From: Nate Meneer [mailto:nmeneer@bu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:13 AM
To: Bellott, Sarah D; 'David Kjar'
Subject: RE: Revision
Sorry, I must have miscommunicated on this point. I want to look at 1766-1770. These boundaries work well.
Nate
From: Bellott, Sarah D [mailto:sdinsmor@bu.edu]
Sent: October-13-09 10:53 A
To: Meneer, Nathanael, Raymond; David Kjar
Subject: RE: Revision
Hi all,
I think that 1766 to 1770 seems like a manageable chunk. Nate – did you prefer 1776-1775? Wasn’t sure which you meant. A decade is possibly a large amount of time to generalize about in our conclusions.
Best,
Sarah
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
From Nate
From: Nate Meneer [mailto:nmeneer@bu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:31 PM
To: Bellott, Sarah D; 'David Kjar'
Subject: Revision
To correct my earlier statement, Landon conceptualizes 1766-1775 as a “period.” Nevertheless, Landon seems to think 1766 to be a significant watershed in Haydn’s bio.
~N
From: Nate Meneer [mailto:nmeneer@bu.edu]
Sent: October-10-09 5:27 PM
To: 'Bellott, Sarah D'; 'David Kjar'
Subject: RE: Haydn
Thanks so much for passing this along. I will read through it tonight!
As we have witnessed in class, the dating of Haydn’s works is extremely difficult and controversial. For many of Haydn’s symphonies, Grove gives at least two possible dates. To help limit things, and ensure the integrity of our sample, I am omitting symphonies that have “possible” dates outside out chosen period (per Grove).
Lastly, what would you guys things of further refining our dates from 1766-1770. I suggest this for two reasons:
a) Landon seems to conceptualize these dates as a “period”
b) If we included 1765 in our sample, the number of symphonies I need to look at jumps from 5 to 11
Thoughts?
Nate
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:31 PM
To: Bellott, Sarah D; 'David Kjar'
Subject: Revision
To correct my earlier statement, Landon conceptualizes 1766-1775 as a “period.” Nevertheless, Landon seems to think 1766 to be a significant watershed in Haydn’s bio.
~N
From: Nate Meneer [mailto:nmeneer@bu.edu]
Sent: October-10-09 5:27 PM
To: 'Bellott, Sarah D'; 'David Kjar'
Subject: RE: Haydn
Thanks so much for passing this along. I will read through it tonight!
As we have witnessed in class, the dating of Haydn’s works is extremely difficult and controversial. For many of Haydn’s symphonies, Grove gives at least two possible dates. To help limit things, and ensure the integrity of our sample, I am omitting symphonies that have “possible” dates outside out chosen period (per Grove).
Lastly, what would you guys things of further refining our dates from 1766-1770. I suggest this for two reasons:
a) Landon seems to conceptualize these dates as a “period”
b) If we included 1765 in our sample, the number of symphonies I need to look at jumps from 5 to 11
Thoughts?
Nate
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Hi everyone,
I found some useful things in Landon’s chronicle about our years in question and thought I’d send them along. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1766_in_music was kind of fun, though not as exalted of a source, for a quick general snapshot of the year. I’m having a great time with La Canterina, Haydn’s first intermezzo/opera buffa I believe, and have found a good bit about it. So I think I’ll start there.
I found some useful things in Landon’s chronicle about our years in question and thought I’d send them along. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1766_in_music was kind of fun, though not as exalted of a source, for a quick general snapshot of the year. I’m having a great time with La Canterina, Haydn’s first intermezzo/opera buffa I believe, and have found a good bit about it. So I think I’ll start there.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
