# Comparison between Beethoven's symphonies and later Romantic symphonies



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

IMO the reason why Beethoven's symphonies are considered so great is because they combine the rigor and logic of classicism with passion and drama of Romanticism.
I haven't listened to that many romantic symphonies, but for those that I did listen to, my general impression is that they are even more dramatic and unpredictable than Beethoven's, there are long slow movements in which at any moment there's a possibility of a sudden fortissimo, there are fast movements in which there's pronounced use of percussion, trumpets, etc... generally very dramatic. But still, I feel less moved by this drama than by Beethoven's drama, and I think the reason is that the drama of romantic symphonies kind of passes besides me. They fail to fully engage me, to fully draw me in. On the other hand Beethoven easily draws me in, engages me with the logic and rigor of his development, and THEN when I am fully immersed into it, he provides drama. And even if this drama is perhaps a bit less pronounced than in romantic symphony, it has much greater effect on me.

On the other hand, romantic symphonies are IMO usually a bit less coherent, perhaps they have less rigorous development, or they have too many unnecessary notes... and for this reason for them it's kind of more difficult to draw the listener in.

Any opinions? Agree? Disagree?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> IMO the reason why Beethoven's symphonies are considered so great is because they combine the rigor and logic of classicism with passion and drama of Romanticism.
> I haven't listened to that many romantic symphonies, but for those that I did listen to, my general impression is that they are even more dramatic and unpredictable than Beethoven's, there are long slow movements in which at any moment there's a possibility of a sudden fortissimo, there are fast movements in which there's pronounced use of percussion, trumpets, etc... generally very dramatic. But still, I feel less moved by this drama than by Beethoven's drama, and I think the reason is that the drama of romantic symphonies kind of passes besides me. They fail to fully engage me, to fully draw me in. On the other hand Beethoven easily draws me in, engages me with the logic and rigor of his development, and THEN when I am fully immersed into it, he provides drama. And even if this drama is perhaps a bit less pronounced than in romantic symphony, it has much greater effect on me.
> 
> On the other hand, romantic symphonies are IMO usually a bit less coherent, perhaps they have less rigorous development, or they have too many unnecessary notes... and for this reason for them it's kind of more difficult to draw the listener in.
> ...


Something that is very difficult in convey in words without risking giving the wrong impression is the extent to which one's own attititude to various composers can change over time. It's perfectly possible and probably not unusual for a beginnier to be very impressed by, say, Beethoven, or Mozart or whoever and not like some other composers, even if the latter wrote music in broadly similar vein, eg Brahms or Sibelius, just to give two hypothetical examples. Years later, perhaps 2 years or 5 years or 10 years as it all depends, one's attitutude can change a lot, especially in regard to composers one may have disliked much earlier. For this reason, I think it's largely an unproductive area of discussion to pontificate on such things as which composers are more coherent, or have more or rigourous development etc. It's all relative to one's experience and evolving tastes. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Yep, maybe my OP was a bit hyperbolic, as I said I haven't listened to that many romantic symphonies yet. It's not my complete and definite opinion, it's more like a call for discussion.

I am not saying that all romantic symphonies "pass besides me" instead of engaging me, I think it's just kind of likely to happen with some works, still more likely than when I listen to a Beethoven symphony.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Genoveva is right about the effect of time on one's taste, at least in my case as well. The first two years of listening to classical music, Beethoven was the man for me. Brahms was thick, Mahler weird, Bach just OK, Mozart elegant. Gradually over the years, this changed, and for a long time now my three favourite composers are Bach, Mahler and Brahms. Beethoven has fallen to somewhere around #20-30.

The other angle is that we are all different. Maybe you will still have Beethoven as your #1 even decades further down the line, and still don't like Mahler then. And there's nothing wrong with that. Whatever works for you.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Well, I'm game! The main point I would want to make is that there is (I think) much more variety in compositional approach among romantic composers than there was during classical times. This went so far as to cause animosities between some composers - Wagner vs Brahms etc. - but also meant that some composers were more concerned with .... (what words to use?) poetry and fantasy (Schumann?) while others seem to have had all the structural discipline of the classical times (Brahms?). In the same way some were musical revolutionaries (Wagner?) or showmen (Liszt?) or concerned with programme and picture painting (which was much more rare during the classical period). The romantic period was also the time when some composers found it possible to work outside of the Austro-German tradition (Dvorak, Berlioz?).

Of course, some consider Beethoven to have been the first romantic composer and I think it is easy enough to draw a line between Mozart and Haydn to Beethoven and on to Brahms. It is the others who used the opportunities of romantic values to go off in different directions. The diversification became even more fertile in the modern period


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> IMO the reason why Beethoven's symphonies are considered so great is because they combine the rigor and logic of classicism with passion and drama of Romanticism.
> I haven't listened to that many romantic symphonies, but for those that I did listen to, my general impression is that they are even more dramatic and unpredictable than Beethoven's, there are long slow movements in which at any moment there's a possibility of a sudden fortissimo, there are fast movements in which there's pronounced use of percussion, trumpets, etc... generally very dramatic. But still, I feel less moved by this drama than by Beethoven's drama, and I think the reason is that the drama of romantic symphonies kind of passes besides me. They fail to fully engage me, to fully draw me in. On the other hand Beethoven easily draws me in, engages me with the logic and rigor of his development, and THEN when I am fully immersed into it, he provides drama. And even if this drama is perhaps a bit less pronounced than in romantic symphony, it has much greater effect on me.
> 
> On the other hand, romantic symphonies are IMO usually a bit less coherent, perhaps they have less rigorous development, or* they **have too many unnecessary notes.*.. and for this reason for them it's kind of more difficult to draw the listener in.
> ...


The only Romantic composer whose symphonies needed to be abridged IMO, was Bruckner.

However the Brahms Symphonies are fairly "compact", given that the Romantic Era tended to produce long works in general.

As a matter of fact Brahms was attacked for being old-fashioned and conservative, his symphonies "looked back", instead of "ahead".

A mind-blowing experience is taking a Haydn symphony such as 94 or 102 and comparing it to say Bruckner's Symphony No. 4 or 6.

Haydn says more in 25 minutes than Bruckner, in an hour.

Reminds me of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address-in one minute Lincoln got right to the emotional point, that the one hour bloviaters couldn't.

Bloviating is bloviating, whether it's from posters, speakers or composers.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hpowders said:


> The only Romantic composer whose symphonies needed to be abridged IMO, was Bruckner.
> 
> However the Brahms Symphonies are fairly "compact", given that the Romantic Era tended to produce long works in general.
> 
> ...


I don't think Haydn was trying to "say" the same things as Bruckner. I say this as a Bruckner agnostic: I only want to listen to his music very occasionally but when I do I am not sure what would be a good substitute.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I think Haydn didn't want to say anything with his symphonies. Most of the time he just wanted to make interesting music. I enjoy listening to his symphonies... There's not a single of his symphonies that I don't like. All of his symphonies to me seem perfect, like a little universe of their own, never boring, yet no excess in them... very few extra-musical associations. I'd compare them to snowflakes, but not in a cliche way... they are not like snowflakes just because they are unique, but also because they are all beautiful, simple and unpretentions. They are also like snowflakes because to me they seem a bit kind of ephemeral, not really striking, memorable, etc... they quickly melt. Haydn created so many gems without really trying, that's why his symphonies seem so spontaneous, fresh, etc... Just like snowflakes they have a rigid, crystalline structure, yet it never feels heavy, and it melts quickly.

Beethoven, and especially romantic composers, on the other hand, I think always wanted to say something with their symphonies. They wanted to make a point. They wanted to express important ideas or feelings. They were aware they were creating art, and they wanted to make a big artistic statement. They took themselves way more seriously than Haydn did.

In this process Beethoven retained Haydn's crystalline structure, yet infused it with drive to express himself in an important, passionate way, to make a point... he is kind of heavyweight version of Haydn to me. I'd compare his symphonies with diamonds. Or perhaps with big iron structures, like Eiffel Tower.

Romanticists on the other hand, were so focused on expressing big ideas and making important art, that the structure of their works became less important, so their symphonies are akin to uncut gemstones. But not any kind of gemstones. More like uncut huge and precious gemstones.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Beethoven's symphonies had more objective quality like other Classical composers, the language is clearer. Late Romantic had more subjective qualities, especially Mahler. Tonality was weaker, and modulations more abrupt with less preparation. The also became generally more expansive in form, and the ideas less concentrated, more diffuse


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Now listening to some CPE Bach symphonies... and wow, I'm impressed. Maybe I even prefer them to Haydn's. To me they somehow sound more substantial, even though they are equally lively. But I feel there's more passion to them. And I like the remnants of baroque style that can be felt...
It was a bit offtopic, but CPE Bach sounds to me in a way closer to Beethoven than Haydn does, maybe not in form or style, but in dynamics and emotion. And it's also more structured than romantic works... quite like Beethoven.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony, written 1803, is generally considered the first romantic symphony, setting off the romantic 19th century. Brahms, who was so full of self-doubt and so in awe of the comparison to Beethoven, destroyed all his early symphonies until finally publishing No. 1 in 1854. By that time romantic symphonists had sprung up all over the place.

What differentiates Beethoven from the later romantic era was his death in 1827. Most romantic symphonies in mid- or late century were accompanied by some kind of nickname or dedication or were drawn from romantic literature -- Mendelssohn's "Italian," Schumann's "Rhenish," Tchaikovksy's "Winter Dreams" (No. 2), "Fate" (No. 4) and "Pathétique" (No. 6), the Liszt "Dante" symphonies and many others were given such romantic titles. 

Beethoven's only "titled" symphony was No. 3 which he first dedicated to Napoleon and then, upon hearing Napoleon declared himself emporer, he removed the dedication and made it to Prince Lobkowitz, a benefactor. It is unclear from whom or where the heroic tag originated. He did not call Symphony 9 "choral."

The essence of a later romantic symphony is great ebb and flow in pacing, volume, duration and theatrics, elements that are in less quantity in Beethoven's symphonies. Beethoven clung to the classical model of Haydn (sonata form) throughout his career even when he elongated the symphony beyond what anyone knew. By the time Liszt came along, sonata format was dramatically changed in symphonies by having, for example, long development sections during recapitualtion. This is the lack of coherency you note in your commentary. 

This would come completely undone by the last great romantic symphonist, Gustav Mahler. After him, everyone save serialists would return to a classical model with romantic elements. The 20th century is full of these people.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Interesting explanation larold. What I find interesting is what you say about symphonies after Mahler. Could you elaborate a bit? You say they are more like Beethoven? Not like typical romanticists?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I just dig this:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> IMO the reason why Beethoven's symphonies are considered so great is because they combine the rigor and logic of classicism with passion and drama of Romanticism.
> I haven't listened to that many romantic symphonies, but for those that I did listen to, my general impression is that they are even more dramatic and unpredictable than Beethoven's, there are long slow movements in which at any moment there's a possibility of a sudden fortissimo, there are fast movements in which there's pronounced use of percussion, trumpets, etc... generally very dramatic. But still, I feel less moved by this drama than by Beethoven's drama, and I think the reason is that the drama of romantic symphonies kind of passes besides me. They fail to fully engage me, to fully draw me in. On the other hand Beethoven easily draws me in, engages me with the logic and rigor of his development, and THEN when I am fully immersed into it, he provides drama. And even if this drama is perhaps a bit less pronounced than in romantic symphony, it has much greater effect on me.
> 
> On the other hand, romantic symphonies are IMO usually a bit less coherent, perhaps they have less rigorous development, or they have too many unnecessary notes... and for this reason for them it's kind of more difficult to draw the listener in.
> ...


The idea that Beethoven's mature works (not just the symphonies) are generally more tense, have a greater sense of dramatic unity and seem to elicit (or coerce?) a more compelling kind of personal engagement compared to those of his Romantic successors has been entertained by many writers and critics and various explanations have been offered for these effects. You should definitely have a look at Scott Burnham's book, _Beethoven Hero_, especially the first two chapters. The second chapter, which has the subtitle "Presence and Engagement in the Heroic Style," tries to explain exactly the sense of personal engagement you feel listening to Beethoven.

Charles Rosen, who heard tonic-dominant polarity as the essence of the Classical style, believes this polarity and the tension it creates was often weakened in romantic works by a tendency to use less tense subdominant-side keys as secondary tonal centers.

Several musical narrative theorists trace Beethoven's compelling sense of drama to his thematic processes. Rather than just developing individual motives and themes in the way Haydn and Mozart did, Beethoven often introduced a critical motivic opposition into his principal themes and then developed not the motives in isolation, but the dramatic relationship between them. For example, the ascendancy of one might be systematically linked to a downturn in the fortunes of the other. Gregory Karl analyses the first movement of the _Appassionata_ in such dramatic terms ("Structuralism and Musical Plot." _Music Theory Spectrum_ 19 (1997): 13-34.)


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Bloviating is bloviating, whether it's from posters, speakers or composers.


"Bloviate" is a great word, isn't it? it has the advantage of suggesting at the same time poetically its own meaning. Could say it to a a person unfamilar with the word, and they'd instantly nod, and giggle. "A windbag!" "A blowhard" "All that hot air!" It's a beautifully precise word that pinpricks the pompous, as if the word bloviate itself is a satirical invention. Maybe it is.

_Blow_......V-8. With big lisping raspberries accompanying like trumpets the _bbbblllllllllllllleuuuuu _at the beginning.

Blowhards.

That's the common vulgate term for a lot of Romantic music, and yes, its progenitor and master was Beethoven, him of the virile hair and stern look, the muscular blouse, and earnest right-on fist pumps during the loud chorus. This was a man to be reckoned with, and as he bloviated, others followed, seeing the seriousness with which they'd be taken. And of course, they are. Music for highbrows. Pompous stuff, largely, though thankfully not all of it. I recall a concert at the National Concert Hall in Dublin, solo piano stuff by Mozart (the adagio in b-minor), Schumann, and a sonata by Beethoven. The Schumann was incredibly dense and difficult (to play, and to listen to), and made one constantly wonder about Schumann: pity him, feel his obviously superior agonies, and I suppose admire his strength in getting to the end of the piece.

The soloist managed this with an abacus for counting, a box of tissues and a gas mask.

The Mozart piece concealed its author, and revealed to the audience something of ourselves and something we could identify, a universal truth that can be held within the tragic, and still somehow encapsulated by music.

The Beethoven sonata was majestic, and the pianist got a standing ovation. But I wondered after, how did music travel so swiftly from the universality of Mozart, to the mind-deadening egoism of the romantics, and I couldn't help but finger Luigi as the culprit. I doubt it was intentional. Beethoven remained a classicist at heart, but his great success and the growing cult of the personality that struck people dumb around those romantic times raised him to a status that others could only covet. His music, of course, was worthy of imitation, and the implication that to follow him meant to bloviate even harder was irresistible, once the local cults were in place. Ah, the old days of the working musician were gone. The composer had become a seer, a prophet, a national emblem, and hero.

Course, this was all fields around here back then...


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Beethoven's symphonies are considered so great is because they combine the rigor and logic of classicism with passion and drama of Romanticism.


Just this past week I had to sub for an ailing Music Appreciation teacher. The topic: Beethoven. The text book:The Enjoyment of Music by Machlis, et al.

And essentially your quote was what the Beethoven chapter stressed. And I had no problem in pushing that view on to the class.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

"Bloviate"..... What a truly wonderful word!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting how we so often try to define Beethoven in terms of the way he or his music was perceived by this generation or that (or this Burnham or that Sullivan). That seems pretty silly. Better, I think, to experience his music directly and cut out the middle man!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Interesting how we so often try to define Beethoven in terms of the way he or his music was perceived by this generation or that (or this Burnham or that Sullivan). That seems pretty silly. Better, I think, to experience his music directly and cut out the middle man!


The OP requested opinions on certain issues. Burnham has and Rosen had opinions on precisely those issues. So, silly or not, it was what was requested.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Interesting explanation larold. What I find interesting is what you say about symphonies after Mahler. Could you elaborate a bit? You say they are more like Beethoven? Not like typical romanticists? _

I meant later symphonists went back to sonata form (exposition, development, and recapitulation) and discarded the lengthy and often bewildering additions wrought by Liszt and later Mahler to a symphony. Composers like Sibelius, Elgar, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Vaughan Williams all used sonata form in their symphonies without the changes the late romantics added. This was also true of the mid-century school of American symphonists that included Barber, Schuman and Copland. Things got dicey later with minimalism.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

larold said:


> _Interesting explanation larold. What I find interesting is what you say about symphonies after Mahler. Could you elaborate a bit? You say they are more like Beethoven? Not like typical romanticists? _
> 
> I meant later symphonists went back to sonata form (exposition, development, and recapitulation) and discarded the lengthy and often bewildering additions wrought by Liszt and later Mahler to a symphony. Composers like Sibelius, Elgar, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Vaughan Williams all used sonata form in their symphonies without the changes the late romantics added. This was also true of the mid-century school of American symphonists that included Barber, Schuman and Copland. Things got dicey later with minimalism.


In support of your point: This adoption of and eventual return to Beethovenian ideals was especially pronounced in Russia and the USSR, beginning with Tchaikovksy's Fourth, the first of his works to pick up on the dramatic thematic oppositions and cyclic unity of Beethoven, and which he acknowledged was just "a reflection of Beethoven's Fifth." Rachmaninoff took up the pattern in nearly all of his multimovement works. Later, under the doctrine of Socialist Realism, where healthy optimism was the only politically correct tone for symphonic composition, Beethoven's Fifth became the archetypal model for those wishing to avoid censure. A number of Miaskovsky's symphonies, Prokofiev's Fifth and Shostakovich's Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth (with its embedded hidden and contrary meanings) are prime examples. Some of these then had an influence on Vaughan Williams (whose Fourth seems to have an especially strong Russian influence) and others in the West.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I like to see Beethoven not as the beginning of romanticism but as some kind of endpoint in classicism. It feels as if he tries to stretch the classicist structures as far as possible without leaving them. In a lot of movements of his symphonies he stays faithful to sonata form but his development and coda are so far evolved from traditional sonata form that they almost define a new form on it's own. In his symphonies especially I think his dramatic and prolonged coda's in combination with fairly faithful use of classicist structure sets him apart from his predecessors AND his successors. Also his faithfulness to typical graceful classicist ornament sets him a bit apart from later romanticists. Weber and Schubert being maybe examples of composers still making use of these same traditional ornamentation (and more or less using the same "language" as Beethoven) and Liszt being an example of one that virtually makes no use at all anymore of these ornaments (a new "language"). A late romantic composer that makes no use of classicist structure and ornamentation has to deal with other difficulties namely balancing the amount of musical "effect" and of course shaping a form or structure when there's virtually total freedom. 

From the viewpoint of a "true romanticist" or a "true classicist" Beethovens' (middle and late) works may seem strange due to this combination of traditionalism and at the same time searching the boundaries of that tradition but for a "true Beethovenist" it's a killer combination.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Perhaps it's a slight offtopic but I just heard Beethoven's 6th symphony again... and I have an impression that it is by far, the most romantic of all of his symphonies. Long, slow movements. Melodic. Sudden outbursts of passion (the storm movement)... Practically it's romantic by definition. A bit of classical style can still be felt, but I think it's his only symphony that's definitely more romantic than classical.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

What's the definition of romantic? Don't go to google define that isn't very useful . The Oxford Dictionary of Music suggests there are romantic elements in all music of all ages. But it defines overtly romantic music as that written mainly between c.1830 to c.1900 by the likes of Weber, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, and Wagner, where emotional & picturesque expression appeared to be more important than formal or structural considerations - the antithesis of classicism. 

But this worries me, Beethoven's symphonies continuously move my emotions very much, usually more than the "overtly romantic" composers. Didn't Beethoven use formal structure with the full intention to generate great emotions? So, for Beethoven, isn't the ultimate intention to generate great emotion, and formal structure is just as secondary to him as to the romantics? 

Many of Haydn's symphonies don't generate much emotion. But many others generate much emotion. So what was Haydn playing at in his lesser symphonies? Was he just making classical experiments in form and structure that we are meant to admire dispassionately without demanding to have an emotional high? Why did Prince Esterhazy let him get away with this? Was he happy to listen to formality without emotion?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Mal said:


> Many of Haydn's symphonies don't generate much emotion. But many others generate much emotion. So what was Haydn playing at in his lesser symphonies? Was he just making classical experiments in form and structure that we are meant to admire dispassionately without demanding to have an emotional high? Why did Prince Esterhazy let him get away with this? Was he happy to listen to formality without emotion?


That's what music was in the late eighteenth century -- an elegant pasttime that wouldn't curdle your dinner.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mal said:


> What's the definition of romantic? Don't go to google define that isn't very useful . The Oxford Dictionary of Music suggests there are romantic elements in all music of all ages. But it defines overtly romantic music as that written mainly between c.1830 to c.1900 by the likes of Weber, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, and Wagner, where emotional & picturesque expression appeared to be more important than formal or structural considerations - the antithesis of classicism.


The Romantic movement is defined to a great extent by the ascendancy of expressive aesthetics, the theory that music expresses the emotions and other internal states of its composers and subjects. Yes folks, that idea was era specific and not a general feature of art music throughout history. The classical era in music was dominated by imitative theories, the notion that art imitates nature and is valued for the accuracy of its imitation. MarkW is essentially correct: Historical connections between music and emotion were severely attenuated in the classical era. This is why some 85% of it is in the major mode.



Mal said:


> But this worries me, Beethoven's symphonies continuously move my emotions very much, usually more than the "overtly romantic" composers. Didn't Beethoven use formal structure with the full intention to generate great emotions? So, for Beethoven, *isn't the ultimate intention to generate great emotion, and formal structure is just as secondary to him as to the romantics?*


Formal structure was not secondary to Beethoven and it wasn't in opposition to emotional expression. What Beethoven did, his big innovation, was to make coherent expressive oppositions a basis for musical structure, manifested particularly in thematic processes (as opposed to high classical structures based on tonal/harmonic oppositions). He harnessed extreme expression as a structural force. That was what made vastly expanded structures like the first movement of the Eroica possible.



Mal said:


> Many of Haydn's symphonies don't generate much emotion. But many others generate much emotion. So what was Haydn playing at in his lesser symphonies? Was he just making classical experiments in form and structure that we are meant to admire dispassionately without demanding to have an emotional high? *Why did Prince Esterhazy let him get away with this? Was he happy to listen to formality without emotion?*


In fact, the Prince (I forget which one, Nick?) found Haydn's highly charged Sturm and Drang works disturbing and specifically told him to stop composing like that! As noted above and by MarkW, music in that era was for most listeners an ear tickling frivolity, not an exploration of human passions.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

^^^ "Not an exploration of human passions". Mozart and Haydn frequently flirted with "human passions".

The Mozart female opera arias, and Mozart/Haydn Andantes and Adagios from their symphonies and piano sonatas and Mozart piano concertos and string quartets/quintets are quite deeply felt.

Haydn may have sucked people in with his extroverted and witty allegros, but a troubling andante/adagio wasn't very far away. Same with Mozart.

The folks of the 18th century may have wished to be pleasantly entertained by the music of the day, but it didn't always turn out that way.

I imagine if all Mozart and Haydn were supposed to do was write pleasant trifles to entertain the nobility, they would have either burned themselves out or gone into a different profession.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> In fact, the Prince (I forget which one, Nick?) found Haydn's highly charged Sturm and Drang works disturbing and specifically told him to stop composing like that!


Interesting. But I'd suggest Haydn was succesful outside of Sturm und Drang; he produces some beautiful adagios, and exciting but not angst ridden, allegros in other symphonies. Maybe he got upset and churned out some boring ones to teach Esterhazy a lesson .

Nick was the prince who supported him initially, for several decades, until his final symphonies. Then the new prince (Nick II) frowned on symphonies full stop and Haydn had to churn out masses instead. (This is in Fischer's booklet, fortunately Wigmore has just arrived, I need to learn more about Haydn...)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kieran said:


> *"Bloviate"* is a great word, isn't it? [...] *"A windbag!" "A blowhard" "All that hot air!" * [...]
> 
> *That's the common vulgate term for a lot of Romantic music, and yes, its progenitor and master was Beethoven*, him of the virile hair and stern look, the muscular blouse, and earnest right-on fist pumps during the loud chorus. This was a man to be reckoned with, and as he bloviated, others followed, seeing the seriousness with which they'd be taken. And of course, they are. Music for highbrows. Pompous stuff, largely, though thankfully not all of it.
> 
> [...] I wondered [...] *how did music travel so swiftly from the universality of Mozart, to the mind-deadening egoism of the romantics, and I couldn't help but finger Luigi as the culprit.* I doubt it was intentional. Beethoven remained a classicist at heart, but his great success and the growing cult of the personality that struck people dumb around those romantic times raised him to a status that others could only covet. His music, of course, was worthy of imitation, and the implication that to follow him meant to bloviate even harder was irresistible, once the local cults were in place. Ah, the old days of the working musician were gone. The composer had become a seer, a prophet, a national emblem, and hero.


I've never known any musician or educated music-lover to use the word "bloviate" to describe "a lot" of Romantic music, or to think of Beethoven as the "progenitor" or "master" of bloviation. What musical circles do you frequent?

If bloviation is long-winded, empty talk (the definition I find when I look it up), Beethoven's expanded but brilliantly calculated structures are the opposite of bloviation. As far as "a lot" of Romantic music is concerned, "bloviation" certainly doesn't describe a lot of the music which has passed the test of time and which many of us now enjoy.

There's probably no more bloviation in Romantic music than there is formulaic banality in Classical music. Every style of music has its pitfalls, and every period its master composers. We're free to ignore mediocre music of all periods, as well as to indulge in our favorite forms of mediocrity.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> ^^^ *"Not an exploration of human passions". Mozart and Haydn frequently flirted with "human passions".*
> 
> The Mozart female opera arias, and Mozart/Haydn Andantes and Adagios from their symphonies and piano sonatas and Mozart piano concertos and string quartets/quintets are quite deeply felt.
> 
> ...


You are right of course. The general tendencies have exceptions and it is no surprise one hears them prominently in the work of the era's best composers. In the quotation (bold above) I should have specified human passions under _an expressive theory_. Baroque composers, for example, explored human passions in the more abstract sense of attempting to evoke them in their audiences in the calculated way an orator might. This is why, for example, assuming Bach was expressing _his_ emotions musically would be anachronistic. It is an interesting question whether the passionate music of Haydn and Mozart tends more toward the Baroque impersonal model or the romantic notion of personal expression.

In addition to the cases you cited, it is clear CPE Bach was composing under an expressive theory, as when he subtitled one work "CPE Bach's Feelings."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> You are right of course. The general tendencies have exceptions and it is no surprise one hears them prominently in the work of the era's best composers. In the quotation (bold above) I should have specified human passions under _an expressive theory_. Baroque composers, for example, explored human passions in the more abstract sense of attempting to evoke them in their audiences in the calculated way an orator might. This is why, for example, assuming Bach was expressing _his_ emotions musically would be anachronistic. It is an interesting question whether the passionate music of Haydn and Mozart tends more toward the Baroque impersonal model or the romantic notion of personal expression.
> 
> In addition to the cases you cited, it is clear CPE Bach was composing under an expressive theory, as when he subtitled one work "CPE Bach's Feelings."


I think there's a continuum in the typology of musical expression, with music as a structure of sounds lacking any specific expressive intention at one end, and music as an "autobiographical" expression of personal feeling at the other (with most music falling somewhere between the extremes). There's also a continuum between the expression of personal feelings and the expression of collective, transpersonal, or "universal" feelings.

The purpose for which music is written largely determines where it falls along these continua, and this pertains regardless of period. Arguably, the notion of music as expression of human feeling is the most primal impulse behind music itself, so it's bound to crop up even in times and places where aesthetic philosophies and social functions don't make obvious space for it.

I wouldn't hesitate to speculate that the Baroque composer Bach, regardless of the aesthetic theories current in his time and manifested in his music, experienced at times a powerful sense of personal connection to the "transpersonal" emotions embodied in his musical rhetoric, and did indeed "express himself" in terms of the musical conventions of his time. On the other hand, I'd say that the arch-Romantic Wagner, in seeking ways to dramatize mythological characters, archetypal ideas and aspects of human psychology that transcend the personal, had to get "outside himself" to a great extent, and that much of his music no longer fits the Romantic notion of "personal expression."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ETA Hoffman (1810) defined "romantic" music not in terms of the author's intent, but instead based on the feelings called forth in the listener. Of course by his definition all three of the major classical symphonists were "romantic."

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


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> ETA Hoffman (1810) defined "romantic" music not in terms of the author's intent, but instead based on the feelings called forth in the listener. Of course by his definition all three of the major classical symphonists were "romantic."
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven


The term "Romantic" was already in use in Mozart's time, and someone (I forget who) applied it to Mozart's _Don Giovanni,_ no doubt with the spooky music for the talking statue and the flames of hell in mind (the kind of thing that would make a proper Enlightenment gentleman flip his peruke).


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

I'm listening through Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies at the moment. Would you describe them as romantic? Haydn said he wanted the slow movement of No.44 "Mourning" played at his funeral, which seems like a romantic request - a personal expression of feeling _and_ a desire to affect the feelings of others, i.e., those attending his funeral.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

KenOC said:


> ETA Hoffman (1810) defined "romantic" music not in terms of the author's intent, but instead based on the feelings called forth in the listener...


Thank's Ken, that's an interesting article.

"When music is spoken of as an independent art, does not the term properly apply only to instrumental music, which scorns all aid, all admixture of other arts (poetry), and gives pure expression to its own peculiar artistic nature? It is the most romantic of all arts, one might almost say the only one that is genuinely romantic,..."

That seems to be going a little too far. Great literature can also generate strong emotions, and I can't see that you can describe literature as any less genuine.

"Haydn romantically apprehends the humanity in human life; he is more congenial, more comprehensible to the majority."

This seems to be damning with faint praise, and given the importance of the critic may explain why Haydn hasn't had more success, until (perhaps) recently. Some of his works, I feel, certainly touch on superhuman, magical qualities, like Mozart, and even set in motion the machinery of awe, fear, terror, pain, and infinite yearning, as in Beethoven. OK maybe he doesn't reach the heights of Beethoven in the expression of negative emotions, and doesn't do it so often, but in the case of exuberance and joy surely he exceeds him.

'A few favourite works aside, Haydn remains a connoisseur's composer. But it is tempting to suggest, with composer Robin Holloway, that the full extent of his greatness is a time bomb yet to go off.

"When its hour comes, the explosion, rather than a big bang, will be a still small voice that tells of the vast within the modest, the dark within the bright, and vice versa. The essence of human experience in musical terms."'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4726824/Why-we-should-learn-to-love-Haydn.html


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mal said:


> "When music is spoken of as an independent art, does not the term properly apply only to instrumental music, which scorns all aid, all admixture of other arts (poetry), and gives pure expression to its own peculiar artistic nature? It is the most romantic of all arts, one might almost say the only one that is genuinely romantic,..."
> 
> "Haydn romantically apprehends the humanity in human life; he is more congenial, more comprehensible to the majority."
> 
> ...


I suspect that if the Haydn time bomb hasn't gone off by now, it's unlikely to. The HIP movement is over half a century old, and there's been ample time for the whole world to experience the full scope of Haydn's works in our best-imagined approximation to an authentic sound and style. Except for more frequent programming at concerts - keeping in mind that most of our music-listening doesn't happen at live events - I'd have to ask what else could be done to make the wonderful Franz Joseph more of a household name.

I'm not sure what the machinery of awe, fear, terror, pain, and infinite yearning consists of, but I find next to nothing in Haydn's music that suggests a universe in which such feelings are worth more than glancing acknowledgement. It just isn't what I go to Haydn for - and thank goodness Haydn is there to provide some sunlight and fresh air when I've had enough of staring into the abyss or contemplating the infinite.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

In general I go to Haydn for string quartet listening (I heard his Op.76 quartets before any of Mozart's, so I have a first encounter bias). What I don't go for is his piano concertos, which are quite insipid in the way the worst examples of galant music can be. So not ugly, but it would need to be a blind date for us to have another encounter.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> In general I go to Haydn for string quartet listening (I heard his Op.76 quartets before any of Mozart's, so I have a first encounter bias). What I don't go for is his piano concertos, which are quite insipid in the way the worst examples of galant music can be. So not ugly, but it would need to be a blind date for us to have another encounter.


I have that same first encounter bias toward the quartets. Friends of mine used to have quartet-playing sessions in their home, and there was always Haydn. Of course Beethoven took the string quartet (among other things) into another dimension, and my friends loved to take the plunge into his late quartets (and Bartok's, which I've never learned to like but must admire). But for players and lovers of the string quartet Haydn doesn't take a back seat to anyone.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ETA Hoffman (1810) defined "romantic" music not in terms of the author's intent, but instead based on the feelings called forth in the listener. Of course by his definition all three of the major classical symphonists were "romantic."





Woodduck said:


> The term "Romantic" was already in use in Mozart's time


Good points, and they are good reminders that earlier uses of the term "Romantic" differ from later ones (including ours) in that the term was not yet viewed in contrast to a "Classical style" or "Classical period." Even in Hoffman's time, those concepts had not yet been invented. Hints of the two being used in conjunction start trickling through in the 1830s or so; I don't have the exact reference on me at the moment but I believe there is a German essay from around that time entitled "Klassiche oder Romantische," or something like that. But in the English-speaking world, anyway, it is really not until the early 20th century that Classicism is perceived as clarity of form, and Romanticism as a rejection of that. One of the first major statements to this effect is T. E. Hulme's essay "Romanticism and Classicism" (1914), which laid the groundwork for our current view of those terms.

It's a subtle but important point: the concept of a "Classical style," including all that stuff about clarity of form, etc., was invented explicitly to be the opposite of the Romantic style. That's why we of the present almost instinctively put clarity of form and emotional expression on opposite ends of a single spectrum, with a step toward one automatically being viewed as a step away from the other. It's a bit anachronistic to attribute that binary opposition to Haydn, Mozart, and even Beethoven themselves.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mal said:


> I'm listening through Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies at the moment. Would you describe them as romantic? Haydn said he wanted the slow movement of No.44 "Mourning" played at his funeral, which seems like a romantic request - a personal expression of feeling _and_ a desire to affect the feelings of others, i.e., those attending his funeral.


I've always thought those symphonies connect nicely with CPE Bach's more intensely expressive music, as a sort of proto-romantic undertow?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eschbeg said:


> It's a subtle but important point: the concept of a "Classical style," including all that stuff about clarity of form, etc., was invented explicitly to be the opposite of the Romantic style. That's why we of the present almost instinctively put clarity of form and emotional expression on opposite ends of a single spectrum, with a step toward one automatically being viewed as a step away from the other. It's a bit anachronistic to attribute that binary opposition to Haydn, Mozart, and even Beethoven themselves.


The "binary opposition" you cite - the idea that Classicism is all about form at the expense of expression and Romanticism about the breakdown of form in pursuit of expression - really is a caricature based on a limited notion of what "form" in music is. That dichotomy strikes me as the aesthetic equivalent of the "reason-emotion" dichotomy, the common assumption that thinking and feeling are somehow incompatible. While it's true that intense emotional states and analytical thought don't tend to occupy our consciousness at the same instant in time, it's not true that the communication of intense feeling in music implies any vagueness of structure. In fact the opposite is true: emotion itself is a structured experience, and structure in music has inherent expressive value; it isn't just a template to be applied, or a vessel to be filled. If composition is approached in such a mechanical, inorganic way, it's apt to yield music that sounds vapid, trivial or rigid - and conversely, when music attempts expressive gestures without finding an organically derived structural framework for them, it's apt to sound emptily pretentious or weakly sentimental. These may represent, respectively, familiar pitfalls to which Classical and Romantic music may tend, but they aren't inevitable characteristics of the styles.

Most of the Romantic music we know best is not formally amorphous or vague. The best composers found effective formal solutions to the problem of conveying the poetic, psychological and pictorial ideas that inspired them. The difference, the thing that sets Romanticism apart from Classicism, lies in the very existence of such expressive ideas not only as a basic impetus for creation but as a generator of form. Beethoven was certainly a pivotal figure in the emergence of the underlying extramusical idea as a determining factor in structuring the musical narrative, first seen in the dramatic sweep and shock of the "Eroica" and becoming more explicitly programmatic in the Fifth and the "Pastoral." Yet he and the early Romantics were still standing on a foundation of fairly traditional forms, which they certainly didn't feel as constraints on their expressive goals. The more "progressive" composers of the time (Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner) took a more iconoclastic view of traditional forms, but they were successful to the extent that they followed Beethoven's lead and found, inherent in their expressive ideas, new formal principles for giving their works coherence. The finale of Berlioz's _Symphonie Fantastique_ and the prelude to Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde_ are great examples of works of symphonic scope which no longer bear a recognizable resemblance to Classical models, yet achieve satisfying coherence and emotional power using formal ideas that translate into sound the psychological states and dramatic narratives which are the programmatic bases of these works.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> the idea that Classicism is all about form at the expense of expression and Romanticism about the breakdown of form in pursuit of expression - really is a caricature based on a limited notion of what "form" in music is


Amen. A related problem is that since we think of the Romantics as deviating form form and the pre-Romantics as adhering to it, we consequently tend to think of the classical forms themselves as far more prescribed and formulaic than they ever were.

Many, many years ago, when I was still teaching music, one of my favorite gimmicks was to introduce certain forms with basic examples that most students have heard before, and to point out how frequently these examples deviate from the "rules." With fugue, for instance, I liked to begin with the very first C-major fugue from the Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1. Students who expected it to be a pretty routine example of fugue were always shocked to discover that the voices enter in the "wrong" order: *C - G - G- C* rather than *C - G - C - G*. Likewise, when we did sonata form, I liked to begin with Mozart's K. 545 sonata (the one everyone knows). Since Mozart himself called it the "Easy Sonata," most students expected it to be a textbook example of sonata form, possibly a trite one at that; imagine their surprise when they actually analyzed it and found that the recapitulation begins in the "wrong" key (or, to give an alternate explanation, that the first theme is never "properly" recapitulated).

Of course the lesson was that these deviations are only deviations if we assume the forms had explicitly prescribed rules to begin with. Those rules did eventually get written, but not until much, much later.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bruckner modeled symphonies after Beethoven's Ninth. Wagner was not impressed.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I've never known any musician or educated music-lover to use the word "bloviate" to describe "a lot" of Romantic music, or to think of Beethoven as the "progenitor" or "master" of bloviation. What musical circles do you frequent?
> 
> If bloviation is long-winded, empty talk (the definition I find when I look it up), Beethoven's expanded but brilliantly calculated structures are the opposite of bloviation. As far as "a lot" of Romantic music is concerned, "bloviation" certainly doesn't describe a lot of the music which has passed the test of time and which many of us now enjoy.
> 
> There's probably no more bloviation in Romantic music than there is formulaic banality in Classical music. Every style of music has its pitfalls, and every period its master composers. We're free to ignore mediocre music of all periods, as well as to indulge in our favorite forms of mediocrity.


Oh I can see the attraction declamatory musical posturing holds for certain types of people, don't get me wrong. But once we get past the po-faced stuff, the seriousness of it all, the intense intricacies which tell us a maestro is muscling down on the shovel and turning over heavy new sods, well, some of it's even beautiful...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eschbeg said:


> Amen. A related problem is that since we think of the Romantics as deviating form form and the pre-Romantics as adhering to it, we consequently tend to think of the classical forms themselves as far more prescribed and formulaic than they ever were.
> 
> Many, many years ago, when I was still teaching music, one of my favorite gimmicks was to introduce certain forms with basic examples that most students have heard before, and to point out how frequently these examples deviate from the "rules." With fugue, for instance, I liked to begin with the very first C-major fugue from the Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1. Students who expected it to be a pretty routine example of fugue were always shocked to discover that the voices enter in the "wrong" order: *C - G - G- C* rather than *C - G - C - G*. Likewise, when we did sonata form, I liked to begin with Mozart's K. 545 sonata (the one everyone knows). Since Mozart himself called it the "Easy Sonata," most students expected it to be a textbook example of sonata form, possibly a trite one at that; imagine their surprise when they actually analyzed it and found that the recapitulation begins in the "wrong" key (or, to give an alternate explanation, that the first theme is never "properly" recapitulated).
> 
> Of course the lesson was that these deviations are only deviations if we assume the forms had explicitly prescribed rules to begin with. *Those rules did eventually get written, but not until much, much later*.


Sounds like an excellent pedagogical approach! And even when the rules were written, they weren't written to cover the era of K. 545, when recaps beginning in the subdominant were common enough to, arguably, say the first theme _is_ properly recapitulated. Textbook sonata form, which is primarily a thematic template, works on different principles than classical sonata form in any case.


----------

