Ian Kershaw in his first volume on Hitler, _1889-1936 Hubris_, in speaking of Hitler's formative youth (leading up to WW1), Kershaw writes,

'Hitler's passion for Wagner knew no bounds. A performance could affect him almost like a religious experience, plunging him into deep and mystical fantasies. Wagner amounted for him to the supreme artistic genius, the model to be emulated. _Lohengrin_ had been his frist Wagner opera, and remained his favourite.' (pp.21-22)

But it must be remembered that at that time no one (including Hitler himself) ever thought he would amount to anything. He wanted to be an artist, not a dictator.

Also, anti-semitism was prevalent throughout Europe practically since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the Diaspora, and certainly from the Middle Ages.

And also from the mid-19th Century Wagner was the most recognized composer in Europe and America.

So it's little wonder Hitler loved Wagner and embraced anti-semitism.


----------



## Toccata

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> So it's little wonder Hitler loved Wagner and embraced anti-semitism.


Quite apart from Wagner's obvious anti-semitism, I believe that Hitler actually liked Wagner's music per se. He was pretty much alone among the Nazi leadership, who reportedly felt obliged to sit through performances Wagner's works out of respect for Hitler but with no real liking for it. Wagner's music contains that certain something about it - Bosh arrogance or whatever - which one can imagine would appeal to the mad monster that Hitler was.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Some have noted the thin line between genius and madness.

During his Aesthetic Period before WW1 Hitler genuinely did love art.

Indeed later he still had an appreciation of Wagner, Klimt and Böcklin.


----------



## Guest

Hitler loved Wagner, I think, first and foremost because it was the expression, to him, of the ultimate pinnacle of being German. Larger than life heroic Germans, performing larger than life feats. The German mythology, strong nationalistic undercurrents. Wagner represented all of that for him. I'm sure that Wagner's stance vis-a-vis Jews only further exalted his music in the eyes of Hitler. But Hitler did not learn anti-semitism from Wagner, any more than Wagner was the progenitor of German anti-semitism. Anti-semitism was alive and well in Europe long before Wagner every thought of writing his ridiculous diatribe against Jews. And Germans did not hold a monopoly in this area. In fact, after Nazi Germany was defeated, Jews attempting to return to their homes all over Europe - not just in Germany - were heavily persecuted and often killed. Even further back, when you go back to the first crusade, back around the 12th century, as the crusaders made their way across Europe towards the Middle East, they slaughtered many Jews along the way. 

Jews have been persecuted virtually everywhere they have existed - in the last 2000 years, though, much of it has been due to a ridiculous prejudice based on a belief that they should all pay for the death of Christ. Hitler and Nazi Germany represented this hatred at perhaps its most vile and organized - how humans could go so methodically about the action of exterminating an entire people with no more emotion than government bureaucrats. This type of hatred could not have been triggered by the ranting and raving of one single man who took out his petty jealousies on others without even the courage to originally sign his name to it. Wagner was merely one of countless numbers who represented this prejudice and chose to publicly express it. Unfortunately, in the world at that time, such hatred evoked little or no rebuke from the intellectual class.

That being said, Wagner was not Hitler. He was a hateful person, but he did not exercise that hatred in a violent manner. I believe it is possible to separate the personality from the music in this sense. Wagner did not write his operas as an outlet for his anti-semitic sentiments. Their stories were steeped in German mythology, as well as other mythologies (Tristan und Isolde is not a German tale, nor is Lohengrin or Parsifal - both with origins from the Grail legends). Even focusing on the Ring cycle, to call it anti-semitic would be wrong. It is loosely based on a mythology that predates interactions between Germanic peoples and Jews. To describe these stories as anti-semitic is to label those mythologies as inherently anti-semitic. Are there anti-semitic sentiments in them? I haven't examined them very closely. Possibly, as that seems to have been part of Wagner's character, but I doubt they would have intentionally been inserted.

Unfortunately, many times the great advances of humankind come from all too fallible humans. Where possible, we need to learn to detach the creations from the creators. Were I to accept or reject scientific discoveries based on whether or not the scientists had made derogatory comments regarding my religion, then my understanding of the world would be spotty, at best. Mark Twain made some disparaging comments about my particular religion (Mormon), and yet I can still enjoy "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn." Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man that advanced the independence of the U.S.A. and contributed a great deal to political philosophy. Yet the man was a slave owner. Do I reject him? Wagner deserves no excuse for his anti-semitic writings. But was he really exceptional in his time, or merely vocal about thoughts that were fairly commonplace for their time?


----------



## Aramis

Boccherini said:


> (...)


What a bunch of enraged nonsenses. I forgot that you are Jew and therefore you can take this subject too personal.

Anyway, you failed to point anything immoral in Wagner's writings and by calling him like you did, well, you have shown us who's the fanatic here.

Writing that Jews can write only superficial music is not immoral. It's point of view and quite stupid generalisation, like every "X can't", when X equals milions of people that can't be put together as one.

There is nothing immoral in having couple of not-quite-true beliefs.


----------



## Earthling

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> (This has been thoroughly explicated from the mid-1990s with the so-called 'Mozart Effect'.)


Actually, *no*.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In the 16th and 17th Centuries Spain and Holland were the richest.

Yes, Holland becomes and economic superpower as a result of their success in shipping and trade especially under the Dutch East Indies Company. Spain's wealth was tied to its military conquests in both Europe and the Americas. I would not, however, underestimate France which was the largest nation in terms of population in Western Europe and the dominant military and cultural power. The court of Louis XIV, the "Sun King" was the envy of the whole of Europe. The Netherlands (we might remember that Holland or the Dutch Republic does not declare independence until the late 16th century) was under Spanish and Hapsburg control and faced repeated threats of war and invasion from France, Spain, and England. However remain the leader in trade with Asia and control much of the trade leading into Germany until the late 1700s when the English seize control of the sea trade. In spite of this wealth... Netherlandish musical achievement is limited in comparison to France and Italy... let alone Germany (although Dutch and Flemish painting is in its "golden age"... as it is in Spain).


----------



## Roberto

To Boccherini



> At the end of the enriching essay, it claims that "there is only one way to redeem the Jews from their terrible curse which lies on them -- Der Untergang!". How informative and rationally correct!


Untergang means sunset I think. What do you think W meant by this?


----------



## superhorn

Ein Heldenleben isn't really an"egomaniacal" work at all. It's a work which has been much misunderstood.In fact,it's a rather humorous work,and its grandiloquence is really tongue in cheek. It's full of in jokes. I've always loved it,and Strauss in general. He's actually a very underrated composer,and the notion that his output "declined:" after Der Rosenkavalier is a myth.
Now that I've gotten to know the rarely performed later operas on recordings,such as Daphne,Friedenstag,Die Schweigsame Frau, and Die Liebe Der Danae,for example,I've become quite fond of them.


----------



## Roberto

That is an interesting view of Ein Heldenleben - so he meant the title ironically? If so, I shall have to listen to it again and revise my opinion of Strauss (whom I don't dislike anyway, but feel rather ambivalent towards him). I know he did have a sense of humour because it is after all present in Der Rosenkavalier and in Capriccio, which I think is rather a fascinating work, however minor.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes, Wagner was antisemitic... and this was but one of his flaws. He was also anti-Catholic, anti-French, a wife-stealer, who betrayed friends and supporters... Hitler loved his music... but then again, so did Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism. All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with Wagner's merits as a composer... which are surpassed only by Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. The great Renaissance composer, Carlo Gesualdo, murdered his wife and her lover and dumped the bodies upon the steps of her parent's estate. The painter Caravaggio produced erotic images of young boys for high-ranking pedophile clergymen, and later murdered a man in a street fight over a tennis match. Any number of Renaissance artists produced works of the most exquisite taste and sensibility for lords from the Borgia, Medici, Orsini, Barberini (etc...) families whose barbarous behavior might be best compared with that of today's South American drug lords. A great many artists from throughout the whole of history including Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Picasso were undeniably real SOBs... but what has this to do with their art? Are we looking to our artists for moral and ethical guidance? This would seem to be an outdated Romantic notion in which the artist cannot be separated from the art... in which the "cult of personality" is more important than the actual paintings, poems, or operas. The reality is closer to that declared by Oscar Wilde: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."


----------



## Roberto

To Boccherini

I think you are right in saying the article about Jewish music is immoral, in the sense that it is extremely unkind, grossly prejudiced, and obviously intends to exacerbate racist feeling (though not because of its mere foolishness).

But what is immoral about his operas exactly? Is it that they are excessive, over-ambitious? Paganistic? I feel that Wagner should be treated as a somewhat controversial figure, and in some ways rather absurd, but unless you take a somewhat puritanical view (and condemn his exaltation of erotic passion in Tristan for example) I am not sure how he could be considered immoral.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Roberto said:


> To Harpsichord
> 
> Not a portrait of humanity in all its respects since no composer could ever possibly do such a thing. However, a very powerful expression of the soul and intellect - certainly. And I do not believe what you say about entertainment for a moment - there is a clear distinction in Mozart between light pieces such as Divertimenti and major works of his genius, which are of course both entertaining and sublime. Mozart was far too great to merely entertain, and Beethoven believed, I suspect, the same of himself, only possibly more so.





Roberto said:


> Perhaps what I am admitting is that I should have studied music full-time, in order to find the answers to some of these questions..... I think at the heart of my musings is the question - does music simply express emotions, and form patterns, or does it mean something more than these things? In other words, in what ways does it express the soul, the psyche? *To what extent does it express the soul of a community or society? IN what ways can it be moral and immoral? and so forth *


The quote in bold directly above was written by you asking to what extent does a piece of music express the soul of a community or society, and in what ways can it be moral and immoral. My objective answer to you was your questions would be more appropriate with Romantic music and 20th century music, much more so than 18th century music, whose composers were more preoccupied with entertainment music.

Sure, Mozart pieces were sublime, but he did not necessarily write sublime pieces to address morality per se in ways that Mahler explicitly attempted about humanity with his epic symphonies. You only need to read all of Mozart's surviving letters (written to his father, wife and family) to show how much he valued to please his audiences; and yes, by writing music that was simply sublime and entertaining. The confusion in your question was to mix Romantic and later century aspirations of aspects of humanity into music. That was my point. The earlier the music was written, the lesser it seems aspects of humanity (your question) were the intentions of the composer. Take any of Handel's operas and oratorios; his language was preoccuiped with expressing human emotions of the characters in the drama, which was sublime in many cases, but it would be naive to interpret that as saying Handel was a moralist on behalf of 18th century England.

You should also note that the posts above so far appear to be largely around the music of Wagner and his times; rightly so, meaning that aspects of humanity (your question) are best addressed by Romantic music and beyond.


----------



## Roberto

> You only need to read all of Mozart's surviving letters (written to his father, wife and family) to show how much he valued to please his audiences; and yes, by writing music that was *simply sublime* and entertaining. The confusion in your question was to mix Romantic and later century aspirations of aspects of humanity into music.


I don't think any composer writes sublime music just to please his audiences - in great music the composer expresses his deepest musical thoughts, which he hopes will please, but which at the very least will have pleased him. Of course you right that Handel is not a 'moralist', but I do believe that he, Bach, Mozart, Monteverdi and other fine composers of, say, the 17th and 18th centuries had much to say of the subject of musical morality. I feel they speak more powerfully of humanity than Mahler (in whom I think I detect a strain of something like sentimentality).

To some extent a composer is like a poet - he lays his soul before us (in the great works): and then it is up to us to identify the men of great soul from the superficial or relatively meaningless.

So in this respect I do not think that Romanticism changes things very much


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Roberto said:


> I don't think any composer writes sublime music just to please his audiences - in great music the composer expresses his deepest musical thoughts, which he hopes will please, but which at the very least will have pleased him. Of course you right that Handel is not a 'moralist', but I do believe that he, Bach, Mozart, Monteverdi and other fine composers of, say, the 17th and 18th centuries had much to say of the subject of musical morality. *I feel* they speak more powerfully of humanity than Mahler (in whom I think I detect a strain of something like sentimentality).
> 
> To some extent a composer is like a poet - he lays his soul before us (in the great works): and then it is up to us to identify the men of great soul from the superficial or relatively meaningless.
> 
> So in this respect I do not think that Romanticism changes things very much


Well, as you wrote you *feel* that they (18th century folks) spoke more powerfully on humanity than Mahler, then I am glad that 18th century music made you *feel* that way. Many of their music is indeed sublime, more so than Mahler's, as I would agree with you on that aspect. However, we cannot objectively show from a musicology viewpoint that their intentions were that clear cut, in the sense that Romantic programme music (example symphonic poems) was directly aimed at addressing many aspects of humanity and nature explicitly. You could objectively assess that with numerous works written by Franz Liszt and Richard Strauss, for example.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Earthling said:


> _Actually, *no*_http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/ob_heath_mozarteffect.shtml.


Oh, p l e a s e...


----------



## Earthling

Who needs *scientific research* when a myth will do? There is no "Mozart Effect."


----------



## Toccata

Roberto said:


> To Boccherini
> 
> I think you are right in saying the article about Jewish music is immoral, in the sense that it is extremely unkind, grossly prejudiced, and obviously intends to exacerbate racist feeling (though not because of its mere foolishness).
> 
> *But what is immoral about his operas exactly?* Is it that they are excessive, over-ambitious? Paganistic? I feel that Wagner should be treated as a somewhat controversial figure, and in some ways rather absurd, but unless you take a somewhat puritanical view (and condemn his exaltation of erotic passion in Tristan for example) I am not sure how he could be considered immoral.


The question you raise here (emboldened sentence) has sparked off some fairly predictable responses none of which takes account of the allegation that Wagner wasn't just a rabid anti-Semite but was one who infused his anti-Semitic thoughts into (some of) his operas.

It is this feature which makes him vastly more suspect than some of the other famous artistic miscreants like Caravaggio, who is so often quoted as the archetypal villain who nevertheless produced some outstanding works. In the latter types of case it is possible to separate their personal side from their artistic achievements. In the case of Wagner, however, the allegation has been made that he deliberately used his artistic expertise as the vehicle to propagate his anti-Semitism, so that this separation is far more diffcult.

This very same topic has definitely come up before on this Board but I can't quite lay my finger on the relevant thread. The seminal early work on this thesis was made by musicologist, Larry Solomon: http://solomonsmusic.net/WagHit.htm

By far the best discussion I have seen on this topic came a few years ago on another Board, CMG. The protagonists from both sides of the debate slogged it out long and hard over several weeks.

I'm not going to say any more on this tedious, well-worn subject, but those who clearly don't know about it may wish to glance at some counter views in an article on the subject several years ago by A.C. Douglas dealing in detail with notion of anti-Semitic "coding" in Wagner's operas.

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandf ... a_ter.html

My view, having read all this stuff previously, is that Solomon's article is a completely moronic notion, and one filled with little more than half-truths, very unpleasant innuendo, and invented "facts".

I became far less interested in Wagner's music, not because of anything remotely to do with his anti-Semitic views or anything that followed, but purely because I got tired of it as music. I find it all pretty boring - although I do not deny its novelty, brilliance and Wagner's enormous influence on later composers.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> Hitler loved Wagner, I think, first and foremost because it was the expression, to him, of the ultimate pinnacle of being German. Larger than life heroic Germans, performing larger than life feats. The German mythology, strong nationalistic undercurrents. Wagner represented all of that for him. I'm sure that Wagner's stance vis-a-vis Jews only further exalted his music in the eyes of Hitler. But Hitler did not learn anti-semitism from Wagner, any more than Wagner was the progenitor of German anti-semitism. Anti-semitism was alive and well in Europe long before Wagner every thought of writing his ridiculous diatribe against Jews. And Germans did not hold a monopoly in this area. In fact, after Nazi Germany was defeated, Jews attempting to return to their homes all over Europe - not just in Germany - were heavily persecuted and often killed. Even further back, when you go back to the first crusade, back around the 12th century, as the crusaders made their way across Europe towards the Middle East, they slaughtered many Jews along the way.
> 
> Jews have been persecuted virtually everywhere they have existed - in the last 2000 years, though, much of it has been due to a ridiculous prejudice based on a belief that they should all pay for the death of Christ. Hitler and Nazi Germany represented this hatred at perhaps its most vile and organized - how humans could go so methodically about the action of exterminating an entire people with no more emotion than government bureaucrats. This type of hatred could not have been triggered by the ranting and raving of one single man who took out his petty jealousies on others without even the courage to originally sign his name to it. Wagner was merely one of countless numbers who represented this prejudice and chose to publicly express it. Unfortunately, in the world at that time, such hatred evoked little or no rebuke from the intellectual class.
> 
> That being said, Wagner was not Hitler. He was a hateful person, but he did not exercise that hatred in a violent manner. I believe it is possible to separate the personality from the music in this sense. Wagner did not write his operas as an outlet for his anti-semitic sentiments. Their stories were steeped in German mythology, as well as other mythologies (Tristan und Isolde is not a German tale, nor is Lohengrin or Parsifal - both with origins from the Grail legends). Even focusing on the Ring cycle, to call it anti-semitic would be wrong. It is loosely based on a mythology that predates interactions between Germanic peoples and Jews. To describe these stories as anti-semitic is to label those mythologies as inherently anti-semitic. Are there anti-semitic sentiments in them? I haven't examined them very closely. Possibly, as that seems to have been part of Wagner's character, but I doubt they would have intentionally been inserted.
> 
> Unfortunately, many times the great advances of humankind come from all too fallible humans. Where possible, we need to learn to detach the creations from the creators. Were I to accept or reject scientific discoveries based on whether or not the scientists had made derogatory comments regarding my religion, then my understanding of the world would be spotty, at best. Mark Twain made some disparaging comments about my particular religion (Mormon), and yet I can still enjoy "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn." Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man that advanced the independence of the U.S.A. and contributed a great deal to political philosophy. Yet the man was a slave owner. Do I reject him? Wagner deserves no excuse for his anti-semitic writings. But was he really exceptional in his time, or merely vocal about thoughts that were fairly commonplace for their time?


I presume there is a border line between Anti-semitism and Nazism. Yes, anti-semitism was alive in Europe long before 19th century and I don't believe that the anti-semitism in Germany was more noticeable than other countries over Europe in those days, if I disregard the term of Nazism. However, and most importantly, the racist philosophy against Jews has been thoroughly shaped in the late of 19th century and crossed the distinguishing border line which seperates between classical/authentic anti-semitism and early Nazism - in Germany. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, Wagner was neither exceptional in his philosophical ideas in his days nor was calibre like Hitler. Nevertheless - and there are several historians who don't merely labeling Wagner as the Godfather of Nazism for no good reasons - his ideas were a cornerstone in Nazism - which Hitler basically developed its most significant part and pragmatically executed.

Just to clarify, I don't really care whether the government bureaucrats in Germany didn't have even a bit of emotions towards what have been done - I don't blame them for that by itself. Primarily, the most significant part which bothers me the most is their awful morality which should have been acted otherwise. Why didn't they comprehend that thier terribly irrational acts are outragesouly immoral? When quite a few Nazis understood that afterwards (during the war, that is), I don't care whether their past lacks emotional aspects or not.

Do you really believe that detaching creations from the creator, whether would be evil or not, is objectively appropiate? I don't believe there's an objective answer to that specific problem/question. Well, me too doesn't care whether, say, a salesman is disparaging my religion - I would keep buying from him for two reasons (if not more). First of all, his "creations" which I purchase are not being affacted by his behaviour/morality, are they? And therefore, I would probably detach between him and my purchases. Secondly and again, I assume there's a seperating border line between Hitler or Wagner and the salesman (Of course, I don't compare between the salesman and an anti-semitic). Do you actually compare the lack of morality between the examples you mentioned in the last paragraph and Hitler's or Wagner's? I can't prove to you that Wagner's operas contain anti-semitic content, not at all. But don't you speculate/consider that option to have truthful aspects? I doubt if you could give me a creator (composer, poet etc.) whose creations fully lack some of his conception, especially regarding morality.

It also comes down to practical questions. Would you buy Hitler's car? Would you use his uniform? Would you prefer to cause your children to listen to Mozart over Wagner due to, even almost negligible, moral elements? Would you educate your children to be deliberately like Wagner (as a great composer), cause them to listen to Wagner's operas, when they're small kids, while trying to detach some of his attributes/personalities? I don't know, you might would. But doesn't it morally bother you at all?


----------



## Boccherini

Roberto said:


> To Boccherini
> 
> Untergang means sunset I think. What do you think W meant by this?


Yes, sunset for the Jewish nation which greatfully comes to its end. How lovely? However, if you want a clearer answer, Untergang also means Doom.


----------



## Roberto

You don't mention religious music, but the great European tradition of religious music did nothing if not express man's sense of his humanity and of his spiritual and moral values. Music expresses religious feeling with great power - surely you would agree


----------



## Roberto

Last post was for Harpsichord

To Boccherini, Opal etc

I had not read the article by W Bocc quotes, but it is strangely aggressive and unpleasant. I was aware of his anti-semitism, but believe that you cannot detect this in his operas without forcing. 

It is strange though that what started as a kind of celebration of German music seems to have moved into a discussion of Wagner's anti-semitism. 

I do wonder at times if there is a morally dubious element in Wagner; and whether in some peculiar sense he could be said to have corrupted the whole glorious stream of German music. At some times I dismiss this idea, and think this could hardly be the case. Yet there is something about his music and his dramas.... the pagan power, the sense of doom, the insistence on sacrifice - and in the music itself, the violence at times, the melting down of form, the unbridled all-consuming quality. You can argue that these qualities liberate music from its past and launch modernism, or you could take a different view.

I believe that the great period of German music was earlier: one of the most interesting questions is this - can you anticipate Wagner in Beethoven (through Weber etc)? Was the Wagnerian the natural development for German music? Wagner worshipped Beethoven and loved his ninth - which is a pretty unbridled work (especially for its time) as we all know.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Roberto said:


> You don't mention religious music, but the great European tradition of religious music did nothing if not express man's sense of his humanity and of his spiritual and moral values. Music expresses religious feeling with great power - surely you would agree


I mentioned that 18th century composers had a lot to do with the church, and that the church was (and still is) an important source of musical activities (composition and performance). (This was mentioned in my first post here).

Anyway, yes I agree Romantic composers who wrote epic mass settings would probably have a lot more to say about humanity. Brahm's and Verdi's settings of the requiem for example, do have a lot to say of the prevailing sentiments of the Romantic impressions about humanity in the music. Earlier mass settings in the earlier part of the 18th century were about glorification of their God, which by implication meant they were agreeing with their God's teachings and spiritual values. So I guess you could argue there were definitely aspects of humanity by way of religion in there. However, a key difference was that 18th century religious music was very often liturgical being part of the church service (think Bach's numerous church cantatas), whereas many Romantic settings were not, such as Brahm's _German Requiem_, which was non-liturgical. At times, this may be less clear. The obvious example is Bach's _Mass in B Minor_, which no church service in Bach's day could have accommodated it, as we indeed now know that only earlier parts were, but the whole was more about his summary of the art of vocal church music setting.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> I presume there is a border line between Anti-semitism and Nazism. Yes, anti-semitism was alive in Europe long before 19th century and I don't believe that the anti-semitism in Germany was more noticeable than other countries over Europe in those days, if I disregard the term of Nazism. However, and most importantly, the racist philosophy against Jews has been thoroughly shaped in the late of 19th century and crossed the distinguishing border line which seperates between classical/authentic anti-semitism and early Nazism - in Germany. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, Wagner was neither exceptional in his philosophical ideas in his days nor was calibre like Hitler. Nevertheless - and there are several historians who don't merely labeling Wagner as the Godfather of Nazism for no good reasons - his ideas were a cornerstone in Nazism - which Hitler basically developed its most significant part and pragmatically executed.
> 
> Just to clarify, I don't really care whether the government bureaucrats in Germany didn't have even a bit of emotions towards what have been done - I don't blame them for that by itself. Primarily, the most significant part which bothers me the most is their awful morality which should have been acted otherwise. Why didn't they comprehend that thier terribly irrational acts are outragesouly immoral? When quite a few Nazis understood that afterwards (during the war, that is), I don't care whether their past lacks emotional aspects or not.
> 
> Do you really believe that detaching creations from the creator, whether would be evil or not, is objectively appropiate? I don't believe there's an objective answer to that specific problem/question. Well, me too doesn't care whether, say, a salesman is disparaging my religion - I would keep buying from him for two reasons (if not more). First of all, his "creations" which I purchase are not being affacted by his behaviour/morality, are they? And therefore, I would probably detach between him and my purchases. Secondly and again, I assume there's a seperating border line between Hitler or Wagner and the salesman (Of course, I don't compare between the salesman and an anti-semitic). Do you actually compare the lack of morality between the examples you mentioned in the last paragraph and Hitler's or Wagner's? I can't prove to you that Wagner's operas contain anti-semitic content, not at all. But don't you speculate/consider that option to have truthful aspects? I doubt if you could give me a creator (composer, poet etc.) whose creations fully lack some of his conception, especially regarding morality.
> 
> It also comes down to practical questions. Would you buy Hitler's car? Would you use his uniform? Would you prefer to cause your children to listen to Mozart over Wagner due to, even almost negligible, moral elements? Would you educate your children to be deliberately like Wagner (as a great composer), cause them to listen to Wagner's operas, when they're small kids, while trying to detach some of his attributes/personalities? I don't know, you might would. But doesn't it morally bother you at all?


In my last paragraph, I did qualify, in the second sentence, my belief that we should separate the creation from the creator. I think it would be in poor taste for certain individuals to honor their creations. I won't give all examples. And yet Hitler's autobahn remains. Now, granted, something like an autobahn would not implicitly reflect the views of the creator like something more personal - a work of art or a piece of music.

I do think that a person's personality is often embedded in their creations - to a point. Certain things are more amenable to this than others. But as there is much debate about this area, to say that his anti-semitism is blatant and obviously expressed in Wagner's works would not be an accurate statement. I think those views were there, and something stirred them up to make him vocalize them in his essay. But it was not quite an overt, sociopathic anti-semitism, as he continued to have associations, some quite friendly, with various Jews throughout his life. So I think that this was not such a defining principle of Wagner, rather an underlying current that, occasionally, were publicly aired. I think Wagner was much more egotistical, and cared about himself far too much to give serious, persistent thought to anti-semitism. It took away from time to think of himself.

He was also very much a German nationalist - but so were many of his day. German unification under Prussian control was a new thing in his lifetime, and had been longed for by many for some time.

The problem is putting the cart before the horse. What we have here is putting the hypothesis before the data. Many people have looked at his anti-semitic writings and reasoned that this was a significant part of who he was. They then work backwards and look for that in his works. As such, they are willing to take any marginally plausible evidence to support this. If one were to look, unprejudiced, at his works, not searching specifically for anti-semitism, I doubt you would find anything compelling.

Everybody has prejudices. For most of us, we are able to bridle those prejudices and function in society without acting on those prejudices, and we can even leave those prejudices out of our works. Certain beliefs have more of an impact on our actions than others. For Hitler, his anti-semitism was a very dominant part of who he was, and many of his actions overtly showed this. I suspect that it was nowhere near as dominant an aspect of Wagner, and think that it was certainly possible for him to write his music without imbuing it with these prejudices.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Earthling said:


> _Who needs *scientific research* when a myth will do? There is no "Mozart Effect."_


You are woefully uninformed.

Adaman, Blaney (1995) The effects of musical mood induction on creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 29, pp. 95-108.

Fish (27 Sept. 1996) Music therapy used to ease a variety of problems. Knight-Ridder News Service p. 927.

Furman (1978) The effect of musical stimuli on the brain wave production of children. Journal of Music Therapy 15 pp. 108-17.

Gardiner, Fox, Knowles, Jeffrey (1996) Learning improved by arts training. Nature 381 p. 284.

Holden (1994) Smart music. Science 266 pp. 968-69.

Holtz (14 Oct. 1993) Study finds that mozart's music makes you smarter. Los Angeles Times p. A1.

Marwick (1996) Therapists now test music's 'charms'. Journal of American Medical Assoc. 275 pp. 267-68.

McKinney, Tims (1995) Differential effects of selected classical music on mental imagery Journal of Music Therapy 32 pp. 22-45.

Miles (1997) Tune Your Brain. NY/Berkley.

Miller, Schyb Facilitation and interference by background music. Journal of Music Therapy 26 pp. 42-54.

Morton, Kershner, Siegel (1990) The potential for therapeutic applications of music on problems related to memory and attention. Journal of Music Therapy 27 pp. 195-208.

Nordoff, Robbins (1971) Music Therapy in Special Education. NY/Day.

Pignatiello, Camp, Elder, Rasar (1989) A psychophysiological comparison of the velten and musical mood induction techniques.  Journal of Music Therapy 26 pp. 140-54.

Rauscher, Shaw, Ky (1993) Music and spatial task performance. Nature 365 p. 611.

Rauscher, Shaw, Ky (1995) Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters 185 pp. 44-47.

Rider, Floyd, Kirkpatrick (1985) The effect of music on adrenal corticosteroids and the reentrainment of circadian rhythms.  Journal of Music Therapy 22 pp. 46-58.

Shatin (1970) Alteration of mood via music: a study of the vectoring effect. The Journal of Psychology 75 pp. 81-86.

Stratton, Zalanowski (1989) The effects of music and paintings on mood. Journal of Music Therapy 26 pp. 30-41.

Zatorre, Evans, Meyer (1994). Neural mechanisms underlying melodic perception and memory. The Journal of Neuroscience 14 pp. 1908-19.

Do your homework, bright boy.


----------



## Earthling

Sorry for my incredulity-- I've read enough to understand that the "Mozart Effect"

*is *

*just 

as 

effective 

as 

homeopathy. *


----------



## Roberto

to Stlukes



> The first real major German contributions to literature since the middle ages would need to wait until Schiller and Goethe.


(Considering the above, perhaps it is one of the reasons that Wagner goes back to medieval literature for inspiration, rather than to the age of the Enlightenment..... )

I entirely agree with you that this phenomenon is strange, although perhaps not as strange to me as the magnificence of the music. Is there a connection here? That German artistry was concentrated more on music than the other arts, and that alongside this, at the time of Leibniz and beyond, there was a kindred flowering of brilliant mathematicians and philosophers? Whereas, say, in England, there was more of a leaning towards literature and _political_ philosophy. And by the 18th century, of course, England was spending money on importing great composers such as JC Bach and Handel ......

I suspect this was even more true of Austria - though powerful, this empire was already in decline in Mozart's time, and was of course destined to implode. Although the musical creativity is staggering, what else of interest did Vienna produce between 1700 and the fascinating years of ferment and upheaval before WWI? Was it not in essence a predominantly, even uniquely, musical culture?


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Earthling said:


> _Sorry for my incredulity_


Sorry ignorance, rather.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> The problem is putting the cart before the horse. What we have here is putting the hypothesis before the data. Many people have looked at his anti-semitic writings and reasoned that this was a significant part of who he was. They then work backwards and look for that in his works. As such, they are willing to take any marginally plausible evidence to support this. If one were to look, unprejudiced, at his works, not searching specifically for anti-semitism, I doubt you would find anything compelling.
> 
> Everybody has prejudices. For most of us, we are able to bridle those prejudices and function in society without acting on those prejudices, and we can even leave those prejudices out of our works. Certain beliefs have more of an impact on our actions than others. For Hitler, his anti-semitism was a very dominant part of who he was, and many of his actions overtly showed this. I suspect that it was nowhere near as dominant an aspect of Wagner, and think that it was certainly possible for him to write his music without imbuing it with these prejudices.


I don't think we put the cart before the horse. People who analyze his operas with prejudices as prior leading and guiding role which any plausible evidence would be helpful to verify/support their prejudices don't approach in a legitimate manner, indeed. However, in the case of his personality I think we have the data before the hypothesis and if you believe, in some aspects, that a creator's personality is often embedded in their creations whether they're aware of that or not, you have the data before the hypothesis regarding his music as well. If it's true, according to your belief, the detaching process wasn't so effective after all - trying to seperate between the good and evil.


----------



## Earthling

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> Sorry ignorance, rather.


I keep up with news and _current _events, as in the links in my previous post. Its been debunked by researchers repeatedly in the past three years, though one of the links (a scientific paper) goes back to 1999.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Oh, a Dawkins dingo; that explains a lot.

For those who don't know, Dawkins is the atheists' anti-messiah.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Roberto said:


> I entirely agree with you that this phenomenon is strange, although perhaps not as strange to me as the magnificence of the music. Is there a connection here? That German artistry was concentrated more on music than the other arts, and that alongside this, at the time of Leibniz and beyond, there was a kindred flowering of brilliant mathematicians and philosophers? Whereas, say, in England, there was more of a leaning towards literature and _political_ philosophy. And by the 18th century, of course, England was spending money on importing great composers such as JC Bach and Handel ......


I'm glad you also mentioned J. C. Bach; one of my favourite composers, believe it or not. His music was elegant and very modern for its time, that even the Mozarts (father and son) thought very highly of. A very talented composer, which I hope we shall see more recordings of his major operatic works.

P.S.
We should give England some credit, for she had Sir Isaac Newton during the 17th/18th century.


----------



## Roberto

I dont know his operas, but would Mozart have been what he was without JC Bach? Possibly not. I think he wrote pretty much the first symphonies [?] and was a major innovator

Interesting how the sons of Bach changed music so significantly


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Yes, J. C. Bach had much influence on the boy Mozart. Mozart's early harpsichord concertos were arrangements of J. C. Bach's works, and he studied the early Italian style operatic _Sinfonia_ of Bach as models for his first symphonies.

As far as the most influencing son of Johann Sebastian on 18th century music was concerned, it was C. P. E. Bach. Haydn was very much influenced by him.


----------



## Roberto

Would it be right to say that CPE and JC together developed the _galant _ style (of which Mozart is the greatest exponent, though was too powerful a composer to restrict himself to it?


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> _We should give England some credit, for she had Sir Isaac Newton during the 17th/18th century._


That and the fact that England 'invented' the Industrial Revolution from c. mid-18th C.

But that still doesn't explain the fact that German-speaking lands somehow turned out more and greater musical artists that virtually any other region (c. mid-17th thru mid-19th C).


----------



## Roberto

I give England huge credit for lots of things, for music too


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Roberto said:


> Would it be right to say that CPE and JC together developed the _galant _ style (of which Mozart is the greatest exponent, though was too powerful a composer to restrict himself to it?


J. C. Bach was the most modern of all of Bach's sons, in the sense that his compositional style was entirely _galant_. He also had a great deal of passion for opera, against family tradition.

C. P. E. Bach was relatively more conservative than his younger brother, although stylistically C. P.E. was certainly not a traditional Baroque composer in the sense that his great father was, nor was he entirely as modern. His was a unique blend and was an important figure in the _Empfindsamer Stil_ (sensitive style). His music showed strong contrasts in moods even within single movements. _Sturm und Drang_ (Storm & Stress) was akin to that style, and works of Mozart also showed that, such as Mozart's popular symphony no.25 in G minor K.183.


----------



## Roberto

I don't believe for a minute that the Germans have been the most natural musicians in the world since 1600 or whenever. I suspect that Italians have been, with their almost universal love of singing and wealth of folk traditions. But the Germans cultivated music as though it was second only to religion in the intellectual and spiritual life. And they did so with such energy, thoroughness and dedication - and artistry. 

What other nation could ever have produced the Bachs?


----------



## Guest

While Bach was German, it could also be said that he, along with Handel, and, to some extent, Mozart, were produced not only by their German heritage, but also by Italian musical heritage. Bach was greatly influenced by the Italians, as were Handel and Mozart. I don't mean to imply that I discredit Germanic influence, but I think that most music builds upon itself. Much of it is very organic, and with Western music, in particular, the close proximity of all these European countries, and the large amount of intermingling, due, no doubt at least in part to commerce and religion, helped bring these various cultures into contact. Would there have been a German dominance in western music for such a period of time had there not been contact with Italians and Italian music, or other cultures that influenced or were incorporated? Or other influences?


----------



## Roberto

German music was hugely influenced by Italy (Italy led the whole of Europe in the Renaissance, of course). And by other countries, of course. The history of European music is a wonderful expression of _European_ culture, but also a sensitive and telling record of regional differences. The period of greatest unity in high culture I would have thought is represented by Medieval church music (of course there were regional differences though). At the time of Bach, too, there was a great deal of cultural movement and cross-fertilisation as you say; though, interestingly, although Bach absorbed a great deal from elsewhere, I don't think elsewhere absorbed a great deal from him - his musical world is somewhat introverted if that is the right word; and the Italian influence on Mozart produced what many believe are the greatest operas ever written. Music in that period points the way for enlightened politics, rather than to Napoleon and all the disasters that followed.

With the growth of nationalism there is an effort by many composers to find an idiom that more strongly marks out their territory. Can you imagine Wagner or Strauss transcribing the work of famous foreign composers in the way that Bach did, with his insatiable desire to learn everything about composing (though to be fair to Strauss he was very good to foreign composers, welcoming them to Germany etc). Taking sides at that period is wrapped up with nationalism to an extent - in the late 19th century, no Italian will write like Wagner or Brahms or Debussy, much less a German like an Italian or a Frenchman. Debussy may have been influenced by Wagner, but most musicians would have agreed that that style was an entirely _German_ style. English composers no longer seek just to be as good as continentals, but in an English way, but to _express the spirit of England_ in the way that Vaughan Williams and Elgar do.

Sorry if a lot of this is rather obvious...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

To begin with, it seems that the discussion of 'German Music' here uses an imprecise, Phil Goulding-like definition of "German," i.e.: encompassing both Germany & Austria. Setting aside the issue of the state of "German music" in the 20th century and beyond, and the wholly digressive issue of Wagner and the alleged influence of his prejudicial views upon his music (where, as always, those who begin with a pre-determined inclination to discover same are going to somehow satisfy themselves that they've found that for which they are searching)... the responses that most capture my imagination are those which focused on explaining the why and how of the prominence of Germany & Austria in Classical Music- dating from the time of Mozart to at least the era of the early Richard Strauss.

I really am inclined to think that certain different phenomena come into play depending upon whether were examining Germany or Austria in this regard. There is one thing that I believe they share, though, and that is receptivity to musical influences from elsewhere. As an example (to mention Wagner in a relevant manner) it was through one of musicologist/conductor Saul Lillienstein's presentations that I first became aware of the fact that during Wagner's early conducting career (that is, prior to the composition of his first 'canonical' opera, _The Flying Dutchman_), he led pretty close to an equal mix of German, Italian and French operas. I confirmed this for myself via a perusal of the record in the Millington-edited _Wagner Compendium_.


----------



## Roberto

Chi_townPhilly said:


> during Wagner's early conducting career (that is, prior to the composition of his first 'canonical' opera, _The Flying Dutchman_), he led pretty close to an equal mix of German, Italian and French operas. I confirmed this for myself via a perusal of the record in the Millington-edited _Wagner Compendium_.


Interesting, but I cannot detect much Italian or French influence in Wagner! Can you?

Re Austria and Germany - surely the cultural links are profound, and cut right across the political and even some of the religious divisions


----------



## moody

Roberto said:


> We love German music - what is the history of Western music without it? What would our musicians be without it?
> 
> The music of Germany is so very great and powerful, that it seems to be the ne plus ultra, not just in music, but even in all the arts (hence the development to Wagner). Relatively little of it is merely 'delightful', whether one speaks of Mozart or whoever - it stirs the depths far too strongly for such a word.
> 
> Yet what seems joyous, at any rate in general, in Bach and Haydn and Mozart, is utterly changed in Wagner and Strauss. This is part of the greater German tragedy of course. Then the real aesthetic horrors begin.
> 
> I have been trying to understand this colossal phenomenon for years, of Romanticism in German culture, of the good and bad in German music. Perhaps there are others in the forum who are interested, and may be able to help me in what I find to be a fascinating but very troubling history.
> 
> It means so much, yet we understand it so little.


How can you possibly describe Richard Strauss as an aesthetic horror?
Let me tell you I would rather listen to him than Bach and Haydn.
I see nothing troubling in the history of German music's history, you may understand so little but speak for yourself.


----------



## moody

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm glad you also mentioned J. C. Bach; one of my favourite composers, believe it or not. His music was elegant and very modern for its time, that even the Mozarts (father and son) thought very highly of. A very talented composer, which I hope we shall see more recordings of his major operatic works.
> 
> P.S.
> We should give England some credit, for she had Sir Isaac Newton during the 17th/18th century.


Do try to stagger through your post without snide remars about my country produced an enormous amount. The steam locomotive?


----------



## superhorn

Ein Heldenleben is actually a very misunderstood work. The heroism in it is not egotistical or megalomaniacal ; in fact, the piece is full of tongue-in-cheek humor and in jokes . The whole thing is in fact 
a huge joke . Strauss pokes fun at the music critics who chided him for writing such outre music and not following in the footsteps of Brahms and other more conservative composers .
The elaborate violin solos are an affectionate portrayal of Strauss' mercurial and often bossy and overbearing wife, whom he never the less loved dearly .


----------



## moody

Roberto said:


> That is an interesting view of Ein Heldenleben - so he meant the title ironically? If so, I shall have to listen to it again and revise my opinion of Strauss (whom I don't dislike anyway, but feel rather ambivalent towards him). I know he did have a sense of humour because it is after all present in Der Rosenkavalier and in Capriccio, which I think is rather a fascinating work, however minor.


It's not a view on Heldenleben it's what the composer meant it to be. When you listened to it had you no notes?


----------



## moody

Boccherini.
I certainly have no truck with Hitler or the Nazis, but I think you will find that Stalin and Chairman Mao murdered more people than the Nazis.


----------



## Roberto

moody said:


> How can you possibly describe Richard Strauss as an aesthetic horror?
> Let me tell you I would rather listen to him than Bach and Haydn.
> I see nothing troubling in the history of German music's history, you may understand so little but speak for yourself.


I didn't mean Strauss - but a lot of the atonal school (though I would acknowledge there is good music there too). Nonetheless I react to Strauss quite often as I react to Wagner - ie I slightly recoil from what seems to me a lack of shape or form.

I don't just speak for myself I think about the history of German music. Many people will share the sense of bewilderment at what happened between the mid 19th century and the 1950s, and the legacy of those times. I would have thought that at least one would be puzzled and troubled by it, just as many are by the history of modern art. I find it strange that some can just accept the majority of revolutionary developments without being disturbed by them. Perhaps however the feelings of disturbance are seen as positives?

My feeling is that late German Romantic music (above all Wagner) contains within it some of the worrying elements which are a part of German culture at that time. When I listen to it, I can't entirely dissociate the music from the period, and the sense of foreboding and potential dissolution that seems to be present then


----------



## Roberto

Point taken


----------

