PART 4: Video Intro

When I was a kid I remember being really surprised when a friend of mine told me that the word "Jello" was actually a brand name. I hadn't realized that over the years apparently the name became such an archetype of the product that it went beyond a brand name and became a generic name. The same thing has happened with "Kleenex" and "Xerox."

And the word Classical. People talk about Classical Music all the time, and they use it as a generic term. But in the field of Classical Music there is also a Classical Period (approximately the 1770s to the 1820s). The Classical Style of this period became such an archetype that it actually crossed over into a generic name. So depending on the context, when people use the word Classical they can be referring either to the music from that particular historical period, or a whole body of music. As you can imagine, the double usage sometimes causes confusion. This has prompted some people to use the term Art Music as the generic term to encompass the whole field as distinguished from any historical period.

It's not surprising that the music of the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries became identified as a generic. Afterall, this is the period of Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn. Even people unfamiliar with Classical music in general are familiar with the names of these Classical composers. They are "classics" for a reason.

The word classic implies something very highly prized, timeless, and having universal appeal. There are certain qualities we look for in a classic-- whether it's a building, a car, or a symphony-- such as clean lines and attractive form. And these things are as prominent in the music of Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart as they are in the Parthenon, or a '55 Thunderbird!

The Classical period was, at the same time, a middle class period of music. This last line is a quote from Friedrich Blume's book, Classic and Romantic Music, and it summarizes in a nutshell another reason why this style and this period carry such weight and significance in the history of music. It's definitely worth taking some time to review this historical period briefly to better understand Blume's comment.

Perhaps you've studied this time period before in a history, literature or political science class. If so, you'll remember that the The Enlightenment was at the root of the major philosophical and intellectual movements of the time, and had an impact lasting up until our present time. Enlightenment philosophy emphasized humanism, democracy, equality, universal education, naturalism, and the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness enshrined in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. This philosophy was made possible in part because of the growth of a middle class which began to flex its muscles politically, economically, socially--and in the arena of musical style.

Just imagine the following scenario on a personal level: let's say you are a member of this new middle class. Once the sun sets in the evenings you and your family will look for some nice way to entertain yourselves. Typically you will light all the sconces in your home, get out your musical instruments, and have an evening of chamber music (intimate music for a small ensemble, that is meant to be played in a "chamber" or room, and not a concert hall.) You are amateurs in the original sense of the word, meaning that you are lovers of music, but you are also amateurs in the more modern sense of the word, meaning that you're not professional musicians. So you're not looking for anything too ambitious, challenging or complicated to play; you're looking for pleasant music to play as a nice diversion.

And you'll pay good money for it. The late 18^th century in fact saw the beginnings of the business of music with three main areas of activity:

The sale of musical instruments. Instrument manufacture took off during this period, as did the publication of "how-to" manuals for self-instruction on note-reading and instrument playing. The piano superceded the harpsichord as the keyboard instrument of choice and a piano was a must in any cultivated home. This period also saw the establishment of music periodicals and journals (one of which offered coupons that you could save up to redeem for a piano!)  The sale of sheet music. Publishers commissioned composers to write music that would please the large new market. The old polyphony and complicated harmonies were swept away by a new facile, pleasant style. The best of composers sometimes ran afoul of these requirements because their music was too difficult or too complex for a mass audience. Beethoven in particular was almost belligerent about writing music as he saw fit and not according to the dictates of a commercial publisher.   The founding of public concerts. During the Baroque era concerts had been the purview of the nobility. Many courts kept an entire orchestra in their employ and had nightly concerts. A few even had their own private opera houses, complete with staging, costuming, players and singers! Toward the end of the 18th century this type of extraordinary wealth was no longer the case, and with the institution of public concerts (with tickets available for a fee), was no longer even needed. Public concerts eventually replaced those of the church and the royal court and became a source of income to composers, who could finally be liberated from the patronage system that had been so demeaning and defeating. In this way, the rise of the concert hall had profound effects on the sociology and economics of Western music. The first public concert hall, incidentally, was built in Oxford, England in 1748 and one of the sons of J.S. Bach, Johann Christian Bach, who settled in London, helped establish one of the first concert series ever.

So as you can see from the three main points above, the economic power of the middle class translated into real cultural and stylistic change. Let's just spend a bit more time looking at this fascinating concept.

In the new "Enlightenment" atmosphere, with the ideals of humanism, equality, and naturalism, there was now interest in finding a simpler type of music-- one that could be understood, enjoyed, and appreciated by people of different nationalities and different social backgrounds. The royalty of the earlier 18^th century were highly educated in music and had enjoyed the intellectually complicated and emotionally refined styles of the Baroque. But these styles began to seem antiquated to the new middle class audiences, not to mention that they also had overtones of elitism. So there was a remarkably strong backlash against the old polyphonic styles.

Look at these comments from late-18^th century writers, slamming polyphony:

Or this comment from J.J. Quantz, a famous flutist and composer:

The old composers [such as J.S. Bach and other masters of polyphony] were too much absorbed with compositional 'tricks' and carried them too far, so that they neglected the essential thing in music, which is to move and please.

Or these notes from Dr. Charles Burney, who wrote several major travelogues of the 18^th century, detailing his responses to the cultures of many European countries:

[Bach was]…constantly in search of what was new and difficult, without the least regard to nature and facility. Dr. Burney also lamented that Bach could not give up ...all unmeaning art and contrivance… in his composing and learn to write …in a style more popular and generally intelligible and pleasing.

So the middle class represented a new market for instrument builders, publishers, concert presenters, and composers. Because of their economic power they were a potent force culturally. Perhaps you can now see more clearly now how the classic period of music was at the same time a middle class period of music.

The references above to J.S. Bach are heartbreaking. They show how misunderstood he was and how quickly he was dismissed by people involved in the "next generation" of styles.

On the other hand, doesn't this kind of thing happen all the time? Aren't all changeovers of style, of leadership, of trends, of ideas, painful? Even today, overturning the old without providing for a healthy replacement leaves a void. And that is exactly what happened during the mid-18^th century. It was easy enough to be tired of polyphonic music and rich harmonies, but no one had a very clear idea of what could replace the old style. Afterall, one doesn't simply "invent" new musical languages at will! The lack of a viable new style, then, was a sad fact of musical life for a period of some 50 years or so (approximately between the 1720s and the 1770s) before the flowering of the Classical style. In retrospect this experimental period has been dubbed the "pre-classical" period.

Ironically two of Bach's own sons, Johann Christian and Carl Philip Emmanuel, were pioneers of new, alternative styles. Though they did not have his genius, they far surpassed their father in fame during the 18^th century. (It's been said that Bach's sons referred to him as "the old wig.")

Johann Christian (1735-1782) was an exponent of the Style Galant, a charming, airy type of music. It was popular throughout the fashionable European courts for its pleasant, lightweight, ("gallant"), almost detached emotional aspect. The harmonies and textures were stripped down to a simplicity that bordered on the banal-- and unfortunately, banality is one of the traps that the new style fell into.

Here is an example of one of J.C.'s nicer works, a Symphony in D Major.

Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach (1714-1788) championed a particular breed of German expressive music called Empfindsamkeit, which translates as "sensitive style." By contrast to the prettified Style Gallant, this style wore its emotions on its sleeve. It was filled with 2-note patterns that were supposed to sound like little sighs, and the music abruptly changed emotions, swerving from shocking and violent to quiet and sentimental. The main problem was that the music wasn't so much "sensitive" as maudlin, and the lack of restraint often devolved into incoherence. Here's an example of what I mean—a Rondo by CPE Bach. Try not to laugh too hard at this awkward piece of music!

C.P.E. Bach: Rondo

The instrument used for this performance is a replica of a piano such as would have been played by C.P.E. Bach.  This is the same kind of piano Haydn and Mozart played-- and it was the piano of Beethoven's youth. Not much larger than a harpsichord and with not much more volume. Notice the "inverted" keyboard (i.e., naturals are black and accidentals are white). The pedals are hidden underneath the keyboard and are operated by the knees!  Today there are builders who specialize in creating reproduction pianos (called fortepianos) such as this one, and there is a whole bevy of performers who are specializing in performing classical literature on these instruments. They feel that the music sounds clearer on these instruments.

Perhaps you found it strange that I would take the time to show you a piece of music (like the CPE Bach), that was actually bad! But sometimes this can sharpen our appreciation of what's good, and I'm hoping that by comparison, you will soon see why Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are regarded as the greats of the classical era. Greatness does not spring up overnight, fully formed, and it is instructive to see what some of the intermediary steps were on the way to what we now call the "Classical Style."

© Copyright 1998, 1999  by Omnidisc inc.  All rights reserved.  Reproduction of this page and all pages contained in this site is strictly prohibited by law.