Soap Box

[Robert Newman]

Seen recently in an article online - criticism of 'superman' status for Haydn, Beethoven and Mozart -

The Classical Period has always been dominated by Haydn and Mozart, so why do we need to waste time with names like Boccherini, Hoffmeister, Beck, Dittersdorf, Cimarosa, Stamitz, Richter, Vanhal, and even Hummel? Let’s simply adopt the obvious solution: if music ends in a minor key and uses chromaticism from this period, it must be by Mozart. If it employs monothematic sonata form and has a sense of humour it’s a lost work of Haydn. All worthy operas and concertos are of course Mozart’s; string quartets and symphonies are Haydn’s. In a pinch, if some doubt remains regarding attribution, we can always hedge our bets and say “Studio of Haydn.” After all, he had many students and lived a long life. If the music was composed after 1800 but before 1820 it’s by Beethoven unless it’s an opera, in which case it’s by Rossini or (when in German) Weber. After 1820 or so we have a brief window of opportunity to greatly expand Schubert’s output, after which no one except Berlioz, Mendelssohn, and Schumann wrote orchestral music that anyone cares about until the mid 19th century. Some eras are inherently tidy.

LOL

David Hurwitz - ‘Let’s Just Say Bach Wrote It - Cleaning Up the Universe of Classical Music’ (2008)

[marval]

HaHa, what a strange view the writer has. By doing that just think of the composers turning in their grave, because they are not being given credit for their music.

It might be a complicated subject "classical music", but I don't think we should change anything, every composer should have his place in history.


Margaret

[Kuhlau]

What's the source, Robert?

FK

[some guy]

It's not a strange view; it's a joke.

Here's the whole article: http://www.classicstoday.com/feature...-editorial.asp

[Robert Newman]

Well, yes, the author of that article intended it to be a satire. But in recent years (due to the discoveries of music researchers) a whole series of articles have appeared of the same kind - complaining (quite rightly) about the 'dumbing down' of music history and trying to save classical music from imploding. Take for one example the famous articles on the Mozart industry by music writer Norman Le Brecht, who (rightly) points out that Mozart is a subject in which reality (the historical truth of his life and career), becomes almost meaningless because of it ignoring huge numbers of embarrasing facts and is not even being considered. The above article by David Hurwitz is just another example. We also have detailed studies such as 'Works falsely attributed to Haydn and Mozart' by researchers such as Prof. Georgio Taboga which show the careers of both Haydn and Mozart were in fact massively 'stage managed' in their own lifetimes by supply to them of great works by others though this story (resisted by conservatives) is again hardly being appreciated. 'Mozart' sells. In other words, modern writers are increasingly complaining that almost nothing taught and believed about the iconic Haydn and Mozart is actually true - that the truth is very different. But this fixation with these iconic 'manufactured' composers means that dozens, even hundreds of composers whose names and whose works are virtually unknown today may as well have lived and worked in China or in Lapland.

Of course the cultural media of our times deals in icons and has given us carefully manufactured 'safe' mythology but they have routinely and deliberately avoided actual reality. In actual fact, Haydn and Mozart did not write many (most) of the great works today attributed to them. So say the facts. 'Their' works are often beautiful, for sure, but the truth of them being attributed to Haydn and Mozart is almost never told. Nor too the details of the rise of those industries which so zealously guard the 'official story' of these two composers. They were, in fact, supplied with these major works by others whose names go unappreciated year after year.

Does history matter ? I think it does. But the tourist industry, the recording industry, the corporate media and lazy students don't mind this massive and relentless 'dumbing down' of music history, it seems. And so writers write in this way.

Here is the famous article by Norman Lebrecht -

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:g...lnk&cd=1&gl=uk


Regards

[Art Rock]

Interesting read, thanks.