Notcynical, “. Of course, if a song is lost in history, perhaps because no one ever wrote it down, by definition it cannot last.”
That is exactly my point.
“But to imply a song can only last if it is written down is just wrong.”
Tell me the name of one song that wasn’t written down before the invention of recording. You can’t. 
Recording now, in effect “writes a song” down (ie, puts it in a concrete, non-ephemeral form) and thus has staying power.
HUGS!
Sqrl
If you are saying that, speaking generally, composers relied on the direct patronage of aristocratic employers for the lion’s share of their income up until the early 19th century, and that after that it became more normal for composers to cast off those ties, then I agree with you.
If you are also saying that up until the same period of time the prevailing artistic tastes and desires of the same moneyed aristocracy (and church) played an enormous role in the stylistic choices composers made, and that this influence waned similarly in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, then I still agree with you.
However, the process is not as clear-cut as that, and the tradition of composers being at least in part musical “businessmen,” relying on the popular success of their music, goes back much further (just as the tradition of composers relying on wealthy patrons goes on further – your man Beethoven still had a little help, I believe).
Francesco Cavalli (1602-1676) is a good example. He was a church organist for much of his life, so he certainly relied on the church for some income, but he was also an operatic composer/producer who assumed along with his partners partial financial risk (and reaped financial reward) for the success or failure of his works. He was one of the first truly popular composers who modeled the content and form of his works after the public taste (indeed had to – they were paying customers) rather than the tastes of the wealthy few.
Handel is another example. Sure, he was in with the King of England, but a substantial portion of his activity and income revolved around commercial operatic and concert presentations in London. It was substantially (though not entirely) about what the public wanted to hear and was willing to pay for. Did a lot of the money for operatic productions still come from the aristocracy? Definitely. But the commercial aspects were just as important, and Handel’s success and longevity as a composer owes a great deal to his popularity in London during his life. And when Handel’s operatic star began to fade, it was not because of the whims of the aristocracy; rather, he was supplanted in the hearts of the public by other forms of entertainment, such as John Gay’s “Beggar’s Opera.”
This is fun
Beethoveen made his money in a way that would be illegal today. He took a few comissions but most of his work he made went to multiple publishers who distributed them worldwide. If he sent the same score of music to many different publishers today he would likely be sued.
Handel had several patrons.
Cavelli had a wealthy patron starting when he was 15. http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4440/francesco.html
Next.
HUGS!
Sqrl
I went to the site aschrott. Very nice. It reminded me of why my interest in classical music was piqued. My children are learning to play instruments. They would come home, play some music and I’d think “That’s really nice. I always liked that song. What’s the name of it?”
Actually putting names to these pieces of music made it seem like something more than background music. Then I ran into the problem of what is a peice of music actually called (The Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, 4th movement, choral, Ode to Joy dilemma.) And then the cries of "That’s not really classical started.
It all makes liking classical music harder than it should be. The “my music is so much better than your music” people are also a major turn off. Which is why I liked notcynical’s take. If you like it, listen and learn about it.
So, I’ll leave you guys to argue over when classical became popular. Maybe I’ll come back and ask some questions about the name of some of these things.
I couldn’t agree more. I think you have to separate the “thing” (classical music, here) from the people that like the thing. The fact that there are self-important snobs in the world who make it their personal mission to make others feel ignorant about music shouldn’t turn you off from the music itself.
For what it’s worth, biggirl, I came to classical music as a complete novice in college, knowing absolutely nothing and having next to no experience. Now I have three degrees in music and I make about half of my living as a professional opera/concert singer and voice teacher. It is entirely because the music itself “gets” me and I love it. I hate stuffiness, and I heartily encourage you to thumb your pretty nose at anyone who tries to pull the “you suck because you don’t know what it’s called” routine.
As for you, fiesty Sqrl, my point was not that F. Cavalli had no patrons – nor Handel, but that the idea of a composer succeeding in the business of selling his music to the public and achieving some measure – no matter how small – of independance from what you correctly characterize as the dominating influence of the aristocracy and church, was not new with Mozart and Beethoven. It had already been going on in Italian opera for over a century.
However, re-reading your initial statement, I agree that it’s a fair generalization.
Damn I wish I had some time to contribute to this thread but I gotta go write a paper on Sonata form (complete with analysis of Mozart’s Piano Sonata in C minor, K. 457).
It sure is more fun to talk about that stuff here than in a school paper 
A particular piece of music does not exist on paper, or vinyl, or magnetic tape or light-sensitive plastic; music does not exist as a “concrete, non-ephemeral” thing. A piece of music lives – and endures – because it is played and performed, created over and over and over as a shared thing between musician and audience, or you and yourself if you’re singing in the shower. How many CDs (or other “concrete, non-ephemeral forms”) do we all own which we rarely, if ever, play? How much sheet music do I have stacked up in the closet?
My point is this: if a song/composition does not survive, it is because in the end no one liked it enough to bother using whatever means was available to remember it for posterity.
So, while I agree that the ability to save a musical composition in a written or recorded format clearly does increase its potential for survival, I think it is naive to argue that written/recorded forms guarantee longevity.
Or look at it another way: the only reason we have what is called “classical” music at all is because someone invented a system of notation to capture highly complex musical ideas and render them exactly reproducible to other musicians, who could then perform the piece, if so inclined. Whereas other forms of music (what I have been calling folk or traditional music, the popular music of whatever era) were less complex and so could be transmitted from musician to musician without resorting to the written form – as had been done for centuries. As many musicians still do today: person to person. That is how music ultimately lives.
I should point out that music transmitted via nonwritten media (i.e. musical apprenticeship, imitation, &c) is not necessarily at all simple or less complex than classical music–good instances being e.g. traditional Cape Breton fiddling or jazz or the complex polyrhythmic musics of Africa & other cultures. – To point to the use of highly complex chromatic harmonies in classical music as showing it is more advanced than say a pop song is to miss the point, which is that chord changes are not the only measure of complexity or nuance. In fact written notation is incapable of handling complexities of rhythm, sound-colour, pitch, expression, &c: this is a lesson quickly learned by anyone who’s tried transcribing such material. (That said, just because they are not marked in written music doesn’t mean they aren’t present: classical music is still highly dependent on traditions of performance and musical training that are independent of the written text. For the most part we can only make an intelligent guess at the “proper”, i.e. historically correct, way to perform musics of past centuries.) In any case, many non-Western musics are modal & thus to judge with reference to chord changes is patently absurd.
To confuse the stylistic label “classical” with an assertion of lasting guarantee of musical quality that trumps musics of other times & places is I suppose understandable but wrong. In any case, it is a sobering thought that the vast majority of music ever composed, improvised or performed is lost to history for one reason or another, & should be a caution for making easy judgments about the relative merits of musical traditions and genres.
One useful polemical counterblast is Derek Bailey’s Improvisation, now in its 2nd edition from Da Capo. Though Bailey’s own musical interests are in playing avantgarde “free” improvisation, the book is a general history & survey of improvising traditions & a polemic against those who would think them somehow inferior to notated music. Some nifty interviews with everyone from Paco Pena to Steve Howe to Jean Langlais to Steve Lacy.
Pss, ashcroft, Cavelli was stuck in the patron society since he was 15. Wealthy patron in the 1600s means the aristocracy since there wasn’t a substantial middle class until Beethoveen’s time.
HUGS!
Sqrl
ndorward, thanks for the correction/clarification. I was thinking in more simplistic terms – transmission of a 1-4-5-1 chord progression vs. a symphony, if you will – and inadvertently implied that traditional musical forms were somehow less complex than “classical” forms.
I have been always a bit confused by the (sometimes) HUGE distinction people want to make between Classical and Film music. Sure, I understand that there is a difference. A difference for being, and all that. But how huge is this difference to the end listener, in the long run? And, after all, many film scores are certainly are more simular in sound to Classical than…say…they are simular to Country or Rock, for instance. If they had to be lumped into one general musical category, the only one I could think of would be Classical.
I love both types of music. I grew up with Classical, and still love it. But I love film music too. I only have been able to hear my favorite film composers (Williams, Goldsmith, Morricone) on the Classical radio station. Usually no other radio station will play film scores. I was sometimes even able to fool my dad (the intense Classical geek) into thinking my movie music was “real” music.
And I never can figure out - is Prokofiev’s “Lt. Kije” and Copland’s “The Red Pony” Classical, or movie music? Which? Or can these pieces be both?
I also wanted to mention my delight that someone else remembers Karl Haas!!! I used to listen to him every week on L.A.'s KFAC!! I miss him!!!
Psst…Sqrlcub…by name is aschrott, not aschcroft, and I believe we’ve already been down this road.
yosemitebabe, lots of film scores have been embraced by both the film and concert worlds. The two you mentioned, Lt. Kije and The Red Pony both exist in two versions: the complete film scores and concert suites for orchestra. Also, Copland is one of the few composers to have won both an Academy Award (for his score to The Heiress [1949]) and a Pulitzer Prize in music (Appalachian Spring).
I think there’s a lot of wonderful film music, personally. I like Ennio Morricone too!
Ashcrott, then learn to read the links. You didn’t provide me anything that was true. Every person you mentioned had a patron of some kind or another.
Sqrl
For the reference, here is an incomplete list of Handel’s patrons:
http://gfhandel.org/opus.htm mentions James Brydges, Earl of Carnarvon (later, 1719, Duke of Chandos) (1674-1744)
http://gfhandel.org/gloria.htm mentions The Gloria is believed to have been a commission in 1707 from Handel’s wealthy patron, Francesco Maria Ruspoli, when the composer was working in Rome. The manuscript, however, is a much later transcription in another hand. It is thought to date from 1730, when Handel was already well established in his comfortable new house in Brook Street.
http://www.lancelotunlimited.com/intro/ak.html mentions North London Collegiate School, whose buildings stand on the site of the palatial residence of the Duke of Chandos, Handel’s patron. The ‘Old House’ at North London is all that now remains.
http://www.karadar.it/Dictionary/handel.html mentions When his former patron, the Elector of Hanover, became King George I of England, he won favour with the court and was given a life pension and under the patronage of the Duke of Chandos, he wrote a set of anthems, the so-called Chandos Anthems.
Now for Cavalli. The following pages mention his patron. Though he seemed to only have one.
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4440/francesco.html which was used before mentions He was taken to Venezia by a wealthy patron when he was only 14 - Pier Francesco was an outstanding singer - and took on the patron’s name.
http://www.wqxr.com/cgi-bin/iowa/cla/learning/grove.html?record=1685 mentions Federico Cavalli, persuaded Caletti to allow him to take Francesco to Venice, where the boy (who adopted his patron’s name) joined the cappella of St Mark’s as a soprano and later tenor. Cavalli made an advantageous marriage with a Venetian widow, Maria Sozomeno, and in 1639 he was appointed second organist at St Mark’s.
I could go on with Handel specifically. Either back up your claim or renounce it.
HUGS!
Sqrl
The aforementioned Bernard Herrmann (aforementioned by me, come to think of it) wrote some great concert pieces in addition to his brilliant scores for CITIZEN KANE, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER, JANE EYRE, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, VERTIGO, PSYCHO, etc.
Try his Clarinet Quintet (“Souvenirs de Voyage”), String Quartet (“Echoes”), and Symphony No. 1.
Ralph Vaughn-Williams wrote the score for the British film SCOTT OF THE ANTARCTIC, and later reworked it into his Seventh, the Symphonia Antarctica. Nice piece. Got wind-machines in it.
The point that opera was a largely commercial venture pre-Beethoven is still correct, despite attendance by the upper classes. The fact that Handel went bankrupt several times as the demand for opera rose and fell indicates that whatever patronage he had was of limited help; fortunately, the oratorio business was somewhat less fickle.
Also, look at what Johann Christian Bach and Carl Abel were doing in London in the 1760’s/70’s – a lot of income came from opera, from subscription concerts (both produced and wrote music for concerts at Vauxhall Gardens, Hanover Square,and elsewhere) and to a lesser degree from publishing deals (Bach being the first to successfully sue a music publisher for what was essentially copyright infringement). Many of the concertgoers, especially for the pleasure garden concerts, were middle class types.
True, Bach was connected at Court, but apart from an early stint teaching music to the Queen and getting a Charter (which helped in his court case), there wasn’t a huge amount of money in it. Off the top of my head (as, indeed, this whole post is), I’m not aware of Abel having a patron.
Biggirl,
If you like Chopin (and he’s my favorite composer), you’re sure to like Debussy’s Arabesque #1, one of the more famous classical piano pieces.
Here’s an mp3 for download.
http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/1397/1397485.html
Arabesque #2 is quite enjoyable too, more lighthearted compared to the quiet beauty of #1.
IMHO, Debussy’s piano music is fairly digestible for the classical newbie (Clair de Lune and Golliwog’s Cakewalk are also well known), but his “impressionist” orchestral works are much more difficult to get a grasp on since their essence lies in the subtlety of expression. You still might try Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, a sensual piece of music if there ever was one.
And I respectfully suggest you learn to read my posts – and to spell my name. You have consistently either ignored or overlooked (I’m not sure which) my point, deciding instead to post redundant, and in the case of your last post, belligerent cites myopically focused on the issue of patronage.
As I have now posted three times, and this will be the last, I do not care to argue over who had what patron.
My argument is centered around trends in the music itself, which is the point of this thread, not the details of specific composers’ lives.
Like it or not, as of the mid/late seventeenth century, Italian opera (and, as jr8 correctly observed, oratorio) was a commercial endeavor. Was it entirely a commercial endeavor? No. Did the composers engaged in those activities still have patrons? Yes.
But was that aspect of those composers’ careers a commercial endeavor? Did those composers often make & lose substantial fortunes engaged in producing operas and oratorios? Yes. Resoundingly.
You are not wrong to say that composers of the time depended a lot on patronage, nor to point out that Beethoven is considered the first of the big time “freelancers.” But to get hung up on that sole distinction obscures vital trends in the music itself – trends that made it possible for Beethoven to have the success he did, and which had been around since long before he was a glint in daddy’s eye.
I think this is important, because it allows for a better understanding of individual works by composers. Think of the difference between Mozart’s serious Italian operas, which were commissioned largely by Italian monarchs and aristocrats, and his Magic Flute, which was written for a public theater in Vienna. Yes, the former were serious operas, and the latter was a popular singspiel, so of course they were different. But the reason for those differences is the venue and the audience for which they were conceived.
Consider also Haydn’s symphonies. The 90-odd works he wrote for the Esterhazy court are very different from those he wrote for public concert series in London later in life. The latter were conceived of as crowd pleasers, and that spirit – that attempt to appeal to a large public audience – is evident in the music itself. It’s an interesting and valuable perspective on those works.
My point was not to call your post “wrong.” Just to add some perspective, and hopefully to add to the interest of this thread.
Ash, post sites. I have proven that the two people you mentioned specifically had patrons. Prove to me now that they didn’t. Or at least didn’t have them in the opera specific scenario.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Umm Sqrl, love. Couldja maybe take this side arguement to GD?
About Debussy:
I’m still a classic rock, R&B, top 40 type girl. I think this reflects very strongly on the classical that I really enjoy. The Montagues and Capulets, The Hallelujah Chorus, Air on G String, stuff that’s structured more like the music that I’m used to. Debussy sounds as if Eddy & McDonald are going start singing any minute. Which is fine if you like Eddy & McDonald.
On the same note, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa singing Summertime sucks all the soul outta that song.
Another point I’d like to make about this Pop vs Classical thingy. The “it all sounds the same/is repetative” arguement pop disdainers like to use. Well, geez, like Bolero isn’t the same damned passage repeated over and over (P.S. I like Bolero. I enjoy cohesiveness --or repetitiveness, if you like-- in my music). And even I, a complete neophyte, will hear something and think “sounds like Beethoven” and be right. Because he has a certain sound. Just like Rock bands.
See, told you I was a Philistine!