1. The Viennese ‘Classical’ idiom.
Well into the 19th century, many partisans of ‘classical’ music, continental as well as British, defined their preferred repertory negatively, in opposition to mere virtuoso display, Romantic music, Rossini and other ‘trumpery’. But by the 1830s ‘classical’ music was coming increasingly to be identified specifically with the ‘Viennese classics’ composed by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and it is to these that the term-complex usually refers when encountered without further qualification in more recent writings on music. The notion that these works constituted a ‘classical period’ or ‘school’ arose among German writers in the 19th century, in part by analogy with the Weimarer Klassik created by Goethe and, to a lesser extent, Schiller. Kiesewetter (1834) referred to ‘the German or (perhaps more rightly) … the Viennese school’, and other writers followed his lead. (His limitation of this school to Mozart and Haydn was endorsed by Finscher (MGG2), who cited Beethoven’s slowness in approaching the genres in which they excelled, among other factors.) The explicit linkage of ‘Viennese’ with ‘classical’ was codified in the early 20th-century writings of Sandberger, Adler and Wilhelm Fischer, along with explanatory schemes regarding its evolution. Blume extended the boundaries of this putative period back to the middle of the 18th century and forward to include all Schubert’s works, weakening any conception of a closely knit or precisely defined movement: he specifically denied the possibility of stylistic unity within the period between the deaths of Bach and Beethoven. Rosen restricted what he called the ‘classical style’ mainly to the instrumental works of the mature Haydn and Mozart, and of Beethoven. In this view, for which Finscher found early 19th-century documentation (e.g. Wendt, 1831, 1836), there was a stylistic period that stretched from Haydn’s obbligato homophony, achieved in the 1770s and capped by the op.33 quartets, to the threshold of Beethoven’s last period, when the ‘classical’ forms are supposed to be overstepped or disintegrating.
That there was a ‘classical idiom’ shared by Haydn, Mozart and, to an extent, Beethoven is more generally agreed than is the existence of a ‘classical period’ (IMSCR VIII: New York 1961). If applied to the music exclusively of these three composers, or to the historical phenomenon of their posthumous reputations, the appellation ‘classical idiom’ is justified; in describing music generally during these composers’ lifetimes, it is perhaps better to speak of a ‘Viennese’ or ‘Austro-Bohemian’ school (with analogous terms for other local traditions), rather than of a diluted ‘classical period’. Some writers of the time, such as John Marsh, distinguished only between the ‘modern’ style and all that came before it. Haydn’s central role in the refinement and propagation of this new style is manifest (see Koch, 1793, and Marsh, 1796), despite his early geographic isolation, and differences of opinion concerning the date by which his works display full mastery. Haydn’s abandonment during the 1770s of certain more local or personal features of his style – possibly connected with the wider circulation of his music in print – was followed by his achievement of an individual synthesis of pleasing tunefulness (the galant style) with the learned devices of counterpoint he had previously used somewhat forcedly and selfconsciously (the op.20 quartets) – though Webster (1991) has pointed to fundamental continuities of technique between the composer’s music in this and later periods. By about 1775 Haydn had put behind him, for the most part, the mannerisms of ‘Empfindsamkeit’ – though this idiom still retained some utility for certain types of keyboard and chamber music – and the obsessive pathos of Sturm und Drang, and assimilated in his own language the fantasy qualities, ‘redende [speaking] Thematik’ and developmental skills of C.P.E. Bach. Mozart followed Haydn closely in the 1770s in his quartets and symphonies, and the dedication of the six quartets to Haydn speaks eloquently enough of their close relationship. Other elements in the synthesis achieved by both are use of dynamics and orchestral colour in a thematic way (perhaps a legacy of the Mannheim School); use of rhythm, particularly harmonic rhythm, to articulate large-scale forms; use of modulation to build longer arches of tension and release; and the witty and typically Austrian mixture of comic and serious traits (pilloried by north German critics, who held firm against any alloying of the opera seria style by that of opera buffa). During the 1780s Haydn’s instrumental works were very widely printed and diffused. His language had become understood (as he told Mozart when he set out for England) by all the world. This universality, which Mozart also achieved, especially with his concertos and operas, deserves to be called ‘classical’ even under the most precise definition (ii above).
Haydn 在18 世紀70 年代期間放棄他個人特點的風格- 可能和他的音樂在印刷品的廣泛流傳有關- 被中意的tunefulness (galant 樣式) 單獨綜合的他的成就跟隨了以他有些forcedly 和selfconsciously 早先使用了對位聲部的博學的設備(op.20 四重唱) - 雖然韋伯斯特(1991) 指向了技術根本連續性在作曲家的音樂在這中和最新期間之間。
在大約1775 年以前Haydn 投入了在他, 很大程度上, ` Empfindsamkeit 動作' - 雖然這條成語仍然保留了一些公共事業為某些類型鍵盤和室內樂- 並且狂風暴雨之後縈繞悲愴, 和同化用他自己的語言C.P.E 幻想質量、` redende [ 講話] Thematik ' 和發展技能。
Bach 。Mozart 跟隨了Haydn 嚴密在18 世紀70 年代在他的四重唱和交響樂, 並且六四重唱的致力對Haydn 講話足夠雄辯地他們的密切的關係。其它元素在綜合由兩個達到是對動力學的用途和管弦樂隊的顏色用一個主題方式(或許遺產曼海姆學校); 對節奏, 特殊泛音節奏的用途, 明確表達大規模形式; 對模塊化的用途修造緊張更長的曲拱和發布; 並且可笑和嚴肅的特徵機智和典型地奧地利混合物(pilloried 由北部德國評論家, 拿著企業反對所有熔合歌劇seria 樣式由那歌劇buffa) 。
在18 世紀80 年代期間Haydn 的有助工作列印了和非常廣泛散開了。他的語言成為了由所有世界瞭解(因為他告訴了Mozart 他開始了為英國) 。這普遍性, Mozart 並且達到, 特別是以他的協奏曲和歌劇, 該當叫做` 古典' 在最精確的定義之下(ii 上述) 。
- aresLv 52 decades agoFavorite Answer
Show us your first draft.