# The Dawn of Symphonic Romanticism



## Ondine

From the poll issued by Arsakes, '1st Symphony of Romantic Composers' it came to me the next topic:

Which Beethoven's symphonies can be considered the first step into a truly romantic language in orchestration, and why?

The nine symphonies are suggested so to have all them into discussion.


----------



## drpraetorus

By using the dominant 7 chord to open his first symphony, Beethoven opened a door to his version of romanticism. He didn't go in for a while. The 3rd is when he actually goes in that door.


----------



## Arsakes

'Eroica' ...


----------



## Ramako

I think it is best not to confuse technical experimentation with Romanticism.

Of course, the Eroica is usually considered the turning point, but for me it is actually a great deal more Classical than many later ones, even actually than no. 1. It is very long, and uses new techniques, new development theme in mov. 1, etc. etc. I buy that the development section in the first movement is quite Romantic but overall it just makes me think of Beethoven in his Classical mood.

Whereas the fifth makes me think of Beethoven in his Romantic mood. (Corialan is very much in the same vein). It has a programme, and despite being more concise I think its best to remember that until Bruckner symphonies were generally more of this scale, and the Eroica remained quite long. Look at the obvious expressionistic purpose behind lots of the devices used. It goes from sad to happy, has a cyclic repetition of the scherzo in the finale, and even, and this is crucial, has a 'fate' motif - and we all know that some reference to fate is essential to any good Romantic symphony.

By 9 Beethoven is just being Beethoven. 5 has my vote


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

No. 6 is usually considered to be the first truly Romantic symphony because it is programmatic rather than absolute music. Absolute music is a typical characteristic of the Classical period. It was only in the Romantic era that program music became common.


----------



## jani

Eroica, the first theme has erotic&Passionate characters. The whole symphony is very moody and its big and long.
My musicological skills won't allow me to talk lot about the structures though.


----------



## emiellucifuge

You can argue all you like about technicalities and dominant 7ths, but the Eroica is the first symphony with the real romantic spirit and emotional turbulence.

imo.


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> You can argue all you like about technicalities and dominant 7ths, but the Eroica is the first symphony with the real romantic spirit and emotional turbulence.
> 
> imo.


If the 3rd had a real program, the slow movements would depict squirrels in a tree. That's Romantic?

:devil:


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll72 said:


> If the 3rd had a real program, the slow movements would depict squirrels in a tree. That's Romantic?
> 
> :devil:











Yes...


----------



## Eschbeg

I'm not saying this is the starting point of Romanticism but there is a fleeting, spine-tingling glimpse of the Ninth Symphony, some fifteen years in advance, in the intro to the Second Symphony. Check it out at 1:54...


----------



## jani

Eschbeg said:


> I'm not saying this is the starting point of Romanticism but there is a fleeting, spine-tingling glimpse of the Ninth Symphony, some fifteen years in advance, in the intro to the Second Symphony. Check it out at 1:54...


yes i can hear it!


----------



## Carpenoctem

You guys want to hear Beethoven's 9th? Try listening to 1:00 of this Mozart's piece 






Also I think Beethoven's first Romantic symphony was Eroica.


----------



## clavichorder

emiellucifuge said:


> View attachment 7974
> 
> 
> Yes...


You can never tell what will result from a thread, you really can't.

Eroica gets my vote.


----------



## principe

If I read correctly Ondine's introductory text, she refers to which Beethoven's Symphony we trace the dawn of Romanticism, in terms of _orchestration_. If that is the criterion, then, the Eroica as well as the 1,2,4,7 and 8 have the most Classical orchestration (5 section-strings, double woodwinds, two horns, two trumpets and timpani). 
Only, in the last movement of the Fifth, the three trombones, a piccolo and the double bassoon appear for the first time. In the Sixth, only in the fourth and fifth movements two trombones have a role to play, but the timpani appear only in the short fourth movement (the Storm).
Finally, in the Ninth we have an even larger orchestration : a piccolo, a double basson (appear only in the Finale), 4 horns, 3 trumpets and more percussions (but performing only in the Scherzo and the Finale). 
However, in terms of the substance of Music, I don't think any of the music of Beethoven's Symphonies could be conidered as the "dawn of Romanticism". Perhaps, every now and then, we may encounter some moments of a sort of Romanticism, but the actual writing of the use of tonalities (only two of the Symphonies are in minor tonalities) and of modulations, the themes, the strict and perfect form, the firm (though extended and innovative) structure never betray the Classical period. I believe Schubert's Unfinished is the real starting point, including the orchestration aspect.

Principe


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> View attachment 7974
> 
> 
> Yes...


I catch your drift, but... those squirrels are not in a tree.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I am actually quite surprised by this poll. I think Eroica is very much rooted in the classical tradition. It's long and it has extra horns BUT the phrasing, melodic invention, the form and structure and a whole lot of other things are all very typical of the Classical period. Most music teachers and professional musicians I know say that No. 6 is the beginning of the Romantic symphony. The Pastoral symphony was the first of Beethoven's symphonies to have an extra-musical element. Audiences might make up extra-musical ideas to connect to earlier works but Beethoven intended them to be absolute music not program music.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I just dont think that music having a 'programme' is the defining characteristic of romanticism. Dvorak's 9th symphony is probably even clearer in terms of 4 bar phrases and simple forms, it doesn't have a programme, yet no one would claim it was a classical work. No, I think the key is in how far the composer is willing to prolong suspensions, and in Eroica, Beethoven reached a milestone. Just look at the score, a chromatic C# appears already in the 5th bar, and the phrase ends with a tritone. At the recapitulation the horns return to the tonic but the strings are still on the dominant.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

emiellucifuge said:


> I just dont think that music having a 'programme' is the defining characteristic of romanticism. Dvorak's 9th symphony is probably even clearer in terms of 4 bar phrases and simple forms, it doesn't have a programme, yet no one would claim it was a classical work. No, I think the key is in how far the composer is willing to prolong suspensions, and in Eroica, Beethoven reached a milestone. Just look at the score, a chromatic C# appears already in the 5th bar, and the phrase ends with a tritone. At the recapitulation the horns return to the tonic but the strings are still on the dominant.


CPE Bach did more radical things than that. Does that make him a romantic composer?

EDIT: The first subject in the opening movement of Johann Stamitz's symphony in E flat op. 11 no. 3 suddenly goes down to a D flat after couple of bars and then descends to an A natural before going back to the original key of E flat major. This symphony was written in the 1750s and also shows a similar usage of passing modulations, a typically Classical thing for composers to do.


----------



## Ramako

This is the Beethoven Classical vs Romantic debate. It depends on what 'Romantic' means.

I am not surprised by the poll, but I agree with CoAG concerning the Eroica.


----------



## emiellucifuge

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> CPE Bach did more radical things than that. Does that make him a romantic composer?


The point is that this spirit of emotional distress and unresolved tension permeates the entire work.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

emiellucifuge said:


> The point is that this spirit of emotional distress and unresolved tension permeates the entire work.


So does many symphonies in the Sturm und Drang style several decades beforehand.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes you're right and the S&D 'movement' is often considered a sort of proto-romanticism, but there is still a difference between Sturm & Drang, and Romanticism.

There are many books on the history of art which deal with such things, but im sure you would agree that a (the ideal) Sturm and Drang symphony sounds fundamentally different from a (the ideal) Romantic symphony. Whatever technical differences exist in order to produce this difference in effect - that is what we find first in Beethoven's Eroica. It just _sounds _romantic.

A bit of a cop-out answer I know but its 2am here,,, good night!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

emiellucifuge said:


> Yes you're right and the S&D 'movement' is often considered a sort of proto-romanticism, but there is still a difference between Sturm & Drang, and Romanticism.


And there is a difference between Beethoven's third in the way it is structured etc. and a typical Romantic symphony. The Eroica is still very much in the Classical vein but it is a good example of how late Classicism evolves into Romanticism. I wouldn't call it a Romantic symphony. Definitely late Classical.


----------



## Ramako

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> And there is a difference between Beethoven's third in the way it is structured etc. and a typical Romantic symphony.


Well, that applies to 6 as well as 3. I think. Not sure.

Anyway, the point is that the farewell symphony (45) by Haydn has

A programme
An obvious extra-musical point
A three-key exposition first movement
A taught inter-movement structure (much more so than 3, much like 5)
A completely bizarre finale
A 'fading out' ending

(haven't figured this list thing yet)

And yet is a Classical symphony

Romanticism is hard to define. It's there in 3, but it's there more in 5, and more again in 6. To me the leap to 5 is the biggest. Actually, I would put Mozart's 40th down first anyway.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ramako said:


> Well, that applies to 6 as well as 3. I think. Not sure.
> 
> Anyway, the point is that the farewell symphony (45) by Haydn has
> 
> A programme
> An obvious extra-musical point
> A three-key exposition first movement
> A taught inter-movement structure (much more so than 3, much like 5)
> A completely bizarre finale
> A 'fading out' ending
> 
> (haven't figured this list thing yet)
> 
> And yet is a Classical symphony
> 
> Romanticism is hard to define. It's there in 3, but it's there more in 5, and more again in 6. To me the leap to 5 is the biggest. Actually, I would put Mozart's 40th down first anyway.


Is there a whole program that is carried throughout the entire symphony?


----------



## clavichorder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> So does many symphonies in the Sturm und Drang style several decades beforehand.


You can't deny that though sturm and drang is a good art form, it lacks the fullness of the Eroica, and that Eroica resembles romanticism in that.

Also, I think many romantic symphonies are "classically structured" but its their scope and harmonic language that makes them romantic.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

clavichorder said:


> You can't deny that though sturm and drang is a good art form, it lacks the fullness of the Eroica, and that Eroica resembles romanticism in that.


I didn't say that Eroica is Sturm und Drang. I said it is late Classical. It shows a style evolving into Romanticism but in the technical side of things it is still closer to Classicism.


----------



## clavichorder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I didn't say that Eroica is Sturm und Drang. I said it is late Classical. It shows a style evolving into Romanticism but in the technical side of things it is still closer to Classicism.


I disagree. Late classicism is Haydn 101 and 102, Mozart 39, 40, and 41, and Beethoven 1, and 2(Red Giant classicism applies heavily to these last two). 3 is something new entirely(supernova?), and seems to have more in common with a late Schubert, or Mendelssohn or Schumann symphony in character.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

clavichorder said:


> I disagree. Late classicism is Haydn 101 and 102, Mozart 39, 40, and 41, and Beethoven 1, and 2(Red Giant classicism applies heavily to these last two). 3 is something new entirely(supernova?), and seems to have more in common with a late Schubert, or Mendelssohn or Schumann symphony in character.


Schubert is also late Classicism. Anyway, I'm off to score read and study Beethoven's Eroica now.


----------



## clavichorder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Schubert is also late Classicism. Anyway, I'm off to score read and study Beethoven's Eroica now.


Pronouncements, pronouncements.


----------



## Olias

The basic tenant of musical Romanticism is the shift in the very function of music from the structured cosmopolitan entertainment of the middle and upper classes to a more self-referential style in which music becomes a vehicle for self-expression by the composer. Although technical elements of this can be seen in Beethoven's earlier work, the breakthrough came after he penned the Heiligenstadt Testament with the composition of the Eroica, the Appassionata Piano Sonata, and the Rasumovsky String Quartets, all composed between 1803-1806 (the few years after the personal crisis at Heiligenstadt).


----------



## Ondine

I have come quite late to the thread. Apologises.

The reading along the posts has been just great with really challenging opinions here and there.

Even though, 'Pastorale' has my vote. By the moment I can't offer orchestration elements but it has been very instructing to read some of the criteria given because I really wanted to know opinions around orchestration.

Looks like 'Eroica' is Romantic in intention but not so in structure and final effect as an overall oeuvre. Seems that do not 'sounds' too romantic to be the candidate to the 'Down of Symphonic Romanticism'.

'Pastorale' in stead offers more orchestration elements so to make tangible the thought ideas gotten by Beethoven when he spent his time at the fields. So what was lacking 'Eroica' appears in 'Pastorale'.


----------



## Ondine

Carpenoctem said:


> You guys want to hear Beethoven's 9th? Try listening to 1:00 of this Mozart's piece


It's Amazing!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

After score reading the Eroica I listened to it again just in the background but loud enough for me to pay some attention to it. I found that it certainly _sounded_ more Romantic the second time but following the score carefully there are so many giveaways that it belongs in the Classical period, very late classical mind you but certainly not Romantic.


----------



## Ondine

principe said:


> If I read correctly Ondine's introductory text, she refers to which Beethoven's Symphony we trace the dawn of Romanticism, in terms of _orchestration_. If that is the criterion, then, the Eroica as well as the 1,2,4,7 and 8 have the most Classical orchestration (5 section-strings, double woodwinds, two horns, two trumpets and timpani).
> Only, in the last movement of the Fifth, the three trombones, a piccolo and the double bassoon appear for the first time. In the Sixth, only in the fourth and fifth movements two trombones have a role to play, but the timpani appear only in the short fourth movement (the Storm).
> Finally, in the Ninth we have an even larger orchestration : a piccolo, a double basson (appear only in the Finale), 4 horns, 3 trumpets and more percussions (but performing only in the Scherzo and the Finale).
> However, in terms of the substance of Music, I don't think any of the music of Beethoven's Symphonies could be conidered as the "dawn of Romanticism". Perhaps, every now and then, we may encounter some moments of a sort of Romanticism, but the actual writing of the use of tonalities (only two of the Symphonies are in minor tonalities) and of modulations, the themes, the strict and perfect form, the firm (though extended and innovative) structure never betray the Classical period. I believe Schubert's Unfinished is the real starting point, including the orchestration aspect.
> 
> Principe


Thanks Principe,

As far as I could understand here, we will not found the 'Dawn' at Beethoven's but later on. Isn't then a myth that Symphonic Romanticism started with him?

If so, what is there -in terms of orchestration- in Schubert's Unfinished, to be considered the real starting point.

I insist in orchestration because the sound of a Romantic v.s a Viennese Classicist is very evident.

I want to adventure an hypothesis: Looks like Beethoven used a bigger number of Cello and Bass in order to bring density or 'thematic presence' in addition to iterate the melodic line spreading it all along the different instrumental sections instead of attaching it to a single section.

Isn't this the 'Dawn' for a Romantic Orchestration?


----------



## Ondine

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> After score reading the Eroica I listened to it again just in the background but loud enough for me to pay some attention to it. I found that it certainly _sounded_ more Romantic the second time but following the score carefully there are so many giveaways that it belongs in the Classical period, very late classical mind you but certainly not Romantic.


And I want to go farther with this: The Fifth, then, sounds almost more classical than 'Eroica', am I wrong?

Another adventured hypothesis: Seems to me, that the Fifth is Beethoven's struggle with a model of composition -classical- that had fallen short for the new expressive needs once music started to become a true art more than just enjoyment as stated by Olias:



Olias said:


> The basic tenant of musical Romanticism is the shift in the very function of music from the structured cosmopolitan entertainment of the middle and upper classes to a more self-referential style in which music becomes a vehicle for self-expression by the composer.


----------



## Wandering

I voted for Berlioz SF. Plenty of reason why. 'The March to the Scaffold' is one of my all time favorites.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Clovis said:


> I voted for Berlioz SF. Plenty of reason why. 'The March to the Scaffold' is one of my all time favorites.


Yep of course.


----------



## principe

Ondine, if orchestration is your key point to define Romanticism, the only Beethoven's Symphony which fits perfectly is the 9th. However, none so far claimed that this monumental Work is even slightly Romantic; on the contrary, it is the crowning piece of Classicism, despite its structure goes well beyond the meticulous Classical form, however, without betraying it, except in the Finale, which, in any case, is unique in the History of Classical Music.
I fully agree with CAG that Eroica, despite some traces of a sort of Romanticism, sticks to the strict Classical form (not necessarily the Viennese one) and orchestrationwise there is only an additional horn! 
I also agree with CAG that Schubert is late Classical period too, but his "Uunfinished" is very close to the Romantic Symphony, for the following reasons: a) it's in a very advanced for Symnphony minor key (b minor).
b) the orchestration eventually includes the three trombones, which is the key feature of "heavier" and darker orchestral colours.
c) the melodies are more expressive and freely developed vis a vis the more tight Beethovenian ones.
d) the Harmony is more vivid and its progression more audacious (more and unexpected or unusual modulations).
e) greater and more creative combinations of the orchestral sonorities (eventrually the Brass play a pivotal role in the development of the whole score as it unfolds).
f) the dynamics underline the heavier and darker orchestration.
I hope it can help somehow. 

Principe


----------



## Ramako

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Is there a whole program that is carried throughout the entire symphony?


It is argued that there was. On the other hand, there is evidence that Haydn had a programme in mind when composing many of his symphonies.

Beethoven uses tonality, throughout his life, in a Classical way, despite the mediants, emphasizing polarities and their relations to the tonic, whereas the Romantics used them for colouring, and the tonic is less sharply defined - it doesn't need to be.

Harmonic scope doesn't make something Romantic - it's the way that the tonalities are used which makes it Classical/Romantic. The Romantic use of tonality is much closer to the Baroque in some ways. CPE was more adventurous in some ways than Beethoven, and probably the early Romantics. But that doesn't make it Romantic.

It's emotional content that makes something Romantic, and despite the exoticism of the first movement's development, the Eroica feels much more like Classical + Beethoven + Napoleon. I put the fifth, because it has an emotional urgency the previous ones lacked. Still the starting point towards Romanticism could be said to be Bach, either JS or CPE, or indeed Mozart. It's clear by Beethoven it's under way.


----------



## principe

There is no "emotional content" in the score, Ramako. We attribute "it" to each work based on our _subjective_ perception. So, we cannot baptise a work as Romantic or Classic based on its emotional impact to us.
If we talk based on the score and, in particular, about the orchestration, we rely only on the facts: what we identify there and, then, we can tell what is what.
Of course, J.S. Bach is the "starting point" of everything, since almost every composer till now has to study his enormous and most signifcant Opus of all, but his music was pure Baroque, but of the highest order, in terms of the language used. For C.P.E., it was a bit different, since he managed to get to know the Sonata form, at least. Beethoven, even in the last movement of his Fifth writes in a perfect Classical language, by stretching, however, its limits. Despite all the "noise" of the Fifth, the brass are used either sparingly or with utmost attention and always to fill the harmony, not to play a pivotal role, as it happens in the Romantic ones (see Bruckner, or Brahms). The dynamics are used with the almost usual recurring Classical way rather than the abrupt, persistent and "heavy" Romantic stroke-type (Tchaikovsky or Schubert's "Unfinished"). And let alone the Harmonic progression...and some more. 
Beethoven, as for his scores, is the epitome and the glorification of Classicism. If we find traces of Romantic elements here and there, based on the "emotional impact" on each one of us, that is a subjective issue that cannot establish but only a "myth" (as Ondine asked).

Principe


----------



## Wandering

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Yep of course.


That vote must've been on that other similar thread of romantic first sym.

oopsy...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Clovis said:


> That vote must've been on that other similar thread of romantic first sym.
> 
> oopsy...


Well it certainly shows early Romanticism at its height.


----------



## Ramako

principe said:


> There is no "emotional content" in the score, Ramako.


Romanticism is primarily an emotional style of music. It's primary aim is expression. All the techniques on the score, the heavy orchestration, the exotic harmonies, the lyrical melodies, are caused by this, rather than the actual root of the style - unlike Modernism, and actually Classicism and Baroque too, where technicalities are central to the composer's vision of the music. Thus, when a piece has this emotional intensity and emphasis on personal expression, it can be said to be Romantic, whether or not it achieves this with Classical techniques. On the other hand Classicism is primarily defined by technical matters, particularly the articulation of Sonata form, and so a piece that does this is Classical whether or not it has Romantic expression. To say a piece must be one or the other is, to borrow the phrase, a false dichotomy.



principe said:


> Of course, J.S. Bach is the "starting point" of everything, since almost every composer till now has to study his enormous and most signifcant Opus of all, but his music was pure Baroque, but of the highest order, in terms of the language...


I put JS Bach, not because he's the starting point of everything (a debatable point, but I debated it elsewhere and am willing to concede it here) but because the first true generation of Romantics (Mendelssohn, Schmann and Chopin) took a great deal from Bach - probably more than Beethoven because in many ways Romanticism harks back to the Baroque.



principe said:


> Beethoven, as for his scores, is the epitome and the glorification of Classicism. If we find traces of Romantic elements here and there, based on the "emotional impact" on each one of us, that is a subjective issue that cannot establish but only a "myth" (as Ondine asked).
> 
> Principe


Despite the above, I actually agree with your conclusion, and view Beethoven as a primarily Classical composer. Still, the subjective opinions of many are that Beethoven is the starting point of Romanticism. I disagree. I see Romanticism within the 5th, especially the 6th, and other works. But I see Romanticism also in Mozart's 40th symphony, the G minor quintet and many of the concerti, not least 20. The Chopin generation also takes a great deal from Mozart since his melodic manner seems to have appealed to them. Mozart is a more obvious predecessor to the Romantics, and Beethoven sits in opposition to the trends of his time.


----------



## jani

Start listening from 8:15


----------



## moody

I came across this that seems to sum things up quite well:
"The 'Eroica' is one of the great pivotal works of the repertory.It provides on one hand the final summation of the classical approach to the symphony as developed by Haydn and Mozart, and opens the way to the lyric drama of the romantic symphony as it was to be explored by Beethoven himself and a century of later composers ending with Mahler.
The great conductors of the classical school read the score consistantly as the apotheosis of the 18th century symphonic style. The great romantic conductors carried the work into the future,finding dramatic contrasts and emotional intensity often more appropriate to the close of the 19th century than the beginning".


----------



## principe

I cannot easily agree with your last post, Ramako.
Romanticism, whether some people wish to establish it as "an emotional style", it is, in musical terms, a concrete era of a specific way of writing music. So, whether it produces emotions more often or easily to audiences, it is not that counts. The technical characteristics, the way the actual works were written counts. Expressive melodies, vivid harmony, creative combination of orchestral colours (not necessarily "heavy" orchestration), breaking of harmony (in some cases), chromaticism (sometimes in excess) even breaking tonality (in late romanticism) characterise the era. Whether the works of this period produce more tense emotions, it is a subjective personal issue and not a common feature. Whether the composers wanted to express emotions more than the composers of other eras is also a subjective element and not a musical characteristic of the movement or the era.
"Technicalities" play also a primordial role in Romanticism. Starting from the "Unfinished" by Schubert to the glorious Mendelssohn's 3 & 4 or Schumann's or Brahms' Symphonies, perfection of writing and the exclusive use of Sonata form in the First Movements are omnipresent. Any innovation in orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, use of tonalities, modulations are quite respectful of the past and composers pay great attention to that.
I can understand what you said about the influence of a generation or individual composers got from Bach or Mozart. However, this fact cannot possibly determine that Bach or Mozart were the "dawn of Romanticism". Bach has influenced composers of 20th century too (see Shostakovich). Is he also the predecessor of 20th century music? Stravinsky, Schnittke and some other composers of 20th century wrote specific works based on Baroque. So? Baroque composers herald the music of 20th century?
As for the specific examples by Mozart: Symphony No 40 and the Quintet in g minor, k.516 are some of the best and perfect examples of the most Classical writing. Any emotional impact is a personal issue. The piano concerti too. Particularly, the piano parts constitute the best example of Classical Piano writing. Of course, Mozart in the minor (all of your examples are works in the minor mode) is a very rare thing (he wrote a "handful" of works) and all these few works constitute major musical events in the History of Music (Requiem, Don Giovanni, Piano Quartet in g minor; even his Violin Sonata in e-minor is such a work!).
Of course, as Moody suggests, any composer and any work can be performed in any way. So, there is Mozart, romantically performed, even Bach (particularly in some glossy orchestrations of Stokowski and his likes) and vice versa (listen to some Mendelssohn, Schumann even Brahms or Berlioz with "original instruments", smaller orchestral forces, etc. and, then, you may wonder how Romantic is Schumann's Second, which was inspired by the sheer appreciation of Schumann for Beethoven). Or listen to Andreas Staier performing Schumann on fortepiano; it can be anything but "romantic".

Principe


----------



## Eschbeg

principe said:


> Romanticism, whether some people wish to establish it as "an emotional style", it is, in musical terms, a concrete era of a specific way of writing music. So, whether it produces emotions more often or easily to audiences, it is not that counts. The technical characteristics, the way the actual works were written counts. *Expressive melodies*, vivid harmony, creative combination of orchestral colours (not necessarily "heavy" orchestration), breaking of harmony (in some cases), chromaticism (sometimes in excess) even breaking tonality (in late romanticism) characterise the era.


Expressive of what? Just about any way you answer that question will contradict the basic premise of your post, which seems to be that Romanticism must be defined only according to its technical features.

No one doubts that the expressive content of a piece of music (Romantic or otherwise) is subjective and cannot be concretely defined. But that didn't stop composers (Romantic or otherwise) from trying. We are free to develop a definition of Romanticism that does not take into account subjective emotional content, but if we do so then we are no longer using a definition that the Romantics themselves would have recognized, and one has to wonder how useful such a definition would be.


----------



## principe

The term "expressive melodies" have to do with the use of tonalities and the modulations used in the Romantic era. As in Romanticism, we move to more frequent to almost constant use of minor tonalities as well as remote and unexpectede modulations, even chromaticism, the melodies become more..."expressive" vis a vis the more straightforward and strict on the major tonalities used much more frequently in the Classical period (see Mozart, for instance, or Haydn).
So, the "expressive melodies" does not have to do with specific emotions, but with music that may be more expressive in abstracto.

Principe


----------



## Eschbeg

It's the "in abstracto" part that is the key to Romanticism, I think. All of the technical things you mentioned--tonality, modulation, chromaticism, etc.--were undeniably central to Romanticism, but they were the means, not the ends.


----------



## Ramako

Agreeing to disagree on the emotionalism score for the time being, the first generation of Romantics follow on a line of descendants which has more to do with Hummel and other contemporaries of Beethoven than the man himself. Hummel etc. loosened the clarity of sonata form in favour of a greater emphasis on melody. These composers follow on primarily from Mozart. So actually, me putting Mozart as the dawn of Romanticism is strongly rooted in technicalities, more so indeed than it is in expression.


----------



## Eschbeg

Ramako said:


> So actually, me putting Mozart as the dawn of Romanticism is strongly rooted in technicalities, more so indeed than it is in expression.


On the other hand, E. T. A. Hoffman, who did more than almost anyone else in the early 1800s to define romanticism, famously claimed that Mozart and Haydn were also romantics, and his claim is strongly rooted in expression more than technicalities. So it's not like we have to choose between the two. Moreover, Hoffman made this claim in his famous review of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which corroborates your point that the "dawn" of romanticism is in Mozart and Haydn, and already in full swing by the time Beethoven comes around.


----------



## Eschbeg

Ramako said:


> Hummel etc. loosened the clarity of sonata form


It should also be noted that sonata form was never the strict formula it is sometimes made out to be for the pre-Beethoven generation. There is no shortage of Haydn and Mozart sonatas that appear to "deviate" from the rules (recaps starting in the wrong key, themes coming back in the wrong order); needless to say, these are only "deviations" if one assumes a rather rigid definition of sonata form that Haydn and Mozart didn't have. The basic theory of sonata form we all use now (exposition, development, recap) wasn't formulated until the Romantic period, and they were formulated more with Beethoven in mind than Haydn or Mozart.


----------



## clavichorder

Ramako said:


> Agreeing to disagree on the emotionalism score for the time being, the first generation of Romantics follow on a line of descendants which has more to do with Hummel and other contemporaries of Beethoven than the man himself. Hummel etc. loosened the clarity of sonata form in favour of a greater emphasis on melody. These composers follow on primarily from Mozart. So actually, me putting Mozart as the dawn of Romanticism is strongly rooted in technicalities, more so indeed than it is in expression.


I'd never really thought about it that way, but I can totally see it.


----------



## principe

Eschbeg, by all means, the " technicalities" (actually the way the work is formulated and written) are the "means" not the "ends". However, the "means" characterise whether a work is Classic, Baroque, Romantic, Modern or Contemporary. No the "ends" (whichever each one of us may see from listening to the score and based on the performance in question). The fact that the Sonata form was not codified in the Classical period or the fact that we have some "deviations" from the absolute correctness of the use of the form, it doesnot change the fact that the composers had the knowledge of what they have to follow and what to do. The fact remains that Classicism is characterised by a perfection in form, while Romanticism moves to more loose forms but more innovative concepts of composition and perception ot the total composition (see Schumann's Third, for instance).

I can agree with Ramako that "Hummel and other contemporaries" may have contributed more towards the actual (the technical) way to Romanticism, like Weber, Ries, Czerny, etc. At least Hummel, composed a marvelous large scale Septet (transcribed also in Piano Quintet by himself) in the audacious E flat minor! At the same time, he was a true Classical figure (see his Piano Trios, String Quartets, a lot of his Piano Music). Weber was the most "slippery" case: an hybrid of a Classic - Romantic composer. He was really squeezed between the late and glorious phase of Classical period and the real dawn of Romanticism.

Principe


----------



## Eschbeg

principe said:


> the "means" characterise whether a work is Classic, Baroque, Romantic, Modern or Contemporary. No the "ends" (whichever each one of us may see from listening to the score and based on the performance in question).


Why not? There is simply no good reason to confine the definition of any style to just the means or just the ends. You're building a false dichotomy. You're free to do so, as I mentioned, but then you are no longer using a definition of romanticism that romantics themselves would have recognized, which effectively means you are not describing the romantics.


----------



## Ramako

Eschbeg said:


> On the other hand, E. T. A. Hoffman, who did more than almost anyone else in the early 1800s to define romanticism, famously claimed that Mozart and Haydn were also romantics, and his claim is strongly rooted in expression more than technicalities. So it's not like we have to choose between the two. Moreover, Hoffman made this claim in his famous review of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which corroborates your point that the "dawn" of romanticism is in Mozart and Haydn, and already in full swing by the time Beethoven comes around.


Yes, though I wasn't sure of the details, I was thinking of mentioning it, but it was late and I couldn't be bothered to continue the argument last night and wanted rather to make the other point without argument.



Eschbeg said:


> It should also be noted that sonata form was never the strict formula it is sometimes made out to be for the pre-Beethoven generation.


My statement that Hummel etc. loosened sonata form relies on this - probably they wrote in a form closer to the canonized version than Haydn and Mozart.


----------



## PetrB

None of the above! 

Because it is not Beethoven at all, classicist to his bitter end, but Carl Maria von Weber, by near exact parallel dates a contemporary of Beethoven, who was a romantic by style from the get-go.

That is the overt 'dawn,' the more covert and generally agreed upon? The Romanza middle movement of Mozart Piano Concerto K.466, D minor - hint, it is 'Romanza.'


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> None of the above!


Have to agree with that. Although Beethoven is often considered a "transition figure" between classicism and romanticism, it just ain't so. Beethoven did a few "romantic" things in his early years, then abandoned that. By the time of his death, his music, however respected and even venerated, was hopelessly out of touch with the times. Kind of like Bach, in fact. It was Weber and maybe a few others who led to Berlioz and the disaster that followed... 

BTW, ETA Hoffman's remarks on what he considered "romanticism" in 1810 are well worth reading.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't think "Romanticism" is simply a "style" or "expression of emotion," but also a defined set of musical procedures and attitudes toward the musical materials (all in the service of artistic expression).

If we define some of these musical factors, it helps us detect "Romantic" elements in music, regardless of the composers, the historical time-contexts or individual artistic accomplishments, which may blind us to seeing these elements by "disquaification," so I will approach music on musical terms, not as a historian.

How do you define Romanticism? I define it this way:

• A greater use of minor key areas, which leads to more chromaticism

• More modulation through or into distant key areas (as in the Ninth's transitional passages of root movement by thirds); extended sequences of changing chords

• A "turning inward" into a subjective world, in which the artist's state of being is on display

• More dynamic expression, as if the music were a sentient "voice;" music which seems to be "reacting" and embodying states of mind

Beethoven, although a unique figure beyond mere categorization, embodies all these elements. The earlier Mozart YouTube clip shows us how earlier "Classicists" can also share these elements. (I love that clip!)

I think a key factor (reminded by the Hoffman statement) is opera, and the human voice, which are inherently passionate and "Romantic" in a prototypical way, and that the rising prevalence of non-vocal symphonic and instrumental music began to take on the vocal expressivity and the residual "dramatic gesture" of opera. This is most evident in Schoenberg's Pelleas and Transfigured Night, in which the music is using dramatic gesture in the absence of illustrating any real and present dramatic action or dialogue.


----------



## davinci

I'm no music theorist, but the 6th is firmly a Romantic symphony. "Eroica" has elements of romanticism and gives us a glimpse of the direction Beethoven is heading.
Voted for "Pastoral."


----------



## Novelette

PetrB said:


> None of the above!
> 
> Because it is not Beethoven at all, classicist to his bitter end, but Carl Maria von Weber, by near exact parallel dates a contemporary of Beethoven, who was a romantic by style from the get-go.


Weber comes to my mind, too, when I think of earliest manifestations of Romanticism proper.


----------



## PetrB

Ramako said:


> It's emotional content that makes something Romantic...


You will be more than disappointed to find that is not the underlying criterion for any particular era or style, but that the harmonic procedures, how they are handled, and what is done with form are very much the only criteria which define whether it is classical, romantic, baroque, etc.

Emotional quality, and even more wrongly 'our' emotional response to 'what that particular sound and form' has on us, is entirely off the list of what determines music from a particular era, or style.

It is then, the materials, what is done with them and the architecture, not what either the composer may have been 'feeling,' an emotion intended to be conveyed, or our emotional reaction to the music.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> You will be more than disappointed to find that is not the underlying criterion for any particular era or style, but that the harmonic procedures, how they are handled, and what is done with form are very much the only criteria which define whether it is classical, romantic, baroque, etc.
> 
> Emotional quality, and even more wrongly 'our' emotional response to 'what that particular sound and form' has on us, is entirely off the list.


Very much disagree. How music is heard determines its classification for most people, and I'm willing to go along with that. For many, the Four Seasons may be "romantic," or Pachelbel's Canon (at least in the popular version). Ditto for Mozart, some of which may seem (to most) more romantic than classical.

Learned cognoscenti can make textbook definitions until the cows come home, but they are not very relevant in the real world.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Very much disagree. How music is heard determines its classification for most people, and I'm willing to go along with that. For many, the Four Seasons may be "romantic," or Pachelbel's Canon (at least in the popular version). Ditto for Mozart, some of which may seem (to most) more romantic than classical.
> 
> Learned cognoscenti can make textbook definitions until the cows come home, but they are not very relevant in the real world.


_*ARE YOU ALWAYS THIS MUCH FUN?*_

This forum is for all who are interested in classical music and wish to discuss it. Period.

Hell, If I had known it was an exclusionary night for amateurs only and a parade of empiric opinions therefrom, I would have stayed out of it and left all to their own kind of 'self-important' fun.

Just because a member gives a more clinical definition in a long thread of various opinions does not mean it is a particular and pointed personal affront to any of the other members or participants in that thread, and it requires a monstrously self-centered personality to interpret it as such.

I was neither "EXCLUDING" or "DEMEANING" anyone by stating 'what I know,' while it seems some on this forum feel that is just an alrighty thing to do.


----------



## PetrB

_____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ __________________ _________________ _____________________


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Hell, If I had known it was an exclusionary night for amateurs only and a parade of empiric opinions therefrom, I would have stayed out of it and left all to their own kind of 'self-important' fun.


It's unfortunate that a simple difference of opinion calls for such a discourteous response.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> even more wrongly 'our' emotional response to 'what that particular sound and form' has on us, is entirely off the list of what determines music from a particular era, or style.


'Wrongly'? Well, only if the technical defining of music is important to our enjoyment and understanding. It doesn't matter whether Wagner called himself a 'Romantic' composer, or if anyone else does either: such terminology is a superstructure that has little or nothing to do with the subjective participation in listening and responding and understanding. The superstructure is helpful if one is interested in exploring the history and evolution, but surely cannot be a requirement for an effective response.

Then again, as this thread shows, defining the term, as applied to music, is problematic, and I see posters slipping into a crude shorthand that brings the term more closely to the limp, modern-day non-meaning of 'love'.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> It's unfortunate that a simple difference of opinion calls for such a discourteous response.


Yes, at least upon that we agree. A highly skilled and practiced coy disingenuity cloaking the discourtesy even more detestable, eh?


----------



## Ramako

PetrB said:


> You will be more than disappointed to find that is not the underlying criterion for any particular era or style, but that the harmonic procedures, how they are handled, and what is done with form are very much the only criteria which define whether it is classical, romantic, baroque, etc.


I wrote that some time ago, and I think I will have to recant my previous opinion, which looks bizarre now anyway. The more so because I mixing up definitions of Classical and Romantic, allowing the one to be technical and the other aesthetic. I agree that if we are going to _usefully_ use such classifications (and I think we should) then it's best to use technical criteria, or at the very least consistent ones.


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> I mixing up definitions of Classical and Romantic, allowing the one to be technical and the other aesthetic. I agree that if we are going to _usefully_ use such classifications (and I think we should) then it's best to use technical criteria, or at the very least consistent ones.


That's hardly surprising, so don't knock yourself Ramako. Can anyone put forward a coherent theory that defines and exemplifies 'Romantic music' as experienced by the listener? The fact that a particular technnique, progression or orchestration may be associated with a group of composers sometimes referred to as 'Romantic' cannot reasonably be expected to determine what 'Romantic' music _is, _not least because, unlike literature which can carry explicit intellectual ideas, themes, philosphies, pre-occupations, music can only carry such things by implication, association and declaration.


----------



## PetrB

Ramako said:


> I wrote that some time ago, and I think I will have to recant my previous opinion, which looks bizarre now anyway. The more so because I mixing up definitions of Classical and Romantic, allowing the one to be technical and the other aesthetic. I agree that if we are going to _usefully_ use such classifications (and I think we should) then it's best to use technical criteria, or at the very least consistent ones.


More the trouble with old postings, old threads, and not having the more frequent familiarity over time with any one particular member's posting.

I think there is more than just a little room for discussions on individual 'subjective' takes on how this piece, that era, etc. personally 'resonate' with any one, and the similarities and differences in people's reactions more than interesting. The very nature of subjective reactions can have none of them 'invalid.'

The categorizations, Baroque, Classical, etc. would not only have not been recognized by the composers now sitting in those categories: those composers would not have any references by which to put those genre labels into a context. When living, if they thought about it at all, they were contemporary composers.

But those categories, even if theses genre labels of era and style seem not quite sensible or accurate to us, were coined and established well over a century ago, are in place, and they have become the common terminology allowing communication on music, period, history, to be readily understood.

It seems the two period / genre labels about classical music most readily misinterpreted are each misinterpreted due to the general contemporary usages of each, without even having looked them up in something as 'everyman' as Wikipedia.

Those two are "Romantic," and "Neoclassical." About each, because of the near disparity of contemporary casual usage vs. their 'assigned' attributes related to music, there is often much confusion / misunderstanding.

*"Aesthetics for me is like ornithology must be for the birds" ~ Barnett Newman*
This quote from the American painter is often misstated as, 'Art history for me....' The misquote is much closer to vs. farther from dissimilar: those categories of era, style, meant nothing at all to the composers whose works now sit within those categories.

But... if you are not one of the 'birds' you might want to accept some commonly used and accepted in-circulation terms if you wish to discuss the birds (hey, even some of the birds do so -- at least if you wish to talk about those birds with other bird-lovers.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> The categorizations, Baroque, Classical, etc. would not only have not been recognized by the composers now sitting in those categories: those composers would not have any references by which to put those genre labels into a context. When living, if they thought about it at all, they were contemporary composers.


Well, I wondered the same thing. If Beethoven regarded himself as a 'Romantic' and called himself such, then there is case to be made that composers wrote what they perceived to be 'Romantic' music. According to wiki,



> It is only from the 1820s that Romanticism certainly knew itself by its name


Checking Lockwood on Beethoven, it's not clear whether LvB used the term to refer to himself, or whether he knew others (such as ETA Hoffmann) used the term about him and his music, but it seems likely that he was aware of some collection of values and aesthetics in the arts that was, at the time, labelled 'romantic', and which carried with it some of the connections which we would associate with the more obviously romantic composers of the mid and later 19th C.

So, the 6th might seem to be the most obvious 'dawn' if the predominant meaning of 'Romanticism' is about the Artist embracing Nature and, Being a Troubled Soul, yielding to its balms!; the 3rd if it is about Heroism/Individualism; the 9th if it is about Man and the Great Unknown.

What seems to be missing, at least explicitly, is Fantasy: the limitless power of the subconscious and its potential for connecting us to the Supernatural and, possibly, God. And, returning to the OP, there remains the question of how the features of the music itself represents any of these ideas.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Checking Lockwood on Beethoven, it's not clear whether LvB used the term to refer to himself, or whether he knew others (such as ETA Hoffmann) used the term about him and his music, but it seems likely that he was aware of some collection of values and aesthetics in the arts that was, at the time, labelled 'romantic', and which carried with it some of the connections which we would associate with the more obviously romantic composers of the mid and later 19th C.


An interesting question. Hoffman's comments were written in 1810, but obviously referred to Beethoven's earlier music, back to the Eroica at least. And he included Haydn and Mozart in his definition of "romantic" which, the more I think about it, makes sense.

Again, for most people, classifying some baroque-period music as "romantic" seems perfectly reasonable, to differentiate it from "non-romantic music" of the same time. Again, this makes sense in terms of how people really hear music, as opposed to the academics who may have their own views "by the book," regardless of how long these views have been in place. Apologies in advance if I've (again) offended some of the more sensitive souls around here!

BTW, I know of no mention of this or any related term by Beethoven, who seemed unhung up by terminology.


----------



## Ramako

I think one of the problems is 'Romantic', by its very nature, implies emotionality in the music. 'Classical' implies order and structure.

It therefore follows from this a danger in falling into a double standard, using Romantic for aesthetic and Classical for technical matters. This is what I meant before.

I personally usually hear Beethoven as Beethoven. I remember my old piano teacher, when talking about the genres of music history, saying that it went "... Baroque -> Classical -> Beethoven -> Romantic...". While it was clearly meant in humour, I think it most accurately describes my own subjective response


----------



## Andreas

Apparently Robert Schumann called Beethoven's 4th his most romantic symphony. Not sure if this is any useful indication of what the term romantic meant back in Schumann's time (as opposed to how we understand it today). But it's interesting nonetheless.

In German literature, the romantic period begann in the late 1790s. The classical and the romantic movements were parallel phenomena for the most part. Perhaps this is helpful keep in mind with regard to ETA Hoffmann.


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> I think one of the problems is 'Romantic', by its very nature, implies emotionality in the music. 'Classical' implies order and structure.
> 
> It therefore follows from this a danger in falling into a double standard, using Romantic for aesthetic and Classical for technical matters. This is what I meant before.


I see what you mean. However, I tend to think of Classical (and the Enlightenment) as formal and restrained. It's not that it has nothing to do with the emotional, but the emotions are kept in check by reason. Haydn and Mozart's works clearly contain emotional elements, but they are orderly. Beethoven simply let loose in a more expansive way.


----------



## PetrB

Ramako said:


> I think one of the problems is 'Romantic', by its very nature, implies emotionality in the music. 'Classical' implies order and structure.
> 
> It therefore follows from this a danger in falling into a double standard, using Romantic for aesthetic and Classical for technical matters. This is what I meant before.
> 
> I personally usually hear Beethoven as Beethoven. I remember my old piano teacher, when talking about the genres of music history, saying that it went "... Baroque -> Classical -> Beethoven -> Romantic...". While it was clearly meant in humour, I think it most accurately describes my own subjective response


Your teacher neatly side-stepped a useless and ongoing debate. If they are still alive, please forward my admiration and congratulations to them


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> An interesting question. Hoffman's comments were written in 1810, but obviously referred to Beethoven's earlier music, back to the Eroica at least. And he included Haydn and Mozart in his definition of "romantic" which, the more I think about it, makes sense.
> 
> Again, for most people, classifying some baroque-period music as "romantic" seems perfectly reasonable, to differentiate it from "non-romantic music" of the same time. Again, this makes sense in terms of how people really hear music, as opposed to the academics who may have their own views "by the book," regardless of how long these views have been in place. Apologies in advance if I've (again) offended some of the more sensitive souls around here!
> 
> BTW, I know of no mention of this or any related term by Beethoven, who seemed unhung up by terminology.


First my apology for flying off the handle -- please realize I am not the lone soul to detect a less than subtle consistent knocking down of about any thought or statement put forth by about anyone who shows even the least bit of 'academic' training -- even if it was five piano lessons taken at the age of 11 years -- vs. 'the guy who got it together all on his own.' 
(If you get it, you get it, regardless of how it was gotten 

Add to that a distinct note of pedantry which is most usually attributed to 'academe' but now trumpeted by and from 'those guys who got it together all on their own,' (evidence pedantry is not exclusive to the academic / cognoscenti quarter) and....

Often, the different arts media do not run exactly parallel, like trains all on the same schedule, so in the era of Beethoven you have writers on one focus, composers elsewhere, painters in another, yet all swimming through and taking in some general ethos of their time which is 'in the ether'. The fact that John Turner (1775 - 1851) was painting as he did around the same time Beethoven was composing (vs. Kaspar Friedrich -- usually cited as more in synch with all things 'romantic,') is certainly enough to argue that position.

The literary crowd were more than ready to 'throw upon music' the capacity to illustrate, 'literally,' images, and specifically convey emotional states. Beethoven, in reaction to such comments, went out of his way to state the (his) case in regard to the 6th:

"All painting in instrumental music, if pushed too far, is a failure." "Anyone who has an idea of country life can make out for himself the intentions of the author without many titles." "People will not require titles to recognize the general intention to be _more a matter of feeling than of painting in sounds_." *"Pastoral Symphony: no picture but something in which the emotions are expressed which are aroused in men by the pleasure of the country, in which some feelings of country-life are set forth." *

Those dreaded cognoscenti, at the time and to date, still often cite Mozart, K466 piano concerto in D minor as the first visible audible 'wedge' driven into the classical realm as being 'romantic.' That 'wedge' is the entire work, and especially its middle movement 'Romanza' replete with Sturm und Drang middle section (and there are Sturm and Drang passages in many a Haydn symphony -- what the hey, was Haydn a romantic?)

And -- damn them -- with purely musical harmonic language and procedure as their criteria, those cognoscenti called Beethoven a classical composer, because he is 

The emotive content of a piece of music with a few words slapped on the title is a difficult thing to pin down, and very much on the subjective plane. It is not surprising that those who have not delved more into the more formal state of music history, i.e. precisely that harmonic language, procedure and form are the criteria for calling a piece / composer 'romantic' or not, get their dander up, perhaps feeling their feelings about the music are somehow belittled, discounted or made out as silly or unimportant: they, and their feelings are simply not the issue if dealing with those very standard sets of terms.

It would be pedant, too, to take those terms or the dates marking 'the era' as neatly on the clock, etc. Carl Maria von Weber, peer of Beethoven, J.M. Turner as well as Kaspar Friedrich -- all active in near the same or overlapping each other in the time-line. Those categories do 'include' all sorts, working at things with perhaps similar intents but each in their own way. That inconsistency is usually, if academe is doing its job, made more than plain. Picking that info up on your own from more cursory and less 'careful' sources could have anyone flustered and or bridling at the apparent galling rigidity of such reductive and too simple seeming a set up of 'category.'

I love those counter-statements of Beethoven, which more than imply academic or otherwise, he expected all to think, and think for themselves, and not 'pigeon-hole' anything into a neat little box. Pidgeon-holing something so broad, including the works of so many varied authors, is more than a bit 'lazy,' I think, and of course makes for little or no real understanding.

P.s. A majority of Asian music directly imitates nature, or has a narrative intent... is it perfectly reasonable for us to say those Asian musics are, then, 'Romantic?'


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> those who have not delved more into the more formal state of music history, i.e. precisely that harmonic language, procedure and form are the criteria for calling a piece / composer 'romantic' or not,


And yet no-one has yet attempted to respond to my implied challenge to point to the musical elements that mark out the romantic from the classical. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps it's not that such-and-such element carries an intrinsic 'romanticism', but simply that those elements that mark a departure from what went before are new, radical, associated with the revolutionary?


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> And yet no-one has yet attempted to respond to my implied challenge to point to the musical elements that mark out the romantic from the classical. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps it's not that such-and-such element carries an intrinsic 'romanticism', but simply that those elements that mark a departure from what went before are new, radical, associated with the revolutionary?


I posted my criteria for Romanticism, and I don't think it can be limited to one era, because there are earlier elements of it.

I still think it hinges on instrumental music becoming more "voice-like" and alive.

The "new and radical" in Romanticism was the expanding of harmonic resources and chord function.

Also, a shifting of perspective from objective to poetic subjectivity. This occurred at the same time "fine art" was being invented, and a rising middle-class was playing more piano and going to "concerts" of inst. music rather than opera-houses.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I posted my criteria for Romanticism, and I don't think it can be limited to one era, because there are earlier elements of it.
> 
> I still think it hinges on instrumental music becoming more "voice-like" and alive.
> 
> The "new and radical" in Romanticism was the expanding of harmonic resources and chord function.
> 
> Also, a shifting of perspective from objective to poetic subjectivity. This occurred at the same time "fine art" was being invented, and a rising middle-class was playing more piano and going to "concerts" of inst. music rather than opera-houses.


Sorry million...in trying to catch up, I missed where you posted your criteria...here, presumably?

http://www.talkclassical.com/21288-dawn-symphonic-romanticism-4.html#post443880

Even so, you couldn't resist including one 'non-musical' criteria in your list of 4, and the last ("More dynamic expression, as if the music were a sentient "voice;" music which seems to be "reacting" and embodying states of mind") somewhat open to subjective interpretation.




> Also, a shifting of perspective from objective to poetic subjectivity. This occurred at the same time "fine art" was being invented, and a rising middle-class was playing more piano and going to "concerts" of inst. music rather than opera-houses.




Which concurs with my earlier point that the social and cultural (and economic and political too) context for music is (almost?) as influential as any of the musical elements themselves.


----------



## starry

Berlioz. 

I don't think the symphony was really central to romanticism though, certainly not as much as it was to the classical period.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Sorry million...in trying to catch up, I missed where you posted your criteria...here, presumably?
> Even so, you couldn't resist including one 'non-musical' criteria in your list of 4, and the last ("More dynamic expression, as if the music were a sentient "voice;" music which seems to be "reacting" and embodying states of mind") somewhat open to subjective interpretation.
> 
> Which concurs with my earlier point that the social and cultural (and economic and political too) context for music is (almost?) as influential as any of the musical elements themselves.


I think a key factor we are perceiving is how "detached" the composer is; the more personally invested in the music as an expression of his personal, subjective world and feelings, the more we see it as being "artistic expression" rather than a form serving some other external function. This artistic expression begins to gradually creep into music, occurring sporadically, until we get to the age when the concept of "fine art" is developed. I see this as corresponding to a rising middle class, and a cessation of Church and royalty, which agrees with your earlier point that the social and cultural (and economic and political too) context for music is as influential as any of the musical elements themselves.

Also, concerning Bach and earlier music, Romanticism was preoccupied with the subject of death, and this is also reflected in Bach's intense religious beliefs, which naturally include the question of death and afterlife. The Romantics seem to have separated this obsession with death from religion, and made it a more secular and personal concern, which also reflects the diminishing influence of the Church and the growing emphasis on the individual (democracy).


----------



## starry

Alot of that might be the manifesto for romanticism and what some may have said was around earlier, but did it always match the reality? Composers could be respected earlier and could put personal expression in music. Some romantic period composers wrote pot poilers for virtuosos.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm saying that "Romanticism" is as much a result of a personal artistic approach as it is a "movement fixed in chronological time," so, yes, personal expression was inevitable. Witness the emergence of Peotin and the Notre Dame school, who began to be seen as individuals rather than remaining anonymous. With this "competition," composers began to try new things, and forms deviated from strict texts, prescribed melodies, etc.


----------



## ptr

What I find fascinating is the no one for a second thinks the unthinkable, that Beethoven was not that original? And that the inspiration for his programmatic symphonies came from music he had heard/read? 
Like Justin Heinrich Knecht's Pastoral symphony of 1785, I have been told by a guide at the "Beethovenhaus" in Wien that there is score of Knecht's symphony in Beethoven's library!
Not to diminish Beethoven's contribution to any genre, but I'm sure that there where "other" who wrote proto-romantic music before LvB, the unfortunate thing is that music history and its historians (like in any other scholarly branch) have for most of history been very selective in who and what they pass on to their audience, it is just after WWII it has become more common to have an objective stance in describing history and not without negative comment from certain parts of society! (TC is a prime place for such discussions, You just have to say that Beethoven might not be a God and that the world is greyish, not black and white to make some rustle their big guns...  )

The History of the World is Greyish and not as straight forward as some which it to be! For me, the dawn of the Romanticism in music lies much earlier in the songs and operas of the late Renaissance and early baroque!

/ptr


----------



## KenOC

ptr said:


> For me, the dawn of the Romanticism in music lies much earlier in the songs and operas of the late Renaissance and early baroque!


I think that's very true. Re Beethoven's "originality," the Knecht symphony was advertised (with its program) in the same periodical that advertised Beethoven's early Electoral Sonatas -- on the opposite page. Beethoven could hardly have missed it! And of course there were plenty of "battle symphonies" before Wellington's Victory.

Nonetheless, it's reasonably certain that Beethoven wrote the very first Beethoven symphonies, which is originality enough for anybody!


----------



## starry

ptr said:


> What I find fascinating is the no one for a second thinks the unthinkable, that Beethoven was not that original? And that the inspiration for his programmatic symphonies came from music he had heard/read?
> Like Justin Heinrich Knecht's Pastoral symphony of 1785, I have been told by a guide at the "Beethovenhaus" in Wien that there is score of Knecht's symphony in Beethoven's library!
> Not to diminish Beethoven's contribution to any genre, but I'm sure that there where "other" who wrote proto-romantic music before LvB, the unfortunate thing is that music history and its historians (like in any other scholarly branch) have for most of history been very selective in who and what they pass on to their audience, it is just after WWII it has become more common to have an objective stance in describing history and not without negative comment from certain parts of society! (TC is a prime place for such discussions, You just have to say that Beethoven might not be a God and that the world is greyish, not black and white to make some rustle their big guns...  )
> 
> The History of the World is Greyish and not as straight forward as some which it to be! For me, the dawn of the Romanticism in music lies much earlier in the songs and operas of the late Renaissance and early baroque!
> 
> /ptr


Yeh I've heard of that Knecht symphony, though not actually _heard_ it. Vivaldi's 4 Seasons is actually quite programatic, being based apparently on some poems.


----------



## ptr

I heard a Live broadcast of the Knecht Symphony maybe 20 years ago (Hence I knew about it), and it did not leave any strong yearning for me to get it! Somewhere in the back of my mind I think I have seen a commercial CD of it, some small German label perhaps.. eludes me at the moment..  

Vivaldi is not a bad example! Händel's Water and Fireworks could also be said to have a proto-romantic program to them?!

/ptr


----------



## Bradius

3rd. He steps across the threshold.
5th. He is fully in the Romantic.


----------



## Roi N

Eroica, no doubt. The Romantic period connects emotions to music. That's the difference between the Classical era and the Romantic era. And, sadly, Eroica used emotions.


----------



## Roi N

Bradius said:


> 3rd. He steps across the threshold.
> 5th. He is fully in the Romantic.


The 5th is actually a rather Classical symphony. The _6th _is not.


----------



## PetrB

None of the above, and nothing by Beethoven.

The kernel piece often cited as the dawn of romanticism is Mozart's Piano Concerto, D minor, K.466 -- The entire piece, and pointedly its second movement _*Romanza*_, replete with its Sturm und Drang middle section. (Later Mozart works further "point the way.")

"The Bigger Romantic Orchestral sound _with the characteristic Romantic musical gestures)_" has Beethoven as a general stimulus, not the composer who would realize _Romantic_.

It was left later for Schubert (the early mid-period) and then Schumann to both _musically_ and via use of the orchestra, 'birth' Romanticism.


----------



## KenOC

Romantic schplomantic. Beethoven never wrote any of that drippy stuff.

Well, almost never.

BTW neither "Pastoral" nor "Choral" usually has an "e" at the end. Do you buy stuff at a "shoppe"? You're paying too much!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> BTW neither "Pastoral" nor "Choral" usually has an "e" at the end.


Thankse Kene !


----------



## maestro267

Eroica, definitely. Twice as long as any symphony that came before it. A trend that led us to the epics of Mahler and Bruckner.


----------



## Haydn man

I would agree with the general content of the previous posts, And go with the Eroica


----------



## neoshredder

Pastorale Symphony ftw.


----------

