# Is Romanticism Superficial Grandstanding?



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This is obviously a rival thread to the Baroque and Classical period one by Capt'n. It seems after Beethoven's Ninth, everyone was on board with the enlargement of the form. Sure there was some great and original music like Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, but you got overblown abominations like some of Bruckner and Mahler's music. Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto had some nice tunes, but did anyone really pay attention to 2nd half of the first movement when he put the cadenza in the middle (I guess that should count as a technical innovation) or after Tchaikovsky's opening theme of his Piano Concerto?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

“but you got overblown abominations like some of Bruckner and Mahler's music”

I don’t think so. With all the in-depth discussions of these two great composers on this forum over the months, even the years, that’s what is offered as a description. It looks like trolling. Maybe they had more to say and the freedom to say it during the era in which they lived. I certainly think so. The genuine interest in both composers still runs high and there are numerous threads on this forum as examples.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

There are great composers in every time period, and the Romantic era offers a ton of wonderful compositions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> ...overblown abominations like some of Bruckner and Mahler's music.


Bosun, take that man's name! :lol:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Capt'n does not get baroque and classical, you do not get romantic, and both of you have some urge to rationalize your subjective feelings and give them some objective validity. Both of you are of course wrong. As Bulldog said, there is great and not so great music in every era. I do not know what's shallow about Schumann's or Liszt's piano music or about Brahms, Schubert, Dvořák, Tchaikovski etc. And Bruckner was almost my entrance into classical and I like him a lot. He might have been an abomination, but he composed god inspired music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2018)

Nothing bad about people composing music in any era tbh.

The not-too-great stuff from the 19th century were probably the easy songs and piano pieces composed for women to play at home (bit of a patronising purpose, but hey that was the 19th century for ya).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jacck said:


> Capt'n does not get baroque and classical, you do not get romantic, and both of you have some urge to rationalize your subjective feelings and give them some objective validity. Both of you are of course wrong. As Bulldog said, there is great and not so great music in every era. I do not know what's shallow about Schumann's or Liszt's piano music or about Brahms, Schubert, Dvořák, Tchaikovski etc. And Bruckner was almost my entrance into classical and I like him a lot. He might have been an abomination, but he composed god inspired music.


Music from the Romantic Era used to be my favourite. But later I started questioning that aesthetic, and eventually just flatly abandoned it. I don't think there is any real objective truth to it, but is more of a foil against the Baroque and Classical thread.

My main beef though is with the endless variations of some of the Music, like Schubert's Death and the Maiden. After a while it just gets predictable, and the idiom gets wearisome to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Music from the Romantic Era used to be my favourite. But later I started questioning that aesthetic, and eventually just flatly abandoned it.


I have never listened to an aesthetic, and so have never had to abandon one. Guess I'm just lucky.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I have never listened to an aesthetic, and so have never had to abandon one. Guess I'm just lucky.


Neither have I.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Personally, I will take superficial grandstanding over vapid grandstanding every time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Neither have I.


OK, then, I'll put it his way. "Romanticism" isn't a kind of music, and there is no "Romantic aesthetic." It's just a name we give to music composed between certain dates (and we are likely to disagree about the dates). What aesthetic do Mendelssohn and Puccini, or Bruckner and Bizet, have in common that you could "abandon"? The aesthetic of no longer sounding like Haydn but not yet sounding like Stravinsky?

Now pretend again that you missed my point.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Erm…..Captain who?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is obviously a rival thread to the Baroque and Classical period one by Capt'n. It seems after Beethoven's Ninth, everyone was on board with the enlargement of the form. Sure there was some great and original music like Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, but you got overblown abominations like some of Bruckner and Mahler's music. Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto had some nice tunes, but did anyone really pay attention to 2nd half of the first movement when he put the cadenza in the middle (I guess that should count as a technical innovation) or after Tchaikovsky's opening theme of his Piano Concerto?


The quintessential Romantic forms are piano character pieces and cycles, songs and song cycles, symphonic poems, opera, and chamber music, especially that with strings and piano. Mahler wasn't a Romantic, he was post-Romantic. Late Bruckner could arguably be put in that category as well. Your emphasis on the symphony and concerto instead of any of the central forms makes me wonder if you have more than a superficial acquaintance with music of the Romantic Era.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Only if you do it right.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> My main beef though is with the endless variations of some of the Music, like Schubert's Death and the Maiden. After a while it just gets predictable, and the idiom gets wearisome to me.


I love variations Goldberg and whats that other one? oh I know Diabelli. and whats wrong with predictable it means you actually know the music, its great to be able to anticipate what coming next which to be honest is not always possible for me with some of this modern stuff.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

elgars ghost said:


> Erm…..Captain who?


That would be me!  :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> Capt'n does not get baroque and classical, you do not get romantic, and both of you have some urge to rationalize your subjective feelings and give them some objective validity. Both of you are of course wrong. As Bulldog said, there is great and not so great music in every era. I do not know what's shallow about Schumann's or Liszt's piano music or about Brahms, Schubert, Dvořák, Tchaikovski etc. And Bruckner was almost my entrance into classical and I like him a lot. He might have been an abomination, but he composed god inspired music.


I get Baroque and Classical era, they just aren't my favorite.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> OK, then, I'll put it his way. "Romanticism" isn't a kind of music, and there is no "Romantic aesthetic." It's just a name we give to music composed between certain dates (and we are likely to disagree about the dates). What aesthetic do Mendelssohn and Puccini, or Bruckner and Bizet, have in common that you could "abandon"? The aesthetic of no longer sounding like Haydn but not yet sounding like Stravinsky?
> 
> Now pretend again that you missed my point.


Ok, now I get it. Maybe "idiom" is what I meant more over "aesthetic"



EdwardBast said:


> The quintessential Romantic forms are piano character pieces and cycles, songs and song cycles, symphonic poems, opera, and chamber music, especially that with strings and piano. Mahler wasn't a Romantic, he was post-Romantic. Late Bruckner could arguably be put in that category as well. Your emphasis on the symphony and concerto instead of any of the central forms makes me wonder if you have more than a superficial acquaintance with music of the Romantic Era.


Generally I just don't like a lot of music from Weber to Mahler in general. I think there is some kind of common aesthetic in that Era I don't like. Schumann and Borodin are probably my least favourite composers of that Era. I've listened to a lot, and can recall whole movements from memory, follow the themes, etc. I liked it when I immersed myself in it before, but when I stepped out and listen in from time to time, it just don't move me. I was exaggerating in the thread title, but there is a certain way of looking at it.

Putting it more into words, I find the seriousness and gravity off-putting like Franck's Symphony, Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony (used to be my favourite, now I just hate it), Brahms 1st (except when conducted by Haitink), all of Schumann's and Borodin's symphonies.

I still don't like Chopin so much (even though I play some of it and know the scores well). Don't like the choral Masses, nor the concertos. Dislike Schubert's songs.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> OK, then, I'll put it his way. "Romanticism" isn't a kind of music, and there is no "Romantic aesthetic." It's just a name we give to music composed between certain dates (and we are likely to disagree about the dates). What aesthetic do Mendelssohn and Puccini, or Bruckner and Bizet, have in common that you could "abandon"? The aesthetic of no longer sounding like Haydn but not yet sounding like Stravinsky?
> 
> Now pretend again that you missed my point.


I understand - or maybe I don't? - but don't think I agree that Romanticism in art had no defining feel and that it is just a matter of the dates. Just because the great Romantic composers sound different to each other doesn't mean they are not of the same species. It is like dogs: we all know a dog when we see one even though they come in a variety of sizes and shapes and colours and make a variety of noises. We might find it hard to define a dog from these characteristics and presumably don't use any "definition" to recognise a dog as a dog. As you probably know, critics can list a number of characteristics (including preoccupations etc) of Romantic art - without saying that every piece has to have every characteristic.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

That's not music. And why do they have to play it so loud?

Now get off my lawn.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The absolute beginning and end of the Romantic period is somewhat vague, but it’s not a stretch to say it lasted close to a century (1810-1910?}. It’s not an exaggeration to say that this period constituted the heart of classical music, perhaps even the maturation of the art form. Far from being superficial, a better term would be profound.

The term ‘Romantic’ may be a misnomer considering that much of the music can’t be considered as truly romantic. Perhaps the Melodic Era would be a more appropriate term because one thing these works have in common is the emphasis on the melodic and/or thematic. Parenthetically, if one focuses on melody as characteristic of this period, the end of that era becomes more finite.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> .
> 
> My main beef though is with the endless variations of some of the Music, like Schubert's Death and the Maiden. After a while it just gets predictable, and the idiom gets wearisome to me.


I don't think there's anything wrong with a degree of predictability in a particular style of music. It's usually what attracted you to it in the first place. It becomes wearisome if you weren't all that mad on it initially.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> I understand - or maybe I don't? - but don't think I agree that Romanticism in art had no defining feel and that it is just a matter of the dates. Just because the great Romantic composers sound different to each other doesn't mean they are not of the same species. It is like dogs: we all know a dog when we see one even though they come in a variety of sizes and shapes and colours and make a variety of noises. We might find it hard to define a dog from these characteristics and presumably don't use any "definition" to recognise a dog as a dog. As you probably know, critics can list a number of characteristics (including preoccupations etc) of Romantic art - without saying that every piece has to have every characteristic.


Of course, of course, of course...

Context, context, context. Sometimes big generalizations are helpful, but not here.

"Romantic music" only has a "defining feel" if we choose a specific context of comparison. Is Romanticism superficial grandstanding? Is that part of its "defining feel"? It's a meaningless question, given the extreme diversity of Romantic music. I'm sure I needn't explain this further, need I?


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

> Are the Classical and Baroque Eras Emotionally Shallow?


No



> Is Romanticism Superficial Grandstanding?


No

Keep 'em coming. I'm on a roll.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Is Romanticism Superficial Grandstanding?I'm sorry, I can't answer that question at the moment, because Tchaikovsky has just fainted in my arms, and I'm trying to revive him with smelling salts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Is Romanticism Superficial Grandstanding?I'm sorry, I can't answer that question at the moment, because Tchaikovsky has just fainted in my arms, and I'm trying to revive him with smelling salts.


And just what were you two doing?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Of course there was a lot of superficial grandstanding in the Romantic era: and most music of that ilk has passed into obscurity. The concertos of Paganini, Wieniawski, Rubinstein...and a whole lot more of that flashy, over-the-top style. There were superficial symphonies that pretended to be something they weren't. Draeseke, Lachner, Rubinstein, Raff and others wrote volumes of superficial, pompous works that meant nothing. So...Mahler and Bruckner may seem superficial, but they aren't - not by any means. To some people it may seem that I, I guess, but their works have been performed and recorded too much not to be of some significant value. Maybe even life changing. Watch the dvd of Bernstein doing the Mahler 2nd in Ely Cathedral - what a stunning emotional roller coaster that performance is. Any questions of superficiality go right out the stained glass windows. And the Tchaikovsky first - everyone's favorite war horse to ridicule. It's the product of genius and yet it remains the most popular concerto of all time. No pianist can avoid it. Studying it carefully, you realize that this isn't some empty, superficial score. It's ingeniously put together and that introduction - the famous part - isn't some out of place section that goofs up the structure. Nope, it was carefully calculated to be bookends with the big tune in the finale right before the coda. You want superficial grandstanding - try the concerto of Moszkowski.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, now I get it. Maybe "idiom" is what I meant more over "aesthetic"
> 
> Generally I just don't like a lot of music from Weber to Mahler in general. I think there is some kind of common aesthetic in that Era I don't like. Schumann and Borodin are probably my least favourite composers of that Era. I've listened to a lot, and can recall whole movements from memory, follow the themes, etc. I liked it when I immersed myself in it before, but when I stepped out and listen in from time to time, it just don't move me. I was exaggerating in the thread title, but there is a certain way of looking at it.
> 
> ...


You just confirmed what I wrote. You listen primarily to orchestral music and think you can evaluate Schumann, one of the best piano and song composers of the era, based on his symphonies.

Dislike Schubert's songs? What, all of them? 

Yep, the superficial grandstanding in this thread isn't that of Romantic composers.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Actually, what's _wrong _with the odd bit of superficial grandstanding?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Actually, what's _wrong _with the odd bit of superficial grandstanding?


With all the talk about how post-Classical-era music requires too much thought, you'd think they'd want something superficial.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Of course there was a lot of superficial grandstanding in the Romantic era: and most music of that ilk has passed into obscurity. The concertos of Paganini, Wieniawski, Rubinstein...and a whole lot more of that flashy, over-the-top style. There were superficial symphonies that pretended to be something they weren't. Draeseke, Lachner, Rubinstein, Raff and others wrote volumes of superficial, pompous works that meant nothing. So...Mahler and Bruckner may seem superficial, but they aren't - not by any means. To some people it may seem that I, I guess, but their works have been performed and recorded too much not to be of some significant value. Maybe even life changing. Watch the dvd of Bernstein doing the Mahler 2nd in Ely Cathedral - what a stunning emotional roller coaster that performance is. Any questions of superficiality go right out the stained glass windows. And the Tchaikovsky first - everyone's favorite war horse to ridicule. It's the product of genius and yet it remains the most popular concerto of all time. No pianist can avoid it. Studying it carefully, you realize that this isn't some empty, superficial score. It's ingeniously put together and that introduction - the famous part - isn't some out of place section that goofs up the structure. Nope, it was carefully calculated to be bookends with the big tune in the finale right before the coda. You want superficial grandstanding - try the concerto of Moszkowski.


Bundling theses lesser known composers under the category of 'superficial grandstanding' (seeking applause/attention) is nonsense. If one diminished all the composers who to a greater or lesser extent wrote music for the audience, there would be little left that was considered profound. These composers were hoping to be recognized, just as any other composer was, nothing more, nothing less. If you ignore them because of some alleged superficiality, you are missing out on some wonderful music.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That would be me!  :lol:


Begging your pardon.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Of course they were hoping to be recognized and they thought that they too had a bid for immortality and to their minds they were writing superficial, over the top, grandiose works. But even in their own time there were critics who recognized the mindless virtuosity was a dead end. It was music of its time. I LOVE this type of music and have spent decades getting to know it from recordings, scores, live performances...Raff's music is frequent in this household. The Draeseke 3rd is a favorite - and all those bombastic, superficial piano concertos of the romantic era: love 'em! But I also realize that they're pretty empty and superficial, and no harm in that: they're entertaining and that's enough. Mahler, Bruckner...that's spiritual stuff, profound and deep by comparison.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Actually, what's _wrong _with the odd bit of superficial grandstanding?


Addressing the general question without reference to this thread: Nothing, I suppose, if one is a fan of vapid, vainglorious blather.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Mahler, Bruckner...that's spiritual stuff, profound and deep by comparison.


I am a big fan of Bruckner and to a lesser extent of Mahler too. Why does everybody say that Bruckners music is spiritual? I just enjoy the music, but have a problem seeing God or spirituality or whatever in the music. I can see it in the music if it is accompanied by lyrics, such as in the Bach cantatas or Bruckner masses. But I have a problem seeing it in a purely instrumental music. So what exactly is spiritual in Bruckner symphonies?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

In what way is Romantic music superficial that is not also applicable to Classical and Baroque music?


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I am a big fan of Bruckner and to a lesser extent of Mahler too. Why does everybody say that Bruckners music is spiritual? I just enjoy the music, but have a problem seeing God or spirituality or whatever in the music. I can see it in the music if it is accompanied by lyrics, such as in the Bach cantatas or Bruckner masses. But I have a problem seeing it in a purely instrumental music. So what exactly is spiritual in Bruckner symphonies?


I don't experience Bruckner's symphonies as specifically "spiritual," except to the extent that his extremely extended forms suggest something grandiose.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Of course they were hoping to be recognized and they thought that they too had a bid for immortality and to their minds they were writing superficial, over the top, grandiose works. But even in their own time there were critics who recognized the mindless virtuosity was a dead end. It was music of its time. I LOVE this type of music and have spent decades getting to know it from recordings, scores, live performances...Raff's music is frequent in this household. The Draeseke 3rd is a favorite - and all those bombastic, superficial piano concertos of the romantic era: love 'em! But I also realize that they're pretty empty and superficial, and no harm in that: they're entertaining and that's enough. Mahler, Bruckner...that's spiritual stuff, profound and deep by comparison.


It's hard to take seriously someone saying they've spent decades listening to and loving music that in the same breath is described as mindless virtuosity, empty and superficial and then jumps to Bruckner and Mahler which is described as spiritual and profound. It makes one wonder how music that was disliked would be described.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

DaveM said:


> It's hard to take seriously someone saying they've spent decades listening to and loving music that in the same breath is described as mindless virtuosity, empty and superficial and then jumps to Bruckner and Mahler which is described as spiritual and profound. It makes one wonder how music that was disliked would be described.


I tend to think of Mahler (whose music I enjoy a lot) as a bit of a show-boat.

My experience with the lesser-known composers is that they can produce first rate music, but they sometimes run out of ideas before the piece is over, and are more hit-or-miss from one work to another. I recall listening to a bit of Scharwenka chamber music and thinking one piece was the equal of anything written by Brahms, and another was sort of lacking in inspiration.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I tend to think of Mahler (whose music I enjoy a lot) as a bit of a show-boat.
> 
> My experience with the lesser-known composers is that they can produce first rate music, but they sometimes run out of ideas before the piece is over, and are more hit-or-miss from one work to another. I recall listening to a bit of Scharwenka chamber music and thinking one piece was the equal of anything written by Brahms, and another was sort of lacking in inspiration.


I've experienced that also. They are capable of masterpieces, but not necessarily consistent masterpieces as are the 'tier 1' composers.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I tend to think of Mahler (whose music I enjoy a lot) as a bit of a show-boat.
> 
> My experience with the lesser-known composers is that they can produce first rate music, but they sometimes run out of ideas before the piece is over, and are more hit-or-miss from one work to another. I recall listening to a bit of Scharwenka chamber music and thinking one piece was the equal of anything written by Brahms, and another was sort of lacking in inspiration.


Or they died young and did not get a chance to compose very much.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> . . . overblown abominations like some of Bruckner and Mahler's music.


My problem with Bruckner and Mahler is that they are not blown loud enough. I want full-on facial distortion.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> You just confirmed what I wrote. You listen primarily to orchestral music and think you can evaluate Schumann, one of the best piano and song composers of the era, based on his symphonies.
> 
> Dislike Schubert's songs? What, all of them?
> 
> Yep, the superficial grandstanding in this thread isn't that of Romantic composers.


Ok, yes, I don't like Schumann's nor Schubert's piano music or songs either. It is hard to mention everything I don't like. Also most of Brahms chamber. In fact this video link is one of the prime examples of what I call grandstanding. I believe it is all subjective and just a certain perspective. I'm sure music of any era could be heard superficial. But Romanticism stand out in my view as empty gestures even if I can follow its themes, development, etc. Maybe I just don't find the harmony interesting, no matter what lengths the music goes to transform. Yes, this thread can be seen as superficial grandstanding, I'll give you that, just like any music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2018)

You are falling into the trap of declaring art you are not interested in or which does not resonate with you "empty" and "superficial."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> It is hard to mention everything I don't like.


Oh God! I know what you mean! All those amorphous, meandering masses, all those formulaic, sewing machine fugues, all those mincing, cliche-ridden rondos and minuets, all those droopy nocturnes and precious art songs and melodramatic operas - intolerable! And don't even mention all that morbid, nervous, unmelodic, unharmonic, bitonal, polytonal, atonal, post-tonal, neotonal cacophony...What a waste of human effort!

If only Cage had come along with 4'33' about a millennium earlier and made everyone realize they could have music without actually writing it. I could have devoted my life to disliking something else.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Oh God! I know what you mean! All those amorphous, meandering masses, all those formulaic, sewing machine fugues, all those mincing, cliche-ridden rondos and minuets, all those droopy nocturnes and precious art songs and melodramatic operas - intolerable! And don't even mention all that morbid, nervous, unmelodic, unharmonic, bitonal, polytonal, atonal, post-tonal, neotonal cacophony...What a waste of human effort!
> 
> If only Cage had come along with 4'33' about a millennium earlier and made everyone realize they could have music without actually writing it. I could have devoted my life to disliking something else.


I love Phil, but that was really well written and funny.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love Phil, but that was really well written and funny.


Well, it was written out of love.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Well, it was written out of love.


Ya, thanks! I definitely felt it in your tone!



Woodduck said:


> Oh God! I know what you mean! All those amorphous, meandering masses, all those formulaic, sewing machine fugues, all those mincing, cliche-ridden rondos and minuets, all those droopy nocturnes and precious art songs and melodramatic operas - intolerable! And don't even mention all that morbid, nervous, unmelodic, unharmonic, bitonal, polytonal, atonal, post-tonal, neotonal cacophony...What a waste of human effort!
> 
> If only Cage had come along with 4'33' about a millennium earlier and made everyone realize they could have music without actually writing it. I could have devoted my life to disliking something else.


I can relate more to you with your list in the first part, but not the 2nd.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is obviously a rival thread to the Baroque and Classical period one by Capt'n. It seems after Beethoven's Ninth, everyone was on board with the enlargement of the form. Sure there was some great and original music like Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, but you got overblown abominations like some of Bruckner and Mahler's music. Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto had some nice tunes, but did anyone really pay attention to 2nd half of the first movement when he put the cadenza in the middle (I guess that should count as a technical innovation) or after Tchaikovsky's opening theme of his Piano Concerto?


The Romantic era did put the composer as individual in the limelight, music became an expression of the composer's own emotions rather than the mostly objective emotions expressed in previous eras. As music moved from the churches and courts to the salons and concert halls, there was a corresponding focus away from purely functional music for church and court to music which was written for no purpose other than for listening. Coupled with directions in literature and painting, you did get a movement towards subjectivity across the arts.

As a listener I can feel overwhelmed, even with Beethoven's symphonies let alone more emotional pieces by Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and so on. I tend to listen to less overtly dramatic music by them, such as Berlioz's Harold, Tchaikovsky's Rococo Variations, and Mahler's 4th symphony. Having said that I also like Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto. Its not surprising his favourite composer was Mozart, even though in pieces like the 6th symphony he mined the depths (he wrote that he wanted it to be a profound piece, about fate and God). The view that this was his suicide note is well known, but even apart from that I find it draining.

One of the better threads I created in the dark ages of TC relates to this The swinging pendulum and your musical taste. . . . Its more focused on aesthetics but touching on issues raised in this and Captainnumber36's thread.



Sid James said:


> ...
> 
> One 'swing' is towards _*classicism*_ which is focussed on clarity, restraint, a certain detachment from the composer's 'ego,' rationalism/logic, maybe also a focus on the art of music itself rather than things outside of it, and so on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Sid James said:


> The Romantic era did put the composer as individual in the limelight, music became an expression of the composer's own emotions rather than the mostly objective emotions expressed in previous eras. As music moved from the churches and courts to the salons and concert halls, there was a corresponding focus away from purely functional music for church and court to music which was written for no purpose other than for listening. Coupled with directions in literature and painting, you did get a movement towards subjectivity across the arts.
> 
> As a listener I can feel overwhelmed, even with Beethoven's symphonies let alone more emotional pieces by Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and so on. I tend to listen to less overtly dramatic music by them, such as Berlioz's Harold, Tchaikovsky's Rococo Variations, and Mahler's 4th symphony. Having said that I also like Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto. Its not surprising his favourite composer was Mozart, even though in pieces like the 6th symphony he mined the depths (he wrote that he wanted it to be a profound piece, about fate and God). The view that this was his suicide note is well known, but even apart from that I find it draining.
> 
> One of the better threads I created in the dark ages of TC relates to this The swinging pendulum and your musical taste. . . . Its more focused on aesthetics but touching on issues raised in this and Captainnumber36's thread.


Great post! I agree with your statements.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Sid James said:


> The Romantic era did put the composer as individual in the limelight, music became an expression of the composer's own emotions rather than the mostly objective emotions expressed in previous eras. As music moved from the churches and courts to the salons and concert halls, there was a corresponding focus away from purely functional music for church and court to music which was written for no purpose other than for listening. Coupled with directions in literature and painting, you did get a movement towards subjectivity across the arts.
> 
> As a listener I can feel overwhelmed, even with Beethoven's symphonies let alone more emotional pieces by Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and so on. I tend to listen to less overtly dramatic music by them, such as Berlioz's Harold, Tchaikovsky's Rococo Variations, and Mahler's 4th symphony. Having said that I also like Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto. Its not surprising his favourite composer was Mozart, even though in pieces like the 6th symphony he mined the depths (he wrote that he wanted it to be a profound piece, about fate and God). The view that this was his suicide note is well known, but even apart from that I find it draining.
> 
> One of the better threads I created in the dark ages of TC relates to this The swinging pendulum and your musical taste. . . . Its more focused on aesthetics but touching on issues raised in this and Captainnumber36's thread.


Nice post, and welcome back! :tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

To celebrate this thread, I just bathed in the glory that is Beethoven's 9th, I love every bit of the drama!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Merl said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with a degree of predictability in a particular style of music. It's usually what attracted you to it in the first place. It becomes wearisome if you weren't all that mad on it initially.


This post got me thinking back. I used to think Romanticism was a certain pinnacle in the history of music in my exploration of music. In some ways it was, the creative heights achieved by manipulation of form in its goal of self-expression, it felt music had no bounds. I think what made me lose my admiration for it, and it even becoming negative was post-Romanticism and Modernism. It was great stuff when I bought into it, but I became cynical of it and its "aesthetic". You should be a psychiatrist.:tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> This post got me thinking back. I used to think Romanticism was a certain pinnacle in the history of music in my exploration of music. In some ways it was, the creative heights achieved by manipulation of form in its goal of self-expression, it felt music had no bounds. I think what made me lose my admiration for it, and it even becoming negative was post-Romanticism and Modernism. It was great stuff when I bought into it, but I became cynical of it and its "aesthetic". You should be a psychiatrist.:tiphat:


The way you are wording your opinion makes it sound like you believe the romantic composers pulled one on you, like there is some grand conspiracy.

Really, all there is, is the sounds that were created. Instead of looking into notions of manipulation, even if valid, I would just try to listen and see if you like it or not, and develop the reasons for appreciation or disapproval.

lol, perhaps you need to see a shrink for the conspiracy theories you are developing! .


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Sid James said:


> The Romantic era did put the composer as individual in the limelight, music became an expression of the composer's own emotions rather than the mostly objective emotions expressed in previous eras. As music moved from the churches and courts to the salons and concert halls, there was a corresponding focus away from purely functional music for church and court to music which was written for no purpose other than for listening. Coupled with directions in literature and painting, you did get a movement towards subjectivity across the arts.
> 
> As a listener I can feel overwhelmed, even with Beethoven's symphonies let alone more emotional pieces by Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and so on. I tend to listen to less overtly dramatic music by them, such as Berlioz's Harold, Tchaikovsky's Rococo Variations, and Mahler's 4th symphony. Having said that I also like Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto. Its not surprising his favourite composer was Mozart, even though in pieces like the 6th symphony he mined the depths (he wrote that he wanted it to be a profound piece, about fate and God). The view that this was his suicide note is well known, but even apart from that I find it draining.
> 
> One of the better threads I created in the dark ages of TC relates to this The swinging pendulum and your musical taste. . . . Its more focused on aesthetics but touching on issues raised in this and Captainnumber36's thread.


That was an interesting thread. I would disagree with classifying R. Strauss as a classicist, I think he is one of the most "Romantic" composers (one of the few I love, Alpine Symphony still makes me a believer in Romanticism when I listen to it, even though he is usually categorized post-Romantic), but I guess Der Rosenkavlier, and his Four Last Songs are more classical.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

If music from the romantic era is superficial we have to invent a new word for today's pop music.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> This post got me thinking back. I used to think Romanticism was a certain pinnacle in the history of music in my exploration of music. In some ways it was, the creative heights achieved by manipulation of form in its goal of self-expression, it felt music had no bounds. I think what made me lose my admiration for it, and it even becoming negative was post-Romanticism and Modernism. It was great stuff when I bought into it, but I became cynical of it and its "aesthetic". You should be a psychiatrist.:tiphat:


Do you not think you'll return to it with a different viewpoint in the future? I fall in and out of love with different styles of music constantly. Progressive rock is a case in point. When I first got into rock music I thought that progressive rock was superficial technical self-indulgence, then I loved it some years later. Then I discovered that just certain bands made me feel that way. Now I can listen to it again and appreciate it (although some of it still leaves me cold). Our musical allegiances are constantly changing. We change. Yesterday's superficiality is today's spiritual necessity. Maybe that's just cos I'm getting older. I wonder what my thoughts on this will be in 5 years but who knows if I'll still be alive in 5 years. If I am perhaps the '4:33' thread will still be open.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> That was an interesting thread. I would disagree with classifying R. Strauss as a classicist, I think he is one of the most "Romantic" composers (one of the few I love, Alpine Symphony still makes me a believer in Romanticism when I listen to it, even though he is usually categorized post-Romantic), but I guess Der Rosenkavlier, and his Four Last Songs are more classical.


Capital R Romantic, definitely. Ultimately it is hard to categorise composers like him. Compared to Tchaikovsky and Mahler, Strauss didn't put much of his own emotions into his music. Nevertheless he can plumb the depths, such as in Salome (which a poster pointed out on that old thread) or Metamorphosen. In terms of mastery of counterpoint, the latter reaches far back into music history, but at the same time it can't be separated from the circumstances that brought about its composition. Despite his self-deprecatory comments, such as being second rate and how vulgarity paid off his mansion, he's more complex than he seems to be on the surface.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> overblown abominations like some of Bruckner and Mahler's music.


Careful there... :lol:

(joking)


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

There are different shades of Romanticism. Tchaikovsky and Puccini are the only ones that make me feel like someone's shoving cotton candy down my throat and calling it 'passion'.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Merl said:


> Do you not think you'll return to it with a different viewpoint in the future? I fall in and out of love with different styles of music constantly. Progressive rock is a case in point. When I first got into rock music I thought that progressive rock was superficial technical self-indulgence, then I loved it some years later. Then I discovered that just certain bands made me feel that way. Now I can listen to it again and appreciate it (although some of it still leaves me cold). Our musical allegiances are constantly changing. We change. Yesterday's superficiality is today's spiritual necessity. Maybe that's just cos I'm getting older. I wonder what my thoughts on this will be in 5 years but who knows if I'll still be alive in 5 years. If I am perhaps the '4:33' thread will still be open.


Actually there is still quite a bit of Romantic music Iike. I just feel there are some gross excesses in some of it, like Mahler (whose works until the 6th I would still classify as very Romantic), and that Schuman Fantasie (which some feel is central to that era), even though I can still see merit in those pieces. Same can be said for some of Modern or Postmodern, which I'll maybe save for later. I started this thread partially to infuriorate and exaggerate that claim as a foil to the one on Baroque and Classical.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sid James said:


> Capital R Romantic, definitely. *Ultimately it is hard to categorise composers like him. Compared to Tchaikovsky and Mahler, Strauss didn't put much of his own emotions into his music. Nevertheless he can plumb the depths,* such as in Salome (which a poster pointed out on that old thread) or Metamorphosen. In terms of mastery of counterpoint, the latter reaches far back into music history, but at the same time it can't be separated from the circumstances that brought about its composition. *Despite his self-deprecatory comments, such as being second rate and how vulgarity paid off his mansion, he's more complex than he seems to be on the surface.*


Hi Sid. Good to see you.

I agree that Strauss is hard to categorize. His pulling back from the decadent sensuality of _Salome_ and the expressionistic dissonance of _Elektra_ to utilize a more harmonically conservative and at times vaguely "neoclassical" idiom might warrant some such classification as "post-Romantic mannerism." His conservatism and his Romanticism are both "retro" or "neo"; triadic harmony, while at times verging on the saccharine, is thickly embellished with surprising tonal fluctuations as much decorative as expressive (like the curling tendrils of art nouveau), and his final, perhaps most earnest and personal, statements seem to cast a backward glance at a world gone by.

I would say that central European Romanticism, with its vein of idealism, climaxed in Wagner, and became decadent in Mahler and Strauss. "Decadence" in Mahler's case is characterized by a crisis of belief and an extreme introversion and hypersubjectivity, while in Strauss the techniques of Romantic music as developed by Berlioz and Wagner are carried to extremes of virtuosity but are no longer motivated by the Romantics' quest to express the inexpressible. My feeling about Strauss is that he's just as often _less_ complex than he seems on the surface. Large swathes of his music strike me as much ado about little: technically brilliant and sonorously seductive but essentially shallow. Despite that, he has moments so ravishingly beautiful as to make beauty seem, at least for the moment, the highest goal to which music can aspire. And every so often, as in the last of his Four Last Songs, he cuts through to something that feels like profundity.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> . . . he has moments so ravishingly beautiful as to make beauty seem, at least for the moment, the highest goal to which music can aspire.


I feel the same about posts like this.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I am a fan of Strauss but it did take 4 or 5 years to get there.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Looks like it's been determined that romanticism is not superficial. Next question?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Looks like it's been determined that romanticism is not superficial. Next question?


Ok you asked for it. BTW, I don't think it has been determined Romanticism, or any form of music, is not superficial.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok you asked for it.


Give it to me good and hard.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2018)

All forms of music have one thing in common, the human being. This, in my view, is the great equalizer. Whatever the genre of music, when human beings invest themselves fully in it, they produce a result which is of essentially the same value.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> Hi Sid. Good to see you.
> 
> I agree that Strauss is hard to categorize. His pulling back from the decadent sensuality of _Salome_ and the expressionistic dissonance of _Elektra_ to utilize a more harmonically conservative and at times vaguely "neoclassical" idiom might warrant some such classification as "post-Romantic mannerism." His conservatism and his Romanticism are both "retro" or "neo"; triadic harmony, while at times verging on the saccharine, is thickly embellished with surprising tonal fluctuations as much decorative as expressive (like the curling tendrils of art nouveau), and his final, perhaps most earnest and personal, statements seem to cast a backward glance at a world gone by.
> 
> I would say that central European Romanticism, with its vein of idealism, climaxed in Wagner, and became decadent in Mahler and Strauss. "Decadence" in Mahler's case is characterized by a crisis of belief and an extreme introversion and hypersubjectivity, while in Strauss the techniques of Romantic music as developed by Berlioz and Wagner are carried to extremes of virtuosity but are no longer motivated by the Romantics' quest to express the inexpressible. My feeling about Strauss is that he's just as often _less_ complex than he seems on the surface. Large swathes of his music strike me as much ado about little: technically brilliant and sonorously seductive but essentially shallow. Despite that, he has moments so ravishingly beautiful as to make beauty seem, at least for the moment, the highest goal to which music can aspire. And every so often, as in the last of his Four Last Songs, he cuts through to something that feels like profundity.


Thanks Woodduck, its good to be back. I think you describe Strauss' music well, and mannerism is an apt term, at least for what he composed after the 1910's. I think by nature he wasn't deep, even when considered a radical in his younger years. He can also be strong on a kind of irony or humour, and I like the way he conveys the adventures of rogues in Till and Don Juan, two of his early tone poems. That, like the surface beauty you speak of, does mean that he wears different masks. At the same time, I think there is substance behind that, as in Metamorphosen which is one of the great culminating works of classical music. He clung to the mask till the end, the "In Memoriam" written on the score can simply be for the destroyed Munich opera house, a place which was important to him. I think its about more than that, but that tendency to step back even when expressing any big emotion, is the essence of Strauss.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> All forms of music have one thing in common, the human being. This, in my view, is the great equalizer. Whatever the genre of music, when human beings invest themselves fully in it, they produce a result which is of essentially the same value.


I can accept this. I think this has great logic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I can accept this. I think this has great logic.


But measuring "level of immersion" becomes very difficult and subjective.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> But measuring "level of immersion" becomes very difficult and subjective.


You still think music can be "measured?"


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> You still think music can be "measured?"


You said, "when they fully invest themselves in it" which is measuring.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2018)

It is impossible to avoid the subjective when considering music and other arts. That it doesn't mean you can't formulate some clear criteria by which you judge your subjective impressions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is impossible to avoid the subjective when considering music and other arts. That it doesn't mean you can't formulate some clear criteria by which you judge your subjective impressions.


I agree! Yes. :tiphat:


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is obviously a rival thread to the Baroque and Classical period one by Capt'n. It seems after Beethoven's Ninth, everyone was on board with the enlargement of the form. Sure there was some great and original music like Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, *but you got overblown abominations like some of Bruckner* and Mahler*'s music.* Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto had some nice tunes, but did anyone really pay attention to 2nd half of the first movement when he put the cadenza in the middle (I guess that should count as a technical innovation) or after Tchaikovsky's opening theme of his Piano Concerto?


[video]http://www.killshakespeare.com/behindthecurtain/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Another-convention-another-anthony-stabbing.jpg[/video]


----------

