1. boring,

2. too tender,

3. causing me to fall asleep,

4. conservative (not sure about this one, but why else would it sound so boring and tender?)

5. old-fashioned (I can't help but feel this. The fact that Bach was much more exciting than Mozart should tell us something, right?).

 

6. too peaceful, I mean, where's the CONFLICT??

Beethoven is to Beatles what Mozart is to Elvis or some swing pop/R&B singer. (very roughly)

 

7. too soft. If Beethoven were Hard Rock, Mozart would be Soft Rock. You don't see many soft rock fans on this forums do you? However Mozart manages to get away with writing soft music.

1. boring,    certainly not, have you heard "Eine Kleine Nacht Musik" - FIREWORKS!

 

2. too tender, I guess what you mean, though listen to Symphony 40/41,

 

3. causing me to fall asleep, some of his music is very soothing and relaxing, and yes one may fall asleep..

 

4. conservative (not sure about this one, but why else would it sound so boring and tender?)  Mozart was progressive in his time though within the constraints of the conservatism of his sponsors

 

5. old-fashioned (I can't help but feel this. The fact that Bach was much more exciting than Mozart should tell us something, right?).  very old fashioned music? it was written in the 18th century, very old fashioned! Mozart had to earn a living and write what his clients wanted.

 

6. too peaceful, I mean, where's the CONFLICT??  Music in the 18thC was not meant to be conflicting, it was written for worship, dancing or background music at functions.

Beethoven is to Beatles what Mozart is to Elvis or some swing pop/R&B singer. (very roughly)

 

7. too soft. If Beethoven were Hard Rock, Mozart would be Soft Rock. You don't see many soft rock fans on this forums do you? However Mozart manages to get away with writing soft music.

 

 

 

Aren't innovative, creative, and progressive essentially the same thing?

 

He did not so much write in the style of his times, as use as much as he needed to maintain support for his own music whilst pushing his own boundaries. He complained to his wife that his pay was "too much for what I do, too little for what I could do".

 

The evidence for Mozart's harmony writing becoming more and more adventurous as he developed is clear in the surviving scores. I don't see why this shouldn't be regarded as progressing, because the quality of writing in his later works (Clarinet Concerto, Symphony 40, Requiem, Don Giovanni, Magic Flute et al) is as breathtaking as some of Bach's greatest work.

 

For truly adventurous harmony (and musical humour, if you know where to look!), revisit "Ein Musikalischer Spass", KV 522, which contains all kinds of dissonant harmonies and virtually avante-garde writing styles. This very popular work often gets overlooked by "serious" music students, simply because the main themes are so simple. This fact in itself is one of the "jokes", however, and puts much of his more "serious" work into perspective.

 

Mozart had complete mastery of contrapuntal writing styles - and the talent to adapt it to suit the music he was paid to write - but ultimately had to hide most of his prodigious talent beneath superficially appealing music, because that is what his patrons demanded. On the surface, therefore, his music can often sound "twee". Let's not forget that he was a significant influence on both Beethoven and Haydn - the upcoming and the previous musical generations!

 

As has been pointed out, he died a pauper - his lifestyle outstripping his rather modest income on an all-too-frequent basis, despite late successes he appeared to have in gaining independent patronage.

 

This latter act alone is remarkably progressive for a musician of that time.

 

It's true to say that the music sounds completely different when played on period instruments (which are technically more challenging to play, and "rawer" sounding than their contemporary counterparts).

 

It even makes a difference to C19 composers - I heard a complete cycle of Beethoven's symphonies and Piano concerti given the period instrument treatment by Roger Norrington and The London Classical Players, and the difference is astonishing! There's also a cycle by Eliot Gardener, which would make interesting comparison, given the former's "old guard" reputation.

 

I haven't been able to listen to von Karajan or his ilk since - although I do have time for Barenboim (if only because of his relationship and work with Jacqueline Dupres, the most amazing instrumentalist in recent years, in my opinion).

 

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_August_Griesinger - Griesinger , Haydn got into string quartet writing by a happy accident; As an 18 year-old, he was invited to make music by Baron Fürnberg with three of his friends. Very little music existed that could be performed by these four, so the Baron asked Haydn if he could come up with something.

 

Interestingly, and as a complete aside, it appears that Haydn might be one of the first documented cases of musical piracy - he liked to write music for people and give it to them. Imagine his surprise when he found some of it for sale in local music shops...

 

It wasn't until much later that Haydn really got his teeth into this most demanding art form - and played string quartets with his young friend Mozart, who dedicated a set to Haydn.

 

Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, Classical, Romantic, etc are not really simple labels - they refer to sets of musical conventions and ideas which are contained within the music.

 

The mistake people often make is to put boundaries on them - to take them as if they're some kind of definition cast in stone, or different musical genres - they're not.

 

They are a set of traits - for example, Baroque music is more ornate, structured, and on a grander scale than Renaissance music, with tonality that is highly functional. Perhaps the best way to understand the contrast is to compare music by Monteverdi or Palestrina with that of J.S. Bach or Vivaldi. The latter, particularly, is a superlative example of Baroque harmonic and melodic structure. Bach's music tends to be rooted in the freer style of the Renaissance - which is not a bad thing at all!

 

I mentioned Rococo - this is a little discussed style which is more "delicate" than (High) Baroque, and was a kind of reaction against the "excesses" of the latter.

 

Baroque involved all manner of advances in melody, harmony, playing technique and particularly musical form - which reminds me strongly of a particular form of rock music... Rococo wasn't exactly the equivalent of punk, as it too produced significant musical advances, as in the music and writings of Rameau,  Couperin and C.P.E. Bach. It was even more strongly focussed on formalising and rationalising music.

 

J.C. Bach and Haydn are, perhaps the epitome of Classical music, which is most strongly focussed on form. Symmetry in structure was of utmost importance - and the Sonata form ruled the roost with its in-built symmetries.

 

The other striking aspect of Classical music that differentiates it from the Baroque style is that melodies do not have the same dominant position. This does not mean that the music is less melodic, but that the harmonic structure often dictates where the melodic lines go. Compare any Vivaldi concerto with any Haydn symphony - except, perhaps, the "Sturm und Drang" ones!

 

Romantic music is very different to Classical - the composers had a lot more freedom. One could describe this phenomenon as "escaping the shackles of Classicism", as many writers do. This was, of course, a gradual process, and you can hear "Romantic tendencies" in much earlier music. The most striking things in the music tend to be across the musical elements - but particularly in form, which appeared to react against and push the boundaries of Sonata form.

 

The freely developing themes in Beethoven's fifth symphony, and the massive scale, daring incorporation of a large choir and solo vocalists and stunning free writing in his ninth are testament to the huge differences between Beethoven's music and that of previous generations - and show clearly the way to more extreme Romantics like Richard Strauss and Debussy.

 

This is why the terms are more than just labels - they are all Progressive eras in music. There were even Progressive "chapters" before the Renaissance, such as the evolution of Polyphony, the development of the musical notation system we still use today and suchlike. Music has such a fascinating history!

 

 

 

 

Depends how you define "royal composer"

 

He spent nearly 30 years at the Esterhazy court - that (arguably) makes him a royal composer. The point was that he had patronage from nobility, which greatly assisted the dissemination of his music. Other composers with no patronage (like Haydn himself in his early years) could only spread their music among family and friends. Hardly a position for global domination!

 

 

fuxi wrote: Secondly: "Haydn wrote 68 string quartets. Having to all ends and purposes invented the genre in the 1750s with ten early works." (David Wyn Jones, Oxford Composer companions: HADYN, p. 293) If you can think of anyone else who first developed the string quartet as an independent genre, let me know.

 

The same source you quote, http://www.answers.com/topic/string-quartet - David Wyn Jones , cites the origins of the string quartet in the Baroque trio sonata. He also traces it to "the widespread practice of playing works written for string orchestra with just four players, covering the bass part with cello alone".

 

As for composers, look no further than Scarlatti's "Sonata à Quattro per due Violini, Violetta, e Violoncello senza Cembalo" - a set of 6 string quartets. You probably know it, since you love Scarlatti so dearly!

 

There's also Allegri, whose String Quartets (although somewhat crude in form) were a revelation to academics who, like you, thought they began with Haydn.

 

Then there's Henry Purcell, the many viol quartet writers of Elizabethan times...

 

 

The practice was, after all, widespread

 

Haydn is more well known for his later string quartets than the very early ones he composed "by accident" in the 1750's. Haydn's famous quartets of the 1770's are preceded by the fine ones of Boccherini (of which contemporary writers stated that they defined his style so well that he had nothing more to give - or sentiments along those lines).

 

Even Haydn's 1750's quartets at least co-incide with Richter's quartets of around 1757, which are very well-known, as they expose the new string quartet style in all its glory, with the soloistic treatment given to the lines.

 

Richter also wrote more quartets around 1768, but these have not as yet been published in a form digestible by modern performers - according to classical-composers.org, these manuscripts are in a "compressed notational typography".

 

 

I guess Haydn was the equivalent of King Crimson - he didn't invent the form at all, just passed it on and got the recognition...

 

 

fuxi wrote: Thirdly, "baroque" and "classical" are really nothing more than labels! Mozart never knew himself as a "classicist" and Bach never suspected he was "baroque". This is not to say that there weren't huge differences in the ways they composed. But take a look at the other evidence. The term "baroque" covers a wide range of composers who are as different in character as Monteverdi, Scarlatti sr., Purcell, Lully, Rameau, J.S. Bach and Telemann (all of whom I love dearly).

 

 

This is not evidence that proves the terms mere labels - on the contrary, this is evidence that the labels carry some meaning .

 

The "labels" refer to specific compositional styles, not inherent musical styles, and are helpful when examining trends in music.

 

They are also used less musically specifically to simply mean a period in music (and also used to describe periods in literature and other arts) with less definition - so the differences between the composers is moot.

 

 

While there are differences in the way the various composers wrote, there are also striking similarities too - and it is very clear that there is a world of difference between the music of Mozart and that of any of the Baroque composers you mention, and the Romantic composers that came later - as I outlined above.

 

With these similarites and differences, it can obviously become confusing - the terms are most helpful when listening out for stylistic traits in the evolution of the music. It is interesting to analysts and historians to hear progression in music, and these established terms are very useful tools.

 

I doubt very much that the ancient Greeks referred to themselves as the ancient Greeks either - most if not all desriptive terms are posthumous. "Wheel" springs to mind. Mozart probably wouldn't have called the music he wrote "classical" (small "c") either, like we do today, yet that simple "label" carries enough information to separate his music from rock without having heard it.

 

 

As you can see, my facts were correct. 

 

I did say "depends how you define a royal composer", and I did not define it - because there was no need to in the context.

 

Besides, princes are royalty last time I looked.

 

Again, this is not the point I was trying to make - I'm not sure whay you're making such a big deal out of this irrelevant issue!

 

fuxi wrote: Secondly, the fact Boccherini published his string quartets sooner than Haydn does not make him the inventor of the genre. I am not familiar with Scarlatti's efforts (which Scarlatti are you referring to?) but I'd be surprised if all four of his instruments carried equal weight, as in Haydn's works. (And is a "violetta" the same as a viola?)

 

fuxi wrote: Of course you could maintain that sublime works for just a handful of string players had been written all through the baroque period, and I'll be the first to agree that some viol consorts are as enjoyable as Haydn at his best, but if you look at "string quartet music" as a mature and independent genre (as developed by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Bartok and so on), I still see no need to doubt that Haydn was its originator.

 

OK, I'll tell you...

 

A String Quartet is a group of 4 string players, or a piece written for said group.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

It's just a label.

fuxi wrote: As for names you want to give to compositional styles, of course such labels are useful, but they're often arbitrary all the same. Take a composer like C.P.E. Bach, for example. Many of his keyboard sonates fron the 1740s are in the "galant" style, with pleasant melodies that are easy on the ear, but he also composed a number of "fantasias" which sound like improvisations that were hastily jotted down, and these will probably remind you of his father's (i.e. Johann Sebastian's) toccatas. So is C.P.E. a baroque musician, a rococo dandy or a classicist? And does it matter?

 

No - and he could be all of those things.

 

All labels are arbitrary - like String Quartet, or Wheel.

 

It obviously matters to you because you keep responding to my posts.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to correct me on - I haven't made any of the errors you're trying to pick me up on, apart from, possibly, the labelling of Haydn as a Royal Composer.

 

Does this label matter?

 

 

I'm still puzzled how you can accept "String Quartet" as a specific writing style, as opposed to either of the two absolutes, but reject "Baroque".

 

 

There are very few absolutes in music, of course - even well-defined things like crotchets may have different time values, not only within a given piece, but even a given bar - e.g during a period of rubato.

 

How on earth can one define a crotchet, except in terms of multiples or fractions of other notes - and even then you can't be precise. You could describe it as a quarter of a minim - but under the conditions I described, you might perform it as more or less than that value. 

 

So is the term "crotchet" merely a label too? Where do labels end, and real things begin?

 

 

I still refute that the various terms, which refer to styles and periods in music (and art, literature, etc)  are mere labels any more than, say, Progressive Rock or Heavy Metal - and the fact that Prof. Buelow has studied Baroque in such depth is a clear indicator that we're talking about something quite specific.

 

It's interesting that he states that, as a label, it is troublesome - just like Progressive Rock.

 

This is exactly why I don't see either as labels, but rather distinct areas of music to explore - after all, the difference between Baroque music and Progressive Rock is very apparent, as is the difference between either and Heavy Metal - isn't it?

 

There probably isn't a musical "style" that doesn't cross over into another and make precise definition a real headache - I must disagree with the emeritus professor that "none has been more troublesome in its vagueness if not its inappropriateness than the world Baroque".

 

But who am I do disagree with a contributor to the New Grove?

 

 

 

I'm fond of this quote from Henry Brooks Adams; “No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous.”

4. conservative (not sure about this one, but why else would it sound so boring and tender?)

You might sit and watch the movie "Amadeus" ... He's not conservative at all ... at a time when things were even worse musically ... specially when we look back at it ... specially important is the moment in front of the king ... you should play that 5 times and watch it 5 times ...

5. old-fashioned (I can't help but feel this. The fact that Bach was much more exciting than Mozart should tell us something, right?).

I do think that Mozart gets a bit mechanical for my tastes, but that's like saying that Bach was not ... and he deliberately wrote things to disprove music theory ... like this key is supposed to be said and so forth ... if he was alive today he probably would be making fun of Elton John and Billy Joel ... they can play the piano and waste it more than anyone else!

 

6. too peaceful, I mean, where's the CONFLICT?? Beethoven is to Beatles what Mozart is to Elvis or some swing pop/R&B singer. (very roughly)

Peacefull ... hmmm ... I think you have not heard Mozart ... you just heard one album with ten little bits from his pieces which hardly show a composer's abilities.

You're not going to appreciate it, but you might check out his operas and how he single handedly changed the format by intentionally creating a Frank Zappa at a time when music was supposed to be serious ... and only heard by the upper crust of society! ... movies are not the real thing ... but you really should sit through "Amadeus" ... so you can see why Salieri eventually became famous ... by transcribing Mozart!

[ quote] 7. too soft. If Beethoven were Hard Rock, Mozart would be Soft Rock. You don't see many soft rock fans on this forums do you? However Mozart manages to get away with writing soft music.[/quote]

Somethings are so soft ... that one can hardly appreciate them!