In the article of "Rhetoric vs. Truth",Bonds discusses the change in perception of listening over the centuries between Haydn and future composers compositions. Bonds refers to Haydn as a great "orator" while Mozart and Beethoven are referred to as great "philosophers". Both titles are reflective of how the composers composed their pieces as well as the perception of the audiences in the respective times.
Haydn's music is compared with rhetoric as he is referred to as an "orator" as much like a lawyer who persuades everybody to his argument whether with his rhetoric skills, Haydn's music contains many aspects of rhetoric in which it is pleasing and gains the acceptance of everybody(from amateur to professional and inexperienced to the connoisseur). Also much like an "orator" Haydn composes his music with the point or where the music will go in mind, so the audience does not have to think for themselves.
Mozart and Beethoven on the other hand are compared as great "philosophers" or thinkers as their compositions differ from Haydn in that they invoke contemplation among the audience instead of an already stated idea that Hadyn offers. Here their music is referenced more as philosophy as they do not dictate what the audience hears or should feel but leaves it to their own interpretation (an idea that dictates the way music should be composed up to this very day).
Because of the later composers approach to music that stimulates the mind, Haydn was considered to be "orator" in the negative sense in which he made music that pleased our senses but not our intelligence.
Questions
1.) Bonds makes a comment in which that there is a battle between "truth" and "rhetoric". In musical terms, "truth being the musical idea and rhetoric being the "logic, technique, and art" of presenting that idea" (120). In the analogy to oration and morality, ideally truth should always wins. However in terms of music, is Rhetoric really as bad as Bonds makes it to be?
2.) With the change in perception of listening, Hadyn's music is considered inferior to future composers as his music basically "leads us" into where we are suppose to go instead of "opens up to us" (123). Is this fair to discredit Hadyn's music as being non-intelligent when his usage of rhetoric is quite good? Why or why not.
3.) When looking into music of Haydn and future composers and taking into consideration the period of enlightenment, one can see that Haydn's music exhibits the true nature of the enlightenment while the future composers (i.e. Beethoven and Mozart) exhibits characteristics that are actually contrary to the enlightenment period. Examples of this is how Haydn music catered to the masses, while Beethoven and Mozart only catered to the intelligent; and also how Hadyn's music seem to be more "earthy" going in line with the naturalness of the Enlightenment while Beethoven is "sublime" and "divine" which leans toward the supernatural. Do you think the progression of music from Hadyn to Beethoven has made a backwards turn as it seems to deviate from the nature of the enlightenment? If so, why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read the article a bit differently; I don't feel that rhetoric is in any way put down by the author, just the critics that he cites when he is making the contrast between the rhetorical style and the "truth" presentation. The same goes for your second question: I don't think that Bonds is in any way discrediting Haydn's music, or calling it anything but intelligent, but he contrasts the styles used. Beethoven muscled a change within the listening of music, and before this, Haydn was the "master".
ReplyDelete