# Is this a good assessment?



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Thinking about Beethoven's influence, I remembered that, even though he's a Classical composer, there are some that try to lump him with the Romantics just because of his later style. One music history book I've read has Beethoven in his own separate chapter (where the chapters are divided by era). This got me into thinking of Beethoven's different "periods" and how they influenced composers after him. That gave me an idea:

Mendelssohn's music is more in the vein of Beethoven's Classical side,
while Schumann's music branches off of Beethoven's Romantic side.

Does that sound right? I feel that I may have a point with Schumann, but I may be wrong about Mendelssohn. Also, would it be wrong of me to try and categorize Brahms in such a way?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

does it matter? 

if so, why?


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2014)

I find it best to organize Beethoven's works into three compositional periods, not two. The middle period being the one that came before romanticism but after Beethoven became more stylistically distinct from Mozart and Haydn. I would assume that if your assessment is deemed accurate by the more knowledgable members here, Mendelssohn would be more in the vein of the middle period than the early period.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> does it matter?
> 
> if so, why?


Not really, just a random idea.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

An answer of rare honesty - I like it :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cosmos said:


> Thinking about Beethoven's influence, I remembered that, even though he's a Classical composer, there are some that try to lump him with the Romantics just because of his later style. One music history book I've read has Beethoven in his own separate chapter (where the chapters are divided by era). This got me into thinking of Beethoven's different "periods" and how they influenced composers after him. That gave me an idea:
> 
> Mendelssohn's music is more in the vein of Beethoven's Classical side,
> while Schumann's music branches off of Beethoven's Romantic side.
> ...


The 'official' romantic era composer register has Schubert as _Early_ romantic (some of his earliest pieces sound rather 'Mozartian' in part), Schumann as _Mid_ romantic (quite solidly) Schumann, to me, is the champion of conveying something literal and poetic with 'just notes,' - especially in some of his miniatures and shorter piano pieces.

Those eras are both broad stroke and a kind of catchall. Read in further detail, and you will find them broken down into early, middle and late, each naturally having different traits while all generally falling within the one category.

Ergo, you are pretty much 'there,' in your assessments; your sense of place and characteristic traits is pretty darned good 

Composers did not get born and die conveniently to fit the era dates set in the mid to late 1800's, though.

Carl Maria von Weber's dates have him a near exact peer of Beethoven, but he is acknowledged as the first to write in what is later generally thought of as Germanic romantic style, (determined _as much_ by musical language and procedure as the more poetic aesthetics).

Beethoven's _harmonic language, form and procedures_ remained classical until his dying day, but with the Eroica and its unprecedented first-movement set-up of themes set in opposition, conveying struggle in a way not done before, that is a prototype _in the idea_ of 'romantic.' This is why he is so often mentioned as straddling the classical and romantic eras, technically the music is 'all classical all the time,' while elements and gestures have him sharing _at least a similar effect_ as the later aesthetic would desire, but not the musical traits, of the romantics.

Mendelssohn (1809 - 1847) is very much a classicist by way of his personal aesthetic and configurations. You are right to hear classicist, ala Mozart and Early Beethoven, but he is right in the center of the time envelope of 'romantic,' (ergo, a bit 'conservative' in his own time) and the music is very 'classicist' while being solidly romantic era fare.

Trust your instincts... it seems you've sussed enough about music to somewhat intuitively detect some salient characteristics as per style and era. Further reading of the less general on the different eras will pretty much confirm the broad labels are general only, and that your thoughts here are pretty much on the money


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> An answer of rare honesty - I like it :tiphat:


Well, if you like being able to tell people apart on sight, it is sort of like that! :tiphat:


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Well, if you like being able to tell people apart on sight, it is sort of like that! :tiphat:


I suffer from prosopagnosia - really!


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Beethoven was always a classicist in terms of his preferences for form, but his Middle Period "heroic" style was what most of Romanticism tried to emulate in one way another -- even though Beethoven had passed it by into his sui generis "late" style long before the Romantics hoisted what they thought was his torch. Too little, too late.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

PetrB said:


> ...
> Beethoven's _harmonic language, form and procedures_ remained classical until his dying day, but with the Eroica, and its unprecedented first-movement set-up of themes set in opposition, conveying struggle in a way not done before, is a prototype _in the idea_ of 'romantic.' This is why he is so often mentioned as straddling the classical and romantic eras, technically the music is 'all classical all the time,' while elements and gestures have him sharing aesthetic, but not the musical traits, of the romantics.
> ....


I am not so sure it applies to all Beethoven's last works.
An example for all: op 101.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Beethoven's _harmonic language, form and procedures_ remained classical until his dying day, but with the Eroica, and its unprecedented first-movement set-up of themes set in opposition, conveying struggle in a way not done before, is a prototype _in the idea_ of 'romantic.' This is why he is so often mentioned as straddling the classical and romantic eras, technically the music is 'all classical all the time,' while elements and gestures have him sharing aesthetic, but not the musical traits, of the romantics.


First of all, this binary opposition of romantic versus classical traits is a pretty useless framework for addressing Beethoven's music. Much of what he did in just about every technical realm was outside of classical norms. Seven movement string quartets? Frequent use of secondary key areas that are neither dominant nor mediant (in minor mode)? Frequent cyclic thematic unity? Fragmentary themes developed in opposition? Immediate motion to distant tonal terrain? The relative proportions of sections in sonata form movements? Shift of weight to finales and virtual elimination of minuets? Thoroughly idiosyncratic formal experiments in some of his late works? I won't even get into the enormous body of recent criticism arguing that his works exhibit various forms of quasi-narrative organization of a thoroughly unclassical nature. Then there are the attitudes he expressed indicating his view of a composer's role and position in the world. None of these traits is normal for the classical style. Some of them are equally abnormal for romantic music as well.

Three conclusions I draw from this: 1) The exercise of trying to stuff Beethoven's music into either pigeon hole is pointless and requires the butchering of common sense and a willful disregard of some really obvious musical evidence. 2) The position you are arguing is either meaningless or wrong. If you are going to redefine the classical style to admit the exceptional traits above, the category of classical period music is meaningless. If you are not, it is simply wrong. 3) This, I thought was perfectly obvious, but apparently not: Beethoven was an exceptional composer and much of his music defies easy and simplistic stylistic classification. You are engaged in an attempt at easy and simplistic classification.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> I am not so sure it applies to all Beethoven's last works.
> An example for all: op 101.


The general consensus is, though the form envelope was stretched to near tatters by Beethoven, that all his form, even in the late period, is like the shredded tattered flag on the military field -- i.e. it is still patently recognizable as the symbol of the sovereign domain of classicism.

The embodied _idea(s)_ of struggle (philosophical and abstract vs. the more direct tie to literal and poetic, i.e. illustrative) are there, and that is the connection -- perceived in a kernel seed in Beethoven, to the conscious and overt intent of directly embodying such poetic / philosophical / emotional import directly in the music of the romantic era.

Romantic musical procedure is quite different from any Beethoven; that, and its direct involvement with those concerns of expressing more directly individual's emotions on and around the poetic / literal is what distinguishes Romantic from Beethoven.

Yes, they overlap, the idea, the sentiment, as is so often the case, was in the ether of the times. Therein lies the crux of either the endless confusion or the endless debate. In easily had perfect 20-20 hindsight, many perceive Beethoven as 'romantic' because he stirs thoughts and emotions we now associate with the later era as it is defined


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Play the last movement of the a minor quartet. Could have been written by Brahms.

Then play the Hammerklavier Fugue. Could have been written in the early 20th Century.

A genius of this magnitude breaks the bonds of simplistic labels.

I truly believe if he lived another 20 years, he would have invented tone rows.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> First of all, this binary opposition of romantic versus classical traits is a pretty useless framework for addressing Beethoven's music. Much of what he did in just about every technical realm was outside of classical norms. Seven movement string quartets? Frequent use of secondary key areas that are neither dominant nor mediant (in minor mode)? Frequent cyclic thematic unity? Fragmentary themes developed in opposition? Immediate motion to distant tonal terrain? The relative proportions of sections in sonata form movements? Shift of weight to finales and virtual elimination of minuets? Thoroughly idiosyncratic formal experiments in some of his late works? I won't even get into the enormous body of recent criticism arguing that his works exhibit various forms of quasi-narrative organization of a thoroughly unclassical nature. Then there are the attitudes he expressed indicating his view of a composer's role and position in the world. None of these traits is normal for the classical style. Some of them are equally abnormal for romantic music as well.
> 
> Three conclusions I draw from this: 1) The exercise of trying to stuff Beethoven's music into either pigeon hole is pointless and requires the butchering of common sense and a willful disregard of some really obvious musical evidence. 2) The position you are arguing is either meaningless or wrong. If you are going to redefine the classical style to admit the exceptional traits above, the category of classical period music is meaningless. If you are not, it is simply wrong. 3) This, I thought was perfectly obvious, but apparently not: Beethoven was an exceptional composer and much of his music defies easy and simplistic stylistic classification. You are engaged in an attempt at easy and simplistic classification.


If you would like to write, essentially, a thesis long book, make it user friendly to all the more and less informed lay members and readers of TC, make it not so long or technically involved that you lose them or they get bored in the attempt at reading it, and leave any impulse to display absolutely everything you know of the subject in depth as sacrificed instead to 'simplified' communications, please, be my guest 

ADD: You are very deep into the area, and as well informed. More softly, I'd suggest assessing the _general_readership here, what they can and will bother to comprehend.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I personally think that Mendelssohn had a variety of influences and that his sound cannot be simplified to be an earlier-era Beethoven. I feel that his musical language is very different from Beethoven's. Mendelssohn was strongly influenced by Handel, Bach and Haydn. I'd say his sound has the dramatic nature of Handel combined with the rigorous classical strucutre of Haydn. One of the melodies in his E minor violin concerto also reminds me of Telemann.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I personally think that Mendelssohn had a variety of influences and that his sound cannot be simplified to be an earlier-era Beethoven. I feel that his musical language is very different from Beethoven's. Mendelssohn was strongly influenced by Handel, Bach and Haydn. I'd say his sound has the dramatic nature of Handel combined with the rigorous classical strucutre of Haydn. One of the melodies in his E minor violin concerto also reminds me of Telemann.


He was even influenced by late Beethoven! His String Quartet #2 draws heavily on Beethoven's Quartet Op. 132 in A minor -- he even uses the same key. Mendelssohn's quartet was written only a year after Beethoven's. His father disapproved of the late quartets, but young Felix evidently didn't listen too carefully. 

Likewise his very early Piano Sonata in E, Op. 6, was influenced by LvB's Op. 101. Quite a nice work, too.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The general consensus is, though the form envelope was stretched to near tatters by Beethoven, that all his form, even in the late period, is like the shredded tattered flag on the military field -- i.e. it is still patently recognizable as the symbol of the sovereign domain of classicism.
> 
> The embodied _idea(s)_ of struggle (philosophical and abstract vs. the more direct tie to literal and poetic, i.e. illustrative) are there, and that is the connection -- perceived in a kernel seed in Beethoven, to the conscious and overt intent of directly embodying such poetic / philosophical / emotional import directly in the music of the romantic era.
> 
> ...


Good points, but now you are speaking of aestethic of romanticism, not of 'harmonic language, form and procedures'.
IMO Beethoven's sonata for piano op.101 is not "classical" at all in terms of its 'musical traits'


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Given the extra-musical characteristics of Mendelssohn's last three symphonies (4, 2 and 3), the structural innovations of the Violin concerto, the outpouring of expression and emotion in the 6th quartet, the formless lyricism of _Songs without words_ etc. etc., I don't really understand how Mendelssohn really fits the bill of a 'classicist' or 'conservative'.

Clearly his earlier works are influenced by the classical style, but his music evolved over time, and what he was writing by the 1840's should clearly be seen as Romantic. Similar to Beethoven then, it would be more appropriate perhaps to divide his music into periods.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Skilmarilion said:


> Given the extra-musical characteristics of Mendelssohn's last three symphonies (4, 2 and 3), the *structural innovations of the Violin concerto*, the outpouring of expression and emotion in the 6th quartet, the formless lyricism of _Songs without words_ etc. etc., I don't really understand how Mendelssohn really fits the bill of a 'classicist' or 'conservative'.


Specifically his notable excision of the opening ritornello from the first movements of his concerti [not just the E Minor Violin Concerto]? Not at all a trivial example. While probably not the first to do so after Mozart virtually defined the form of the concerto, he may be the most notable early exemplar of transforming this format as favored by Mozart, Beethoven, Hummel, Chopin, etc. [Brahms and Schumann--the former in all concerti but the "Double"; the latter in his Violin Concerto--restored the convention in their own concerti, but it seems to have been regarded as generally outmoded for the remainder of the 19th century].


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> He was even influenced by late Beethoven! His String Quartet #2 draws heavily on Beethoven's Quartet Op. 132 in A minor -- he even uses the same key. Mendelssohn's quartet was written only a year after Beethoven's. His father disapproved of the late quartets, but young Felix evidently didn't listen too carefully.
> 
> Likewise his very early Piano Sonata in E, Op. 6, was influenced by LvB's Op. 101. Quite a nice work, too.


I did not make the acquaintance of Mendelssohn's quartets until years after I knew most of Beethoven's music, and when I first heard this second quartet, his Op. 13 in a-minor, I was stunned by how thoroughly the 18-year-old Mendelssohn had absorbed Beethoven's idiom. Though most obviously modeled on LvB's Op. 132, there are also reminiscences in the slow movement of his Op. 74 quartet and his Op. 111 piano sonata; and all through this Mendelssohn work we hear sonorities and textures characteristic of late Beethoven and no other composer. But maybe most amazing is that FM's work does not sound like a pastiche, but has an absolute integrity and a poignant beauty different from its models even while paying affectionate tribute to them.

This piece never fails to move me and I love it dearly.


----------

