Peter Dorman wrote: > > By going back to the 18th c. we are adding new layers to the question. > Mozart did not have strong political views in the conventional sense, > although he clearly identified with the main themes of the enlightenment > (much trashed on this list). Within the confines of a society > stratified by birth he favored greater social leveling, and he treats > servants and other low-born persons in his operas with respect. (Even > women get some respect.) But it would be wrong to say that he ever put > forward a strong political statement, and his music -- as music -- was > unaffected by politics. Interestingly, Haydn's *music* is intrinsically > progressive within the context of his era. He was the first composer in > the classical tradition to use folk and folk-like music as an essential > component of his work, rather than as a novelty element. (Compare any > landler from the third movement of a Haydn symphony to, say, Bach's > peasant cantata.) Moreover, the sonata form (which he more or less > invented) mirrors the novel as a formal expression of the transformation > of individual consciousness as it makes its way through the world. > (Here I am arguing by homology, but in music I think it makes more > sense.) Music passes definitively from decoration to narrative. > > The irony is that Haydn wrote the anthem that became "Deutschland Uber > Alles". > > Beethoven is known for having responded positively to the French > Revolution, but there is little actual politics in his music. (Yes, > there is the ode to brotherhood in the 9th symphony and the prisoners' > hymn to freedom in Fidelio.) For the most part he was pursuing the same > inner/other-worldliness that German romanticism fled to. There was a > practical radicalism, however, in works like the late piano sonatas, the > Grosse Fuge, etc., that broke with music as entertainment (for either > the castle chamber or the bourgeois drawing room) and looked forward to > a different socioeconomic model. Yes, all the more remarkable considering Beethoven was totally deaf when he wrote them. Beethoven's string quartet's starting with the op 59 building up to his masterpiece the C# minor op 131 are the most radical in the sense that they make a clean break with the Haydn/Mozart style and introduce harmonies that are far more sophisiticated than had even been imagined before. The s.q's also make the break between classicism and romanticism where musical composition is less something composed for pleasant background music in the drawing room than complete expression of the artists thoughts and psychological states. How does all this translate into politics? Does musical radicalism directly map onto political radicalism? The problem is whether music can represent anything, let alone something as complex as political ideas and ideology. Music can certainly express things but can it represent states of affairs in the world? I would say no except in some limiting circumstances. Music, like all art, I think, is meant to be enjoyed. Art doesn't need to have political or philosophical messages/meanings to be enjoyable and great. Sam Pawlett >
