# Bombastic composers and their fans?



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There was a (thankfully good natured) discussion recently in one of the threads about whether or not a lot of Beethoven's music is bombastic. It was suggested but not really explored that his "fans" also tend to be bombastic clones. This idea that we become like the composers we like (if there is variety in this it is put down to multiple personalities) in the same way that owners and their dogs come to resemble each other is quite an interesting one as is the suggestion that a lot of Beethoven is too bombastic. There are surely many composers who are more bombastic than Beethoven? But I am not sure that their fans appear to share that trait.

I wonder what other composers we can nominate as bombastic and whether there are any reasons to think that their fans exhibit similar traits.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

*Bombastic*: high-sounding but with little meaning; inflated.
"bombastic rhetoric"
synonyms: pompous, blustering, ranting, blathering
---
Does this sound like the Beethoven that most people know? I don't think so. What he can be is explosive, enthusiastic, rambunctious, optimistic, idealistic, honest, boisterous, outspoken, philosophical, preaching, etc., perhaps to a fault. But with little meaning, ranting, blathering, pompous? That's not the composer I respect and revere. It's just that there are times when his intensity and disquieting explosiveness may not be something I'm in the mood for, and I believe the word is often misapplied.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> There was a (thankfully good natured) discussion recently in one of the threads about whether or not a lot of Beethoven's music is bombastic. It was suggested but not really explored that his "fans" also tend to be bombastic clones. This idea that we become like the composers we like (if there is variety in this it is put down to multiple personalities) in the same way that owners and their dogs come to resemble each other is quite an interesting one as is the suggestion that a lot of Beethoven is too bombastic. There are surely many composers who are more bombastic than Beethoven? But I am not sure that their fans appear to share that trait.
> 
> I wonder what other composers we can nominate as bombastic and whether there are any reasons to think that their fans exhibit similar traits.


Maybe someone with such a view of Beethoven could cite an instance of what they consider bombast. It's a grey area since it's a personal matter of taste if something is seemingly high sounding yet fails to deliver. The more one reflects on the different perceptions each of us has here, the more one should downgrade the importance of their own opinions.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bombastic Beethoven - The Spectator.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2019)

Whilst recognising what the OP says, I'm with Larkenfield on this. It seems to me that 'bombastic' is regularly misused to mean something other than "high-sounding" (which itself is defined as "extravagant and grand") and with little meaning. It's often used about composers of music that might simply be loud, urgent, emphatic, insistent - Beethoven and Shostakovich are rightly described in these terms, but they don't add up to 'bombastic'.

To answer the OP, DSCH and Wagner would seem to share some of the traits I used above, and both aredescribed as bombastic. As for their fans, I couldn't say...except to say that I know in my professional life I have been described as loud and insistent!


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm more concerned with the idea that we start to become like the composers we admire. On that basis I sure do hope there are no Gesualdo addicts here......:devil:

I'd be very hard pressed to associate Beethoven with "bombast", although there are a couple of his grander works that are pretty empty, and Shostakovich isn't completely free of the accusation at times, but the worst culprits have to be a couple of Symphonies by Khachaturian, which are noisy, overblown, and not really particularly "profound".


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The "bombastic Beethoven" discussion is in another thread (if anyone can remember which they could they post a link to it) and had mostly a good natured and (I _think_) tongue in cheek side to it. But I am more interested here in exploring whether any other composers might qualify as bombasts ... and whether their fans can also qualify.

For the record, I was as astonished as anyone by the suggestion that Beethoven's works - the focus was mostly on the middle period - are bombastic.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> The "bombastic Beethoven" discussion is in another thread (if anyone can remember which they could they post a link to it) and had mostly a good natured and (I _think_) tongue in cheek side to it. But I am more interested here in exploring whether any other composers might qualify as bombasts ... and whether their fans can also qualify.
> 
> For the record, I was as astonished as anyone by the suggestion that Beethoven's works - the focus was mostly on the middle period - are bombastic.


Mahler always comes to mind - very long works often seemingly delivering nothing yet all the while shouting as if something amazing was being expressed e.g. the finale of the Second Symphony.

NB: I love a lot of Mahler.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Shostakovich and Schnittke--two of my favorite composers--seem willing at almost any moment to disgrace themselves with an offensively over-the-top gesture. It's one of their great charms!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Hector Berlioz!

I am a big fan of grandeur in music - fortes, dense chords and brass instruments. It has a lot to do with the fact that due to my high sensitivity, since the craddle times I had to use music as a block against nerve-wracking unpredictable sounds, while at the same time I have quite a calm blood pressure - more on the faint than explode side. Music became an emotional regulator for me over time. Going for energetic, uplifting or triumphant pieces, with as much going on (in some order) at the same time, is a natural consequence, because it interacts with the natural body rhytms in the biggest number of ways and gives me the most power.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In modern British English I might say that my teen is getting bombastic, meaning that he insists forcefully on getting his own way. The word has come to mean imposing and overbearing, with connotations of manipulation and bullying.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> Shostakovich and Schnittke--two of my favorite composers--seem willing at almost any moment to disgrace themselves with an offensively over-the-top gesture. It's one of their great charms!


Both have many examples of musical parody in their works. As far as listeners displaying the bombastic traits of their favorite composers, I doubt there is any connection. I imagine that those who do a lot of blathering don't spend much time sitting quietly listening to classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ But your post count is the highest in the thread so far! OK, you've been a member for longer ...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> View attachment 123846
> 
> 
> Hector Berlioz!
> ...


Here's an example of a recording that's full of grand, uplifting, triumphant music, and seems to me to be not at all bombastic


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I may be wrong, but I think that intense, fiery music started with Vivaldi. I can think of some of his minor mode concertos in his _L'Estro Armonico_ as good examples of what I mean. Sammartini seems to have absorved Vivaldi's style, present in his early works, and this may have influenced Gluck, his pupil and the first composer of the so called _Sturm und Drang_ ("Storm and Stress") movement in music. Gluck's 1761 ballet _Don Juan_ can be considered the first work representative of the new style, and I listen a reference to Vivaldi in it's finale (at 50:00 in this video) and IMO it's a deliberate tribute paid to the composer.

Through Gluck's influence, two of the major figures of Classical music, Haydn and Mozart, started to adopt a more intense, turbulent style in their music. Pieces such as Mozart's pianos concertos #20 and #24, his symphonies #25 and #40, parts of his opera _Don Giovanni_ ("Don Juan"!) and the Requiem are amongst the most intense ever produced at their time IMO. Mozart had a huge influence on Beethoven, and this latter became known for his impactant, intense and passionate music (although he has some light pieces aswell) that would later influence the romantic composers in general. The highest peak of dramatic, powerful, and intensely emotional music in Romanticism and in all history IMO comes from Wagner, a composer who revered both Mozart and Beethoven, particularly in his dramas _Tristan und Isolde_ and _Die Walküre_.

The twentieth century saw an explosion of many musical tendencies, and I think that intense music can be found in the works of many composers of the period, for example in _Mars_ from Holst's _The Planets_, _O Fortuna_ from Orff's _Carmina Burana_, the first movement of Shostakovich's symphony No. 5 and the _Dance of Knights_ in Prokofiev's ballet _Romeo and Juliet_.

With the rise of non-classical music in the second half of the twentieth century, I think that the main examples of loud, fiery, intense music started to appear in Rock and, particularly, Metal. Here I think that it would be interesting to make a distinction between music intense in sound (loud and agressive) and intense in expression (turbulent and dramatic). I think that albums such as Pantera's _Vulgar Display of Power_ and Slayer's _Reign in Blood_ are incredible heavy in terms of sound but not so much in terms of expression while King Crimson's _Starless and Bible Black_ (side B in particular) is not nearly as powerful in terms of sound but in terms of expression it's quite heavy.

...

I think that it's a matter of taste if one likes or not intense music. Some people may think that the most intense the better, while others may prefer calm, controlled music. I believe that there's a tendency of the people of this second group to label the music heard by those of the first as "vulgar" or "bombastic", while those of the first tend to view the music listened by those of the second as "boring" or "effeminate". All this is an unfortunate misconception IMO, as I believe that there's great music to be found amongst both tendencies, and I think that it would be much more reasonable for some people to just say "I don't like this music" when refering to certain key works of both tendencies than instead try to denigrate them and their listeners.

...

All that said, no, I don't think that Beethoven's music in general is "bombastic" ("high-sounding but with little meaning"), although I believe that one could make a point about that for _Wellington's Victory_, an exception to the rule. As a beethovenian, I don't view myself as bombastic either - my inner self may be tempestuous and convoluted sometimes, but it's very rare that I actually externalize it. Most of the time I think I look calm, polished and a bit nerd to those around me, and my life is far from being intense. When things are not going very well for me I usually tend to look for shelter in the music of Beethoven and Wagner, and they always save me, and I idolize them for this.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

As I said in the other thread, the notion that people can't appreciate art outside of their personalities is absurd and, I'd argue, contra to the spirit of art in being open to exploring modes of thought, being, ideas, etc. that are outside our own. 

As to what composers are bombastic, the problem is that the word has a huge subjective component to it. Yeah, it's easy to identify the big, loud, part of the music, but accusing it of being empty "sound and fury, signifying nothing" almost entirely depends on what the listener gets out of it. I personally hear bombast in much Shostakovich and some Tchaikovsky, but very little in Beethoven or Mahler, but that's just me. janxharris says he hears bombast in Mahler, as in the 2nd Symphony, while personally that symphony is one of the most profound experiences I've had with art, classical music or otherwise. That's subjectivity for you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombast is largely in the mind of the listener. One person's grandeur is another person's bombast. Anything big and powerful is bombastic if I'm not in the mood for it. There are surely some examples of indisputable bombast, though. If this isn't bombastic, I don't know what is:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I can't think of any composer who was always bombastic - but some composers wrote a lot of bombastic music, to be sure. Music that no conductor can hide the bombasity (is that a word?). Think Tikhon Khrennikov symphonies. A lot of Khachaturian. More than a little Tchaikovsky. Raff. Rubinstein. I'll even place the Bernstein symphonies in the category. The trouble is, bombastic music really appeals to the masses and so they're fooled. That's why a lot of movie music works so well.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

One of my favorite examples: The Assault on Beautiful Gorky by Shostakovich.....






Poor Gorky: hit from both sides......


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> I can't think of any composer who was always bombastic - but some composers wrote a lot of bombastic music, to be sure. Music that no conductor can hide the bombasity (is that a word?). Think Tikhon Khrennikov symphonies. A lot of Khachaturian. More than a little Tchaikovsky. Raff. Rubinstein. I'll even place the Bernstein symphonies in the category.
> *(1)The trouble is, bombastic music really appeals to the masses and so they're fooled.* *(2)That's why a lot of movie music works so well.*


1. What do you mean by fooled?
2. Let me suggest a practical definition of good bombast on the example a recent performance of a certain overture:


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Beethoven is a nuclear bomb, fair enough to be said. I salute you my dearest Enthusiast. Nice thread!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> 1. What do you mean by fooled?


I've played a lot of concerts where the conductor makes a point of ending with something loud, aggressive and impressive. They do it for one reason: to get applause and probably a standing ovation. The music itself is often second-rate, empty of musical calories, but it sure sounds great! And most people respond in the intended way, and too often they think this is GREAT music when it's really just a lot of empty musical rhetoric. Music even the composers sometimes disown. Examples: Caprice Boheme by Rachmaninoff. "1812" by Tchaikovsky. Capriccio Italien by Tchaikovsky. Don't get me wrong: it IS fun to play and listen to those works. They're all fun to conduct - but they're not substantial, great, fulfilling music. Young listeners are especially prone to liking bombast. I ought to know - it's what got me into classical! But over time, you realize how profound and deep music can be. And then you understand just how empty this musical junk food it. But then, we all need a junk food fix from time to time.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Havergal Brian
Phish


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Basically Hans Zimmer.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Beethoven was a rhythmic genius--so some people see that as bombastic when they're misinterpreting the point.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Most of Beethoven is far from bombastic, although two exceptions come to mind: Wellington's Victory and the Egmont Overture. Not bad pieces, just more empty than usual.

The most bombast I have ever encountered are typically the results of pianist-composers and violinist-composers constantly trying to one-up each other with increasingly difficult and impressing-sounding works, all very fun to listen to but lacking much substance. Even greats such as Liszt and Paganini were guilty of this.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> One of my favorite examples: The Assault on Beautiful Gorky by Shostakovich.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, I hadn't heard that before! Definitely bombastic. Good bombastic.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yeah, it's easy to identify the big, loud, part of the music, but accusing it of being empty "sound and fury, signifying nothing" almost entirely depends on what the listener gets out of it.


Exactly so .


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Beethoven's Egmont bombastic? I beg to differ. Eveything he wrote here has purpose and the story is poignant and dramatic. I think there are times when the history behind a work is neglected or ignored. Egmont is about heroism and the defense of one's religion. From Beethoven's point of view the story is tragic:



> Brief history lesson. When the Spanish occupied the Netherlands in the 16th century, a certain Count Egmont, member of one of the oldest and noblest families in Flanders, led resistance to the Inquisition and persecution of Protestants. For his troubles, he was arrested and executed.
> 
> In the music you hear the arrest of the Count. You hear, in the deep strings, the Spanish judges prosecuting him. You hear, in the plaintive wind, his wife, mother of his 11 children, pleading for mercy for her husband. You hear, in the fortissimo staccato notes of the brass, the verdict of guilty being given. A final piano pleading in the first violins. The whole orchestra in unison on a single note is the sentence of death. A forte fall of a fourth in first and second violins is the executioner's sword coming down.
> 
> ...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Hey, I hadn't heard that before! Definitely bombastic. Good bombastic.


The legendary team of Ferrante and Teicher would have done wonders with the Shostakovich/Gorky. Remember them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrante_&_Teicher

Theme from _Exodus_:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I know to many listeners, Chopin rarely strikes as being bombastic. He may not have the overt "loudness" or "vulgarity" of the most bombastic composers out there, but he has this method of restating the original material in the recapitulation with more 'bass notes', more 'doublings' and more 'forte', without much ingenuity of motivic variation. To me, it sounds a little inflated as well. 
It's not at all vulgar (unlike some pieces of Liszt or Alkan for example), but sometimes leaves me wondering "Why make such a huge deal out of it? or "Are you done yet, Monsieur Chopin?"
At least his sense of keeping things concise and motivic development are superior to Schubert's, but he's not the best craftsman at this either.

original material: 3:30~5:00 
recapitulation: 9:50~11:30






Look at the bass notes each time the main theme returns
0:09
1:42
3:33






Some Romantic composers strike me as mostly having only two traits: bombasticity and sentimentality.
As is the case with other greats, Beethoven is obviously more multi-faceted. Even in his middle period, he has a side like the Razumovsky quartets.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Beethoven's Egmont bombastic? I beg to differ.


I'm well aware of the story behind it. Perhaps "bombastic" is the wrong term to use and maybe I'm biased against it because I'm tired of playing it, but Egmont seems like it could've been written by any composer at the time. I just don't see any strokes of Beethoven's genius in any of the writing.

In that case the best term might be "mediocre" (for Beethoven, which is still highly competent).


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Some Romantic composers strike me as mostly having only two traits: bombasticity and sentimentality.


This is very true, not necessarily a bad thing but it's often too easy to sound superficially pleasing in this regard.

Schumann is one of my favorite composers because his piano works are usually neither.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

I think a lot depends on the interpretation. There are quite some meaningless recordings of potentially meaningful classical music. I have heard potentially great orchestra's playing potentially great music without any urgency or conviction, maybe the wrong conductor or just the wrong night? This makes many musical pieces potentially bombastic. It must be difficult to keep playing famous pieces like a Beethoven symphony you can play blindfolded, as if you play it for the first time. Also, large complicated works as a Mahler symphony or a Wagner opera, are easily played in a bombastic manner. The same goes for many operas and I even heard Bach's St. Matthew's passion, being performed once as if it was a huge cake with loads of whipped cream on top.
Sometimes, it just doesn't work. Or maybe, sometimes, it works.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is the implication that the gestures are empty or hollow that is the damning part of an accusation of bombast. I am not sure we often encounter that except perhaps when we treat film music as pure music. As for bombastic listeners, there may be a few but I don't know if their bombast comes from their listening.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> It is the implication that the gestures are empty or hollow that is the damning part of an accusation of bombast.


I don't agree, music isn't propositional, the metaphor that the "gestures" (=? some sort of semantic unit?) are empty won't stand up to investigation.

The "damning part of an accusation of bombast" is that it's a violent attempt by the musician to impose their will on the listener, an attack on the listener's liberty, his freedom of thought.

Contrast with music that woos, seduces, charms.

It's like the difference between rape and seduction. When someone says that Beethoven is bombastic they mean he's an aural rapist.


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> It's like the difference between rape and seduction. When someone says that Beethoven is bombastic they mean he's an aural rapist.


The relationship between Ludwig van and my eardrums is completely consensual thank you very much.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> I don't agree, music isn't propositional, the metaphor that the "gestures" (=? some sort of semantic unit?) are empty won't stand up to investigation.


I don't know what investigation you have in mind - hopefully not one that is too bombastic - but I don't think there is anything unusual in my use of the word "gestures". I'm surprised you haven't come across such usage before. There is no suggestion from me that music is propositional. You recognise metaphorical language but treat it as literal. An empty gesture in music is one that fails to deliver anything that justifies the emphasis that opens it up to the accusation of bombast in the first place.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ But your post count is the highest in the thread so far! OK, you've been a member for longer ...


You've been a member only three years and have more than half as many posts. But no matter, the premise of this thread is rather dubious at best.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> An empty gesture in music is one that fails to deliver anything


Empty of what? What is "delivered" (another metaphor which won't stand up to investigation) by music which isn't empty?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MaxKellerman said:


> The relationship between Ludwig van and my eardrums is completely consensual thank you very much.


I used to know someone who was like you about **** ing


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I used to know someone who was like you about **** ing


What can I say, I admit it. I like a little aural BDSM. I guess I'm a bit of a kinky listener.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Empty of what? What is "delivered" (another metaphor which won't stand up to investigation) by music which isn't empty?


If you had copied the whole sentence I think my intention would have been clear enough:

An empty gesture in music is one that fails to deliver anything that justifies the emphasis that opens it up to the accusation of bombast in the first place.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> You've been a member only three years and have more than half as many posts. But no matter, the premise of this thread is rather dubious at best.


It was just a feeble joke. Sorry if it offended you.

Why do you feel the premise of the thread is dubious? I was borrowing the suggestion that Beethoven's music is bombastic, and so are his "fans", from a different thread and merely asking if there are other composers who some might feel suffer from the same trait. It also was intended as light hearted but perhaps you don't do light hearted? We can't be serious all the time.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> If you had copied the whole sentence I think my intention would have been clear enough:
> 
> An empty gesture in music is one that fails to deliver anything that justifies the emphasis that opens it up to the accusation of bombast in the first place.


I don't think it would have made your intention clearer. I don't know what justification could possibly mean.

Let's take a example. What is the justification for the opening bars of the Waldstein? Or the opening of the Allemande of the D minor French Suite? I don't know what a justification consists in when it comes to music which isn't text related.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I may be wrong, but I think that intense, fiery music started with Vivaldi. I can think of some of his minor mode concertos in his L'Estro Armonico as good examples of what I mean. Sammartini seems to have absorved Vivaldi's style, present in his early works, and this may have influenced Gluck, his pupil and the first composer of the so called Sturm und Drang ("Storm and Stress") movement in music. Gluck's 1761 ballet Don Juan can be considered the first work representative of the new style, and I listen a reference to Vivaldi in it's finale (at 50:00 in this video) and IMO it's a deliberate tribute paid to the composer.
> 
> *Through Gluck's influence, two of the major figures of Classical music, Haydn and Mozart, started to adopt a more intense, turbulent style in their music.* Pieces such as Mozart's pianos concertos #20 and #24, his symphonies #25 and #40, parts of his opera Don Giovanni ("Don Juan"!) and the Requiem are amongst the most intense ever produced at their time IMO.


well, two things I want to point out is that 'fiery music' and 'bombastic music' are NOT the same thing. And NOT all 'fiery music' of the second half of the 18th century originate from Sturm und Drang, (and Mozart 20th, 24th piano concertos don't even classify as part of the movement. )

For example these have nothing to do with the Sturm und Drang movement whatsoever, they originate from the respective classical liturgical traditions (the Salzburg tradition for the case of Mozart, and the Esterhazys' for the case of Haydn), far closer to Handelian aesthestics than Vivaldi or Gluck. I would say Mozart's Requiem has more to do with Bach, Pergolesi, Palestrina than Sturm und Drang

2:44
5:54
7:31





1:36





10:22
11:25


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I think there are times when Beethoven is accused of being bombastic when he’s just being Beethoven. But he certainly can be explosive and perhaps have too much of it. Some composers like to let off steam and they’re famous for it. With the great ones, it’s up to the listeners to adjust to them and not the other way around. There’s an art to listening to each one, the right works and not too much or too little of it. Otherwise these geniuses get henpecked to death by those who may not fully understand them to begin with. Downgrading Beethoven’s middle period is an insult, that is if one understands Beethoven to begin with, and I sometimes doubt that some do just because he ruffles their feathers a bit. What kind of an appreciation or understanding is that of this legendary composer? One is suggesting that he not be himself.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> well, two things I want to point out is that 'fiery music' and 'bombastic music' are NOT the same thing.


I've made a similar point at the same post you quoted from me, but you didn't include it in your quote. It seems that you missed it while reading.



hammeredklavier said:


> And NOT all 'fiery music' of the second half of the 18th century originate from Sturm und Drang, (*and Mozart 20th, 24th piano concertos don't even classify as part of the movement.* )


Do you have a backing for this claim? For I have found sources in the *gramophone website*, in the site *bachtrack.com*, in the *New York Times page* and even *here at TC* making connections between _Sturm und Drang_ and these pieces. Also *in this book*.

If you type "Mozart Requiem Sturm und Drang" on google you'll see references to the movement linked to the piece also.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> It was just a feeble joke. Sorry if it offended you.
> 
> Why do you feel the premise of the thread is dubious? I was borrowing the suggestion that Beethoven's music is bombastic, and so are his "fans", from a different thread and merely asking if there are other composers who some might feel suffer from the same trait. It also was intended as light hearted but perhaps you don't do light hearted? We can't be serious all the time.


Not offended in the least. I know only one Beethoven fan in real life so I can't really take a poll.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I've always thought the conclusion to Lutoslawski's (magnificent) cello concerto to be bombastic--there's something of an extroverted fanfare quality to the conclusion that comes as a surprise after the haunting earlier sections.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Do you have a backing for this claim? For I have found sources in the *gramophone website*, in the site *bachtrack.com*, in the *New York Times page* and even *here at TC* making connections between _Sturm und Drang_ and these pieces. Also *in this book*.
> 
> If you type "Mozart Requiem Sturm und Drang" on google you'll see references to the movement linked to the piece also.


Well then do you agree with Kristian Bezuidenhout's way to generally describe Mozart's piano pieces using the term "Sturm und Drang"?




I take a grain of salt when those people use "Sturm und Drang" to describe everything. They sometimes don't mean the academically correct definition of "Sturm und Drang", which took place in 1760s~70s specifically. Why doesn't the wikipedia page list every minor-key work by Mozart and Haydn then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm_und_Drang
( As I said before in the thread Sturm und Drang ) applying the term to everything that sounds stormy, dark, dramatic is like associating the term 'bel canto' to every opera in music history that sounds beautiful, just because the literal meaning of the term is 'beautiful singing'. But we all know that's misuse of the term in the academic sense.
Sturm und Drang has a certain feel to it that sounds quite different from other types of works composed in other periods or for other uses etc.










Do you think these classify as the academically accepted classification of "Sturm und Drang" as well?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> I don't think it would have made your intention clearer. I don't know what justification could possibly mean.
> 
> Let's take a example. What is the justification for the opening bars of the Waldstein? Or the opening of the Allemande of the D minor French Suite? I don't know what a justification consists in when it comes to music which isn't text related.


I must say that it never occured to me to consider the start of the Waldstein or the D minor French Suite as bombastic. The sentence you are asking me to justify -



> An empty gesture in music is one that fails to deliver anything that justifies the emphasis that opens it up to the accusation of bombast in the first place.


 -

concerns bombast. Both your example are relatively fleet (and, really, _bombastic_???) openings of fairly substantial pieces. So I'm not sure I can use them to explain myself.

My sentence was an attempt to describe the (subjective) experience of listening to a piece of music. I was trying to say that an arguably bombastic gesture (you can use "passage" if you prefer) would not seem bombastic to me if its relationship to the music in the whole piece is such that it helps the music to seem profound - or if the alleged bombast adds something apparently meaningful (for the listener) to the piece. I doubt this will satisfy you but without an example of music that could genuinely be considered bombastic I'm not sure I can go further.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

This is a quote from Simon Rattle (taken from the webchat I have referred to elsewhere):



> I do find people talking about Beethoven's flaws rather frustrating. This was a really inconvenient personality and composer and sometimes the music is ugly, sometimes it's awkward, it very often asks more than any human performer can give. But I really don't think these are flaws. This is part of what was an outsize personality and someone who was not just painting on the canvas but on the frames and the walls and the ceilings as well.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> profound -


another metaphor. So far we've had

profound
deliver
empty

I'm suspect that these concepts make no sense, they appear to make sense but in fact say nothing, in the context of art forms which aren't language like -- music, dance, abstract art.

Of course "seeming profound" is another thing, that tingle down your spine. It's not very interesting that, just a reflection of your state of mind. Smoke enough weed and chopsticks seems profound.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'll try that with the chopsticks. But for the rest, I am obviously talking about how things seem to a listener rather than of objectively verifiable qualities. You can, of course, dismiss the perceptions I have of music I am listening to and suggest they are the products of poor taste or inexperience or too many psychoactive drugs ... or you can just accept that we feel differently about some music and go on to describe how you experience the same music. But really I don't think you should seek to undermine my experience of music with the suggestion that it (or my attempt to describe it?) is philosophically flawed.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It's not a question of undermining, it's a question of giving the experience it's just status. When someone reports that, for example, they think that a piece of music is deep, I'm suggesting

1. What they are saying is meaningless.

If you think I'm wrong then cash the metaphor please. What is depth?

2. Their response would be more accurately reported by physical things (quiver of excitement , , , ) or psychological associations (made me think of when I was very sad)

In philosophical logic we've leaned that it's quite often the case that a sentence in natural language seems to be meaningful, it's syntactically well constructed out of units from the language, but in fact doesn't express a thought at all. John McDowell famously argued this years ago for empty proper names (see his discussion of the sentence "Mumbo Jumbo brings thunder" in the paper _On the Sense and Reference of a Proper Name._) The relation between language and reality is more enigmatic than it first appears.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ And yet for the most part we do fine in communicating through natural language. I do accept that it will often fail where our intention is rigorous. But I am not at all sure that such rigour can usefully be required or expected on a music forum. 

If I say that that I experience a piece of music or part of a piece as deep I think most people will have a sense of the experience I am describing. I could probably respond to the questions "deep in what way?" or "deep how?" to the extent that I have a language to describe my experience of music but if someone is really not getting what I mean we will probably just have to let it go. 

I hear your suggestion of describing physical sensations. That adds little for me in most cases but we all differ in the extent to which we experience and understand emotions through physical or bodily sensations. It is rare for me for the defining part of an emotional experience to be physical. Is this bringing us towards the Jungian idea of thought vs. feeling and intuition vs. sensation? If so I think that thinking and intuition dominate for me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I must say that it never occured to me to consider the start of the Waldstein or the D minor French Suite as bombastic. The sentence you are asking me to justify -


I agree those pieces aren't bombastic, they at least exhibit a kind of 'containment' through structure.
Someone also said in another thread that as long as composers justify themselves with structure, it's ok to be "bombastic". 
I tend to consider the miniaturists (who seem generally more interested in creating a mere "atmosphere", while disregarding form) even more bombastic than the big symphonists, for example in this regard.
They're analogous to people in real life who talk very little but yell in other peoples' ears every time.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Some listeners think that anything louder than a double pianissimo is "bombastic." They neither understand the composer nor his music. Scriabin is merely expressing the intensity of his personality. If it makes one feel uncomfortable than listen to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star exclusively. The great composers are not here to behave politely but to finally make others FEEL something — anything that's more than conformist and highly conventional thinking that never gets below the surface of human nature or to the essence of anything. God forbid that anyone misbehave or storm the heavens. Composers write what they want to write and insightful listeners either enjoy it or try to fathom its meaning. Sometimes it's simply too negative around here with all the petty nitpicking and complaints without ever understanding what made these composers famous in the first place. In Scriabin's case it's his PASSION. Now try explaining passion to those who are apparently incapable of feeling it and can only analyze to critically condemn.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think most of the romantic composers had bombast well within their powers, Brahms and Tchaikovsky among them. 

In terms of matching composers to their fans - a lot of people love both Brahms and Tchaikovsky, but when we look at people who really, really love Brahms and people who really, really love Tchaikovsky - it may just be my imagination but I feel like their biggest fans are who you'd think their biggest fans would be, even (or maybe especially) if you'd only heard the first minute of either one's first piano concerto. (If anyone is offended by this suggestion, however, I am utterly unwilling to defend it even for a moment!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ And yet for the most part we do fine in communicating through natural language. I do accept that it will often fail where our intention is rigorous. But I am not at all sure that such rigour can usefully be required or expected on a music forum.
> 
> If I say that that I experience a piece of music or part of a piece as deep I think most people will have a sense of the experience I am describing. I could probably respond to the questions "deep in what way?" or "deep how?" to the extent that I have a language to describe my experience of music but if someone is really not getting what I mean we will probably just have to let it go.
> 
> I hear your suggestion of describing physical sensations. That adds little for me in most cases but we all differ in the extent to which we experience and understand emotions through physical or bodily sensations. It is rare for me for the defining part of an emotional experience to be physical. Is this bringing us towards the Jungian idea of thought vs. feeling and intuition vs. sensation? If so I think that thinking and intuition dominate for me.


The reason I mentioned physical sensations is that I've just bought a "new" amp, a Radford STA25, and it has this uncanny way of making the music visceral.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> another metaphor. So far we've had
> 
> profound
> deliver
> ...


Oh come on. These are not "concepts" but merely discriptive words that others may or may not understand or agree with:

Profound - an internal experience that resonates deep or intensely within one's nature and deepen one's experience of life.
Deliver - the music communicates or convey something that the person values or experiences directly even if it can't be conveyed to someone else.
Empty - norhing is communicate or there's no response by the listener. It's a void not filled and the void can only be experienced or understood by the listener.

There's nothing mysterious about those words. It's that the person knows what's happening internally and not that it's necessary understood by others and there's an absolute agreement about their meaning. Human beings are intended to understand our own nature and not make such a linguistic mess out of something so basic and human.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Well then do you agree with Kristian Bezuidenhout's way to generally describe Mozart's piano pieces using the term "Sturm und Drang"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here is a link to a *Master's Thesis from the Western Michigan University*. According to this source, the term "Sturm und Drang" applied to music only appeared in 1909 as a reference of a certain author to a few works by Haydn (slide 18). Other authors started to use the term in a broader way and the text cites pieces from the 1760's and 1770's such as Gluck's _Don Juan_ and Mozart's Symphony No. 25 K. 183 (slide 27) as also belonging to "Sturm und Drang" according to their view. There's an analysis of the musical characteristiscs of "Sturm und Drang" on slides 33 to 46 that are summarised in slide 48 as:

"1) the use of contrapuntal forms and techniques; 2) the use of contrasting dynamics and the greater use of accentuation; 3) the general expansion of form and the use of the sonata da chiesa form; 4) the greater use of dissonance and more extended modulations; 5) the use of humorous or surprising effects; 6) a passionate mood; 7) driving, propulsive rhythms and the use of rhythmic patterns; 8) wide leaps within themes; and, 9) the use of unusual keys and the minor mode. These characteristics altogether constitute the musical _Sturm und Drang_ style."

The relationship between Mozart and "Sturm und Drang" is discussed on slide 67. When discussing his symphony #25, the author of the thesis writes:

"Grout and Sadie agree that Mozart's Symphony in G Minor, K.183, is written in the _Sturm und Drang_ style. Grout cites such characteristics as its intense, serious mood, its thematic unity, and the expansion of the entire form as compared with Mozart's earlier symphonies. Sadie mentions "the urgent tone of the repeated syncopated notes at the start," and "the dramatic falling diminished 7th, and the repeated thrusting phrases that follow" as establishing the tone of the work. (...) Harman also describes Mozart's other G Minor Symphony (K.550, 1778) as having _Sturm und Drang_ characteristics. He states that in this late symphony, 'all the properties of 'Storm and Stress' are divested of rhetoric, so that the drama is pure music and the music drama, and the suffering is neither Mozart's nor ours, but mankind's.' *Perhaps this is evidence that, as in Haydn's case, the Sturm und Drang also affected Mozart's later compositions.*"

On Gluck (slide 70):

"Turning to Gluck, Longyear mentions as an element of his style 'the powerful expressive devices of the Sturm und Drang which were brought to Paris by German instrumental composers.' (...) Landon's view is somewhat different, considering Gluck an influence on _Sturm und Drang_ composers rather than the reverse. *He cites the Finale to Gluck's Don Juan (1761) as 'perhaps the most important single beginning of the whole Austrian musical Sturm und Drang'*."

I think that the general characteristics cited in my first quote fit in some of the late works by Mozart, a position that seems reasonable to me considering what is in bold in the second quote. Also, considering that it seems that there's no consensus between authors of what exactly is "Sturm und Drang" in music and in which musical compositions truly belong to the movement, and that the term wasn't even applied outside of literature in Mozart's time, I take the liberty of defining "Sturm und Drang" for me as "emotional and fiery music of the Classical era". I also understand that the movement starts with Gluck, not Haydn (see the my third quote), and that it's roots in the emotional but not necessarily fiery music of C.P.E. Bach and in some fiery but perhaps not so emotional concertos by Vivaldi. I'm no music expert and may reconsider this position though.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I don't see how Sturm and Drang can be discussed in the arts without looking at Goethe's role in it. It influnced all the arts in Germany:

"Sturm und Drang was intimately associated with the young Goethe. While a student at Strasbourg, he made the acquaintance of Johann Gottfried von Herder, a former pupil of Hamann, who interested him in Gothic architecture, German folk songs, and Shakespeare. Inspired by Herder’s ideas, Goethe embarked upon a period of extraordinary creativity. In 1773 he published a play based upon the 16th-century German knight, Götz von Berlichingen, and collaborated with Herder and others on the pamphlet “Von deutscher Art und Kunst,” which was a kind of manifesto for the Sturm und Drang. His novel Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (1774; The Sorrows of Young Werther), which epitomized the spirit of the movement, made him world famous and inspired a host of imitators. It's the German literary movement of the late 18th century that exalted nature, feeling, and human individualism and sought to overthrow the Enlightenment cult of Rationalism."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I think that the general characteristics cited in my first quote fit in some of the late works by Mozart, a position that seems reasonable to me considering what is in bold in the second quote. Also, considering that it seems that there's no consensus between authors of what exactly is "Sturm und Drang" in music and in which musical compositions truly belong to the movement, and that the term wasn't even applied outside of literature in Mozart's time, I take the liberty of defining "Sturm und Drang" for me as "emotional and fiery music of the Classical era". I also understand that the movement starts with Gluck, not Haydn (see the my third quote), and that it's roots in the emotional but not necessarily fiery music of C.P.E. Bach and in some fiery but perhaps not so emotional concertos by Vivaldi. I'm no music expert and may reconsider this position though.


I know there's a debate in some quarters on the proper definition of Sturm und Drang (although it seems to me scholars generally agree that it's the kind of composition style like K159, K173, K183 written around 1760s~70s that classifies as Sturm und Drang) 
But then how much of music before and after that period is NOT Sturm und Drang?
Is Beethoven's 5th Sturm und Drang?

And also, as I discussed there's a lot of influence of Handel, Michael Haydn, Johann Ernst Eberlin in Mozart's liturgical works and if we were to include all these in the category of Sturm und Drang and then we also have to accept that Sturm und Drang is NOT entirely Gluckian creation.






Was Handel inspired by Gluck when writing Messiah?

2:25









Since 'Sturm und Drang' is not the main topic of this thread, I recommend a better place to discuss this: Sturm und Drang


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

science said:


> it may just be my imagination but I feel like their biggest fans are who you'd think their biggest fans would be, even (or maybe especially) if you'd only heard the first minute of either one's first piano concerto. (If anyone is offended by this suggestion, however, I am utterly unwilling to defend it even for a moment!)


It feels true somehow.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Since 'Sturm und Drang' is not the main topic of this thread, I recommend a better place to discuss this: Sturm und Drang


I answered to both you and Mr. Larkenfield in the thread you mentioned.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2019)

Never thought I would be mentioning Haydn here, but just listened to his "Military" symphony (No 100) and I find the Turkish elements (bass drum and cymbals) to be just a distraction from very inventive music.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Such a delightful symphony. I wouldn't have expected it to be tame.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

I don't find Beethoven 'bombastic' in the slightest. When he's grand and powerful I feel like he's 'earned' the right to be.


----------

