# Who do you think started the Romantic Period?



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

I find quite a lot of disagreement as to when the Romantic period started. Here are the years I have found for it and some compositions from those years:

1830 at the late end(Beethoven's 9th symphony and a lot of Chopin's compositions)
1808 a bit earlier(Beethoven's 5th symphony)
1800 in the middle(Beethoven's first symphony)
1790 a bit earlier(Pathetique Sonata, Symphony no. 40)
1770 at the earliest(Fantasia in D minor, K 545)

And you notice how in the parentheses, I have mostly pieces that have an essence of Romanticism with the 1 exception of K 545, the very famous Sonata in C major that most people know by its Kochel number better than they know it by it's titles of Sonata no. 16 in C major and Sonata Facile.

Overall, most people say that Beethoven ushered in the Romantic period, what with all those innovations he made to the genres of the sonata and the symphony. Some argue it wasn't Beethoven who was the revolutionary composer but rather Chopin. I however think a different composer started it and Beethoven and Chopin just made it stick around.






This piece is like proof that certainly Romanticism was around earlier than most people realize. But there is another piece that I think solidly pins down Mozart as the composer that started the Romantic period. That is Symphony no. 40. I mean, in that symphony, Mozart treats the dissonance, not like how Haydn would have treated dissonant harmonies(resolving right away) but more like how Beethoven would come to treat it with the repeated dissonant harmony. He also treats the 3 note starting motif as a foundation for the entire first movement, like how the Fate Motif, which Beethoven used for years before his fifth symphony, would become the foundation of not just the first movement, but all the movements of Symphony no. 5 in C minor.

Another interesting connection between the Fate Motif that Beethoven used as a foundation for Symphony no. 5 and the starting motif of Symphony no. 40 is that they are both built out of descending thirds. But Mozart repeats the lower note whereas Beethoven repeats the higher note. Another difference is how many times the 2 notes are repeated in the 2 motifs.

If Mozart had lived past 35 years of age, who knows what he would have composed? Maybe we would have what basically amounts to a Mozartian version of Beethoven's 5th. Most likely, if Mozart lived past 35 years of age, he would continue down that Romantic vein instead of being about 50/50 Romantic and Classical. What do you think? Do you think that Fantasia in D minor in conjunction with others such as Symphony no 40 is proof that Mozart started the Romantic Period?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Berlioz. The Symphonie Fantastique was the breakthrough piece that had all the hallmarks of Romanticism.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Berlioz or Weber (Der Freischutz)


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Berlioz, Carl Maria von Weber, and Schubert were crucial here. Mozart was one of the most important forerunners, as was Beethoven, but both are strictly Classical to me. Berlioz codified the Romantic symphony, and kind of ended 100 years of Germanic dominance in music to pave the way for the more diverse nature of the Romantic era. Weber wrote the book on German Romantic opera: different though their styles were, I don't think we would have had a Wagner without Weber. And Schubert elevated the genre that would become THE quintessential Romantic form, the Lied, in a way similar to what Beethoven did for the symphony and piano sonata, and what Mozart did for the concerto and even opera. 

Of course, Beethoven was a major influence on just about everyone for over a century after his death. But of his own music, there is very little I would describe as truly Romantic. This is just my personal opinion.

The first completely Romantic composers (ie. beyond the transitional phase from the Classical) were Berlioz and Schumann. Of those I mentioned, Berlioz probably has the strongest claim, but no one really "started" the Romantic period.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nobody started it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Nobody started it.


Woodduck is correct.

As a former literature professor I conveniently note that the Romantic Period began with the publication of English poet William Wordsworth's poetry collection _Lyrical Ballads_, in 1798. Of course, I know this is only a convenient note to give students some sense of a center, another "fact" to add to notes (so that they know we are done reading that boring old 18th century poetry). _Lyrical Ballads_ appeared in England at the same time as Beethoven in Germany was writing his First Symphony. Wordsworth and Beethoven were both born in 1770.
In 1770 both the Spanish painter Goya and the English symbolist poet/painter William Blake were already establishing their reputations. Each is in context often called "the father of Romanticism." Indeed, Romanticism wasn't invented by a single mind. Rather it grew out of cultural attitudes that swept through Europe prior to the 1800s reacting against various forces and movements, such as the Enlightenment. Interestingly enough, Haydn, well before any "Romantic" composer, wrote a series of what we call today _Sturm und Drang_ symphonies. The _Sturm und Drang_ movement swept through Germany (and under other names, Europe) propelled by the artistic works of many original thinkers, such as Goethe and Schiller. The pre-Romantic "graveyard poets" of late 18th century England reflected Romantic ideals years before Wordsworth published his _Ballads_. One notes that funeral marches weigh heavily in what we today term Romantic music. (Think Beethoven's Third Symphony, for one great example. There are many.)

Interesting, too, is that Romanticism incorporates ideas of the past -- exoticism, appreciation of things Greek and Roman (which, oddly, seem the epitome of "classicism"), personal freedom and governmental democracy, and celebration of Nature, among others. What "Romanticism" _is_ remains a fuzzy thing, even today. It has no exactness as far as date or personage. Even later Romantic artists relied upon what we would call "classical" techniques and expressions in their work. That stuff never completely disappeared, just as atonalism and modern music did not kill off "romantic" techniques and expressions.

This era of art proves historically interesting, no doubt. Still, you needn't have read my post at all to understand the reality. Just read what Woodduck wrote.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

caters said:


> This piece is like proof that certainly Romanticism was around earlier than most people realize...
> 
> Do you think that Fantasia in D minor in conjunction with others such as Symphony no 40 is proof that Mozart started the Romantic Period?


Romanticism can't be reduced to specific sounds or gestures that suggest "romanticism" to you. If you try, you'll find suggestively "romantic" works going all the way back to the Renaissance. Mozart's fantasias belong to a genre that's persisted from the 16th to the 20th centuries. A fantasia is a free-form piece that's supposed to have the quality of an improvisation. Chromatic harmonies, wild scale passages, sudden accents - all are characteristic of keyboard fantasias, and none are new with Mozart. Mozart's piece isn't even all that free, being full of typical Classical symmetries.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Beethoven's Eroica Symphony is considered a major landmark. I would go back to say Mozart's K. 466.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> Romanticism wasn't invented by a single mind. Rather it grew out of cultural attitudes that swept through Europe prior to the 1800s reacting against various forces and movements, such as the Enlightenment.


If we look at "Romanticism" as an "idea" from the inside, rather than a chronological label added later for historical reasons, then it was a meme that did it.

(WIK) _A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture-often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme.

A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.
Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. 
Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.
_
So it's possible that Mozart's Fantasias, as models, may be responsible in some archetypal way for contributing to the "meme pool" of Romanticism (as an idea) by, as noted above, inheritance, or by influencing later composers as models.

I find this "transmission of ideas" theory to be much more fascinating than an accurate response to a question which is essentially one-dimensional, chronological, and "tied to history." So the OP's perception of Mozart as being the progenitor of Romanticism cannot be dismissed entirely, if we consider Romanticism as an "idea" or aesthetic response, rather than simply as a chronological tag.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> If we look at "Romanticism" as an "idea" from the inside, rather than a chronological label added later for historical reasons, then it was a meme that did it.
> 
> It's possible that Mozart's Fantasias, as models, may be responsible in some archetypal way for contributing to the "meme pool" of Romanticism (as an idea) by, as noted above, inheritance, or by influencing later composers as models.
> 
> I find this "transmission of ideas" theory to be much more fascinating than an accurate response to a question which is essentially one-dimensional, chronological, and "tied to history." So the OP's perception of Mozart as being the progenitor of Romanticism cannot be dismissed entirely, if we consider Romanticism as an "idea" or aesthetic response, rather than simply as a chronological tag.


If you think you're looking at Romanticism from the "inside," you might try to say what you see there that those looking from the "outside" don't see.

I would say that since we are all living more than a century after Romanticism expired as a movement, we are all necessarily looking at it from the outside. The OP, for instance, is defining certain musical sounds and devices, which he thinks resemble those found in music of the Romantic era, as examples of Romanticism. Did Mozart's contemporaries, who were on the inside of what was happening then, define his music that way? And supposing they did call his fantasia "Romantic," must we do so? I would say no.

We can't divorce our idea of what's "Romantic" from the full context of what we know about history. Pulling the term away from its historical moorings and turning it into a "meme" that might crop up in any time and place is just a bit of mental jujitsu, wherein we rely upon our understanding of the historical phenomenon of Romanticism in order to spot imagined Romantic "memes" elsewhere in history. Why isn't it sufficient to note, as we have always noted, that some music composed earlier or later than the Romantic period exhibits traits which either resemble elements of Romantic music or serve aesthetic goals which in that period were prominent or defining? Surely we learn what we need to know about those traits by describing them specifically - and, once we've done so, no further purpose is served by saddling them with a "meme."

I once read an essay which tried to describe the history of music in terms of baroque, classical and romantic sensibilities and aesthetic approaches. It was a well-thought-out essay, but in the end I had to ask: why? The only answer I could come up with was: because its fun to put things in categories. It's fun to play around with "memes," but it's apt to be deceptive and leave us awash in vague generalizations if we take memes as real things and fail to analyze closely the things we're subsuming under them.

I always thought we managed perfectly well without the word "meme." Maybe I'm just showing my age.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Agree in part about Memes. 
But can you honestly say that Beethoven did not have many sons, who were just as great as he?
Beethoven had many sons and grandsons. This is meme without equal. 
Whereas Mozart had no sons. 
I think categorization works up to a point.
Modern classical era, begins with Wagner's gorgeous episodes spread through his finest operas.

Parsifal Overture written 1882. 
The young Debussy and Ravel upon hearing the overture to Parsifal, did not sleep for one entire week. 
This was the beginning of the modern classical period, There are points of referece as for the modern period, Yet as you correctly point out, the ,,,wait also for the baroque there is a dull /vagueish start point, but even a finer end point of that era, The classical, romantic periods can not be clearly demarcated.
Here is the 1st music of the Modern Classical Epoch.
Which ended with 3/4/5 great late 20Th C composers.

There are such things as beginnings/endings. Its not as nebulous as you may think


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I did. Just take my word for it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If you think you're looking at Romanticism from the "inside," you might try to say what you see there that those looking from the "outside" don't see.


I just think you & Sonnet CLV turned what was initially an interesting OP idea into an academic "sixty questions" topic.



> I would say that since we are all living more than a century after Romanticism expired as a movement, we are all necessarily looking at it from the outside. The OP, for instance, is defining certain musical sounds and devices, which he thinks resemble those found in music of the Romantic era, as examples of Romanticism. Did Mozart's contemporaries, who were on the inside of what was happening then, define his music that way? And supposing they did call his fantasia "Romantic," must we do so? I would say no.


Still, I think the OP's was an interesting idea, and a better vehicle for discussion, than whatever it is you are trying to say. Even Phil loves classical tried to get on board in his post #8, and before that, Flamencosketches was playing along, with his "predecessors" list, until he said "Of those I mentioned, Berlioz probably has the strongest claim, but no one really "started" the Romantic period." So at least he gets kudos for playing along with the rest of us.



> We can't divorce our idea of what's "Romantic" from the full context of what we know about history. Pulling the term away from its historical moorings and turning it into a "meme" that might crop up in any time and place is just a bit of mental jujitsu, wherein we rely upon our understanding of the historical phenomenon of Romanticism in order to spot imagined Romantic "memes" elsewhere in history. Why isn't it sufficient to note, as we have always noted, that some music composed earlier or later than the Romantic period exhibits traits which either resemble elements of Romantic music or serve aesthetic goals which in that period were prominent or defining? Surely we learn what we need to know about those traits by describing them specifically - and, once we've done so, no further purpose is served by saddling them with a "meme."


I somehow knew that this would turn into a history class. So the converse of that is: the OP who posted this thread idea without following those criteria is somehow deficient, according to you? That's what I'm getting from it.



> I once read an essay which tried to describe the history of music in terms of baroque, classical and romantic sensibilities and aesthetic approaches. It was a well-thought-out essay, but in the end I had to ask: why? The only answer I could come up with was: because its fun to put things in categories. It's fun to play around with "memes," but it's apt to be deceptive and leave us awash in vague generalizations if we take memes as real things and fail to analyze closely the things we're subsuming under them.


Good luck to anyone who tries to have "fun" in the twenty-first century.



> I always thought we managed perfectly well without the word "meme." Maybe I'm just showing my age.


I don't care if you call them memes or not, whatever it was we were trying to talk about. 
So, the conclusion is? 
Do you think this thread idea is flawed because it is too playful and full of vague generalizations? If this had been my thread, I'd be upset that it got invalidated by historians.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> Agree in part about Memes.
> But can you honestly say that Beethoven did not have many sons, who were just as great as he?
> Beethoven had many sons and grandsons. This is meme without equal.
> Whereas Mozart had no sons.
> ...


Recall that Debussy, in 1903, said that Wagner was a beautiful sunset that was mistaken for a dawn.


----------



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

paulbest said:


> Agree in part about Memes.
> But can you honestly say that Beethoven did not have many sons, who were just as great as he?
> Beethoven had many sons and grandsons. This is meme without equal.
> Whereas Mozart had no sons.
> ...


Mozart actually did have 2 surviving sons out of 6 children(what a coincidence, Mozart's parents also had 6 children). His youngesy surviving son even became a composer. That composer son is Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart, sometimes referred to as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Jr.

Here is one of Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart's piano concertos:






The other surviving son is Karl Thomas Mozart. He didn't become a composer. Neither of Mozart's sons married and so the direct Mozart bloodline died with Mozart's sons.

Here is a picture of Mozart's 2 surviving sons:


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Recall that Debussy, in 1903, said that Wagner was a beautiful sunset that was mistaken for a dawn.


And what does Debussy imply here?
many things I am sure, one possible interpretation may be, there was Wagner and no one will meme his genius. 
Parsifal Overture made all the colors of classical up to that time, fade and lose much of its charms. 
Beethoven syms just did not seem all that important after Parsifal.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

caters said:


> Mozart actually did have 2 surviving sons out of 6 children(what a coincidence, Mozart's parents also had 6 children). His eldest surviving son even became a composer. That composer son is Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart, sometimes referred to as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Jr.
> 
> Here is one of Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart's piano concertos:
> 
> ...


I should have , obviously, placed sons in *Sons* quotes.
Not meaning actual sons, figurative sons.

I just listen again to tiny points , a few seconds here , a few there,,,no doubt about it, suspicions confirmed, Brahms was indeed Beethoven's greatest *Son*, his 1st born. Brahms would smile with glee at that comment.
Then we have his countless other *sons* , Schubert, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, and many others.
I thought for a moment Brahms made some clear break from Beethoven. Wishful thinking.

No, Wagner was the 1st modern, there are at times a specific point in history where something begins and something ends. But not in the baroque/classical/romantic eras. These were times of melding, like a gumbo soup. 
The New Modern initiated with Parsifal. 
Debussy knew it, as did Ravel, this was a new world of possibilities. Debussy followed up with Prelude. 
1899


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

How about John Field, 1820s-30s?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I agree with Woodduck. I've noticed people (on youtube and other places) tend to call anything in Bach, Mozart, Haydn that sounds good to them, "Romantic". The terms have been very overused and misused in many instances in my view. There are just too many exceptions that go against the stereotypical generalizations made by academics. 
I'll just put it simply Mozart inspired 19th period composers, as well as 20th century composers, 



 but he didn't necessarily write 19th century or 20th century style music. Going any further than this to argue whether Mozart was Romantic or not seems like "obsession with sementics" to me.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ETA Hoffmann makes a case that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were all "romantic" composers, as he uses the word. I suspect he might hold to the same view today. He writes: "It is certainly not merely an improvement in the means of expression (perfection of instruments, greater virtuosity of players), but also a deeper awareness of the peculiar nature of music, that has enabled great composers to raise instrumental music to its present level."

He then says why he considers each of the three a "romantic" composer. *His piece* was written in 1810.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> And what does Debussy imply here?
> many things I am sure, one possible interpretation may be, there was Wagner and no one will meme his genius.
> Parsifal Overture made all the colors of classical up to that time, fade and lose much of its charms.
> Beethoven syms just did not seem all that important after Parsifal.


Why are you stuck on _Parsifal?_ It doesn't go beyond _Tristan_ in its departure from Classical ideas of form, despite taking chromatic subtlety a bit farther in a few places. Structurally it incorporates more traditional elements than _Tristan,_ which was composed much earlier, in 1859. If you have to choose an inflection point for music in the 19th century, that's the most logical one. _Parsifal,_ with its admixture of chorales, counterpoint, and diatonicism, is more a summation of the Western tradition than a prophecy of Modernism. Don't let its sensuality fool you. Debussy, despite his enchantment with its orchestration, understood this very well.

Just as Debussy disagreed with you about Wagner, Wagner disagreed with you about Beethoven, and he hoped to go back to the fountainhead at the end of his life and write symphonies. Death intervened.

I'm sorry that you're tired of Beethoven and his "sons." It's a misfortune to be tired of the Western Classical tradition, the centuries-long tradition of tonal music and the magnificent, eloquent forms it spawned.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I just think you & Sonnet CLV turned what was initially an interesting OP idea into an academic "sixty questions" topic.


Um...What?



> Still, I think the OP's was an interesting idea, and a better vehicle for discussion, than whatever it is you are trying to say.


I said what I was "trying to say" with impeccable clarity. I know clarity isn't your forte. It's too "rationalist" for you.



> Even Phil loves classical tried to get on board in his post #8, and before that, Flamencosketches was playing along, with his "predecessors" list, until he said "Of those I mentioned, Berlioz probably has the strongest claim, but no one really "started" the Romantic period." So at least he gets kudos for playing along with the rest of us.


Your "rest of us" doesn't include some of us.



> I somehow knew that this would turn into a history class.


So why sign up for the course? Sonnet CLV and I have both made the point that Romanticism can't be meaningfully discussed outside of its historical context. Disagree if you wish, but please don't whinge.



> So the converse of that is: the OP who posted this thread idea without following those criteria is somehow deficient, according to you? That's what I'm getting from it.


You said that, I didn't. It didn't occur to me that anyone was "deficient."



> I don't care if you call them memes or not, whatever it was we were trying to talk about.


Call _what_ memes? What _do_ you think we're talking about?



> So, the conclusion is?


Must we reach a conclusion?



> Do you think this thread idea is flawed because it is too playful and full of vague generalizations? If this had been my thread, I'd be upset that it got invalidated by historians.


What I think should be very clear from my posts. You seem to be the only one baffled by it. And so, as usual, you're accusing me of "invalidating" something or someone.

I'll be concise: I don't think Mozart started the Romantic period, I don't think anyone did, I think Romanticism was a specific historical development in Western thought and sensibility, and I think it's potentially misleading to turn the idea of "romanticism" into a "meme" divorced from that context. I could elaborate on this further, but you wouldn't like it, so I'll spare myself the backlash.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You just don't get it, do you, Woodduck? The OP and thread question are flawed, but I still know what he (caters) was trying to get at, by his use of the Mozart fantasia example. He was questioning where the Romantic "aesthetic idea" came from, and how it could be traced. I see it as a _fun_ question, and valid, even if you see it as too general. Then, you barged in and started dictating all your criteria as to why this is incorrect.
You're a control freak, pure and simple. I guess you don't realize this about yourself yet.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> You just don't get it, do you, WD?


I hope not. I'd rather discuss what Romanticism actually is.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I hope not. I'd rather discuss what Romanticism actually is.


Instead of having the grace to step back and let the thread play out? Nah, you wouldn't do that, because you've got to be _right,_ and have things done a certain way. It's your way or the highway.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The real answer to the thread title question is Napoleon Bonaparte.

https://art109textbook.wordpress.com/new-online-textbook-2-2/romanticism/napoleon-bonaparte/


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

James MacPherson, 1762, _Ossian_, and Horace Walpole, 1764, _The Castle of Otranto_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> The real answer to the thread title question is Napoleon Bonaparte.
> 
> https://art109textbook.wordpress.com/new-online-textbook-2-2/romanticism/napoleon-bonaparte/


Ha haa, that was funny before I saw the link, but I dare not say why! BTW, in light of what has been dictated, your post is incorrect, since you mentioned Mozart.:


Phil loves classical said:


> Beethoven's Eroica Symphony is considered a major landmark. I would go back to say Mozart's K. 466.


I guess the allure of "The Romantic Idea, Not The Historical Period" was too much for you to resist! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Instead of having the grace to step back and let the thread play out? Nah, you wouldn't do that, because you've got to be _right,_ and have things done a certain way. It's your way or the highway.


I don't care how you "do things." But if you're going to put ideas into the public forum, others will respond to them with their own views, and it isn't up to them to "step back and let the thread play out" as you think it should. The adage about the heat and the kitchen applies.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

My gut says Beethoven, but I am open to alternative theories.

As far as defining Romanticism, I think Wikipedia is workable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

I find this documentary to shed a lot of light on the times Beethoven was responding to:





I think my inclination would be to talk about the music as responding to and shaping the times. Just as much of the Modern period was a response to the great wars, Romanticism was a response to the industrial revolution and the rise of individualism. Beethoven strikes me in much the same way: in the "revolutionary anthem" way (a la the 5th), the "glorification of nature" way (a la the 6th), the "focus on interior emotional states" way, as well as the "change the world through love and reason" way (a la the 9th).

But of course there is also the question of whether anyone "starts" a period, or if the period is an analytic rubric applied after the fact. There are some movements in which the participants used the name and considered themselves a part of it (e.g. the Bauhaus movement). Is Romanticism that? Would Beethoven have used the term? Probably not.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2019)

Schubert straddled both the classical and romantic periods so I nominate Schubert. While his late sonatas show a reverence for Beethoven and were influenced by him, Schubert by then had largely discarded motivic developments - so emblematic of classicism - and opted for singular melody lines which flowed and which weakened sonata form because the opportunity to build on those smaller 'blocks' of music were rendered more problematic. Schumann understood that nexus between sonata form and motivic development but his Sonatas aren't particularly effective, despite their charm, ingenuity and beauty. Those smaller musical 'chunks' are a feature of the late renaissance and were extremely useful in continental Europe and the UK. Study the sacred works of William Byrd and you'll see them right there. Beethoven obviously studied this and the imitative counterpoint of Bach - something again quite different.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I don't care how you "do things." But if you're going to put ideas into the public forum, others will respond to them with their own views, and it isn't up to them to "step back and let the thread play out" as you think it should. The adage about the heat and the kitchen applies.


Okay, tuff guy. I'm just suggesting that you tone down the control-freak stuff.
But now, ha ha, see? It's turned into a fun thread, with people nominating who they think "started Romanticism." 
That's because they're "people persons," Woodduck, not cold, objective historians.

I nominate Hildegard von Bingen. :lol:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The idea that anyone started it is rather ludicrous.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> My gut says Beethoven, but I am open to alternative theories.
> 
> As far as defining Romanticism, I think Wikipedia is workable:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
> ...


I don't know whether Beethoven ever used the term "romantic," but it was current in his lifetime; it wasn't applied by historians after the fact. Apparently it was fashionable even in Haydn's and Mozart's time to apply the word to things - poems, landscapes, architecture - that appealed to the senses and the imagination.

As KenOC mentions above, E.T.A. Hoffmann called all three of the major "Classical" composers "romantic," which just goes to show how the changing perspective of history alters our sense of what music is "about," and thus determines what we call it. Hoffman wrote that music "is the most romantic of all arts, one might almost say the only one that is genuinely romantic, since its only subject-matter is infinity. Music reveals to man an unknown realm, a world quite separate from the outer sensual world surrounding him, a world in which he leaves behind all precise feelings in order to embrace an inexpressible longing...Mozart and Haydn, the creators of modern instrumental music, first showed us the art in its full glory; but the one who regarded it with total devotion and penetrated to its innermost nature is Beethoven."

Hoffmann was writing in 1810, and was of course fully possessed of the new Romantic sensibility, with its emphasis on the personal, intangible, indefinable and illimitable aspects of human psychic experience. Today we see a distinction to be made between Romanticism and Classicism in music, with Beethoven as a sort of bridge and Haydn and Mozart as occasional foreshadowers. But we could also look back slightly farther to C.P.E. Bach, whom Beethoven studied and must have admired for his freewheeling, highly personal sense of form and expression.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ...Today we see a distinction to be made between Romanticism and Classicism in music, with Beethoven as a sort of bridge and Haydn and Mozart as occasional foreshadowers. But we could also look back slightly farther to C.P.E. Bach, whom Beethoven studied and must have admired for his freewheeling, highly personal sense of form and expression.


Sebastian Bach signed off his music with letters SDG -- _Soli Deo Gloria_ -- For the Glory of God Alone. But his son CPE wrote in _empfindsam stil_, or _tender style_, intended to express "true and natural" feelings. So with the passing of the baroque era, music ceased to be about God and became about man. And it has remained that way to the current day.

Which is to say, it might not be unreasonable to consider the "classical" era in music as merely the first phase of romanticism.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Sebastian Bach signed off his music with letters SDG -- _Soli Deo Gloria_ -- For the Glory of God Alone. But his son CPE wrote in _empfindsam stil_, or _tender style_, intended to express "true and natural" feelings. So with the passing of the baroque era, music ceased to be about God and became about man. And it has remained that way to the current day.
> 
> Which is to say, it might not be unreasonable to consider the "classical" era in music as merely the first phase of romanticism.


...or Romanticism the second phase of Modernism, or...


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I always thought we managed perfectly well without the word "meme."


Exactly what Romanticism is about, the word meme must have been invented back then!



Woodduck said:


> Maybe I'm just showing my age.


Yes, but it's not all about youyou.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2019)

Becca said:


> The idea that anyone started it is rather ludicrous.


Take the rest of the week off!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Becca said:


> The idea that anyone started it is rather ludicrous.


No, not ludicrous. This thread was started on an obviously false premise. Look at the question: _What composer do you think started the Romantic Period? _Are you kidding me?
Unfortunately, this was obscured by the "poll" format, which was really the "bait" that drew most responders in, and it could have been you, as well.
This thread was was started as an "educational" device, so Woodduck and his assistant could come in and correct everybody. They work as mods, so this is apparently what the powers that be (who are also educators) want this forum to be. 
Woodduck gets particularly irritated with me, because I'm a lateral thinker who has learned mostly outside academia, especially about more modern music. It's his job to keep things "in line" from a music theory point of view, the same way Big Shot oversees the Hi-Fi subforum. That means "keep Wagner tonal" and generally keep modern approaches out.

As far as the ludicrous idea, several people fell for it because of the poll and game-like nature. At least flamenco had the foresight to call it out, at the end of his post.

It's also unfortunate that ostensible intent of the OP (caters) was undermined, because this could have been a successful thread about "the Romantic idea" and which composer you think was a big contributor. Maybe it still will. 
Ah, but was the OP a part of this deception? Maybe not literally, but see the way things have turned out?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

My vote for the beginnings of musical Romanticism goes to Mozart and the first movement of the C minor piano concerto, No. 24, K 491. Beethoven loved it, as did Brahms, who echoed it in his first piano concerto.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._24_(Mozart)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Sebastian Bach signed off his music with letters SDG -- _Soli Deo Gloria_ -- For the Glory of God Alone. But his son CPE wrote in _empfindsam stil_, or _tender style_, intended to express "true and natural" feelings. So with the passing of the baroque era, music ceased to be about God and became about man. And it has remained that way to the current day.
> 
> Which is to say, it might not be unreasonable to consider the "classical" era in music as merely the first phase of romanticism.


But remember, as Woodduck said, you're not supposed to apply anything to music or musicians; it's just a chronological term. Pure history. And this stuff about God and Man is _way_ too general.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Of course nobody 'started' Romanticism as such labels are used retrospectively. But leaving that aside I would say Romanticism in music really started off with *Beethoven *(although Beethoven started as a Classical composer and although Haydn and Mozart wrote some Sturm und Drang works which movement anticipated the Romantic era).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Exactly what Romanticism is about, the word meme must have been invented back then!
> Yes, but it's not all about youyou.


The idea of "meme" has been applied to past history to show how an idea can grow and dominate even the most powerful existing ideas. Christianity is used as a prime example, and how it spread and superseded the Roman empire. But you probably don't want to hear about that.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> The idea of "meme" has been applied to past history to show how an idea can grow and dominate even the most powerful existing ideas. Christianity is used as a prime example, and how it spread and superseded the Roman empire. But you probably don't want to hear about that.


I was just cracking a joke, that's all. But you probably...

Never mind.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Agamemnon said:


> Of course nobody 'started' Romanticism as such labels are used retrospectively. *But leaving that aside* I would say Romanticism in music really started off with Beethoven (although Beethoven started as a Classical composer and although Haydn and Mozart wrote some Sturm und Drang works which movement anticipated the Romantic era).


And that is exactly why this thread may live after all. People seem to like the idea of associating Composers or writers or any kind of human with Romanticism. Otherwise, what's the point?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Beethoven's Third Symphony, 1803, is generally credited as the first romantic symphony kicking off the romantic 19th century.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I was just cracking a joke, that's all. But you probably...
> 
> Never mind.


You were just cracking a joke about a subject I brought up about memes, which has already been dismissed. So, never mind.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> You were just cracking a joke about a subject I brought up about memes, which has already been dismissed. So, never mind.


You'll note I was commenting on Woodduck's post, not yours.

It's not all about youyou either!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> You'll note I was commenting on Woodduck's post, not yours.
> 
> It's not all about youyou either!


You want me to stop butting in to your private conversations? :lol:

I still vote for Hildegard von Bingen.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> *You just don't get it, do you, Woodduck?* The OP and thread question are flawed, but I still know what he (caters) was trying to get at...Then, you barged in and started dictating all your criteria as to why this is incorrect.
> *You're a control freak, pure and simple. I guess you don't realize this about yourself yet.*





> *Instead of having the grace to step back and let the thread play out? Nah, you wouldn't do that,* because you've got to be right, and have things done a certain way. It's your way or the highway.





> But now, ha ha, see? It's turned into a fun thread, with people nominating who they think "started Romanticism."
> That's because *they're "people persons," **Woodduck**, not cold, objective historians.*





> This thread was started on an obviously false premise. Look at the question: What composer do you think started the Romantic Period? Are you kidding me? This thread was was started as an "educational" device, so *Woodduck and his assistant* *could come in and correct everybody.* They work as mods, so this is apparently what the powers that be (who are also educators) want this forum to be.
> 
> *Woodduck* gets particularly irritated with me, because I'm a lateral thinker who has learned mostly outside academia, especially about more modern music. *It's his job to keep things "in line" *from a music theory point of view, the same way Big Shot oversees the Hi-Fi subforum. That means "keep Wagner tonal" and generally keep modern approaches out.





> *But remember, as Woodduck said...* [blah blah blah]


Was there anything you wanted to say about Romanticism? Or did you just want to make up nonsense about other members who actually do have something to say about it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Was there anything you wanted to say about Romanticism? Or did you just want to make up nonsense about other members who actually do have something to say about it?


I'm critiquing the way the thread idea has been squeezed out of existence.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Beethoven was not a melodist, but a vertical thinker. His ideas had to happen quickly, as close to "in the moment" as possible. That's why most start out as "cells" or motives.
Vertical thinkers are more about being in the moment than they are about creating a long narrative.

Since music could no longer focus outward, into an objective space which included God - this space was now taken over by Enlightenment, reason, science, and secular concerns. Music, which had been essentially a religious endeavor, no longer had an outward space to fill, so it had to be taken "inward" so it could live. New function in response to Man's changing relation to the world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm critiquing the way the thread idea has been squeezed out of existence.


Don't pee on our legs and tell us its raining.

The thread is not "out of existence," and the maker of the thread has not complained that his "thread idea" has been "squeezed" anywhere. What you're actually doing is berating and misrepresenting members whose angle on the subject doesn't match yours and who are refusing to flatter your "lateral thinking" as you feel it deserves.

This is adolescent behavior. Stop complaining that you're not getting your due, stop telling us what the "thread idea" is as if we have no right to decide that for ourselves, stop telling us what you think other members believe and should do, stop using my name, and try saying something that someone could actually benefit from hearing. This is a music forum, not a sandbox.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Don't pee on our legs and tell us its raining.
> 
> The thread is not "out of existence," and the maker of the thread has not complained that his "thread idea" has been "squeezed" anywhere. What you're actually doing is berating and misrepresenting members whose angle on the subject doesn't match yours and who are refusing to flatter your "lateral thinking" as you feel it deserves.


I respect the OP's idea more, and considered it valid, if flawed, and think it deserves some measure of respect. If I "berate the beraters," that's somewhat different context than simple beration. People always try to conflate those, and take things out of context.



> This is adolescent behavior. Stop complaining that you're not getting your due, stop telling us what the "thread idea" is as if we have no right to decide that for ourselves, stop telling us what you think other members believe and should do, stop using my name, and try saying something that someone could actually benefit from hearing. This is a music forum, not a sandbox.


I'm just critiquing the way this thread has been handled, that's all. It seems that there have already been attempts to dominate and control the proceedings, and I am just protesting that. 
If anything, I do not want to try to 'control' anyone here, or tell anyone what the thread idea should be, which is impossible anyway. I merely pointed some things out.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just critiquing the way this thread has been handled, that's all. It seems that there have already been attempts to dominate and control the proceedings, and I am just protesting that.


When one points the finger at others, there are 4 fingers pointing back at you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> When one points the finger at others, there are 4 fingers pointing back at you.


The initial "predation" occurred before I arrived, and I pointed it out from a sense of fairness, not of accusation.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> When one points the finger at others, there are 4 fingers pointing back at you.


That's precisely why I always use the hand that got caught in the wood chipper.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven was not a melodist, but a vertical thinker. His ideas had to happen quickly, as close to "in the moment" as possible...


What would you call the openings of these 3 works if not fleshed out melodies (I could have added several more)? (It's not my intention to go off-topic, but I couldn't let this pass.)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> That's precisely why I always use the hand that got caught in the wood chipper.


Was your index finger somehow spared?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> That's precisely why I always use the hand that got caught in the wood chipper.


That must have put an end to your wood-chipping career.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> What would you call the openings of these 3 works if not fleshed out melodies (I could have added several more)? (It's not my intention to go off-topic, but I couldn't let this pass.)


I was speaking generally, as Bernstein did about the Sixth. I generally see Beethoven as a harmonic thinker, rather than a contrapuntalist. He couldn't write a fugue like Bach could. Notice that those works are all early opus numbers, too. He owed a great deal to Mozart in the early works, sometimes on the radio I hear early Beethoven and think it IS Mozart.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Was your index finger somehow spared?


From what I can tell from my perspective, only his middle finger survived.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Was your index finger somehow spared?


Naw, that's not the finger I use these days.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Naw, that's not the finger I use these days.


Ha haa! Totally sanctioned by the powers, no doubt! (I corrected mine)...and if you'd posted it a few seconds earlier, it would have been perfect!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven was not a melodist, but a vertical thinker. His ideas had to happen quickly, as close to "in the moment" as possible. That's why most start out as "cells" or motives.
> Vertical thinkers are more about being in the moment than they are about creating a long narrative.


All of these generalizations about Beethoven are untenable. Beethoven created the longest narrative structures in instrumental music at that point in history, and was the greatest exponent of cyclic structure of his era. Beethoven was an excellent and versatile melodist. There is no relation between vertical thinking and creating melodies from cells.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> All of these generalizations about Beethoven are untenable. Beethoven created the longest narrative structures in instrumental music at that point in history. He virtually invented cyclic structure in its modern sense and was the greatest exponent of it. Beethoven was a an excellent and versatile melodist.


Okay, but check out the Bernstein video on the other "How Beethoven Ruined Music" thread. That's the same thing Bernstein is saying. I remember the first time it got posted, and people disagreed with it back then.

I respect Bernstein too much to argue with him.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven was not a melodist, but a vertical thinker. His ideas had to happen quickly, as close to "in the moment" as possible. That's why most start out as "cells" or motives.
> Vertical thinkers are more about being in the moment than they are about creating a long narrative.


Are we listening to the same composer? To my mind there was no greater master of the long narrative than Beethoven. His musical cells are the "characters" whom he subjects to adventures of unprecedented scope. His example inspired the extended dramas/narratives of many Romantics; Brahms, Wagner and Sibelius, favorite "narrators" of mine, come immediately to mind.

EDIT: Damn that EdwardBast. He always gets to where I'm going faster than I do. :tiphat:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> I should have , obviously, placed sons in *Sons* quotes.
> *Not meaning actual sons, figurative sons. *
> 
> I just listen again to tiny points , a few seconds here , a few there,,,no doubt about it, suspicions confirmed, Brahms was indeed Beethoven's greatest *Son*, his 1st born. Brahms would smile with glee at that comment.
> ...


I understood your meaning - it made me smile though because of course Mozart had many sons and Beethoven had none.

what about Schubert? It has been said that Schubert felt more of a connection with Mozart than Beethoven and his music is said to reflect this.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, but check out the Bernstein video on the other "How Beethoven Ruined Music" thread. That's the same thing Bernstein is saying. I remember the first time it got posted, and people disagreed with it back then.
> 
> I respect Bernstein too much to argue with him.


Watch this from beginning to end and then you'll have far less compunction about arguing with Bernstein...

And yes this title shot is absolutely hideous but don't let that stop you from watching although it is quite long at nearly 25 minutes...

*Defending Beethoven - *


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> My vote for the beginnings of musical Romanticism goes to Mozart and the first movement of the C minor piano concerto, No. 24, K 491. Beethoven loved it, as did Brahms, who echoed it in his first piano concerto.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._24_(Mozart)


Its interesting that Beethoven played the 2 minor key concerti as a soloist but seems to have disregarded the great major key works.
But Mozart never strayed for long from the path of the major key. 
No he did not start the romantic era - though some of his works would not sound out of place there.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Are we listening to the same composer? To my mind there was no greater master of the long narrative than Beethoven. His musical cells are the "characters" whom he subjects to adventures of unprecedented scope. His example inspired the extended dramas/narratives of many Romantics; Brahms, Wagner and Sibelius, favorite "narrators" of mine, come immediately to mind.
> 
> EDIT: Damn that EdwardBast. He always gets to where I'm going faster than I do.


When I said _Vertical thinkers are more about being in the moment than they are about creating a long narrative, _I didn't exclude either one. In the Ninth, I hear all those transitions as being harmonic, only outlining melody with the top notes of the chords. But that's just the way it appears to me, I'm not trying to invalidate your views on Beethoven. 
What's EdwardBast gonna do to me?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mollie, thanks for posting the videos. Yes, Bernstein's being ridiculous, playing a cheap rhetorical game. He published his comments later, much toned down. He should just have deep-sixed the whole segment.

The response, _Defending Beethoven _(as if he needed it), is well done.​


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, but check out the Bernstein video on the other "How Beethoven Ruined Music" thread. That's the same thing Bernstein is saying. I remember the first time it got posted, and people disagreed with it back then.
> 
> I respect Bernstein too much to argue with him.


Bernstein doesn't say a single one of the things you wrote so I'm not sure why you are citing that video.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Its interesting that Beethoven played the 2 minor key concerti as a soloist but seems to have disregarded the great major key works.
> But Mozart never strayed for long from the path of the major key.
> No he did not start the romantic era - though some of his works would not sound out of place there.


Odd that Beethoven (and most of the 19th century in general) seemed to value Mozart's minor-key works more highly that the others. But Beethoven's own works are still largely in major keys. Only one of his piano concertos -- in fact, of all his concertos -- is in a minor key. And only two of his 9 symphonies. Without adding them up, I suspect the same sort of thing is true of his string quartets and piano sonatas...

Added: Less than 30% of LvB's quartets and piano sonatas are in minor keys.​


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

@Molie john, I watched the whole video. I don't enjoy these kinds of point-by-point rebuttals, and he is exaggerating quite a bit. I still agree with Bernstein's generalizations.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Bernstein doesn't say a single one of the things you wrote so I'm not sure why you are citing that video.


I wasn't quoting Bernstein; I interpreted him, and you should know that I agree with everything Bernstein said in the video. I think it's a great video. It's about time that someone had the guts to say those things.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I was speaking generally, as Bernstein did about the Sixth. I generally see Beethoven as a harmonic thinker, rather than a contrapuntalist. He couldn't write a fugue like Bach could. Notice that those works are all early opus numbers, too. He owed a great deal to Mozart in the early works, sometimes on the radio I hear early Beethoven and think it IS Mozart.


Of course, they are Beethoven's earlier works, point being that Beethoven filled his earlier works with fleshed out melody (culminating perhaps in the Pathetique when it came to the sonatas) and then, having proven he could come up with melody whenever necessary, he moved on to making a lot out of a little culminating in the sonata #32 Adagietto.

Beethoven's early works are nothing like Mozart and if one knows one's Beethoven, one will never mistake his early works for Mozart. Fr'instance, none of the early sonatas sound like Mozart; for one thing, Beethoven for the most part, dispensed with Mozart's ever-present trills.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Most new creative eras start with a general restlessness and dissatisfaction with the status quo. There's something in the air that starts to demand change and an expanded sense of creative self-expression that eventually affects all the arts and it's not easy to trace the dissatisfaction, to pin it down to just one person in the beginning because it's a change in the general climate. But the energy of that change can only take effect by working through individuals who begin to feel that desire for change and express it. Some would call it a paradigm shift that eventually affects the whole climate of change and progress in society and no one can predict when this evolutionary change is going to happen. But it's going happen and then certain people are going to feel it first and then the arguments start about who it was. I believe that Carl Maria von Weber was one of the firsts because of his interest in the supernatural in his highly imaginative _Der_ _Freischütz_. It was a noticeable departure from classicism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Of course, they are Beethoven's earlier works, point being that Beethoven filled his earlier works with fleshed out melody (culminating perhaps in the Pathetique when it came to the sonatas) and then, having proven he could come up with melody whenever necessary, he moved on to making a lot out of a little culminating in the sonata #32 Adagietto.


I don't think the earlier works are Beethoven at his most developed, an argument hard to dispute.



> Beethoven's early works are nothing like Mozart and if one knows one's Beethoven, one will never mistake his early works for Mozart. Fr'instance, none of the early sonatas sound like Mozart; for one thing, Beethoven for the most part, dispensed with Mozart's ever-present trills.


Trills or no trills, I've got a very good ear, and on the radio I thought I was hearing Mozart. Most Beethoven scholars will tell you the same thing I've been saying.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> Most new creative eras start with a general restlessness and dissatisfaction with the status quo. There's something in the air that starts to demand change and an expanded since of creative self-expression that eventually affects all the arts and it's not easy to trace the dissatisfaction, to pin it down to just one person in the beginning because it's a change in the general climate. But the energy of that change can only take affect by working through individuals who begin to feel that that desire for change and express it. Some would call it a paradigm shift that eventually affects the whole climate of change and progress in society.


It's interesting the way you are hedging your bets. I think most people prefer to think of this in terms of composers and their music, not in historical abstractions.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think the earlier works are Beethoven at his most developed, an argument hard to dispute.


Never said that his early works were the most developed.



DaveM said:


> Beethoven's early works are nothing like Mozart and if one knows one's Beethoven, one will never mistake his early works for Mozart. Fr'instance, none of the early sonatas sound like Mozart; for one thing, Beethoven for the most part, dispensed with Mozart's ever-present trills.





> Trills or no trills, I've got a very good ear, and on the radio I thought I was hearing Mozart. Most Beethoven scholars will tell you the same thing I've been saying.


 I guess I've got a better ear.  
P.S. Would like to see some quotes from 'most' scholars.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Never said that his early works were the most developed.


And I think the melodic aspects owe much to Mozart, and that this feature was not what Beethoven was ultimately after, as evidenced by the Ninth.



> I guess I've got a better ear.


I practically _gave_ you that one!...and I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mollie John said:


> Watch this from beginning to end and then you'll have far less compunction about arguing with Bernstein...
> 
> And yes this title shot is absolutely hideous but don't let that stop you from watching although it is quite long at nearly 25 minutes...
> 
> *Defending Beethoven - *


Excellent takedown, point for point. Like Goss, I respect Bernstein as a musician, but here the musician disappears between the pedant and the showman, and the result is embarrassing. Far from overstating his case, Goss only scratches the surface in the time allotted to the video. His arguments could be expanded, and his examples multiplied many, many times.


----------



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I was speaking generally, as Bernstein did about the Sixth. I generally see Beethoven as a harmonic thinker, rather than a contrapuntalist. He couldn't write a fugue like Bach could. Notice that those works are all early opus numbers, too. He owed a great deal to Mozart in the early works, sometimes on the radio I hear early Beethoven and think it IS Mozart.


I sometimes hear an early Beethoven piece and think "Wait a minute, this sounds like Mozart". There is one piece for which that happens to me all the time. That is, his one and only, Flute Sonata in Bb:






Note not only the happy character of the piece(which is unusual, considering that Beethoven's piano sonatas in general sound pretty dramatic, even the ones in C major), but also the effortless sounding grace of the melody and the frequent use of Alberti bass in every movement as well as the frequent embellished scales, especially in the piano part. Also, he plays tricks on you in this piece. You think the movement is over because you hear a pause on tonic. But then suddenly you hear more music. Mozart himself often deceives you if you just listen for the harmony or if you are a pianist and you see what looks like a simple passage but there is all this nuance behind the simple melody and bass.

This is exactly what I would expect out of a Mozart sonata. In fact, there is 1 Mozart sonata that I often compare this to. It is the very famous K 545 sonata, written in 1788, just 2 years before Beethoven is speculated to have written his Flute Sonata in Bb.

This Flute Sonata is speculated to have been composed in 1790-1792. During those years, Mozart was reaching the end of his career because of illness. Mozart wrote his Prussian quartets in 1790 and he wrote his last piano concerto in 1791, the year that he died. The authorship of this Flute Sonata in Bb is still being speculated on. We don't know for sure that it was Beethoven who composed this flute sonata. But if it was written by Beethoven, then maybe Beethoven was thinking



> I will write this flute sonata to commemorate to people that Mozart has had a profound effect on me as a composer.


And in retrospect, it almost sounds like a peaceful requiem for Mozart if you know what I mean, especially the Largo third movement. Not dramatic like the requiem Mozart starting writing in the last year of his life, but still commemorating Mozart's death. Perhaps Beethoven wrote this in a Mozartian style because he had a personal feeling for Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I would not mistake that flute sonata for Mozart or even say it sounds like him though it obviously is a classical era piece - not a good one in my view - very laboured flute part. Do you know Mozart's flute music? the quartets? The 2 superb concerti?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

stomanek said:


> Its interesting that Beethoven played the 2 minor key concerti as a soloist but seems to have disregarded the great major key works.
> But Mozart never strayed for long from the path of the major key.
> No he did not start the romantic era - though some of his works would not sound out of place there.


I think Mozart's personality was not one that would have been comfortable with Romanticism. I think he stuck his toe in the water only a few times, as in the C minor concerto, and was excited by his own reaction, but realized that both he and his potential audience were not ultimately comfortable with this sort of strangely disturbing music. The classical ecstasies of the Jupiter proved more simpatico to his psyche than the uncertainties suggested by the minor key works.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

After listing all of Beethoven’s shortcomings, Bernstein says it was Beethoven’s “form”. Really? How inspiring. It sounds to me that it was more Beethoven’s sense of conviction behind his music, the drama, the emotional power, and his openness in dealing with tragedy – none of which Bernstein mentions because I think he’s really talking off the top of his head and being careless... Also, some of the Beethoven piano sonatas are melodically memorable, and so is his Violin Concerto, none of which Bernstein mentions, nor Beethoven’s willingness to speak out with great passion, to stand up for his ideals; and his explosiveness was unprecedented and perhaps still is in some ways... He was fearless and his deafness perhaps inspired him to challenge and overcome what fate had dictated for him. I find all of that in his music... I consider his hopeful and sincere interest in the Brotherhood of Man, which suggests humanitarian equality of spirit that is beyond politics and religion, as a Romantic ideal, not a classical one, that made him if not one of the first Romantics in music, then at least one of its most powerful voices - one that influenced much of the 19th century music in the development of Romanticism that eventually come into full bloom with Berlioz, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, and others.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

stomanek said:


> Its interesting that Beethoven played the 2 minor key concerti as a soloist but seems to have disregarded the great major key works.
> But Mozart never strayed for long from the path of the major key.
> No he did not start the romantic era - though some of his works would not sound out of place there.


I wouldn't care that much whether the home key of a piece is in minor or major. 
Even though in many of their pieces, the Classcists had the home keys as major,- they varied, contrasted, balanced a significant section of the music (in development sections, trios, slow movements) through use of minor-keys, as they generally preferred large forms. Examples include Mozart's Divertimento in D major K334, Vesperae Solennes in C K339. Or Franz Anton Hoffmeister's Viola Concerto in D.


----------



## Rubens (Nov 5, 2017)

Ivan Wyschnegradsky


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> After listing all of Beethoven's shortcomings, Bernstein says it was Beethoven's "form". Really? How inspiring. It sounds to me that it was more Beethoven's sense of conviction behind his music, the drama, the emotional power, and his openness in dealing with tragedy - none of which Bernstein mentions because I think he's really talking off the top of his head and being careless... Also, some of the Beethoven piano sonatas are melodically memorable, and so it is his Violin Concerto, none of which Bernstein mentions, nor Beethoven's willingness to speak out with great passion, to stand up for his ideals; and his explosiveness was unprecedented and perhaps still is in some ways... He was fearless and his deafness perhaps inspired him to challenge and overcome what fate had dictated for him. I find all of that in his music... I consider his hopeful and sincere interest in the Brotherhood of Man, which suggests humanitarian equality of spirit that is beyond politics and religion, as a Romantic ideal, not a classical one, that made him, if not one of the first Romantics in music, then at least one of its most powerful voices - one that influenced much of the 19th century music in the development of Romanticism that had come into full bloom with Berlioz, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, and others.


To me, when Bernstein mentioned several aspects, and said "if taken apart would not work," and said it was "form" that made it work, I think what he was referring to is that it all adds up to a "gestalt" form which is the idea. In this regard, considering rhythmic identity as part of the mix, it becomes harder to separate melody from harmony from rhythm.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Rubens said:


> Ivan Wyschnegradsky


With a name like that, he's_ got_ to be good. :lol:


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Berlioz. The Symphonie Fantastique was the breakthrough piece that had all the hallmarks of Romanticism.


Totally! This is the original fountain of romanticism.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The first musical icon of true German Romanticism was Weber's _Der Freishutz,_ premiered in 1821. It created a sensation, and Wagner writes amusingly of how its tunes were being sung and played by everyone in homes and in the streets. Even for us today it positively exudes the spirit of the _Volk_ and the spruce-scented air of the mythical _Schwarzwald._ It's essentially the brothers Grimm set to the tremolos, diminished chords, deep-throated clarinets and floating cantilenas of a music that has left Classicism decisively behind.

Nothing like this ever came from Mozart's or Beethoven's brain:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> The first musical icon of true German Romanticism was Weber's _Der Freishutz,_ premiered in 1821.


Even Ludwig loved Der Freischutz -- and he was deaf! "The little man, otherwise so gentle -- I never would have credited him with such a thing. Now Weber must write operas in earnest, one after the other, without caring too much for refinement! Kaspar, the monster, looms up like a house; wherever the devil sticks in his claw we feel it."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The first musical icon of true German Romanticism was Weber's _Der Freishutz,_ premiered in 1821. It created a sensation, and Wagner writes amusingly of how its tunes were being sung and played by everyone in homes and in the streets. Even for us today it positively exudes the spirit of the _Volk_ and the spruce-scented air of the mythical _Schwarzwald._ It's essentially the brothers Grimm set to the tremolos, diminished chords, deep-throated clarinets and floating cantilenas of a music that has left Classicism decisively behind.
> 
> Nothing like this ever came from Mozart's or Beethoven's brain:


Wonderful aria, a long time favorite. It is well beyond its years. Weber has been unfairly underrated and unappreciated in recent years and I don't know why.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Wonderful aria, a long time favorite. It is well beyond its years. Weber has been unfairly underrated and unappreciated in recent years and I don't know why.


I don't either. _Der Freischutz_ is a masterpiece, but it's rarely performed outside of German-speaking countries. His chamber music is unalloyed pleasure. Maybe his fans meet secretly in basements.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I wasn't quoting Bernstein; I interpreted him, and you should know that I agree with everything Bernstein said in the video. I think it's a great video. It's about time that someone had the guts to say those things.


Apparently interpreted in your lexicon means misheard, misunderstood, and fabricated.

Guts had nothing to do with it. Lenny got caught up in his own rhetoric and talked a good deal of nonsense. You weren't impressed with his student's critique then?


----------



## mark6144 (Apr 6, 2019)

Question from an uneducated lurker. I'm new here so please be gentle 

How is it possible to categorise music as romantic based on expressive qualities, when so much seems open to interpretation or performance?

For earlier or later eras the traits are more obvious, and I know there are some objective characteristics like form or harmony that point to one or the other; but often with music from the late 18th century I can listen to two different recordings of the same piece and perceive one as more romantic and the other less so.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2019)

Trying to work out who first started the Romantic movement in classical music is almost impossible. 

More interestingly, which composers of notoriety jumped on the evolving bandwagon and made the greatest contributions.

It's surely got to be the likes of Weber, Beethoven, Schubert who were the main influences up to the late 1820s. After that the trend picked up greatly from the mid-1830s onwards, mainly under Chopin, Liszt, Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn. 

It was the introduction of a much greater use of "poetic" material and the use of new forms like short piano pieces, single movement concertos etc, that marks out these composers.

Nothing new in any of this as it's a well-trodden area.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

More icons (yawn).


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

mark6144 said:


> Question from an uneducated lurker. I'm new here so please be gentle
> 
> How is it possible to categorise music as romantic based on expressive qualities, when so much seems open to interpretation or performance?
> 
> For earlier or later eras the traits are more obvious, and I know there are some objective characteristics like form or harmony that point to one or the other; but often with music from the late 18th century I can listen to two different recordings of the same piece and perceive one as more romantic and the other less so.


It's an interpretive construct imposed from without. And as you say, a particular interpretation can be more or less "romantic" as well. One can play Haydn in a romantic style, 




or play Brahms in a classical style.





Overall, I wouldn't stress about it. It's like arguing whether one rapper is East Coast or another is West Coast. Style is fluid, and art is equal measures inspiration, homage, invention, and theft.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Apparently interpreted in your lexicon means misheard, misunderstood, and fabricated.


If you think so, then there's nothing to discuss, concerning my post. I suspect you have other reasons for focussing on my reply.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mark6144 said:


> Question from an uneducated lurker. I'm new here so please be gentle
> 
> How is it possible to categorise music as romantic based on expressive qualities, when so much seems open to interpretation or performance?
> 
> For earlier or later eras the traits are more obvious, and I know there are some objective characteristics like form or harmony that point to one or the other; but often with music from the late 18th century I can listen to two different recordings of the same piece and perceive one as more romantic and the other less so.


I don't think the answer to this particular thread premise lies in the music itself, because this categorization is merely a historical label, used to identify changes in music which occurred around this time. That's the "literal" answer.

(with droll humor) But people will be people (those uneducated swine),and they can't resist the urge to associate "Romanticism" with perceived expressive qualities found in music, and that usually includes any music, from any era.

So, my advice is not to rely on your perceptions of music; go read a book about Romanticism, because this is one of those "idea" threads which should not, properly, have anything to do with anyone's perception. That's called "objectivity."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think the answer to this particular thread premise lies in the music itself, because this categorization is merely a historical label, used to identify changes in music which occurred around this time. That's the "literal" answer.
> 
> (with droll humor) But people will be people (those uneducated swine),and they can't resist the urge to associate "Romanticism" with perceived expressive qualities found in music, and that usually includes any music, from any era.
> 
> So, my advice is not to rely on your perceptions of music; go read a book about Romanticism, because this is one of those "idea" threads which should not, properly, have anything to do with anyone's perception. That's called "objectivity."


If you're going to keep ragging on people who think a historical perspective is important to understanding Romanticism, you might at least try to present an alternative approach that makes some kind of sense. So far in these seven pages you've spent nearly all your time criticizing people who are trying to discuss Romanticism and the composers who represent its early phases, but have yourself made only one statement that seems to touch on the subject:



> Since music could no longer focus outward, into an objective space which included God - this space was now taken over by Enlightenment, reason, science, and secular concerns. Music, which had been essentially a religious endeavor, no longer had an outward space to fill, so it had to be taken "inward" so it could live. New function in response to Man's changing relation to the world.


Oddly enough, this statement - your only statement about Romanticism - exemplifies exactly the sort of historical approach you've spent the rest of the thread mocking and excoriating.

Would you like to give that non-historical approach you must be hiding in your back pocket the old college try?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The first musical icon of true German Romanticism was Weber's _Der Freishutz,_ premiered in 1821. It created a sensation, and Wagner writes amusingly of how its tunes were being sung and played by everyone in homes and in the streets. Even for us today it positively exudes the spirit of the _Volk_ and the spruce-scented air of the mythical _Schwarzwald._ It's essentially the brothers Grimm set to the tremolos, diminished chords, deep-throated clarinets and floating cantilenas of a music that has left Classicism decisively behind.
> 
> Nothing like this ever came from Mozart's or Beethoven's brain:


I agree but Der Freischütz is set in Böhmen todays Czech republic not Schwarzwald.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I agree but Der Freischütz is set in Böhmen todays Czech republic not Schwarzwald.


Take "black forest" as symbolism. But thanks for the geography lesson.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If you're going to keep ragging on people who think a historical perspective is important to understanding Romanticism, you might at least try to present an alternative approach that makes some kind of sense. So far in these seven pages you've spent nearly all your time criticizing people who are trying to discuss Romanticism and the composers who represent its early phases...


I'm afraid you misunderstand my intentions. I realize that Romanticism is a historical period in music, but, even though the thread OP conflated this with individual composers and their music, I nonetheless feel that _completely subjective reactions to music, and even wildly diverging ideas about music,_ can be interesting and illuminating.

For example, the self-described "uneducated" mark6144's query... 



> How is it possible to categorise music as *romantic* based on *expressive qualities*, when so much seems open to interpretation or performance?





> For earlier or later eras the traits are more obvious, and I know there are some objective characteristics like form or harmony that point to one or the other; but often with music from the late 18th century *I can listen to two different recordings of the same piece and perceive one as more romantic and the other less so*.


...seems to exemplify a disinterest or difficulty in equating the term to music which is expressive or "romantic" (used as an adjective), and the term "Romantic" as it is used historically. I was merely pointing out this difference, but I do sympathize with those listeners who use the term to describe the music they love.

I thought the opening salvo of "Nobody invented it," while accurate, was too myopic, and too eager to "be right" in light of the awkward OP question. The poor suckers who answered innocently after that were certainly put in their places!

I guess the difference between me & some others on this forum is the growing realization that this forum is for for _all_ music lovers, who share a common love of music (preferably not not dislike or hatred), and should not proceed as an episode of "Jeopardy.":lol:



> Would you like to give that non-historical approach you must be hiding in your back pocket the old college try?


It's not really my own agenda I am concerned with, I'm pointing out some tendencies which obviously intimidate "uneducated" posters like mark6144, who obviously "feels the heat."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The first musical icon of true German Romanticism was Weber's _Der Freishutz,_ premiered in 1821. It created a sensation, and Wagner writes amusingly of how its tunes were being sung and played by everyone in homes and in the streets. Even for us today it positively exudes the spirit of the _Volk_ and the spruce-scented air of the mythical _Schwarzwald._ It's essentially the brothers Grimm set to the tremolos, diminished chords, deep-throated clarinets and floating cantilenas of a music that has left Classicism decisively behind.
> 
> Nothing like this ever came from Mozart's or Beethoven's brain:


It sounds like the prototype for Wagner. I think there are other icons and other directions that Romanticism could be said to have traversed.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> It sounds like the prototype for Wagner. I think there are other icons and other directions that Romanticism could be said to have traversed.


Oh, I do agree. Romanticism wasn't exactly the same thing for a Frenchman or an Italian as for a German. I did specify "German Romanticism," which emphasized subjective perception and feeling. A fascination with the irrational ( or prerational, subrational, subconscious, whatever) led to a focus on magic, religion, myth, folklore, and dreams. Latin Romanticism was more worldly and focused on the aspirations, ambitions and achievements of the human individual who was often fighting for freedom or validation against the old, oppressive forces of society. German Romanticism might be called more introverted, while Latin Romanticism was more outer-directed.

Of course neither of these "brands" wholly excluded the other, but the gulf between the Italian Romantic opera of Bellini and Verdi and the German Romantic opera of Weber and Wagner is certainly wide. Interestingly, I would call Beethoven's _Fidelio,_ with its optimistic tale of personal heroism set against a background of political oppression and revolution, a German musician's essay in Latin Romanticism.


----------



## mark6144 (Apr 6, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> (with droll humor) But people will be people (those uneducated swine),and they can't resist the urge to associate "Romanticism" with perceived expressive qualities found in music, and that usually includes any music, from any era.
> 
> So, my advice is not to rely on your perceptions of music; go read a book about Romanticism


The several accounts I've read of Romantic era music all describe the essence of it in similar terms: that the ideal of the Romantic composer was to express some feeling of their own through their music, with the intent of instilling similar feelings in the listener; and the Romantic era was the period during which this sense of purpose emerged and became predominant - which would exclude modern romantics like Metallica .

(By the way, I mean "uneducated" literally - no formal music education or training, at least not since school ~40 years ago. I don't mean to imply indifference or disinterest; obviously I'm asking the question because I want to understand better, and that includes accepting that I might misunderstand things today.)



MatthewWeflen said:


> It's an interpretive construct imposed from without. And as you say, a particular interpretation can be more or less "romantic" as well. One can play Haydn in a romantic style, or play Brahms in a classical style.


That's how I understand "romantic" with a small R, but if using these qualities to infer association of a composer or piece with the Romantic movement or era, shouldn't the qualities pertain to the composition rather than the interpretation? I assume we're talking about the transitional period where we can't just label it Romantic era music because it's a programme or character piece from 1850.

The question then would be how did the composer intend the piece to be performed and what effect they were trying to achieve through it. If a performance makes me feel something, is that a communication from the composer, or from the performer? 
Sometimes I wonder how to tell the difference, or if indeed it's possible. Perhaps everybody experiences the same dilemma, or perhaps I'm missing something because I don't have the musical knowledge or appreciation skills to recognise the difference.



MatthewWeflen said:


> Overall, I wouldn't stress about it. It's like arguing whether one rapper is East Coast or another is West Coast. Style is fluid, and art is equal measures inspiration, homage, invention, and theft.


Yeah I get that. I don't actually need to tell the difference - there's no stress, just curiosity. At the end of the day, I enjoy the music anyway!


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

mark6144 said:


> The several accounts I've read of Romantic era music all describe the essence of it in similar terms: that the ideal of the Romantic composer was to express some feeling of their own through their music, with the intent of instilling similar feelings in the listener;


I think this is a bit too superfical. Romanticism counters the Enlightment-belief in reason but is not so much about feelings (the irrational) as about intuition of the superrational, the sublime. Romantic music is more about instill awe in the listener: by sentiment or terror. It may depict what defies reason and modernity such as Nature (a pastoral scenery or a storm), the supernatural (magic, religion), History or national regeneration. The Romantic artist is a Creator thus god or 'genius': he perceives by intuition the Absolute Truth which he finds in his soul. Therefore, Romantic music lets go of the control by Reason and thus proportion: it is intens and dynamic music. Letting go of the dictates of the reason also implied the breakdown of tonality so the development of atonality (which the thread about the destruction by Beethoven is all about).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Agamemnon said:


> I think this is a bit too superfical. Romanticism counters the Enlightment-belief in reason but is not so much about feelings (the irrational) as about intuition of the superrational, the sublime. Romantic music is more about instill awe in the listener: by sentiment or terror. It may depict what defies reason and modernity such as Nature (a pastoral scenery or a storm), the supernatural (magic, religion), History or national regeneration. The Romantic artist is a Creator thus god or 'genius': he perceives by intuition the Absolute Truth which he finds in his soul. Therefore, Romantic music lets go of the control by Reason and thus proportion: it is intens and dynamic music. Letting go of the dictates of the reason also implied the breakdown of tonality so the development of atonality (which the thread about the destruction by Beethoven is all about).


Methinks you are trying to stuff too much into this suitcase. Surely not all Romantic composers were trying for _Der Ring des Nibelungen._


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

A little late here but two things: I go with Schubert, a late classicist who didn't take the Beethoven route. His sense of breadth and modulation would anticipate epic pieces of romanticism especially Bruckner.

Meme is a word with two meanings, first as a carrier of cultural information, later as a social media phenom that usually involves photo-shopping. Too bad the latter didn't come up with it's own term but now it's too late.

It's interesting to ask if romanticism was a memetic development or just historical hindsight, but I don't think it's an either / or answer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

philoctetes said:


> A little late here but two things: I go with Schubert, a late classicist who didn't take the Beethoven route. His sense of breadth and modulation would anticipate epic pieces of romanticism especially Bruckner.
> 
> Meme is a word with two meanings, first as a carrier of cultural information, later as a social media phenom that usually involves photo-shopping. Too bad the latter didn't come up with it's own term but now it's too late.


Fortunately, it's never too late to avoid using a word. It seems that the older I get, the more words i hear that I want to avoid using.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Fortunately, it's never too late to avoid using a word. It seems that the older I get, the more words i hear that I want to avoid using.


Well, that doesn't mean others have to avoid using them, or that using them is somehow inferior, and someone acting as if it does will usually take them out of a conversation. Doesn't like the way I want to get old, but maybe it's inevitable.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Methinks you are trying to stuff too much into this suitcase. Surely not all Romantic composers were trying for _Der Ring des Nibelungen._


I rephrase in a few simple words: Romanticism is not about feelings ('today I feel happy' or 'today I don't feel happy') and even not about love but about Passion which is so sublime that it is bigger than your life and your feelings. So Romanticism is about choosing death over the separation from your lover or going to war to liberate your people from oppression.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

mark6144 said:


> The several accounts I've read of Romantic era music all describe the essence of it in similar terms: that the ideal of the Romantic composer was to express some feeling of their own through their music, with the intent of instilling similar feelings in the listener; and the Romantic era was the period during which this sense of purpose emerged and became predominant - which would exclude modern romantics like Metallica .
> 
> (By the way, I mean "uneducated" literally - no formal music education or training, at least not since school ~40 years ago. I don't mean to imply indifference or disinterest; obviously I'm asking the question because I want to understand better, and that includes accepting that I might misunderstand things today.)
> 
> ...


I think date of composition is immaterial. Dates are just when the Romantic style was popular. I could design a building in the Prairie style or the International style today. So Beethoven's 6th might be "early," but it still fits the interpretive rubric of romanticism. I agree with what you say about intention in the artist. If he or she thinks they are turning inward, or glorifying nature, or expressing passion and sensuality, then they're probably writing something that could be reasonably deemed "Romantic." And if a romantic interpretation by a conductor and orchestra doesn't seem utterly silly, then there must have been something in the piece that lent itself to romanticism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Agamemnon said:


> I rephrase in a few simple words: Romanticism is not about feelings ('today I feel happy' or 'today I don't feel happy') and even not about love but about Passion which is so sublime that it is bigger than your life and your feelings. So Romanticism is about choosing death over the separation from your lover or going to war to liberate your people from oppression.


Both of those involve death, or possible death. That's not necessarily true. Chopin instrumental music embodies more general, abstract, heuristic thought processes.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2019)

I think it's a mistaken view to think of the distinction between "Romantic" music and "Classical" music as being primarily in terms of the amount of emotion or drama in general they contain. Similarly I don't believe that the most important aspect of Romantic music is its alleged use as a vehicle for expressing personal feelings of the composer, with the aim of creating similar feelings in the listener.

There's plenty of drama and emotion in quite a lot of Classical music. Look at many of Mozart's operas, for example, which exhibit all manner of emotions. In the Baroque era there's a good amount of similar drama in the operas and oratorios of Handel and Purcell. If we go back to the early Baroque era the later madrigals of Monteverdi, e.g. _Il Madrigali guerrieri et amorosi, SV 146-167_, provides a further example.

Rather than drama and emotion, the most important distinguishing feature of Romantic music it its aim of imbuing music with the intellectual substance of literature. Beethoven made some early attempts in this area but it was Schubert who's thinking and approach was the most advanced. Schubert made substantial efforts in this direction, and if he lived any longer he would no doubt have attempted to convert into music the entire German poetic literature.

An analysis of the well-recognised early Romantics, like Robert Schumann, shows the depth of their literary sensibility. Other composers contemporary with Schumann attempted to do similar things, but with less success in my opinion. It was Schumann who was the main composer to pick up the baton after Schubert. Chopin and Mendelssohn were contemporaries, and then Liszt and Wagner followed. Brahms tried to fight a kind of rearguard action against what he considered were the excesses of Liszt and Wagner, but the music he wrote was still largely Romantic music albeit in "absolute" form, i.e. not intending to be anything other than pure music.

Importantly, the growing body of Romantic composers found that the old Classical methods of constructing music (sonata-form, et al) were inadequate for their purposes. They certainly didn't ditch all of the older forms, but they needed a wider range of musical "tools" than they inherited from their antecedents. They created new forms e.g. symphonic poems, music drama. They also put more emphasis than previously on things like short, single movement works (e.g. nocturnes). As it evolved later, the Romantics incorporated a more extensive use of dissonances, not that this was absent from Classical music.

So, I think that it's a combination of the attempt to incorporate a more poetic element into music, coupled with the use of different forms, that provide the most distinguishing features of the Romantics vis-a-vis the Classicists.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Étienne Méhul was the first composer to be called a "Romantic".

Wikipedia:
he pushed music in a more Romantic direction, showing an increased use of dissonance and an interest in psychological states such as anger and jealousy, thus foreshadowing later Romantic composers such as Weber and Berlioz. Indeed, Méhul was the very first composer to be styled a Romantic; a critic used the term in La chronique de Paris on 1 April 1793 when reviewing Méhul's Le jeune sage et le vieux fou.[8]

Méhul's main musical concern was that everything should serve to increase the dramatic impact. As his admirer Berlioz wrote:

[Méhul] was fully convinced that in truly dramatic music, when the importance of the situation deserves the sacrifice, the composer should not hesitate as between a pretty musical effect that is foreign to the scenic or dramatic character, and a series of accents that are true but do not yield any surface pleasure. He was convinced that musical expressiveness is a lovely flower, delicate and rare, of exquisite fragrance, which does not bloom without culture, and which a breath can wither; that it does not dwell in melody alone, but that everything concurs either to create or destroy it - melody, harmony, modulation, rhythm, instrumentation, the choice of deep or high registers for the voices or instruments, a quick or slow tempo, and the several degrees of volume in the sound emitted.[9]

One way in which Méhul increased dramatic expressivity was to experiment with orchestration. For example, in Uthal, an opera set in the Highlands of Scotland, he eliminated violins from the orchestra, replacing them with the darker sounds of violas in order to add local colour.[10] Méhul's La chasse du jeune Henri (Young Henri's Hunt) provides a more humorous example, with its expanded horn section portraying yelping hounds as well as giving hunting calls. (Sir Thomas Beecham frequently programmed this piece to showcase the Royal Philharmonic horn section.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'll go with "emotional states" rather than any form of literature analogy.


----------



## mark6144 (Apr 6, 2019)

Partita said:


> There's plenty of drama and emotion in quite a lot of Classical music. ...
> Rather than drama and emotion, the most important distinguishing feature of Romantic music it its aim of imbuing music with the intellectual substance of literature.



This helps, thanks. Some very interesting discussion on this topic in the "pieces I'd like to understand" thread too. There seem to be a lot of knowledgeable people here.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Dr. Shatterhand said:


> Étienne Méhul was the first composer to be called a "Romantic".
> 
> Wikipedia:
> he pushed music in a more Romantic direction, showing an increased use of dissonance and an interest in psychological states such as anger and jealousy, thus foreshadowing later Romantic composers such as Weber and Berlioz. Indeed, Méhul was the very first composer to be styled a Romantic; a critic used the term in La chronique de Paris on 1 April 1793 when reviewing Méhul's Le jeune sage et le vieux fou.[8]
> ...


Well, thank God! Dr. Shatterhand consulted a source and found a provisional answer. Of course, Mehul was not the only composer, but French opera of the late 18th century is a good place to start, and its association with the French Revolution is significant. Reading the post and noting the main points would I think be fruitful.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Sebastian Bach signed off his music with letters SDG -- _Soli Deo Gloria_ -- For the Glory of God Alone. But his son CPE wrote in _empfindsam stil_, or _tender style_, intended to express "true and natural" feelings. So with the passing of the baroque era, music ceased to be about God and became about man. And it has remained that way to the current day.
> Which is to say, it might not be unreasonable to consider the "classical" era in music as merely the first phase of romanticism.


"Michael Haydn wrote the Missa pro defuncto Archiepiscopo Sigismondo, or more generally Missa pro Defunctis, Klafsky I:8, MH 155, following the death of the Count Archbishop Sigismund von Schrattenbach in Salzburg in December 1771. Haydn completed the Requiem before the year was over, signing it "S[oli] D[eo] H[onor] et G[loria.] Salisburgi 31 Dicembre 1771." At the beginning of that year, his daughter Aloisia Josefa died. Historians believe "his own personal bereavement" motivated the composition."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_(Michael_Haydn)






"Michael's influence on Romanticism is also reflected in the writings of E. T. A. Hoffmann, who praised Michael's sacred music above that of older brother Joseph's. Franz Schubert is known to have visited the grave of Michael Haydn in order to gain inspiration for writing sacred music. After one of these visits, Schubert wrote in a letter to his brother the following epitaph:
"I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes. . . .)""
https://www.classical915.org/post/happy-birthday-michael-haydn


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The answer is of course Beethoven but Mozart had some early examples as good forerunners.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Rameau. I think Mozart took something from this style. In fact it reminds of a Mozart piece, don't remember which one.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^Interesting interpretation of Rameau on a concert grand. It actually sounds like a Liszt or a Ravel to me. Here is the harpsichord version on a French Baroque harpsichord, with a portrait of Rameau in the background, and it sounds stupendously mature Rameau:


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

The romantic period began gradually and can't be ascribed to just one single composer.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

My problem here is that e.g. Beethoven did not compose "early attempts" in a style that was brought to perfection 20 years later or so. (Whereas one could say without being unfair that the ca. 1760 classical style of the early Haydn or Richter or the Mannheimer etc. was "perfected" in the 1780s by later Haydn and Mozart.) 
Apart from the fact that all his forms are classical, he seems at the end, not beginning of an era (as Grillparzer put it in his eulogy). Even to Schubert this typical case, that one has tentative forerunners (of lower quality or interest) does not apply (e.g. to his songs/song cycles they have not been "improved" upon) and he also mostly remained within classical forms . But I'd probably put Schubert as an early romantic. Weber as well (and his instrumental music does have some of the faults of a transitional period, like some looseness, meandering, or strange contrasts like the romantic slow movement and the somewhat shallow virtuosity of the rest of his clarinet quintet, still one of his best pieces, I think), maybe Spohr and other lesser known composers.

From the next generation born in the first decades of the 1800s who are all romantics, not intermediate, we also have the two strains of the romantic ear, the more classicist (Mendelssohn is more classicist than anything else) and the "freewheeling and crazy" (Berlioz), with Schumann having a bit of both.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Schuberts Unfinished Symphony No. 8 (1822) was one of the first romantic works I think. But Beethoven/Weber/Rossini stayed classical to the end. Also Wagner wasn't romantic until 1833.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> My problem here is that e.g. Beethoven did not compose "early attempts" in a style that was brought to perfection 20 years later or so. (Whereas one could say without being unfair that the ca. 1760 classical style of the early Haydn or Richter or the Mannheimer etc. was "perfected" in the 1780s by later Haydn and Mozart.)
> *Apart from the fact that all his forms are classical, he seems at the end, not beginning of an era* (as Grillparzer put it in his eulogy). Even to Schubert this typical case, that one has tentative forerunners (of lower quality or interest) does not apply (e.g. to his songs/song cycles they have not been "improved" upon) and he also mostly remained within classical forms . But I'd probably put Schubert as an early romantic. Weber as well (and his instrumental music does have some of the faults of a transitional period, like some looseness, meandering, or strange contrasts like the romantic slow movement and the somewhat shallow virtuosity of the rest of his clarinet quintet, still one of his best pieces, I think), maybe Spohr and other lesser known composers.
> 
> From the next generation born in the first decades of the 1800s who are all romantics, not intermediate, we also have the two strains of the romantic ear, the more classicist (Mendelssohn is more classicist than anything else) and the "freewheeling and crazy" (Berlioz), with Schumann having a bit of both.


Beginning or end depends on when one lives. In the first decade of the 19thc, when Haydn and Mozart were being described as romantics (as in E.T.A. Hoffmann's famous review of Beethoven's Fifth), Beethoven was apparently the last in the romantic line.  By the middle of the 19thc he was often heard as the first. As for "all his forms [being] classical," the same could be said of Shostakovich, and it's just as empty a claim for him as it is for Beethoven. If one takes Charles Rosen's position that tonic-dominant polarity is the defining element of classical sonata form, the fact that by his middle period Beethoven was just as content with the mediant and submediant for his secondary key area is significant. By the time sonata form became "a thing," when it was codified around 1830 in its "textbook" format, thematic layout and processes were the basis of the schema. The textbook form, the one the Romantics digested, was based on influential works of Beethoven. Beethoven's experiments in cyclic unification through thematic quotation and narrative design were imitated by nearly every romantic composer and by tonal composers through the middle of the 20thc. The Eastern European variant of sonata form, in which the recap begins with second theme and is followed by a developmental coda (see Chopin's 2nd and 3rd piano sonatas, Tchaikovsky's 4th and 6th symphonies, Rachmaninoff's 2nd symphony, Shostakovich's 10th, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra), comes from an exaggeration of Beethoven's practice in some of his most dramatic works. And of course the Romantic and later interest in choral and programmatic symphonies owes much to Beethoven's 9th and 6th.

Anyway, most of Beethoven's works fit the Classical formal models pretty well - and he was enormously influential on the Romantic Era. I don't see any point in trying to define him as a Classical or a Romantic composer because neither stylistic period contains or encompasses the substance of his music.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Voted 'other'. Schumann.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chopin on the piano was certainly one of the early Romantic greats.


----------

