| Author |
Message |
  
marianne fleurimont
Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 9:24 am: | 
|
Hummel not innovative enough??? That I find hard to swallow. If you listen to his f sharp minor sonata, or his fantasy op. 18, you hear just how revolutionary his compositions were. Hummel's only problem was that he was the END of an era, he had brought classicism to its end limits, stretching it to its furthest possibilites... and in all this, was still the disciplined Clementi/Mozart/Haydn/Salieri/Albrechtsburger pupil he was: you will not find him destroying two or three pianos in one night, and you will not find him jumping around on his seat as if he had ants running in his pants: he was as cool a player as Crammer, but what he played was fireworks (unlike Crammer).
The lack of vulgar showmanship in Hummel's compositions set his doom: he was out of fashion, because ladies wanted to throw jewels at abbé Liszt, who could snap strings like no other... and Hummel was not as provocative a character as Beethoven, provoking no "artist" cult that the later romantics took up to be their heart and soul.
Hummel also was not ambitious: he was happy to sit in Weimar instead of storming capitals like paris london or vienna. He was satisfied to live well, to compose good music, and to give joy whenever possible, without trying for show or dash or deviling.
Some of his best compositions are in Chamber music, which was going out of fashion with the romantics, who wanted it louder, longer, with more instruments, and with more unbalanced, unhealthy emotional nonsense... and at the same time, the operatic frenzies in Paris were taking hold with composers like Mayerbere sending war horses on stage with cannons. To this lunatic madhouse of musical farce, Hummel's sure and balanced perfection (though no one dared to raise a finger against it) was forgotten: simply forgotten and dismissed due to lack of criticism (positive or negative) because he was considered above criticism. And as we know better today: with no spot in media (publicity, good or bad), fame dies. For to be famous, one had to also be at least somehow infamous. And Hummel didn't provide for gossip, slandering, or anything of the sort: he was taken for granted to be the best, and thus, was forgotten, because there was no more noise on the subject.
Also, Hummel's line was broken, drowned out by the millions of Liszt pupils... and later by the appearance of Wagner, who simply killed romanticism and what was left of music. Hummel was developing his own style, between classicism and romanticism and above both. Unfortunately, since he did not teach so much, the only descendents of his line were Mendelssohn, Czerny (who was half a Beethoven pupil, having ran away from Beethoven's slovenliness when he heard Hummel for the first time), and from Mendelssoh, Gouvy.
The line ended there. Gouvy was not famous at all, and has the reputation of the "ghost of musical history"... since hardly anyone ever even mentions his name. Theodore Gouvy lived in Lorraine and was the son of a mining baron. This left him absolutely no need to earn his living... and thus, he didnt need to compete with Offenbach or Mayerbeer... because he simply considered all that nonsense beneath him. Instead, he composed wonderful violin sonatas and duets in his home Villa in Hombourg Haut. He later went to Germany, because there, because 1) "the heating works" and 2 " they appreciate my music". And died quietly without name. Only, I have a high suspicion that Gouvy is the mysterious Vinteuil of Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. The descriptions of the "little tune" of Swann and his mistress resemble remarkably well Gouvy's violin sonata. Recording available from Memoire Musciale de la Lorraine, Harmonia Mundi, sonata pour piano and violin opus 61, by Jean-Pierre Wallez (violin) and Francois-joel Thiollier (piano). Excellent recording, the most sensual piece of music I have ever heard... to read Proust and other fin de siècle literature to!
Czerny pupil Liszt did not finish his education, as papa Liszt was anxious about getting some gold out of his golden cow, his young dashing looking son. Czerny lamented: young Liszt was a frankenstein of pure virtuosity, and as performer, few could have done better... but it was virtuosity without solid foundation in composition... thus the lame pieces we inherit from this wasted talent.
Mendelssohn's early works (Concerto for violin & strings in D minor, Concerto for Piano, violin and strings in D minor) are very reminiscent of Hummel's works. Hummel was adored by Chopin, whose music was highly influenced by the composer. Without Hummel (and John Field), Chopin would have been a case of birth ex nihilo!
Hummel is not second rate, he is simply forgotten. Fortunately, more and more recordings of Hummel are showing up. The romantics forgot him because his music didn't cause agony or pain or any other unbalanced emotions. And the revival of classicism in the beginning of the 20th century forgot him, because he was not mozart enough.
And until recently, Hummel had been relegated to second rate musicians whose technical skills were not matched to Hummel's demanding compositions. (The age old mentality that "second rate" music belongs to "second rate" musicians!) This made many Hummel recordings sound lame, simply because the players were not up to the music, not because Hummel's music was lame.
Some recommended recordings for some exceptional Hummel works:
1) Sonata Op. 50 in D (violin&piano), Sonata Op. 5 no. 3 in E flat (violin&piano), Nocturne Op. 99 (violin&piano), played by Ralph Holmes (stradivari) and Richard Burnett (Graf). Recorded by Amon Ra
2) Piano trios (four of them) recorded by Beaux Arts Trio (Phillips)
3) Piano trios 1,5, and 7 by Borodin Trio (Chandos)
4) Hummel Piano Quintet E flat Minor op. 87, played by Sestetto Classico (MDG Gold).
5) Three disks by Ian Hobson, all 6 piano sonatas. (Arabesque Digital Recording)
6) Fantasy Op. 18 for piano, played by Giuliana Corni (Dynamic)
7) Concerto in A minor for piano and orchestra, op. 85 and Concerto in C major for piano and orchestra, op. 44 by Slowakische Philharmonie, Kammerensemble Bratislava, Ivan Palovie/Pavol Kovac (pinao), Ladislav Slovak/Vlastimil Horak (conductor), (Koch Schwann Musica Mundi).
And various recordings from Mr. Howard Shelley and the London Mozart players, available from Chandos.
As far as musical revolutionality goes, when looking back from the point of view of 2004, the revolutionality of compositions are outweighed by the musical value of compositions in themselves. I like the music I hear, not based upon how revolutionary it had been in its time, but upon its intrinsic musical value and the beauty and enjoyment it sends into the world.
Since today, it is all "old music" and time has effaced their mutual antagonisms, I have the luxury of enjoying Bach simultaneously as I enjoy Schubert... no musical contradictions here, because they are both timeless: good music doesn't take a time stamp, and when music is timeless, there is no revolution involved.
A lot of the modern revolutionary pieces written are not worth bringing with you to your desert island in the middle of the great ocean. If I were to take only 10 pieces of music with me for the rest of my days, I would consider only the value of enjoyment and beauty a composition gives me, and it could not matter less to me whether something was revolutionary or cutting edge.
From this point of view, I am quite sure Hummel would make up 50% of my valise, minimum.
His motto was: "Enjoy the world by giving joy to the world." And that is exactly what he did in his music. No other composer takes so much care to make his listeners happy, to give his listener the greatest possible dose of good pleasure.
As a music critic once said, Hummel is the perfect marriage of innocent enjoyment and sophisticated refinement. Fireworks for the mind, happiness for the heart, and beauty for the soul. His witty, brilliant, happy-making music is superb!
Don't try to compartmentalize him into "sounds lime Mozart", "sounds like Chopin", or "sounds like Schumann"-- Hummel never tried to imitate, and imitation does not belong to the first row. Hummel strove out on his own, and established his own style, and just like we had to learn to listen to Beethoven or Bach, we must learn to listen to Hummel, and not expect him to sound like any other composer.
Best wishes,
Marianne Fleurimont
|
marianne fleurimont
Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:29 am: |
|
And a reminder:
1) Schumann wanted to become a Hummel pupil, was rejected, and given the proper diagnose by Hummel (lacking consistency, clarity, and unity in composition... although much talent and many good ideas).
2) Liszt wanted to study with Hummel, but papa Liszt rejected the idea on purely financial basis (Hummel was too expensive)... and so Liszt went with Czerny.
3) The unknown and unexplored Czerny deserves some time. Hi wrote in a few different categories: amusement works, virtuoso performance works, etudes (so infamous today), and what he called "serious music". The last category deserves some looking into, especially by GOOD musicians, as Czerny is no easy composer for the weak.
4) When Hummel visited John Field in Russia, Field, never having seen Hummel before, heard the composer improvise, and after standing on his chair listening eagerly a while, shouted out "You must be the Devil, or you are Hummel!", to which Hummel smiled, got up, and greeted Field with a hug and kiss.
5) While going on about Field, he invented the nocturne. His series of nocturnes (very well played by Mr. Bart van Oort)directly lead the way to Chopin (Who in Warsaw had both experience of Field's music as well as Hummel's).
6) Hummel had the best teachers. Free tuition with Mozart, whith whom he lived two years, until Mozart's death. Hummel took lessons from Clementi while on tour in London, later was pupil of Salieri, Haydn, Albrechtsberger, and inherited from Haydn the Esterhazy Kapellemeister post. Fired due to "lack in duties", he went happily to Stuttgart, but gave in notice, due to the poor quality of musical life there, where he "couldnt give anything to the world". Finally, he ended in Weimar, where he conducted the theater along side Goethe, and made that, during his life time, a musical capital, inviting friends like Rossini and scores of talented musicians to visit him. Although Beethoven was jealous of Hummel's success (as well as Hummel's beautiful wife Elizabeth), they made up later, and Hummel visited Beethoven at his death bed, Madame Hummel dabbing her handkerchief over the dying composer's brow. Hummel played one last time to Beethoven, at the latter's request.
Hummel piano trios are heavenly, they are on a level with Mozart and Haydn trios. The only thing that sets Hummel apart, is his positive spirit, always sparkling with ideas, humourous at times, and never boring. Of course, to some people, classical music has to be serious and dark... or else it is not good music... and to those, Hummel's brightness becomes a flaw. It is like criticizing Dickens or Austen for having written happy endings! As if everyone wants to read Hardy!
I love Hummel, and I have had the happiness of having heard his music live on several occasions, each one sending the crowd mad with joy. I have never seen so many smiling faces exiting a concert hall as I have seen with these Hummel concerts. In a time where the world is quickly losing its bright aspects, I think it is high time Hummel's music be played again in public. Of the secret joys left in the world, Hummel is one of the most delicious. And I still thank the day I made my acquaintance with him, as he has changed a large part of my life.
Hummel Hummel, as you would hear said in Hamburg!
Marianne Fleurimont
|
Phillip Dannels
Senior Member
Username: morgoth
Post Number: 36
Registered: 6-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 4:26 pm: |
|
I know you said not to "compartmentalize" him, but it's hard not to. Beethoven and Hummel were not on the best of terms, but this does not give me a prejudice against him. Hummel cannot escape the influence of Mozart (as Beethoven could not escape Haydn in his early works.) The difference is, like you said, Hummel ended an era, while Beethoven began another. Hummel revolutionized the "old" style, Beethoven created his own. Hummel wrote brilliant, virtuostic works, Beethoven's works are almost never showy or trivial, while maintaining a virtuosity equaling that of Hummel. These works include the concertos and the late piano sonatas, particularly Op. 106, of which Beethoven said, "It will give pianists something to do." The romantics took Beethoven's works, assigned progrommatic meaning to all of this, and played them in a way that desecrated his wonderful ideas.
Liszt, although a charlatan early in his life, turned out to be a fine composer in his later years. His B minor sonata is a masterwork, a pinnacle of Romantic era musical literature. His resorts to polyphony, rhetorical polyphony, and the result is amazing. True, he let himself succumb to emotion alot, but when he performed Beethoven, he would, later in his life, put his own personality aside, and played in a way that would have made Beethoven proud (based on Beethoven's comments on the playing of the virtuosos of his day.)
Are you a classicist, simply not liking the romantic era works (particularly Liszt?)
Or are you just defending one of your favorites? |
marianne fleurimont
Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 12:48 am: |
|
Hello Mr. Danniels,
To answer your questions:
1) No, I am not a "classicist", I like romantic music as well. To name, Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, bits (very little) of Liszt, and Schumann's piano concerto. Theodore Gouvy is already past the end of Romanticism (he simply flew over the late romantics). The late romantics I do not like very much, actually, could hardly stand. If I ever gave them a chance, they taxed my ears so, and were never willing to end in a proper way (10 minutes of music, 50 minutes of finale).
2) I do not put Hummel up against Beethoven. Of course, Beethoven's genius was the greater, and one could not deny that. Hummel himself admitted as much. However, Hummel is definitely not second rate, and it was the competition with Hummel that spurred Beethoven on to many things. Hummel's F sharp minor and Fantasy op. 18 was a thrown glove (also flying over the romantics to almost 20th century music) that Beethoven could not ignore, hence the Hammerklavier.
Hummel not only influenced Chopin, but was adored by Schumann (although later, due to not being accepted by Hummel as pupil, Schumann had his anti-hummel period, for which he repented still later). Schumann was greatly influenced by Hummel's F sharp minor sonata, and there were periods in his life where he played this many times a day, without end. Indeed, in this piece, one could hear already the origins of Schumann, but in a saner and friendlier version.
Although it is true that certain early Hummel works sound rather much like Mozart, who could blame youth works for that? Mendelssohn's early works sounded like Hummel, although you could see the nascent Mendlessohn style already... and same could be said of Hummel with Mozart. Although in Hummel works, you hear the influence of Mozart, even early on, you already heard the wild bohemian nature of the pupil, who is too hot tempered to restrain his wit and fire into a more sublime beauty. Mozart in his seeming gay innocence is deep, and sad. The way people always sum him up as "happy" Mozart, is simply not true. Listening to Mozart with a smile on your face, you find suddenly tears standing in your eyes and an abyss in your soul. This is Mozart, he never lets you suspect the sadness of his music, but out of a sudden, you are caught in it. With Hummel, this element of profoundity is missing. You never catch yourself sad with Hummel. His realm is bright and shinny, with powerful wit, entertaining virtuosity (but never for virtuosity's sake alone), and genius beauty... mixed with a twinkle in the eye for the devil in him. He's a lot of fun, but HIGH CLASS fun. And in some of his more "private" works, you find high innovation, especially in his piano sonatas.
Of course, I am defending my pet composer. But the way he had been ignored doesnt do him, nor his critics, justice. What I have found in many criticisms and many CD leaflets that talk about the composer: all of them are too cowardly to overthrow tradition. They all found the same reference book somewhere that once said something bad about Hummel, about him being "second rate", and having no "base melodies in the accompaniment"... well, these people have obviously not listened to Hummel's music, nor talked to musicians who play Hummel. And if the musicians are not good enough to find "base melody" in Hummel, sorry, it is not Hummel who is to blame. You wouldn't blame Bach about baseline melodies either, just because Glenn Gould was not there to point them out.
There is a lot of scientific and musical work to be done with Hummel, and he might be one of the most precious discoveries still to come. Afterall, Bach needed Mendelssohn to be well revived. Perhaps it is time for a Mendelssohn to be born who will revive Hummel.
This leads to the next problem in today's classical music world: the Industry is not willing to venture on "second rate" composers, and what ever is not on the top ten list, very few of them ever attempts to record. This top ten mentality excludes many wonderful composers and their worthy music.
We must remember that much of Vienna Classic came from the rich foundation of folk music and dance halls in Vienna at the time. Almost all the great composers composed "trivial" music. However, it is from these thousands of pieces of music that "serious" music draws its life blood. And any piece of "trivial" music from this time period is a colossal of composition compared to any pop piece we find today. This is of course, due to decline in musical education, and the fact that young people no longer play instruments, and music is no longer played at home.
I happen to play the piano, and the first thing I encountered was intolerant neighbours. In such a setting, how shall anyone learn music, and who shall play? Of course, this is better for the silly redording industry for pop music... but they now run into their own demise because having trained entire generations to accept bad music with electronical instead of real accoustical instruments, they have paved the way for the domination of MP3s, and the loss of their royalties. For, the people who listen to pop cannot tell the difference in sound quality anyway, never having heard a real piano or a real violin, what do they care if their computer generated rhythm sounds like a cold computer?
Hm... I guess I have wandered a bit off topic! lol.
But yes, I love Hummel, no denying.
Marianne |
marianne fleurimont
Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 7:32 am: |
|
PS--
If we still have space enough on the market for people like Bruckner, Mahler, Reger, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovesky, Wagner, Berlioz, Sati, Schostakovich, and a plethora of later day nameless composers who compose nonsense, I think we have space a-plenty for Hummel! I abstain from elaborating on those ever popular "collections" of cut out and simplified adagios or famous tunes turned into sweetened orchestral works, tailor decomposed for singular purposes such as spring cleaning or putting your baby to sleep. If there is room on the market for such trash, then I would say putting some solid quality on the shelves would not be too difficult. This is not to compete with Beethoven or Mozart. But if criteria for staying on the shelves is genuine quality, there is no reason Hummel should be excluded, considering the "quality" I find there, 99% of the time. |
William Johnston
Senior Member
Username: wjaj
Post Number: 73
Registered: 11-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 10:34 am: |
|
It strikes me that to own 70 or 80 CDs of music devoted to any one composer verges on the obsessive.
I am also fascinated by the account of Herr and Frau Hummel at Beethoven's death-bed. The description of Ma Hummel mopping Beethoven's brow sounds suspiciously like one of those Victorian stories where fantasy and fact have become somewhat intermingled.
What really fascinates me, however, is the idea of Hummel playing for Beethoven. What did he play? Given that Beethoven would not have heard a single note, whether it was played by Hummel or by Larry the Lamb, and would not have been able to distinguish between his own Emperor Concerto or a cow falling on the keyboard, how are we to interpret this tale?
Was this possibly Beethoven's idea of a joke? Pretending reconciliation with Hummel by asking him to play, and then laughing himself silly at the idea of the pointless effort his unfortunate rival would have to go to if he were not to go down in history as a total swine? Alternatively, did Hummel take equal revenge by playing endless renditions of chopsticks?
Oh to be a fly on the wall on such occasions!
I'm sorry, Marianne. I am being very cruel. I do think, however, that your ruthless dismissal of the late romantics is a risky stance to take if you have decided to live inside the greenhouse that is Johann Nepomuk Hummel.
Hummel had good qualities, undoubtedly, and you obviously enjoy his music. Good for you. You clearly also do not enjoy the music of the late romantics. I must assume as well that most of the 20th century is a closed book to you. So far, fine. But there is a world of difference between not enjoying something and dismissing it as rubbish.
As it happens I don't much care for most of the music of Mozart or, indeed of the latter part of the eighteenth century in general. I would, however, hesitate long and hard before declaring Mozart, Haydn, the Bach children or any of the other incumbents of that period, Rubbish.
Wishing you well; and carry on enjoying Hummel's music. Why shouldn't you? |
Peter Andrew Blackburn
Senior Member
Username: bigpeter
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 11:43 am: |
|
My two cents:
Hummel was a good composer who wrote much that is pleasant. He also was historically significant, but only in that his milieu was among greater minds than his own. Marianne states "Hummel never tried to imitate...", but one need only listen to the finale of his f-minor sonata to hear direct quotation - not only the fugal theme, but the countersubject as well. Imitation certainly doesn't mean Hummel was a bad composer (imitation is part of learning and all composers must imitate if they are to learn), but I think direct quotation as well as an insistence on using Mozart's approach to sonata form all throughout his compositional career pretty much qualifies as imitation. Hummel was not revolutionary. He was a classicizing composer who, like Cherubini, rejected much of the new Romantic music being written by much more adventurous composers. Listen to the Weber sonatas and compare them with those of Hummel and then tell me who was more daring. (Beethoven, by the way, is not a pre-Romantic. He took the Classical style to the nth degree - his harmony ALWAYS resolves within the Albrechtsbergian theoritical frame [the exceptions being 'An Die Ferne Geliebte' and possibly the 32 Variations]. Hummel, like Spohr, was closer to the Romantic style in language, but was Classical in formal treatment. Compare Hummel's op. 81 or even his op. 106 with Beethoven's op. 101 or 109. Beethoven was far more experimental formally, but thoroughly Classical in language.) Although Hummel wrote several compositions that stand midway between the periods (the Septet op. 74, the last 2 Piano Sonatas, some of his vocal music, the Cello Sonata, the a-minor and b-minor concerti), too much of it is well within the Classical idiom (the Clarinet Quartet is a good example) for him to be considered progressive, let alone revolutionary. 'Revolutionary' is a relative term of course, but to my ears and to my understanding of music theory, Schubert and Weber were far more adventurous than Hummel and Beethoven. There is no debate that Hummel was a pianist of the first rank and reports of his improvisational ability are rapturous to say the least. However, his music doesn't indicate genius - only talent.
It's true that Beethoven and Hummel didn't much like each other's music and for a time even didn't like one another personally because of misplaced laughter on Hummel's part after the premiere of Beethoven's C-major Mass. Their relationship is similar to that between Mozart and Clementi, except that Hummel and Beethoven eventually saw to rights and made up.
I will say that I appreciate Marianne's advocacy. There are many neglected composers who I wish were better represented on programs, on recordings, and in writings. I think Hummel is a composer who merits greater attention (who can resist the E-flat Rondo?) who can, as Marianne describes, delight an audience. My only concern is that there are composers of the rank of Haydn, Schumann, and Scriabin who are also neglected - and the neglect they suffer is even greater than that suffered by Hummel because they were greater composers and are even more deserving of attention. When was the last time you heard Beethoven's 'Calm Sea'? Doesn't Berg's Violin Concerto deserve an occasional performance in these days where lesser works such as Dvorak's, Goldmark's and Saint-Saens' are standard repertoire?
P.S. Col Legno, for those who don't know, means "with wood" and musically it refers to the bows of string players. Hummel did not originate playing strings with the wood of the bow. Telemann used it in one of his Tafelmusik suites (can't remember which one), Rameau in Castor, and Haydn in his Symphony no. 67 and there are probably other more obscure examples that I'm unaware of. |
Phillip Dannels
Senior Member
Username: morgoth
Post Number: 37
Registered: 6-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:26 pm: |
|
I do agree that certain composers (like Tchaikovsky) get more of the classical market than they really deserve. Tchaikovsky achieved some genuine climaxes, but they are overshadowed by his endless chains of cheap sequences. His music was almost always lyrical, always sweet. Too often he let his emotions take control of him, whereas composers, especially Beethoven (I'm not a Beethoven freak, I've just been listening to his music alot lately, to clear my mind of The Lord of the Rings), always had a proper way to control their emotions and put them to music (the only exception being perhaps the first movement of the Ninth.)
However, composers like Wagner and Berlioz are a different case entirely.
Wagner was one that for the longest time I couldn't understand. He, together with Liszt, led to the "breakdown of tonality." Certain passages (I think there is a passage somewhere in Lohengrin where the wind instruments play eight measures of completely unrealated chords) still don't make sense to me, but he was an amazing orchestrator (perhaps his finest trait.)
Certain pieces (like the Leibestod from Tristan und Isolde) are absolutely georgeous.
And about Berlioz, much of the music of the romantic era would not have come into being (at least the way it is.) His songs were the first high quality romantic songs by a French composer. He was a master of orchestration, and completely deserves the title bestowed upon him by Richard Strauss: "The real creator of the modern orchestra."
By the way, I completely agree about those "tailor made" CD packs. Let us have the whole work, please!
PS
Marianne, thank you for bringing up Hummel. I know I've strongly defended other composers against him, but when you brought this up, I started listening to him more often.
|
Stephen Martin
Senior Member
Username: stviemr
Post Number: 134
Registered: 6-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:33 pm: |
|
I guess I agree about Tchaikovsky (I can't say that I am enamored with every single piece that any one composer every wrote) but then again, even his worst composition is light-years better than anything written by any of we resident composers at the Classical Archives Forum. |
marianne fleurimont
Active Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 1:36 am: |
|
The story told of Hummel being at Beethoven's bedside is in the diary of young Hiller, who accompanied the Hummel family to visit Beethoven on several occasions before the composer's death. Hiller noted that Beethoven especially requested (at a previous visit) that Madame Hummel be brought to see him next time Hummel came up to Vienna.
Yes, it was my mistake: Instead of playing for Beethoven at his deathbed, Hummel was requested by Beethoven to be one of his pall-bearers, and to improvise on Beethoven's works at a memorial concert given after the funeral. For an account:
http://www.classical-composers.org/cgi-bin/ccd.cgi ?comp=hummel
Sorry if I hit any nerves when I excluded the later romantics and the entire 20th century from my CD collection: if anyone cares to explain to me just what value there is in those compositions, please be kind enough to do so. But if I were to be submitted to late romantics and 20th century works for the rest of my life without the hope of glimpsing earlier composers, I would surely end up in a madhouse, flying across lakes dressed as a swan and paddling around in costume in swan boats, watching little girls and boys hopping around in nearly nothing on a starlit evening... and end up assassinated or committing suicide!
I agree that neglected works of the great composers should also be recorded more often. I mean how many times do you really need to record (badly) "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik"? I would like to hear some works of Gluck besides only his operas, same with Rossini. I would also like to hear Mozart piano quartets for string and piano, which you almost never hear played or recorded! Hummel's piano quartet (not the one transcribing mozart symphony) has never been recorded, only available on MP3, thanks to the Karadar Ensemble, now disbanded.
But, of course, this is again the top ten hits mentality: from Beethoven, 10, from Mozart, 10, etc, and so on. And number 11 is forgotten and excluded.
Mr. Dannels, I hope you enjoy listening to Hummel. If you have not yet, I highly recommend the Violin Sonatas from Holmes and Burnett. I believe some are still available on Amazon.
Best wishes,
Marianne
PS-- In sonata f sharp minor, Hummel intentionally quoted mozart. Quoting each other at Hummel's time was an established practice. But note: quoting, not imitating. These were meant to be little tributes to other musicians, a dialogue. Later, as a tribute to Weber, Hummel made his piano fantasy with orchestra on themes from Weber's Oberon's Zauberhorn (Hummel work to be released end of this August by the Thuringian Chamber Orchestra). This is no imitation, and no theft. These were little acknowledging winks to each other, messages of recognition, and a polite, smiling bow to the audience, who at this time was familiar enough with the original compositions. Even Liszt composed on themes from Paganini... and Liszt was famous for arranging other people's music, including that of Chopin and Schubert! I would be surprised if anyone called them "imitations". If you take hummel's potpourris, they are full of such references to Rossini and Mozart operas, and to Hummel's own operas, as well. Czerny made variations on a Haydn theme, and Diabelli actually sent his theme around to take a survey of "styles" from his contemporaries... of which Beethoven made an entire work apart with his 32 variations! If these be imitations, then half of recognized masterpieces, if not more, are to be damned by the same name!
And sorry... but some composers later (such as Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn and even Schubert) modeled their works after works of Hummel! The trout quintet of Schubert is reputed to be orchestrated after Hummel's own quintet version of his own septet (popular work at the time), and Theodore Gouvy directly quotes in his violin sonata from Hummel's nocturne for piano and violin (originally for piano four hands). These are QUOTES, not imitation. They are references that made classical music so extremely vibrant: because no composer was stuck in his own music, but acknowledged and appreciated that of others. Unlike today, where acknowledgement is unknown, only plagiarism without recognition! But that has something to do with the mentality of our times.
So please, distinguish well between imitation and quotation... and understand the musical practices of the day.
M
PPS--
Owning 70 or 80 CD of one composer mad/obsessive?
The some 200 CDs, 300 vinyls, 150 tapes in my collection (shared with my BF) are 70% of music now rare to find or performances by the best artists no loner available. I would rather have my favorite pieces played by my favorite interpreters always available than that I should depend on the radio or the mass market to provide me with things I don't need. Do you have Gluck's violin/piano "melody"? Do you have 32 variations on a theme from Diabelli, by OTHER composers than Beethoven? Have you Rossini piano works? What about Mendelssohn's youth concerts, one for violin in D minor, one for violin and piano in D minor? Gouvy piano trios, Gouvy violin sonatas? John Field Nocturnes or piano concerts? Beethoven's triple concert? Schubert posthume works on vinyl with Brendel? Franz Xaver Mozart (yes, little Wowi, Woffi's son! An excellent composer overshadowed by Papa)? Chopin Cello sonatas? More than you will ever be able to hear of Bach by the best interpreters? Mozart piano trios on vinyl? Hummel in all the various interpretations, from piano sonatas, to trios, to cello variations, to concerts, to viola fantasy with orchestra, to waltzes for the dance halls (with Haydn and others)? What about Czerny piano concert with two pianos? and a certain forgotten Burgmüller, contemporary of Schumann, died too early? Ok, not all of the things I have are from "recognized" first rate composers, and much of what I have does not belong on the "top ten" list of each composer... but these are all little gems lost along the way, and without them, you will only get a garish picture of the development of classical music (from Bach down to Gouvy)without the delicate shadows and tints. I love my collection, and be it I have 80 CDs from Hummel, or 90 vinyls from Bach, and even Gouvy on sheet music! What I hear is much better than what any classical music station can give me. From time to time, if I hear nice things on radios, they come into my collection. And listening each day minimum of 2 hours, and on certain days over 10 hours, I have never the problem of having to repeat incessantly the same thing. And what is wrong with it if I happen to prefer to have my collection full of 6 different interpretations of Schubert sonatas? Of course, Serkin is the best, but why not also hear how Kissin plays?
I don't find this obsessive. I happen to also have shelves and shelves of books, and no one will find me obsessive for having all of Dickens or all of Proust and Thomas Mann in three different translations... as well as other lesser read authors. You will also find around 50 orchids inhabiting my rooms, as well as 10 fat Könnemann art books, accompanied by a harem of lesser voluminous editions.
I find nothing wrong with this. I find it rich and enjoyable, and beautiful. And surrounding oneself in beauty is about the best one could do in our times.
M |
William Johnston
Senior Member
Username: wjaj
Post Number: 74
Registered: 11-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 4:00 am: |
|
Dear Marianne,
My observation that your record collection suggested something obsessive is the one thing for which I apologise unreservedly. You have an absolute right to own as many versions of your favourite pieces as you like. I am sure that there are many who would regard the sixteen recordings I have of Mahler’s eleven symphonies (16 in total, not sixteen of each - even I would find that worrying) as excessive.
I would not dream of trying to persuade you to enjoy the music of the late romantics or post romantics, nor to explain what their merit is. If you don’t enjoy them, then I am quite certain that there is nothing that I could say that could persuade you otherwise. It would be a complete waste of time. I think that you are missing out on a wealth of musical expression which, whilst often demanding, offers something to modern ears which the composers of the eighteenth century by definition cannot; but you have to make your own choice.
It is easy as anything to explain why I do not like something (and almost as pointless); so far as my likes are concerned, I will go no further than to say that I thoroughly enjoy much of the music of Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Debussy, Rachmaninov, Britten, Janacek, Shostakovich, Schnittke, Chopin, Berlioz, Wagner, Ives, Copland, etc. etc. etc. etc.
I also like to listen to new music on the basis that, whilst there is much that I do not enjoy at all, I look forward to those rare occasions when something strikes me as capturing a spirit of integrity and true expression, which I can either enjoy forthwith, or which tells me that, even if I have difficulty with it now, further listening will bring rewards. Into this category I would place Peter Maxwell-Davies, Harrison Birtwhistle, Nicholas Maw, James MacMillan, to name just a few.
No-one has to justify their likes or dislikes. I would not dream of trying to justify my own dislike of Mozart’s music. It is simply a fact of my musical appreciation. Whilst the loss is certainly mine, there is plenty else with which to fill the gap. |
marianne fleurimont
Active Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:29 am: |
|
Dear Mr. Johnston,
I applaud your pioneering courage to face the unforgiving elements, exposing yourself to trying hours of insipid martyrdom for the sake of finding those rare modern gems that weaker hearts (and ears) such as mine dare not seek out in person.
Perhaps a hundred years from now, our great grandchildren will benefit from efforts like yours (should our grandchildren discover a flare for classical music, still).
In the meantime, I will take advantage of similar efforts by our great grandparents, and enjoy the tried and proven joys of classical music, from Bach to Beethoven, traversing such happy souls as Händel, Haydn and Hummel... without forgetting, of course, the early romantics such as Schubert, Chopin, and Mendelssohn.
Best wishes from Alsace,
Marianne Fleurimont
PS-- The 60 years I still have for consciously choosing my pleasures on earth is too short for me to experiment and venture on gambles with modern art production (especially as it is an exceptionally dry season for the arts under our current conditions). What more, the amount of good art already produced, from antiquity to today, is so abundant, that were I to devote my whole life to them, I would still have the majority of them waiting for me up in the clouds, to discover and savour until the end of time. I hope you will forgive a weak and selfish pleasure-seaker her infatuation with the past. I simply don't see the need to toy with concrete monstrosities when we have Santa Maria del Fiore.
Good luck.
M
|
Rebecka Persson
Senior Member
Username: rebecka
Post Number: 31
Registered: 11-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:43 am: |
|
Marianne,
I have been following this conversation with great interest and amusement. Your enthusiasm for Hummel convinces me that I should indeed listen to more of his works. I do enjoy Hummel's trumpet concerto which may be just about the only composition of his with which I am familiar.
What I think is important to remember here is that in the end, music is and must remain a very personal thing. While I cannot understand how anyone could not love Mozart as I do, I know that there are some who don't and that should not be a reflection on a listener's personality, intelligence or even taste. Moreover, unlike Mr. Dannels, I don't have any problem with a composer's emotions dominating a composition, which is probably why I consider Tchaikovsky to be among the very best. To me a brilliantly written piece of music without an emotional foundation is merely an intellectual exercise. In my musically untrained opinion, the best classical music hits us straight in the heart much like Cupid's arrow but without the consequences! I find this is sometimes the case not only with "wildly" romantic composers such as Tchaikovsky and Debussy, but also with classical and even baroque era composers. For instance, when I was a teenager, the simple beauty of Bach's Air in G used to make me cry.
What I like about listening to classical radio is that it often exposes me to music that I would ordinarily not listen to, thereby expanding my listening horizons and that is a good thing, too!
All the best,
Rebecka |
Peter Andrew Blackburn
Senior Member
Username: bigpeter
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:56 am: |
|
Dear Marianne,
Of course there is a difference between quotation and imitation. However, it is not the f-sharp minor sonata that I'm referring to. (The fugato of the f-sharp finale is quite a bit different!) It is the early f-minor that quotes (the word I used) Mozart in the coda, in the same location and in the same style of counterpoint (with same countersubject, etc.) as the model. This, to me, qualifies as imitation and to my ears, not very good imitation (he even forgets how the tune goes at one point). As I stated before, Hummel clung to the Mozartean model all through his life. His sonata forms are textbook examples and while this is not necessarily a bad thing, it is not "revolutionary" (the word you used). You are quite right in that he came at the end of an era - it's just that I don't usually associate the word "revolutionary" with historical figures that appear at the end of a style, but rather with the beginning of a new one. Weber was a revolutionary, Hummel was not. It is in some ways natural that Hummel would have chosen his teacher's forms as models, no? (One could do worse than Mozart!) Certainly Hummel was as fluent a practitioner of sonata form as there was at the time, but my point is that he never outgrew the textbook version. As I stated before, there is a world of difference between the 5 late Beethoven sonatas and the 2 late Hummel sonatas. In Beethoven's hands, sonata form is an elastic, organic entity that changes form to meet the needs of his ideas. In Hummel's hands, it it merely a vehicle, a cookie-cutter (and a very good one at that). To my knowledge, he never really experimented with form but kept writing in a facile manner that smoothly transitioned into early Mendelssohn. (The same criticism could be leveled at CPE Bach. He kept writing in a mannered empfindsamkeit well into the 1780s while Haydn and Mozart were composing mature works of the First Viennese School.)
I think it's great that you've found a composer you love and want to advocate. I've been a Haydn fan for years and have often wondered why his works aren't recorded or performed more often. However, to wish for an ignorant industry to educate and correct itself is the same thing as wishing for the Metropolitan Opera to mount a Marschner festival or for a complete recorded edition of the piano/orchestra works of Sharwenka. In time perhaps Hummel's music will be given its due. I will say though that while you are encouraging others to open their minds and ears to Hummel's works, be sure to keep an open mind and set of ears to those composers you deem "nonsense" (the late Romantics). I confess that it took me awhile to appreciate Mahler (a spoonful of Bruckner helped alot!), but it's been rewarding. As you surely know, some composers take awhile to get used to and Mahler's constant emotionally-heightened state, his incessant birdcalls, his overly-precious orchestration (a tree branch in the percussion section? Oh, please!), etc. were a stretch for me. Many people find Liszt entirely objectionable and I, too, was one of them when all I knew were a few etudes and the Liebestraum no. 3. When I finally grew up and heard the Annees, Funerailles, the Dante, the Bagatelle sans tonalite, the religious works...I finally realized how great he was.
So "hum a little Hummel" and enjoy. It's all good (almost). |
marianne fleurimont
Active Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 10
Registered: 8-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 10:21 am: |
|
Dear Rebecka,
Thank you for your just and much appreciated post. I agree with you without reserve that emotion belongs to music, and the emotions music can express (successfully) make music human and touching, and is ultimately, the common denominator in all great compositions.
I am very glad that you, too, find Bach, in all his precision and clarity, touching and emotional. I cannot sit through one single Bach concert without tears filling my eyes, so strong the emotions he evoke(I go to concerts with at least one package of tissues ready.)
I have read on this forum elsewhere (forgot the name of the poster) that what makes music interesting is the stretching of rules and limits, and the occasional breaking free from these for effect, but ultimately, returning home safely. (This was a discussion about atonal music, I believe.) And with that, I completely agree, and this is why I champion Hummel so much, because he did stretch those limits, without ever leaving them behind... and pressed the classical harmonies and compositional structures to the absolute edge, creating very interesting and unique music along the way.
I must admit, I was a little harsh upon the later romantics and 20th Century music. Occasionally, I can stand them, but not long. I understand their intellectual and theoretical interest for the development of music, however, despite the gymnastics in my mind, my heart remains cold and virgin to their delights.
I guess the reason I like Bach, the Classical and early Romantic composers so much is precisely the fact that they (the great composers) all in their way stretched possibilities to their end limits (within their time frames), yet retained what is paramount (for me) in music: judicious balance and formal coherence with all their warm humanity (emotions, beauty, however you like to term it), which in art as well as in music, renders beauty best.
In art and design, we lay down guidelines, or reference lines. The simplest being a horizon line, and from there, endless possibilities will appear, due to contrast and referenced orientation. This I appreciate very much, and appeals to my sense of beauty and reason, although free verse sometimes can be ravishing as well. I think Montaigne once compared poetic forms to the neck of a trumpet: only through measured constraint does a blast of hot air become enchanting and beautiful music. This, I would think, is equally true for composition.
Regarding pubic radio and classical radio stations: yes, I too listen to them, from time to time. Happily, I can access the programs of my local classical stations online, and can plan ahead what I would like to listen to (because years of random listening had taught me to expect 60% pain, 20% incessant repeats, and 20% quality). I know my time periods, and I know the composers of the time periods I like, and make experimentations along those lines. From time to time, I do give the big name composers of later periods a try... but so far, after many sincere attempts, some concert going, and quite a bit of reading, my ears remain mystified by what I hear at best, and pained the rest of the time.
I hope you enjoy Hummel's music, Rebecka. The Trumpet concert is one of the most pleasing, but only give a glimpse of what Hummel is capable of (for what a difference between the possibilities of a trumpet and a piano?). I heard it once live in Baden Baden, and saw an exiting house of happy listeners.
Best wishes to you.
Marianne |
marianne fleurimont
Advanced Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 10:56 am: |
|
Dear Mr. B,
In a way one can say the Hummel ended an era. What one might also say is that he opened a new one without any descendents (except Mendelssohn and Gouvy... the end of the line), and did not start a major "school" as Liszt did later.
Gouvy is the last happy issue of the Hummel line, and even there, Gouvy is decidedly french Music, and exquisit at that.
I will keep my ears still opened for other composer's music. Perhaps when I am an old woman, the mysteries of the later composers will open... by then I will be a sesame myself! lol.
Marianne
PS-- fantasy op. 18 is decidedly unclassical. It borders on atonality and impressionism in parts! When I first heard it, I was shocked. |
marianne fleurimont
Advanced Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:25 am: |
|
Dear Mr. B,
I went back and found the passage you were referring to. Yes, Hummel quotes here the Jupiter symphony of Mozart, slightly altered, in the finale of his f minor sonata no. 3. This was widely practiced in those days, and Hummel was paying tribute to his teacher. On a separate occasion, he did a potpouri or fantasy on themes from the magic flute (I belive, dont have the CD on hand), for piano. Young Hummel had just returned from his two year absence to London after Mozarts death, and had not yet even properly heard the opera, and was asked to make an improvisation. Therefore, in that piece, Hummel didnt even know the original music and had only heard it second hand, never having seen the score. These loose quotations must be allowed for, as the public knew full well what they were.
Finally, being an amateur, and no professional, I can only say that Hummel's music makes me happy. I have never had so much fun, been intellectually so teased, been so agreeably touched as with Hummel. His richness of idea, his incessant variations, his wealth of refinement and sophistication, and his sparkling wit has given me some of the richest hours of musical enjoyment I have ever had. And these are for me, the most important factors in music. He is an exhilarating experience, like skiing in the alps, or diving in high waves. Very heady and intoxicating, and there is no guilt in the enjoyment.
Have a good time.
Marianne |
Peter Andrew Blackburn
Senior Member
Username: bigpeter
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:40 am: |
|
Dear Ms. F.,
You are gracious indeed! You are also humble, but needlessly so for if you can find all that makes music such a joy, so intoxicating, with refinement and sparkle in the works of Hummel, then you have already surpassed what so many 'professional musicians' aspire to attain. I do honestly consider your pet composer a good one - so good in fact that I too went through a bit of a Hummel phase and investigated what I agree were a paltry set of recordings available at the time. Let's hope things improve for him! With you on his side, I've no doubt he'd be pleased.
Peter
|
Walther Kraft
New member
Username: elly_bracknell
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2004
Rating:
Votes: 6 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:41 am: |
|
Dear classical music friends,
one cannot help but being fascinated by the "Hummel-debate" in this forum! Because it allows us to question again: "Is an artist a real artist if he's not a rebel?"
There are hidden opinions in this issue like:
- the artist who begins an era is less important than an artist who ends it
- a real good is a rebel
- what sounds pleasant cannot be art
- Hummel could not have played at Beethoven's death bed.
First question: Does Hummel open or end an era ?
I've been researching for a while in the archives of the Vatican and would like to present the findings:
The archives mirror the well known fact that Schumann studied Hummel's f-sharp minor sonata therefore we find the elements of Hummel's "modern style" all over Schumann's oeuvre. They also say that composers like Beethoven, Schubert, Czerny, Kreutzer, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin and Liszt rated Hummel more than only most modern. Quote of Chopin: "Hummel, who rules all of us..."
But, as we know, Hummel was not the person to make much noise. He rather ate Thüringer Bratwurst together with Goethe in the "Goldene Gans" in Weimar than create art events where modern rebellious artists, either dressed in black or bloody naked, throw roast chickens at the audience (like at the Frankfurt Opera in 1980 which made the former director of the Frankfurt opera appear extremely vanguard for a few years -the press called him "Wienerwald-Willy" ! This event has been repeated later by the Cornell architecture students in the year of 1999 on campus in Ithaca/NY: It became famous under the name of "Kentucky Fried Art Agony" and was rated "super rebellious" by the KFC community in upstate New York and Tompkins County).
Hummel rather did it the silent way: He was hiding his modern composing behind a nerve shaking Mozart plagiarism: Everybody knows that Hummel had been learning and composing with Mozart for two years. Everybody knew that Hummel was spreading Mozart's music all over Europe by playing Trio and Quartet versions of Mozart’s symphonies and piano concertos because people where too lazy at this time to load their mp3-players with the rebellious stuff. He could be sure that if he would quote Mozart in only one of his piano sonatas: That would be a horrible scandal. How can a pupil simply quote his master ? Blasphemy!
While the waves of this scandal were going high in Vienna and Weimar nobody saw the actual }sensation: the world's earliest piece of 20 seconds of real Boogie-Woogie, hidden in the first movement of the f-minor sonata. Only Schumann saw what he saw and repeated these elements for several times in his C-Major Piano Phantasy, knowing that Hummel was dead and the rest of the world was still contemplating the scandal of Hummel's Mozart plagiarism.
But the era of Boogie Woogie had been opened. The late Meade Lux Lewis used the Hummel - invention for his famous "Honky Tonk Train Blues" and Sonnyboy Williamson repeated it in "Fattening Frogs for Snakes". This only started what later went all over the world and was unstoppable until today: Rock and Roll. The archives of the Vatican name no less than 1054 early Rock and Roll tunes that work with the material of Hummel's f-minor sonata. Prof. Dr. Francesco Piccariello from the musical department of the philosophical faculty of the university of Parma writes in his rebellious Ph. D. dissertation: "Not only do we find the basic material of Jerry Lee Lewis' "Great Balls Of Fire" in Hummel's early f-minor sonata, we also cannot hide the fact that even in Gene Vincent's "Be-Bop-A-Lula" the whole sequence of Hummel’s f-minor sonata is repeated in all chorusses. So we must admit what today's world of "e-music" (earnest music) would rather like to hide: Hummel not only opened the era of Boogie Woogie and Rock & Roll by simply jumping over important musical styles like Romanticism, Impressionism and Late Romanticism, he even did not care about giants of modernism like Schönberg, Webern and Stockhausen.
It was Hummel who ended the classical era by stretching the elements of classical composing as far as possible: from Mozart over Chopin onto Jerry Lee Lewis.
It was also Hummel who opened a new era, not too well known yet to his contemporaries: The era of Rock &Roll.
Was this good, was this bad? Contemporaries say that Hummel liked to quote: For instance he quoted the Holy Thomaso de Aquino by cutting out the dinner table in order to have enough space for his enormous belly. Why should he not be as rebellious as to jump over 150 years of musical style and invent Rock&Roll?
Nota bene: Rock&Roll sounds unpleasant and therefore fulfils the conditio sine qua non to be musical art.
Nota bene: Rock&Roll even tops the reduction of harmonies by Eric Satie (the master of ironical musical reduction) by normally only using tonica, dominant and subdominant, - and we all know from modern art directors that the second rule of how to become an artist is: reduce reduce reduce ! (First rule being: be rebellious, third rule being: dress in black)
Black dress leads us to a last question:
Did Hummel play at Beethoven's death bed ?
To answer this question I first have to describe a painted scenario that I found in the archives of the Vatican: Beethoven's Death (Oil on Canvas by Tischbein):
We see Beethoven on his death bed next to his big piano, designed by Broadwood & Son, under which we see the night pot (the same that Beethoven's pupil Czerny refused to empty).
We see Hummel's wife mopping Beethoven's forehead with a most vanguard tissue, showing a reprint of Arnold Böcklin's "Death Island". (Hummel's wife, in order to become an artist, wanted to begin a new era of death-tissueing)
We see Beethoven's plagiarist the "Abbe Gelinek" sticking his nose from outside the window into the room (Gelinek who once lost the "battle on the keyboard" against Beethoven had been listening to Beethoven's compositions secretly with his ear at Beethoven's window, copying everything he could hear and surprising Beethoven by publishing Beethoven's compositions before Beethoven was even ready to sell them).
We see Hummel, in the middle of the room just after having tried to strike the dying master's ear with vintage rockers like "Roll Over Beethoven" and "A Whole Lot Of Shaking Going On" ; ending up with "...you leave me hhhhhhhhhhhhh – Breathless!" After having thus tried his best by showing Beethoven what a real rebellious and avantgardistic rocker could do for a master who begins eras of music, we see Hummel trying to lift a whole cow with a lifting block over the keyboard of the stout Broadwood-Instrument.
We know the result: Hummel, by desperately trying to wake up the deaf giant's ears for a last time, let the cow crash on Beethoven’s keyboard (this technique was later claimed for himself and called "cow lengo" by copyist Gelinek), the Broadwood piano broke down, the nightpot crashed for a last time, Hummel's wife cried "Ooooh Aaaah". The cow said: "Uuummmph". Hummel said: "It was always my goal to bring happiness to the world by producing happy sounds"....and Gelinek wrote down everything he could hear.
Truth to be told: Hummel did not play at Beethoven's deathbed.
But truth happens to be: Beethoven heard something but could not see what it was (because he had Madame Hummel's tissue over his eyes and said: "More light" ! Later these last words were reported to be Goethe's last words.
Dear Mr. William Johnston, what did Hummel play?
Answer: All three Beethoven, Hummel and his wife began to play with a new era, the era of jam-sessions, with continuously repeated rhythmical elements like:
"swiish" (Hummel's wife with the tissue)
"plaaaing!" (Cow falling on the keybaord)
"cra-vooom" (Broadwood piano breaking down)
"Uuummmph" (cow)
"Ramalamadingdong" (night pot rolling away and being smashed)
"Oooooh aaaah" Madame Hummel crying
"scratch-ity-scratch" (Gelinek's pen scratching on musical paper)
„Happiness to the world “ (Hummel)
My dear Mr. Johnston, the question is not: What did Hummel play, but: "What did Beethoven not hear?":
(4/4 Takt, 64 tone music):
swish-swish, plaaaing, cra! voom!
swish-swish, plaaaing, cra! voom !
Rama-lama-ding-dong Uuuumph, oooooh ! aahhhh!
Rama-lama-ding-dong Uuuumph, oooooh ! aahhhh!
Scratch - ity - scratch, cra ! voom !
Scratch - ity - scratch, cra ! voom !
Hap-pi-ness, ooooooh, aaaaaah !
Hap-pi-ness, oooooh, aaaaah !
According to the archives of the Vatican: With this a new era began. But who was the creator ?
Did Beethoven end his own era by his death ?
Did Gelinek invent the new one by copying what he heard ?
Did Hummel maybe not invent the col lengo, but the cow lengo?
And did Madame Hummel introduce the most distinctive "swish-swish" into modern music, that is heard very often by now in Caribbean pop songs whose composers do not admit that they copied this sound sample from Louis Moreau Gottschalk who probably heard it in one of the Gelinek-Concerts in Philadelphia ? Questions, questions, questions. And no real answers. Where will all this end?
Walther Kraft/Frankfurt am Main
} |
Rwelean Vardia
Senior Member
Username: rwelean
Post Number: 35
Registered: 4-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Walther, I have not laughed so much in a long time. Thanks so much! Who would have guessed that Hummel was such a revolutionary to invent Rock and Roll! LOL! |
marianne fleurimont
Advanced Member
Username: mariannef
Post Number: 13
Registered: 8-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 4:19 am: |
|
Just thought I would share this. Although this was a statement made about Theodore Gouvy, it is also relevant to Hummel's music. I could not have put it better:
"Deux obstacles majeurs me paraissent de nature à
Two major obstacles, it appears to me, of a nature
compromettre le succès de ce disque splendide:
to compromise the success of this splendid CD:
bien que Français de nationalité, les affinités
despite his french nationality, the musical
musicales de Gouvy sont franchement germaniques;
affinities of Gouvy are frankly german;
les oeuvres ici proposées ne sont pas de celles
the pieces here proposed are not those who
qui bouleversent l'histoire de la musique.
will change the course of the history of music.
Et alors? Allez-vous renoncer au plaisir d'une
And so? Are you going to renounce the pleasure of a
délicieuse musique parce que Gouvy ne rentre pas
delicious music because Gouvy does not belong to
dans le cadre établi des écoles nationales, ou
the established order of the national schools, or
parce que la profession de foi scientiste dans
because scientist belief in musical
l'évolutionnisme musical vous a culpalisé au
evolutionism has made you feel guilty to the
point de devoir vous donner bonne conscience en
point of needing to give yourself a good conscience
vous faisant martyriser les oreilles par du
by making you martyrise your ears with some
Pierre Henry, du Stockhausen et tant d'autres?
Pierre Henry, some Stockhausen, and such others?
Les duettos sont exquis et témoignent d'ailleurs
The duettos are exquisit and give witness, more over,
d'une évolution psychologique du compositeur dans
to a psychological evolution of the composer in
la mesure où la seconde série apparaît plus
the way the second series appear more
tourmentée. Plus ambitieuse, la sonate tient la
tourmented. More ambitious, the sonata keeps its
distance à partir d'un matériau (le premier thème
distance starting from a material (the first theme
du premier mouvement notamment) particulièrement
of the first movement, notably) that is particularly
séduisant et qui ne manque pas de souffle.
seductive and doesn't lack in breath.
......
Masochistes, s'abstenir!"
Masochists, abstain yourselves!
ALIBERT Michel
|
Shanmugam Maheshkumar Achary
Senior Member
Username: s_maheshkumar
Post Number: 192
Registered: 4-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 3:16 am: |
|
The following is the hyper-link to "The Sound of Mathematics" : -
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/9349/ |
bruce evin
New member
Username: bruce110
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 1:52 am: |
|
I had a really good read on this, very detail, and very useful information.
Thanks.
http://www.vob-converter.com
|
zuiaishi100
Member
Username: zuiaishi100
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | |
Closed: New threads not accepted but NEW MESSAGES can be added at the bottom of this page