Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 10 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,875 Posts
:) You're obviously more familiar with M Haydn, so why do you consider Pichon's interpretation to be "the best"?
Listen to that recording of the Dies Irae movement, for instance, the "HIP sound" and the pace of tempo and dynamics (the sense of "urgency" it creates)— it feels so "right" to me. Also listen to the "Quam olim abrahae" fugue,
The way to reach the dominant from i64, with the chromatic ascent C -> C# -> D, with the major second [ G, A ] on the top
(D -> C -> C# -> D | G -> F# | Bb -> A)
Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=16m50s sounds so eerie
It's just the feeling I get from Pichon's and none of the others, such Ivor Bolton's. (maybe it's because it's the one I'm most familiar with. What do you think?).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,875 Posts
Until Mozart. The Magic Flute dragged Singspiel from the town square onto the stages of Austria’s most prestigious theaters
Is that true though?

"We may assume that Leopold and Wolfgang, while in Vienna, received reports from their friends in Salzburg about the highly successful performance of “Die Hochzeit auf der Alm” in May 1768. The very idea that Wolfgang should write a similar opera (K.50) may have originated in these reports. But how did Mozart come to know the music? For this we have just one clue: in his 1952 biography of Michael Haydn, Hans Jancik mentions that “Die Hochzeit auf der Alm” was also performed in Vienna in 1768." min-ad/06-2/7_Mozartian_Touches77-88.pdf#page=4
"Auf! Es kommt der Fruhling an": watch?v=EsaDuWePEMw
"Lobet ihr Krafte den Schopfer der Welt": watch?v=puANS_Rzv9g
"Gequaltes Herz! Entdecke mir die Wahrheit deiner pein": watch?v=v7lz6nSLzFU
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,875 Posts
Also, given how many are UNfamiliar with M Haydn and his works, I daresay he had very little impact or influence on the musical world.
I'm just saying (as a reply to your post#354) there were singspiels performed in Austrian cultural centers such as Vienna before Mozart's mature ones.
Just cause a composer isn't popular today, it doesn't mean he had little influence in history (although how you subjectively evaluate it is up to you).
"The numerous settings of liturgical texts in German, the secular German part-songs and Lieder, together with his expanding sphere of influence as a teacher of composition in the 1790s, place Michael Haydn in a position of importance in the early history of both German sacred music and German song. One of his students Georg Schinn (1768-1833), left Salzburg in 1808 to take a position in the Munich Hofkapelle, where Michael Haydn's Latin and German sacred music was performed frequently throughout the 19th century." <Michael Haydn and "The Haydn Tradition:" A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission / Dwight C. Blazin / P.28>

Why assume that, if Beethoven was in Haydn's position, Beethoven would have influenced Mozart and Weber (who wrote some of his early dramatic works under Haydn's supervision) the same way Haydn did? No matter how highly you regard Beethoven, he wasn't the one who wrote watch?v=I-TeHK-bVvU in 1769.

"According to contemporary reports, instead of the usual Baroque scenery, in the subsidiary piece the theatre was made up »in the manner of an alpine hut. On one side there was a waterfall, on the other a high mountain cliff. In the morning and evening sunlight [...] one could see the cattle up on the Alpine pastures.« Haydn's Wedding on the Alpine Pasture was no doubt a pioneering work for the Salzburg Theatre. The individual arias and instrumental movements together with the entire singspiel were adapted by Haydn himself and other composers and - as witness numerous copies of the work - were soon in wide distribution in the abbeys of Kremsmünster and Seitenstetten or being taken further afield by the boatsmen who plied the waters of the Salzach river at Laufen." (an excerpt from the program notes for Brunner's recording of Die Hochzeit auf der Alm MH107)

Today, we are shoved in our throats, the dogma; "it was all about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. They were the ones who did everything (pretty much)". But if we were educated from youth to be more open to free-thinking; for example, "Aumann could have been influential in ways Mozart wasn't", —our way to view classical music history could have been different.
Although Haydn's music hasn't been distributed widely (partly due to the composer not wanting his music printed or published in his lifetime), Schubert happened to have exposure to it during his youth as a chorister in Vienna. Of Mozart, Schubert only said "O immortal Mozart! What countless impressions of a brighter, better life hast thou stamped upon our souls!” and that was it, but Haydn was the composer Schubert specifically said he wanted be like; "I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes. . . .)"" .
[Franz Schubert: A Biography, By Henry Frost · 2019 (P. 138)]

It maybe difficult to understand from our point of view today, how Schubert could have admired an obscure late 18th century composer over Mozart, but he did. I don't have to indulge in the wishful thinking "All renowned musical minds have worshipped Mozart over all his contemporaries", "Because Mozart was a musical god". I accept that there can be valid differences of opinion, but no such thing as a dogmatic law of objectivity that condemns anyone as a weirdo for holding them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,875 Posts
One more thing; I don't think it's fair to compare K.620 (not K.50) with MH107 especially when Haydn's late works such as
+ Der Schulmeister MH204, Der Englische Patriot MH285, Beschluss-Arie MH295, and especially Die Ährenleserin MH493 (1788), which is said to contain greater boldness of chromatic language, Lied-like qualities of the northern tradition (as opposed to coloratura) than Haydn's earlier works, and 3 instances of homage to Mozart's Don Giovanni.
Ich suche die Natur. Edle Wahrheit! Zeig die Wege, wo ich selbe finden kann. Mach das Mark des Geistes rege, zeig mir deine Tritte an. Lass mich finden, aus was Gründen eine Kunst beträchtlich sei. Weg mit Schmink' und Tandelei! Ich suche die Natur.
I seek Nature. Noble Truth! Show the ways where I can find the same. Stir the spirit's depths; show me your steps. Let me find for what cogent reasons an art merits consideration. Away with decoration and ostentation! I seek Nature.
still haven't been recorded. It's only fair to judge after they're all recorded and we give them equal amount of chance as Mozart's.
Remember, music is subjective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,875 Posts
Why did Bach create the Art of the Fugue?

Wolff posits a practical concern. In 1737, a former pupil, Johann Scheibe, possibly in retaliation for Bach having passed him over for a coveted appointment, published an attack in which he savaged Bach's style as "turgid and confused," decrying its "beauty darkened by an excess of art" that buried the melody, detracted from the beauty of the harmony, had excessive ornamentation, and was extremely difficult to play.

In retrospect, we now recognize this as a harbinger of the vast change that was about to forego Bach's counterpoint in favor of the emerging homophonic style, consisting of a dominant melodic line supported by harmony, that persists to this day (and of which, ironically, Bach's sons were in the vanguard of promoting).

Bach never wrote about his own music, but a colleague, Johann Abraham Birnbaum, came to his defense (and panned the new style), asserting that "one very soon becomes tired of insipid little ditties that consist of nothing but consonances" and that "harmony becomes far more complete if all the voices collaborate to form it." But it was a losing battle - a mere two years after Bach died, Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, a respected critic, expressed regret that the fugue (and, by implication, polyphony in general) already had declined into an ancient aberration, even as he saluted the Art of the Fugue as a bulwark against contemporary rubbish.

Wolff feels that Bach, plunged into the midst of this esthetic debate, felt compelled to memorialize the art to which he had devoted his life and to create a compendium of its range and techniques. As Herbert Parry put it, the Musical Offering had been for the benefit of one king, but Bach created the Art of the Fugue for all musicians.

Although ignored at the time, and for a century to come, the Art of the Fugue is now universally hailed as not only the ultimate treatise on counterpoint and thus the foremost embodiment of Bach's esthetic ideals, but one of the supreme summits of art, in which a wealth of invention is crafted from a single idea (and in that sense serves to exemplify Bach's core belief in the perfect and inviolate order of the universe, structured according to a Divine plan).

John Stone calls it "tantamount to a sacred text, an artwork so quintessentially perfect in form, so unutterably beautiful from the dual perspectives of the mind and heart, intellect and emotions."

While many of us enjoy it on a superficial level, perhaps the most meaningful tribute is from those having a lifetime of expertise and the deepest familiarity, who consistently declare their studies and analyses to be incomplete and its depths to be limitless, not only as an encylopedic compilation of past technique but as a visionary guide to inspire the creativity of future generations.
An interesting story, but slightly exaggerated (a bit too "Bach-centric" in view). There were many contrapuntists still active in the period 1750~80, they just don't get as much spotlight as the famous composers
For instance, have a look at the article <I Believe in Mozart: Symphony No. 41 in C Major> 2013/03/18/i-believe-in-mozart-symphony-41-in-c-major/

"I'm back baby!"

We have been constantly "educated" (or "brainwashed" depending on how you look at it) in this way. "Thank Bach only, and no one else."
What if we had been educated from childhood about, for instance, the complex organ works of Johann Ludwig Krebs and nothing about Bach? Would things have been the same? (I'm just asking).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,875 Posts
Funny, but it was a similar story with Antonio Salieri.
However, unlike Bach, his music wasn't rediscovered and celebrated as genius. Instead it was just gone, and when rediscovered, generally not given first-class status.
Neither are guys before Bach's time, like Purcell, Buxtehude, so it's ok to ignore them, and interpret history as if they didn't exist? What I'm saying is that there's an exaggeration about how Bach "was pretty much alone" in writing in an "old complex style", even though there were many contrapuntists even after Bach's time (who would have been "even more daring than Bach", by the logic "Bach was daring because he was writing in an old complex style"). For example, Pasterwitz Requiem www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGIVo31xW8o
"He composed a large number of short contrapuntal pieces for keyboard: 324 were published between 1790 and 1803, and were the only works published during the composer's lifetime."
Toccata & Fugue in A Minor: I. Toccata www.youtube.com/watch?v=HngzRAIKuJU
Toccata & Fugue in A Minor: II. Fuga
www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAbUbKCSYg
(Sorry about bugging you in this thread, btw, let's try to keep the discussion concise.)
 
1 - 10 of 11 Posts
Top