# The War of the Romantics



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

This 'war' has always presented a somewhat silly cock-fight to me (I bet both Brahms and Liszt would cast me a filthy look now  ). But hey, what's the real point of arguing about whether a piece of music has a written programme or not? 

Can't we listeners imagine and make programmes of our own if we feel an urge to?

Personally, I tend to like programmatic pieces better, but it's simply because I like poetry and other literature very much and I can (at first listening) get into the work better.
But when I associate feelings and impressions with a piece, I don't need the programme any more - I have my own.

How do you feel about it and about the War of the Romantics?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

I think the war was a very specific situation within a specific timeframe, where Viennese critics split into political and ideological camps.

But today, among musicians and listeners alike, this division is more a matter of personal taste, and the political charge that it once carried has long dissipated.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Prior to the start of this thread, I had thought of including one of the provocative remarks of Richard Strauss in my collection of rotating signatures: "It's good music if it means something, and if it means something, it's program music!"
Like you, Herr L., I have an appreciation for that sort of music, in an interdisciplinary kind of way (e.g.: the Shakespeare play AND Tchaikovsky's "Fantasy-overture," or Prokofiev's contribution re: the same source, or Berlioz' Italian sojourn for viola and orchestra AND Byron's poem about the _Childe_ "from Albion's isle"). I do recognize that, like much of what's discussed here, it is, as Maestro K. says, "a matter of personal taste." I don't feel as though I'm especially parochial on this issue-- but the program Romantics will always have a special place in my heart. 
At this point, it might be interesting to reflect on a couple of composers who have varied their feelings on this issue: Tchaikovsky, a programmatic composer for the most part, who advocated the position of "the meaning is in the music" for some of his works, and Mahler, who was positively bipolar on the same topic!.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

What I meant about this being an issue of personal taste is that _today_, when we talk about prefering Liszt/Wagner or Brahms/Mahler, we are talking about our personal tastes, and liking one camp doesn't necessarily mean that you automatically dislike the other.

But in the 19th Century, although taste and preference were certainly issues, the debate was much more politically charged than it is now, and "belonging" to one camp or the other was not just a musical matter.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Point taken. I understand that "back-in-the-day," more than personal taste was at stake, as the historical record is replete with musicians (e.g.: Bruckner) for whom appointments were delayed and/or blocked, performances inhibited or sabotaged, and ultimately, it must have seemed not to be too terribly "silly" to _him_, for instance.
My question, though, is: was there similar conduct from the other side of this divide? Yeah, I know that Wagner could be an incredible churl, but is there anything analogous to the treatment of (as an example) Bruckner, directed at the "absolute music" advocates & practitioners?! I'm aware that the "Beckmesser" character in _Meistersinger_ parodies Hanslick... but it's one thing to be parodied, quite another to have your livelihood straight-jacketed to the point where you believe that debtor's prison looms as a possibility.


----------

