# Is Vast Majority Of Genres & Form Already Established By Early Romanticism?



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Major genres include,

- the opera
- symphony
- concerto
- string quartet, various combinations of chamber music such as piano trio, trio sonata, quintets, sextets
- sonata
- mass
- requiem
- oratorio

I would expect so as I cannot think of any significant new genres and forms post mid-Romantic period. Certainly less so by the turn of the 20th century.

This is purely for the sake of tracing the development of the major genres and form. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I think that from the mid-romantic period onwards it is more about the deconstruction of the older forms and it would be less relevant to create new ones.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

By the late 18th century, the Classical symphony has taken the center piece of public concerts and the solo instrumental concerto. There lies the great tradition ever since.

Opera, even earlier.

Chamber music must have first developed with the Baroque trio sonata as the seed of all great genres to follow, in particular the Classical string quartet, which must have shared its early days with the early Classical partita (see Haydn's early symphonies and SQ, which all could be played by a standard SQ). The Baroque trio sonatas and solo sonatas must have been the seeds for later chamber music because of the basso continuo (bass line, typically cello and harpsichord).

These innovations that we take *for granted* are the roots of the great classical tradition in general.


----------



## Musicophile (May 29, 2015)

Well, I suppose one of the key development a bit later on (assuming you put your cutoff in the early 19th century) was the entire movement ("Musik der Zukunft") of Liszt et al. to move away from those traditional forms, in the Neudeutsche Schule. Whether this was a successful move or a dead end is a different question.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Liszt was a good innovator as was Chopin who all wrote beautiful piano pieces.

Wagner was the next big step up with opera. He disliked the term "opera" preferring musical drama (or something like that), But opera as a form was by then around for two centuries.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> These innovations that we take *for granted* are the roots of the great classical tradition in general.


Maybe that is because they are pretty arbitrary, just like a sonnet is with poetry. Those forms do not make the music great but they force an artist to put restraints on his creativity and that can often be very helpful for that artist. Absolute freedom when it comes to art is terrifying


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Major genres include,
> 
> - the opera
> - symphony
> ...


Two slightly different questions here. Which are the 'major/significant genres/forms'?

Your list omits all the short dance forms that composers of all eras used. The revisiting of these forms were significant for the later romantic and early modern periods.

Were they 'established' by the early romantic period? This assumes stasis or fixed definition. The symphony alone has never been a fixed form, although it went through periods where there were set (and fulfilled) expectations - though even H, M and B composed 3 and 4 movement symphonies.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> I think that from the mid-romantic period onwards it is more about the deconstruction of the older forms and it would be less relevant to create new ones.


Deconstruction and re-evaluation perhaps.

I think it is only fair to say that Uncle Joe Haydn laid the ground rules for the mentioned genres. I accept that he is outside the time frame of the discussion but IMO he paved the way for all that followed.

Sorry if this appears to be off topic.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Polyphemus said:


> Deconstruction and re-evaluation perhaps.
> 
> I think it is only fair to say that Uncle Joe Haydn laid the ground rules for the mentioned genres. I accept that he is outside the time frame of the discussion but IMO he paved the way for all that followed.
> 
> Sorry if this appears to be off topic.


I thought it was CPE Bach and Salieri but I could be completely wrong since my knowledge of Haydn is extremely limited.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I would expect so as I cannot think of any significant new genres and forms post mid-Romantic period. Certainly less so by the turn of the 20th century.


No, Think of pieces like Polytopes de Cluny, Presque Rien, Prometéo, Lonely Child (Vivier), 4'33" (and a lot of other things by Cage), The Great Learning, the Well Tuned Piano, le Noir de l'étoile, vexations, pendulum music (Reich)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Maybe that is because they are pretty arbitrary, just like a sonnet is with poetry. Those forms do not make the music great but they force an artist to put restraints on his creativity and that can often be very helpful for that artist. Absolute freedom when it comes to art is terrifying


The artist is free to exercise absolute freedom if she wishes, more commonly so with the avant-garde. There is no restraint.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> I thought it was CPE Bach and Salieri but I could be completely wrong since my knowledge of Haydn is extremely limited.


I think we can agree to disagree On C P E Bach and Haydn but I would not include Salieri in such august company. But that is of course the option we have of free choice. For me Haydn's position is unassailable and he had a wider range than Bach not to mention the quality of his output.

However I respect your opinion.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Two slightly different questions here. Which are the 'major/significant genres/forms'?
> 
> Your list omits all the short dance forms that composers of all eras used. The revisiting of these forms were significant for the later romantic and early modern periods.
> 
> Were they 'established' by the early romantic period? This assumes stasis or fixed definition. The symphony alone has never been a fixed form, although it went through periods where there were set (and fulfilled) expectations - though even H, M and B composed 3 and 4 movement symphonies.


Symphony as you know it. Three or four movements or the overture multi-movement from the great Baroque.

You can easily find three or four movement symphonies *still*, that were composed today as contemporary new works and multi-movement symphonies almost like a suite with interconnected parts like a Beethoven Pastoral.

Anything else missing from my list of examples, feel free to add. Pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Symphony as you know it. Three or four movements or the overture multi-movement from the great Baroque.
> 
> You can easily find three or four movement symphonies *still*, that were composed today as contemporary new works and multi-movement symphonies almost like a suite with interconnected parts like a Beethoven Pastoral.
> 
> Anything else missing from my list of examples, feel free to add. Pure and simple.


Symphony as _I _know it? It can have - if the composer calls it so - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (any advance on 5?) movements, so, no, it wasn't 'established' at any point in time. It certainly became a significant form, but has evolved, and continues to evolve.

As for adding - I just did, didn't I? Or is there an official 'add' place where you can say something pure and simple like, "Oh yes, you're right, I did miss that out."


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> The artist is free to exercise absolute freedom if she wishes, more commonly so with the avant-garde. There is no restraint.


The artist will nearly always start with an idea and will impose his/her own restraints.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

ArtMusic said:


> Major genres include,
> 
> - the opera
> - symphony
> ...


Words, words, words. Not the forms, not the genres - words such as "sonata", "oratorio", "opera" have been estabilished and put in circulation until XIXth century, yes.

Now, if you realise that apart from the word, there is content to what we call with all these names, you will see that none of these has been estabilished not only by the romantic period, but ever.

At some point, the musical world had enough words to categorize various types of works regarding some principal characteristics, so there was no need for more of them. But the actual forms and genres kept and keep appearing, under the old names.

So, basically, your question can be compared to: "were all the people already alive by the middle ages? Because vast majority of popular given names dates from before."


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2015)

Aramis said:


> Words, words, words. Not the forms, not the genres - words such as "sonata", "oratorio", "opera" have been estabilished and put in circulation until XIXth century, yes.
> 
> Now, if you realise that apart from the word, there is content to what we call with all these names, you will see that none of these has been estabilished not only by the romantic period, but ever.
> 
> ...


If this Babbage Mk2 would allow me to Like your post, I would. But it won't. 
So: A Fine and Astute Point.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Symphony as _I _know it? It can have - if the composer calls it so - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (any advance on 5?) movements, so, no, it wasn't 'established' at any point in time. It certainly became a significant form, but has evolved, and continues to evolve.
> 
> As for adding - I just did, didn't I? Or is there an official 'add' place where you can say something pure and simple like, "Oh yes, you're right, I did miss that out."


Well, you agreed and thank you, which was what I was discussing. It is indeed a significant genre and obviously it is still evolving (read carefully my opera example with Wagner). Yes, there are ten-plus movement symphonies. But still a symphony. Pure and simple, indeed.

I shall leave you with the pleasure of self-researching the ten-plus movement symphony, as I have done to reach my self-informed position.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Words, words, words. Not the forms, not the genres - words such as "sonata", "oratorio", "opera" have been estabilished and put in circulation until XIXth century, yes.
> 
> Now, if you realise that apart from the word, there is content to what we call with all these names, you will see that none of these has been estabilished not only by the romantic period, but ever.
> 
> ...


Nice post, thank you.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Well, you agreed and thank you, which was what I was discussing.


I did? With what?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

> Was Vast Majority Of Genres & Form Already Established By Early Romanticism?


Even if your push-poll were to come back with a landslide vote of Yes what will this prove to you? Where are you going with this? What do you believe this will say or prove about the era you're infatuated with?

Thing is...the works in new forms now don't come with new "form" names any more. They're just called "Persepolis" or "Metastasies" or "Stimmung" and if you want to say that somehow fits into one of the existing categories then its you that needs to make the case for it.

And Turangalilla, which I assume is the ten movement work you refer to...I suspect that if Messiaen hadn't put that word in the title you'd be here telling us it had no connection to the symphony as you understand it.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

The answer is obviously no because electronic music wasn't invented in the romantic era. There are also diverse arrangements of instruments in 20th and 21st century music that don't appear previously.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2015)

Clearly, since the majority of significant genres were established by the early romantic period, _anyone _who came after was either fiddling with what had already been established, or dabbling in insignificant forms.

Thank god! We can all stop wasting our time listening to anything composed after 1830!


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Clearly, since the majority of significant genres were established by the early romantic period, _anyone _who came after was either fiddling with what had already been established, or dabbling in insignificant forms.
> 
> Thank god! We can all stop wasting our time listening to anything composed after 1830!


Well done, you've got the message!

We can all go home now.


----------



## padraic (Feb 26, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Thank god! We can all stop wasting our time listening to anything composed after 1830!


You'll have to pry Mahler and Bruckner from my cold, dead hands


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Aramis said:


> Words, words, words. Not the forms, not the genres - words such as "sonata", "oratorio", "opera" have been estabilished and put in circulation until XIXth century, yes.


This is the crux of it.

If you're actually interested in "tracing the development of the major genres and form," you'll have to look at the music itself, not the labels attached to it.

It is kind of interesting that some composers continued using those labels well into the 20th century; maybe this reflects a new deference to the past, or consciousness of being part of something called The Classical Tradition, that earlier composers didn't have. The pieces that they called "symphony," "concerto" etc, however, did not actually use 18th or 19th century forms.

I also think you're mistaken in saying that these "innovations...are the roots of the great classical tradition in general." The important innovations are in counterpoint, harmony and tonal structure. The superficial conventions that distinguish the various forms you list are not particularly interesting or even innovative.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aramis nailed it, Isorhythm buried it, and I have come to dishonor its grave:

Suggesting that Haydn 7, Sibelius 7, Schnittke 7 and Penderecki 7 are examples of the same form is like not being able to distinguish a chicken from a Tyrannosaurus Rex. What do the first movement of CPE Bach's 3rd Prussian Sonata and Shostakovich's Symphony no. 10 have in common, given that they are both examples of sonata form? About as much as a clump of plankton and a platypus. Terms have ponderous inertia, musical practice is capricious.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> By the late 18th century, the Classical symphony has taken the center piece of public concerts and the solo instrumental concerto. There lies the great tradition ever since.
> 
> Opera, even earlier.
> 
> ...


There you go again, using a poll to bolster the validity of your particular musical preferences.

I voted NO.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I voted no. Pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Dustin said:


> I voted no. Pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.


I like clear, succinct answers.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Major genres include,
> 
> - the opera
> - symphony
> ...


I think they is.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

One can argue that the symphonic poem was one significant genre formed around the mid-Romantic period (thanks to Liszt, and carried on by Anton Rubinstein, Tchaikovsky, and the rest of the Russians, and also the French). Operetta also, thanks to Louis Auguste Florimond Ronger (Hervé), then Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, Strauss, then Lehar.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think they is.


 Forgive my typographical it'z not easy on mobile devices.


----------



## Jorge Hereth (Aug 16, 2015)

What does it matter? Just for an example, take Sorozábal conducting Albéniz' opera _Pepita Jimenez_, and you will not recognize the opera, for Sorozábal would harfly ever be able to conduct anything without transforming it into a zarzuela first...

And how many French, Austrian and Italian works are around there we can't decide if it should be called an opera buffa, an opéra comique or an operetta...

And for Chiquinha Gonzaga (1847-1935), that woman knew to make it hard about genres. She's one of Brazil's most renowned operetta composers ever, but her compositions ended up categorized by researchers into everything between opera and revue theatre, and as a matter of a fact, she composed for everything between, and she didn't care. To her, "as long as people leave a theatre whistling and singing my melodies, at least I know they got something of it" she commented once. What made her so successful despite having separated from her marriage (Brazil had no divorce before 1974 and in penal law would not tolerate any kind of female disobedience or disrespect toward a related male until 2005), and despite being a liberal woman, a death-penalty and slavery opposer, a liberated woman and a republican while Brazil was a monarchy (until November 15, 1889), she had understood the human mind a way she could not be ignored, and the most theatre directors tried so, too many men who were consecrated theatre authors and novelists had submitted libretti to her.

If Chiquinha Gonzaga gave a minor f... to genres, guess we should follow her on that one...


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

Movie soundtracks didn't exist in 1830.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Operetta etc. are *sub-genres* of the genre opera, which has been around since Monteverdi. So yes, the great genre opera was well and truly established by early Romanticism. It obviously evolved enormously from Monteverdi's monotone recitative driven style songs to fully staged and complex harmonic arias by the end of the 17th century, with the crowning pieces of Handel as the world's first great opera composer, followed by Mozart on chronological order.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Autocrat said:


> Movie soundtracks didn't exist in 1830.


But there were incidental music to plays.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I like clear, succinct answers.


Not always. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question to you in post #20.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sloe said:


> But there were incidental music to plays.


For that matter, Berlioz wrote movie music as early as 1830. He lacked only the movies.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Words, words, words. Not the forms, not the genres - words such as "sonata", "oratorio", "opera" have been estabilished and put in circulation until XIXth century, yes.
> 
> Now, if you realise that apart from the word, there is content to what we call with all these names, you will see that none of these has been estabilished not only by the romantic period, but ever.
> 
> ...





ArtMusic said:


> Nice post, thank you.


I'm actually wondering if you read and digested the above post, and what your response might be to the points made in it.

At some point I'd also like you to reply to this query of mine:



SimonNZ said:


> Even if your push-poll were to come back with a landslide vote of Yes what will this prove to you? Where are you going with this? What do you believe this will say or prove about the era you're infatuated with?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I did? With what?


Symphony as a genre evolves.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> I'm actually wondering if you read and digested the above post, and what your response might be to the points made in it.
> 
> At some point I'd also like you to reply to this query of mine:


Aramis is also basically saying that forms and genres *evolve* despite the lack of terms that I used in the opening thread or terms that never existed, during say the Baroque.

Indeed the preferred Baroque term for opera is "_dramma per musica_".


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

Art, you said,



> Well, you agreed and thank you, which was what I was discussing.


So, puzzled, I asked,



> I did? With what?


To which you replied,



ArtMusic said:


> Symphony as a genre evolves.


As you have been seeking to establish that the 'major genres' were established by early romanticism, what you were discussing is the complete opposite of evolution.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> As you have been seeking to establish that the 'major genres' were established by early romanticism, what you were discussing is the complete opposite of evolution.


Ah well, so be it then if that's what my posts appear to you. That's not the intention though. And I would much rather talk about the topic rather than going around in circles about the topic's apparent intention.

Have you discovered a ten movement symphony? There is a "new" one (which was my point, just to spell out my posts clearly for you). An evolutionary example of this new ten movement symphony but still a symphony nonetheless as unambiguously declared by its composer. So, a good old symphony since Haydn wrote his first and those before him. Clearly an epic genre that has established itself by early Romanticism. Clearly.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

"Clearly"? Is this term even more persuasive than "plain and simple"?

(just a bit of fun)


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Ah well, so be it then if that's what my posts appear to you. That's not the intention though. And I would much rather talk about the topic rather than going around in circles about the topic's apparent intention.
> 
> Have you discovered a ten movement symphony? There is a "new" one (which was my point, just to spell out my posts clearly for you). An evolutionary example of this new ten movement symphony but still a symphony nonetheless as unambiguously declared by its composer. So, a good old symphony since Haydn wrote his first and those before him. Clearly an epic genre that has established itself by early Romanticism. Clearly.


It's not going round in circles - checking what you take my posts to mean is as important to me as it is important to you to establish the intention of your OP. You might like to check your intention against what you actually write...

*Is Vast Majority Of Genres & Form Already Established By Early Romanticism?*

Seems clear to me that if you're interested in the evolution of forms, you might have asked, 
*
(How) Do Vast Majority Of Genres & Forms Evolve Over Time (Or Are They Established By Early Romanticism?)
*
And if I had "discovered" a 10 movement symphony? What then? It confirms that 'the symphony' was not 'established' at all, but was subject to ongoing change.

If all that matters is that the composer declares unambiguously that s/he has written a symphony, regardless of the content, then how does that fit with the idea that the genre was established?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Ah well, so be it then if that's what my posts appear to you. That's not the intention though. And I would much rather talk about the topic rather than going around in circles about the topic's apparent intention.
> 
> *Have you discovered a ten movement symphony?* There is a "new" one (which was my point, just to spell out my posts clearly for you). An evolutionary example of this new ten movement symphony but still a symphony nonetheless as unambiguously declared by its composer. So, a good old symphony since Haydn wrote his first and those before him. Clearly an epic genre that has established itself by early Romanticism. Clearly.


It really would help if you would actually read the replies in your own threads.

I said I recognized the ten-movement work was Turangalilla, which wasn't a great mystery - unless you're thinking of a different one. I also indicated that I felt that proves nothing at all about your thesis, such as it is.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Gentlemen, our discussion is heading for the three hundred and sixty degrees perspective about semantics to the detriment of classical music discussion - genuine classical music discussion.

The symphony as a genre has always existed for the last few centuries, a pure and simple fact.

The symphony became a concert center piece by mid-Beethoven's life time if not earlier, a pure and simple fact.

The symphony is one of the oldest classical instrumental genre around, a pure and simple fact. Even dear Wolfgang never really liked it as much as the newer piano concerto, another pure and simple fact.

The symphony, like may other genres, continue to evolve, a pure and simple fact.

Therefore, the symphony is a genre *of western classical music heritage*. A most pure and most simple fact. An established genre that is at the very heart of western classical music heritage. New symphonies are being composed and new developments within it up to contemporary times, for example writing ten movements. But it is still a symphony.

One of TalkClassical's favorite contemporary composer, Krzysztof Penderecki, his 8th symphony (_Songs of Transience_) is a ten movement symphony. A pure and simple fact.

As the mathematicians state after a proof, "Q.E.D."


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Just went and checked my copy of Penderecki's 8th. It has twelve movements.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> Just went and checked my copy of Penderecki's 8th. It has twelve movements.


Correct, twelve movements. *I meant to say ten-plus movements. Please kindly see my post #18 from yesterday, which was what I wrote "ten-plus movements".* I was trying not to give too much hints.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Riiiiiight.

If Penderecki hadn't labeled the eighth a symphony would you think of it as such? Aren't you much more likely if left to your own devices to place it in a choral or vocal genre?

Have you even heard the work?


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

Art,
Yet more discussions on "semantics" arise because of yet another poorly thought out OP. Endlessly repeating simplistic mantras is no substitute for a cogent argument.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> Riiiiiight.
> 
> If Penderecki hadn't labeled the eighth a symphony would you think of it as such? Aren't you much more likely if left to your own devices to place it in a choral or vocal genre?
> 
> Have you even heard the work?


Likewise with Beethoven's famous and great final movement of his final symphony. But since the composer considers it a symphony then so be it, and that was why I chose it as a good example to show the evolution of genres based on established traditions. The point of this thread. Beethoven evolved the symphony throughout his career. He certainly considered the symphony as an inherited tradition well and truly established before him.

I have listened to it once before, three years ago I think. I thought it was symphonic but choral at the same time.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Art, I'm not sure you understand what "semantics" means.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Gentlemen, our discussion is heading for the three hundred and sixty degrees perspective about semantics to the detriment of classical music discussion - genuine classical music discussion.
> 
> The symphony as a genre has always existed for the last few centuries, a pure and simple fact.
> 
> ...


That's a lot of facts. If we forgive the odd typo, I think they can all be accepted as such (though I don't know about Mozart's opinion on the symphony) with the exception of whether some of the evolutions of the symphony can still be accepted as symphonies.

In other words, little of this was in dispute. So, where is "the three hundred and sixty degrees perspective about semantics"?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As a generalist, I do affirm that Romanticism is responsible for the ultimate fruition of the experience of music as we now know it: as a medium for dramatic gesture, expression, and as a metaphor for thought processes. This was when music reached that evolutionary level, not so much that Romanticism "created" it.

In this sense, the names of the forms are not essential, except as conveniences, and should not obstruct our perception of what it is that is being done with these forms.



KenOC said:


> For that matter, Berlioz wrote movie music as early as 1830. He lacked only the movies.


That's a good point that KenOC makes; by the time of Berlioz, music was already expressing, in its language of dramatic gesture, "narrative" forms that are very similar to music which accompanies dramatic action, like a movie.



padraic said:


> You'll have to pry Mahler and Bruckner from my cold, dead hands


"Mahler and Bruckner don't kill people; long symphonic forms kill people!"



MacLeod said:


> In other words, little of this was in dispute. So, where is "the three hundred and sixty degrees perspective about semantics"?


I don't know, but I'm sure if there is one, you will find it, MacLeod. ~
:lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> It's not going round in circles - checking what you take my posts to mean is as important to me as it is important to you to establish the intention of your OP. You might like to check your intention against what you actually write...
> 
> *Is Vast Majority Of Genres & Form Already Established By Early Romanticism?*
> 
> ...


Seems clear to me you prefer to have a different question posed for this thread, in which case I encourage you to start your own thread to discuss about evolution and so forth, and I approve it is a good topic.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The opera is also an excellent example of an established genre. By the time Handel wrote his first opera at a young age of nineteen/twenty, the genre was already a center piece of entertainment. It had a strict form to follow that was generally the case (overture, recitative, aria etc.) and all the political intrigues of mounting an opera, continue to this very day. And as always subject to the laws of economics whether an opera was successful during its premiere. 

Today it is clearly an established genre, evolving as a natural part of history but will and truly established by the Baroque masters.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Seems clear to me you prefer to have a different question posed for this thread,


Which is... ?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I don't think it's a matter of semantics at all. There's no family resemblance (à la Wittgenstein) between Presque Rien and anything which was done in the 19th century is there? Same for ASLAP, surely? To say it's a matter of word meanings is to give the conservative thesis of the OP more credit than is due.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Which is... ?


You wrote something above about evolution and so forth.

In any case, have you discovered any further examples of ten-plus movement symphonies?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The concerto is yet another example. One of the very oldest of genres. The interesting point about the instrumental concerto is it has pretty much always taken center piece as a concert. By the time Beethoven finished his five great piano concertos, it was well and truly established as an important genre for composer and virtuoso soloist to impress.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> You wrote something above about evolution and so forth.


That was you...

http://www.talkclassical.com/39527-vast-majority-genres-form-post928127.html#post928127


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> That was you...
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/39527-vast-majority-genres-form-post928127.html#post928127


What about me? I invite you to start your own thread if you persist with a different topic to mine. Pure and simple.

Incidentally, the String Quartet is also another genre that has established itself even more miraculously within one single generation of a period, that of the great Classical period thanks to the striking originality of Franz Joseph Haydn. Obviosuly each period's composers have written using the forms of their period (e.g. atonal with Schoenberg's SQ) but it has ever since been established as a central chamber genre by the time Haydn finished his last great SQs.

We can therefore conclusively that the symphony, the concerto, the opera and the SQ were all established by early the Romantic period. I shall report with more examples later.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

One thIng that's in the title which has been bugging me is the distinction between genre and form. Pli selon pli may be an example of a pre-existing genre, song setting or something. But formally? Boulez commented that he was was trying to write something that was fresh, that had no form in fact, was constantly creating itself. Like Jeux and some Gamelin music he and Stockhausen had heard in Paris which had impressed both of them. 

According to Boulez Jeux was precisely an example of a totally new idea about form, but clearly its genre, Ballet, is not new. I would say exactly the same about Kraanerg. 

I think there have been both new forms and new genres. Polytope of Cluny is an example of both. 

Simple.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> What about me? I invite you to start your own thread if you persist with a different topic to mine.


I'm not 'persisting with a different topic'. I'm participating in yours.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

dogen said:


> "Clearly"? Is this term even more persuasive than "plain and simple"?
> 
> (just a bit of fun)


That would be a 'no'.

:lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not 'persisting with a different topic'. I'm participating in yours.


You are more than welcome to do so.

Incidentally, my latest reading also draws similar conclusion with regard to the ever important concert mass. The concept of the concert mass first drew epic scale with Bach's grand _Mass in B minor_ composed over a decade of the great composer's mature years. He had zero purpose in performance other than in parts but not as a whole. It was more of a summary of his art in writing choral music dedicated to the church. Classical models developed it further and it was certainly established as a concert piece by the time Haydn write his great masses (_Lord Nelson Mass_ for example; you are encouraged to listen to this if you are not familiar with it). Then it all became a matter of established tradition, one master after after, Beethoven's _Missa_, Brahms, Verdi, etc. etc. all grand concert masses.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Thread was temporarily closed for repairs ...

Postings that were irrelevant to the OT have been either edited or deleted. 

This thread is again open for discussion.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Thank you Mr Krummhorn.

The symphonic poem is a great example that showed the symphony led to the development of a new genre, a very Romantic genre with works by Liszt, Berlioz for example. Arguably I think Sibelius was the last composer who wrote symphonic poems. It did not reach much further beyond Sibelius and to our contemporary times. So one could say that the symphonic poem, while a Romantic genre, had roots from a much older genre, the Classical symphony.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Thank you Mr Krummhorn.
> 
> The symphonic poem is a great example that showed the symphony led to the development of a new genre, a very Romantic genre with works by Liszt, Berlioz for example. Arguably I think Sibelius was the last composer who wrote symphonic poems. It did not reach much further beyond Sibelius and to our contemporary times. So one could say that the symphonic poem, while a Romantic genre, had roots from a much older genre, the Classical symphony.


And look how the song form, or lied, affected the piano concerto as a form, like Shumann's and Grieg's in A minor. These forms were always evolving. I think it is illuminating to look at how these forms evolved, and even cross-bred, as in the case of the lied and the piano concerto.

What are your reasons for tracing the 'roots' of these forms, rather than looking at how they diversified or evolved? Are you in search of a form of "classical purity?" Is there a tendency for too many people to ignore these roots?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Major genres include,
> 
> - the opera
> - symphony
> ...


Electronic music is a new form, I think. Both by itself and in conjunction with other traditional forms (String Quartet No. 2 for string quartet and tape).

Live electronics is also a new form, with Boulez doing live manipulations of real instruments in real time, using computer interfaces.

But yeah, it's all pretty much been done, hasn't it?

The standard instrumentation has been established; no new "Wagner horns" or saxophones being invented. The human voice remains the same. Perhaps it is because the technological stage has changed from music-making in the acoustic way, to mediums which now record and process sound.

I think recording technology itself is the biggest change to ever happen to music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> And look how the song form, or lied, affected the piano concerto as a form, like Shumann's and Grieg's in A minor. These forms were always evolving. I think it is illuminating to look at how these forms evolved, and even cross-bred, as in the case of the lied and the piano concerto.
> 
> What are your reasons for tracing the 'roots' of these forms, rather than looking at how they diversified or evolved? Are you in search of a form of "classical purity?" Is there a tendency for too many people to ignore these roots?


Yes, evolution is important. My interest for this thread is primarily on *the origin*. It may be better to have a separate thread on evolution although the two are both important. It makes better sense to discuss evolution once we have understood the origin. So here, the "origin" (loosely speaking) for most important genres and forms were established by early Romanticism.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, evolution is important. My interest for this thread is primarily on *the origin*. It may be better to have a separate thread on evolution although the two are both important. It makes better sense to discuss evolution once we have understood the origin. So here, the "origin" (loosely speaking) for most important genres and forms were established by early Romanticism.


If the focus is the origin, then what is the reason for including the Romantic era at all? What important genres/forms originated in the Romantic era? Certainly none of the ones you mentioned in your original post.

For example Beethoven's great symphonies represent an evolution of the form - something you don't want to discuss in this thread - but they came years after the many masterworks that are still in the standard repertoire by Haydn, Mozart, and others.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I would love to discuss Beethoven. His symphonies 1 & 2 were of the Classical models, very Haydn like. And of course the next seven were evolutionary examples. So when Beethoven started writing symphonies it was already a well and truly established genre.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ArtMusic: I am just curious about what you think this thread is accomplishing. Yes, works under the general genre headings sonata, symphony, concerto, string quartet, etc. were all composed before the Romantic era. Everyone knows this. It doesn't need to be established. 

Your secondary point (about form) is entirely based on misunderstanding about the nature and historical development of musical form. To say that sonata form, for example, was established by the Romantic era is meaningless. The form had many different formats within the Classical and Pre-Classical Eras. Its various romantic, post-romantic, and 20thc variants were not established until their own respective eras. This is true of any other form you can name. 

Let me correct some factual misinformation in your posts: The string quartet didn't spring from nothing by magic with Haydn. It is just what happened to the most popular form of chamber music in the Baroque, the trio sonata, when basso continuo accompaniment (and the requisite realization skills) went out of style, the keyboard instrument was dropped, and a viola was added to fill out the texture. 

The symphonic poem has no direct relationship to the symphony. Plenty of short descriptive orchestral works were composed throughout the 20thc that carried on this general tradition. It didn't end with Sibelius. 

The symphony was an established form long before Haydn took it up. 

Countless short forms of piano music, dances of various national origins, came into use during the Romantic Era. 

Anyway. I wish I had some idea what you think this thread is accomplishing. How do we profit by stating the perfectly obvious bit about genre names and by pretending that the actual forms (formal patterns with their underlying harmonic/tonal structures) were ever "established" in any meaningful sense of the term? They are and have always been perpetually moving targets.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think the symphonic poem practically ended with Sibelius. I can't think of many more major composers further developing it. It is a fine example of off-shoot genres from Classicism (via the symphony and Romantic ideals).


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

So, in your OP you say



ArtMusic said:


> This is purely for the sake of tracing the development of the major genres and form.


But later, you say



ArtMusic said:


> It may be better to have a separate thread on evolution


Isn't there a connection between 'development' and 'evolution'?



ArtMusic said:


> My interest for this thread is primarily on *the origin.*


If this is so, you will presumably be searching for the *origin *of the early romantic symphony, which developed from the classical symphony, which developed from....


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I think the symphonic poem practically ended with Sibelius. I can't think of many more major composers further developing it. It is a fine example of off-shoot genres from Classicism (via the symphony and Romantic ideals).


I think John Luther Adams's _Become Ocean_ and other orchestral works can be called symphonic poem or tone poem. They depict poem, nature, environment, or landscape.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Other post-Sibelius tone poems that leap to mind: Shostakovich's "October" (not the symphony), Rouse's "Phaethon"...and a lot more I think.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> If this is so, you will presumably be searching for the *origin *of the early romantic symphony, which developed from the classical symphony, which developed from....


I have answered this before, the symphony was well and truly established during Classicism. Later periods gave rise to its respective style of symphony. But still a symphony. Pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

According to Wikipedia, Frederik Magle wrote a symphonic poem too!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_symphonic_poems

I suspect that if one were more familiar with the complete output of composers since "the genre suffered a severe decline in popularity" (Wiki) one would find that symphonic poems were still in rude health - or that they had simply evolved into something else. After all, the future of the symphonic genre was already in doubt by the second quarter of the 19th C! (Wiki).


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I have answered this before, the symphony was well and truly established during Classicism.


So the symphony itself didn't have any origins?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Isn't there a connection between 'development' and 'evolution'?


...as in they are synonyms?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

dogen said:


> ...as in they are synonyms?


Isn't there subtle differences in nuance?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

dogen said:


> ...as in they are synonyms?


They _can _be used as such.



Dim7 said:


> Isn't there subtle differences in nuance?


I think so. But since it's Art who set this OP up and he himself used the terms to explain what he wants to talk about, I felt it best to point him back to his own words and ask what he means by the terms.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> So the symphony itself didn't have any origins?


The Classical symphony more or less came from the Italian sinfonia / overtures to operas with early Galant/Classical styles (Johann Christian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus's early symphonies are perfect examples).


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> The Classical symphony more or less came from the Italian sinfonia / overtures to operas with early Galant/Classical styles (Johann Christian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus's early symphonies are perfect examples).


I know that is one part of the origins of the symphony. My question was aimed at pointing out that since the symphony has origins, and you say you are interested primarily in origins, you might wish to go further back than the period in which you say it was established.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> Isn't there subtle differences in nuance?


Indeed, a few scintillas.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I know that is one part of the origins of the symphony. My question was aimed at pointing out that since the symphony has origins, and you say you are interested primarily in origins, you might wish to go further back than the period in which you say it was established.


What I discussed about the Italian opera sinfonia or overture was the origin, from the Galant Classical style.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> What I discussed about the Italian opera sinfonia or overture was the origin, from the Galant Classical style.


Just to be clear, you're saying that Italian opera sinfonia originated from the Galant Classical style?


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I think the symphonic poem practically ended with Sibelius.


I've heard similar viewpoints that suggest the symphony ended with Mahler.

Here's a Glass symphonic poem from only 3 years ago, with its first recording released this year:






Does its title alone suggest an acknowledgement of so-called "classical tradition"? Yes. Is it even remotely similar to Tapiola? No. Is it a symphonic poem? Yes.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Just to be clear, you're saying that Italian opera sinfonia originated from the Galant Classical style?


The Classical symphony more or less originated from the Italian opera sinfonia of the Galant Classical period. Listen to early Mozart symphonies and or overtures to his early operas. Other composers include his friend Johann Christian Bach. Or early Haydn. Fast forward less than a century the Classical symphony has fully evolved into the four movement center piece of public concerts, as per Haydn's grand symphonies for London. And by the early Romantic period, it was well and truly established as one of the most important western classical genres.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> I've heard similar viewpoints that suggest the symphony ended with Mahler.
> 
> Here's a Glass symphonic poem from only 3 years ago, with its first recording released this year:
> 
> Does its title alone suggest an acknowledgement of so-called "classical tradition"? Yes. Is it even remotely similar to Tapiola? No. Is it a symphonic poem? Yes.


Interesting music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> The Classical symphony more or less originated from the Italian opera sinfonia of the Galant Classical period. Listen to early Mozart symphonies and or overtures to his early operas. Other composers include his friend Johann Christian Bach. Or early Haydn. Fast forward less than a century the Classical symphony has fully evolved into the four movement center piece of public concerts, as per Haydn's grand symphonies for London. And by the early Romantic period, it was well and truly established as one of the most important western classical genres.


And what were the origins of the "Italian opera sinfonia of the Galant Classical period"?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> And what were the origins of the "Italian opera sinfonia of the Galant Classical period"?


Probably Baroque overtures but I would encourage you to read more widely on this important matter. From the link below, it clearly supports this thread, I am happy to say indeed.

Quote: ".... _by the *late 18th century* the word had taken on the meaning common today: a work usually consisting of multiple distinct sections or movements, often four, with the first movement in sonata form._"

Implies it has established itself by early Romantic. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Probably Baroque overtures but I would encourage you to read more widely on this important matter. From the link below, it clearly supports this thread, I am happy to say indeed.
> 
> Quote: ".... _by the *late 18th century* the word had taken on the meaning common today: a work usually consisting of multiple distinct sections or movements, often four, with the first movement in sonata form._"
> 
> ...


This is an odd discussion. I can put forward my views - which you reject - or ask for information from you - which you give out in tidbits and then suggest I should read more widely.

So, what, exactly, is the purpose of the thread? To hold forth, very briefly, on your chosen subject? To invite comments (which, if they question your premise, you reject)? To _exchange _opinions in a meaningful manner?

I don't get it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I have answered this before, the symphony was well and truly established during Classicism. Later periods gave rise to its respective style of symphony. But still a symphony. Pure and simple.


Consider a parallel in literature. The novel was established at some point in the distant past and it is still the major form of long form fiction. Does this mean that modern writers are just carrying on a derivative tradition? Are Joyce's _Ulysses_, Gaddis's _JR_, and Cortazar's _Hopscotch_ still novels, pure and simple? Are these writers just creating more iterations of an established form? Of course not, because the category novel is enormously broad and encompasses works sharing no discernible common characteristics except that they are relatively long works of fiction. To say these are still novels pure and simple would be silly and pointless. The same is true when you write "still a symphony. Pure and simple." The modern symphony is as broad a category as the novel. There is no characteristic necessarily shared by works in this category, and none they share with classical symphonies, except perhaps being works of music for ensembles of instruments (and voices), usually, but not always, large. So "Still a symphony" is purely and simply meaningless when it isn't simply wrong. No one in the classical era would have recognized Sibelius 7 as a symphony, or Myaskovsky 10, or Symphony of Psalms or any other of countless works so titled in the 20thc and 21stc. So, once again, what are you trying to prove here?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

All I am primarily asking is when did the symphony become an established genre? Even the Wikipaedia manages to answer that by the end of it second sentence, opening paragraph. Of course no one in Mozart's time might fully recognize a Sibelius symphony. But you cannot ignore the fact that it is still a symphony under a broad guidance of forms. Read the Wiki link, it is the type of *objective answers* a true musicologist would accept.

Henry Ford's motor car is still a motor car, even though a Ford car today is a much, more complicated machine but the fundamental idea of a motor car with an internal combustion engine is still there. It's pure and simple really if one does not prejudice my threads and its purposeful questions.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> All I am primarily asking is when did the symphony become an established genre? Even the Wikipaedia manages to answer that by the end of it second sentence, opening paragraph. Of course no one in Mozart's time might fully recognize a Sibelius symphony. *But you cannot ignore the fact that it is still a symphony under a broad guidance of forms*. Read the Wiki link, it is the type of *objective answers* a true musicologist would accept.
> 
> Henry Ford's motor car is still a motor car, even though a Ford car today is a much, more complicated machine but the fundamental idea of a motor car with an internal combustion engine is still there. It's pure and simple really if one does not prejudice my threads and its purposeful questions.


I don't need to look at a WIKI link. I _am_ a musicologist. In modern usage, the term "symphony" _does not designate a form_, it merely indicates some general things about performing forces and a likely venue, that is, a concert hall. A modern symphony doesn't necessarily share any of the formal and structural characteristics of the classical symphony. Using your car analogy: it doesn't have an internal combustion engine or wheels. It has a solar sail and a hydroponic garden. This is symptomatic of a general sloppiness in your "system" of classification. You, and others, have been misusing the terms form and genre throughout this thread. The string quartet, symphony, and sonata were not different forms in the classical and romantic eras. They were essentially the same form composed for different performing forces. The string quartet is a sonata for four string instruments. (I'm using sonata as the general term because, historically, it is the loosest term, originally meaning simply a work for instruments, and it is the preferred general term when one is discussing these kinds of works as formal structures.) A symphony is a sonata for orchestra. A solo sonata is a sonata for one instrument, often with keyboard accompaniment. A piano trio is a sonata for violin, cello and piano. A woodwind quintet is a sonata for fl, ob, cl, hn, and bn. (The only major difference is that solo sonatas tend to dispense with a minuet). The concerto is a somewhat more complicated case. But by the time double exposition form was dropped, it was essentially a solo sonata with orchestral accompaniment  They are all more or less the same form. As for "genre": It wouldn't make sense to call symphonies, sonatas, quartets, etc., different genres. This term makes sense distinguishing between, say, opera, sonata-based structures, solo songs, piano character pieces, and so on.

The first major point here is: We still use terms like string quartet, sonata, symphony, concerto, and so on, in modern times because it is still necessary to indicate the performing forces for which a work was composed. It does not necessarily tell a listener anything about the form or structure of the work. It does not necessarily imply any connection to the forms used in the classical and romantic eras.

The second point is: The new formal designs and organizing principles established in the modern era in works titled sonata, string quartet, symphony, and so on, are multifarious and multitudinous compared to the single new formal pattern of the classical era, the sonata structure. The sheer variety of fascinating new instrumental combinations in modern orchestral, chamber orchestral, and chamber music is positively stunning compared to the relatively narrow range of earlier music.

Trivia:
I didn't say no one in Mozart's time would recognize a Sibelius symphony, I said that no one in that era would classify his 7th _as a symphony_ if they heard it. It shares none of the formal and structural characteristics of the classical symphony.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> ...The string quartet, symphony, and sonata were not different forms in the classical and romantic eras. They were essentially the same form composed for different performing forces. ...


That's all I needed to read, and thank you for agreeing with my thoughts overall.

By the time Romanticism came, the many different genres were already established. It's a plain fact. The musicologist may argue *structurally* that Sibelius' symphony was different to Haydn's but you cannot ignore the fact that these are still symphonies. The classical music categorization still remains. Likewise with the opera, concerto (even more obvious), numerous chamber music examples, the concert mass and so forth.

The Wiki link also contains useful information about how that categorization came about. I encourage you to have a read in detail.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> That's all I needed to read, and thank you for agreeing with my thoughts overall.


I'd like to think that's meant ironically but I know it isn't. Edward's posts have essentially been a rebuttal of yours, so I'm not sure what it is that your comment is a response to.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

dogen said:


> I'd like to think that's meant ironically but I know it isn't. Edward's posts have essentially been a rebuttal of yours, so I'm not sure what it is that your comment is a response to.


Structurally of course even Beethoven's 9th is quite different to his own first symphony. That was what the posts above was about. But Ludvig would declare *both pieces are symphonies*; symphonies rooted in the Classical Haydn form. Pure and simple. A musicologist (or any intelligent reader) could discuss in considerable good detail the structural difference of the two works, but the undeniable fact is both pieces are symphonies. It would be eccentric if I used the word "symphony" not having any common ground meaning applied when discussing these two pieces, as if I am in historic denial.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Yes, denial is the correct term. Carry on.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

So come on Art - now we've all agreed with you (even those of us who haven't)...so what?

'All the genres and forms were established by early romanticism'...and?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Structurally of course even Beethoven's 9th is quite different to his own first symphony. That was what the posts above was about. But Ludvig would declare *both pieces are symphonies*; symphonies rooted in the Classical Haydn form. Pure and simple. A musicologist (or any intelligent reader) could discuss in considerable good detail the structural difference of the two works, but the undeniable fact is both pieces are symphonies.


Yes



ArtMusic said:


> It would be eccentric if I used the word "symphony" not having any common ground meaning applied when discussing these two pieces, as if I am in historic denial


This is one place where you may need to refine your thinking just a little bit, at least if you think there's something generalisable to all symphonies, as opposed to something specific to the two symphonies under consideration.

Consider The Jupiter Symphony and Petite symphonie intuitive pour une paysage de printemps. Both called symphonies by music experts, so both symphonies I guess, but is it really obvious that they have a common ground? Can you spell out the common ground that all symphonies share?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

This has probably already been said - I don't feel like reading every post to find out - but I'll guess that what's confusing you and leading to the confusing thread title is that a lot of the _names_ used for pieces of music were well-established by the early 19th century, but the actual _music_ called by those names went on changing in form and style. The name "symphony," since its beginning as "sinfonia" ("sounding together"), has referred to so many styles and forms of music that talking about "the symphony" as if it were an actual thing has no meaning or value.

Keeping the distinction between name and thing in mind, we quickly realize that the answer to your question is "no."


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> This has probably already been said - I don't feel like reading every post to find out


Probably wise. This was in fact pointed out by Aramis quite eloquently at #10. (I might venture to suggest that I offered a similar, though perhaps less cogent analysis at #7). Your endorsement of the 'no' response is nevertheless welcome.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Consider The Jupiter Symphony and Petite symphonie intuitive pour une paysage de printemps. Both called symphonies by music experts, so both symphonies I guess, but is it really obvious that they have a common ground? Can you spell out the common ground that all symphonies share?


See my motor car analogy. Of course they are symphonies but written (and developed ) in different idioms and periods, just like Henry Ford's vehicle versus ones you see on the streets today. But the engineering invention of an internal combustion engine was already established by Henry Ford's time. Here the engineering feats of the cars are very different just like the Jupiter's four movement sonata-fugue structure versus the Petite symphony. But the idea of one rested on ones before it, and we all know the symphony was founded by the time Classical music reached its peak. The Baroque sinfonia / overture served as an introductory piece to larger works (often vocal works) but not as a stand-alone concert piece that became the Classical symphony.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

I'm no philosopher/logician, so this will be a messy question, but I hope someone will see what I'm getting at.

Are 'car' and 'symphony' similar enough categories of things? In other words, is ArtMusic making a legitimate analogy?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> See my motor car analogy. Of course they are symphonies but written (and developed ) in different idioms and periods, just like Henry Ford's vehicle versus ones you see on the streets today. But the engineering invention of an internal combustion engine was already established by Henry Ford's time. Here the engineering feats of the cars are very different just like the Jupiter's four movement sonata-fugue structure versus the Petite symphony. The Baroque sinfonia / overture served as an introductory piece to larger works (often vocal works) but not as a stand-alone concert piece that became the Classical symphony.


Yes, absolutely. It's the bit I cut out, the metaphor about "resting on", which is more difficult for me to understand. Can you spell it out without the metaphor -- I mean how exactly do the two symphonies "rest on" each other? What is this mechanism of "resting on" exactly?

Let me just ask you a related question. Do you think that the Mozart and the Ferrari have anything in common? Either extrinsically or intrinsically? I mean, other than they're both called symphonies.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mozart and Benedetto Ferrari both wrote operas, a genre that was well established before Mozart's time.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ferrari wrote beautiful arias nonetheless.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> But the idea of one rested on ones before it, and we all know the symphony was founded by the time Classical music reached its peak.


What you are being asked is: _In what way_ do later symphonies like the one Mandryka cites, and others, like Sibelius 7, brought up in earlier posts, rest on symphonies of the classical era. Can you cite a single significant similarity in form or structure?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There are works _not_ called symphonies which have more in common with other works called symphonies than some other works which _are_ called symphonies.

If we look at most of the works called "symphonies" written since the classical era, I suspect the closest we can come to a definition tying them together would be something like "a not too short piece for a not too small combination of instruments in which some thematic material is developed in some manner, and which is not attached to a longer work such as an opera."

I had to add that last part so that I wouldn't find myself thinking about the symphonies of Wagner. (Oops! Forgot about the _Siegfried Idyll_!)


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> There are works _not_ called symphonies which have more in common with other works called symphonies than some other works which _are_ called symphonies.
> 
> If we look at most of the works called "symphonies" written since the classical era, I suspect the closest we can come to a definition tying them together would be something like "a not too short piece for a not too small combination of instruments in which some thematic material is developed in some manner, and which is not attached to a longer work such as an opera."


Sounds about as eloquent as my definition for music in that one thread many months ago: "Non-linguistic sounds that are not purely communicative organized to stimulate psychologically."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> Sounds about as eloquent as my definition for music in that one thread many months ago: "Non-linguistic sounds that are not purely communicative organized to stimulate psychologically."


I remember that. A classic.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I doubt there is one thing that all things justifiably called symphonies have in common, rather I suspect there's a network of partially shared traits. I'd be surprised if the "foundational model", with later symphonies all inheriting a common essence from an ur-symphony, the Adam Symphony, is defensible.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Of course no one in Mozart's time might fully recognize a Sibelius symphony. But you cannot ignore the fact that it is still a symphony under a broad guidance of forms.





ArtMusic said:


> The musicologist may argue *structurally* that Sibelius' symphony was different to Haydn's but you cannot ignore the fact that these are still symphonies.





ArtMusic said:


> Structurally of course even Beethoven's 9th is quite different to his own first symphony... But Ludvig would declare *both pieces are symphonies*


The tautologies are tautological. You are asserting that since B is an example of A and C is an example of A, B and C are both instances of A (...how would we have known otherwise?). The rest of us are saying "so what?" or asking if there are any meaningful relationships to be drawn between B and C other than the fact that they are examples of A. Several of us stated that if A is an ill-defined, overarching genre, then, on the whole, B and C share little in common. Your responses to these objections have been essentially reassertions of the above quotes. How about actually addressing the questions at hand?

Also Mandryka refers to 20th-century composer Luc Ferrari, not Benedetto.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'm no philosopher/logician, so this will be a messy question, but I hope someone will see what I'm getting at.
> 
> Are 'car' and 'symphony' similar enough categories of things? In other words, is ArtMusic making a legitimate analogy?


Yes, I think it is a legitimate analogy, because he is talking about the way we think about things, not the things in themselves. That should go without saying.

The simple fact is that ArtMusic is looking at general similarities, and a lot of the office-workers around here are too literal to be able to think that way.

MacLeod keeps getting sidetracked into these logical quandaries, and loses sight of the general picture. He's done it with me, and now with ArtMusic. I see similarities between me & ArtMusic, in the way that we tend to frustrate these in-the-box thinkers.

Maybe it's like that book "Sonata Form" by Charles Rosen; after reading it, I still don't know if "sonata form" really exists, or not, in a literal form. Still, we all know what "sonata form" is, don't we? Don't we have to relax our literal minds a bit, in order to use these terms in a meaningful way? And shouldn't that involve some flexibility?

After all, a chair is a chair. We sit in it. That's what makes it a chair; its utility, not its form or meaning.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Symphony as _I _know it? It can have - if the composer calls it so - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (any advance on 5?) movements, so, no, it wasn't 'established' at any point in time. It certainly became a significant form, but has evolved, and continues to evolve.


I think we should look at forms such as "symphony" for their general "utility," the same way we look at a chair.

When we look at a chair, we don't ask "What does this chair mean?"

We simply sit in it, if it's a chair. It has a utilitarian purpose.

The chair may come with three or four legs; it is still a chair.

We need to look past the "content" or "meaning" or "form" of symphony, and see if it works, and serves its purpose. Does it do this for us? If so, it is a symphony.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I think it is a legitimate analogy, because he is talking about the way we think about things, not the things in themselves. That should go without saying.
> 
> The simple fact is that ArtMusic is looking at general similarities, and a lot of the office-workers around here are too literal to be able to think that way.
> 
> ...


The problem is there are not even general similarities, and no one except Art thinks about them in the same way. That's why we have near-unanimity, from people who otherwise rarely agree about anything, that Art's premise is mistaken.

To extend your chair analogy: do we "use" a Baroque introductory sinfonia (a usage that Art, totally incorrectly, tried to link to later uses of the word), a Haydn symphony and Berio's _Sinfonia _in the same way? No, not at all, except insofar as they're all music.

Art's question can be more directly rephrased: did composers after the early 19th century mostly recycle old forms, rather than invent new ones? The answer to this question is no. Pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I think we should look at forms such as "symphony" for their general "utility," the same way we look at a chair.
> 
> When we look at a chair, we don't ask "What does this chair mean?"
> 
> ...


But that is separate to Art's confused ideas around evolution/development/establishment. This is the theme of the OP, not utility. A chair is a chair and yes we do just sit in one. But if someone asks did the chair reach a point in development and then stop, as if frozen in time, then the answer is no.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It's very simple. Beethoven considered his own first symphony a Classical symphony based on established Haydn-symphonic models. Fast forward a few decade, Beethoven developed it further to mark the beginnings of Romanticism. The symphony has evolved (will always do so) but it has already established itself as a major classical genre well before Romanticism. This is a historical fact, anything else are largely semantics and historical denial.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> It's very simple. Beethoven considered his own first symphony a Classical symphony based on established Haydn-symphonic models. Fast forward a few decade, Beethoven developed it further to mark the beginnings of Romanticism. The symphony has evolved (will always do so) but it has already established itself as a major classical genre well before Romanticism. This is a historical fact, anything else are largely semantics and historical denial.


It is a historical fact that the classical symphony was an established genre in the early 19th century, yes.

That isn't what you asked in this thread, however. What you asked was whether the "vast majority of genres and forms was already established by early Romanticism."

The answer is no. Pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> MacLeod keeps getting sidetracked...


This is not about me (or you). I think it much more important to focus on the questions raised by the OP - limited though they are - to offer answers - which I have done from the beginning - and press the OP to engage in a decent debate.

I've even agreed with Art's premise and asked, "What then?" (as have one or two others); I'm still waiting for a response.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> It is a historical fact that the classical symphony was an established genre in the early 19th century, yes.
> 
> That isn't what you asked in this thread, however. What you asked was whether the "vast majority of genres and forms was already established by early Romanticism."
> 
> The answer is no. Pure and simple.


Thank you for agreeing about the symphony. It appears we disagree with other genres then. Although key genres were certainly the case: the opera, the concerto, chamber music were also established by early Romantic periods.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> This is not about me (or you). I think it much more important to focus on the questions raised by the OP - limited though they are - to offer answers - which I have done from the beginning - and press the OP to engage in a decent debate.
> 
> I've even agreed with Art's premise and asked, "What then?" (as have one or two others); I'm still waiting for a response.


I have given many examples above: the concerto, the opera, and chamber music such as the string quartet, the string quintet, the piano trio, the [insert instrument of your choice] sonata were all established by early Romantic periods, thanks to the development of Classicism/18th century, thus setting down the foundation for all classical music writing that followed. I think this is worth researching more into, maybe at PhD level someday.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't need to look at a WIKI link. I _am_ a musicologist. ...


This thread had "train-wreck" written all over it, right from the OP. 
It's not a discussion, it's more of a pompous lecture.
I don't know why you got involved! 
cheers,
GG


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> This thread had "train-wreck" written all over it, right from the OP.
> It's not a discussion, it's more of a pompous lecture.
> I don't know why you got involved!
> cheers,
> GG


It was my turn? 

I have sins to atone for?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I think it is a legitimate analogy, because *he is talking about the way we think about things, not the things in themselves.* That should go without saying.
> 
> The simple fact is that *ArtMusic is looking at general similarities*, and a lot of *the office-workers around here are too literal to be able to think that way.*
> 
> ...


As a proud, card-carrying Literal Office Worker, I want to say that this is wrong.

We are not, fundamentally, talking about the way we think about things. Rather, we are thinking, and talking, about things. Actual pieces of music. Merely talking about the way we're thinking, or thinking about the way we're talking, will not help us understand music.

ArtMusic is indeed looking at general similarities. Except that he hasn't established what they are, and so has not convinced me and the other office workers here that they are not too general to be meaningful. Our whole thrust is that they are indeed too general, and too vague, to establish his point.

Perhaps we need, not to relax our minds, but to tighten them, so that we can indeed use terms like "symphony" in a meaningful, rather than a careless and uninformed, way.

The analogy with chairs breaks down on two counts. 1.) A chair cannot actually be defined by its use, since we may use a stool or a sofa or a cushion for the same purpose. 2.) There is no distinct "use" for a symphony which is different from the "use" of other musical works.

As for the personal remarks, I shall walk quickly past the water cooler and pretend I didn't hear a thing.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I think this is worth researching more into, maybe at PhD level someday.


Er, no, I didn't mean, what are you going to do with your idea. I think you know exactly what I actually meant but are preferring to avoid the question. But, lest I am being uncharitable, I'll ask again, in a different way.

You asked in the OP, "Is Vast Majority Of Genres & Form Already Established By Early Romanticism?" saying that you ask "purely for the sake of tracing the development of the major genres and form."

I'd like to know what you will do with the answers (aside from saying, "Thank you for agreeing with me." - you did that already). What logical argument about "tracing the development of the major genres and form" will you now build beyond your single premise?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Er, no, I didn't mean, what are you going to do with your idea. I think you know exactly what I actually meant but are preferring to avoid the question. But, lest I am being uncharitable, I'll ask again, in a different way.
> 
> You asked in the OP, "Is Vast Majority Of Genres & Form Already Established By Early Romanticism?" saying that you ask "purely for the sake of tracing the development of the major genres and form."
> 
> I'd like to know what you will do with the answers (aside from saying, "Thank you for agreeing with me." - you did that already). What logical argument about "tracing the development of the major genres and form" will you now build beyond your single premise?


I have given you many musical and historical examples, objectively. Your argument is preferentially non-musical nor historical but based more on apparent general reasoning. You can even read this Britannica link that also supports my reasoning using the concerto example. It states that by 1750, the genre was already established as a three movement orchestral genre contrasting soloist and orchestra/band. The facts speak for themselves, personal biased reasoning and semantics are transient.

http://www.britannica.com/art/concerto-music

In fact, my music professor yesterday suggested that this broad topic is certainly worth a research paper. I gave her my motor car analogy. She went one step further by using the visual arts genre of portraiture. A van Dyck portrait is a portrait, so is a van Gogh portrait and so is a Ralph Heimans portrait of your sovereign in Westminster. They all employed different techniques but what are they all? Portraits, pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I have given you many musical and historical examples, objectively. Your argument is preferentially non-musical nor historical but based more on apparent general reasoning. You can even read this Britannica link that also supports my reasoning using the concerto example. It states that by 1750, the genre was already established as a three movement orchestral genre contrasting soloist and orchestra/band. The facts speak for themselves, personal biased reasoning and semantics are transient.
> 
> http://www.britannica.com/art/concerto-music
> 
> In fact, my music professor yesterday suggested that this broad topic is certainly worth a research paper. I gave her my motor car analogy. She went one step further by using the visual arts genre of portraiture. A van Dyck portrait is a portrait, so is a van Gogh portrait and so is a Ralph Heimans portrait of your sovereign in Westminster. They all employed different techniques but what are they all? Portraits, pure and simple.


Ok. I'm done here. Even when I agree with you, you still disagree with me and simply post more 'evidence' to support your single premise.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I don't think anyone's disputing the idea that by 1750 there existed a thing called a concerto that involved an orchestra and soloist and had three movements.
What's being disputed is whether this thing can reasonably be said to be of the same "genre" or "form" as a 21st-century work that involves an orchestra and soloist.

If you're going to claim that the currently existing "genres and forms" are _the same as_ the "genres and forms" that existed in the early Romantic period, then the definitions that existed for those "genres and forms" in the early Romantic period will have to apply to those "genres and forms" in the 21st century.
Do you get it? It's not enough to come up with a definition that encompasses works from both the early Romantic period and the 21st century; the early-Romantic definition has to apply to the 21st-century work.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I have given many examples above: the concerto, the opera, and chamber music such as the string quartet, the string quintet, the piano trio, the [insert instrument of your choice] sonata were all established by early Romantic periods, thanks to the development of Classicism/18th century . . .


yes.



ArtMusic said:


> thus [work done before the early Romantic period set] down the foundation for all classical music writing that followed.


This is where you need to do some more work I think. Because it may be that the relation between (eg) a Mozart quartet and a quartet by Lachenmann is so superficial and trivial that it's unjustifiable to say that the former was any sort of foundation for that latter.

Good luck with your paper on the topic, if you do it I hope you'll post it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes I have given examples even within the one same composer, Beethoven how his one genre say the symphony changed from Haydn's model (1,2) to his own Romantic style (say 6,9). Beethoven is an excellent example, take his string quartets - early examples to almost modern avant-garde like Grosse Fugue. This is obvious. I am not saying these are the same work. We need to be honest however that the foundations were laid by late Classicism / early Romanticism.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> This is obvious. We need to be honest however that the foundations were laid by late Classicism / early Romanticism.


Yes, everyone agrees with you. Even those who disagree.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> We need to be honest however that the foundations were laid by late Classicism / early Romanticism.


You could say this about literally any time. It's tautological. E.g., the composers of the late medieval period laid the foundations for all music that came after. It's not a substantive or interesting statement.

I don't know why you're having so much difficulty with this.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> We need to be honest however that the foundations were laid by late Classicism / early Romanticism.


Why late Classicism? There were solo (and other) sonatas in the Baroque. There were concertos before 1700. There were sinfonias at least 50 years earlier. Opera had been around for two centuries. The standard song and dance forms were centuries old by then too. Polyphonic masses? Other sacred choral music? Theme and variations? Fantasias? Geez man, what are you left with? The string quartet? That's not even a form _or_ a genre.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm sure that if you go through all your versions of Pierre Boulez piano sonatas, you will find in the liner notes some mention of how the piano sonata has been a form which various composers, through various periods, have approached, and tried various ways to expand on it, or put in their 2 cents worth. It's a good approach, and a good subject. It sets up an interesting dialog.

Shostakovich, Ferneyhough, or Babbitt and their string quartets could be compared all the way back to Haydn.

I can easily see the similarities, but I also see the opportunities for comparisons. The comparisons are only interesting, only relevant, because of the common denominator: the string quartet as a form or genre, as per the OP.

You must recognize this unchanging aspect first, before any productive comparison or talk of evolution or change can take place with any meaning.

Am I the only one, besides ArtMusic, who sees this "elephant in the room?" I can even smell the peanuts on his breath.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I can easily see the similarities, but I also see the opportunities for comparisons. The comparisons are only interesting, only relevant, because of the common denominator: the string quartet as a form.


The string quartet is not a form. It is a performing ensemble. (Doesn't anyone actually read these threads before responding?) In the classical and romantic eras such ensembles tended to play four movement compositions formally indistinguishable from works for other ensembles like orchestras and piano trios.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm sure that if you go through all your versions of Pierre Boulez piano sonatas, you will find in the liner notes some mention of how the piano sonata has been a form which various composers, through various periods, have approached, and tried various ways to expand on it, or put in their 2 cents worth. It's a good approach, and a good subject. It sets up an interesting dialog.
> 
> Shostakovich, Ferneyhough, or Babbitt and their string quartets could be compared all the way back to Haydn.
> 
> ...


Listen, put up or shut up. What is this unchanging form which is shared between a Haydn quartet and one by Ferneyhough? Just the same four instruments? Or what? Spell it out, cash the metaphor, or I'll start to think you're hallucinating it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Why late Classicism? There were solo (and other) sonatas in the Baroque. There were concertos before 1700. There were sinfonias at least 50 years earlier. Opera had been around for two centuries. The standard song and dance forms were centuries old by then too. Polyphonic masses? Other sacred choral music? Theme and variations? Fantasias? Geez man, what are you left with? The string quartet? That's not even a form _or_ a genre.


I wrote "by late Classicism" which covers any *earlier establishments* as kindly suggested by your post.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Listen, put up or shut up. What is this unchanging form which is shared between a Haydn quartet and one by Ferneyhough? Just the same four instruments? Or what? Spell it out, cash the metaphor, or I'll start to think you're hallucinating it.


A string quartet has 1st violin, 2nd violin, one viola and one bass. This combination irrespective of *how* any period's composer utilizes the instruments (musical lines) to express the harmony and anything else, has been a cornerstone of Classicism, well established by early Romanticism. Pure and simple.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> A string quartet has 1st violin, 2nd violin, one viola and one bass. This combination irrespective of *how* any period's composer utilizes the instruments (musical lines) to express the harmony and anything else, has been a cornerstone of Classicism, well established by early Romanticism. Pure and simple.


Excellent, would I be right to refine the way you expressed your thought in the title to this?

*The vast majority of types of ensembles of instruments used for classical music was already established by Early romanticism. 
*


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I wrote "by late Classicism" which covers any *earlier establishments* as kindly suggested by your post.


I said nothing about establishment except that the concept as you have been presenting it is arbitrary, silly, and meaningless.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Excellent, would I be right to refine the way you expressed your thought in the title to this?
> 
> *The vast majority of types of ensembles of instruments used for classical music was already established by Early romanticism.
> *


Not just instrumental but vocal as well.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I said nothing about establishment except that the concept as you have been presenting it is arbitrary, silly, and meaningless.


I disagree. It is indispensable for the student, performer and musicologist to trace the origins of key genres and forms, especially the genres. It can help answer why composer wrote what they wrote, what motivated them, what their original audiences wanted (tastes and aesthetics of the times) and the evolutionary path of the genres and forms to what we inherited today. Pure and simple.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Listen, put up or shut up. What is this unchanging form which is shared between a Haydn quartet and one by Ferneyhough? Just the same four instruments? Or what? Spell it out, cash the metaphor, or I'll start to think you're hallucinating it.


As ArtMusic said,_ "A string quartet has 1st violin, 2nd violin, one viola and one bass. This combination irrespective of *how* any period's composer utilizes the instruments (musical lines) to express the harmony and anything else, has been a cornerstone of Classicism, well established by early Romanticism. Pure and simple."
_
That's what I would have said, after I had gotten over the intimidating tone of your inquiry. And I know a string quartet when I hear one.

And, no, I'm not hallucinating. That elephant in the room is _real._


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Finally something good has come from this thread: does anyone know of a composition for only these four instruments: two violins, one viola, and one double bass?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> Finally something good has come from this thread: does anyone know of a composition for only these four instruments: two violins, one viola, and one double bass?


Is this a trick? What's the catch, the exception, the unknown definition? Somebody come up with something, quick!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Is this a trick? What's the catch, the exception, the unknown definition? Somebody come up with something, quick!


The standard string quartet ensemble includes a cello. Y'all have been saying "bass," which really isn't a thing in this context but it got me thinking about pieces for string quartet except that it had a double bass instead of a cello.

There are some string quintets that add a double bass but that's a little bit different.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Apologies, my spell check is too quick for me typing on the phone. 

Yes of course I meant to say 1st violin, 2nd violin, viola, cello. :tiphat:

And as member million wrote above, we all recognize a SQ when we hear one.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> And as member million wrote above, we all recognize a SQ when we hear one.


Not me. Sometimes I get mixed up between string quartets and quintets.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Not me. Sometimes I get mixed up between string quartets and quintets.


Yes that can happen to me too. 

As for the discussion we don't loose rigor by focusing on the S-quartet or the S-quintet. Both were Classical genres. Mozart wrote some fine S-quintets.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Other than the fact that one of them has an extra instrument, _in what sense_ are "string quartets" and "string quintets" different genres?

I mean, are you saying that, say, a string quartet by Boccherini and a string quartet by Feldman are in the same genre, whereas a string quartet by Boccherini and a string quintet by Boccherini are in different genres?
This is surely an abuse of the word "genre".


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The difference is light and day under the quill of a great master. Do listen to Mozart's piano quartets, it is not as if he substituted the piano for a violin. The piano line is utterly pianistic. Or do listen to his ever great clarinet quintet, do you think the clarinet part is a mere substitute for the violin? Speaking of the clarinet quintet, this is one special sub-genre established by Mozart himself.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

OK, so if the difference between a Boccherini string quartet and a Boccherini string quintet (which is what I asked you; nothing about Mozart's piano quartets) is "light and day", how would you describe the difference between string quartets by Boccherini and Feldman?


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2015)

Stop it now, or I'm going to have to say "semantics."


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

dogen said:


> Stop it now, or I'm going to have to say "semantics."


To which I might add 'Pedantry'.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> OK, so if the difference between a Boccherini string quartet and a Boccherini string quintet (which is what I asked you; nothing about Mozart's piano quartets) is "light and day", how would you describe the difference between string quartets by Boccherini and Feldman?


I don't know SQ by Feldman that well compared with Boccherini but it is likely I can recognize a piece by composer A is a string quartet. The point is it is a SQ.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2015)

dogen said:


> Stop it now,


Is this where I say, "Head, bang, wall"?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Is this where I say, "Head, bang, wall"?


Nope! This is where you, me (and some others) recognise that it is less painful to walk away from the wall :tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Is this where I say, "Head, bang, wall"?


Funny, I was looking for that very emoticon last night and failed to find it in the menu.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Funny, I was looking for that very emoticon last night and failed to find it in the menu.


I suppose you could turn the other cheek instead... :kiss:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Other than the fact that one of them has an extra instrument, _in what sense_ are "string quartets" and "string quintets" different genres?
> 
> I mean, are you saying that, say, a string quartet by Boccherini and a string quartet by Feldman are in the same genre, whereas a string quartet by Boccherini and a string quintet by Boccherini are in different genres?
> This is surely an abuse of the word "genre".


Yeah, he looks like one of those abusers to me, too.
Other than that? I guess you could compare them to opera. Then the differences will be clear.
Consider this: the string quartet is not a 'form,' as was rudely pointed out to me earlier. The string quartet is a 'sonata' for four strings, the symphony is a 'sonata' for orchestra, and the concerto is a 'sonata' for a soloist with orchestra, and so on. That's sonata abuse, if you ask me.
Ok, now somebody contradict me.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> I mean, are you saying that, say, a string quartet by Boccherini and a string quartet by Feldman are in the same genre, whereas a string quartet by Boccherini and a string quintet by Boccherini are in different genres?
> This is surely an abuse of the word "genre".


If you read the discussion you'll see he's not saying that any more, or shouldn't be. He's saying that they're different ensembles, he's not talking about genres or forms at all and it was just his mistake to include the words in the title.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Most genres and many important forms was what I meant to say. Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the string quartet might as well be considered a form, and not just an instrumental combination. If I want to get to the essence of a composer's harmonic language, I always go to the string quartet first, because that's where the most succinct expression of his harmonic ideas can be expressed, along with piano; but strings can sustain notes, and pianos can not.

String quintets and piano quintets, and string trios, might as well be considered as similar forms to the string quartet.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The string quartet is perhaps the most challenging chamber music genre and form. Mozart struggled with some of very finest. The individual lines requires serious thinking before committing quill to sheets.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the string quartet might as well be considered a form, and not just an instrumental combination. If I want to get to the essence of a composer's harmonic language, I always go to the string quartet first, because that's where the most succinct expression of his harmonic ideas can be expressed, along with piano; but strings can sustain notes, and pianos can not.
> 
> String quintets and piano quintets, and string trios, might as well be considered as similar forms to the string quartet.


This is nonsense. None of the random observations following your first clause has anything to do with the issue. The only definition of the word form (ninth in my dictionary) that applies to the string quartet is the vaguest, "one of an assemblage of like things," as when we say an amoeba is a form of life. Btw, my piano sustains notes for a long time, at least as long as any bow stroke.

Art: The above applies to your last post as well. And your use of the word genre in this context carries no meaning beyond the generic definition of form given above. Once again, symphonies, string quartets, piano trios, etc. are, in the Classical Era, all examples of a single formal type. It is a crucial fact about instrumental music of the Classical Era that it was dominated by various minor variations on a single kind of multimovement cycle.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

That may well be so and the key point is all those Classical examples were critical "formal types" that set the foundation for all subsequent periods. This is *irrespective* of any dominance by "various minor variations", which as a matter of natural musical evolution they stopped developing.


----------

