Rhetoric versus Truth: The Battle for our Minds and Ears

Bonds' "Rhetoric versus Truth" summarizes the changes that occurred between the 18th and the 19th century regarding listeners' expectations for music, particularly instrumental music. Bond begins by establishing Haydn as the "orator" of the 18th century, capable of composing music "clear and erudite, energetic and natural, harmonious and not confusing, learned and not arid". Sarah and those in my Midterm study group will understand this reference: he seems the perfect mix between Stamiz and Sammartini. He is both forcing those around him to better themselves through his music and composing arrangements that are easy and fun to understand. He was continuously associated with rhetoric, not just by critics but by listeners as well, which affected how individuals experienced his music. Mozart, on the other hand, was "heard within an entirely different, non-rhetorical framework, one based on...truth" (Bonds, 111).

Question:
I've stated that in the 18th century, Beethoven and Haydn were thought of, and listened to, in different mindsets. Although at times one was lauded over the other, no one ever attempted to apply both types of music to one paradigm. Why do we now do this in the 19th century by, as Bonds puts it, "listening to Haydn in the age of Beethoven"? Why do we deem it appropriate to see all music as striving towards truth as epitomized by Beethoven? Not only that, why do we then demonize music that may in fact we striving towards a different end, like Haydn's rhetoric, and label it less worthwhile? When did this change in mindset occur and how?

Continuing on, Bonds then clarifies the givens within the perspectives of "rhetoric" versus "truth". Rhetoric, as represented by Haydn, invokes the image of music as a conversation, a conversation that listeners have no need to be a part of. Listens should be able to sit back, relax, and understand immediately what they are experiencing with no energy expended at all. Truth, represented by Beethoven, put forth music as "an object of contemplation", where the responsibility of perception was emphasized and the listener now had full control.

In the 19th century, the paradigm completely changes and rhetoric was now seen as the sliest form of deception, with no substance or purpose behind it besides to hide the truth. And from there comes the formation of a battle field: if rhetoric is used to hide truth, then truth must be purer, more sublime, and more worthwhile of the exertion of our minds. Thus truth and rhetoric, once seen as walking hand in hand, now were separated forever.

Question:

Is this assumption true? The Greeks once held rhetoric in the highest esteem because of its innate connection with "truth". Was this change in mindset seen as an improvement on traditional Enlightenment values?

Finally, was this change of preference from Haydn to Beethoven made because of Beethoven's true superiority to Haydn or simply because listeners of the time needed something new? If it's assumed that human preferences changes quickly and often, why has this paradigm of Beethoven lasted for so long?