# Which Composer Defines the Romantic Era the Most?



## neoshredder

If you were going to describe the Romantic Era based on one Composer, who would you choose? I think it would be Tchaikovsky. But it will be interesting to see what others say.


----------



## aleazk

Chopin and Schumann.


----------



## Ravndal

Chopin is probably the most famous romantic composer. And i guess most people would say Chopin (that goes for non-classical lovers aswell. or perhaps most non classical lovers would say mozart, but after that - chopin).

But for me, the absolutely most romantic composers is Ravel & Debussy. They make me miss beautiful things i have never experienced. A type of magic that only exists in ones mind.


----------



## Ukko

I'll go with Schumann, as much for his writings as for his music. My first thought was Berlioz, but his music really wasn't representative of what 'everybody' was doing, at least according to that 'everybody'.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ravndal said:


> But for me, the absolutely most romantic composers is Ravel & Debussy. They make me miss beautiful things i have never experienced. A type of magic that only exists in ones mind.


In my mind, Ravel and Debussy belong to the modern era. Their use of tonal relations is completely different from the common practice period.

I'd choose Wagner. He symbolizes every tendency of the Romantic period, from the unification of music, art, and literature to the extension of tonality.


----------



## neoshredder

I think of Ravel and Debussy in their own class. Thus I guess why they were labeled Impressionists which they didn't like. But they aren't quite Romantic Era sound imo. Somewhere between Romantic Era and Early Modern. But yeah I forgot about Chopin. He is definitely Romantic. And Strauss should get a mention.


----------



## Ravndal

Impressionism is a part of late romanticism. And they are the ultimate romantics imo


----------



## Ukko

Ravndal said:


> [...]
> But for me, the absolutely most romantic composers is Ravel & Debussy. They make me miss beautiful things i have never experienced. A type of magic that only exists in ones mind.


Neither of those guys would be happy with you for sticking them in the Romantic Era, _Ravndal_.


----------



## Ravndal

Oh, but they are dead. they dont mind. And if they didn't want to be mentioned as romantics, they shouldnt have composed so dreamy and emotional music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ravndal said:


> Impressionism is a part of late romanticism.


No, late romanticism (Strauss, Mahler, Reger, Wolf) is a post-Wagnerian chromatic tonal movement. Impressionism is an anti-Wagnerian neomodal/non-tonal movement.


----------



## ahammel

Mahlerian said:


> I'd choose Wagner. He symbolizes every tendency of the Romantic period, from the unification of music, art, and literature to the extension of tonality.


To the enormous egos?


----------



## Ravndal

Mahlerian said:


> No, late romanticism (Strauss, Mahler, Reger, Wolf) is a post-Wagnerian chromatic tonal movement. Impressionism is an anti-Wagnerian neomodal/non-tonal movement.


I have always looked at impressionism as a outspring from late romantics. They just describe the beautiful spontaniously.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> To the enormous egos?


Well, not _every_ Romantic composer had a huge ego...there were people like Mendelssohn, Bruckner, and Dvorak as well...


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven of course! "Beethoven’s music sets in motion the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism. He is therefore a purely romantic composer." --E.T.A. Hoffman, 1810


----------



## Ramako

Actually, I think Rachmaninoff is too 'Romantic' to be considered representative of the Romantic era, but I do think he can be considered definitive... :lol: This piece takes the aesthetic as far as it could go to my mind.


----------



## ProudSquire

I don't know, but Chopin, Liszt and Tchaikovsky came to mind. I would be hard pressed to chose between the three.


----------



## ahammel

Mahlerian said:


> Well, not _every_ Romantic composer had a huge ego...there were people like Mendelssohn, Bruckner, and Dvorak as well...


True, but Wagner, Liszt, and Chopin certainly broke new ground in that area.


----------



## ptr

I would think that Franz Liszt hands down embodies everything that is Romantic Music and thought!

/ptr


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I second Wagner. He impacted the romantic composers after him like no one other, except Beethoven. Beethoven could be a good definer since I consider him the 1st Romantic composer, but he didn't go to the max of tonal freedom the way Wagner did.


----------



## Mahlerian

My first thought was actually Berlioz, who had many of the same traits as Wagner, but he didn't have quite the same level of impact (except perhaps vicariously).



Huilunsoittaja said:


> I second Wagner. He impacted the romantic composers after him like no one other, except Beethoven. Beethoven could be a good definer since I consider him the 1st Romantic composer, but he didn't go to the max of tonal freedom the way Wagner did.


Not a Russian?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Mahlerian said:


> My first thought was actually Berlioz, who had many of the same traits as Wagner, but he didn't have quite the same level of impact (except perhaps vicariously).
> 
> Not a Russian?


-_-

I don't twist my _entire _conscience to what I would prefer, only parts of it.  And besides, Wagner made a pretty noticeable impact on some Russian composers. Berlioz actually made more impact on the Russians than Wagner for the longest time, but they got the gist eventually.


----------



## Feathers

For me it's definitely Schumann, due to his emotional struggles combined with his wildly imaginative yet intimately expressive style along with just a drop of conservativeness. 

Tchaikovsky would probably by my second choice, and maybe Liszt.


----------



## Ukko

KenOC said:


> Beethoven of course! "Beethoven's music sets in motion the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism. He is therefore a purely romantic composer." --E.T.A. Hoffman, 1810


In 1810, Hoffman could have no understanding of the Romantic Era in music. He was tripping on the literature.


----------



## Art Rock

Not my favourite composer (even though it is my favourite period), but I would vote for Liszt.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

I'm not sure any one composer defines the romantic era but the ones that come to my mind as representing the best of the era would be Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, and Schumann. And for late romantic it would be Sibelius and Mahler!

Kevin


----------



## Novelette

Mahlerian said:


> Impressionism is an anti-Wagnerian neomodal/non-tonal movement.


Best definition of Impressionism I've read, Mahlerian!


----------



## Novelette

I suppose it is no surprise that I should choose Schumann. His works are profuse in their deeply introspective characterization of concentrated feelings. His lieder are especially fine examples of his genius of focusing and portraying the agonies, sorrows, false hopes, joys, and ecstasies of the frustrations and triumphs of romance.

Schumann's prolific periods were an almost writhing and contorting eruption of inspirational genius, separated by largely inactive expanses. He was an incredibly resilient man in his personal life, until the ravages of tertiary syphilis took its last toll on him.

Small wonder that Tchaikovsky admired Schumann so much, despite his occasional criticism. He said in amazement that Schumann would so happily prostrate himself before the greatness of Mendelssohn and Brahms when, in fact, he was the greater of both [in Tchaikovsky's opinion].

I didn't regard Schumann as the composer most exemplifying my perception of Romanticism until I listened carefully to the Manfred Overture, Op. 115--that work astounds me, and is most certainly Romantic.

Although, I also adore Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, etc., etc., Schumann best represents the Romantic Era to me. 

Edit: I can't believe I neglected to give honorable mention to Chopin, Strauss, Sibelius, and Dvorak. They're great too!

I still have to familiarize myself with Mahler, but I'm planning to begin in a few weeks.


----------



## Nereffid

For his Beethoven-worship, flamboyant early days, introspective old age, complicated romantic relationships, support for causes such as Hungarian independence, work in Weimar, and compositions ranging from the tender to the bombastic, it has to be Liszt.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Beethoven of course! "Beethoven's music sets in motion the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism. He is therefore a purely romantic composer." --E.T.A. Hoffman, 1810


Well, then! Ain't it just a pity that Beethoven was a through and through Classical composer, and a classical / classicist he was from beginning to his final written note? Sorry, not a 'romantic' composer by any historic / musicological criteria :-/


----------



## PetrB

Romantic - big sea-change throughout the period, early / middle / late being very different critters -- enough differences I think to warrant a better-put 'Quintessential' in sub-categories of early / middle / late.

Carl Maria Von Weber / Schubert
(Ironically, with near exactly the same life-death dates as Beethoven, Von Weber was a romantic from the get-go, Beethoven a Classical - classicist from the get-go to his end. _So much for the infallibility of those period era dates being 'absolutes' as set by those musicologists in the late 1800's_ 

Schumann / Brahms

or... Wagner / Liszt / Chopin / Brahms / Tchaikovsky / Mahler.

Take your pick based upon musical procedures and traits, or personal reaction as per listener perception and 'sentiment.

ADD: my personal picks as wholly representative of "Romantic."
Schubert, Schumann / Liszt, Chopin / Mahler.


----------



## Ramako

PetrB said:


> Well, then! Ain't it just a pity that Beethoven was a through and through Classical composer, and a classical / classicist he was from beginning to his final written note? *Sorry, not a 'romantic' composer by any historic / musicological criteria* :-/


Oh, come on you can't claim that. I agree that he is largely Classical, particularly later on, but surely that's a bit extreme. Coriolan certainly is pretty Romantic, both in terms of form and intent.

But it's been a subject of debate in circles higher and more hallowed than this.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> Well, then! Ain't it just a pity that Beethoven was a through and through Classical composer, and a classical / classicist he was from beginning to his final written note? Sorry, not a 'romantic' composer by any historic / musicological criteria :-/


He was certainly a 'romantic' composer. He was not a Romantic composer. The cap is an important signifier.


----------



## PetrB

Ramako said:


> Oh, come on you can't claim that. I agree that he is largely Classical, but surely that's a bit extreme.


I don't 'claim it.' It is a simple fact, based upon all his music, musical procedures, and use of form: no matter how far he may have stretched the envelope of harmony and form, it remains in a classical framework and format. The feeling it may induce, and some excerpts as per how he wrote, are in a direction later picked up by and worked differently by the romantics.

Without Beethoven, it is not wild to say romantic music could have taken a very different tenor and shape, but that does not make Beethoven a romantic, by any stretch of the imagination.

That he 'pointed to' the romantic era is well-known. This is often so extremely mistaken or wrongly put that you can and will find 'Beethoven' as 'Romantic' in some rather official looking yet 'incorrect' music appreciation / history textbooks. [If you have not had the experience of a teacher announcing to the class the textbook is 'simply wrong' from time to time, I believe you've missed out on a fairly commonplace experience.]

_*Any of us (include the fully trained professional) can hear 'romantic' in Beethoven -- and that, to me, is not at all in dispute. The musical forensics, however, say 'solely and exclusively Classical DNA' *_


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> I don't 'claim it.' It is a simple fact...


Well, if you're THAT sure, then surely you're right.


----------



## Ramako

PetrB said:


> I don't 'claim it.' It is a simple fact, based upon all his music, musical procedures, and use of form: no matter how far he may have stretched the envelope of harmony and form, it remains in a classical framework and format. The feeling it may induce, and some excerpts as per how he wrote, are in a direction later picked up by and worked differently by the romantics.
> 
> Without Beethoven, it is not wild to say romantic music could have taken a very different tenor and shape, but that does not make Beethoven a romantic, by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> That he 'pointed to' the romantic era is well-known. This is often so extremely mistaken or wrongly put that you can and will find 'Beethoven' as 'Romantic' in some rather official looking yet 'incorrect' music appreciation / history textbooks. [If you have not had the experience of a teacher announcing to the class the textbook is 'simply wrong' from time to time, I believe you've missed out on a fairly commonplace experience.]


Our lecturers usually claim that _everyone_ else who has written on the subject is wrong except themselves :lol:

Anyway, 'pointed to' I agree with.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Well, if you're THAT sure, then surely you're right.


Okeedoh, but to bolster that your hearing is more than accurate, who the hell 'listens' to the autopsies and forensics of a composer?

(I'm as sure of Beethoven = Classical / classicist as I am of Debussy = 'modern' -- not 'late romantic' -- composer, also based on harmonic procedure and use of form... that regardless of how many cobbled together nutshell histories of music written as a listener's guides for, say, the Naxos label or similar, may be floating about


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

KenOC said:


> Beethoven of course! "Beethoven's music sets in motion the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism. He is therefore a purely romantic composer." --E.T.A. Hoffman, 1810


At that time, Mozart and all the composers we consider to be "Classical" today we're writing what they thought was "Romantic" music too.

To define the Romantic era I choose Berlioz. Not my favourite of all though, but I believe him to be the great musical innovator of the earlier part of the Romantic era that influenced what was to come later on in the century.


----------



## Novelette

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> To define the Romantic era I choose Berlioz. Not my favourite of all though, but I believe him to be the great musical innovator of the earlier part of the Romantic era that influenced what was to come later on in the century.


Berlioz was an incredibly inventive composer! He was undoubtedly one of the most important composers in the 19th century in terms of directing and influencing the future of music.


----------



## Bone

Some great discussion points. I think I'm going to go with Schumann, but Berlioz and Tchaikovsky are just behind.


----------



## PetrB

Ravndal said:


> But for me, the absolutely most romantic composers is Ravel & Debussy. They make me miss beautiful things i have never experienced. A type of magic that only exists in ones mind.


Your emotional reaction to music, and 'romantic' are wholly contemporary, and have nothing to do with what defines 'Romantic' as to classical music. Your emotions, anyone's emotional reaction to any art, always valid. The point, academic, but important if one is discussing classical music.

Ravel and Debussy are both 'Modern' composers, regardless of what feelings or images they might evoke in the listener


----------



## Aries

Richard Wagner



KenOC said:


> Beethoven of course!


Beethoven is Classic not Romantic.


----------



## KenOC

Aries said:


> Beethoven is Classic not Romantic.


Ah, but I say otherwise!


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> Beethoven of course! "Beethoven's music sets in motion the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism. He is therefore a purely romantic composer." --E.T.A. Hoffman, 1810


I'd say Beethoven was sort of proto-Romantic, but definitely not completely representative of the romantic era as a whole.

I'm sorta surprised no one has mentioned Liszt yet. If you take his whole oeuvre, then I think he represents most aspects of Romanticism, including the tendency towards instrumental virtuosity.

EDIT: Nvm, I forgot to read the whole thread before I said that nobody has mentioned Liszt yet. In that case, I agree with that person/those people.


----------



## Ramako

violadude said:


> I'm sorta surprised no one has mentioned Liszt yet. If you take his whole oeuvre, then I think he represents most aspects of Romanticism, including the tendency towards instrumental virtuosity.


Someone hasn't read the thread...


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> Ah, but I say otherwise!


What is your basis for saying otherwise?


----------



## violadude

Ramako said:


> Someone hasn't read the thread...


lol my bad.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Berlioz - he was very heart-on-sleeve and his personality seemed to dovetail perfectly with the music, plus the fact that this was the era where a bedraggled rakish guy with wavy hair and a loose-fitting cravat could become a hero. The only thing missing was total poverty, an addiction to laudanum and a death in his 20s/30s from either tuberculosis or syphilis.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> What is your basis for saying otherwise?


I need a basis? Actually though, I kind of like Hoffman's definition, and Beethoven is a good fit. Of course Hoffman defined Haydn and Mozart as "romantic" composers as well!


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> I need a basis?


Every objective claim needs a basis for its justification. Well, the Romantic era isn't defined merely by the fact that the music expresses terror, pain or infinite yearning. You could define most eras like that to some degree. There are other specific traits of the Romantic era that Beethoven simply doesn't meet most of the time.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> Every objective claim needs a basis for its justification.


If I say "Beethoven most defines the Romantic Era," that is pretty obviously an opinion. There aren't too many "objective claims" in music about such things! But enough -- in fact I agree with PetrB that Beethoven remained, at heart, a classicist while the world was changing about him.

Re who was really the composer in question, I'd have to agree with those who say "Schumann." Not Chopin, who retained too much of the classical or even late baroque steel.


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> At that time, Mozart and all the composers we consider to be "Classical" today we're writing what they thought was "Romantic" music too.
> 
> To define the Romantic era I choose Berlioz. Not my favourite of all though, but I believe him to be the great musical innovator of the earlier part of the Romantic era that influenced what was to come later on in the century.


I agree with Berlioz as a sort of milestone.

As to 'what composers thought they were,' there was no notion whatsoever of 'Baroque, Classical, Romantic,' until it was so named -- well after the facts of its having come into being -- when it was decided to 'make a history' of all that had gone before, at which time (late eighteen hundreds) 'music history,' and those names for the designated eras, was born. Until then, I would bet a solid coin that composers thought of themselves as merely 'a composer' and de facto, 'contemporary' composers at that


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> If I say "Beethoven most defines the Romantic Era," that is pretty obviously an opinion. There aren't too many "objective claims" in music about such things! But enough -- in fact I agree with PetrB that Beethoven remained, at heart, a classicist while the world was changing about him.


Ok, well I won't try to argue about the Beethoven issue specifically. But I would like to say that I do kind of feel that there is a certain amount of objectivity to the question "which composer defines the Romantic era the most?" It's not in the same realm of subjectivity as something like "Whose your favorite composer?" because there are certain objective qualifications that a composer has to meet before they are even in the realm of representing the Romantic Era at all, and the subjective side of the question lies within those objective standards. For example, could you say that Palestrina is the composer that defines the Romantic Era the most and claim it to be merely your opinion, just as valid as others' opinions? I'd say most people would think that would be sort of ridiculous. Now sure, there is more of a case for saying Beethoven represents the Romantic Era than Palestrina but the same principle applies.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

It might be easier if you guys broke this question into genres.

*Opera* - Verdi, Wagner

*Piano music* - Liszt, Chopin

*Song* - Schubert, Schumann

*Ballads* - Tchaikovsky

*The symphony* - Mahler, Bruckner

etc. etc.


----------



## SottoVoce

If you read what Beethoven says about the next stage of composers after him, and even of composers during his time who were tending to a more Romantic idiom (Louis Spohr), you will see that he thought ill of the extended harmony that Romantics were using, especially over chromaticism. There is no reason to see him as a Romantic with a big R, and I think his temperament especially towards his later life also doesn't classify himself as a romantic with a little r. He definitely still retained the classical way of thinking of music as formal rather than expressionistic.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

ahammel said:


> To the enormous egos?


Enormous egos sometimes help accomplish enormous things.

I would choose Wagner and Schubert (yes, I know it's supposed to be one). I think they are, in a way, opposite sides of the Romantic spectre: one wrote operas of epic length and powerful sound for a large orchestra, the other composed mostly humble and intimate-sounding chamber music and lieder.


----------



## Arsakes

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> It might be easier if you guys broke this question into genres.
> 
> *Opera* - Verdi, Wagner
> 
> *Piano music* - Liszt, Chopin
> 
> *Song* - Schubert, Schumann
> 
> *Ballads* - Tchaikovsky
> 
> *The symphony* - Mahler, Bruckner
> 
> etc. etc.


I agree about your Opera and Song choices. There is so much good Piano music, so I can't choose.
I add Dvorak to your 'The Symphony' section. and 
*Concertos* - Schumann, Brahms, Dvorak


----------



## sharik

neoshredder said:


> I think it would be Tchaikovsky


although tagged as a romantic, Tchaiky is much more about Lyricism then anything else... by the way Wagner too can be lyrical sometimes no less than romantic.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *Ballads* - Tchaikovsky


You mean _ballets _don't you????


----------



## DavidA

The composer who was the most influential (as opposed to popular) from the period was Liszt. He embodied the romantic and essentially created music from which much of the music that followed him was derived.


----------



## moody

Ramako said:


> Oh, come on you can't claim that. I agree that he is largely Classical, particularly later on, but surely that's a bit extreme. Coriolan certainly is pretty Romantic, both in terms of form and intent.
> 
> But it's been a subject of debate in circles higher and more hallowed than this.


I'm sorry when was i asked this question,but then I'm asked so many.


----------



## moody

Huilunsoittaja said:


> You mean _ballets _don't you????


I was wondering about that.


----------



## moody

neoshredder said:


> If you were going to describe the Romantic Era based on one Composer, who would you choose? I think it would be Tchaikovsky. But it will be interesting to see what others say.


If somebody asked me to play some typical romantic music it would have to be Tchaikovsky.
Following that Dvorak and Chopin I suppose.
This is to someone who is not going to reason whether Beethoven,Ravel and Debussy should be included or not.
If so and that person could follow some of the points above they wouldn't be asking such a question I'm sure.


----------



## peeyaj

Schubert for his miniature masterpieces such as his of 600 Lieder and the shorter piano works =)



> In most of his works Schubert is unique in melody, rhythm, modulation, and orchestration, but from a formal point of view he certainly is most original in his songs and his short pieces of piano. In his symphonies, chamber music, operas, and sacred compositions, he follows classical models; but in the lied, the 'Musical Moment,' the 'Impromptu,' he is a romanticist in every fiber.
> 
> But there was another reason. The tendency of the romantic school has been toward short forms, and although Weber helped to show the way, to *Schubert belongs the chief credit of originating the short models of pianoforte pieces which the romantic school has preferably cultivated.* His 'Musical Moments' are unique, and it may be said that in the third 'Impromptu' (Op. 90) lie the germs of the whole of Mendelssohn's 'Songs Without Words.


Dvorak


----------



## Weston

What a thread! What divergent opinions!

Beethoven could get a little programmatic, but no more so than a Handel opera, and Brahms is too formal. 

I'll go with Liszt. His piano music is the essence of all that I find amazing and all that I find tedious about the Romantic period.


----------



## moody

Weston said:


> What a thread! What divergent opinions!
> 
> Beethoven could get a little programmatic, but no more so than a Handel opera, and Brahms is too formal.
> 
> I'll go with Liszt. His piano music is the essence of all that I find amazing and all that I find tedious about the Romantic period.


Liazt-amazing ,yes. Tedious,never.


----------



## peeyaj

The person who rated this thread 1 star without reading the discussions here is really annoying. Pfft.


----------



## Kieran

Technically, I wouldn't have a clue. 

Temperamentally, Beethoven suggests the defiance, independence and tragedy that Romanticism thrives on. Big ego too, first-person composition with his whole self loudly to the fore. Triumphant music, ideological, sometimes sentimental (to my ears).

If there's such a thing as 'the soul of Romanticism,' it would be Schubert for me. He has the tragedy, the early death, the unearthly facility for making profoundly intimate statements through his music.

In terms of characters, etc, the big-life lived Big, then Liszt...


----------



## JCarmel

The composers that I link with the Romanticism movement are firstly Beethoven ...as his symphonic music captures in essence what I believe the movement was about....striving for the 'Infinite' with heightened awareness and emotion, all in pursuit of a goal/state of mind that represents the height of what Man may aspire-to. That takes me on to the German Romantic poets like Goethe and Heinrich Heine, which suggests in particular, those lieder composers Schumann and Schubert....whose cycles were inspired by their poetry and imagery. 
And then, Franz Liszt whose 'Annes de Pelerinage' (Suisse) represents one of the best examples....where he interprets poems and writings by Byron, Schiller and Senancour that idealise 'The Pastoral' and places Man in such rustic environments questioning his place in the world...'Who Am I', "Where Goeth I'...and all that lark!!


----------



## Op.123

Chopin and Dvorak.


----------



## Couchie

This thread is a hoot. Liszt and Berlioz? They are skid marks on the Beethoven-Wagner-Schoenberg highway. 

After Wagner composers suddenly became "Late Romantic", ie sun was setting. 

Wagner.


----------



## neoshredder

Couchie said:


> This thread is a hoot. Liszt and Berlioz? They are skid marks on the Beethoven-Wagner-Schoenberg highway.
> 
> After Wagner composers suddenly became "Late Romantic", ie sun was setting.
> 
> Wagner.


More like after Brahms.


----------



## tdc

I don't think any one composer defines the Romantic era the most, but Brahms, Liszt, Dvorak, and Wagner are all good listening suggestions for someone who wants to hear what Romantic music was all about.

As far as Beethoven I see him as a transitional figure between the Classical and Romantic eras, similar to how Monteverdi was a transitional figure between the Renaissance and Baroque. He may have stuck closer to Classical form, but the forms he used were expanded and unique and his compositional style was clearly _very_ influential to what followed in the Romantic era. I don't think composers like Beethoven neatly fit into one category. I don't think it is logical to say he was purely Classical and neatly fits into that one category based on his (unique) and expanded forms that did not have precedent in the Classical era.


----------



## Guest

To answer the OP and throwing the widest possible net (some fish will have to be thrown back into the sea), I'm going to say Schumann. You've got the music, some of its harmonic gestures (those "weeping willow" V13s if we are to believe the treatises) the tracts, the hair (sort of), the look, the angst, the wife, the legacy, the packaging ...


----------



## Guest

Yes, the packaging. The CD covers that go so well with the image of Schumann the marketers will have us swallow: snow, mountains, bad hair day, longing, looking-upwards-with-that-oh-so-trascendant-gaze-sepia-ergo-nostalgia-pass-the-sick-bag-Alice crap...


----------



## KenOC

TalkingHead said:


> Yes, the packaging. The CD covers that go so well with the image of Schumann the marketers will have us swallow: snow, mountains, bad hair day, longing, looking-upwards-with-that-oh-so-trascendant-gaze-sepia-ergo-nostalgia-pass-the-sick-bag-Alice crap...


Oh-oh. Either a modernist or a baroque fanatic... :devil:

Like this image better?


----------



## Guest

Can't I be both? A squirt of Heinz on your Rossini, Sir!


----------



## Guest

That is intended as a joke. Please don't report me to the Mods. It was a joke, dammit !!!


----------



## millionrainbows

For me, Chopin exemplifies Romanticism, because:

1. He is "the poet of the piano," and was expressing poetic, subjective impressions

2. This subjectivity is best expressed by the medium of the solo piano work; a Romantic "individual" who is expressing his personal, poetic impressions, rather than a Classical entertainment for nobles

3. There is a wandering tonality and voice-leading in his work, in which one thing leads to another, organically, as if he were free-associating during pre-sleep, or is having fantastic flights of imagination

As Mahlerian remarked above, Debussy and Ravel were more modernist in their use of musical materials, but the poetic sensibility is the same. 

This demonstrates a perceived connection by a general audience that there is an overt connection between Romanticism and more modern harmonic practice. 

In the general audience's perception, modern non-tonal chromaticism is naturally felt to be an outgrowth and development of traditional tonal chromaticism as expressed in Romanticism.


----------



## moody

Mahlerian said:


> No, late romanticism (Strauss, Mahler, Reger, Wolf) is a post-Wagnerian chromatic tonal movement. Impressionism is an anti-Wagnerian neomodal/non-tonal movement.


What,what,what, say that again!


----------



## ahammel

KenOC said:


> Like this image better?


Oh come on, really? There are actual photographs of Robert Schumann you know, ROTM marketing people. You could at least get somebody who looks a _little_ like him.


----------



## KenOC

ahammel said:


> Oh come on, really? There are actual photographs of Robert Schumann you know, ROTM marketing people. You could at least get somebody who looks a _little_ like him.


The amusing thing about this series (some of which are quite good BTW) is that somebody went to the trouble to commission brand new portraits of all the composers. But not one looks anything like the real person!


----------



## davinci

*Defines the Romantic Era the Most?*

Schumann to Brahms. Liszt also defines Romanticism.


----------



## Lisztian

Maybe Berlioz...but in the end, it has to be the composer of these pieces:































Among many others!


----------



## Guest

> `One cannot get drunk, one cannot quench one's thirst, with labels on bottles.'


http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6544.html

So it is with 'Romanticism'.

And yet...Beethoven!


----------



## obwan

neoshredder said:


> If you were going to describe the Romantic Era based on one Composer, who would you choose? I think it would be Tchaikovsky. But it will be interesting to see what others say.


I don't know if I could define an era by just one composer, but the first composer that jumped to mind was Tchaikovsky.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> And yet...Beethoven!


Bach is the one composer who proves everything. Beethoven is the composer who disproves everything!


----------



## Orfeo

In the operatic field, I'll pick Massenet.


----------



## elgar's ghost

ahammel said:


> Oh come on, really? There are actual photographs of Robert Schumann you know, ROTM marketing people. You could at least get somebody who looks a _little_ like him.


Looks more like a cross between Felix Mendelssohn and Dr. Who to me. :lol:


----------



## hpowders

I would have to go with Schumann. His solo piano works and song cycles are what romanticism is all about.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Schumann, Chopin, Liszt and also Schubert, even though structurally he was very close to the classical style. Tchaikovsky and Grieg are very romantic as well. Smetana and Berlioz come to mind.


----------



## alan davis

When I saw this thread, my first thought was Schumann. But this reveals my bias towards romanticism and Robert S. .... I remember reading many years ago that the romantic period began with Beethovens Pastoral Symphony. Others may have opinions on this.


----------



## hpowders

Why not Berlioz with his Symphonie Fantastique, as revolutionary as any piece ever composed; kicking us right into the Romantic Era.


----------



## BiggusD

Beethoven obviously... He invented romantic music after all.


----------



## violadude

BiggusD said:


> Beethoven obviously... He invented romantic music after all.











..........................


----------



## Winterreisender

BiggusD said:


> Beethoven obviously... He invented romantic music after all.


I basically agree with this. Beethoven was the first prominent composer who emphatically rejected the classical way of doing things in order to seek out a new path. This emphasis on individuality is, in my opinion, what Romanticism is all about, more so than any specific defining aesthetic.


----------



## violadude

Winterreisender said:


> I basically agree with this. Beethoven was the first prominent composer who emphatically rejected the classical way of doing things in order to seek out a new path. This emphasis on individuality is, in my opinion, what Romanticism is all about, more so than any specific defining aesthetic.


He had a different way of getting money so he could be freer to compose what he wanted to. But the large majority of his music is still very clearly in the realm of classical era music.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> View attachment 34049
> 
> 
> ..........................


... and Carl Maria von Weber feels more then a little slighted.


----------



## Winterreisender

Well it's true that Beethoven used certain classical conventions such as sonata form and the four-movement symphony, but so did many of the composers who followed him, e.g. Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann. Although Beethoven's models are perhaps classical, what he does with them is not. He widens the scope enormously, from a structural and harmonic point of view, abandoning ideas of balance and refinement in favour of a more unpredictable approach.

I look at compositions such as the _Great Fugue_ and the late sonatas. Here, the classical model is all but gone. Some people might say the _Great Fugue_ is not exactly a typical Romantic composition because it is so violent and discordant. But surely it is the ultimate goal of the Romantic composer to create something that no-one else can imitate?


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> View attachment 34049
> 
> 
> ..........................


Wow! This is even better than those early photos of President Lincoln.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Wow! This is even better than those early photos of President Lincoln.


It's from the movie "Immortal Beloved". That's Gary Oldman playing as Beethoven.


----------



## Mahlerian

Winterreisender said:


> I look at compositions such as the _Great Fugue_ and the late sonatas. Here, the classical model is all but gone. *Some people might say the Great Fugue is not exactly a typical Romantic composition because it is so violent and discordant.* But surely it is the ultimate goal of the Romantic composer to create something that no-one else can imitate?


Who? Those are surely some of the defining characteristics of Romantic-era music!


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> It's from the movie "Immortal Beloved". That's Gary Oldman playing as Beethoven.


Yeah. I know.


----------



## Couchie

"Early Romantic" = pre-Wagner
"Late Romantic" = post-Wagner

Very easily, Wagner.


----------



## FleshRobot

In my opinion it's Beethoven. While this kind of nomenclature (baroque, romantic, modern...) might help some people to convey the big picture of musical development throughout history, I wouldn't recommend people to consider a fact whether said composer is part of a period or not. Not only composers might transitional, but works can be also. And to me, Beethoven's last 5 symphonies are more similar to those of Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn than to the ones of Mozart and Haydn, let alone those of other composers from the classical period. So I don't see the big deal in calling them "romantic works", perhaps PetrB could enlighten me.


----------



## KenOC

FleshRobot said:


> In my opinion it's Beethoven. While this kind of nomenclature (baroque, romantic, modern...) might help some people to convey the big picture of musical development throughout history, I wouldn't recommend people to consider a fact whether said composer is part of a period or not. Not only composers might transitional, but works can be also. And to me, Beethoven's last 5 symphonies are more similar to those of Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn than to the ones of Mozart and Haydn, let alone those of other composers from the classical period. So I don't see the big deal in calling them "romantic works", perhaps PetrB could enlighten me.


ETA Hoffman, writing in 1810, would agree with you. Of course he also classified Haydn and Mozart as "romantic" composers!

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven


----------



## FleshRobot

KenOC said:


> ETA Hoffman, writing in 1810, would agree with you. Of course he also classified Haydn and Mozart as "romantic" composers!
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven


So would Leonard Bernstein in 1959, among other people. I remember reading that the opinion of the general public weather Beethoven was a romantic or not has changed a lot in the last century. Such vague terms as baroque and romantic are only used to make reference about the heavily ornamented music of the former and the sentimental music of the later, for example, they are not marked by official borders as some people here tend to believe.


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> "Early Romantic" = pre-Wagner
> "Late Romantic" = post-Wagner
> 
> Very easily, Wagner.


The composer who most of all defined and influence the Romantic era was Liszt. It has been shown that Wagner built on many of the innovations he learned from Liszt. It has also been argued that Wagner's influence was not as great as has been imagined outside a dedicated circle. But Liszt's influence was everywhere and still is!


----------



## Guest

FleshRobot said:


> In my opinion it's Beethoven. While this kind of nomenclature (baroque, romantic, modern...) might help some people to convey the big picture of musical development throughout history, I wouldn't recommend people to consider a fact whether said composer is part of a period or not. Not only composers might transitional, but works can be also. And to me, Beethoven's last 5 symphonies are more similar to those of Brahms, Schumann and Mendelssohn than to the ones of Mozart and Haydn, let alone those of other composers from the classical period. So I don't see the big deal in calling them "romantic works", perhaps PetrB could enlighten me.


There was a discussion of all these issues in another recent thread regarding the origins and nature of "romantic" era music: http://www.talkclassical.com/30258-romantic-period.html

In that thread, there is some discussion about where Beethoven fits into all this. It is a topic that has come up quite regularly under various guises on this and various other music boards.

There is respectable view, that many people hold, that Beethoven remained largely "classical", despite his innovations. It's all set out in the above thread, especially towards the end.


----------



## hpowders

So it was Liszt eh? Then label me an "anti-romantic".


----------



## neoshredder

Schumann for early Romanticism. Tchaikovsky for Late Romanticism. And that's my final answer.


----------



## hpowders

neoshredder said:


> Schumann for early Romanticism. Tchaikovsky for Late Romanticism. And that's my final answer.


You can still "dial a friend", if you wish. No? Final answer for $50,000? Schumann for early? Tchaikovsky for late?

He's done it!!!!!! :tiphat:


----------



## tdc

Partita said:


> There is respectable view, that many people hold, that Beethoven remained largely "classical", despite his innovations. It's all set out in the above thread, especially towards the end.


There is also a respectable view that Schoenberg was musically conservative, but I'm not convinced on that issue anymore than I'm convinced Beethoven was a Classicist. If this is indeed the case than I think both composers get way too much credit for being innovative, it can't be both ways.


----------



## lupinix

Chopin & Schumann, Rachmaninov & Mahler
Im not very fond of Liszt in his early and middle periods, and though he had many romantic caracteristics and has influenced many romantic composers, to me he doesn't have the romantic feel, which of course is purely subjective but still, I wouldn't say he is more romantic than chopin for instance
I do like him in his last couple of years though, but then I think of him more as an early early modernist
I have talked about mahler in another thread, Im still not sure IF I think of him as a romanticist, but if he is one then he is also one of the most romantic romantics imo 
Rachmaninov is to me the final great conclusion of Romantic music, and I don't think I'll ever think otherwise, stubborn as I am  He has in fact integrated a few modernist elements in his later compositions, for instance his fourth piano concerto is modernistic in many ways I believe, but I see it as romantic nevertheless.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> There is also a respectable view that Schoenberg was musically conservative, but I'm not convinced on that issue anymore than I'm convinced Beethoven was a Classicist. If this is indeed the case than I think both composers get way too much credit for being innovative, it can't be both ways.


All this was raised in the thread I referred to. You may wish to glance through it.

All I would say by way of summary is that the Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by feeling or emotion as some people seem to think, but rather by structure, form, and harmony. In this sense, Beethoven stuck closely to the Classical style.

Nor did Beethoven see music as a way of being inspired by literary/poetic expression, which was one of the main hallmarks of the Romantics. Rather it was Schubert who was the first great composer to make significant strides into the "Romantic" style, although composers like Weber and Hummel had begun the process earlier. It was Schumann, Chopin, Liszt who developed the Romantic style in a big way.


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> There is also a respectable view that Schoenberg was musically conservative, but I'm not convinced on that issue anymore than I'm convinced Beethoven was a Classicist. If this is indeed the case than I think both composers get way too much credit for being innovative, it can't be both ways.


In terms of the kinds of harmonies and formal procedures he used, Beethoven was in line with the Classicists, even though he did push these things to their limits, and his manner of expression and philosophy regarding music are at times more associated with the Romanticism to come.

In terms of the manner of expression and outlook on music, Schoenberg was in line with the Romantics, even though the harmonies and formal procedures used go beyond what was acceptable in Romanticism.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Schumann for early Romanticism. Tchaikovsky for Late Romanticism. And that's my final answer.


Go on, what about Schubert?

Schubert apart, I'm perfectly happy to go along with Schumann, who would be my perfect example of an all-round "romantic", and a very good one, the best in my view.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> In terms of the kinds of harmonies and formal procedures he used, Beethoven was in line with the Classicists, even though he did push these things to their limits, and his manner of expression and *philosophy* regarding music are at times more associated with the Romanticism to come.
> 
> In terms of the manner of expression and outlook on music, Schoenberg was in line with the Romantics, even though the harmonies and formal procedures used go beyond what was acceptable in Romanticism.


I'm not sure that I go along with the notion that Beethoven had a similar "philosophy" about music as did the later Romantics, or even his contemporay Schubert. As far as I know, he didn't have anything like the same interest as did the Romantics in using literature/poetry to inspire either what he wrote and how he wrote it. Rather, although he enjoyed observing nature, he had little interest in literary matters and things of that ilk, and was mostly concerned with absolute music to be written in the cleverest way possible consistent with his adherence to broad Classical principles.


----------



## FleshRobot

Partita said:


> Nor did Beethoven see music as a way of being inspired by literary/poetic expression, which was one of the main hallmarks of the Romantics. Rather it was Schubert who was the first great composer to make significant strides into the "Romantic" style, although composers like Weber and Hummel had begun the process earlier. It was Schumann, Chopin, Liszt who developed the Romantic style in a big way.


Really? His Symphony 9 (the first example of a major composer using voices in a symphony) and An die ferne Geliebte (considered to be the first example of a song cycle by a major composer) both seem to be inspired by " literary/poetic expression". I'm sorry for insisting that Beethoven is a romantic composer, but most of the time I read about him he was considered one, even though PetrB says that it's common knowledge that he was only a classicist. Also, the link to Teflik Dorak's essay isn't working (at least for my computer).


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Couchie said:


> "Early Romantic" = pre-Wagner
> "Late Romantic" = post-Wagner
> 
> Very easily, Wagner.


Succinct, alliterative, (and very largely) true. . . But then, Liszt and Berlioz would pose a bit of a problem. ;D


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> So it was Liszt eh? Then label me an "anti-romantic".


I must confess not being a great fan of Liszt apart from the piano. But he brought in innovations that Wagner et al built upon.


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> I must confess not being a great fan of Liszt apart from the piano. But he brought in innovations that Wagner et al built upon.


True, but not a fan. Still he seemed to have a great love life.


----------



## Aramis

Great composers were too busy creating art to bother with definitions. It's up to musicologists, as they have nothing more interesting to do.


----------



## neoshredder

Partita said:


> Go on, what about Schubert?
> 
> Schubert apart, I'm perfectly happy to go along with Schumann, who would be my perfect example of an all-round "romantic", and a very good one, the best in my view.


Schubert feels more classical to me. Schumann is like a continuation of where Schubert left off. But explored further into Romanticism.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> Schubert feels more classical to me. Schumann is like a continuation of where Schubert left off. But explored further into Romanticism.


That is why those musicologists, who it seems some think were just guessing, have Schubert as early (milestone) Romantic, Schumann as mid-romantic (full-blown romantic), and the others following (later developments also within the bailiwick of "Romantic) -- based not just on mere chronology, but very distinct and pronounced musical traits.

zOMG, your intuition agrees with the expert musicologists -- you've gone average & mainstream


----------



## Guest

Beethoven. Did I already say this a while ago? I haven't changed my mind.


----------



## Ravndal

Some of Beethoven's works can remind you of early romanticism. But being "the" romantic composer? Bold.


----------



## tdc

Partita said:


> All this was raised in the thread I referred to. You may wish to glance through it.
> 
> All I would say by way of summary is that the Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by feeling or emotion as some people seem to think, but rather by structure, form, and harmony. In this sense, Beethoven stuck closely to the Classical style.
> 
> Nor did Beethoven see music as a way of being inspired by literary/poetic expression, which was one of the main hallmarks of the Romantics. Rather it was Schubert who was the first great composer to make significant strides into the "Romantic" style, although composers like Weber and Hummel had begun the process earlier. It was Schumann, Chopin, Liszt who developed the Romantic style in a big way.


Well, in my opinion the form argument against Beethoven being Romantic is weak, because Beethoven _expanded_ the form, and his late works sound nothing like any Classical composer. The literature/Poetry angle is also weak because they are extra musical elements no one would be able to know anything about by simply listening to the music. Going by how his music sounds and excluding extra musical elements (or speculating on aspects of his personality) Beethoven's late works still seem to me closest to Romanticism.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Schubert feels more classical to me. Schumann is like a continuation of where Schubert left off. But explored further into Romanticism.


As evidence that Schubert was an early Romantic, look no further than his lieder. This genre is the epitomy of the Romantic style. Further, the expansiveness of several of his later chamber and orchestral works bears little resemblance to the style of Beethoven or earlier composers. This expansiveness was a further Romantic trait, as the "muses" got to work inspiring the musical development.

A further point about Beethoven concerns the disappointment he expressed in the 1820's about the trends in music elsewhere, and his bemoaning of the fact that his own work was not played sufficiently in comparison with the new material. This was largely a reference to the music of the emerging Romantic style which he perceived as being in contrast to his, which indeed it was.

It must be remembered that Beethoven lived for a decent length of time by normal standards of the day, and this allowed him to write in a mature style (full of drama, dynamic surging forward much of the time) that could be incorrectly mistaken as demonstrating Romantic traits. This is not to say that nothing that Beethoven wrote could be described as Romantic, just that it was not a major aspect of his style that he set out to cultivate in a big way. Schubert and one or two other early Romantics share that honour.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> The amusing thing about this series (some of which are quite good BTW) is that somebody went to the trouble to commission brand new portraits of all the composers. But not one looks anything like the real person!


But who cares? The one of Mozart is so cute! _~giggle~
_


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Well, in my opinion the form argument against Beethoven being Romantic is weak, because Beethoven _expanded_ the form, and his late works sound nothing like any Classical composer. The literature/Poetry angle is also weak because they are extra musical elements no one would be able to know anything about by simply listening to the music. Going by how his music sounds and excluding extra musical elements (or speculating on aspects of his personality) Beethoven's late works still seem to me closest to Romanticism.


If you haven't already done so, may I suggest that you look at Professor Charles Rosen's two books on the subject of "The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven", and "The Romantic Generation". He uses definitions based on technical aspects of the music, and concludes that technically Beethoven's music follows the Classical style and not the Romantic style.

I don't agree that Beethoven's music sounds more Romantic than Classical. To me it sounds like Classical. Agreed that some of his later material is more assertive and strident than some of the much earlier "classical era" material. But to me there is as much, if not more, drama and emotion in Mozart than Beethoven. Some of Mozart's music is just as cleverly written as Beethoven's, and refined. There is less dissonance in Beethoven than in Mozart, and there is nothing like the amount of poetic input or expansiveness that we see in Schubert.

For my money, Beethoven was primarily a Classical composer, and if it were somehow possible to get his opinion just before died as to which of the two styles he saw himself as being most closely associated with (the old or the new) I'd bet it would the style that we know as "Classical".


----------



## Ravndal

Partita said:


> If you haven't already done so, may I suggest that you look at Professor Charles Rosen's two books on the subject of "The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven", and "The Romantic Generation". He uses definitions based on technical aspects of the music, and concludes that technically Beethoven's music follows the Classical style and not the Romantic style.
> 
> I don't agree that Beethoven's music sounds more Romantic than Classical. To me it sounds like Classical. Agreed that some of his later material is more assertive and strident than some of the much earlier "classical era" material. But to me there is as much, if not more, drama and emotion in Mozart than Beethoven. Some of Mozart's music is just as cleverly written as Beethoven's, and refined. There is less dissonance in Beethoven than in Mozart, and there is nothing like the amount of poetic input or expansiveness that we see in Schubert.
> 
> For my money, Beethoven was primarily a Classical composer, and if it were somehow possible to get his opinion just before died as to which of the two styles he saw himself as being most closely associated with (the old or the new) I'd bet it would the style that we know as "Classical".


Bravo! Right on.

................................


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> If you haven't already done so, may I suggest that you look at Professor Charles Rosen's two books on the subject of "The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven", and "The Romantic Generation".


I've read the first, and it is very good indeed. I believe that Rosen says that some of Beethoven's earlier music, mostly from before 1800, is more "romantic" in nature that his later music. Examples are the Pathetique and Moonlight sonatas and a few other pieces. He pretty much left that sort of thing behind as he entered his so-called second period. My take is that he continued to move away from classical style (in the wine, if not in the bottle) but by no means in the direction of what we now call "romanticism." I'm not sure Beethoven had any "heirs" in that sense.


----------



## FleshRobot

Partita said:


> As evidence that Schubert was an early Romantic, look no further than his lieder. This genre is the epitomy of the Romantic style.


Lieder is just german for "songs", which Beethoven also wrote. Be more specific on what makes Schubert ones so special.



Partita said:


> Further, the expansiveness of several of his later chamber and orchestral works bears little resemblance to the style of Beethoven or earlier composers. This expansiveness was a further Romantic trait, as the "muses" got to work inspiring the musical development.


Same can be said about Beethoven's late string quartets and symphonies in contrast with the ones of Mozart and Haydn.



Partita said:


> A further point about Beethoven concerns the disappointment he expressed in the 1820's about the trends in music elsewhere, and his bemoaning of the fact that his own work was not played sufficiently in comparison with the new material. This was largely a reference to the music of the emerging Romantic style which he perceived as being in contrast to his, which indeed it was.


Wagner and his followers weren't happy about the popularity of the music of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Meyerbeer and other composers of french grand opera or italian opera (save a few exceptions) either, but that doesn't mean that the music of either side isn't romantic.



Partita said:


> It must be remembered that Beethoven lived for a decent length of time by normal standards of the day, and this allowed him to write in a mature style (full of drama, dynamic surging forward much of the time) that could be incorrectly mistaken as demonstrating Romantic traits. This is not to say that nothing that Beethoven wrote could be described as Romantic, just that it was not a major aspect of his style that he set out to cultivate in a big way. Schubert and one or two other early Romantics share that honour.


And which traits in the music of Schubert, Schumann, Weber and Mendelssohn represent better the romantic period?


----------



## neoshredder

Partita said:


> As evidence that Schubert was an early Romantic, look no further than his lieder. This genre is the epitomy of the Romantic style. Further, the expansiveness of several of his later chamber and orchestral works bears little resemblance to the style of Beethoven or earlier composers. This expansiveness was a further Romantic trait, as the "muses" got to work inspiring the musical development.
> 
> A further point about Beethoven concerns the disappointment he expressed in the 1820's about the trends in music elsewhere, and his bemoaning of the fact that his own work was not played sufficiently in comparison with the new material. This was largely a reference to the music of the emerging Romantic style which he perceived as being in contrast to his, which indeed it was.
> 
> It must be remembered that Beethoven lived for a decent length of time by normal standards of the day, and this allowed him to write in a mature style (full of drama, dynamic surging forward much of the time) that could be incorrectly mistaken as demonstrating Romantic traits. This is not to say that nothing that Beethoven wrote could be described as Romantic, just that it was not a major aspect of his style that he set out to cultivate in a big way. Schubert and one or two other early Romantics share that honour.


Well his Symphonies sound like Haydn. At least until Symphony 8 and 9. So the majority of his Symphony output sounds Classical.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> Well his Symphonies sound like Haydn. At least until Symphony 8 and 9. So the majority of his Symphony output sounds Classical.


I doubt that Haydn would have agreed with you! :lol:


----------



## neoshredder

KenOC said:


> I doubt that Haydn would have agreed with you! :lol:


True. It sounds better than Haydn.


----------



## moody

FleshRobot said:


> Lieder is just german for "songs", which Beethoven also wrote. Be more specific on what makes Schubert ones so special.
> 
> Same can be said about Beethoven's late string quartets and symphonies in contrast with the ones of Mozart and Haydn.
> 
> Wagner and his followers weren't happy about the popularity of the music of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Meyerbeer and other composers of french grand opera or italian opera (save a few exceptions) either, but that doesn't mean that the music of either side isn't romantic.
> 
> And which traits in the music of Schubert, Schumann, Weber and Mendelssohn represent better the romantic period?


If you have to ask what makes Schubert's lieder better than Beethoven's there is nothing that can be said to you. But in any case it's up to you to look into the matter it's no good asking us. But they are much better,now start listening.


----------



## FleshRobot

moody said:


> If you have to ask what makes Schubert's lieder better than Beethoven's there is nothing that can be said to you. But in any case it's up to you to look into the matter it's no good asking us. But they are much better,now start listening.


I do think they are better than Beethovens, I just don't see how this make Schubert a romantic composer and Beethoven a classical one. I do think that Beethoven's lieder are overlooked though, I quite like An die ferne Geliebte and Aus Goethes Faust.


----------



## Blancrocher

FleshRobot said:


> I do think that Beethoven's lieder are overlooked though, I quite like An die ferne Geliebte


So did Schumann, whose use of that music in his Fantasy in C constitutes one of the most moving musical allusions I know of.


----------



## mtmailey

I say these guys: DVORAK,TCHAIKOVSKY,ELGAR,SCHUBERT,SCHUMANN,BRAHMS & SMETANA


----------



## Guest

FleshRobot said:


> Lieder is just german for "songs", which Beethoven also wrote. Be more specific on what makes Schubert ones so special


Not correct. In the context of classical music, "lieder" are not just any old songs written by classical composers, but are associated with names like Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, and Wolf who breathed new life into an old art form but this time using them as means for the expression of poetry by such as Goethe, hence the link to "romantic".

Schubert wrote 600+ "lieder", plus several song cycles, and stands supreme among writers of this re-invigorated type of art-song. There is no way that Beethoven's song output stands anywhere near as close as Schubert's, either in quantity, quality or basic motivation and style. If you think it does, I can't say any more, except that you are probably in a very small minority.


----------



## Guest

Sorry to seem lazy, but I did follow this thread once before and can't recall - did anyone give us a summary of what 'Romantic' music is so I know what I'm listening for?


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Well his Symphonies sound like Haydn. At least until Symphony 8 and 9. So the majority of his Symphony output sounds Classical.


Schubert wrote his first 5 symphonies by the age of 19, and the sixth when he was 21. You are therefore basing this assessment on Schubert's early works. Beethoven hadn't written anything worthwhile by this age, and didn't do for several years yet, by which time Schubert had entered into his "late" period.

Schubert's more mature music sounds a world apart from Beethoven's. I'm not saying it's overall better, but it's different, with Schubert's sounding far more firmly footed in the "Romantic", whilst Beethoven's was off somewhere else. The solution is easy: bear in mind that Schubert's early works can easily give the wrong impression of his true abilities and underlying motivations and sources of inspiration.


----------



## PetrB

FleshRobot said:


> I do think they are better than Beethovens, I just don't see how this make Schubert a romantic composer and Beethoven a classical one. I do think that Beethoven's lieder are overlooked though, I quite like An die ferne Geliebte and Aus Goethes Faust.


The categories are most fundamentally about aspects of the theoretic usage of the music itself, and that framework within which a composer 'thought,' -- i.e. you could liken it to a composer's DNA which determines what era is stylistically most stamped all over their work. Of course those eras, the dates, and a composer such as Beethoven, whose harmonic usage developed, along with highly adventurous stretching of form, do not always neatly fit in just one category.

Beethoven went not far but really far as his music changed, and clearly no matter how much he busted through to new and highly innovative places, his usage, the "procedure," of both harmony and form all point to someone working within a formal classical envelope. So many of his musical gestures, moments, point toward what romantics later did. But while you can change, develop and grow, outwardly quite different from when you were young, your DNA is your DNA.

All the other truly important aspects, the aesthetic viewpoints and beliefs, are important, can never be concretely proved, and can only be looked at in context of the era and what we know "was on their minds." A literary association, an intent to 'paint a picture with music,' or all the rest which are some traits of the Romantic mentality are nearly totally absent with Beethoven.

So you get a lot of fussing back and forth on a general forum, because the basis of nitty-gritty 'what is romantic' is more about personal emotional perceptions and what anyone might think about 'where they were coming from' -- which is where those without a lot of music theory inevitably do "come from" when trying to decide such stuff on their own. That may be some sort of fun, but _*sometimes, you just gotta believe the books,*_ and then look for the best clear explanation you can understand.

I find threads of this nature frustrating, since anyone asking could have "looked it up" in any of a number of reliable sources. (Schubert and Schumann, then, with Carl Maria von Weber a gentle but firmly romantic first, while a near exact contemporary of Beethoven.) Your question is the most salient here: rather than saying, "to me, _________ is romantic because I think it is.) you instead want to know why, and what is the difference.

There no real serious debate over the fact Beethoven was a classical composer and a classicist, but you will find frequent mention that his dates overlap the classical to romantic, and that his works show strong signs, trends, of what the romantics later did, and too that his music had a great degree of influence on later composers. Sometimes I think for those more at the beginning, it does no favors to even mention Beethoven and Romantic in the same sentence 

At least about 90% of the criteria that determine style (era) are about "what they did" from a music theory standpoint. _This is more like looking at someone's skeleton rather than the whole person, but that is the most direct way to determine 'what style' or era a composer is from and about..._ outward clothing can deceive, the skeleton + the DNA don't lie


----------



## lupinix

sharik said:


> although tagged as a romantic, Tchaiky is much more about Lyricism then anything else... by the way Wagner too can be lyrical sometimes no less than romantic.


I remember a quote from milhaud: "chose six names absolutely arbitrarily, those of Auric, Durey, Honegger, Poulenc, Tailleferre and me simply because we knew each other and we were pals and appeared on the same musical programmes, no matter if our temperaments and personalities weren't at all the same! Auric and Poulenc followed ideas of Cocteau, Honegger followed German Romanticism, and myself, Mediterranean lyricism!"

so i wonder if lyricism is really considered some kind of style (in stead of just refering to using very lyrical melodies or something) and if so which composers are good examples of it


----------



## moody

FleshRobot said:


> I do think they are better than Beethovens, I just don't see how this make Schubert a romantic composer and Beethoven a classical one. I do think that Beethoven's lieder are overlooked though, I quite like An die ferne Geliebte and Aus Goethes Faust.


Beethoven certainly falls into "classical",I note that this has been discussed here just recently.
While Schubert certainly belongs with the Romantics.
Beethoven's songs are OK I think I have them all.


----------



## FleshRobot

PetrB said:


> The categories are most fundamentally about aspects of the theoretic usage of the music itself, and that framework within which a composer 'thought,' -- i.e. you could liken it to a composer's DNA which determines what era is stylistically most stamped all over their work. Of course those eras, the dates, and a composer such as Beethoven, whose harmonic usage developed, along with highly adventurous stretching of form, do not always neatly fit in just one category.


I agree, that is why I consider Beethoven both a classicist and a Romantic, or at least a transitional composer, not belonging exclusively to either period.



PetrB said:


> Beethoven went not far but really far as his music changed, and clearly no matter how much he busted through to new and highly innovative places, his usage, the "procedure," of both harmony and form all point to someone working within a formal classical envelope. So many of his musical gestures, moments, point toward what romantics later did. But while you can change, develop and grow, outwardly quite different from when you were young, your DNA is your DNA.


I belive in the oposite. I think that the early works of a composer will always sound like the works of the composers that came before him, for example: early Beethoven sounds like Mozart and Haydn, and early Wagner sounds like Weber and Meyerbeer. I think that the mature works of a composer are what should be taken in consideration, and sometimes these have nothing to do with the early works.



PetrB said:


> All the other truly important aspects, the aesthetic viewpoints and beliefs, are important, can never be concretely proved, and can only be looked at in context of the era and what we know "was on their minds." A literary association, an intent to 'paint a picture with music,' or all the rest which are some traits of the Romantic mentality are nearly totally absent with Beethoven.


But the works that have such traits in my opinion should be considered "romantic works". For example: His 9th symphony is, as far as I see it, more similar to those of his subsequent composers than to those of the classical period, so I don't see why it should be classified as a "classical" work instead of a "romantic" one. Also, his 6th symphony have the intent to 'paint a picture with music', and Tchaikovsky even wrote that Beethoven was the inventor of program music (I know this isn't true, by the way, but he still can be seen as the composer who brought it back)



PetrB said:


> So you get a lot of fussing back and forth on a general forum, because the basis of nitty-gritty 'what is romantic' is more about personal emotional perceptions and what anyone might think about 'where they were coming from' -- which is where those without a lot of music theory inevitably do "come from" when trying to decide such stuff on their own. That may be some sort of fun, but _*sometimes, you just gotta believe the books,*_ and then look for the best clear explanation you can understand.


Which books do you recommend?



PetrB said:


> I find threads of this nature frustrating, since anyone asking could have "looked it up" in any of a number of reliable sources. (Schubert and Schumann, then, with Carl Maria von Weber a gentle but firmly romantic first, while a near exact contemporary of Beethoven.) Your question is the most salient here: rather than saying, "to me, _________ is romantic because I think it is.) you instead want to know why, and what is the difference.


If I cannot understand what makes the classical and romantic periods different how can I believe whether something is romantic or not? My first post on this thread was about how I believe that Beethoven embodies what I perceive as "romantism". People corrected me and said he wasn't, I am just trying do understand why not. None of the arguments given by Partita convinced me otherwise.


----------



## hpowders

Romanticism is about feelings. Whether it's Mozart writing great poetic arias for the female voice, Beethoven shaking you up with the Grosse Fuge or Berlioz amazing you with feelings you didn't know you possess in the Symphonie Fantastique.

So much intellectualizing! 
Just listen and enjoy. You will be happier. 
Everything doesn't need to be debated.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Everything doesn't need to be debated.


Which means, "Nothing needs to be debated." Pedantic? You bet!


----------



## Guest

FleshRobot said:


> If I cannot understand what makes the classical and romantic periods different how can I believe whether something is romantic or not? My first post on this thread was about how I believe that Beethoven embodies what I perceive as "romantism". People corrected me and said he wasn't, I am just trying do understand why not. None of the arguments by Partita convinced me otherwise.


I don't think you have tried all that hard. You seem to think it's all about emotions. That's not the main issue at all. It's about structure and form. I mentioned Professor Charles Rosen's books. If you haven't come across these works, which are often cited as being authoritative, you might find them of interest. They don't support your opinion.

You don't appear to have much if any idea about the important link of the Romantic composers to literature/poetry. Rather than try to get all the answers to your queries here, why not go off and do some proper reading up on the subject. One possibly useful book might be John Daverio's book "_Robert Schumann: Herald of a New Poetic Age"_. This might assist your understanding on the links of true Romantics with poetry. Beethoven by comparison was a mere dabbler in this whole new ball game.

As for not understanding points put to you by members here, we're not here to spoon-feed anyone. Places like this are only good for superficial coverage of the issues and to suggest ideas and pointers that might be worth pursuing if you are interested.


----------



## Winterreisender

Partita said:


> You seem to think it's all about emotions. That's not the main issue at all. It's about structure and form.


I disagree, because most of the Romantic composers used sonata form and wrote symphonies which more or less adhere to the classical four movement structure. You may say that they used these structures only as a very loose model, but wouldn't that also apply to Beethoven in pieces such as the 6th and 9th Symphonies, or some of the Late Sonatas?



Partita said:


> You don't appear to have much if any idea about the important link of the Romantic composers to literature/poetry.


You talk about Romanticism as if it were a coherent movement, a group of composers adhering to a shared manifesto. Surely Romanticism is in fact the opposite, surely it is about composers breaking out of classical convention and finding their own unique ways of composing? Whilst the literary influence was important for Berlioz, Liszt and Schumann, surely that is much less the case for Mendelssohn, Chopin and Brahms.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> As for not understanding points put to you by members here, we're not here to spoon-feed anyone.


In other words, "It's for me to know and you to find out," (as my grandmother would have said).

Given the range of answers to this question (from Beethoven to Ravel with all points in between), it seems that even if FleshRobot went away and devoured Rosen and any other worthy on the subject, it would still boil down to subjective interpretation.

In a previous discussion on this issue, it was argued (perhaps just 'stated', I can't remember) that the period we might call Romanticism in music did not match with the corresponding period in literature. Presumably some would also argue that the Romanticisms in music and in literature were not the same anyway.

Partita, as you've read Rosen, can you shed any light? Or if you think it should still remain a secret, is there anyone else who might be willing to share?


----------



## FleshRobot

Partita said:


> I don't think you have tried all that hard. You seem to think it's all about emotions. That's not the main issue at all. It's about structure and form. I mentioned Professor Charles Rosen's books. If you haven't come across these works, which are often cited as being authoritative, you might find them of interest. They don't support your opinion.


As far as I can remember, I've never related romantism in music with emotions, I just said that the origin of the term came from that association. I don't think any purely technical aspect of the music can be considered a "romantic" aspect more than any other if we don't have a clear definition of what "romantism" is in music. I know it is about structure and form, but I don't know what it is in that aspect.



Partita said:


> You don't appear to have much if any idea about the important link of the Romantic composers to literature/poetry. Rather than try to get all the answers to your queries here, why not go off and do some proper reading up on the subject. One possibly useful book might be John Daverio's book "_Robert Schumann: Herald of a New Poetic Age"_. This might assist your understanding on the links of true Romantics with poetry. Beethoven by comparison was a mere dabbler in this whole new ball game.


Are you saying that it is related to the romantic movement in literature or that romantism is about linking music to literature and poetry?



Partita said:


> As for not understanding points put to you by members here, we're not here to spoon-feed anyone. Places like this are only good for superficial coverage of the issues and to suggest ideas and pointers that might be worth pursuing if you are interested.


It's not about me not understanding, it's just that some of them don't make sense to me. You say that the link to romantism is based on using music "as means for the expression of poetry by such as Goethe", and yet won't acknowledge Beethoven's 9th symphony as romantic, even though it features a text taken from Schiller's Ode to Joy.


----------



## Ukko

hpowders said:


> Romanticism is about feelings.
> [...]


"Feelings" are just one element of Romanticism [note the capital R]. In Romantic music the big contrast with Baroque and Classical is in compositional freedom; the Rules could be ignored. Schubert expressed chagrin regarding his difficulty with Classical sonata form; the Romantics had no such compunctions.


----------



## Guest

FleshRobot said:


> Are you saying that it is related to the romantic movement in literature or that romantism is about linking music to literature and poetry?


I have already answered that question several times.

May I repeat that if you wish to educate yourself more fully on these issues then you might pursue your study (like most people do) by consulting some suitable books on the subject. I noticed that you asked for some book references in your reply to "petrb", and I provided two examples as starters.

This would seem to be a more constructive approach than you merely repeating the same point that you have certain pre-conceived ideas on the subject which you would like other members either to agree with or to refute if they can.


----------



## Guest

Winterreisender said:


> I disagree, because most of the Romantic composers used sonata form and wrote symphonies which more or less adhere to the classical four movement structure. You may say that they used these structures only as a very loose model, but wouldn't that also apply to Beethoven in pieces such as the 6th and 9th Symphonies, or some of the Late Sonatas?
> 
> You talk about Romanticism as if it were a coherent movement, a group of composers adhering to a shared manifesto. Surely Romanticism is in fact the opposite, surely it is about composers breaking out of classical convention and finding their own unique ways of composing? Whilst the literary influence was important for Berlioz, Liszt and Schumann, surely that is much less the case for Mendelssohn, Chopin and Brahms.


I think that your listing and assessment of the motivation of Romantic composers is hardly satisfactory. Whilst I would accept that there was no absolute uniformity of motivation and emphasis in terms of literature and poetry, it was a major if not predominant influence.

- You overlook Weber who was among the early Romantics with his the use of German myths and folklore and an emphasis on nature for his operas.

- You do not even mention Schubert, which is a glaring omission.

- Mendelssohn too, despite what you suggest, was influenced by literature, e.g. "A Midsummer Night's Dream". He also responded to nature, as did other most composers of the period: e.g., the Fingal's Cave Overture.

- Chopin was less influenced by literature but wrote a good many short, expressive piano pieces that were of a different ilk to anything from the Classical era.

- You overlook Wagner who obviously turned to the visual arts as well as poetry, drama and literature, and to nature itself as major sources of inspiration.

- Tchaikovsky with his ballets and operas, all with literary connotations.

- I would agree that Brahms doesn't quite the mold in terms of his orchestral and instrumental output, but he wrote a lot of choral/song material that is Romantic.

I would agree that several of these composers used the classical forms of sonata and symphony as starting points, but there were major modifications (tone poems, cyclic form etc). In addition, they developed new melodic styles, with richer harmonies and greater dissonance, in a manner that was largely outwith the structural discipline of Classical forms.


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> "Feelings" are just one element of Romanticism [note the capital R]. In Romantic music the big contrast with Baroque and Classical is in compositional freedom; the Rules could be ignored. Schubert expressed chagrin regarding his difficulty with Classical sonata form; the Romantics had no such compunctions.


That's right. The main reason why they felt the need to become liberated from the shackles of classical form was because they felt that the reflection of literary/poetic beauty, which was their aim, would otherwise be constrained.


----------



## mamascarlatti

*You are requested to pursue this discussion without resorting to snide remarks, subtle digs and outright insults. Some posts have been removed.*


----------



## mmsbls

Some posts were deleted as they were off topic and focused more on members than on the topic. Please comment on the thread topic and not on each other.

Ah, mamascarlatti beat me by seconds, but I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## moody

Partita said:


> Not correct. In the context of classical music, "lieder" are not just any old songs written by classical composers, but are associated with names like Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, and Wolf who breathed new life into an old art form but this time using them as means for the expression of poetry by such as Goethe, hence the link to "romantic".
> 
> Schubert wrote 600+ "lieder", plus several song cycles, and stands supreme among writers of this re-invigorated type of art-song. There is no way that Beethoven's song output stands anywhere near as close as Schubert's, either in quantity, quality or basic motivation and style. If you think it does, I can't say any more, except that you are probably in a very small minority.


No, he's quite right ."Lied" merely means song,the anthem of the Nazi party was the Horst Wessel Lied.
Then we have a record of mine,"Richard Tauber Singt Deutsche Vlokslieder" (Folk songs).
Do get your facts right.


----------



## moody

MacLeod said:


> Sorry to seem lazy, but I did follow this thread once before and can't recall - did anyone give us a summary of what 'Romantic' music is so I know what I'm listening for?


Just lately I seem to be answering things that have come before all the time!


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> No, he's quite right ."Lied" merely means song,the anthem of the Nazi party was the Horst Wessel Lied.
> Then we have a record of mine,"Richard Tauber Singt Deutsche Vlokslieder" (Folk songs).
> Do get your facts right.


Sorry but you are wrong. You have taken the literal meaning only, but very clearly in this thread we are discussing "Romantic" music.

Here is the text from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on lied:

_Lied (German pronunciation: [liːt]; plural Lieder [ˈliːdɐ]) is a German and Dutch word literally meaning "song". *It usually describes the setting of romantic German poems to music*, especially during the nineteenth century, beginning with Carl Loewe, Heinrich Marschner, and Franz Schubert. Among English speakers, "Lied" is often used interchangeably with "art song" to encompass works that the tradition has inspired in other languages. The poetry forming the basis for Lieder often centers upon pastoral themes, or themes of romantic love._

The text above makes it abundantly clear that what I was saying is correct, namely that "lied" refers to the romantic era settings of German origin poems. That's all I have been saying.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> In other words, "It's for me to know and you to find out," (as my grandmother would have said).
> 
> Given the range of answers to this question (from Beethoven to Ravel with all points in between), it seems that even if FleshRobot went away and devoured Rosen and any other worthy on the subject, it would still boil down to subjective interpretation.
> 
> In a previous discussion on this issue, it was argued (perhaps just 'stated', I can't remember) that the period we might call Romanticism in music did not match with the corresponding period in literature. Presumably some would also argue that the Romanticisms in music and in literature were not the same anyway.
> 
> Partita, as you've read Rosen, can you shed any light? Or if you think it should still remain a secret, is there anyone else who might be willing to share?


I am sorry to hear about your grandmother. Since the moderators have not seen fit to remove this post, which I answered previously but which was removed together with some of yours, I will answer it again in slightly different terms but with the same overall meaning.

My answer is that I have explained my general position on this topic both in this thread and in the earlier one. I have come back several times to clarify and to try to answer various questions. The discussion is not making any progress, and I do wish to become the target of any further innuendo from you about keeping "secrets".

Specifically, I have provided references to a couple of relevant and reputable books on this topic area. I am not prepared to be quizzed in detail over any the minutia contained in those books that may of further relevance here. Rather, as I have clearly explained, I would invite anyone who may be interested in this topic to go off and read up further on the topic to their satisfaction.

This is because I have no time or inclination to provide any further detail, and in any case certain members' opinions appear to be quite fixed on some of these matters and I therefore see no point in merely engaging of further lengthy discussion on the matter as it is very apparent that it would become a bottomless pit and potentially quite difficult.


----------



## Winterreisender

Partita said:


> I think that your listing and assessment of the motivation of Romantic composers is hardly satisfactory. Whilst I would accept that there was no absolute uniformity of motivation and emphasis in terms of literature and poetry, it was a major if not predominant influence.
> 
> - You overlook Weber who was among the early Romantics with his the use of German myths and folklore and an emphasis on nature for his operas.
> 
> - You do not even mention Schubert, which is a glaring omission.
> 
> - Mendelssohn too, despite what you suggest, was influenced by literature, e.g. "A Midsummer Night's Dream". He also responded to nature, as did other most composers of the period: e.g., the Fingal's Cave Overture.
> 
> - Chopin was less influenced by literature but wrote a good many short, expressive piano pieces that were of a different ilk to anything from the Classical era.
> 
> - You overlook Wagner who obviously turned to the visual arts as well as poetry, drama and literature, and to nature itself as major sources of inspiration.
> 
> - Tchaikovsky with his ballets and operas, all with literary connotations.
> 
> - I would agree that Brahms doesn't quite the mold in terms of his orchestral and instrumental output, but he wrote a lot of choral/song material that is Romantic.
> 
> I would agree that several of these composers used the classical forms of sonata and symphony as starting points, but there were major modifications (tone poems, cyclic form etc). In addition, they developed new melodic styles, with richer harmonies and greater dissonance, in a manner that was largely outwith the structural discipline of Classical forms.


I didn't mention composers of vocal music like Wagner and Schubert, because it seems perfectly obvious that composers of vocal music require literary texts. I don't think this is a new phenomenon in the Romantic period.

re: Mendelssohn, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ must be one of his few compositions with a clear literary influence. You can always cherry-pick the odd composition here and there to back up your theory, but that seems to overlook the fact that the bulk of his (non-sacred) music is pretty abstract. Even Schumann and Schubert wrote enormous amounts abstract music.

The point I am getting at is that the strong literary influence was just one of many strands in Romantic music, and therefore only shows up in select compositions, and therefore cannot be used as a defining characteristic of Romanticism as a whole. And if I were also to cherry-pick, I could point out Beethoven's _Egmont_ which fits him into the "inspired by literature" category, and I could point out the 6th Symphony for the "inspired by nature" category.

So I'm still not sure why Beethoven doesn't fit into your definition of Romanticism.


----------



## Ukko

Winterreisender said:


> [..]
> So I'm still not sure why Beethoven doesn't fit into your definition of Romanticism.


Since _partita_ has grown weary of this subject, I'll stick my nose in long enough to suggest that Beethoven doesn't fit because he chose to stretch the boundaries of Classical form rather than abandon them. In my (sadly uninformed) opinion, he made that choice because he could handle it. Schubert wasn't a Romantic composer because he _wanted_ to observe the boundaries, even though he couldn't express his muse within them. A metaphor might be that he managed to retain the shirt and trousers, but had to forgo the undergarments; this resulted in certain freedoms. Leaving the metaphor, the freedoms were in expression.

There; I hope there is sufficient obfuscation for documentary survival.


----------



## Guest

Winterreisender said:


> So I'm still not sure why Beethoven doesn't fit into your definition of Romanticism.


Because with Beethoven his use of "literary" pieces was occasional, spasmodic, and even quite hesitant in some cases, e.g, the Ninth Symphony, for which there was I gather some doubt about whether or not to include a choral ending. And in any event it didn't materially affect the way he set about writing music, which remained in the broad classical structure. See Charles Rosen's book.

By contrast, among the more avowedly "Romantic" composers of the first half of the 19th C, the intention to let literary aspects permeate their works was more clear cut, albeit with nothing like 100% complete success, as you point out. This aim did affect generally the way they wrote music, which had the various different characteristics from the "classical" style that I outlined previously. Late Schubert, Schumann, Chopin sounds quite a lot different from Beethoven or Mozart or Haydn.

I don't pretend that as the 19th wore on things didn't change. The emphasis did shift somewhat. My comments are mainly in regard to the early and mid-Romantics. By the late 19th C, several composers had lost zeal for the literary aspects (Mahler, Dvorak), and things began to take a different turn. By then, Impressionism was well on the way "in". I saw a suggestion earlier in this thread that this was some kind of late romanticism. It definitely wasn't, but rather a reaction against it by the likes of Debussy and Ravel who wanted to steer things away from anything to do with Beethoven and his pervading influence as they saw it throughout much of the 19th C.

May I say that I fully respect your arguments and do not wish to imply that they are clearly wrong with regard to Beethoven. There is scope for some disagreement here, even though my view is that predominantly his music is "classical", albeit tinged with what may appear to have some early "Romantic" trappings.


----------



## moody

Partita said:


> Sorry but you are wrong. You have taken the literal meaning only, but very clearly in this thread we are discussing "Romantic" music.
> 
> Here is the text from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on lied:
> 
> _Lied (German pronunciation: [liːt]; plural Lieder [ˈliːdɐ]) is a German and Dutch word literally meaning "song". *It usually describes the setting of romantic German poems to music*, especially during the nineteenth century, beginning with Carl Loewe, Heinrich Marschner, and Franz Schubert. Among English speakers, "Lied" is often used interchangeably with "art song" to encompass works that the tradition has inspired in other languages. The poetry forming the basis for Lieder often centers upon pastoral themes, or themes of romantic love._
> 
> The text above makes it abundantly clear that what I was saying is correct, namely that "lied" refers to the romantic era settings of German origin poems. That's all I have been saying.


You never give up do you! Fiddle around all you want but lied is song in whatever situation. Also your article merely says that it usually describes art songs which is not strictly true. What credence are you putting into Wikipedia,anybody can contribute there you know. Furthermore Loewe's songs are always called ballads.


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> Since _partita_ has grown weary of this subject, I'll stick my nose in long enough to suggest that Beethoven doesn't fit because he chose to stretch the boundaries of Classical form rather than abandon them. In my (sadly uninformed) opinion, he made that choice because he could handle it. Schubert wasn't a Romantic composer because he _wanted_ to observe the boundaries, even though he couldn't express his muse within them. A metaphor might be that he managed to retain the shirt and trousers, but had to forgo the undergarments; this resulted in certain freedoms. Leaving the metaphor, the freedoms were in expression.
> 
> There; I hope there is sufficient obfuscation for documentary survival.


I think that the way you have set out the position is very apposite.

Beethoven definitely stretched the classical form to such an extent that others didn't know how, or even dare to attempt, to pursue it further. Besides, they didn't really want to do so because things had moved on by the time Schumann was in his early strides. As you say, in the case of Schubert he didn't decide to be a Romantic in order to be a follower of fashion but because of his need to do so as dictated by his desire to give proper effect to the poetic material that he wanted to do full justice to given its intrinsic beauty.

Things changed once Brahms once came along and got into gear from around mid 19th Century onwards. Brahms, I would say, largely skirted around the likes of Schumann and Mendelssohn, and tried to get back to a more Beethovenian rendition of Romanticism/Classicism, at least in terms of his orchestral music. In the case of choral music, Brahms followed the Romantic tradition more closely. Liszt and Wagner, of course, took a different line and continued to churn out lots of of program music, under various guises, in contrast to the more absolute style of Brahms. The literary factor therefore lived on for a while longer.


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> You never give up do you! Fiddle around all you want but lied is song in whatever situation. Also your article merely says that it usually describes art songs which is not strictly true. What credence are you putting into Wikipedia,anybody can contribute there you know. Furthermore Loewe's songs are always called ballads.


Oh do leave off. You can look at other sources if you wish but you will find the same basic thing that the "lied" genre as generally understood in the context of Romantic era classical music refers to a special type of song made famous by Schubert and Schumann and Wolf that incorporates german poetry. The earlier type of "lied", meaning song in a generic manner, is not what I'm talking about.

Doesn't anyone else on this Board have an opinion on this matter, or do I have to deal with this kind of misconception and misinformation alone?


----------



## PetrB

lupinix said:


> I remember a quote from milhaud: "chose six names absolutely arbitrarily, those of Auric, Durey, Honegger, Poulenc, Tailleferre and me simply because we knew each other and we were pals and appeared on the same musical programmes, no matter if our temperaments and personalities weren't at all the same! Auric and Poulenc followed ideas of Cocteau, Honegger followed German Romanticism, and myself, Mediterranean lyricism!"
> 
> so i wonder if lyricism is really considered some kind of style (in stead of just referring to using very lyrical melodies or something) and if so which composers are good examples of it


I could not quickly find a definition of Lyric stating a common enough usage. Lyric is defined (from poetry) as expressing emotions in a 'beautiful' way... which is wildly subjective. When it is used when talking about music without any text, it means a quality of being sung (still much relating to poetry and song.)

Mozart is considered "lyric," i.e. even the smallest orchestral player's part, no matter how brief, has that 'singing' quality.

It is subjective, then, and can be used to describe any number and variety of music by different composers throughout history. The Berg Violin concerto is highly lyric, as are many of Grieg's piano miniatures. That many may find the harmonic language of the Berg Concerto a barrier or hurdle does not disqualify that concerto from being "Lyric."

Lyric is then a stylistic trait -- found in an array of music of different styles from different eras -- but is not in itself a style.


----------



## Couchie

DavidA said:


> Wagner built on many of the innovations he learned from Liszt.


One can get a better summary of the romantic era by listening to a handful of Liszt's solo piano pieces which hint at the Tristan chord than listening to _Tristan und Isolde_? Really?


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> I don't think you have tried all that hard. You seem to think it's all about emotions. That's not the main issue at all. It's about structure and form. I mentioned Professor Charles Rosen's books. If you haven't come across these works, which are often cited as being authoritative, you might find them of interest. They don't support your opinion.


Pretty much Amen to All That.

Here is a tricky point I don't quite know how to be tactful about.... I think some completely overvalue their subjective emotional reactions, including and perhaps especially when it comes to Beethoven, but then are virtually wont to discount all the given technical explanations "from the experts" via those "academic definitions as found in academic texts."

If that is the case, continuing to beg difference with all that information is more a petty contest of an ego of wills, or whose opinion is more important, "counts more or most."

I would not expect a devoted listener who does not know music theory to go about getting a full training in that discipline just to better answer for themselves why Beethoven is not a Romantic composer. The challenge to take that as given fact from the fully trained vs. one listener's emotive personal responses is a little matter of a bit of faith that the people who have taken a lifetime of study in the field better know what they are talking about than one listeners' subjective emotion based opinion.

With all an individual's accompanying emotions re: Beethoven in hand, without their somewhat giving it up to definitions of Classical / Romantic relative to music from Grove's, Harvard Dictionary of Music, Larousse, or hosts of others, what is the point of either further discussion or further trying to convince? One individual's personal concept vs. the centuries of those fully dedicated to music, their extensive knowledge of theory and the literature, is not going to tip or change any definition even though that individual may desire that were so. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

If someone is enough of a doubter, their only route to satisfy this 'debate' over the next to undebatable would be to get themselves some serious music theory training.


----------



## lupinix

PetrB said:


> I could not quickly find a definition of Lyric stating a common enough usage. Lyric is defined (from poetry) as expressing emotions in a 'beautiful' way... which is wildly subjective. When it is used when talking about music without any text, it means a quality of being sung (still much relating to poetry and song.)
> 
> Mozart is considered "lyric," i.e. even the smallest orchestral player's part, no matter how brief, has that 'singing' quality.
> 
> It is subjective, then, and can be used to describe any number and variety of music by different composers throughout history. The Berg Violin concerto is highly lyric, as are many of Grieg's piano miniatures. That many may find the harmonic language of the Berg Concerto a barrier or hurdle does not disqualify that concerto from being "Lyric."
> 
> Lyric is then a stylistic trait -- found in an array of music of different styles from different eras -- but is not in itself a style.


Thank you, I already knew what lyric/lyrical means in music, but I was wondering if it was a style though because someone said tchaikovsky was a lyricist, not a romanticist, which reminded me of milhaud's quote. But apparently it is just a reference to all kinds of lyric music  Do you have any idea which mediterrean composers milhaud referred to btw?


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> You never give up do you! Fiddle around all you want but lied is song in whatever situation. Also your article merely says that it usually describes art songs which is not strictly true. What credence are you putting into Wikipedia,anybody can contribute there you know. Furthermore Loewe's songs are always called ballads.


Lied translates literally as "Song." Again some are arguing for mistaking a contextual usage from one brief period of time as a fixed and permanent redefinition of a base word in German which still today usually just means 'song.'

For the few who do not think to think, when discussing the Romantic era and music, then Lied is about the Romantic lied. (there might be a few TC members who might need that clarified / qualified -- why it seems it must be done from a high place and condescendingly is beyond me. Other than that, big whup, an argument one way or t'other is, I think, seriously petty..


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> Just lately I seem to be answering things that have come before all the time!


*"Its like déjà vu all over again." ~ Yogi Berra*


----------



## PetrB

lupinix said:


> Thank you, I already knew what lyric/lyrical means in music, but I was wondering if it was a style though because someone said tchaikovsky was a lyricist, not a romanticist, which reminded me of milhaud's quote. But apparently it is just a reference to all kinds of lyric music  Do you have any idea which mediterrean composers milhaud referred to btw?


I'm fairly certain -- gut intuition only -- that Milhaud was making a blanket reference to Italian classical music, so much of which is rooted in a lyric mode, both pure instrumental and other, to an extent where one could say that "Lyric" is very much part of music of "The Italian school"... i.e. it is near a tradition. That is evident in the listening to anything from Pergolesi to Berio, for example.

Milhaud was from Aix en Provence, a region of France on the Mediterranean Sea. There too, the legacy of earlier music, from the Trouvères to later folk music, is also lyric. Here is one of my favored classical suites of arranged folk songs...
Darius Milhaud ~ Suite provençale


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> If you were going to describe the Romantic Era based on one Composer, who would you choose? I think it would be Tchaikovsky. But it will be interesting to see what others say.


The OP's question has been answered by many posters who took it at face value: which composer? A stream of names was offered,

Tchaikovsky
Wagner
Chopin
Lizst
Beethoven
Berlioz
Schumann
Brahms
Dvorak
Mendelssohn
Sibelius
Mahler
Von Weber
Schubert

but with minimal supporting explanation of their 'Romantic' features. In other words, the mere name of the composer was to be taken, as the OP asked, as the 'description'.

Not that that invalidated anyone's choice, and I'm not complaining that any of the TCers who offered a name have failed the OP, just that for anyone reading and hoping to learn something from the thread, such posts were of limited use. A relative novice hoping to learn something about the term 'Romanticism' might listen to all these composers and glean something, but not be able to form a 'description'.

However, let's not be lazy. Let's look at the scraps on offer...it is possible to piece together some ideas from those who were a little more forthcoming. Here's a few examples...



Mahlerian said:


> tonal relations ...the unification of music, art, and literature to the extension of tonality.





Ravndal said:


> dreamy and emotional music.





KenOC said:


> the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism.





Feathers said:


> emotional struggles combined with his wildly imaginative yet intimately expressive style





Novelette said:


> deeply introspective characterization of concentrated feelings. ...the agonies, sorrows, false hopes, joys, and ecstasies of the frustrations and triumphs of romance.


Subsequent posts assert that, contrary to what I've quoted above, Romanticism is not about the emotional...or not only about the emotional. Hardly surprising, since the idea of 'emotion' in music is itself disputed.

The only real clue to what is _musically _Romantic is to do with tonal relations, but I haven't yet found a post that explored this further. I am of course well aware of the possibility of going away and reading up on this, as has been suggested, but this seems to me partly to defeat the purpose of an online forum where participants have the chance to exchange their knowledge in daily discourse. (Why join an internet forum when you can read a book??)

Surely someone here is willing to offer some brief insights: perhaps a comparative example of what isn't Romantic, tonally, and what is? [edit] Or is 'Romanticism' simply a description of the extra-musical, typified by Hoffman (as quoted by KenOC)?


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> The OP's question has been answered by many posters who took it at face value: which composer? A stream of names was offered,
> 
> Tchaikovsky
> Wagner
> Chopin
> Lizst
> Beethoven
> Berlioz
> Schumann
> Brahms
> Dvorak
> Mendelssohn
> Sibelius
> Mahler
> Von Weber
> Schubert
> 
> but with minimal supporting explanation of their 'Romantic' features. In other words, the mere name of the composer was to be taken, as the OP asked, as the 'description'.
> 
> Not that that invalidated anyone's choice, and I'm not complaining that any of the TCers who offered a name have failed the OP, just that for anyone reading and hoping to learn something from the thread, such posts were of limited use. A relative novice hoping to learn something about the term 'Romanticism' might listen to all these composers and glean something, but not be able to form a 'description'.
> 
> However, let's not be lazy. Let's look at the scraps on offer...it is possible to piece together some ideas from those who were a little more forthcoming. Here's a few examples...
> 
> Subsequent posts assert that, contrary to what I've quoted above, Romanticism is not about the emotional...or not only about the emotional. Hardly surprising, since the idea of 'emotion' in music is itself disputed.
> 
> The only real clue to what is _musically _Romantic is to do with tonal relations, but I haven't yet found a post that explored this further. I am of course well aware of the possibility of going away and reading up on this, as has been suggested, but this seems to me partly to defeat the purpose of an online forum where participants have the chance to exchange their knowledge in daily discourse. (Why join an internet forum when you can read a book??)
> 
> Surely someone here is willing to offer some brief insights: perhaps a comparative example of what isn't Romantic, tonally, and what is? [edit] Or is 'Romanticism' simply a description of the extra-musical, typified by Hoffman (as quoted by KenOC)?


That means talkin' turkey about theory, chord functions, approaches of thought and mind set about theory from those composers... in short, a place very few can or are willing to go... and if they were willing to go there, a respondent would have to nearly "write a book" to fill that bill.
("Why join an internet forum when you can read a book??")

a little of the theory was presented in this thread, granted, it seems cribbed and without the essential conclusion re: Beethoven = classical  Is the fact, for example, the romantics moved / modulated about in thirds, and felt that should be 'balanced' by one up, the next down, at all really helpful?

Pardon me for doubting that is, for most listeners, of little or no avail at all.

ADD: P.s. Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style_ is a fantastic book, it is also quite a dense plow for even those immersed in their later undergrad studies as music majors, with all the attendant theory they have at that level. Laymen can read it and get some notion of the principles put forth, but anything salient to the points of differentiating Classical harmonic procedures from Romantic era procedures will not be readily boiled down into three to five neat paragraphs readily grasped by the average listener who has little or no ken of music theory. (Some tasks need more time and space than any on a general forum would allow.)


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> That means talkin' turkey about theory, chord functions, approaches of thought and mind set about theory from those composers... in short, a place very few can or are willing to go


If I accept your theory, it's as I suspected: that many folk (I stress not all) have traded names without any additional insight. In short, there are emperors here wearing scant garments.


----------



## ArtMusic

neoshredder said:


> If you were going to describe the Romantic Era based on one Composer, who would you choose? I think it would be Tchaikovsky. But it will be interesting to see what others say.


I like you neoshredder, so don't get me wrong about what I am about to say: this thread should have been done with *a poll* so people can clearly choose for themselves from a list. A clear picture would emerge statistically. 

I think Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Liszt are all fine examples.


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> this thread should have been done with *a poll* so people can clearly choose for themselves from a list. A clear picture would emerge statistically.


Art just wants polls so he can record names. Anyone on this thread voting for Wagner would be reported directly to the Committee for the Elimination of Decadent Musical Over-Intellectualism where a a Failure to Properly Recognise Tonal Lyricism (Category 1 - mild) will be registered on your permanent record! Wake up sheeple!


----------



## Guest

Here's my opinion on the notion that it would be useful to seek out an agreed definition of "romantic music".

I think it not unreasonable to expect people to seek out their own understanding of basic terms like "romantic music". After all, the internet is awash with websites of various descriptions that contain information on this kind of thing. Then, having reached an understanding satisfactory to oneself, it would seem sensible to suggest a few names that answer the OP. 

The alternative of expecting someone here to provide some kind of definition of "romantic music", and then to debate which composer(s) best fit the bill, seems unlikely to be constructive. This is because different people attach different priorities to each attribute of "romantic music", and any individual will therefore be inclined to stress those features to which they attach importance, but others may not agree. 

As an example of what I am referring to above, someone may actually not have much of a clue about what constitutes "romantic music", e.g. in terms of structure, motivation. Nevertheless, they may happen to like, say, Wagner, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky. Such individuals may therefore be inclined to seek out some aspect of "romantic music" that would seem to fit the characteristics of their preferred composer, and push for that definition in support of their man. 

Another possibility is that we would simply get a boring list of technical definitions, with the risk of some external academic piece (written by someone else), being slightly disguised and passed off as one's own, without necessarily reaching any sensible conclusions on the question of which composer(s) best fit the bill, or anything else for that matter. 

Although I like Schubert and Schumann above others from that period, the poetic influence upon their works is a fact, not an opinion. As the 19th C progressed, this aspect of source of influence hardly mattered because the majority of all the best-known names in classical music were Romantics, of one sort or another, with the exception of Debussy.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> If I accept your theory, it's as I suspected: that many folk (I stress not all) have traded names without any additional insight. In short, there are emperors here wearing scant garments.


There are things one will not know about music, in more detail and precision, unless the listener has the time and inclination to study theory to some degree of 'full.' Music theory is not math, but as abstract a thing to learn: unlike maths, not everyone learned the basics at home or in kindergarten when very young.

Yet, from that list you collated which comes from the cumulative suggestions, each and all except for Beethoven are solidly recognized as Romantic composers -- not bad for a 'bunch of non-academically trained fans,' I think.

The Romantic musical era ran through a time with rapid social changes, and technological changes which included drastic new developments of instruments and their capacities, and all those changes moved more swiftly, the developments faster and more one on top of the next than did developments in preceding eras.

Romantic era is subdivided in early, middle, late, with (imo) the differences between each perhaps greater from one phase to the next than the differences from early, middle, late classical. That is a lot to take in, with a lot of changes to note and explain.

Getting in to all that, all through the era, the differences, still all lumped under 'Romantic' _does_ pretty much require a book. The forum is loaded with experts, not necessarily without clothes, but varying sorts of expertise -- the most common and general a truckload of listening, some reading -- enough anyway that the nominees for Romantic composer were extensive and all nearly 'correct.'


----------



## Nevum

Bruckner..... of course...


----------



## hpowders

Bruckner's kind of far along. Romanticism was evident a bit earlier, no?


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> [...]
> If someone is enough of a doubter, their only route to satisfy this 'debate' over the next to undebatable would be to get themselves some serious music theory training.


I think the Problem is with the label _*Romantic*_. It signifies Emotion to those of us unwashed in the lavatory of Music Academia. I have managed to figure out that the label is borrowed from the one given to sociopolitical trends/convulsions surrounding Europeans - and necessarily their music - in the decades between ~1780 and 1850.

To put a positive light on it, the period's focus was _*Freedom*_, but that was from the viewpoint of those members of the lower social classes who managed to survive the eruptions of 'unrest'. Lousy name for a music period anyway.


----------



## lupinix

hpowders said:


> Bruckner's kind of far along. Romanticism was evident a bit earlier, no?


Rachmaninov and Mahler were even later


----------



## hpowders

lupinix said:


> Rachmaninov and Mahler were even later


True. I didn't see how the OP question was phrased. So many similar threads. I "got confused".


----------



## hpowders

For defining the Romantic Era the most, I will have to go with my old stalwart, Robert Schumann.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Yet, from that list you collated which comes from the cumulative suggestions, each and all except for Beethoven are solidly recognized as Romantic composers -- not bad for a 'bunch of non-academically trained fans,' I think. [etc etc etc...


Utterly bizarre. People have offered their thoughts and miraculously come up with 'right' answers, even though no-one has thought to offer much in the way of a justification. You declare that everyone in the list I collated is right (except LvB), but tell me that it would be too complicated and lengthy to explain _why _they are right.

That leaves those of us making the 'wrong' suggestions wondering if this is an elitist forum after all - only those who are already in the know will get to know.

Having done a little of my own research - Goodall's _The Story of Music_ (2012) and Arthur Jacob's _New Penguin Dictionary of Music_ (1980, an old edition, admittedly) - I am satisfied with my own conclusion that a legitimate case can be argued for LvB and that there is actually little about Romanticism that belongs to the music and a lot that is actually extra-musical. I quote:



> The problem with labelling anything 'Romantic' is that it has come subsequently to mean virtually anything, from the poetry of Lord Byron to the songs of Taylor Swift. [...] If 'Romantic' still means anything specific in the history of music, it best refers to a period when the composer's or performer's personal emotions, or sentiment, became paramount in the dialogue between music and audience. And Beethoven was the performer who began this transformation.
> 
> Goodall, p. 144





> *Romantic(ism)* terms alluding to an artistic outlook discernible in European literature towards the end of the 18th C, and taken over to describe a supposedly similar outlook in music, principally in the 19th C. [...] The main musical implication is that the composer is more concerned with the vivid depiction of an emotional state (often linked with a narrative or some other extra-musical element) than with the creation of aesthetically pleasing structures. [...] The attempt at more and more 'vividness' led to (a) a trend to the evocation of 'extreme' emotions (b) an expansion of orchestral resources for this purpose. Romanticism is thus contrasted with *Classicism*.
> 
> Jacob, p 347


----------



## Ukko

Goodall appears to have marooned himself on the literature reef and 'led to a trend' . The Jacob quote also refers to an 'end result', not an origin. Did you cherry pick those passages?


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> Goodall appears to have marooned himself on the literature reef and 'led to a trend' . The Jacob quote also refers to an 'end result', not an origin. Did you cherry pick those passages?


Sorry, Ukko, I don't understand either of the points you make about the quotes. As for 'cherry-picking', to what end?


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> Sorry, Ukko, I don't understand either of the points you make about the quotes. As for 'cherry-picking', to what end?


The end would be choosing words that seem to support your previously held conceptions. Doesn't have to be deliberate, it's a pretty normal tendency. The quotes appear to look at the Romantic Period in its maturity, or maybe even its senescence. That's when it's easy to confuse the coating with the content. I haven't even seen the books you refer to, so I wonder what came before the parts you quoted.

Sorry about my mode of expression. It may be the result of very little formal education combined with a moderately defective brain construction. I tend to find metaphors everywhere, and have some difficulty filtering them out of my communications. They seem apt to me, but lots of times it turns out they ain't.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> I am satisfied with my own conclusion that a legitimate case can be argued for LvB and that there is actually little about Romanticism that belongs to the music and a lot that is actually extra-musical.


Fine. Toss your hat into the ring to add to the hats of all those _elitist experts_.

There are but a handful of Beethoven's works where it can be documented he set out to express an intense personal emotion. When myriads of theorist / Musicologists say Beethoven was a classical composer, by way of having done tons of theoretic analysis re: his musical vocabulary, musical procedures, and determining that he was _working very clearly from the stance of a classical formalist (up through and including his last highly abstracted works),_ I tend to believe them. I know enough theory to also agree with their opinion.

Your being convinced that Beethoven was in good part a Romantic composer is from more a sheer emotional platform.

I do not have any counter argument when some technical knowledge as required before making a categorical definition gets someone's knickers in a twist.


----------



## Guest

Ukko said:


> The end would be choosing words that seem to support your previously held conceptions. Doesn't have to be deliberate, it's a pretty normal tendency. The quotes appear to look at the Romantic Period in its maturity, or maybe even its senescence. That's when it's easy to confuse the coating with the content. I haven't even seen the books you refer to, so I wonder what came before the parts you quoted.


OK. The Goodall work covers music from 40,000 BC to Lady Gaga, so Romanticism gets four pages in a chapter entitled 'The Age of Elegance and Sentiment 1750 to 1850'. I'm not about to copy out all four pages, but he is as sceptical of the term Romanticism as he is of the terms 'Renaissance', 'Baroque' and 'Classical'. The piece I quoted is preceded by a description of Beethoven as the tortured genius, an image often associated with Romanticism, and an explanation of the difficulty the term presents in relation to music when compared to its meaning for literature. Pushkin and Schumann (he cites specific works) are labelled 'Romantic' but are completely different things. It is followed by a sketch of some of the other typical components - the significance of the natural world and the rural life, the power of the individual, the rise of the industrial. Schubert, he suggests, follows Beethoven's example, and in doing so, makes the point that some of these 'Romantic' composers are inspired by the poetry of the time, as well as certain ancient stories such as Promotheus and Faust, and the fascination with the supernatural more generally. He cites works on supernatural themes by Berlioz, the Mendelssohns, Clara and Robert Schumann, Liszt, Gounod and Mahler. That's about it.

The entry in the Penguin Dictionary is even briefer. I gave you the very first line. It is followed by a sentence telling us that direct comparisons with literature are risky - the interest in the Middle Ages is rarely evident in music (he offers Bruckner's 'Romantic' Symphony as an exception, noting the name was added after he wrote it). The supernatural is evident in Weber, but not Chopin, although both are 'labelled' Romantic. I already gave you most of the rest of the entry.

In other words, like the Isaiah Berlin reference I made earlier in this thread, the term is so broadly used that its meaning, if it has one, has become obscured. That does not mean that it isn't interesting to consider it.

BTW - don't worry about your mode of expression. I didn't understand; I asked you to explain; you did. Thank you - that was great, and it's how it should be. Too many posters refuse to explain themselves.



PetrB said:


> Fine. Toss your hat into the ring to add to the hats of all those _elitist experts_.
> 
> There are but a handful of Beethoven's works where it can be documented he set out to express an intense personal emotion. When myriads of theorist / Musicologists say Beethoven was a classical composer, by way of having done tons of theoretic analysis re: his musical vocabulary, musical procedures, and determining that he was _working very clearly from the stance of a classical formalist (up through and including his last highly abstracted works),_ I tend to believe them. I know enough theory to also agree with their opinion.
> 
> Your being convinced that Beethoven was in good part a Romantic composer is from more a sheer emotional platform.
> 
> I do not have any counter argument when some technical knowledge as required before making a categorical definition gets someone's knickers in a twist.


Surely the point of this debate...and its enduring futility...is that no composer is bound by any definition. It's as wrong to say that Beethoven must have been a Romantic because of one composition (say, _The Creatures of Prometheus_) as it is to say that a collection of composers must all be bound by a common term because they all wrote 'vividly emotional' piano works. I was entering into the spirit of a fluffy debate where people offered random names without any evidence (though I did just find a more considered post by millionrainbows.) What I wasn't doing was saying that Beethoven _must _be defined as Romantic and not Classical, but suggesting that since some of his works were on Romantic subjects and themes (extra musical) and he himself cut a Byronic figure, the claim was reasonable.

BTW, Rosen doesn't even make it into Goodall's bibliography. And I appreciate being allowed to toss my hat!


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Fine. Toss your hat into the ring to add to the hats of all those _elitist experts_.
> 
> There are but a handful of Beethoven's works where it can be documented he set out to express an intense personal emotion. When myriads of theorist / Musicologists say Beethoven was a classical composer, by way of having done tons of theoretic analysis re: his musical vocabulary, musical procedures, and determining that he was _working very clearly from the stance of a classical formalist (up through and including his last highly abstracted works),_ I tend to believe them. I know enough theory to also agree with their opinion.
> 
> Your being convinced that Beethoven was in good part a Romantic composer is from more a sheer emotional platform.
> 
> I do not have any counter argument when some technical knowledge as required before making a categorical definition gets someone's knickers in a twist.


I agree absolutely, but both you and I have been saying this exact same thing in several previous posts, both in this thread and the recent previous one.

It all boils down ultimately to which set of "expert" opinion on the matter one finds most appealing. The simple fact is that many people listening to Beethoven think along the lines that because some of it sounds different to Mozart, it must be "romantic" because that's what came after the "classical" style.

Some of Beethoven's music does sound different (more emotive to some), but that's not a sufficient condition to make it "romantic". I find the analysis and conclusions of people like Charles Rosen, based on a detailed examination of structure and form, to be far more convincing than the "man-in-the-street" conception of what constitutes the distinction between "classical" and "romantic" music.

As I said earlier in the thread, general Boards like T-C are fine for discussing broad aspects of topics like this one, but not suitable for getting too drawn on technical issues if there are any disputes, a fact which always seems likely on this particular topic.

That's precisely why I did not wish to get drawn into any further elaboration of Rosen's methodology when asked to do, as it would have risked silly challenges, with the whole thing bogged down in a morass of confusion, and possibly worse. No amount of technical detail will satisfy a deliberate sceptic, and of course it will go right over the head of people who do not have the basic musical knowledge. It's not a matter of being elitist, an accusation that is way out of order.


----------



## ArtMusic

Beethoven considered himself a Classicist.


----------



## Guest

Further on the matter discussed earlier concerning the meaning of "lieder", I would to try to clarify something that I thought was quite obvious but which unfortunately led to a clash of opinion. I will keep this as short as possible.

In an earlier post, I commented thus: _"As evidence that Schubert was an early Romantic, look no further than his lieder. This genre is the epitomy of the Romantic style."_

By this I was not in any way suggesting that Schubert invented a completely new vocal type genre, called "lieder". I am fully aware that "lied" simply means "song" in German, and that various types of "lied" had long pre-existed Schubert's re-invigoration of it.

My point was simply that Schubert took this art form but developed it big-time as the vehicle for the expression of German poetry, some of which was famous but some of it less so. Whilst "lied" means "song" taken literally, in the context of Romantic music it means something more specific, namely equal parts voice/piano using German poetry as its vocal line.

This specific meaning of "lieder" in the Romantic period is such a basic point that I thought most people here would have been aware of it from the context of the earlier discussion without needing any further elaboration, but misunderstanding there was.


----------



## Guest

Here's another critic spotting the connections and the distinctions between LvB and the Romantics...interestingly highlighting the excesses of the latter and the restraint of the former.



> There was nothing meretricious about the Beethoven sonatas; they were not used - or should not be used, it was felt - to dazzle the listener with the performer's technique, and they betrayed none of the deplorably morbid and effeminate character of the works of the great Romantics, Chopin, Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann. They had gravity as well as passion and humour. They guaranteed contact with the sublime
> 
> p. 4 Rosen, C., _Beethoven's Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion_


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> [...]
> Surely the point of this debate...and its enduring futility...is that no composer is bound by any definition. It's as wrong to say that Beethoven must have been a Romantic because of one composition (say, _The Creatures of Prometheus_) as it is to say that a collection of composers must all be bound by a common term because they all wrote 'vividly emotional' piano works. I was entering into the spirit of a fluffy debate where people offered random names without any evidence (though I did just find a more considered post by millionrainbows.) What I wasn't doing was saying that Beethoven _must _be defined as Romantic and not Classical, but suggesting that since some of his works were on Romantic subjects and themes (extra musical) and he himself cut a Byronic figure, the claim was reasonable.
> [...


The debate *is* fuzzy (and occasionally obscured by smoke), and that is possibly why _PetrB_ and I try to restrict the scope of it to stuff that _can_ be discerned reasonably well. If a discussion on any subject gets wide enough, it becomes about Life And Why Are We Here. Good luck with that one - and this one too.


----------



## hpowders

I have a hard time believing that the composer of the Pastoral Symphony, with its vivid descriptive movement titles of nature considered himself a "classicist." For me he stretched and broke the bonds of Haydn's classicism.


----------



## Ukko

Partita said:


> Further on the matter discussed earlier concerning the meaning of "lieder", I would to try to clarify something that I thought was quite obvious but which unfortunately led to a clash of opinion. I will keep this as short as possible.
> 
> In an earlier post, I commented thus: _"As evidence that Schubert was an early Romantic, look no further than his lieder. This genre is the epitomy of the Romantic style."_
> 
> By this I was not in any way suggesting that Schubert invented a completely new vocal type genre, called "lieder". I am fully aware that "lied" simply means "song" in German, and that various types of "lied" had long pre-existed Schubert's re-invigoration of it.
> 
> My point was simply that Schubert took this art form but developed it big-time as the vehicle for the expression of German poetry, some of which was famous but some of it less so. Whilst "lied" means "song" taken literally, in the context of Romantic music it means something more specific, namely equal parts voice/piano using German poetry as its vocal line.
> 
> This specific meaning of "lieder" in the Romantic period is such a basic point that I thought most people here would have been aware of it from the context of the earlier discussion without needing any further elaboration, but misunderstanding there was.


That is well said, _Partita_. I know I am suggesting that the barn door be closed well after the horse has left the barn, but... an earlier closure would have had salubrious effects, eh?


----------



## Ukko

hpowders said:


> I have a hard time believing that the composer of the Pastoral Symphony, with its vivid descriptive movement titles of nature considered himself a "classicist." For me he stretched and broke the bonds of Haydn's classicism.


Hah. Those "descriptive movement titles" are literature (sort of). The music is Classical.


----------



## FleshRobot

Ukko said:


> The debate *is* fuzzy (and occasionally obscured by smoke), and that is possibly why _PetrB_ and I try to restrict the scope of it to stuff that _can_ be discerned reasonably well. If a discussion on any subject gets wide enough, it becomes about Life And Why Are We Here. Good luck with that one - and this one too.


That's true. But the stuff that can be discerned reasonably well is never explaned. Would it be so hard to explain how are
"[Beethoven's] musical vocabulary, musical procedures, and determining that he was working very clearly from the stance of a classical formalist (up through and including his last highly abstracted works)" and how Schubert's aren't? When people divide Schoenberg's ouvre, for example, "in late romantic" or "modern/serial" it's clear that the use of atonality and later the twelve-tone technique that plays the major role. The same cannot be said about what makes the romantic period differs from the classical (at least, for most people that replied to this thread).


----------



## Ukko

FleshRobot said:


> That's true. But the stuff that can be discerned reasonably well is never explaned. Would it be so hard to explain how are
> "[Beethoven's] musical vocabulary, musical procedures, and determining that he was working very clearly from the stance of a classical formalist (up through and including his last highly abstracted works)" and how Schubert's aren't? When people divide Schoenberg's ouvre, for example, "in late romantic" or "modern/serial" it's clear that the use of atonality and later the twelve-tone technique that plays the major role. The same cannot be said about what makes the romantic period differs from the classical (at least, for most people that replied to this thread).


Since you quoted me, I'll answer. It wouldn't be _hard_ for me, but it would be a _drag_ to thrash around looking up breakdowns of Classical sonata form - exposition, recapitulation, all that stuff, and the significance of the 'triad'. I'd forget it again in a day or so, it's stuff I have no use for in my real life environment. _PetrB_ is apt to tell you to look it up yourself (he's gotten pretty impatient with us lately). So I guess we need a volunteer to step in and blow some of the smoke away.


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> The debate *is* fuzzy (and occasionally obscured by smoke), and that is possibly why _PetrB_ and I try to restrict the scope of it to stuff that _can_ be discerned reasonably well. If a discussion on any subject gets wide enough, it becomes about Life And Why Are We Here. Good luck with that one - and this one too.


"Just the facts, Ma'am." ~ Detective Sargeant Jack Friday, Dragnet; television series.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> "Just the facts, Ma'am." ~ Detective Sargeant Jack Friday, Dragnet; television series.


Yes!! I've read about him in an Early American History book.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> I have a hard time believing that the composer of the Pastoral Symphony, with its vivid descriptive movement titles of nature considered himself a "classicist." For me he stretched and broke the bonds of Haydn's classicism.


"One of Beethoven's few works containing programmatic content"

"Beethoven provided descriptive titles for each movement, at the same time he cautioned against interpreting his intentions literally. Thus, he wrote in his sketchbooks: "The hearers should be allowed to discover the situations." "All painting in instrumental music, if pushed too far, is a failure." "Anyone who has an idea of country life can make out for himself the intentions of the author without many titles." "People will not require titles to recognize the general intention to be more a matter of feeling than of painting in sounds." "Pastoral Symphony: *no picture* but something in which the emotions are expressed which are aroused in men by the pleasure of the country, in which some feelings of country-life are set forth." "A recollection of country life." As Lewis Lockwood noted, it seems as though Beethoven wanted to take advantage of the taste for illustrative composition while elevating it beyond mere mimickry and sound effects." ~ http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/pastoral.html

So, a near oner, and with intent to better the more direct and (in the composer's mind) far lesser, 'cheap' attempts which were already in popular circulation and -- applying his hand to write something better done within that popular fashion (natural curiosity + Ka-ching, ka-ching thoughts of practicality, so very much part of the how and what Luigi was also about 

Picaresque music (that not meant to slight this piece at all) -- done about once out of all his entire output and poured in to a perfectly classical symphonic format -- does not alone a romantic composer make.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> I have a hard time believing that the composer of the Pastoral Symphony, with its vivid descriptive movement titles of nature considered himself a "classicist." For me he stretched and broke the bonds of Haydn's classicism.


But then Haydn's 'classicism' produced works like the Creation, full of descriptive music.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort

Ukko said:


> I'll go with Schumann, as much for his writings as for his music. My first thought was Berlioz, but his music really wasn't representative of what 'everybody' was doing, at least according to that 'everybody'.


I would go with your first thought, Ukko, after all isn't _Einsamkeit _ one of _the_ major earmarks of Romanticism?


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> OK. The Goodall work covers music from 40,000 BC to Lady Gaga, so Romanticism gets four pages in a chapter entitled 'The Age of Elegance and Sentiment 1750 to 1850'.


LOL. This reminds me of the outraged letter to the editor when a high-school student's mum wrote to a "To the editor" section in the local newspaper: She had picked up her kid's history textbook, gone to the index on World War II.

She found a total of four pages on World War II; two of those four pages were photographs


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> LOL. This reminds me of the outraged letter to the editor when a high-school student's mum wrote to a "To the editor" section in the local newspaper: She had picked up her kid's history textbook, gone to the index on World War II.
> 
> She found a total of four pages on World War II, two of those four pages were photographs


Yeah, Goodall may have had a scope problem; either not enough room or looking through the wrong end of it.


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> But then Haydn's 'classicism' produced works like the Creation, full of descriptive music.


True. Especially at the beginning....first the darkness....the void....and then God proclaims "Let there be light!" I love that part!


----------



## Couchie

PetrB said:


> With all an individual's accompanying emotions re: Beethoven in hand, without their somewhat giving it up to definitions of Classical / Romantic relative to music from Grove's, Harvard Dictionary of Music, Larousse, or hosts of others, what is the point of either further discussion or further trying to convince? One individual's personal concept vs. the centuries of those fully dedicated to music, their extensive knowledge of theory and the literature, is not going to tip or change any definition even though that individual may desire that were so. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
> 
> If someone is enough of a doubter, their only route to satisfy this 'debate' over the next to undebatable would be to get themselves some serious music theory training.


Man that's optimistic. In reality you will just end up with a debate over what the texts you have read vs the texts I have read say and which texts are the important ones to read. You might as well just debate whether Beethoven was a blue composer or a purple composer based on personal feelings, it will save everybody a lot of very dry reading.

Debates over the beginning and end of an era whether it be the Romantic Era or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire are so complex, fuzzy, and _useless_, that it can't help but be a total waste of time to everybody except those who receive grant money to publish such nonsense.


----------



## PetrB

Couchie said:


> Man that's optimistic.


.........



Couchie said:


> Debates over the beginning and end of an era whether it be the Romantic Era or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire are so complex, fuzzy, and _useless_, that it can't help but be a total waste of time to everybody except those who receive grant money to publish such nonsense.


Yahoo! Indeed, one should take into account -- and ponder -- How much of what we read of this nonsense is the result of the Publish or Perish reality of academia, where what is published must be a 'new take' on the subject or somehow controversial, adding to the heaps of what is already well-enough said and logged in. Ergo, if Beethoven is generally thought of as a classicist, and one is going to write on Beethoven, it is inherent the academic writing to keep their job, save their life, so to speak, _must come up with something else_ if they are to have that paper published and accepted.

That publish, perish, must say something new (_or else!_) about a thing already written about (to death, as it were) corrupts a lot of bright people, forces them to rationalize another take for the sake of its being another take -- some of the less creative thinkers in that lot will most readily target something already written about, and it is easier to come up with something which controverts than truly original thought (which is a rarity anywhere) -- and that makes for a mass of high-falutin' twaddle.


----------



## DavidA

It seems to me that quite a bit of this debate is about semantics. How do we define 'romantic'? If it is descriptive then some of Bach's passion music is. The 'earthquake' at the end of the St Matthew certainly fits this, yet none of us would call JSB a 'romantic'. The problem is we are trying to define an extremely flexible term which is like trying to put your finger on the blob of Mercury. Maybe best to agree to differ on this one and each have our own definitions.
Btw, just note that although Goodall's book (and more especially the entertaining series) was not in any way an in depth work, it is far more likely to attract people to classical music by explaining things in simple terms than some of the tediously written volumes of interminable wrangling produced by so-called 'scholars'.


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> It seems to me that quite a bit of this debate is about semantics. How do we define 'romantic'?


I somehow think that any numbers of users of an open admission music forum and "How do we define 'romantic' and what is then in that particular thread is altogether of less than miniscule import.

It has been defined, in music, those composers working within the style already named. This thread may as well be about re-naming and re-defining Mt. Everest.

"The people's playtime" with _How do we define 'romantic'_ has less point of significance than a bunch of children skipping rope or playing hopscotch on the sidewalks.

I'm sure the above is going to make me a ton of new friends


----------



## Aramis

Or there was baroque romanticism......... because baroque wasn't all about procreation................ so you can say it was baroque romanticism


----------



## neoshredder

I'm looking for the emotional side of 19th century music rather than the scientific version of Romanticism. Another one that comes to my mind emotionally is Antonin Dvorak. And yeah I feel Beethoven fits right in emotionally with the rest of the 19th Century if form is not considered.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> How much of what we read of this nonsense is the result of the Publish or Perish reality of academia, where what is published must be a 'new take' on the subject or somehow controversial, adding to the heaps of what is already well-enough said and logged in. Ergo, if Beethoven is generally thought of as a classicist, and one is going to write on Beethoven, it is inherent the academic writing to keep their job, save their life, so to speak, _must come up with something else_ if they are to have that paper published and accepted.
> 
> That publish, perish, must say something new (_or else!_) about a thing already written about (to death, as it were) corrupts a lot of bright people, forces them to rationalize another take for the sake of its being another take -- some of the less creative thinkers in that lot will most readily target something already written about, and it is easier to come up with something which controverts than truly original thought (which is a rarity anywhere) -- and that makes for a mass of high-falutin' twaddle.


All of this may be true. Equally, a new take which challenges the 'already-written-about-to-death' orthodoxy is not necessarily wrong. In other fields, the challenging of orthodoxies are an essential component of progress, or improved understanding.

BTW, I'm only challenging the principle written about here - not the specific about who or what is Romantic - though I can't help repeating an earlier thought: does it matter whether x is Romantic?


----------



## Ukko

MacLeod said:


> [...]
> BTW, I'm only challenging the principle written about here - not the specific about who or what is Romantic - though I can't help repeating an earlier thought: does it matter whether x is Romantic?


It matters... if one's personal 'body of knowledge' is arranged like a filing cabinet. Oops, wrong century for that simile.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> I somehow think that any numbers of users of an open admission music forum and "How do we define 'romantic' and what is then in that particular thread is altogether of less than miniscule import.
> 
> It has been defined, in music, those composers working within the style already named. This thread may as well be about re-naming and re-defining Mt. Everest.
> 
> "The people's playtime" with _How do we define 'romantic'_ has less point of significance than a bunch of children skipping rope or playing hopscotch on the sidewalks.
> 
> I'm sure the above is going to make me a ton of new friends


Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences do not make sense. Can you interpret them?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Couchie said:


> After Wagner composers suddenly became "Late Romantic", ie sun was setting.
> 
> Wagner.


And really, this is why, truthfully, Wagner does NOT _define_ the Romantic Era the most.

In actuality, he *apotheosizes* the Romantic Era the most.


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences do not make sense. Can you interpret them?


You're a bright and creative boy. 
I am sure you can suss them out.


----------



## scratchgolf

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences do not make sense. Can you interpret them?


With English being the subject here, "does" would make more sense than "do", no? Never mind. I figured it out.


----------



## Vaneyes

We can't mention Bob without Clara.


----------



## Blancrocher

Vaneyes said:


> We can't mention Bob without Clara.


Or the two of them without Brahms.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> You're a bright and creative boy.
> I am sure you can suss them out.


Sorry, but I believe it's up to the writer to make himself clear.


----------



## hpowders

That's the romantic era right there encapsulated in that early photo.


----------



## PetrB

scratchgolf said:


> With English being the subject here, "does" would make more sense than "do", no? Never mind. I figured it out.


Well my writing of that one was done coming from a deep sleep, not really awake. But rather than revise it, I now think it the perfect model for our resident bilingual wit to lampoon, just as he made a perfect parody likeness of one member's rather perfect run-on no caps style. Those run-on mockeries were a sort of art form in themselves. Inadvertently, I've provided potential fun.


----------



## PetrB

Blancrocher said:


> Or the two of them without Brahms.


You really would enjoy reading _Longing_ by Landis


----------



## Guest

Chi_townPhilly said:


> *apotheosizes*


Boy, that's not easy to say!



DavidA said:


> Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences do not make sense. Can you interpret them?


I find PetrB frequently doesn't make sense at the sentence level, but hey, I just go with the flow and I usually get the gist! Of course, given that we've disagreed in this thread, he might be poking subtle fun at me and I'm just too dim to get it. :lol:


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> Boy, that's not easy to say!
> 
> I find PetrB frequently doesn't make sense at the sentence level, but hey, I just go with the flow and I usually get the gist! Of course, given that we've disagreed in this thread, he might be poking subtle fun at me and I'm just too dim to get it. :lol:


Thanks MacLoed, for giving me the unwarranted credit for being able to make subtle fun of things.

Fact is, my blah blah blah is often enough the kind of writing which would get severely marked down -- or fail -- if graded for an English class.


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but I believe it's up to the writer to make himself clear.


You are correct. Difficult to interpret those who write English "atonally".


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> You are correct. I hate folks who write "atonally".


Oh No  Not _the A word_!!!


----------



## FleshRobot

PetrB said:


> Well my writing of that one was done coming from a deep sleep, not really awake. But rather than revise it, I now think it the perfect model for our resident bilingual wit to lampoon, just as he made a perfect parody likeness of one member's rather perfect run-on no caps style. Those run-on mockeries were a sort of art form in themselves. Inadvertently, I've provided potential fun.


I think scratchgolf was correcting the post made by DavidA rather than yours. Instead of "Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences do not make sense" it should've been "Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences *does* not make sense".


----------



## jlaw

I find people always come up intriguing questions on this cite Hector Berlioz is my only choice to represent the romantic period as a whole. He pioneered this style and is way ahead of his German peers.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> Well my writing of that one was done coming from a deep sleep, not really awake. But rather than revise it, I now think it the perfect model for our resident bilingual wit to lampoon, just as he made a perfect parody likeness of one member's rather perfect run-on no caps style. Those run-on mockeries were a sort of art form in themselves. Inadvertently, I've provided potential fun.


Well done!

'But what do we live for but to provide sport for our neighbours and laugh at them in our turn.' (Jane Austen)


----------



## DavidA

FleshRobot said:


> I think scratchgolf was correcting the post made by DavidA rather than yours. Instead of "Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences do not make sense" it should've been "Sorry, but the English of at least two of your sentences *does* not make sense".


Incredible that a mis-hit on my I-pad's predictive tense could cause so much consternation as regards sentence, the sense of which was perfectly clear anyway! Still, they say, 'dot the i's ........'


----------



## hpowders

Anyhow, there are differences between British and American English (not to mention spelling differences) that folks should be aware of so as not to start ridiculous fights. 
For example:
British: The other team are sitting down.
American: The other team is sitting down.


----------



## scratchgolf

hpowders said:


> Anyhow, there are differences between British and American English (not to mention spelling differences) that folks should be aware of so as not to start ridiculous fights.
> For example:
> British: The other team are sitting down.
> American: The other team is sitting down.


Yes. There are (is?) differences, and that was not one of them. I'm perfectly content to stand by, idly, and enjoy then show. I just found it odd that such a simple mistake was made during an attempt to humiliate another member, and for a very similar reason. Do carry on.


----------



## lupinix

You know, when someone says something like "Beethoven, because of his fiery rhythms", it is clear that its not about saying Beethoven is academicly speaking a romantic composer, it only sais something about the person saying this, namely that Beethoven has the most fiery rhythms in all of history to him, and therefor I don't think its bad post. It could also say about the poster (s)he either isn't talking about romantic in the true way but her/his personal association with music from this era, or that (s)he simply doesn't know what Romantic music means, or isn't interested in what it academicly means, or has read books that do refer to Beethoven as Romantic. Someone else could of course reply with something like "do you know strictly academicly speaking Beethoven isn't Romantic, just saying" kind of a thing and that person could answer (s)he knows or not and cares or not and it would be over.

The OP's purpose was this: 


neoshredder said:


> If you were going to describe the Romantic Era based on one Composer, *who would you choose?* I think it would be Tchaikovsky. *But it will be interesting to see what others say.*


So he asked about something personal, something that, you could say "says more about the poster than the composer". I could have interpreted it wrong though,but I guess he wouldn't mind much if people said names that aren't really romantic.

Maybe I could even say something like "William Byrd, cause he is the most lyrical composer I know" if that was what I think and everyone should be able to understand I just needed to express william byrd is in my opinion the most lyrical composer, and that I did it only because thinking about romantic music makes me think about the lyrical qualities of according to me, romantic music.

You could however interprete the thread differently, because it says romantic "era" so he could just mean something like the 19th century, in this case it would probably just mean something like "who is according to you the greatest composer of the 19th century" or "which has the most influence" or "who has brought together in his/her music most triats of the 19th century"

At least this is my opinion
If it was meant as a purely academic question and the OP would have said this, then it wouldn't be very interesting. The first poster could just name the core composers of the romantic schools as considered in academic consensus if this is possible (I don't know this for sure, I don't know enough about this), and everyone can "like" it, or give some further information and after3 or 4 posts the thread would be over


----------



## neoshredder

I guess I could say the Composer the Most Romantic of the Major Composers in the 19th Century/Early 20th Century Romanticism. Thus clearly outside of the Classical Era and not experimenting with Modernism as well.


----------



## tgtr0660

Chopin and Schumann, as many other say.


----------



## hpowders

One out of two ain't bad.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> British: The other team are sitting down.
> American: The other team is sitting down.


Not in _my _British English. Team is singular.


----------



## lupinix

MacLeod said:


> Not in _my _British English. Team is singular.


I thought both is possible, as team is a collective noun, it isn't difficult to find explanations for this on the internet:
"In British English collective nouns, (i.e. nouns referring to particular groups of people or things), (e.g. staff , government, class, team) can be followed by a singular or plural verb depending on whether the group is thought of as one idea, or as many individuals

In American English collective nouns are always followed by a singular verb"

"In English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition.", "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches.", etc. In American English, collective nouns almost invariably take singular verb forms (formal agreement)."

"In British English certain collective nouns can have both a plural and a singular verb:
The team is walking onto the field. The team are walking onto the field.
In British English both 'is' or 'are' can be correct depending on whether the team is referred to as a group or individually. 
However in American English only the singular is used"


----------



## scratchgolf

Schubert are the composer that best defines the Romantic Era but Schumann and Mendelssohn is nice two.


----------



## hpowders

I don't know how many times I've heard things like "Manchester United *have *the lead" from British announcers, something we don't say here in the States.

You can't tell me I don't know what I'm hearing?? Perhaps the announcers are Irish or Scots?


----------



## scratchgolf

hpowders said:


> I don't know how many times I've heard things like "Manchester United *have *the lead" from British announcers, something we don't say here in the States.
> 
> You can't tell me I don't know what I'm hearing!!!


The Phillies *have* the lead over the lowly Mets. I'd say it's fairly common.

Also, seeing as you don't like Schubert, I wouldn't be sure you didn't know what you were hearing. I'd just assume it.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> I don't know how many times I've heard things like "Manchester United *have *the lead" from British announcers, something we don't say here in the States.
> 
> You can't tell me I don't know what I'm hearing?? Perhaps the announcers are Irish or Scots?


I can...but I won't. Perhaps what you're hearing is just poor use of English: journalists and sports commentators are among the worst at distorting the language.

Let's not rely on the new-fangled interweb for our understanding of English (Br.) Referring to Fowler's Modern English Usage (OUP, 1985) I stand corrected: it allows for 'nouns of multitude' to take either singular or plural verbs, provided the meaning is appropriate. The easiest example given is

"The Cabinet is divided" because the meaning demands the idea of a singular entity in the first place; but, "The Cabinet are agreed" because it takes more than one to agree!

This seems to me a more subtle and selective approach than the definitive US decision you cite.


----------



## neoshredder

scratchgolf said:


> Schubert are the composer that best defines the Romantic Era but Schumann and Mendelssohn is nice two.


Eh Schubert is a transitional Composer.


----------



## Ravndal

Not really.

.........................


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

Probably Chopin is the composer in whom the Romantic period was firmly defined.


----------



## Ukko

If you people would _*do the right thing*_, i.e. accept my posts on this subject as gospel, this thread could die a painless and natural death.

:tiphat:


----------



## DeepR

Jonathan Wrachford said:


> Probably Chopin is the composer in whom the Romantic period was firmly defined.


For solo piano, that is.


----------



## neoshredder

Ravndal said:


> Not really.
> 
> .........................


Yes he is. Listen to his first 5 Symphonies and his first 10 String Quartets. They sound very classical. Like a mix of Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## scratchgolf

neoshredder said:


> Yes he is. Listen to his first 5 Symphonies and his first 10 String Quartets. They sound very classical. Like a mix of Beethoven and Mozart.


Although I was simply using Schubert for my under-appreciated farce, I agree that some of his music has a very Classical feel to it. Having said that, he was most certainly a Romantic composer. Certainly not worth debate. He's be one of the finest of any era he was placed in.


----------



## neoshredder

scratchgolf said:


> Although I was simply using Schubert for my under-appreciated farce, I agree that some of his music has a very Classical feel to it. Having said that, he was most certainly a Romantic composer. Certainly not worth debate. He's be one of the finest of any era he was placed in.


He doesn't define the Romantic Era due to Classical Era feel to it. And yes he was awesome in both styles. Especially his mature works.


----------



## neoshredder

And maybe he was better off not going too far into Romanticism. He found the right blend of Classical and Romanticism. Thus, for many Schumann isn't quite as accessible as Schubert.


----------



## scratchgolf

neoshredder said:


> And maybe he was better off not going too far into Romanticism. He found the right blend of Classical and Romanticism. Thus, for many Schumann isn't quite as accessible as Schubert.


Agreed on Schumann, though very rewarding indeed. Mendelssohn I find to be highly accessible and rewarding.


----------



## Guest

scratchgolf said:


> Although I was simply using Schubert for my under-appreciated farce, I agree that some of his music has a very Classical feel to it. Having said that, he was most certainly a Romantic composer. Certainly not worth debate. He's be one of the finest of any era he was placed in.


Let me express my belated appreciation of the farcical element of your earlier post. I spotted it previously.

I agree with you that Schubert has as much right to be regarded as a Romantic composer as any other later 19th C candidates. There is already loads on this issue earlier in the thread, which I presume may not have been read by some.

For sure, a fair chunk of Schubert's juvenile (non-vocal) works were written in the CLassical style, but the important thing to note is that they were juvenile works. His "mature" works exhibit much clearer Romantic features. I put "mature" in quotes because he was still a very young man when he entered into this stage of his career, by comparison with Beethoven who was very much slower getting into stride.

For a start, all or most of Schubert's lieder is Romantic, and since this was his biggest genre I can't see that there's much argument over his Romantic credentials. Quite a lot of his late piano solo material embodies Romantic traits of "expansiveness"; think of the second movement of D 959, or the first and second movements of D 960, as good examples.

The same dream-like expansiveness also occurs in several movements of his late chamber works. None of these chamber works sound "Classical". Both the 8th and 9th symphonies have more in common with the Romantics than the Classical style. When Schumann discovered the 9th symphony some 10 years after Schubert's death he was bowled over by it. It was so "Romantic" (expansive) that there were serious problems finding orchestras to perform it.

Schubert was Romantic, the best in my opinion. I would place Schumann next, Brahms third. Behind these three, in a somewhat rough and ready rating I would have: Chopin, Liszt, Wagner, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner.


----------



## neoshredder

Being the best Romantic and being the most Romantic are 2 different things. I was not interested in the best Romantic (opinion of course). But more interested in who dived the deepest into Romanticism of the most popular Composers of that time. And to ignore Schubert's early works I don't agree with. I quite like his early stuff as well.


----------



## hpowders

lupinix said:


> I thought both is possible, as team is a collective noun, it isn't difficult to find explanations for this on the internet:
> "In British English collective nouns, (i.e. nouns referring to particular groups of people or things), (e.g. staff , government, class, team) can be followed by a singular or plural verb depending on whether the group is thought of as one idea, or as many individuals
> 
> In American English collective nouns are always followed by a singular verb"
> 
> "In English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition.", "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches.", etc. In American English, collective nouns almost invariably take singular verb forms (formal agreement)."
> 
> "In British English certain collective nouns can have both a plural and a singular verb:
> The team is walking onto the field. The team are walking onto the field.
> In British English both 'is' or 'are' can be correct depending on whether the team is referred to as a group or individually.
> However in American English only the singular is used"


Exactly spot on, as usual. By the way Manchester United are winning.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Exactly spot on, as usual.


Actually, it wasn't 'spot on' as the example given - _The team is walking onto the field. The team are walking onto the field. - _suggests that both are acceptable when in fact, a choice must be made, depending on the context.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> There is also a respectable view that Schoenberg was musically conservative, but I'm not convinced on that issue anymore than I'm convinced Beethoven was a Classicist. If this is indeed the case than I think both composers get way too much credit for being innovative, it can't be both ways.


Of course Beethoven could be, and was, both classicist and highly innovative; the two are not mutually exclusive!


----------



## PetrB

Ravndal said:


> Impressionism is a part of late romanticism. And they are the ultimate romantics imo


The text and reference books where you live must be very different from the ones where I live


----------



## tdc

PetrB said:


> Of course Beethoven could be, and was, both classicist and highly innovative; the two are not mutually exclusive!


True, but as he came after Haydn and Mozart, I'm not sure how much more innovation was really left in that particular style. Of course early Beethoven certainly sounds classicist, but then that is not really when he was being most innovative.

Mid and Late Beethoven doesn't sound anything like Mozart, Haydn or any other classicist I can think of (I don't consider Schubert classicist either). But the two sound enough alike that I can see why people try to place Schubert in the classicist side of things as well. I just don't agree with the classifications. Mendelssohn was more of a classicist than Beethoven or Schubert in my opinion.

But these classifications are just rough guidelines I think, I certainly don't care enough to want to write or even read a book on the subject. If it means that much to so many well respected members here than sure Beethoven was a classicist.


----------



## Itullian

I'll say Schumann.


----------



## tdc

Ravndal said:


> Impressionism is a part of late romanticism. And they are the ultimate romantics imo


If I recall correctly Burning Desire has a similar view of the impressionists, personally I couldn't disagree more.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> If I recall correctly Burning Desire has a similar view of the impressionists, personally I couldn't disagree more.


Part of the common mistake of thinking that music which gives the listener a strong emotional
feeling is somehow "Romantic" music... it may be, in a contemporary sense of the word, romantic, with a lower case *r*.


----------



## neoshredder

You got a point. I find Mozart Romantic if we go by the emotional feeling. Even Corelli and Monteverdi you kind of get that emotional feeling. Though more restrained.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> You got a point. I find Mozart Romantic if we go by the emotional feeling. Even Corelli and Monteverdi you kind of get that emotional feeling. Though more restrained.


It isn't "my" point, but more "the way it is." 

This thread has me realizing how next to impossible it is to clarify 'romantic' or what technically qualifies a style or era in simple non-technical terms. (If that were possible, it would have happened already. Perhaps music theory and history still awaits its Carl Sagan-like spokesman.)

I had a thought, for those wanting to better get a handle on the subject, "Nothing that about two years of university level music theory and three semesters of music history wouldn't take care of." But, who of those who haven't done it want to hear _that?_ :lol:

Ergo, to anyone in general, that Carl Sagan like spokesman for classical music position is still open. (The pay is probably the opposite of interesting, but the job, effectively done, I think would be rewarding.)


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> This thread has me realizing how next to impossible it is to clarify 'romantic' or what technically qualifies a style or era in simple non-technical terms.


And, coupling that with earlier assertions that it's next to impossible to clarify what it is in _technical _terms, it leaves me wondering what use such a term is, if no-one is prepared to define it!

The insurmountable problem is that for those who prefer their music 'absolute' (it's not 'about' anything, and it 'contains' nothing, but the music) there is not even a generalisation (eg "it's about investing music with emotion") that is acceptable; similarly, for those who like their music emotional and non-technical, there is little that could be understood, even if it could be said, that is acceptable.

I'm not sure whose dead horse is being flogged in this thread!


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> This thread has me realizing how next to impossible it is to clarify 'romantic' or what technically qualifies a style or era in simple non-technical terms.


Sad but true.

Even you if you came up with the perfect answer, there would be still be discontent, misunderstanding, and failures to read correctly what you wrote, since some peoples' minds are already made up or they don't want their current conceptions disturbed too much.

Even if the most unlikely happened and all here present understood and agreed with the answer, tomorrow is another day and threads like this get buried quickly. There is nothing to stop the whole thing repeating all over in a short while, and if so you can bet that hardly any notice would be taken of this thread as most people like to argue things out afresh, rather than be referred back to a previous discussion, especially long ones like this.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I think Wagner should be mentioned for romanticism as well (but he probably already was, hehe).


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> And, coupling that with earlier assertions that it's next to impossible to clarify what it is in _technical _terms, it leaves me wondering what use such a term is, if no-one is prepared to define it!
> 
> The insurmountable problem is that for those who prefer their music 'absolute' (it's not 'about' anything, and it 'contains' nothing, but the music) there is not even a generalisation (eg "it's about investing music with emotion") that is acceptable; similarly, for those who like their music emotional and non-technical, there is little that could be understood, even if it could be said, that is acceptable.
> 
> I'm not sure whose dead horse is being flogged in this thread!


I am ignorant in knowing exactly who that first group of people were who 'invented' and first codified music history as we now deal with it, but lets just say they were not a bunch of men and women who were passionate non-musician consumers -- instead, they were the music theory geeks from academia, and theorists and academicians of later generations are those who added or elaborated further.

So, we can all criticize a canon which is virtually impossible to fully (and easily) communicate to the world at large, but please, don't shoot the piano player


----------



## wolfgangamadeus

This is a great thread and got me thinking. I agree with some of the points recently made, that it isn't particularly helpful to define an era solely by how the music makes you feel emotionally. In other words, this type of argument is not valid: "Well... Mozart's music makes me feel romantic, therefore Mozart belongs to the Romantic era." However I DO believe that how the music sounds or is composed is relevant to a discussion of eras, but there are other less subjective and maybe more important things to think about when defining an era

The composers themselves define an era as much as the music. Were THEY writing Romantic music? Why were they composing? Typically a composer of the romantic era is writing music for music's sake (or appeared to be doing so), though of course they had to balance that with making a living as well. This contrasts with composers of other eras. Bach wrote music for church as did Monteverdi who also composed music for the court. Haydn and Mozart wrote symphonies and symphonies were designed to satisfy the concert goer; full-length works with a bit of everything thrown in. Many modern composers composed with academic intentions thinking carefully about theory (Serialism etc.) in an attempt to push the boundaries of music. Romantic composers seemed to be writing music for themselves to satisfy their own feelings and were often openly more involved in the emotion of it. Giving the pieces inspiring names was one way of doing this, but also composers such as Liszt were famous for their for dramatic interpretation and performance of their works. Because of all this, there is a sense in the Romantic era that composers were trying to connect their emotions to their music.

For me then, composers such as Liszt, Berlioz and Schumman, by laying out their emotions for all to see in their music, typify the Romantic era. Liszt through his passionate performance of his music, Berlioz through his obsession with Harriet Smithson (idee fixe) in Symphony Fantastique, and the nostalgia in Schumann's Scene's from Childhood.


----------



## hpowders

Tired of all this labeling. Too much overlap without well-defined boundaries.
A fruitless exercise, in my opinion.


----------



## Eschbeg

PetrB said:


> I am ignorant in knowing exactly who that first group of people were who 'invented' and first codified music history as we now deal with it


For the most part it was Franz Brendel, whose _History of Music in Italy, Germany, and France_, written in 1852, was not the first history of music to be written but by far the most influential. It was the first book to view music's history through the lens of Hegel's philosophy of history-i.e. to think of history as having an inherent inclination to unfold a certain way, independent of the actions of human beings, and that this natural inclination is a steady progression toward freedom. When applied to music, this view holds that the purpose of music is to find continuously new ways to be liberated from constraints that get in the way of creative freedom.

The major milestones of music that Brendel identified, and his criteria for identifying them, are still pretty much the same reasonings we use today when we tell the history of classical music. The Renaissance is historically important because it was the era when sacred music was liberated from the oppressive rules of Medieval plainchant. The Baroque period is historically important because it was the era when secular music, predominantly in the form of opera, helped to liberate music from religion. The Classical period was important because it was the period when string quartets and symphonies liberated music from opera. And the Romantic period (Brendel's period) was important because it was going to further liberate music from arbitrary constraints like sonata form, four-movement symphonies, etc., which is exactly what symphonic poems were doing at the time Brendel was writing.

By and large, our understanding of classical music is still as a series of liberations and freedom-seeking experiments. That's why works that repeat previously-used formulas, like opera seria or grand opera, play only a secondary role in the current repertory. It's why the innovative Beethoven symphonies (Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9) are more well known than Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 8. It's why Liszt is more well known for his piano works and tone poems than for his oratorios, Brahms for his instrumental music rather than his lieder and choral music. In each case, progress and innovation are the standards by which historical importance is measured.

Brendel's version of history is more subtly but also more fundamentally inherent in modern views of music that consider progress and change to be inherent in music itself rather than in the whims of composers. That's the story that gets told whenever atonality, for example, is described as a historical inevitability. Webern's claim that "the dissolution of tonality was not our fault," and that it was "forced on us" by history, is as quintessentially Brendelian, and therefore Romantic, as it gets. Ever since the 1850s, composers have been seen as simply pursuing the implications inherent in music itself, the same way Napoleon (one of Hegel's heroes) was simply pursuing the implications inherent in history itself.

Granted, not everyone today is willing to give modernist experimentalism the same aura of historical importance as Beethoven's symphonies. But the most common strategy for defending modernist experimentalism, for those inclined to do so, is to praise its composers for not being deterred by detractors (mere humans, after all) and for composing for the sake of music itself. That's Brendel in a nutshell.


----------



## Guest

wolfgangamadeus said:


> This is a great thread and got me thinking. I agree with some of the points recently made, that it isn't particularly helpful to define an era solely by how the music makes you feel emotionally. In other words, this type of argument is not valid: "Well... Mozart's music makes me feel romantic, therefore Mozart belongs to the Romantic era." However I DO believe that how the music sounds or is composed is relevant to a discussion of eras, but there are other less subjective and maybe more important things to think about when defining an era
> 
> The composers themselves define an era as much as the music. Were THEY writing Romantic music? Why were they composing? Typically a composer of the romantic era is writing music for music's sake (or appeared to be doing so), though of course they had to balance that with making a living as well. This contrasts with composers of other eras. Bach wrote music for church as did Monteverdi who also composed music for the court. Haydn and Mozart wrote symphonies and symphonies were designed to satisfy the concert goer; full-length works with a bit of everything thrown in. Many modern composers composed with academic intentions thinking carefully about theory (Serialism etc.) in an attempt to push the boundaries of music. Romantic composers seemed to be writing music for themselves to satisfy their own feelings and were often openly more involved in the emotion of it. Giving the pieces inspiring names was one way of doing this, but also composers such as Liszt were famous for their for dramatic interpretation and performance of their works. Because of all this, there is a sense in the Romantic era that composers were trying to connect their emotions to their music.
> 
> For me then, composers such as Liszt, Berlioz and Schumman, by laying out their emotions for all to see in their music, typify the Romantic era. Liszt through his passionate performance of his music, Berlioz through his obsession with Harriet Smithson (idee fixe) in Symphony Fantastique, and the nostalgia in Schumann's Scene's from Childhood.


You seem to be saying:

•	Baroque is all about writing music for Church and Court, so that the common man's preferences don't count

•	Classical is all about writing music for the concert-goer, involving a bit of everything including symphonies, with no other interests being deemed relevant

•	Romantic is all about writing music as a means of expressing personal emotion, with no regard for pleasing audiences and earning a living

•	Modern is all about writing music with purely academic intentions, having complete disregard for audiences generally

Do you really believe that classical music history over the past 400 years can be described in such a simple way?


----------



## Yardrax

Eschbeg said:


> It was the first book to view music's history through the lens of Hegel's philosophy of history.


I'm afraid Hegel already did that in his Lectures on Fine Art.

Also, Hegel's philosophy is not about the development of mankind towards greater freedom in the sense of greater licentiousness. Freedom in Hegel's system means communion with God. The ideas of historical progress outside of the control of individual wills, and even the idea of progression towards freedom can be found in lesser thinkers of the period and are not specifically Hegelian.


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> You seem to be saying:
> 
> •	Baroque is all about writing music for Church and Court, so that the common man's preferences don't count
> 
> •	Classical is all about writing music for the concert-goer, involving a bit of everything including symphonies, with no other interests being deemed relevant
> 
> •	Romantic is all about writing music as a means of expressing personal emotion, with no regard for pleasing audiences and earning a living
> 
> •	Modern is all about writing music with purely academic intentions, having complete disregard for audiences generally


At last, at least one person gets that even though a composer is strongly concerned about an audience / audiences, they are almost never directly thinking of them when composing a piece. The connection is more a matter of their being a human being, and happening to make something of a communicative nature which a number of their fellow species happens to like -- a milliion miles away from the cynical team of around a dozen of more pro songwritiers on contract with record label __________ to crank out songs fro Britney Spears, etc.

Whether it was a fairly self-obsessed classical composer or a team of calculating contemporary pop / commercial songwriters, a listener who connects is enamored of thinking "the composer was thinking of me when they wrote this," which is perhaps a bit more self-obsessed than the classical composer sitting down in isolation writing what they want or can and maybe hoping people like it


----------



## Eschbeg

Yardrax said:


> I'm afraid Hegel already did that in his Lectures on Fine Art.


True, but Hegel wasn't musically literate enough to cite specific musical techniques like Renaissance counterpoint or sonata form, as Brendel was. Like most Romantics who applied Hegelian theory to music, Brendel placed more importance on Hegel's philosophy of history than on Hegel's thoughts on the arts, and most Romantics who followed Brendel were more likely to get their Hegel from Brendel and his circle (Wagner, Liszt) than from Hegel himself.


----------



## Yardrax

Eschbeg said:


> True, but Hegel wasn't musically literate enough to cite specific musical techniques like Renaissance counterpoint or sonata form, as Brendel was. Like most Romantics who applied Hegelian theory to music, Brendel placed more importance on Hegel's philosophy of history than on Hegel's thoughts on the arts, and most Romantics who followed Brendel were more likely to get their Hegel from Brendel and his circle (Wagner, Liszt) than from Hegel himself.


Yes, taking scraps of Hegel picked up from secondary sources without bothering to engage with his ideas as a whole seems to have been a popular past time right up to the present.


----------



## Eschbeg

Not to mention that Brendel didn't quite get music history right either. Mozart would probably be mortified to learn that his symphonies are more important than his operas.


----------



## isridgewell

For me its Berlioz.


----------



## hpowders

Yes. I would choose Schumann, but Berlioz is a very good choice too!


----------



## Ethereality

*Bach!*

A response to TalkClassical voting Romantic as their favorite period. Bach: _"This is how I intended them to be played, but I didn't think anyone would understand... so I just wrote 'for organ'."_


----------



## Ethereality

On a more serious note, if I had to choose once piece, short or long, that I think represents the absolute soul and inspiration of the Early Romantic Period, it would have to be this one by Mendelssohn. I can picture Beethoven absolutely falling in love with Mendelssohn here:


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6544.html
> 
> So it is with 'Romanticism'.
> 
> And yet...Beethoven!


Alas, the link I posted above no longer works, but in searching for something else by Isaiah Berlin on Romanticism, I came across this:



> The figure who dominates the age symbolically is Beethoven, who sits in a garret, dirty, unkempt, bad-mannered, ignorant, barbarous in political and mundane matters, stupid, of no particular interest - but who is true to the inner vision within him, does not sell out, is permittedto be rude to great men, fierce and indeed egoistic in his personal relationships, provided that this egoism is an instrument for sacrificing all his inner resources to serving the ideal that burns within him and which alone he is not permitted to betray. If he were to betray that and do something to accommodate himself to the external world, that indeed would be treason to that which is most holy in man, the ideal of free creation by rules and towards goals invented by himself.


http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/lists/nachlass/romanticism.pdf


----------



## flamencosketches

Wagner is the correct answer I think, like him or not.


----------



## Fabulin

"dirty, unkempt, bad-mannered, ignorant, barbarous in political and mundane matters, stupid, of no particular interest – but who is true to the inner vision within him, does not sell out, is permitted to be rude to great men, fierce and indeed egoistic in his personal relationships"

Apparently the only real romantics are then Beethoven, Brahms, and The Mighty Five. Although the word "stupid" is not something I would use to describe any of them.


----------



## Dimace

flamencosketches said:


> Wagner is the correct answer I think, like him or not.


You have again the Master forgotten, but I say a big YES to your statement. (we MUST give questions like this more specifically, with composers fields of action> Opera, piano, symphonic music. Liszt and Chopin> Piano. Wagner> Opera. Bruckner> Symphonic music, etc).


----------



## isorhythm

I think you have to treat early and late Romantic separately, and I guess the right answers are Schumann and Wagner.

But for me personally, it's Chopin and Mahler.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> I think you have to treat early and late Romantic separately, and I guess the right answers are Schumann and Wagner.
> 
> But for me personally, it's Chopin and Mahler.


I also think early and late Romanticism should be distinguished, although there's no distinct dividing line. Early Romanticism as heard in Schubert, Mendelssohn, Weber, Berlioz, Chopin and Schumann has a fresh, youthful exuberance, with even its fond indulgence in darker emotions typically softened into a dreamy melancholy or framed by fairy-tale fantasy.

I see Wagner not as exclusively late Romantic but as transitional; his operas, in both their plots and their music, trace the death of Romantic illusion. His two "Grail operas" illustrate the progression: _Lohengrin_ (1848) is a genuine fairy tale, full of archetypes of the knight in shining armor, the damsel in distress, and the evil sorceress, set to music of a lyrical loveliness shadowed but never shattered by tragedy; _Parsifal_ (1882) is a disturbing, symbolic dream/nightmare in which an almost excruciating depiction of psychological pain is mixed with and subsumed by a vision of otherworldly transcendence. In between came _Tristan und Isolde_ and the _Ring of the Nibelung_, the first expressing the paradoxical glorification/disillusionment of Romantic love, and the second the catastrophic end of the Enlightenment hope for progress and the perfectability of Man.

Since I see Wagner's works as chronicling the decline of Romanticism even while they carry its musical innovations to a climactic point, I would have to choose him as most fully defining the Romantic era. I mean no disparagement of Mahler when I say that he is a turbulent, highly personal wake behind the Wagnerian ship. (I would say the same of Schoenberg, except for his technical innovation of "the method" which bore such un-Romantic fruit.)


----------



## Bwv 1080

What about Liszt? you can find every aspect of the period in his music - its got Wagnerian chromaticism, flashy virtuosity, deep sentimentalism, etc


----------



## flamencosketches

Liszt would be a perfectly valid answer too. I would settle for Schumann or Chopin too, both are über-Romantic. But I stand by Wagner. I wouldn’t say either Bruckner or Mahler embodied Romanticism because each is so utterly unique. Mahler I don’t really consider a romantic composer. Post-Romantic, more like.


----------



## Bulldog

Ethereality said:


> On a more serious note, if I had to choose once piece, short or long, that I think represents the absolute soul and inspiration of the Early Romantic Period, it would have to be this one by Mendelssohn. I can picture Beethoven absolutely falling in love with Mendelssohn here:


Beethoven falling in love with a superficial Mendelssohn piece - I don't think so.


----------



## chu42

Schumann for early romantic, Brahms for late.


----------



## Ethereality

Bulldog said:


> Beethoven falling in love with a superficial Mendelssohn piece - I don't think so.


One of the greatest melodies ever written, right.


----------



## Enthusiast

Schumann, Chopin and perhaps Liszt are the Romantic poets. Beethoven, Wagner and Mahler are the Romantic novelists. Perhaps Schumann was both a poet and a novelist. Bruckner might be a Romantic artist/painter. Brahms was very great but not for me a typical or archetypal Romantic.


----------



## Ethereality

The answer I think is Wagner by a landslide, though Schumann is a great suggestion.


----------



## Bulldog

Ethereality said:


> One of the greatest melodies ever written, right.


Mendelssohn never had a problem writing attractive melodies.


----------



## Larkenfield

Robert Schumann not only brilliant composed and defined it but he wrote about it and promoted many others who defined it as well, such as Chopin and Brahms. He believed in creating his own reality through his romantic ideals, and he did. He represented it as much as anyone, and unfortunately Wagner, who also greatly contributed and represented the Romantic era, was not necessarily universally respected and beloved because of his controversy views, though I believe he was considered a genius. There’s also Berlioz and of course the one composer who inspired most of the 19th century in Romanticism, Beethoven. If you couldn’t compete with Beethoven you better be inspired to develop your originality in another area, and that’s what some of the composers did in developing their own individuality in other directions where so many of the Romantic composers developed such personality and independence, not to mention such a greatly expanded emotional range. The Classical era was over and people wanted to feel more that was not necessarily related to the Greek classical ideals, and I believe that Schumann greatly represented that.


----------



## Ethereality

Bulldog said:


> Mendelssohn never had a problem writing attractive melodies.


Exactly, so your comment is entirely incorrect. I realize many don't have a theoretical capacity to grasp the superiority of melodic form amongst fundamental components of composition, like counterpoint. Even many who are melodic enthusiasts mistake Schubert for a melodist when his foundation is more harmonic. If they want a lesson in melodic theory, Mendelssohn is one great place to start.


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> Exactly, so your comment is entirely incorrect. I realize many don't have a theoretical capacity to grasp the superiority of melodic form amongst fundamental components of composition, like counterpoint. Even many who are melodic enthusiasts mistake Schubert for a melodist when his foundation is more harmonic. If they want a lesson in melodic theory, Mendelssohn is one great place to start.


I'm not following this - could you explain?


----------



## Ethereality

janxharris said:


> I'm not following this - could you explain?


Which part do you refer? Bach, Mozart, and Mendelssohn can be clearly grouped as the 3 main composers who, as their minimalist exerise, honed into melodic (scalar) potential to steer their music to glorified levels, that is Bach and Mozart are the true wardens of best balance in music, while Mendelssohn is the one composer truly leaning off Mozart's (left) side of this scale of musical balance. Bach guards his rightful place from the majority, on the harmonic side of Mozart, still more melodic integrity than most composers, but more harmonic, not skill but, emphasis than the two. Don't confuse Bach's harmonic skill (which is due to understanding this balance) with the majority of romantic composers' focus too much on the traditions of the harmonic (right) side of Bach, trying to compose harmony too properly. Melodic over-dominance is perhaps the one fundamental facet which the 3 above shared more than other classical composers, and you could say it is why Bach and Mozart are the most properly balanced. The difference is in how these 3 delt with harmony as an after effect. For Bach, he wrote via multiple melodic lines focusing on more melodic flow of two currents, for Mozart he became a strong champion of minimalism to one melodic line, disregarding even more harmonic potential than before, and then for Mendelssohn, well, it's obvious. He was Mozart's exact logical continuation to the left. After the discovery of this perfect Western balance, Mendelssohn emphasized melody even more than the two and dismissed harmony even more than the two. Most of the romantics focused on getting harmony right first, like Schubert who writes one-line melodies that are entirely dependent on his harmonies, where one can tell he's writing harmony first. Mendelssohn also sounds a lot like Mozart. It at first appears that Mendelssohn has some harmonic complexity, but when you truly analyze the visionary, these tones are a result of his melodic complexity. Now, I'm not sure but was your question on how this relates to counterpoint? Because as I answered, Bach and Mozart are the very two-sided recipe to successful counterpoint as a musical effect. Studying Mendelssohn's music plays a very large role in understanding how counterpoint evolved the other way, how Mendelssohn would have instilled successful counterpoint with his brilliant single-lines, if he had not shorthanded the harmony, but it was more a personal preference of the Romantic era for him to do so, mainly because counterpoint needs the melodic-harmonic balance of the previous era. With such prowess to write melodies, you simply have to ask if Mendelssohn could write multiple lines well but chose not to, because he is certainly an exercise is minimalism and was aiming toward his own musical vision.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Has anyone yet said Bruckner? Unlike Wagner, he is known for writing symphonies and expanded the art form to its most Romantic extreme.


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> Which part do you refer? Bach, Mozart, and Mendelssohn can be clearly grouped as the 3 main composers


That's an assertion that isn't 'clear' at all.

Why are you referring to Bach in this thread?



> who, as their minimalist exerise, honed into melodic (scalar) potential to steer their music to glorified levels, that is Bach and Mozart are the true wardens of best balance in music, while Mendelssohn is the one composer truly leaning off Mozart's (left) side of this scale of musical balance.


Again assertion. Why don't you demonstrate why this is so? 
Mendelssohn leans off the *left* side of Mozart???

Might be worth just concentrating on these first...


----------



## Ethereality

Because to understand Bach you must obviously realize his melodic choices were, by principle of balance, more harmonic. It sets up the explanation of whatever you were unclear asking about.



janxharris said:


> Mendelssohn leans off the *left* side of Mozart???


Clearly. Why would there be confusion about this? You actually think Mendelssohn paid more attention to the harmonic side of flow than Mozart?


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> Clearly. Why would there be confusion about this? You actually think Mendelssohn paid more attention to the harmonic side of flow than Mozart?


I wasn't understanding your use of 'left'; and I am not clear what you mean by paying 'more attention to the harmonic side of flow'.

I take it the you aren't considering the thread question any more?


----------



## Ethereality

Flow refers to the compositional intention ie. where the composer clearly wants to 'move' the piece, VS how the composer makes up for other notes as an after-effect of intention. Even when one erases and rewrites, a flow of a piece can usually be easily heard as more melodic or harmonic: Balanced on the other hand, this is not the 'balance' referred to with Bach and Mozart, but rather melodic-harmonic emphasis is only relative to every beat.

I need to take a break for a bit but I'll be back. If you want to point to any successful composers more to the left than right in overall disposition, you can, but they are not very balanced. Lots of ancient music. It is really a delight to hear the melodic integrity in more complex music of these 3, where the others overcomplicate harmony everywhere, by some phenomenon not having as much melodic integrity most of the time.


----------



## Bulldog

Ethereality said:


> Exactly, so your comment is entirely incorrect.


Nonsense. Attractive melodies are often superficial.


----------



## Ethereality

Bulldog said:


> Nonsense. Attractive melodies are often superficial.


Doesn't seem like a common opinion of famous composers. But let's say that doesn't matter. What makes them superficial to you? What is your reasoning process?

If you're talking about like a Blue Danube Waltz, that's superficial because the melody is already bad, it's poorly structured and repetitive. The melody I just posted above is not superficial in any regard.


----------



## Larkenfield

Ethereality said:


> Doesn't seem like a common opinion of famous composers. But let's say that doesn't matter. What makes them superficial to you? What is your reasoning process?
> 
> If you're talking about like a Blue Danube Waltz, that's superficial because the melody is already bad and poorly developed. The melody I just posted above is not superficial in any regard.


"Melody is already bad"? 'When Strauss's stepdaughter, Alice von Meyszner-Strauss, asked the composer Johannes Brahms to sign her autograph-fan, he wrote down the first bars of The Blue Danube, but adding "Leider nicht von Johannes Brahms" ("Alas! not by Johannes Brahms").' It's perfectly delightful and lighthearted dance music that's put a smile on people's faces for more than 150 years. I doubt if it could have survived with a bad melody.


----------



## Ethereality

No I believe that Brahms did that. But I had just reasoned with Bulldog to take other composers' opinions out of it and see what he can come up with. Sorta catering to whatever his philosophy on melody is.

Brahms (maybe) likes it, or maybe was more being nice, we don't know. I wouldn't ever put that waltz over something like Spring Song. They're leagues apart. The Danube is simple to remember and sing together, its a dramatic dance that repeats its motifs over and over, so of course it has more popularity.


----------



## Larkenfield

Ethereality said:


> No I believe that Brahms did that. But I had just reasoned with Bulldog to take other composers' opinions out of it and see what he can come up with. Sorta catering to whatever his philosophy on melody is.
> 
> Brahms (maybe) likes it, or maybe was more being nice, we don't know. I wouldn't ever put that waltz over something like Spring Song. They're leagues apart. The Danube is simple to remember and sing together, its a dramatic dance that repeats its motifs over and over, so of course it has more popularity.


Truly Brahms was well-known for genuinely loving the music of Johann Strauss. If opinions are being offered, surely his is worth considering. There's always the danger of complicating something that's essentially very direct and simple, and perhaps the discussion of melody is one of them. Melody is capable of standing on its own without seeming to mystify it with conceptual complexities and abstractions. Sometimes it can be delightful without the person knowing exactly why, and I believe that most people have had this memorable and pleasant experience.


----------



## Bulldog

Ethereality said:


> Doesn't seem like a common opinion of famous composers. But let's say that doesn't matter. What makes them superficial to you? What is your reasoning process?


Music that is immediately enjoyable often loses its appeal upon repeated hearings.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Has anyone yet said Bruckner? Unlike Wagner, he is known for writing symphonies and expanded the art form to its most Romantic extreme.


Bruckner is an eccentric composer who inhabits a limited (though deep and potent) expressive world. A Romantic, but hardly representative of Romanticism. I don't hear him expanding form so much as rethinking it as an original form of abstract architecture. The new, essentially Romantic conception of form climaxes in Bruckner's idol, Wagner, with whom abstract form is finally transcended by psychological narrative on the largest scale.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> Exactly, so your comment is entirely incorrect. I realize many don't have a theoretical capacity to grasp the superiority of melodic form amongst fundamental components of composition, like counterpoint. Even many who are melodic enthusiasts mistake Schubert for a melodist when his foundation is more harmonic. If they want a lesson in melodic theory, Mendelssohn is one great place to start.


I'm not sure what any of this means, or how it links to the question posed by the OP, but from a simpleton's point of view (mine, that is) a melody can be _any _kind of sequence of sounds, whether they are simple single notes, or a sequence of a set of notes (such as chords). I don't think there is any such thing as a "bad" melody, though it's obvious that many listeners prefer the kind of melody which offers the lifelines of repetition and simplicity.

I presume that the archetypal Romantic composition has just such a melody, intending to provoke a particular range of emotions in the listener, though the repetition and simplicity are offset by a complexity of variation and orchestral arrangement.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> Bruckner is an eccentric composer who inhabits a limited (though deep and potent) expressive world. A Romantic, but hardly representative of Romanticism. I don't hear him expanding form so much as rethinking it as an original form of abstract architecture. The new, essentially Romantic conception of form climaxes in Bruckner's idol, Wagner, with whom abstract form is finally transcended by psychological narrative on the largest scale.


Strange, because my point was exactly the opposite. At least with Bruckner there is some structural connection to the previous line of Beethoven-Schubert-Schumann-Brahms. You can then extend the line past Bruckner into Mahler.

What connection is there of the Romantic line with Wagner? His world is completely it's own. A Wagner opera is like nothing composed before or since.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> For Bach, he wrote via multiple melodic lines focusing on more melodic flow of two currents, for Mozart he became a strong champion of minimalism to one melodic line, disregarding even more harmonic potential than before,


But the most drastic example of "emphasis on one melodic line" in these composers is Bach's own Unaccompanied Cello Suites. Mozart did not write any substantial work like them in purely instrumental terms. Instead, a lot of his string quartets involves part-writing. Also, there's also a lot of "solo" arias, recitatives in Bach, in the passions and cantatas. Is UCS a work that disregards harmonic potential?






harmonic complexity is not the same thing as contrapuntal complexity, there's a difference between harmonic part-writing and contrapuntal part-writing. Shostakovich intentionally avoids dissonances in his A major fugue. And conversely, a composer could write multiple voices all the time, and still not be contrapuntal.
Both Bach and Mozart are multi-faceted and the line between them can't be defined by a simple textbook definition.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Strange, because my point was exactly the opposite. At least with Bruckner there is some structural connection to the previous line of Beethoven-Schubert-Schumann-Brahms. You can then extend the line past Bruckner into Mahler.
> 
> What connection is there of the Romantic line with Wagner? His world is completely it's own. A Wagner opera is like nothing composed before or since.


By saying that "with Bruckner there is some structural connection to the previous line of Beethoven-Schubert-Schumann-Brahms," you're actually making my argument for me.

The most distinctively Romantic idea about musical form is that it need not be based on predetermined patterns but can follow, arise out of, and trace the impulses of emotion. It can outline a psychological narrative the meaning and coherence of which is determined not by established forms but by a progression of feeling. There had long been ways for composers to do something like that; in particular, there was free recitative in opera and the idea of the fantasia in instrumental music. But Romanticism's focus on expression made the idea of a psychological narrative basic, at least to the "progressive" music of the 19th century (as opposed to the Brahmsian "neoclassical" school).

Bruckner, in that context, is a kind of classicist, albeit of a very individual sort who made use of Romantic devices but contains them within a clearly perceptible abstract framework. Temperamentally, he is not really a German Romantic but a Catholic mystic and medievalist. No other music of his era is fundamentally like his, and the influence of Wagner's music on his own is superficial. On the other hand, Wagner is a quintessential German Romantic, both musically and philosophically; he merely carries its tendencies to an extraordinary level of depth and grandeur. He found in the drama of theater an arena for creating music which carries out, on an unprecedented scale and with unprecedented specificity, the Romantic conception of music as a psychological narrative and a vehicle of pure expression. Of course that doesn't exclude the use in his works of abstract or established forms. But the main point here is that the basic difference between Classicism and Romanticism is that, in the former, emotional expression is mostly a function of, and arises within, an abstract, preconceived structural idea, while in the latter, the expressive impulse is the source of the music's formal choices. Of course these are principles and tendencies, not descriptions of any particular music. Actual music balances abstract and expressive form in an infinity of different ways.


----------



## starthrower

Woodduck said:


> ... the basic difference between Classicism and Romanticism is that, in the former, emotional expression is mostly a function of, and arises within, an abstract, preconceived structural idea, while in the latter, the expressive impulse is the source of the music's formal choices. Of course these are principles and tendencies, not descriptions of any particular music. Actual music balances abstract and expressive form in an infinity of different ways.


Perfectly articulated, Woodduck! You could write a book.


----------



## Fabulin

Bulldog said:


> Music that is immediately enjoyable often loses its appeal upon repeated hearings.


I've never encountered that. Seems like a direct opposite of my experience.


----------



## starthrower

Bulldog said:


> Music that is immediately enjoyable often loses its appeal upon repeated hearings.


It depends. Vivaldi and Tchaikovsky? Yes. Beethoven, and Bach? No.


----------

