# What is fancy music?



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Last month I devised some categories for popular composers into "Classical and Neo-Classical" and "Romantic and Neo-Romantic." Although some composers overlap into both, I thought the Classical/Neo-Classical members took on the form of 'fanciness.' Musically speaking, this resembles a kind of lightness or evasion, or in essence, a pure sensation of _ moment to moment instability_, compared to the later-developing Hard Romanticism.

Classical and Neo-Classical: Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, Schumann

Romantic and Neo-Romantic: Wagner, Mahler, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Ravel, Shostakovich

All in all what I found is, the specific aspect of fanciness within their compositions, or _moment-to-moment instability_, (not to be confused with the whole compositions themselves), didn't impress me much, because this fancy instability is based on a set of learnable gimmicks with basic harmonies, rather than a grander personal vision. Not to say there aren't many more aspects in Classicism I find appealing than its _fanciness_, but what do you think about this term "Fanciness" as it's so often applied to Classical? What does it mean to you?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

because Classicism is based on a balance of Narrative - Image - Symbol, which represents "conflict solved by diplomacy" whereas Romanticism abandons the idea of diplomacy in most part and reconnects the 3 so that Narrative & Symbol now serve to provide for Image, save for certain works and composers like Bruckner, where Symbol is given the main position.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> All in all what I found is, the specific aspect of fanciness within their compositions, or _moment-to-moment instability_, (not to be confused with the whole compositions themselves), didn't impress me much, because this fancy instability is based on a set of learnable gimmicks with basic harmonies, rather than a grander personal vision. Not to say there aren't many more aspects in Classicism I find appealing than its _fanciness_, but what do you think about this term "Fanciness" as it's so often applied to Classical? What does it mean to you?


It doesn't mean anything to me. It's not a word I use or ever contemplate. "Elegant" is a word I use sometimes for various composers or compositions, Mozart being a prime example.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am not sure what is being got at here but I am 100% sure that Brahms and Schumann are Romantic composers. Brahms had some classical merits but that doesn't make him a Classical composer. Schumann is my ideal Romantic, more of a Romantic than any other composer. Also, I am not sure how helpful it is to classify modern (20th and 21st century) composers as neo-classical or neo-romantic except where they are deliberately so (such as Stravinsky, Martin and perhaps some Poulenc). I was surprised to see the rather classically minded Ravel in the neo-romantic camp.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

As others have pointed out, your assignment of composers to Classical/Neo and Romantic/Neo may be a bit off, but I don't know what you have in mind by your examples. You put "moment to moment instability" in italics and I'm not sure what that is exactly and how it translates to "fanciness." I think of the Classical Period as being more "formal" in its structure, more sophisticated, if you will. Without the incessant counterpoint and ornamentation of the Baroque, it really sounds much cleaner and more organized with its formalization of symphony, string quartet, sonata, etc. Is that what you mean by "fanciness"?


----------

