Holde Kunst

Thumbing through the Groves indices of Haydn’s works (massive indices; if Haydn did nothing but write quickly and constantly, without sleeping or eating or performing it would still be mind-boggling production, even not counting the dozens of spuriously attributed works) it occurred to me that my comment about the relative merits of Haydn’s and Mozart’s “functional” music might not be accurate. I only know a fraction of Haydn’s functional music (who could know it all? H.C. Robbins Landon?) and while in the works I do know Haydn doesn’t eradicate personality anywhere near as thoroughly as the Mozart works I know (and I know most of those, as I have the Mozart complete works on CD set) I can’t comment on the vast uncharted wilderness that is mute to me. Nevertheless, I stand by my implication that the lesser works of Mozart achieve an almost complete anonymity, except for their technical proficience.

I note that I don’t make mention in the French-Spanish class of French music between the revolution and Berlioz’s “Fantastique”. Well, Le Suer, Gretry, Auber, Cherubini et al. will be briefly summarized, but not examined in any detail. I’m tempted to say “life is too short” but there is probably somebody out there who esteems this repertory. Also, French grand opera and Massanet will be relatively short-shrifted. I love that repertory, especially Massanet, but something has to go.  Perhaps a more cumbersome but more accurate title, “French and Spanish Masters: A highly selective look focussing on repertory from the death of Wagner to the 1920’s” would be better!  Whatever, the class is exclusively about French and Spanish masters; why ring  myself round with caveats? One last thing: some time will be taken on the front end with Lully, Couperin, and Rameau, absolutely essential figures for the understanding of French music, and will conclude with the greatest French masters of our time, Messiaen, Boulez, and Dutilleux.