# Schubert: Classical or Romantic?



## DaDirkNL

Schubert is technically a romantic composer, but I can't help hearing classical elements in his pieces. 
So now the question: is he a Romantic or Classical composer?


----------



## Eschbeg

DaDirkNL said:


> is he a Romantic or Classical composer?


Yes.

This part inserted simply to meet the 25 character minimum.


----------



## neoshredder

Early on he was classical. But switched over in his late works.


----------



## mstar

Also, we must remember that the Classical Era greatly influenced the Romantic Era, as usually the era before an era influences the latter greatly.


----------



## brianvds

I always think of his work as Classical in form but Romantic is spirit.


----------



## PetrB

Your ears, and cognizance of style, are right on!

Yes, clearly a romantic composer, but EARLY romantic, with a lot of classicism in the style and approach, more evident in the earlier works, say up through the third symphony, and still very present in the later works.

Well called.


----------



## peeyaj

Schubert is one of the great last Classicist and one of the earliest Romantic composers. He stands between the two eras; the end of Classicism and the dawn of Romanticism.

Early Schubert is Classical.. Take for example, his Symphony no. 3.






That symphony is purely Classical in nature, harking back at the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart. The early symphonies of Schubert (no. 1 - no. 6) and his early chamber music were in the spirit of Classicism.

*Except*..

The Lieder.






Schubert is usually credited as a Romantic composer because of his great importance and innovation on his songs. The Lieder or the German art song achieved maturity in Schubert hands. The Romantic Lied become one of the most important genre in the Romantic era and Schubert is its creator. What Schubert did to the art song is unprecedented on its time.. He created a perfect balance between the text and music, and he infused it with pure Romantic spirit. In that regards, Schubert _become _ a Romantic composer. His two song cycles, Die Schone Mullerin and the great Winterreise are hugely influential in the works of succeeding Romantic composers.

Aside from that, Schubert late works which includes the last four quartets, the late piano sonatas , the Unfinished and Great C major symphony were full of passion and drama that characterizes the Romantic era. It is true that his structures were in Classical in nature (sonata) but his late instrumental works were teeming with daring harmonic shifts and daring modulation, that is common in Romantic era. His Unfinished symphony in particular is credited as the first true Romantiv symphony.

I'll quote wiki:



> While he was clearly influenced by the Classical sonata forms of Beethoven and Mozart (his early works, among them notably the 5th Symphony, are particularly Mozartean), his formal structures and his developments tend to give the impression more of melodic development than of harmonic drama. This combination of Classical form and long-breathed Romantic melody sometimes lends them a discursive style: his 9th Symphony was described by Robert Schumann as running to "heavenly lengths". His harmonic innovations include movements in which the first section ends in the key of the subdominant rather than the dominant (as in the last movement of the Trout Quintet). Schubert's practice here was a forerunner of the common Romantic technique of relaxing, rather than raising, tension in the middle of a movement, with final resolution postponed to the very end.


So to conclude, Schubert like Beethoven is one of the earliest composers of Romantic era but his music is rooted in Classicism. There is no clear cut answer on this and thats the problem of musicologists. but I will say *" Schubert is both a Classical and Romantic composer".*


----------



## DaDirkNL

peeyaj said:


> Schubert is one of the great last Classicist and one of the earliest Romantic composers. He stands between the two eras; the end of Classicism and the dawn of Romanticism.
> 
> Early Schubert is Classical.. Take for example, his Symphony no. 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That symphony is purely Classical in nature, harking back at the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart. The early symphonies of Schubert (no. 1 - no. 6) and his early chamber music were in the spirit of Classicism.
> 
> *Except*..
> 
> The Lieder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schubert is usually credited as a Romantic composer because of his great importance and innovation on his songs. The Lieder or the German art song achieved maturity in Schubert hands. The Romantic Lied become one of the most important genre in the Romantic era and Schubert is its creator. What Schubert did to the art song is unprecedented on its time.. He created a perfect balance between the text and music, and he infused it with pure Romantic spirit. In that regards, Schubert _become _ a Romantic composer. His two song cycles, Die Schone Mullerin and the great Winterreise are hugely influential in the works of succeeding Romantic composers.
> 
> Aside from that, Schubert late works which includes the last four quartets, the late piano sonatas , the Unfinished and Great C major symphony were full of passion and drama that characterizes the Romantic era. It is true that his structures were in Classical in nature (sonata) but his late instrumental works were teeming with daring harmonic shifts and daring modulation, that is common in Romantic era. His Unfinished symphony in particular is credited as the first true Romantiv symphony.
> 
> I'll quote wiki:
> 
> So to conclude, Schubert like Beethoven is one of the earliest composers of Romantic era but his music is rooted in Classicism. There is no clear cut answer on this and thats the problem of musicologists. but I will say *" Schubert is both a Classical and Romantic composer".*


Thank you for this answer, I'm satisfied.


----------



## Schumann

In many ways rather classical to my ears, except his _Impromptus_ which is a clear direction to the romantic era and the same goes for Beethoven's late piano sonatas. I consider both as classical composers yet the very first founders of the romantic era!


----------



## appoggiatura

As another member said, classical structure, romantic soul. His Unfinished symphony, the lieder, impromptua for example are indeed very romantic. Earlier works sound a little bit more classical.
He went through the same kind of transition as Beethoven, but less extreme.


----------



## Rapide

DaDirkNL said:


> Schubert is technically a romantic composer, but I can't help hearing classical elements in his pieces.
> So now the question: is he a Romantic or Classical composer?


Vivaldi - Baroque or Post modernism?


----------



## starry

He would have seen himself as a successor to Beethoven and other classicists and his works towards the end of his life indicate that with his emphasis on sonatas, quartets and non-programmatic symphonic work.


----------



## Aries

The symphonies 1-6 are classical. 8-10 are romantic. 7 is in-between.


----------



## Larkenfield

Romantic! in its warmth of character and personal self-expression. His choice of poetry in his leider is far more Romantic than Classical and so are his sympathies.


----------



## infracave

Eschbeg said:


> Yes.
> 
> This part inserted simply to meet the 25 character minimum.


FPBP as they say.


----------



## flamencosketches

Aries said:


> The symphonies 1-6 are classical. 8-10 are romantic. 7 is in-between.


Was there a 7th symphony...? I know there was an unfinished one (even more unfinished than the "Unfinished" 8th) but I never hear of it being recorded or performed.

I heard Schubert as pure Classical for the longest time, until I finally heard (a) his Lieder and (b) his piano music. His work in both genres are pure Romantic. His chamber music and symphonies still contain strong shades of Classicism, though.


----------



## Enthusiast

It seems very clear to me that Schubert was 100% a composer of the Romantic. I hear nothing in his music that belongs in the Classical. I feel the same about Beethoven (while acknowledging that some of the early works mark the transition). This doesn't mean that Schubert (and Brahms, as well) didn't have strong classical (small c) qualities - Brahms more than Schubert, I think - or that Mozart didn't have romantic (small r) qualities. Schumann and Wagner are examples of Romantic composers who seem to have had little need for classical discipline.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> It seems very clear to me that Schubert was 100% a composer of the Romantic. I hear nothing in his music that belongs in the Classical. I feel the same about Beethoven (while acknowledging that some of the early works mark the transition). This doesn't mean that Schubert (and Brahms, as well) didn't have strong classical (small c) qualities - Brahms more than Schubert, I think - or that Mozart didn't have romantic (small r) qualities. Schumann and Wagner are examples of Romantic composers who seem to have had little need for classical discipline.


I agree re: Schumann and Wagner, but other than that, it's funny; I already expressed my view of Schubert and I don't hear Beethoven as Romantic at all, other than acknowledgement of what you might call small r romantic qualities. We must all be using different definitions for these words...


----------



## Enthusiast

Yes, we all do use different definitions of the terms on this site. I must admit that my own use of the terms is borrowed as much from poetry as music ... but it works for me and so I think it is correct.


----------



## Guest

I'm pretty sure I have said the same as below in other recent threads on Classical v Romanticism, but here goes yet again.

Schubert started out as a Classical school composer and gradually switched to a more Romantic style, especially in his lieder. With this overall assessment, I agree with the posts #3-10 earlier in this thread.

His early "absolute" music is Classicist. His early symphonies are modelled on those of Mozart, and many of his later works are still basically Classical in form.

It was in terms of the expansiveness of some of his late absolute works that Romantic elements began to appear. Such works as the the C major _String quinte_t D 956, the Bb Piano Sonata No 21, and the first movement of the _Unfinished Symphony,_ D 759, sound different from what had gone on before. The use of a cyclical theme in the Wanderer Fantasie D 760 was probably a new technique, which was picked up by later Romantics.

Schubert's emphasis on lieder, too, from an early time in his short career was more a Romantic than a Classicist trait. Although his two song cycles, _Winterreise_ and _Die Schoene Muellerin_, were preceded by Beethoven's _An die Ferne_ Geliebte, this is a genre that belongs to Romanticism, there being nothing similar in Mozart and Haydn.


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> Was there a 7th symphony...? I know there was an unfinished one (even more unfinished than the "Unfinished" 8th) but I never hear of it being recorded or performed.


Schubert wrote several "unfinished symphonies". The one which is most famous is the Unfinished Symphony, D759. But there are others, which were mainly piano sketches:

After Symphony No 6, D 589, Schubert wrote:


D 615 (piano sketches of two movements), 
D 708A ( piano sketches of all four movements), 
D 729 Symphony No 7 (sketches of all four movements) 
 It was in 1822 that he wrote the famous "Unfinished Symphony" No 8 (two complete movements and a fragment of a "Scherzo" third movement). The orchestrated version of the third movement "scherzo" is not that great in my opinion. This of course could be because Schubert hadn't finished it, or didn't like it, or somehow it hasn't been orchestrated as well as Schubert could have done if he had bothered to do so. Who knows?

Then followed Symphony No 9, "The Great", D 944.

A later unfinished symphony from 1828 was Symphony No 10, D 936A (piano sketches of all three movements).

I have versions of all the earlier unfinished symphonies fragments, as completed by Brian Newbould and performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra for a BBC week-long Schubert radio binge several years ago. (Prof Brain Newbould is a widely recognised expert on Schubert). I haven't heard any of these for a while but I recall that I was not greatly impressed the last time I do so. Maybe that's why Schubert decided to drop them. I don't know about any commercial recordings but I suspect some exist.

Of all these "unfinished symphonies", the best is D 936A, for which there are several commercial recordings available.


----------



## Enthusiast

Partita said:


> I'm pretty sure I have said the same as below in other recent threads on Classical v Romanticism, but here goes yet again.
> 
> Schubert started out as a Classical school composer and gradually switched to a more Romantic style, especially in his lieder.  With this overall assessment, I agree with the posts #3-10 earlier in this thread.
> 
> His early "absolute" music is Classicist. His early symphonies are modelled on those of Mozart, and many of his later works are still basically Classical in form.
> 
> It was in terms of the expansiveness of some of his late absolute works that Romantic elements began to appear. Such works as the the C major _String quinte_t D 956, the Bb Piano Sonata No 21, and the first movement of the _Unfinished Symphony,_ D 759, sound different from what had gone on before. The use of a cyclical theme in the Wanderer Fantasie D 760 was probably a new technique, which was picked up by later Romantics.
> 
> Schubert's emphasis on lieder, too, from an early time in his short career was more a Romantic than a Classicist trait. Although his two song cycles, _Winterreise_ and _Die Schoene Muellerin_, were preceded by Beethoven's _An die Ferne_ Geliebte, this is a genre that belongs to Romanticism, there being nothing similar in Mozart and Haydn.


The use of a classical model doesn't make Schubert's early symphonies Classical.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> The use of a classical model doesn't make Schubert's early symphonies Classical.


Maybe not, but I'm curious, what makes Schubert's Symphony No.1, for example, a Romantic symphony in your eyes?


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> The use of a classical model doesn't make Schubert's early symphonies Classical.


 I agree that use of a classical model does not necessarily make a piece of music "Classical" as opposed to "Romantic". That's because Romantic composers did not completely reject the principles of Classical music. On the contrary, they often continued to write music using the same forms and basic rules that were used by their Classical predecessors. Thus, a piece of music could be written using standard Classical principles and yet be considered "Romantic".

The difference was that "Romantic" composers were more prepared than their forbears to vary the standard Classical "rules", such as by changing the length of individual portions, varying the choice of keys, and even possibly adding some unexpected features, within individual movements. The extent to which this occurred varied among the "Romantic" composers, with Brahms for example being nothing like as adventurous as Wagner.

Overall, I do believe that Schubert departed all that far classical structures in terms of much of his absolute music. [It is a different matter regarding his lieder and song cycles, etc.] When he first started composing seriously, it would have been surprising if he had done so, since he was very young and had been largely taught by Salieri, and used Mozart and Beethoven as his models.

His first 3 symphonies were composed before reaching the age of 19, and the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] when he was 19. The 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony was written when was 21, and the Unfinfished Symphony, No 8, did not get written until the age of 25. I cannot see anything fundamentally different in the first six symphonies from those of typical of Mozart, allowing for individuality of style of each composer. From various sources that I vaguely recall coming across in the past, I have not encountered any suggestions from reputable sources that any of these earlier symphonies, or other orchestral works, were imbued with typical Romantic traits.

It's Schubert's 8[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony that sounds completely different, the first movement especially. In terms of structure, it differs slightly from standard sonata form, in a way that anyone can read up about if they are sufficiently interested in exploring further the technicalities. The main thing is that it seems to enter into a new sound world compared with anything previously, and I definitely cannot envisage Mozart having composed anything like it during his own lifetime.

When we reach the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony a few years later (composed at various times over the last 3 years of his life, 1825-28), things have moved on even further in terms of the amount of drift from the Classical traditions in his absolute music, including his chamber and piano compositions. Again, the first and second and fourth movements of the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony follow sonata form but with modifications from the norm, details of which can be looked up elsewhere by anyone who may be interested.

Beyond these technicalities, 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony sounds altogether different from anything that might have been contemplated by Mozart. This may have something to do with Schubert's daring choice of instruments (e.g. horn introduction and extensive use of the trombones), its "heavenly length", or the very beautiful interplay of various melodies incorporated throughout, all subtly interwoven in inimitable fashion by Schubert's mastery and ingenuity in the use of subtle key changes. For me, it's a magnificent work, on a par with any of Beethoven's symphonies, or any others.


----------



## philoctetes

Larkenfield said:


> Romantic! in its warmth of character and personal self-expression. His choice of poetry in his leider is far more Romantic than Classical and so are his sympathies.


Sympathy #5 is more classical to my ears than Sympathy #8. His symphonies are far more romantic in the latter. Jus sayin'


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> Maybe not, but I'm curious, what makes Schubert's Symphony No.1, for example, a Romantic symphony in your eyes?


I suppose, firstly, because it doesn't sound to me like a Classical symphony except where its form and structure are concerned (and they mean little as far as this question is concerned). Schubert 1 is a young man's (we would say child's - Schubert was 16) work and I don't think we should expect mature Romanticism. The very early Schubert symphonies seem to me to resemble the symphonies of other young Romantic composers like Bizet, Grieg and Svendsen (as well, perhaps, as the early symphonies of Saint-Saens) - delightful works of great charm - rather than any symphony written by Classical composers. To call such works Classical is to equate Classicism with immaturity which can't be right!


----------



## Enthusiast

Partita said:


> I agree that use of a classical model does not necessarily make a piece of music "Classical" as opposed to "Romantic". That's because Romantic composers did not completely reject the principles of Classical music. On the contrary, they often continued to write music using the same forms and basic rules that were used by their Classical predecessors. Thus, a piece of music could be written using standard Classical principles and yet be considered "Romantic".
> 
> The difference was that "Romantic" composers were more prepared than their forbears to vary the standard Classical "rules", such as by changing the length of individual portions, varying the choice of keys, and even possibly adding some unexpected features, within individual movements. The extent to which this occurred varied among the "Romantic" composers, with Brahms for example being nothing like as adventurous as Wagner.
> 
> Overall, I do believe that Schubert departed all that far classical structures in terms of much of his absolute music. [It is a different matter regarding his lieder and song cycles, etc.] When he first started composing seriously, it would have been surprising if he had done so, since he was very young and had been largely taught by Salieri, and used Mozart and Beethoven as his models.
> 
> His first 3 symphonies were composed before reaching the age of 19, and the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] when he was 19. The 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony was written when was 21, and the Unfinfished Symphony, No 8, did not get written until the age of 25. I cannot see anything fundamentally different in the first six symphonies from those of typical of Mozart, allowing for individuality of style of each composer. From various sources that I vaguely recall coming across in the past, I have not encountered any suggestions from reputable sources that any of these earlier symphonies, or other orchestral works, were imbued with typical Romantic traits.
> 
> It's Schubert's 8[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony that sounds completely different, the first movement especially. In terms of structure, it differs slightly from standard sonata form, in a way that anyone can read up about if they are sufficiently interested in exploring further the technicalities. The main thing is that it seems to enter into a new sound world compared with anything previously, and I definitely cannot envisage Mozart having composed anything like it during his own lifetime.
> 
> When we reach the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony a few years later (composed at various times over the last 3 years of his life, 1825-28), things have moved on even further in terms of the amount of drift from the Classical traditions in his absolute music, including his chamber and piano compositions. Again, the first and second and fourth movements of the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony follow sonata form but with modifications from the norm, details of which can be looked up elsewhere by anyone who may be interested.
> 
> Beyond these technicalities, 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Symphony sounds altogether different from anything that might have been contemplated by Mozart. This may have something to do with Schubert's daring choice of instruments (e.g. horn introduction and extensive use of the trombones), its "heavenly length", or the very beautiful interplay of various melodies incorporated throughout, all subtly interwoven in inimitable fashion by Schubert's mastery and ingenuity in the use of subtle key changes. For me, it's a magnificent work, on a par with any of Beethoven's symphonies, or any others.


Thanks for the detailed response. I think my answer to flamencosketches provides something of an answer?


----------



## Dimace

Beethoven, Schubert and Cherubini are the 3 Classical Composers. The term classical is not determined from the music they composed as an entity, but from* the way they treated their Sonatas* (80%) Konzerts (10%) and Symphonies (10%) The most classical of the three is the Italian. One- two steps ahead the Mozart. After are coming the Beethoven and the Schubert. If you listen their works as an entity (I agree with the friends above) you may find them not very classical composers.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks for the detailed response. I think my answer to flamencosketches provides something of an answer?


I see from your reply to _flamencosketches_ that you accept that Schubert was so young when he wrote his first symphony that it could hardly sound like a mature Romantic work. But you still think it's not like a typical Classical symphony, more like the work of a young Romantic.

I'm afraid that we will have to agree to differ on this issue, as to me all of first 6 symphonies sound typically Classical in layout and general flavour. They are no less interesting because of this. In fact, it doesn't bother me at all as I like them all whatever style they are. At least we're agreed, I trust, that the later absolute works of Schubert are increasingly in the Romantic style.


----------



## DBLee

It seems to me that we at TB tend to look at Schubert and Romanticism through 21st-century glasses, thinking of Romanticism as what Romanticism became in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. To me, any list of noteworthy early Romantic composers would *have* to include Schubert.


----------



## Guest

DBLee said:


> It seems to me that we at TB tend to look at Schubert and Romanticism through 21st-century glasses, thinking of Romanticism as what Romanticism became in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. To me, any list of noteworthy early Romantic composers would *have* to include Schubert.


I'm not aware that anyone has disagreed with this. The question under the spotlight recently is whether Schubert's entire output was solely "Romantic", or whether his earlier "absolute" music was more in the Classical style.

Consistent with the various opinions expressed much earlier in this thread, what I have attempted to argue is that it was "Classical", and I have suggested that it wasn't until the arrival of his _Unfinished Symphony_ in 1822 that he began to write more in the Romantic style. [I'm not referring to his song output.]

Therefore, rather like Beethoven, Schubert straddled both styles, and we can argue until the cows come home over which particular works of each composer show the most "romantic" versus "classical" traits. This and other music forums have been debating this issue for many years, across numerous threads.


----------



## Enthusiast

Partita said:


> I'm not aware that anyone has disagreed with this. The question under the spotlight recently is whether Schubert's entire output was solely "Romantic", or whether his earlier "absolute" music was more in the Classical style.
> 
> Consistent with the various opinions expressed much earlier in this thread, what I have attempted to argue is that it was "Classical", and I have suggested that it wasn't until the arrival of his _Unfinished Symphony_ in 1822 that he began to write more in the Romantic style. [I'm not referring to his song output.]
> 
> Therefore, rather like Beethoven, Schubert straddled both styles, and we can argue until the cows come home over which particular works of each composer show the most "romantic" versus "classical" traits. This and other music forums have been debating this issue for many years, across numerous threads.


I know you would prefer to merely agree to disagree but the debate is not about whether Schubert's earlier "absolute" music was "more in the Classical style" but whether early Schubert was a Classical or a Romantic composer. For me (as you know!), he was a Romantic composer and I feel you are equating the relative lightness of Schubert's youthful style with Classicism.

Now Beethoven has entered the discussion - as he needed to - and you will not be surprised to hear that I also see Beethoven as a Romantic composer from the very start. Here the early music has a maturity that cannot be designated as a product of youth. But you get from the very start a sense that, although he is using some Classical language (and even the odd Mannheim rocket), Beethoven is at the centre. There is a greater sense of ego - personality to the fore - and more willingness to break rules, more desire to "make statements". These works are only "Classical" on the surface.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> I know you would prefer to merely agree to disagree but the debate is not about whether Schubert's earlier "absolute" music was "more in the Classical style" but whether early Schubert was a Classical or a Romantic composer. For me (as you know!), he was a Romantic composer and I feel you are equating the relative lightness of Schubert's youthful style with Classicism.
> 
> Now Beethoven has entered the discussion - as he needed to - and you will not be surprised to hear that I also see Beethoven as a Romantic composer from the very start. Here the early music has a maturity that cannot be designated as a product of youth. But you get from the very start a sense that, although he is using some Classical language (and even the odd Mannheim rocket), Beethoven is at the centre. There is a greater sense of ego - personality to the fore - and more willingness to break rules, more desire to "make statements". These works are only "Classical" on the surface.


 I did not wish to take this any further, but since you have commented, I am obliged to say that I think you are wrong regarding Beethoven.

The problem is that many individuals simply do not understand Romanticism. This topic came up recently in another thread. Suffice to say here that the chief aim of the Romantics was not the release of greater emotion, or expression of their personal egos, but as a device for _literary_ expression in conveying the power of words (especially poetry) through music.

Beethoven had nothing in common with all that. He was essentially a meticulous musical technician. His music followed strict logical patterns with clear developments. I am not saying that he was not innovative, as he clearly was. However, he never left anything to chance; rather everything was, and had to be, planned down to the last detail. This brands him as mainly a classicist.

I accept that there were some works by Beethoven that had the outward appearance of being more akin to Romantic music, but they were the exception. I believe that this is consistent with the conclusions reached by Prof Charles Rosen in his book _The Classical Style_, that Beethoven was a Classicist and mainly remained so throughout his career, save for the odd exception.

By contrast, with the Romantics, they were they prepared to experiment a lot more freely with existing forms, and to develop completely new forms, for the chief purpose of using poetry and other texts as the inspiration for their works. Think of Schubert as a good example. Especially in his chamber works, he allowed his pen to wander quite freely with a variety of alternating keys, sometimes not quite where he's headed, but somehow, miraculously, finishing up exactly where he wants to be. Beethoven never wrote anything of the same ilk, as it simply was not his style.


----------



## infracave

Partita said:


> By contrast, with the Romantics, they were they prepared to experiment a lot more freely with existing forms, and to develop completely new forms, for the chief purpose of using poetry and other texts as the inspiration for their works. Think of Schubert as a good example. Especially in his chamber works, he allowed his pen to wander quite freely with a variety of alternating keys, sometimes not quite where he's headed, but somehow, miraculously, finishing up exactly where he wants to be. Beethoven never wrote anything of the same ilk, as it simply was not his style.


I totally agree that Schubert's lieder are romantic in essence, but no so sure about his chmaber works.
His last and best chamber works (3 last SQ + cello quintet) still use classical forms.
I don't see how bizarre modulations or 3/4 keys expositions would make these works romantic, they are still pure music based on classical forms (not descriptive/incidental music in free form based on poetry).


----------



## Enthusiast

Partita said:


> I did not wish to take this any further, but since you have commented, I am obliged to say that I think you are wrong regarding Beethoven.
> 
> The problem is that many individuals simply do not understand Romanticism. This topic came up recently in another thread. Suffice to say here that the chief aim of the Romantics was not the release of greater emotion, or expression of their personal egos, but as a device for _literary_ expression in conveying the power of words (especially poetry) through music.


Thank you for getting back to me on this, albeit reluctantly. What would be the point of posting here if different views cannot be discussed and explored? It isn't a forum for members to deliver lectures!

Your account of what Romanticism is is actually about one aspect of Romanticism and is by no means complete.



Partita said:


> Beethoven had nothing in common with all that. He was essentially a meticulous musical technician. His music followed strict logical patterns with clear developments. I am not saying that he was not innovative, as he clearly was. However, he never left anything to chance; rather everything was, and had to be, planned down to the last detail. This brands him as mainly a classicist.
> 
> I accept that there were some works by Beethoven that had the outward appearance of being more akin to Romantic music, but they were the exception. I believe that this is consistent with the conclusions reached by Prof Charles Rosen in his book _The Classical Style_, that Beethoven was a Classicist and mainly remained so throughout his career, save for the odd exception.
> 
> By contrast, with the Romantics, they were they prepared to experiment a lot more freely with existing forms, and to develop completely new forms, for the chief purpose of using poetry and other texts as the inspiration for their works. Think of Schubert as a good example. Especially in his chamber works, he allowed his pen to wander quite freely with a variety of alternating keys, sometimes not quite where he's headed, but somehow, miraculously, finishing up exactly where he wants to be. Beethoven never wrote anything of the same ilk, as it simply was not his style.


I think you are confusing composing methods and personal style with broad aims. Beethoven set out to do something very different to the music of the Classical composers who he followed. *His was a revolution, a fault line in musical history as marked as that between the Baroque and the Classical and certainly more marked than anything that came between him and Brahms or Schumann.* *That he used Classical forms and valued Classical disciplines does not make him a Classical composer.* If it did then Brahms and Sibelius would be a Classical composers, too. Similarly, his early use of quite a lot of Classical language and many Classical devices is not enough for us to ignore the way his personality is to the fore right from the start. Mozart and Haydn had very distinct musical personalities, too, but for them these were buried in the joy they felt in Classical virtues - they are not at the front and it was not as if they were part of the purpose of their work.

Your account of what Romanticism is confuses personality and style with the necessary and sufficient hallmarks of Romanticism. Yes, Schubert's freedom would not have been an option for a Classical composer but that doesn't mean all Romantic composers had to have the same tendency. From your last sentence you see to know this.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Your account of what Romanticism is is actually about one aspect of Romanticism and is by no means complete.
> 
> I think you are confusing composing methods and personal style with broad aims. Beethoven set out to do something very different to the music of the Classical composers who he followed. *His was a revolution, a fault line in musical history as marked as that between the Baroque and the Classical and certainly more marked than anything that came between him and Brahms or Schumann.* *That he used Classical forms and valued Classical disciplines does not make him a Classical composer.* If it did then Brahms and Sibelius would be a Classical composers, too. Similarly, his early use of quite a lot of Classical language and many Classical devices is not enough for us to ignore the way his personality is to the fore right from the start. Mozart and Haydn had very distinct musical personalities, too, but for them these were buried in the joy they felt in Classical virtues - they are not at the front and it was not as if they were part of the purpose of their work.
> 
> Your account of what Romanticism is confuses personality and style with the necessary and sufficient hallmarks of Romanticism. Yes, Schubert's freedom would not have been an option for a Classical composer but that doesn't mean all Romantic composers had to have the same tendency. From your last sentence you see to know this.


 I don't believe that my account of Romanticism is confuses personality and style with the necessary and sufficient hallmarks of Romanticism, as you suggest. I'm merely trying to single out those elements of Romanticism which to me represent the underlying essence of that particular era. I do not believe that Beethoven is anything like a cosy fit in that scheme of things, but rather remained more firmly based in the Classical tradition, despite the occasional excursion into Romantic territory.

In order to help decide whether Beethoven was mainly Classical or Romantic throughout his career, or whether he was pointing more towards Romanticism as he aged, it might help if we ask the following question.

_Knowing what we do about Beethoven's music up to 1827, what kind of music might he have written had he lived, say, another 40 years (assuming no deterioration in his mental faculties, and assuming the same enthusiasm for writing new works as he had in his last good year)? In particular, is it likely that he would written music in a similar style to that of Schumann, Liszt or Wagner, who were unambiguous exponents of the Romantic school?_

Personally, I can't see that Beethoven's 1828-1867 music would have sounded anything like the works of any of these composers. I think it far more liked that he would bucked the trend and continued to write in the same style that we are familiar with, except quite possibly introducing yet more complexity.

I do not envisage him writing tone poems like Liszt's, or song cycles like Schumann's. In particular, I find it very difficult to imagine Beethoven even contemplating writing anything remotely similar to Wagner's music dramas? If anyone thinks otherwise, I'd like to hear their views on what kind "music dramas" Beethoven might have attempted, given all the difficulties we know that he had with Fidelio.

If I am correct, I think this would clearly indicate that he was not a Romantic at heart, but a one-of-kind highly sophisticated, experimental Classicist.

I accept that this is only a partial view of things. A more general approach would need to allow for the possibility that if Beethoven had died 40 years later, and created many further works, this might have seriously impacted the emergence of the Romantic movement in music as we know it. It might even have thrown such a big "spanner in the works" that the entire evolution of music might have changed in more fundamental ways that one can only speculate upon.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Beethoven would certainly have never ended up sounding like Schumann, Liszt or Wagner if he had lived on into their time. And in the same way he didn't sound remotely like Mozart or Haydn in 1795 even though in that case he was young and inexperienced and theirs was the model to follow. And when I come to think of it I don't think Brahms sounded like those three (he's closer to Beethoven!) or even that those three sounded very much like each other. These are again comparisons of individual style. It is certainly the case that the scope for individual expression (and for composers to fully explore and develop their own styles ... and to be praised for it) grew greatly in the Romantic era.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Beethoven would certainly have never ended up sounding like Schumann, Liszt or Wagner if he had lived on into their time. And in the same way he didn't sound remotely like Mozart or Haydn in 1795 even though in that case he was young and inexperienced and theirs was the model to follow. And when I come to think of it I don't think Brahms sounded like those three (he's closer to Beethoven!) or even that those three sounded very much like each other. These are again comparisons of individual style. It is certainly the case that the scope for individual expression (and for composers to fully explore and develop their own styles ... and to be praised for it) grew greatly in the Romantic era.


 Right, you agree with me that Beethoven would certainly have never ended up sounding like Schumann, Liszt or Wagner if he had lived on into their time. That's fine but I'm afraid that I disagree with your conclusion that this would still allow Beethoven to be seen as a Romantic, given the variation in style among a wider field of Romantics. Let's look at this proposition further.

Following on from Schubert, albeit with a time gap, I would have thought that the composers I selected - Schumann, Liszt, and Wagner - did represent a fair cross section of the early Romantics. However, if required, in order to close the time gap, and to add a couple more, I'd be happy to include Berlioz and Rossini as well. This combined line-up of composers would seem to provide a very wide picture of the early Romantics, all of whom were involved in programmatic music of various kinds.

I don't think it's fair to include Brahms in this group, as you have done, because he saw himself as the long-awaited successor to Beethoven, he rejected programmatic music, and hence his connection with the Romantic movement was so tenuous that he is sometimes referred as the "last great Classicist".

Compared with this 5 composer field of Romantics, Beethoven would look still like an extreme outlier if he had continued to write music in the manner we know over a further 40 years added to his life. The two new ones I added, Berlioz and Rossini, were obviously so into programmatic music (operas and all) that Beethoven would never have followed them.

I think therefore that this adds further weight to my view that Beethoven was most probably not a Romantic at all. At best, one might argue that some of his music sounds a bit like Romantic, but he never did, and probably never would have done so, make the conversion to being a proper Romantic. He knew where he was going and that was it, namely ever developing the Classical model he so loved. As I mentioned before, and which you have not picked up on, that is the opinion of the distinguished musicologist, Charles Rosen, who has specialised in this entire area, in his book _The Classical Style._

Concerning your remarks about Mozart and Haydn, I would agree that Beethoven sounded different from both of these in some respects, but I do not think that these differences should be exaggerated. Things had moved on for sure, but I reckon that Mozart, if he too had lived another 35-40 years, could easily have emulated and possibly exceeded Beethoven's achievements, without even breaking into a sweat, whilst fully retaining the main structural forms of Classicism. I'm less sure about Haydn's ability or possible inclination to do so.

Indeed, in some respects Mozart was already ahead of Beethoven at the time of his death in 1791, e.g. in terms of the amount dissidence in Mozart's music compared with Beethoven who seemed to have very little time for it.

I finish up yet again where I started, unconvinced that Beethoven was a Romantic, or that he was even heading that way at the time of his death. As I said before, he pushed the borders of Classicism by making things more complex, but it didn't amount to Romantic music in the fashion of any of the later true Romantics.


----------



## pianoville

For me the answer would be both. His Lieder are purely romantic and his harmonies are also very romantic, but in works such as his piano sonatas the forms he uses are very typical for the classical period. I think Schubert and Beethoven were the ones who started the romantic era, but in many ways Schubert was more traditional than Beethoven.


----------



## Enthusiast

Partita said:


> Right, you agree with me that Beethoven would certainly have never ended up sounding like Schumann, Liszt or Wagner if he had lived on into their time. That's fine but I'm afraid that I disagree with your conclusion that this would still allow Beethoven to be seen as a Romantic, given the variation in style among a wider field of Romantics. Let's look at this proposition further.
> 
> Following on from Schubert, albeit with a time gap, I would have thought that the composers I selected - Schumann, Liszt, and Wagner - did represent a fair cross section of the early Romantics. However, if required, in order to close the time gap, and to add a couple more, I'd be happy to include Berlioz and Rossini as well. This combined line-up of composers would seem to provide a very wide picture of the early Romantics, all of whom were involved in programmatic music of various kinds.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to include Brahms in this group, as you have done, because he saw himself as the long-awaited successor to Beethoven, he rejected programmatic music, and hence his connection with the Romantic movement was so tenuous that he is sometimes referred as the "last great Classicist".
> 
> Compared with this 5 composer field of Romantics, Beethoven would look still like an extreme outlier if he had continued to write music in the manner we know over a further 40 years added to his life. The two new ones I added, Berlioz and Rossini, were obviously so into programmatic music (operas and all) that Beethoven would never have followed them.
> 
> I think therefore that this adds further weight to my view that Beethoven was most probably not a Romantic at all. At best, one might argue that some of his music sounds a bit like Romantic, but he never did, and probably never would have done so, make the conversion to being a proper Romantic. He knew where he was going and that was it, namely ever developing the Classical model he so loved. As I mentioned before, and which you have not picked up on, that is the opinion of the distinguished musicologist, Charles Rosen, who has specialised in this entire area, in his book _The Classical Style._
> 
> Concerning your remarks about Mozart and Haydn, I would agree that Beethoven sounded different from both of these in some respects, but I do not think that these differences should be exaggerated. Things had moved on for sure, but I reckon that Mozart, if he too had lived another 35-40 years, could easily have emulated and possibly exceeded Beethoven's achievements, without even breaking into a sweat, whilst fully retaining the main structural forms of Classicism. I'm less sure about Haydn's ability or possible inclination to do so.
> 
> Indeed, in some respects Mozart was already ahead of Beethoven at the time of his death in 1791, e.g. in terms of the amount dissidence in Mozart's music compared with Beethoven who seemed to have very little time for it.
> 
> I finish up yet again where I started, unconvinced that Beethoven was a Romantic, or that he was even heading that way at the time of his death. As I said before, he pushed the borders of Classicism by making things more complex, but it didn't amount to Romantic music in the fashion of any of the later true Romantics.


I don't think it is legitimate or logical to say Beethoven is not like x, y and z and therefore does not belong to the same group. Not when the group has hundreds of members. This is especially the case when x and y and z are so different from each other - i.e. when the variance within the group is large. You get into more trouble when you remove the Romantic composer who is most like Beethoven - i.e. Brahms - simply because of his similarity to Beethoven! It gets you into the difficulty of having to argue that Brahms was not a Romantic composer!

What I think you are missing is that we use the terms classical and romantic to refer to the Classical and Romantic eras (with the terms starting with a capital letter) but also to broad tendencies that can be found in composers from the Baroque or before to the present day. So, yes, Brahms was a classical Romantic. I would also say that Mozart was a romantic Classical composer. Brahms is unambiguously a Romantic composer but classical discipline was certainly crucial for him. I think you could say the same for Sibelius.


----------



## flamencosketches

^So essentially, what your argument boils down to is that even though Beethoven used classical forms, that doesn't make him classical, and just because his music doesn't sound Romantic, that doesn't make him not a Romantic? :lol:

By the way, just for the record, I don't rate Sibelius as a Romantic composer, and I don't view Brahms as all that similar to Beethoven. You can hear the influence, sure, but Brahms' music is much more Romantic than Beethoven's.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Ha ha. But not at all. Form alone is not a defining feature of an era. Lots of Romantic composers used classical forms. Hell, the forms are still being used today! 

Era in music is about period. It partly reflects what was going on in the world. We divide the history of classical music into eras but this is inevitably crude. If you want to know where to draw the lines then you need to look at the whole and see where the big broad changes occurred. You can't just jump to the prototypes that serve as labels for us (Schumann or Chopin) and you certainly can't use your own selection from among composers in your definition. 

We don't find it difficult to distinguish between Baroque and Classical although we do recognise several composers as transitional (for example, CPE Bach can sometimes sound truly Baroque - not just in language - and sometimes almost Classical ... you can hear him struggling to explore the new possibilities) but were Monteverdi and Purcell Baroque composers? Of course they were! But they don't sound like Vivaldi or Bach or Handel. 

So where do we draw the line between the Classical and the Romantic? After Beethoven? This (a) has the Romantic era emerging fully formed as what might be better be called "high Romanticism" and (b) places Beethoven among Classical composers who had a hugely different aesthetic sensibility and very different status in the world. Beethoven makes a poor Classical composer because his personality is too much to the fore. His music, his status in the world, his interests and beliefs ... all are those of the early Romantic. Just because some of his music uses (but greatly extends) the language and forms of Classicism does not make him the Classical composer that he may superficially sound like. Call him Classical and you have to call Brahms (and Sibelius!) Classical and the whole systems falls down.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> Call him Classical and you have to call Brahms (and Sibelius!) Classical and the whole systems falls down.


? No, you don't. Those 3 composers are wildly different from each other. That's a false equivalency if I ever heard one.

As for "personality" in his music, do you not hear Mozart's personality all over his music? Or Haydn's in his music? Would you deny these two are classical for that reason too?


----------



## Guest

In response to the above posts, what Beethoven "sounds like" to an individual listener is not a good guide as to whether it is "Classical" or "Romantic" in style, as opinions will vary. The Classical and Romantic styles are not differentiated by feeling but by structure, form, harmony, amount of programmatic content, etc.

Beethoven was no doubt aware that Romantic music was beginning to appear around him, and he was fully capable of pulling off occasional works which sounded Romantic-like, when he thought it appropriate to do so (e.g. Eroica and Pastoral Symphony). However, he never changed permanently from one style to another. 

In his late works, there is no programmatic material, unless ones includes the Ode to Joy in the Ninth. There are no oratorios or any attempt at a further opera. The Missa Solemnis doesn’t seem to be either one thing or the other. There were no more song cycles. There is not much, if any dissidence, of any of his work

After Beethoven, none of his immediate successors of any standing took up where he left off. It seemed to usher in a different ball game altogether, for example with the likes of Robert Schumann declaring that he saw music as a major vehicle for using poetry, and in this regard that he learned more about harmony in composition from his literary idol, John Paul Richter, than he did from his piano teacher. 

I accept, of course, that Brahms came along several decades later and tried to pick up from where the old master left off. However, Brahms' brand of Romanticism was so Classical that it’s difficult to call it Romanticism, which is why he so much at loggerheads with Wagner and others over the way forward. Because of this, it does not seem quite right in logic to suggest that Beethoven’s brand of music was also Romantic, as it seems to place "cart before horse" to me given that Brahms was pretty much out on a limb in terms of the spectrum of styles within Romanticism. 

I therefore still believe that it's best to think of Beethoven as marking the end of the Classical era to all intents and purposes as far as big-name composers are concerned, except for a (partial?) revival of interest by Brahms much later..


----------



## elgar's ghost

I know this is something of a cold reading, but with Schubert the further you go back (i.e. the first four symphonies, the early quartets and masses) the more obviously 'classical' he sounds, but that was when he was a teen so the influence of Mozart etc is more obvious. The songs are the exception - maybe it was his choice of settings but even a lot of the early ones seemed to have a specific gravity which exceeded late classical era parameters, as if the music was to be an equal partner to the words rather than serving a simpler melodic purpose.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> ? No, you don't. Those 3 composers are wildly different from each other. That's a false equivalency if I ever heard one.
> 
> As for "personality" in his music, do you not hear Mozart's personality all over his music? Or Haydn's in his music? Would you deny these two are classical for that reason too?


Engage with the whole argument or drop it. If you are going to cut up what I wrote and deal with it out of context I am left thinking you are trolling me. The reference to Brahms was to show how silly the argument that Beethoven must be Classical because he doesn't resemble Schumann is and responded to Partita who acknowledged that Brahms was not so different to Beethoven (you are reading and digesting the posts, aren't you?).

I don't get your reference to Mozart and Haydn. They were great composers so of course they have personality.


----------



## Enthusiast

Partita said:


> In response to the above posts, what Beethoven "sounds like" to an individual listener is not a good guide as to whether it is "Classical" or "Romantic" in style, as opinions will vary. The Classical and Romantic styles are not differentiated by feeling but by structure, form, harmony, amount of programmatic content, etc.
> 
> Beethoven was no doubt aware that Romantic music was beginning to appear around him, and he was fully capable of pulling off occasional works which sounded Romantic-like, when he thought it appropriate to do so (e.g. Eroica and Pastoral Symphony). However, he never changed permanently from one style to another.


I agree with the first para (as I think you know) but find the second para doing what the first para says you can't do!



Partita said:


> In his late works, there is no programmatic material, unless ones includes the Ode to Joy in the Ninth. There are no oratorios or any attempt at a further opera. The Missa Solemnis doesn't seem to be either one thing or the other. There were no more song cycles. There is not much, if any dissidence, of any of his work


Are you using one criterion alone to define Romanticism? I didn't get the reference to dissidence. BTW the Pastoral has a programme.



Partita said:


> After Beethoven, none of his immediate successors of any standing took up where he left off. It seemed to usher in a different ball game altogether, for example with the likes of Robert Schumann declaring that he saw music as a major vehicle for using poetry, and in this regard that he learned more about harmony in composition from his literary idol, John Paul Richter, than he did from his piano teacher.
> 
> I accept, of course, that Brahms came along several decades later and tried to pick up from where the old master left off. However, Brahms' brand of Romanticism was so Classical that it's difficult to call it Romanticism, which is why he so much at loggerheads with Wagner and others over the way forward. Because of this, it does not seem quite right in logic to suggest that Beethoven's brand of music was also Romantic, as it seems to place "cart before horse" to me given that Brahms was pretty much out on a limb in terms of the spectrum of styles within Romanticism.
> 
> I therefore still believe that it's best to think of Beethoven as marking the end of the Classical era to all intents and purposes as far as big-name composers are concerned, except for a (partial?) revival of interest by Brahms much later..


It would seem from this account (which I don't disagree with) that Beethoven has to be plonked in one or other category or to be called transitional. I think we agree that it is hard to hear him as transitional because he was so strongly in control of the music he wrote. For me it makes more sense to call him an early Romantic because he lived and worked in a world very different to the world that Classical composers lived and because his music places the composer and his personal statements to the fore (something that no Classical composer did). But it is true we don't agree about that!


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> I agree with the first para (as I think you know) but find the second para doing what the first para says you can't do!


You are right to pick me up on that matter. Quite unintentionally, what I wrote in that sentence does sound a bit Irish! By way of correction, I have no doubt that Beethoven did write some occasional works that can properly be described as "Romantic". But I believe that he didn't stick at this kind of work permanently, but rather kept switching back closer to the Classical style, as if that was where his heart was, and where he felt he could best exploit his prodigious inventive skills in taking things to the next level of sophistication.



Enthusiast said:


> Are you using one criterion alone to define Romanticism? I didn't get the reference to dissidence. BTW the Pastoral has a programme./


No, I am not limiting the range of criteria. I listed the various criteria I believe to be relevant in a previous post. My reference to "dissidence" on this occasion was intended only by way of example, but I do appreciate that this could be misunderstood from the way it was drafted.

"Dissidence" happened to be in mind at the time of writing. As is well known, another feature of Romanticsm was increased use of chromatism, and I was simply noting that there isn't much of this anywhere in Beethoven. It might appear that he never approved of this. As I noted previously, there seems to be more dissidence in Mozart than Beethoven. Harmonically, it could argued that Beethoven was more regressive rather than progressive in view of his use use of the same polyphony of Handel, who of course Beethoven considered to be the greatest composer of the past.

Thus, if Beethoven has any claim to being a Romantic it won't be found in the area of harmony, but must lie elsewhere, and if so I don't know where as it's not obvious to me given the other distinguishing features of that style.

I do, of course, agree that the Pastoral Symphony, exceptionally, is programmatic. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.



Enthusiast said:


> It would seem from this account (which I don't disagree with) that Beethoven has to be plonked in one or other category or to be called transitional. I think we agree that it is hard to hear him as transitional because he was so strongly in control of the music he wrote. For me it makes more sense to call him an early Romantic because he lived and worked in a world very different to the world that Classical composers lived and because his music places the composer and his personal statements to the fore (something that no Classical composer did). But it is true we don't agree about that!


 In the early stages I doubt that the world in which Beethoven lived was that different from the world of Mozart and Haydn, especially the latter who was still writing high quality music up to around 1800, by which time Beethoven was 30.

In any case, to base an argument that Beethoven must have been a "Romantic" because he lived during a time when this type of music was beginning to appear does not sound that convincing, since, on that basis, there's just as much that it was in Classical style.

A more important aspect to all this is that, surely, a lot of his music was written to meet commissions, and I find it hardly likely that many of customers would have said something like: "_Oi, Beethoven, we've had it to here with all this Classical stuff you've been churning out so far; we only want Romantic music from now, or else we'll drop you …"_

No, I'm afraid I do not see it that way at all. He may had the occasional request for something more programmatic, but I would have thought that the bulk of his patrons were a pretty conservative lot. If so, Beethoven "never had it so good", with Mozart long gone Mozart and Haydn on his way out. He probably never gave Schubert, who was living down the road, churning out songs ten to the dozen, a moment's consideration. Thus he had an open field and was able to carry on regardless, refining and refining even further the Classical model until virtually he had exhausted every possible avenue of further improvement.

When Beethoven finally pegged out in 1827, it was not surprising that composers of the next generation, whilst duly paying their sincere reverences to the great man, dropped all further development of the Classical style he had worked so diligently for years, and concentrated instead on something different in fulfilling the growing demand for a lighter, more programmatic style of music. I accept that there was no hard and fast uniformity of style, as each composer met this growing demand in their own particular way, partly according to their own preferences and partly in pursuit of their individual comparative advantage. Across the board, however, their works differ materially from those typical of Beethoven. Until Brahms ... but we've discussed that.


----------



## Oortone

I don't understand the question. Schubert is both. He (and some others's) are the beginning of the romantic era. Early Schubert is clearly classical viennese style, late Schubert is pushing the boundries to romantic harmonies.


----------



## Guest

Oortone said:


> I don't understand the question. Schubert is both. He (and some others's) are the beginning of the romantic era. Early Schubert is clearly classical viennese style, late Schubert is pushing the boundries to romantic harmonies.


The question posed in this thread seems pretty clear to me. The possibilty that Schubert could have been Classical in his early days and Romantic in his later years is admitted by the question.

Posing questions in this way is a fairly standard way of doing things on boards like this. E.g. there was once an infamous thread at T-C called "_Mozart, God or Garbage_". Obviously, these are two extreme viewpoints, and this was fully recognised as the discussion in that thread was mainly asserting positions in the centre ground.

In this thread, if you go back to the beginning you'll see that most people have shared your view regarding Schubert. I share that view, but if you look at post #17 you'll observe that it was suggested by another member that Schubert was 100% Romantic throughout his entire career.

If you read through the posts subsequent to post #17, which I assume from your remarks that you have not done, you'll see that this suggestion has sparked off a debate on this matter. I have found myself getting more involved than I had intended to.

As you will see, the discussion has wandered off track quite a bit by involving Beethoven's connections with Classicism and Romanticism. Surprisingly, the more hard-core Beethoven fans on this forum appear to have rather missed out on this discussion, possibly because this thread's title has thrown them of scent, but if they happen to spot it there could be tons more opinion yet to follow.


----------



## Luchesi

Partita said:


> The question posed in this thread seems pretty clear to me. The possibilty that Schubert could have been Classical in his early days and Romantic in his later years is admitted by the question.
> 
> Posing questions in this way is a fairly standard way of doing things on boards like this. E.g. there was once an infamous thread at T-C called "_Mozart, God or Garbage_". Obviously, these are two extreme viewpoints, and this was fully recognised as the discussion in that thread was mainly asserting positions in the centre ground.
> 
> In this thread, if you go back to the beginning you'll see that most people have shared your view regarding Schubert. I share that view, but if you look at post #17 you'll observe that it was suggested by another member that Schubert was 100% Romantic throughout his entire career.
> 
> If you read through the posts subsequent to post #17, which I assume from your remarks that you have not done, you'll see that this suggestion has sparked off a debate on this matter. I have found myself getting more involved than I had intended to.
> 
> As you will see, the discussion has wandered off track quite a bit by involving Beethoven's connections with Classicism and Romanticism. Surprisingly, the more hard-core Beethoven fans on this forum appear to have rather missed out on this discussion, possibly because this thread's title has thrown them of scent, but if they happen to spot it there could be tons more opinion yet to follow.


What would Beethoven have said about it if you had asked him?


----------



## Luchesi

Partita said:


> Right, you agree with me that Beethoven would certainly have never ended up sounding like Schumann, Liszt or Wagner if he had lived on into their time. That's fine but I'm afraid that I disagree with your conclusion that this would still allow Beethoven to be seen as a Romantic, given the variation in style among a wider field of Romantics. Let's look at this proposition further.
> 
> Following on from Schubert, albeit with a time gap, I would have thought that the composers I selected - Schumann, Liszt, and Wagner - did represent a fair cross section of the early Romantics. However, if required, in order to close the time gap, and to add a couple more, I'd be happy to include Berlioz and Rossini as well. This combined line-up of composers would seem to provide a very wide picture of the early Romantics, all of whom were involved in programmatic music of various kinds.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to include Brahms in this group, as you have done, because he saw himself as the long-awaited successor to Beethoven, he rejected programmatic music, and hence his connection with the Romantic movement was so tenuous that he is sometimes referred as the "last great Classicist".
> 
> Compared with this 5 composer field of Romantics, Beethoven would look still like an extreme outlier if he had continued to write music in the manner we know over a further 40 years added to his life. The two new ones I added, Berlioz and Rossini, were obviously so into programmatic music (operas and all) that Beethoven would never have followed them.
> 
> I think therefore that this adds further weight to my view that Beethoven was most probably not a Romantic at all. At best, one might argue that some of his music sounds a bit like Romantic, but he never did, and probably never would have done so, make the conversion to being a proper Romantic. He knew where he was going and that was it, namely ever developing the Classical model he so loved. As I mentioned before, and which you have not picked up on, that is the opinion of the distinguished musicologist, Charles Rosen, who has specialised in this entire area, in his book _The Classical Style._
> 
> Concerning your remarks about Mozart and Haydn, I would agree that Beethoven sounded different from both of these in some respects, but I do not think that these differences should be exaggerated. Things had moved on for sure, but I reckon that Mozart, if he too had lived another 35-40 years, could easily have emulated and possibly exceeded Beethoven's achievements, without even breaking into a sweat, whilst fully retaining the main structural forms of Classicism. I'm less sure about Haydn's ability or possible inclination to do so.
> 
> Indeed, in some respects Mozart was already ahead of Beethoven at the time of his death in 1791, e.g. in terms of the amount dissidence in Mozart's music compared with Beethoven who seemed to have very little time for it.
> 
> I finish up yet again where I started, unconvinced that Beethoven was a Romantic, or that he was even heading that way at the time of his death. As I said before, he pushed the borders of Classicism by making things more complex, but it didn't amount to Romantic music in the fashion of any of the later true Romantics.


I don't know who first used the word dissidence, but in music it's dissonance.


----------



## Triplets

Beethoven and Schubert were transitional figures on the road from Classicism to Romanticism.


----------



## larold

_Schubert is technically a romantic composer, but I can't help hearing classical elements in his pieces. 
So now the question: is he a Romantic or Classical composer? _

Schubert is best known for his songs. I would like you to find one of them not romantic.


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> Beethoven and Schubert were transitional figures on the road from Classicism to Romanticism.


Everybody knows that, or ought to, as it's merely a statement of historical fact. The main discussion of this thread has concentrated on when and where the main turning points occurred in Schubert's career in respect of the transition from Classical/Romantic across the various genres in which he wrote. It fizzled out and finished up discussing Beethoven's transition instead.



Luchesi said:


> I don't know who first used the word dissidence, but in music it's dissonance.


Yes, of course the correct term is "dissonance". I think that I picked up the term "dissidence" from an earlier comment, which is why I placed this word in quotation marks at first use, after which it kind of got stuck.



larold said:


> Schubert is best known for his songs. I would like you to find one of them not romantic.


It's true that Schubert is well known for his songs, but it's a somewhat antiquated view these days to say that he is best known for the songs. He wrote tons of stuff in most other genres - orchestral, chamber, piano solo, stage work incidental music - that are also very popular, and not all of these were in the "romantic" in style. He was so young when he started that there was bound to be a transitional process that took place in areas outside of his songs.


----------



## Luchesi

Beethoven and Schubert (and Weber) used classical forms as structural frameworks for helping to inspire their ideas, AND their expressive goals were the same as the later Romantics (though more experimental, as I see it). Chopin seemed to conclude that Beethoven was vulgar at times, because of these 'experiments'. So where's the line of demarcation between Classicism and Romanticism? Does Haydn ever venture into romanticism? No, I think Haydn was unsettled by Beethoven's emotional thrusts. What would Mozart have thought about the Eroica Symphony?


----------



## Larkenfield

I deeply appreciate Beethoven and have often commented in the positive, but he far exceeding the Classical model of composition, IMO, and could occasionally be (without citing examples at the moment) bombastic in explosiveness, long-winded, angry, vulgar, common, far less harmonically subtle and interest in a way that Mozart would probably have never been in a million years had he lived - Beethoven, the barbarians at the gate. (His Ode to Joy was considered vulgar by some of his critics though I feel that what Beethoven wrote was more of an anthem like the French _Marseillaise_ than a symphonic theme - and there's a big difference between an anthem and theme.) The Romantic outlook was more forgiving of such personal and self-indulgent antics. Schubert was more Classical than Beethoven, IMO, and was freer of those violent excesses but still had the warmth of the poetic Romantic imagination in spirit and subject matter that greatly interested and influenced such composers as Schumann, Brahms, and Bruckner.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

Beethoven is considered a transitional composer betwenn Classical and Romantic, but Schubert would be Romantic IMO, when I think about the Classical period I mostly think of Mozart and Haydn...


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> I deeply appreciate Beethoven and have often commented in the positive, but he far exceeding the Classical model of composition, IMO, and could occasionally be (without citing examples at the moment) bombastic in explosiveness, long-winded, angry, vulgar, common, far less harmonically subtle and interest in a way that Mozart would probably have never been in a million years had he lived - Beethoven, the barbarians at the gate. (His Ode to Joy was considered vulgar by some of his critics though I feel that what Beethoven wrote was more of an anthem like the French _Marseillaise_ than a symphonic theme - and there's a big difference between an anthem and theme.) The Romantic outlook was more forgiving of such personal and self-indulgent antics. Schubert was more Classical than Beethoven, IMO, and was freer of those violent excesses but still had the warmth of the poetic Romantic imagination in spirit and subject matter that greatly interested and influenced such composers as Schumann, Brahms, and Bruckner.


A musician friend of mine who is really into music history said that he thought that Mozart wanted to improve the ruling princes into philosophers, more aesthetically aware, but Beethoven wanted the philosophers who he approved of to become the ruling princes. Of course it all comes from Plato. Mozart was smart and he realized he needed the aristocracy and that current structure so that he could do what he wanted in music and support his family. ..Beethoven was not that way.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> A musician friend of mine who is really into music history said that he thought that Mozart wanted to improve the ruling princes into philosophers, more aesthetically aware, but Beethoven wanted the philosophers who he approved of to become the ruling princes. Of course it all comes from Plato. Mozart was smart and he realized he needed the aristocracy and that current structure so that he could do what he wanted in music and support his family. ..Beethoven was not that way.


Have you reached a view on whether Schubert's non-lieder work is "classical" or "romantic". If you think it switched to "romantic" at what stage in his career did this happen, and what are the traits that make you think so?


----------



## Luchesi

Partita said:


> Have you reached a view on whether Schubert's non-lieder work is "classical" or "romantic". If you think it switched to "romantic" at what stage in his career did this happen, and what are the traits that make you think so?


Thanks for your reply. Chapters of a book could be written about this. There's so much background to discuss, but we can't be sure about it all. So no definite conclusions can be made about a "switch". The Unfinished Symphony sounds very Romantic to me. And how the late sonatas and chamber works sound compared to Haydn and Hummel.

You put classical and romantic in quotes, and from reading your posts I know that you appreciate the subtlety of these characterizations with Schubert and Beethoven. 
The way I see those decades Schubert was discouraged by his father and encouraged by his young friends. He needed to be financially supported somewhat so that he could work halfheartedly as a teacher and have enough money and time for the music he was driven to compose. It reminds me of Schumann and his father-in-law. There was a generation gap between the classicism in the minds of the older generation's consciousness as they saw an attempt at a new classical Golden Age, in architecture especially. The younger generation of Schubert and Schumann were already disenchanted with the Golden Age superficiality because of the realities (hardships of overbearing parents and not being able to marry Clara) of their young lives, I assume. Of course Beethoven was very different and he was always lashing out. The romantic zeal of Beethoven wasn't spurred by a generation gap. Romantic literature for Schumann..

I ask myself if any of Schubert's mature works project the notion of the Golden Age with its symmetry and forms being so predictable and rigid. What should we look for in the scores of these very early romantic explorations. I think it's advancing harmony (less predictable harmony) and experimentation with forms for an expressive effect and the general rebelliousness against the older generation. The later romantics outgrew these influences and made the romantic energy and ebullience much more of a personal statement. So this subject becomes complicated because of the unique life paths and the changing political settings.

As I wrote in a previous post - Beethoven and Schubert (and Weber) used classical forms as structural frameworks for helping to inspire their ideas, AND their expressive goals were the same as the later Romantics (though more experimental, as I see it).

It seems to me that Schubert and Schumann used lieder to express their feelings of a romantic movement, because it was more acceptable in the early years in their situations.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> As I wrote in a previous post - Beethoven and Schubert (and Weber) used classical forms as structural frameworks for helping to inspire their ideas, AND their expressive goals were the same as the later Romantics (though more experimental, as I see it).
> 
> It seems to me that Schubert and Schumann used lieder to express their feelings of a romantic movement, because it was more acceptable in the early years in their situations.


I agree mostly with what you say. I'll just add a few comments.

In the case of Schubert, with the exception of his lieder and the "Trout" piano quintet, I don't think that any of his works are clearly "programmatic" in nature, in quite the fashion of work by some later composers. Nevertheless, from around 1822/3 onwards many of his work became far more expressive in nature than any of his earlier works.

Good examples of this are provided by his piano sonatas from D784 Piano Sonata No 14 inclusive onwards (written 1823). This sonata was written soon after he was given news of his medical condition that he knew would blight him for the rest of his life, and must have had a tremendous impact on his mental outlook. It's a quite extraordinary work. Schubert specialists such as Brian Newbould have noted that there is something new about the first movement in its layout. In its general feel and flavour, it is rather frightening and awesome, showing the depth of Schubert's dark and lighter sides.

His later piano sonatas, numbers 15 to 21, were not generally so gloomy and austere, but they still exhibited a very wide range of moods within the same work. OK, this feature of itself is not proof of the existence of a "romantic" style, but all of these sonatas all seem to exhibit characteristics more like "songs without words" than abstract "classical" sonatas. In my opinion, Beethoven's piano sonatas, clever and ingenious though many were, do not exhibit such features to anything like the same extent, and remained very largely works of a purely abstract nature.

Similar changes occurred in many of Schubert's late chamber and orchestral works. As I have said previously, in view of these factors I'm of the opinion that Schubert moved closer to the "romantic" style than did Beethoven.


----------



## flamencosketches

Having formerly been a member of the "Schubert is a Classical composer" camp (as this is how his music was introduced to me, in some music appreciation class or another), I am now firmly of the belief that he is a pure early Romantic composer. What convinced me is the Lieder and the piano music. His solo piano music is some of the most deeply poetic ever written by anyone.

That being said, what do we make of the (great) early symphonies? To my ears they are quite firmly rooted in the Classical forms and harmonic language. In other words, they pick up right where late Mozart and Haydn left off. Are these works also Romantic in a way that I'm failing to pick up on?











On a related note, the Roy Goodman/Hanover Band Schubert cycle is really excellent so far. I can see it becoming my new reference for this music. I have never really appreciated the early symphonies before hearing this. Even at such a young age Schubert exhibited such a keen sense of lyricism, and drama.


----------



## EdwardBast

"Composers of Europe: I have come from the future with two buckets. You must choose to live in one or the other."

Schubert: "But … but … I don't want to live in a bucket."

Beethoven: "Eh? What's that? Let me get my ear trumpet. … Bucket? I'll beat you over the head with your buckets and then shove them up your &^%#$&@!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> Having formerly been a member of the "Schubert is a Classical composer" camp (as this is how his music was introduced to me, in some music appreciation class or another), I am now firmly of the belief that he is a pure early Romantic composer. What convinced me is the Lieder and the piano music. His solo piano music is some of the most deeply poetic ever written by anyone.
> 
> That being said, what do we make of the (great) early symphonies? To my ears they are quite firmly rooted in the Classical forms and harmonic language. In other words, they pick up right where late Mozart and Haydn left off. Are these works also Romantic in a way that I'm failing to pick up on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a related note, the Roy Goodman/Hanover Band Schubert cycle is really excellent so far. I can see it becoming my new reference for this music. I have never really appreciated the early symphonies before hearing this. Even at such a young age Schubert exhibited such a keen sense of lyricism, and drama.


I was formerly in this camp as well, but I changed my opinion based off the late piano sonatas. For me, the focus is not so much on structure and symmetry but on lyric expression and pathos. Works like the 21st Sonata, the 9th Symphony, and the 15th String Quartet seem to stretch the boundaries of the form in search of the deepest purity of emotion known to man- though definitely not compositionally faultless, I find these works mesmerizing since they seem to plunge me into a prolonged state of poetic stasis (I have to be in the mood for it though). This, to me, is the main influence that Bruckner took from Schubert. I have yet to dive into the big song cycles; they are priority on my upcoming listening list.

Concerning Schubert symphony cycles, one of my favorites is the Marriner/ASMF cycle. Very light, fleet-footed, HIP-style tempi but brilliantly played on a small modern instrument ensemble. The set also includes hypothetical completions of the Unfinished Symphony and the 10th Symphony, which are, frankly, not all that musically interesting but fascinating nonetheless.


----------



## Luchesi

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I was formerly in this camp as well, but I changed my opinion based off the late piano sonatas. For me, the focus is not so much on structure and symmetry but on lyric expression and pathos. Works like the 21st Sonata, the 9th Symphony, and the 15th String Quartet seem to stretch the boundaries of the form in search of the deepest purity of emotion known to man- though definitely not compositionally faultless, I find these works mesmerizing since they seem to plunge me into a prolonged state of poetic stasis (I have to be in the mood for it though). This, to me, is the main influence that Bruckner took from Schubert. I have yet to dive into the big song cycles; they are priority on my upcoming listening list.
> 
> Concerning Schubert symphony cycles, one of my favorites is the Marriner/ASMF cycle. Very light, fleet-footed, HIP-style tempi but brilliantly played on a small modern instrument ensemble. The set also includes hypothetical completions of the Unfinished Symphony and the 10th Symphony, which are, frankly, not all that musically interesting but fascinating nonetheless.


Welcome to the forum. Wiki has the ideas for the movements of the 10th symphony. A lot of counterpoint, which he was studying at the time. He was composing at a furious pace. He had so many ideas.

Born 9542 days after LvB, how much pathos in music did he hear as a young whippersnapper? He was amazing!


----------



## Enthusiast

I have probably posted it earlier in this thread but to me Schubert was an early Romantic composer. The most obvious way to hear than is in his songs. There is an argument that he became a Romantic in his symphonies, sonatas and quartets but I think many unambiguously Romantic composer wrote fairly classically when they were very young and in their very early works. Schubert, of course, was very young and then young and then he died.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> A musician friend of mine who is really into music history said that he thought that Mozart wanted to improve the ruling princes into philosophers, more aesthetically aware, but Beethoven wanted the philosophers who he approved of to become the ruling princes. Of course it all comes from Plato. Mozart was smart and he realized he needed the aristocracy and that current structure so that he could do what he wanted in music and support his family. ..Beethoven was not that way.


Beethoven wanted to overthrow Archduke Rudolf and wanted philosophers to take his place? Why then did Beethoven dedicate so many pieces to the Archduke? Was he somehow different in mind from Mozart when he composed Fidelio, King Stephen, Ruins of Athens? Beethoven wrote pleading letters to negotiate with his publishers over his piano sonatas.

Serious artists of all eras need sponsors and fans to keep them going. I don't think Beethoven and Schubert were any different.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=PAlglqFz0PMC&pg=PA371
_"Quite aside from the events in Poland, and even before they took shape, Chopin had concluded that postrevolutionary Paris held no immediate promise for him. Much of the aristocracy had fled, the middle classes were scared and impoverished, and no students were queuing up at the square d'Orléans for piano lessons. He had no new compositions for sale to the music publishers, who, in any case, had almost no clients. Since the rupture with George Sand, no sentimental ties kept him back in Paris. Chopin therefore agreed to go to England and Scotland for at least a half year or so, to play and compose in a different environment and, if possible, to earn some money. Given the state of his health, it may have been a foolish decision, but it opened the door for the entry into his life of a new, full-time female presence."_

And I still hear a lot of symmetry (passages of question/answer in equal lengths) in Chopin. I don't consider it a bad thing though.

Schubert wrote this in the last year of his life:


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^^

A new opinion is that Chopin had cystic fibrosis. It's hereditary and his sister died from it? The weather in England wouldn't have had any effect on it.

I haven't made any progress in evaluating composers by breaking up their works into such small elements. I enjoy doing it, but I realized that you need to look at the works as a whole. That goes against my earliest reductionist views in science and art. Here and there people have told me that it's the wrong approach but I never wanted to believe it.


----------

