# The First Romantic... Mozart or Beethoven



## Blake

Many question this, and many accusations have been made. But who really in the "popular" context was the first to break the hard Classicism of the day. There are many unknown composers in this fray, but between these two titans I really feel Beethoven was just a wake in the turbulence started from Mozart's romantic inclinations.

I'm still swimming in the unknown of this matter, and I'll like to see the information presented. But Beethoven's first opuses didn't start until Mozart was years gone. And Mozart's late works were so romantically inclined that I don't feel Beethoven should be the torch bearer any longer for the real turning point of Classicism to Romanticism.


----------



## drpraetorus

Mozart is most definitely not a part of the Romantic movement. The works that show a leaning in that direction are considered to be part of the Sturm und Drang ideas. The most important of these works is Don Giovanni. Sturm und Drang means Storm and Stress. This was a reaction to the excesses of the Classic stress on restraint and form. It can be seen as a precursor to Romanticism. Although mostly a literary theme it also gave composers a bit more latitude in the emotions they were depicting and the chord choices and dissonances they chose. This can be seen in the Commendatore music in Don Giovanni. The use of the supernatural is also a precursor to Romanticism. 

There was never a break with the main Classic musical ideals. For Mozart, music should always be beautiful, no matter what emotions it was expressing. It should also be clear in form. The 40th symphony (above) is exactly that. It is beautiful and formally clear. The listener of his time would have no problem telling where they were at any time in the music. It is known that Mozart reserved minor key music for more personal expressions, but still it had to be beautiful. If you listen to the Requiem you will here much minor key music and non of it going overboard as far as the emotions or the dissonances. Even the Confutatis is all under control. Perhaps the closest Mozart came to Romanticism is in the development of the 4th movement of the Jupiter Symphony (41). In that movement he goes out of his way to use complicated progressions and very complex developmental ideas and brings it all back together at the end as if to say "I am Mozart, top that if you can". 

Beethoven on the other hand, starts his first Symphony on a dissonance. That was strictly verboten according to the rules of theory of the time. it was debuted 9 years after Mozarts death. However for all the shock of the opening dissonance, it still follows the formal rules and only shows that Beethoven was a precocious composer. The second Symphony is actually tamer than the first. The break is the third. Beethoven makes several breaks with the Classic ideals. The length is only the most obvious. He changes the slow movement to a funeral march from a song form. He also got rid of the Minuet and replaced it with a Scherzo. Also, very importantly, it is about something. Not just a suite of movements but it is philosophical music. None of Mozarts music, Amadeus notwithstanding, can be seen as having been influenced or inspired by events in his life. Beethoven is different. Some of his works can be said to have been directly inspired by external events. It would be hard not to have it that was since the tyrant Napoleon was making much of Europe his personal slaughter house. 

Having broken through with the 3rd, Beethoven continued to push the boarders with his succeeding works. Mozart was mostly content with the orchestra as it was, only adding clarinets late in his life. Beethoven brings in what would have been seen as an entire wind band. Trombones in the 5th symphony, piccolos, contrabassoons, bass drums etc. Finally, he added soloists and a choir. Beethoven was at the very beginning of a Romantic ideal of "bigger is better". That goes all the way through to Wagner, Mahler, Stravinsky and the 20th Century. 

Beethovens single opera "Fidelio" is something that Mozart would never have written. The subject being too blatantly political. The closest that Mozart could come was Figaro, with the bad parts removed and cloaked as a comedy. 

Beethoven stood at the head of musical Romanticism, Goethe was one of the sparks for German literary Romanticism. It was all about the "Artiste" expressing his tortured soul. Suffering for his art and encountering the supernatural along the way. Beethoven died in 1827 and had opened a new direction for concert music. But for opera, the composer Von Weber was showing the direction it would take in the new Romantic world. In 1821 von Webers Der Freischutz premiered. Showing the influence of Beethovens music but being filled with the supernatural and a visit to the demonic Wolfs Den, it is exactly what a fully Romantic opera should be. Frankenstein, also a Romantic work, was published in 1818. The public was ready for this sort of thing. It is unknown if Beethoven ever looked at the score to Frieschutz. He obviously never heard it. His last work for orchestra and voice, the 9th Symphony premiered in 1824. The Romantic era was off to a great start.


----------



## Blake

Nice write up, d. Here's a varying opinion.


----------



## Guest

Probably Weber.


----------



## Weston

I say Beethoven is firmly in the classical era. Sure he had a few pieces with programmatic elements and offered a few bizarre breaks with tradition, but so did Haydn -- and Bach and Handel for that matter.

Grout's _History of Western Music_ claims Weber as the beginning too as I recall.


----------



## Woodduck

Technically, Mozart is still absolutely a Classicist. Temperamentally, and in terms of sensibility, his late works do suggest the new currents of the time, which in music took the form of a more subjective expressivity. The term "Romantic" was being applied to literature within Mozart's lifetime, and the _Sturm und Drang_ movement dating back to the 1760s certainly marks the first significant stirring of a Romantic sensibility.

It can be debated whether the term "Romanticism," as applied to music, should be used to refer primarily to musical style as such or to broader aesthetic ideals. There will thus be disagreement as to what should be considered "Romantic" music, and as to where the "Romantic period" should be considered as beginning and ending. But wherever we come down on this matter of terminology, there is fairly broad agreement that Beethoven is the major figure who straddles the boundary, exemplifying over the course of his constantly innovative career both Classical ideals and, increasingly, the revolutionary sensibilities which overtook the culture precisely during his lifetime.

Beethoven's work can hardly be described as a "wake in the turbulence started from Mozart's romantic inclinations." On the contrary, I would say that Mozart's late works, however personal in their expressiveness, provided no more than a hint of the subjective, literary, and philosophical preoccupations characteristic of the Romantic movement which unfolded after his death.

Perhaps the famous four-note opening motif of Beethoven's _Fifth Symphony_, which someone claimed represented "fate knocking at the door," would better be dubbed "Romanticism breaking down the door."


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I would say certainly not Mozart. His style is most definitely classical.
Beethoven? I'm not entirely sure. He seems to be a combination of both.


----------



## GreenMamba

It sounds like Mr. Bernstein agrees that Mozart was a Romantic.


----------



## hpowders

I hate Haydn and Mozart played too slowly with slides and excessive vibrato. These dudes were NOT Mahler!!


----------



## Blake

I see Romanticism quite easily in Mozart... it's mostly encoded in his crisp and clean Classicism, but it's definitely there. I don't know how it can be denied. I also don't know how else to say it, you either see it or you don't. That BBC documentary is a great view at his romantic inclinations riding on the back of his impeccable classicism.


----------



## aleazk

Paraphrasing that great user of this board, _the dude of the viola_: "_what's next, Monteverdi?_" 

Mozart=classicism

Beethoven=classicism, romanticlassicism


----------



## Blake

Romanticlassicism. Sounds about right, but Mozart did that first.


----------



## Woodduck

aleazk said:


> Paraphrasing that great user of this board, _the dude of the viola_: "_what's next, Monteverdi?_"
> 
> Mozart=classicism
> 
> Beethoven=classicism, romanticlassicism


And Mendelssohn = classimanticism?


----------



## Blake

Now, for sure, I'm not looking to brand Mozart a Romantic in the musicological sense. But clearly classicism started transforming into romanticism with him. Clearly, I say.


----------



## trazom

Vesuvius said:


> Now, for sure, I'm not looking to brand Mozart a Romantic in the musicological sense. But clearly classicism started transforming into romanticism with him. Clearly, I say.


And you're not the first person to suggest this. I believe Charles Rosen said it was Mozart's 26th piano concerto that was more Romantic than anything else in that the drama and tension arises from the increase in technical virtuosity rather than modulating different keys--though there are some bizarre modulations in the last movement. Besides, Mozart's minor works always struck me as more convincingly Romantic in expressiveness than certain Romantic-era composers. If Mendelssohn, for example is Romantic, then it's a very clothes-on and "please mind the china" affair. I know there's more to Romanticism than drama or expressiveness, and Mozart was very Classical in form, but I bet he would've adapted to its ideals more easily than some of his peers.


----------



## Woodduck

In the 19th century, Mozart's _Don Giovanni_ was considered a Romantic opera, and its final scene was omitted so that it would end with the Don being dragged to hell rather than a bunch of people standing around priggishly moralizing. If Mozart had been a real Romantic he might have ended it this way himself. It's certainly effective, but it's not Classical, and I doubt that Mozart would have considered it a suitable ending for his comedy. I don't think anyone performs it that way any more.


----------



## trazom

Woodduck said:


> In the 19th century, Mozart's _Don Giovanni_ was considered a Romantic opera, and its final scene was omitted so that it would end with the Don being dragged to hell rather than a bunch of people standing around priggishly moralizing. If Mozart had been a real Romantic he might have ended it this way himself. It's certainly effective, but it's not Classical, and I doubt that Mozart would have considered it a suitable ending for his comedy. I don't think anyone performs it that way any more.


They don't. I remember one famous composer, I forgot which(maybe Strauss?) said there was an important element of irony in the happy moralizing ending: that the characters have clearly learned nothing and are willing to display themselves as morally superior to the Don even though they are obviously just as hypocritical and flawed in their own ways.


----------



## elgar's ghost

When considering where any era ends and another begins I think there are more likely to be signposts that point the way rather than a definitive demarcation line. I for one wouldn't like to speculate who can make the claim for taking the first steps or with what work, but didn't Haydn say words to the effect when hearing Beethoven's 3rd (or at least the slow movement of it) that this 'changes everything'? I can't recall him saying anything like that about Mozart, however much he admired him.


----------



## Woodduck

elgars ghost said:


> When considering where any era ends and another begins I think there are more likely to be signposts that point the way rather than a definitive demarcation line. I for one wouldn't like to speculate who can make the claim for taking the first steps or with what work, but didn't Haydn say words to the effect when hearing Beethoven's 3rd (or at least the slow movement of it) that this 'changes everything'? I can't recall him saying anything like that about Mozart, however much he admired him.


Right. "Periods," like definitions, are a convenience for thinking and talking about things, but in many ways distort reality by placing boundaries where there are none. "Romanticism" was a real phenomenon, but it didn't start at a specific moment or with a specific composer. Lots of "Classical" music shows "Romantic" tendencies; lots of "Romantic" music adheres to "Classical" elements of form and style. And it's just as artificial to pick a moment when "Romanticism" ends. In some ways it never did; there are arguments that the twentieth century was still essentially "Romantic," and then of course we got the "New Romanticism"!

I prefer to think of these terms as artistic principles rather than specific styles or periods. That way the continuum is respected and the overlapping and interweaving elements are not obscured by simplistic categories. Mozart Romantic? Sure. As long as we understand why he is and why he isn't.


----------



## EdwardBast

I will deal a couple of concrete stylistic traits since others have been nicely handling some of the broader issues and defining concerns of the two stylistic periods.

The familiar thematic model of sonata form, so-called textbook sonata form (two contrasting themes, tonic and dominant etc.), was, if not a Romantic invention, then at least a look at classical practice through a myopic lens. It was codified by Antoine Reicha in his _Traité de haute composition musicale_. (1826). This model ignored the multiplicity of variants in first movement form characteristic of classical and pre-classical compositions and focused on one special, archetypal set of works characterized by strong binary thematic contrasts, in fact, some of the same ones discussed in multiple posts above: Mozart's Symphony 40, Beethoven's Fifth, The Appassionata Sonata, etc. Adolf Bernhard Marx adopted this model as well, adding to the folklore in his composition treatise by metaphorically describing this contrast as somewhat like the contrast of male (first theme) and female (second theme). Note too that these archetypal sonata movements included a disproportionate number, by classical standards, of works in the minor mode. Classical sonata cycles (sonata, symphony, quartet, etc.) tend to favor major mode by between 6 and 8 to 1. In the Romantic era the proportions become nearly even with a majority of sonatas starting in the minor mode ending in the major (for which Beethoven's Fifth and other works are the exemplars). So in technical terms, Mozart and Beethoven are both key sources in defining the Romantic, thematic conception of form. Since Beethoven's most obvious models for his fragmentary, dramatically fraught themes and his experiments in cyclic unity were works of C. P. E. Bach (and Beethoven's admiration for and desire to study Bach's instrumental works is documented several times in his letters), one could say important elements from the Sturm und Drang were pulled in as well.

Perhaps Mozart and Beethoven didn't start romanticism. Perhaps it might be better to say they were chosen retrospectively as its adoptive fathers?


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart or Beethoven? Perhaps the honor of ushering in Romanticism in music belongs to neither of them. At this point in the conversation I wonder if it might not be pertinent to consider a far less well-known (in fact totally obscure) but strikingly original pioneering figure whose works, though mainly lost and unavailable for the examination of scholars, are known from contemporary descriptions in a few second-hand sources which have lately come into my possession. I have hesitated for some time to bring an unknown composer to widespread attention, partly, I must admit, for fear of being mocked and discredited. But I feel that I would be irresponsible in allowing personal considerations to stand in the way of a significant increase in our understanding of the genesis of Romanticism in the music of the eighteenth century, and therefore I recently published, under another thread which some will already have seen, the following biographical sketch. (I might mention that this is a preliminary draft of a longer biography which I hope to write when I am satisfied that the materials at my disposal are not entirely fraudulent. I am guessing at this point that the final draft will come to about twelve pages in length, including one page of text, four pages of introduction, five pages of notes, and a comprehensive index.)

Given the present state of my knowledge, here is what I can relate:

An exact contemporary, and in fact a neighbor, of Ludwig van Beethoven, Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher was born in Bonn in 1770 and died there in 1778, having barely passed his eighth birthday, but already having put the musical world - or at least the municipal bandmaster and the church organist - on alert that fresh currents were ruffling the serenely Classical surface of the mainstream of German music. Lippenschmacher was rumored to have been born an ominous thirteen minutes before Beethoven, who was to become little Ignaz's closest - some say only - friend and companion, despite the despised "von" in the latter's name.

Ignaz was, from the moment of his emergence into the world, recognized for his inconceivable musicality and preternatural vocal technique; he sang words long before he consented to speak them, exhibiting perfect pitch and a four-octave vocal range whenever he demanded from his parents another stack of staff paper, which he filled with works in every known musical form and for every available instrument, showing in particular a dogged fondness for the basset horn and 'bone. But, owing no doubt to his vocal gifts, it was opera which most preoccupied him, and after writing several derivative social comedies about betrayed countesses, mischievous servants, and androgynous mezzosexuals (even genius, as we know, has to begin somewhere), he found his true metier in the newly fashionable "search and rescue opera," composing, apparently in an astonishing eleven days, the revolutionary score of _Down in the Dumps with Flora and Stan_, for which he was said to have composed thirteen overtures before lighting upon the unprecedented idea of sticking his favorite one in the middle of the opera. This was considered too revolutionary at the time, and the work was never produced. But the boy was not to be discouraged, and even as hopes for production were dashed he continued to turn out orchestral works such as the _"Backyard" Symphony_, which, he insisted in a letter to Beethoven, was "more a depiction of bird noises than an expression of feeling - since, as mankind will come to realize once this Romanticism brouhaha (the German is untranslatable) has run its course, _music expresses nothing_" (italics in the original).

But Lippenschmacher's greatest work, and his ninth and last essay in symphonic form, was undoubtedly the immense _Symphony of Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine_, which required a nonet of vocal soloists (sub-bass, basic-baritone, Verdi baritone, heldentenor, comprimario tenor, semi-castrato, British hooting contralto, mezzo-whatever, and highly dramatic yet stratospheric coloratura soprano), in addition to antiphonal choirs with enhanced tessitural capability, Mahlerian woodwind doublings, and deaf backseat conductor. This work of truly Gothic proportions was the first symphony to require vocal forces; its final movement, structured as a stunning series of variations, was a setting of verses by the forgotten but otherwise distinguished Greek lesbian poetess Sappiplopogolopoulos from her almost hysterically rapturous yet superbly overwrought work, "Ode to You, Phoria". This final masterwork of Lippenschmacher, unfortunately, was deemed impracticable (apparently, for one thing, no singer could be found admitting to being a semi-castrato), and there is no record of any performance during or after the composer's lifetime.

It was presumably a great loss to music when Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher died suddenly of suspicious causes the morning after his eighth birthday party, at which his only friend Ludwig had presented him with a small box of chocolate bonbons (his last words were said to have been "Beethoven...aurgh!"). None of his innovative scores were ever published and all are now lost except for a recently discovered sketch, as usual of doubtful authenticity, of a harmonically ambiguous three-note motif scored for string quartet and inscribed with the words "Muss es sein? - oder muss es nicht sein? Das ist eine gute frage." A rumor, circulating even as he lived, held that the leading music houses were secretly being paid not to publish his works; and it was later whispered that shortly before his death he had entrusted his scores to Beethoven for safekeeping. What Beethoven did with these remains undocumented in any extant source on the Master of Bonn. It is recorded only that when pressed in later years about what he thought may have happened to his dear friend Lippenschmacher and his works, the great man pretended not to hear the question.


----------



## Dupamplont

For what it's worth, the Oct. 20, 2014 _New Yorker Magazine_ says the following in an article on Beethoven:

_"Hoffmann, in his 1810 essay, appropriated Beethoven for the Romantic movement. Swafford concurs with the more recent tendency-adopted by, among others, Solomon and the pianist-author Charles Rosen-to see the composer as a late manifestation of the Enlightenment spirit, an artist who prized free thought within rational limits. He `never really absorbed the Romantic age,' Swafford writes. In this view, Beethoven instead stayed true to the ideals that prevailed in his native city of Bonn, where Maximilian Franz, the Elector of Cologne and the brother of the Habsburg emperor Joseph II, presided over a short-lived intellectual flowering."_

From: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/deus-ex-musica


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> Right. "Periods," like definitions, are a convenience for thinking and talking about things, but in many ways distort reality but placing boundaries where there are none. "Romanticism" was a real phenomenon, but it didn't start at a specific moment or with a specific composer. Lots of "Classical" music shows "Romantic" tendencies; lots of "Romantic" music adheres to "Classical" elements of form and style. And it's just as artificial to pick a moment when "Romanticism" ends. In some ways it never did; there are arguments that the twentieth century was still essentially "Romantic," and then of course we got the "New Romanticism"!
> 
> I prefer to think of these terms as artistic principles rather than specific styles or periods. That way the continuum is respected and the overlapping and interweaving elements are not obscured by simplistic categories. Mozart Romantic? Sure. As long as we understand why he is and why he isn't.


That's about how I feel.... Then so often you get people saying it was Beethoven that fathered romanticism. Well, I don't think so... but if we want to draw lines in the sand, then Mozart was way ahead of Beethoven's curb for the dawning of romantic thought and expression. Really listen to his late symphonies and concertos. And even more so that Mozart was quite involved in the whole "enlightenment" movement. Beethoven's brilliancy just made this shift more obvious.

It's so apparent it's nearly baffling that anyone can look at Mozart's life and music and say "Nope, don't see it. Full on noble, cold classicism."


----------



## Guest

Does this question matter only to those who think it vital that one or the other composer MUST be credited with heralding the 'movement' (era?) deemed worthy above all others?

It doesn't matter to me, but I wonder that it seems to matter so much to some others. I begin to wonder if I'm just missing the significance of the Romantic.


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> Does this question matter only to those who think it vital that one or the other composer MUST be credited with heralding the 'movement' (era?) deemed worthy above all others?
> 
> It doesn't matter to me, but I wonder that it seems to matter so much to some others. I begin to wonder if I'm just missing the significance of the Romantic.


Nah, not that much. Can you point out any thread that really matters? Just having a bit o' fun.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> Can you point out any thread that really matters?


Any and all threads that _I _contribute too should be treated with the utmost gravity. We are talking about _*Classical Music*_ after all!!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I'm giving some pertinent sections of Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style_ a read. He addresses the "Romantic" or "Classical" debate on purely musical grounds. It's a very informative read, for anyone interested.

First, here's something to put things in perspective



> The question of Beethoven's position as a "classical" or "Romantic" composer is generally ill-defined, additionally complicated by the fact that Haydn and Mozart in the early nineteenth century were called "Romantic" composers as often as anything else. It is not a question that would have had any meaning during Beethoven's own lifetime, and it is difficult to give it a precise significance today. Nor is it a helpful tautology that a man belongs to his own time: historical time in this sense Is not bounded by dates. Every period of time is traversed by forces both reactionary and progressive: Beethoven's music is filled with memories and predictions. Instead of affixing a label, it would be better to consider in what context and against what background Beethoven may be most richly understood.


The assessment that Rosen comes to can be summed up like this



> Beethoven, indeed, here enlarged the limits of the classical style beyond all previous conceptions, but he never changed its essential structure or abandoned it, as did the composers who followed him. In the other fundamental aspects of his musical language, as well as in the key relations within a single movement, *Beethoven may be said to have remained within the classical framework, even while using it in startlingly radical and original ways.*


A great example of this is the Late String Quartets, Beethoven turned to Bach and Handel for these works. Yet, at the same time, they are some of the most oddly bizarre works out there. They still sound odd today to a lot of people. All of this while he was looking to the masters of the past. For this reason, I think that whether Beethoven was a "Romantic", musically, isn't of the utmost importance. Rosen states that the first Romantics, musically that is, were his "_lesser contemporaries_" (Rosen's words, not mine).

To be entirely clear, Rosen does *not* state that Beethoven never wrote Romantic music, Beethoven's song cycle, _An die ferne Geliebte_, for instance...



> ... Is a work which not only steps outside the classical aesthetic, but which also had a deep and genuine influence upon the music of the generation immediately after Beethoven's death. In this cycle of songs, it is astonishing that Beethoven goes even beyond Schubert to the open and circular form of Schumann. The last phrase of the cycle is the only ending in Beethoven so inconclusive, so obviously implying a continuation. Since this last phrase is also the opening phrase of the cycle, the effect of open, unending form is only the more compelling… *Beethoven's set stands as the first example of what was the most original and perhaps the most important of Romantic forms.*


Also, I think a common misunderstanding when discussing this topic is the separation of the purely musical and the other denotation/connotations of the term "Romantic" and what it entails. No, Beethoven, musically and stylistically wasn't a "Romantic" (for the most part) but was a "Romantic" in the artistic and expressive sense, which was what influenced the Romantic composers of the 19th century. There's a reason why the Romantic "conservative" Brahms and the Romantic radical Wagner loved Beethoven equally. It was the eccentric, difficult, autobiographical, expressive "composer as artist" that they admired.



> Much of his [Beethoven] music, too, is autobiographical, sometimes openly so, in a way that is unthinkable before 1790 if not presented playfully; it is embarrassing when historians read into the music of Haydn and Mozart the kind of directly personal significance appropriate to Beethoven and other nineteenth-century composers.


*All quotes are from Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style_

I still think the first Romantic composer was *not* Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven or Weber. Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher was the true first Romantic, one need only listen to his Late Masterpiece, "Ode to you, Phoria" to be truly convinced of this fact. Thanks to Woodduck for the excellent write up on the most under-appreciated composer in history.


----------



## Musicforawhile

To me, Mozart sounds firmly in the classical aesthetic i.e. in a Mozart Sonata you don't play about with the rhythm or go all out with expressing your personal feelings. Whereas with something like 'Moonlight Sonata' it calls for you to express your feelings through it in a way that bends and pushes and pulls the metre...And therefore leans more towards the Romantic aesthetic.


----------



## Blake

"Much of his [Beethoven] music, too, is autobiographical, sometimes openly so, in a way that is unthinkable before 1790 if not presented playfully; it is embarrassing when historians read into the music of Haydn and Mozart the kind of directly personal significance appropriate to Beethoven and other nineteenth-century composers."
- Rosen

This quote seems to be a bit off in it's departure of reasoning for emotion. I think what many of these historians attribute to Mozart is that the 'romantic' aesthetic started taking shape with him in subtle yet noticeable ways. It became more and more robust and individual as time went on. Again, this blindside may be due to the fact that people often overlook subtleties for thick lines in the sand. It needs to be utterly loud and obvious to be valid... well, I don't buy it.

But of course, it is hard to argue against Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher. Haha, yes indeed.


----------



## Crassus

The idea that anything that sounds remotely dramatic equates with romanticism suggests you are trying to credit romantic era for their accomplishment and not the other way around.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Nice write up, d. Here's a varying opinion.


Exactly 

This 'trend' of painting earlier than the now-called romantics as some other sort of 'romantic' seems to be in full swing. I find it more than unfortunate the word 'romantic' is being used to describe what is, actually, a tendency to make the point that composers before the romantics, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. were writing music which was _personally expressive__,_ i.e. more than likely events in their lives, or "outside events" as it were, very much affected what they wrote, and 'what that music _may_ be about.

I am a bit non-plussed by this movement in musicology / music history, as I was taught they were all 'expressive,' -- maybe as a student player, this is more common than for the lay listener who reads a few chapters of Groves, or such. To me, then, the 'movement' or trend is redundant, and there is something truly faddish about it, i.e. the current near hyper obsession with 'personal expression' bringing much to bear upon the situation 

The tie-in with the romantic is a global shift in the general awareness of people _that they were individuals,_ and not more or less a social collective 'all more or less the same.' Historically, this well shows by the time of Beethoven, who had patronage, and a servile role as an artist, but for part of his career, and then became the first (famous) artist to more or less independently 'free-lance.' The fact he could (he did not change history single-handedly) is due to the general shift in outlook of European society at large.

Though to paint them all with the 'romantic' brush, I repeat, is very misleading. Spread the 'romantic' pigment too far, and it gets thinned and becomes near meaningless.

[Weber, of course, is the milestone "composed in the romantic manner from the get-go" guy, and he was a near exact peer by dates of Beethoven.]


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Exactly
> 
> This 'trend' of painting earlier than the now-called romantics seems to be in full swing. I find it more than unfortunate the word 'romantic' is being used to describe what is, actually, a tendency to make the point that composers before the romantics, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. were writing music which was _personally expressive__,_ i.e. more than likely events in their lives, or "outside events" as it were, very much affected what they wrote, and 'what that music _may_ be about.
> 
> I am a bit non-plussed by this movement in musicology / music history, as I was taught they were all 'expressive,' -- maybe as a student player, this is more common than for the lay listener who reads a few chapters of Groves, or such. To me, then, the 'movement' or trend is redundant, and there is something truly faddish about it, i.e. the current near hyper obsession with 'personal expression' bringing much to bear upon the situation
> 
> The tie-in with the romantic is a global shift in the general awareness of people _that they were individuals,_ and not more or less a social collective 'all more or less the same.'Historically, this well shows by the time of Beethoven, who had patronage, and a servile role as an artist, but for part of his career, and then became the first (famous) artist to more or less independently 'free-lance.' The fact he could (he did not change history single-handedly) is due to the general shift in outlook of European society at large.
> 
> Though to paint them all with the 'romantic' brush, I repeat, is very misleading. Spread the 'romantic' pigment too far, and it gets thinned and becomes near meaningless.
> 
> [Weber, of course, is the milestone "composed in the romantic manner from the get-go" guy, and he was a near exact peer by dates of Beethoven.]


Yes, and for further clarity - I'm not looking to re-brand Mozart or Beethoven as Romantics, but the romantic movement isn't something that came into being at one singular point in time out of nowhere. It was a clear evolution of thought and culture. And again, Mozart was well pushing for the individual enlightenment... his _Magic Flute_ is another one of his works that showcases just that. Every era has its transformation points. It's one big web, really... but for communication purposes we try and box everything up.


----------



## tdc

Good points above, as long as we are talking about composers being personally expressive before Beethoven, lets look at the music and circumstances surrounding Bach's _Chaconne_, there is certainly some personal expression going on there, I find this in other works of his as well...But I wouldn't go so far as to say he was a Romantic composer, but if we are looking for the seeds of Romanticism certainly we have to go back before even Mozart.

To be honest I'm not sure I find Beethoven's music more personally expressive than composers before him but it certainly did get bigger and louder.

Bigger, louder, more = Beethoven.

They must love the guy in Texas.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> To be honest I'm not sure I find Beethoven's music more personally expressive than composers before him but it certainly did get bigger and louder.
> 
> Bigger, louder, more = Beethoven.
> 
> They must love the guy in Texas.


I didn't get to that chapter of Charles Rosen's book yet. I think Rosen may discuss this after the chapter dealing with the musical relationship between Beethoven and Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher, "_Lippenschmacher and his Lesser Contemporaries_".

The "_bigger, louder, more = Beethoven_" may have been in hidden somewhere in Rosen's deep and thoughtful analysis of Classical music. Surely it's in there somewhere, I'll let you know when I find it. Perhaps it's in his book on Beethoven's Piano Sonatas.


----------



## tdc

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I didn't get to that chapter of Charles Rosen's book yet. I think Rosen may discuss this after the chapter dealing with the musical relationship between Beethoven and Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher, "_Lippenschmacher and his Lesser Contemporaries_".
> 
> The "_bigger, louder, more = Beethoven_" may have been in hidden somewhere in Rosen's deep and thoughtful analysis of Classical music. Surely it's in there somewhere, I'll let you know when I find it. Perhaps it's in his book on Beethoven's Piano Sonatas because I refuse to believe that such a thoughtful analysis _isn't_ in some highly-regarded music analysis book.


You've got a point, my comment was a subjective reflection, and admittedly it was a little immature. It doesn't touch on many of Beethoven's finer points. No way was my comment meant to be a thoughtful analysis on the level of Rosen or Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> Bigger, louder, more = Beethoven.


Beethoven was very aware that he made a lot of noise. I can't find the reference right now, but concerning the 5th Symphony he wrote to somebody (Count von Oppersdorff?) saying something like, "The finale has only two tympani, but I assure you it sounds like a lot more."

Of his Violin Sonata No. 10, he was a bit late and wrote to the Arhduke Rudolph, "In our finales we like rushing and resounding passages, but this does not please R[ode], and this hinders me somewhat." Rode was the violinist he was writing it for...


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> You've got a point, my comment was a subjective reflection, and admittedly it was a little immature. It doesn't touch on many of Beethoven's finer points. No way was my comment meant to be a thoughtful analysis on the level of Rosen or Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher.


It's no problem at all, it happens, and to be fair, _nobody's_ analysis can quite reach the level of Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher, haha.


----------



## hpowders

tdc said:


> Good points above, as long as we are talking about composers being personally expressive before Beethoven, lets look at the music and circumstances surrounding Bach's _Chaconne_, there is certainly some personal expression going on there, I find this in other works of his as well...But I wouldn't go so far as to say he was a Romantic composer, but if we are looking for the seeds of Romanticism certainly we have to go back before even Mozart.
> 
> To be honest I'm not sure I find Beethoven's music more personally expressive than composers before him but it certainly did get bigger and louder.
> 
> Bigger, louder, more = Beethoven.
> 
> They must love the guy in Texas.


SOME personal expression? Bach's music is FULL of personal expression. Play any of the sarabandes from the keyboard partitas. Any of the fugues from WTC, Book One. The fuga from the unaccompanied violin sonata #3 and yes, the violin partita #2 chaconne.

It tends to be a more restrained kind of passion, but no less moving than anything Brahms and Schumann wrote.


----------



## Musicforawhile

PetrB said:


> This 'trend' of painting earlier than the now-called romantics seems to be in full swing. I find it more than unfortunate the word 'romantic' is being used to describe what is, actually, a tendency to make the point that composers before the romantics, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. were writing music which was _personally expressive__,_ i.e. more than likely events in their lives, or "outside events" as it were, very much affected what they wrote, and 'what that music _may_ be about.


So Beethoven and Mozart wrote music that was personally expressive...but did composers before them not do this? Were the composers before them more of the Renaissance poets' thinking i.e showing off their ability to do something rather than it being something confessional and personal?

I think of the precise rhythm needed in the music of the classical period and the more looser rhythm called for in Romantic pieces as being an obvious difference, as well as Romantic pieces being more emotionally expressive ...are these fair comparisons? what other differences are there?


----------



## Woodduck

I think we can all agree, after a little reflection, that "emotional expression" is not a characteristic exclusive to Romantic music or music of any particular period. Qualifying it as "personal" expression may get us a little closer to what we think of as "Romanticism"; the Romantic movement in general placed a new importance on the subjective perceptions, feelings, and aspirations of the individual. But how can we presume to designate the expressive intentions of this or that music as "personal," unless the composer tells us specifically by means of some title or program that that's what he intends? When we find any piece of music "expressive," how do we determine whether that expression is "personal"? Is there _impersonal_ expression? It would seem that we're on pretty shaky ground trying to make that sort of distinction, and so on pretty shaky ground trying to say that music - Mozart's, Beethoven's, Tchaikovsky's, or anyone else's - is "Romantic" based on what we think it expresses.

And yet... we think we know Romantic music when we hear it, and we feel sure that there is some difference in its expressive content from what we find in music of earlier periods. And when we hear qualities that we recognize from Romantic music in music of earlier periods we say things like "Bach's _Chromatic Fantasy_ sounds Romantic," or "Mozart's _String Quintet in G-minor_ anticipates Romanticism." I don't think these very common perceptions can be dismissed as mere misunderstandings. But if they aren't, what do they mean? What facts might justify such statements?

People who study music or compose it, people who understand how music is put together, when seeking to answer questions about what style or period a piece belongs to, are likely to look less at its supposed "expressive" qualities than at its structure, its form. They look at how composers of different styles and periods construct their music, and how those ways of constructing it changed over time; when they want to see what makes Romantic music different from Classical music, for example, they look at the development of sonata form, the ways composers varied it, the rise and fall in its importance, the development of new forms, and so on. They look at changes in composers' harmonic vocabulary, rhythmic structure, orchestration - all the elements that go to determine the way music sounds. This approach to identifying the style or period of music certainly has the advantage of objectivity, which identification by "expressive quality" lacks.

Still, our perceptions of music are not wholly "objective," no matter how well we can analyze it. Form and expression are inseparable in music - in all the arts, actually. Why do composers utilize particular forms? What determines their specific choices when they need to decide the shape of a melody, or to choose a specific chord or instrumental color? Why do certain musical forms come into being at certain times in history, and why do they give way to the particular forms that succeed them in popularity? Musical forms and preferences for certain sounds don't develop in a cultural vacuum, and as new ideas, outlooks and sensibilities emerge in human society, artists find new forms of expression and abandon old ones which no longer speak to them and for them.

Attempting to classify music music as to style or period by the feelings it seems to express may have some foundation, depending very much on the breadth and depth of our experience in listening to different styles of music. If we think, based on what we feel a piece is saying to us, that it's "Romantic," chances are that looking at its formal characteristics will corroborate our impression in some way. If it doesn't, we may have to examine more closely why we think the expressive content of that music is specifically Romantic, or what we think "Romantic" means, in music and elsewhere.

A large subject.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Yes, and for further clarity - I'm not looking to re-brand Mozart or Beethoven as Romantics, but the romantic movement isn't something that came into being at one singular point in time out of nowhere. It was a clear evolution of thought and culture. And again, Mozart was well pushing for the individual enlightenment... his _Magic Flute_ is another one of his works that showcases just that. Every era has its transformation points. It's one big web, really... but for communication purposes we try and box everything up.


Historically, and for some near forty years at least now, the middle movement _Romanza_ of Mozart's D-minor piano concerto K.466 has been deemed 'the movement' which is the sort of milestone marker for what was (much) later called Romantic in music.

What I really do not understand is this flying in the face of _the_ traditional definition of music / romantic, very much having to do with the musical / harmonic procedures (and of course the aesthetic and intent which are hand-in-hand a part of that) and trying to point out the earlier tendencies of more individual expression as another sort of 'romantic.' Frankly, I think it is nonsense.

Without knowing at all, I am wondering if the trend comes mainly from the 'British Academic school' -- and that is wondered while thinking of that culture's tendency to the stiff-upper lip manner of not discussing 'emotions,' and too that the culture is of a strong literary / literal, bent. Ergo a 'new found' belief and need to rethink Mozart, etc. as also being personally 'expressive,' and that would have to include classical era being taught as something where the composers were emotionally remote from what they were writing (which is also in my mind a very skewed thing to think or say, let alone teach.)

I've been out of academia for quite a while though, but still can not see any real valid reason for revising what we have called Romantic in the past, or for that matter the fringe side-school of 'narrative theory,' or why indeed one should have to point out _at all_ that Mozart's music is personally expressive -- because without one lesson in anything, it seems rather intuitively clear that Mozart is that expressive. The movement in this direction is to me like making a big deal out of what is blazingly obvious.


----------



## Blake

I guess here we get into the trouble of these labels. As pointed out quite cheekily earlier on... might as well bring it back to Monteverdi, eh? Or Josquin and Palestrina's romantic undertones... It seems the music itself contains too much weight for these silly labels to really hold. I enjoy discussing it playfully, but when looked at a bit more seriously, the labels really aren't worth a damn.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Historically, and for some near forty years at least now, the middle movement _Romanza_ of Mozart's D-minor piano concerto K.466 has been deemed 'the movement' which is the sort of milestone marker for what was (much) later called Romantic in music.
> 
> What I really do not understand is this flying in the face of _the_ traditional definition of music / romantic, very much having to do with the musical / harmonic procedures (and of course the aesthetic and intent which are hand-in-hand a part of that) and trying to point out the earlier tendencies of more individual expression as another sort of 'romantic.' Frankly, I think it is nonsense.
> 
> Without knowing at all, I am wondering if the trend comes mainly from the 'British Academic school' -- and that is wondered while thinking of that culture's tendency to the stiff-upper lip manner of not discussing 'emotions,' and too that the culture is of a strong literary / literal, bent. Ergo a 'new found' belief and need to rethink Mozart, etc. as also being personally 'expressive,' and that would have to include classical era being taught as something where the composers were emotionally remote from what they were writing (which is also in my mind a very skewed thing to think or say, let alone teach.)
> 
> I've been out of academia for quite a while though, but still can not see any real valid reason for revising what we have called Romantic in the past, or for that matter the fringe side-school of 'narrative theory,' or why indeed one should have to point out _at all_ that Mozart's music is personally expressive -- because without one lesson in anything, it seems rather intuitively clear that Mozart is that expressive. *The movement in this direction is to me like making a big deal out of what is blazingly obvious.*


Yep, I kinda' thought so too. But then I wonder where all the friction comes from when these ideas actually are expressed.


----------



## Woodduck

Vesuvius said:


> I guess here we get into the trouble of these labels. As pointed out quite cheekily earlier on... might as well bring it back to Monteverdi, eh? Or Josquin and Palestrina's romantic undertones... It seems the music itself contains too much weight for these silly labels to really hold. I enjoy discussing it playfully, but when looked at a bit more seriously, the labels really aren't worth a damn.


I suspect there may be some uncertainty about how playful your use of the label "Romantic" was intended to be. When I hear someone say that Mozart was the real turning point from Classicism to Romanticism and Beethoven was just a ripple in his wake, I feel clouds of seriousness gathering upon my knitted brow.


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> I suspect there may be some uncertainty about how playful your use of the label "Romantic" was intended to be. When I hear someone say that Mozart was the real turning point from Classicism to Romanticism and Beethoven was just a ripple in his wake, I feel clouds of seriousness gathering upon my knitted brow.


Haha, playfulness comes in many varieties. I was trying to start a vibrant debate. However, I still stand by what I said... playfully, that is. 

... and I don't think any of these discussions are going to reach the history books. So, I can't say I'm being overly cautious.


----------



## Woodduck

Vesuvius said:


> Nice write up, d. Here's a varying opinion.


Somehow I got through him saying that that the _Symphony in G-minor_ was "almost on the edge of chaos, " but when he said that Mozart's music could "genuinely express the world" I knew it was time to send him away.

I'm not Romantic enough for music like that. I need some cool, clean Wagner. Now.


----------



## Musicforawhile

Obviously all music is expressive so what I said before about Romantic music being more emotionally expressive is pretty redundant. So let me try and explain myself... I think what I mean is, when I am playing a piece by Chopin I personally react to the music with an overflow of my emotions and feel something overwhelming that flows out of me, almost dousing the piano with my emotions...which can then lead to overindulgence I suppose. So I feel that Romantic pieces lend themselves to an emotional outpouring for me personally. If I were to play something by Mozart, although I would feel it to be highly expressive, it doesn't lend itself to this outpouring feeling - which isn't a criticism or a commendation, just that's how I experience it. Mozart expresses so much for me, but the difference is this frothing over the top feeling which I can express in Romantic music and I feel it calls for that. I feel that way when playing Moonlight Sonata, but never when playing or singing anything by Mozart. But that doesn't make Romantic music more expressive or more emotional, it just seems to lend itself to that particular faculty of the emotions - that being a feeling of the excess spilling over. It's a feeling I get in every day life...and why I need to express myself through painting, poetry dance etc because when I've been moved by something greatly, it goes into excess and I have to do something with this surplus. But that doesn't make my emotions deeper than others who don't experience this spilling over. Also, the more flexible (is that the right word?) rhythm called for in Romantic and then later in Impressionistic music is more representational to me of my experience of reality and time - reality can be bent and time can be pulled, stretched etc. So I guess Romantic music just feels more expressive of my own personal experience of life.


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> Somehow I got through him saying that that the _Symphony in G-minor_ was "almost on the edge of chaos, " but when he said that Mozart's music could "genuinely express the world" I knew it was time to send him away.
> 
> I'm not Romantic enough for music like that. I need some cool, clean Wagner. Now.


See, I don't think this response holds much water because it's due to your own personal biases. That's not an ignorant guy in that video... he's quite intelligent and seasoned. But you listen to whom you choose based on the concepts that you're currently attached to.

He got a little emotional there. But it requires enough reasoning in oneself to see what he was pointing to. There is something incredibly human about that piece, yet also transcendental. You can say this is relative, but I'd like to find someone who disagrees.

I've acknowledged the varying/opposing points in this thread, and I don't find what I'm pointing to is unreasonable. It may be too reasonable... I think that's the problem. I won't allow my faculties to bend according to some made-up regulations.

I'm still enjoying myself, so don't worry. I haven't gotten too serious yet.


----------



## Woodduck

Vesuvius said:


> See, *I don't think this response holds much water because [[/B]B]it's due to your own personal biases. *That's not an ignorant guy in that video... he's quite intelligent and seasoned. But you listen to whom you choose based on the concepts that you're currently attached to.
> 
> *He got a little emotional there*. But it requires enough reasoning in oneself to see what he was pointing to.* There is something incredibly human about that piece*, yet also transcendental. You can say this is relative, but I'd like to find someone who disagrees.
> 
> I've acknowledged the varying/opposing points in this thread, and I don't find what I'm *pointing to* is unreasonable. It may be too reasonable... I think that's the problem. I won't allow my faculties to bend according to some *made-up regulations*.
> 
> I'm still enjoying myself, so don't worry. I haven't gotten too serious yet.


I'm wondering what biases you see that might cause me to find amusing such wild-eyed, deep-purple assertions as this commentator makes about the music of Mozart?

All I've done here is to mock (rather good-naturedly, I thought, but maybe I misjudged) not the possibility that there may be premonitions of Romanticism in Mozart's work, but the extravagant Romanticization of it, redolent of the bad old days of "music appreciation for the masses."

That Mozart's late works have powerful expressive qualities and affect listeners deeply, is not likely to be denied by many but the most unsympathetic listeners. That Mozart has to be "sold" to us by telling us what he is "about" with the overstatement of a Hollywood movie trailer is rightly going to be rejected by many whose sole "bias" is that they are allergic to hyperbole.

My tastes in music tend quite strongly to the Romantic, and I have no bias against recognizing the stirrings of that artistic phenomenon in Mozart or anywhere else. But I am a fastidious enough musician, student of music, and thinker to recoil when some of the most exquisitely ordered and controlled music on the planet is described as "on the edge of chaos" simply because it conveys, through a few rapid harmonic shifts which are over in a moment, a feeling of instability or turbulence exceptional for its time. As for "expressing the world"... Well, has all the music ever produced since the beginning of time managed - or even tried - to do that, whatever the phrase is even supposed to mean?

I respect that commentator's enthusiasm and "personal biases" which lead him to attribute such cosmic attributes to the music he loves. And I do indeed know what qualities in it he is "pointing to." I just don't think it unreasonable to ask that when people point to things they make an effort to describe accurately the object of their pointing. Particularly if they're getting paid to educate the rest of us.


----------



## Blake

Woodduck said:


> I'm wondering what biases you see that might cause me to find amusing such wild-eyed, deep-purple assertions as this commentator makes about the music of Mozart?
> 
> All I've done here is to mock (rather good-naturedly, I thought, but maybe I misjudged) not the possibility that there may be premonitions of Romanticism in Mozart's work, but the extravagant Romanticization of it, redolent of the bad old days of "music appreciation for the masses."
> 
> That Mozart's late works have powerful expressive qualities and affect listeners deeply, is not likely to be denied by many but the most unsympathetic listeners. That Mozart has to be "sold" to us by telling us what he is "about" with the overstatement of a Hollywood movie trailer is rightly going to be rejected by many whose sole "bias" is that they are allergic to hyperbole.
> 
> My tastes in music tend quite strongly to the Romantic, and I have no bias against recognizing the stirrings of that artistic phenomenon in Mozart or anywhere else. But I am a fastidious enough musician, student of music, and thinker to recoil when some of the most exquisitely ordered and controlled music on the planet is described as "on the edge of chaos" simply because it conveys, through a few rapid harmonic shifts which are over in a moment, a feeling of instability or turbulence exceptional for its time. As for "expressing the world"... Well, has all the music ever produced since the beginning of time managed - or even tried - to do that, whatever the phrase is even supposed to mean?
> 
> I respect that commentator's enthusiasm and "personal biases" which lead him to attribute such cosmic attributes to the music he loves. And I do indeed know what qualities in it he is "pointing to." I just don't think it unreasonable to ask that when people point to things they make an effort to describe accurately the object of their pointing. Particularly if they're getting paid to educate the rest of us.


Very well. Good response. I guess it leans on the point of how critical are we going to be with art? And maybe that's why it is so often described with metaphors and hyperboles... in an effort to step away from the strict regulations we put onto it. I don't think it's outside of reasoning to suggest that music is inherently indescribable. So to simply refer to a piece as its structure could be missing the entirety of it.

So yes, he has his biases... as most of us do. But I see what he was driving at - trying to push people away from primarily looking at the technicalities of Mozart for a more humanistic approach. As bizarre as it sounds, we all are human... and we can't help but express that.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Woodduck said:


> Technically, Mozart is still absolutely a Classicist. Temperamentally, and in terms of sensibility, his late works do suggest the new currents of the time, which in music took the form of a more subjective expressivity. The term "Romantic" was being applied to literature within Mozart's lifetime, and the _Sturm und Drang_ movement dating back to the 1760s certainly marks the first significant stirring of a Romantic sensibility.
> 
> It can be debated whether the term "Romanticism," as applied to music, should be used to refer primarily to musical style as such or to broader aesthetic ideals. There will thus be disagreement as to what should be considered "Romantic" music, and as to where the "Romantic period" should be considered as beginning and ending. But wherever we come down on this matter of terminology, there is fairly broad agreement that Beethoven is the major figure who straddles the boundary, exemplifying over the course of his constantly innovative career both Classical ideals and, increasingly, the revolutionary sensibilities which overtook the culture precisely during his lifetime.
> 
> Beethoven's work can hardly be described as a "wake in the turbulence started from Mozart's romantic inclinations." On the contrary, I would say that Mozart's late works, however personal in their expressiveness, provided no more than a hint of the subjective, literary, and philosophical preoccupations characteristic of the Romantic movement which unfolded after his death.
> 
> Perhaps the famous four-note opening motif of Beethoven's _Fifth Symphony_, which someone claimed represented "fate knocking at the door," would better be dubbed "Romanticism breaking down the door."


I just wanted this post to be brought up again, I agree with these thoughts. It is indeed one of those broad agreements, and there's good reason for it being a broad agreement. It's not for no reason, after all. It is more about LvB's innovative and "revolutionary sensibilities" and it's not hyperbolic at all to say so. Even Charles Rosen, who also seems to be allergic to hyperbole, asserts the same thing (he uses those very words, in addition to "startlingly radical and original"). I'm also glad you made the distinction of the "purely musical" terminology and the "broader aesthetic ideals", the distinction is key, in my opinion. Somehow, I don't think the crux of the issue is whether Beethoven used the Sonata form or not. Lol

That being said, purely musically, my answer is neither.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> As for "expressing the world"... Well, has all the music ever produced since the beginning of time managed - or even tried - to do that, whatever the phrase is even supposed to mean?


It needs to be taken along with what preceded it, which was that symphonies were supposed to be small scale, "one or two episodes of life, a couple of primary colours...but with Mozart and the full spectrum, he could genuinely express the world."

I take that to mean that Mozart took the sonata form symphony and began to use it for larger scale purposes - not that he _did _actually express 'the world' in any of them, just that he recognised the capacity of the form to express so much more - limitless possibilities I suppose.


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> It needs to be taken along with what preceded it, which was that symphonies were supposed to be small scale, "one or two episodes of life, a couple of primary colours...but with Mozart and the full spectrum, he could genuinely express the world."
> 
> I take that to mean that Mozart took the sonata form symphony and began to use it for larger scale purposes - not that he _did _actually express 'the world' in any of them, just that he recognised the capacity of the form to express so much more - limitless possibilities I suppose.


Yes, great point. This "breaking away" or "freeing up" is exactly what I'm referring to as being the birth pains to the Romantic era. He did this with his piano concertos, as well.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Yep, I kinda' thought so too. But then I wonder where all the friction comes from when these ideas actually are expressed.


I've noticed a general trend over the last quarter-century or so, in academe and elsewhere:
_the fastidious over-definition of minutia._

One could guess that within academe, and that 'have to write a thesis which makes a new statement,' mentality, that neoplasms, and going further and further into the micro is one way to at least appear like takes on past theory and history are not as replete as they actually are 

The academic who must 'publish or perish' is also part of the fueling of this particular minutia engine, i.e. whether they are sincere or not, they must find an angle (like the person selling their self must find 'a gimmick' to stand out) and put some neo-spin, preferably replete with clever neologisms, on theory or music history.

The trouble with minutia as it has been coming forth from these sources is that it is so dwelt upon that the larger picture, that to a purpose of wide and deep understanding, gets brushed aside. It is not anymore just case of not seeing the forest for the trees -- a condition of perception bad enough already to fail to understand, but it seems to me to have now progressed to not seeing the trees because of the leaves and pine needles.


----------



## trazom

Oh never mind.......................


----------



## PetrB

Woodduck said:


> All I've done here is to mock (rather good-naturedly, I thought, but maybe I misjudged) not the possibility that there may be premonitions of Romanticism in Mozart's work, but the extravagant Romanticization of it, redolent of the bad old days of "music appreciation for the masses."
> 
> I respect that commentator's enthusiasm and "personal biases" which lead him to attribute such cosmic attributes to the music he loves. And I do indeed know what qualities in it he is "pointing to." I just don't think it unreasonable to ask that when people point to things they make an effort to describe accurately the object of their pointing. Particularly if they're getting paid to educate the rest of us.


LOL. 1000%. 
I can get the point because I'm a mildly meticulous musician, but the waxing into turgid purple prose, etc. is more than a bit much, and I'm certain it is then responsible for what ends up being _misinformation_ transmitted to the general public.

Indeed, it is that "Educating the Masses," -- and in what seems a near extreme condescending manner... and badly on top of everything else


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> I've noticed a general trend over the last quarter-century or so, in academe and elsewhere:
> _the fastidious over-definition of minutia._
> 
> One could guess that within academe, and that 'have to write a thesis which makes a new statement,' mentality, that neoplasms, and going further and further into the micro is one way to at least appear like takes on theory and history are not as replete as they actually are  The academic who must 'publish or perish' is also part of the fueling of this particular minutia engine, i.e. whether they are sincere or not, they must find an angle (like the person selling their self must find 'a gimmick' to stand out) and put some neo-spin, preferably replete with clever neologisms, on theory or music history.
> 
> The trouble with minutia as it has been coming forth from these sources is that it is so dwelt upon that the larger picture, that to a purpose of wide and deep understanding, gets brushed aside. It is not a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, but now not seeing the trees because of the leaves and pine needles.


It can be stale ground for any side. Another problem is that most of the labelings were put on after the fact. Neither Mozart nor Beethoven where walking around proclaiming how Classical they were. They were just making music with what they had and trying to progress.

That's why it's a shame that when one points out connective points of the evolving spectrum there is this backlash. Because we have so clearly defined what Mozart was... and he can't possibly have been anything other than the box we put him in. For musicology and educational purposes it's fine to a point, but if we can't see the superficiality of the labels then we're missing something.


----------



## Blake

You know, I've read on several instances that the German Sturm un Drang movement is one of the big catalyst towards the Romantic movement. So, it could actually be Haydn who was the father of romanticism in music.

I know some of you guys may have a stroke, but there might be something here.


----------



## millionrainbows

You can explain it all away academically, by citing 'style' and adherence to norms, _but in the end,_ _*the "Romantic" is the subjective, poetic aspect of the artist;*_

...how he expresses his own soul, and sees his own soul in relation to, and similar to, other souls he may communicate with.

To the extent that he does this, and conversely, to the extent that his purpose has ceased to communicate to an "agency" or "power" (even God), and has transcended any such ostensible purpose,

...and to the extent that this communication of *the experience of being human* is conveyed in a universally profound manner, then this is the art of Romanticism, when it became "okay" to do so.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> You can explain it all away academically, by citing 'style' and adherence to norms, _but in the end,_ _the "Romantic" is the subjective, poetic aspect of the artist;_
> 
> ...how he expresses his own soul, and sees his own soul in relation to, and similar to, other souls he may communicate with.
> 
> To the extent that he does this, and conversely, to the extent that his purpose has ceased to communicate to an "agency" or "power" (even God), and has transcended any such ostensible purpose,
> 
> ...and to the extent that this communication of _the experience of being human_ is conveyed in a universally profound manner, then this is the art of *Romanticism, when it became "okay" to do so.*


You're on to something here. Bolded is what I find to be the key point. Romanticism can be found in every era. But it seems what distinguishes the actual Romantic era from its predecessors is the widespread acceptance of using this subjective, poetic aspect as the starting point of making music. And this acceptance didn't come all at once.


----------



## aleazk

I have not been following this discussion, but here's my take.

I differentiate eras, styles, etc., by the good old-fashioned criterion: the objective musical characteristics present in the music, i.e., those things you can notice when you analyze the pieces in a technical sense (form, harmonic practice, etc.)

Does that make me some petty academic, some cold-hearted theoretician? Of course not.

And that's because expression and technique are related: composers push the boundaries of the technique in order to achieve new means of expression, that allow them to express new emotional, or aesthetic ideas.

And here comes an important point: only when I can see some solidification and systematization of new formal ideas in the actual music is when I prefer to start talking about a new period, style, because this is actually a _trace, evidence_ (in the music) of a solidification and systematization of a new _ethos_ in the actual culture in general.

That's why the old-fashioned criterion is not at all arbitrary, nor the usual stylistic historical boundaries we all know.

What will always have arbitrary elements is the discussion of these boundaries before the periods of clear solidification.

What are the characteristics of this ethos, how are they defined? are extrapolable to other times? That's certainly complex. What I certainly don't buy is the suggestion to call 'Romantic' to anything having 'expression'. If that defines the Romantic ethos, then it's a useless concept. Of course, more or less we all know it's not a useless concept, and that it's much more complex and rich than that. I'm not going to attempt to define this concept, because possibly I would fail. To insist in this task is to embark in some interminable metaphysics/ontological discussion. We know the music, we know the art. What's Romanticism?: just feel it. If you can't perceive the differences, I would say you are the petty academic, cold-hearted theoretician trying to reduce all this to some nit-picking. How about that, Mr plurality?


----------



## Woodduck

aleazk said:


> I have not been following this discussion, but here's my take.
> 
> I differentiate eras, styles, etc., by the good old-fashioned criterion: the objective musical characteristics present in the music, i.e., those things you can notice when you analyze the pieces in a technical sense (form, harmonic practice, etc.)
> 
> Does that make me some petty academic, some cold-hearted theoretician? Of course not.
> 
> And that's because expression and technique are related: composers push the boundaries of the technique in order to achieve new means of expression, that allow them to express new emotional, or aesthetic ideas.
> 
> *And here comes an important point: only when I can see some solidification and systematization of new formal ideas in the actual music is when I prefer to start talking about a new period, style, because this is actually a trace, evidence (in the music) of a solidification and systematization of a new ethos in the actual culture in general.*
> 
> *That's why the old-fashioned criterion is not at all arbitrary, nor the usual stylistic historical boundaries we all know.*
> 
> *What will always have arbitrary elements is the discussion of these boundaries before the periods of clear solidification.*
> 
> What are the characteristics of these ethos, how are they defined? are extrapolable? That's certainly complex. What I certainly don't buy is the suggestion to call 'Romantic' to anything having 'expression'. If that defines the Romantic ethos, then it's a useless concept. Of course, more or less we all know it's not a useless concept, and that it's much more complex and rich than that. I'm not going to attempt to define this concept, because possibly I would fail. To insist in this task is to embark in some interminable metaphysics/ontological discussion. We know the music, we know the art. *What's Romanticism?: just feel it. **If you can't perceive the differences, I would say you are the petty academic, cold-hearted theoretician trying to reduce all this to some nit-picking.* How about that, Mr plurality?


Yes. Just yes.

And what Romantic music, and what a performance by the marvelous Martha! This puts Mozart's "Romantic tendencies" into perspective better than any discussion under this thread. Finally it all comes down to listening.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> I differentiate eras, styles, etc., by the good old-fashioned criterion: the objective musical characteristics present in the music, i.e., those things you can notice when you analyze the pieces in a technical sense (form, harmonic practice, etc.)
> 
> [...]
> 
> What are the characteristics of these ethos, how are they defined? are extrapolable? That's certainly complex. What I certainly don't buy is the suggestion to call 'Romantic' to anything having 'expression'. If that defines the Romantic ethos, then it's a useless concept. Of course, more or less we all know it's not a useless concept, and that it's much more complex and rich than that. I'm not going to attempt to define this concept, because possibly I would fail. To insist in this task is to embark in some interminable metaphysics/ontological discussion. We know the music, we know the art. What's Romanticism?: just feel it. If you can't perceive the differences, I would say you are the petty academic, cold-hearted theoretician trying to reduce all this to some nit-picking.


No, just no. You can't lay claim to 'good old fashioned criterion' and then say that if you can't just feel it, you're being picky!


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> You know, I've read on several instances that the German Sturm un Drang movement is one of the big catalyst towards the Romantic movement. So, it could actually be Haydn who was the father of romanticism in music.


E.T.A. Hoffman thought so. "Haydn romantically apprehends the humanity in human life; he is more congenial, more comprehensible to the majority." (1810)


----------



## Turangalîla

Mozart was Classical. Progressive, at times, but still firmly Classical.

Beethoven's style evolved so much from his early to late periods that most of his music defies easy categorization.


----------



## Turangalîla

In addition, I would argue that Gesualdo was the father of much of what is considered to be "Romantic" in style, but that's debatable...


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> No, just no. You can't lay claim to 'good old fashioned criterion' and then say that if you can't just feel it, you're being picky!


Well, yes, really. _If_ you follow the *good, old-fashioned criterion* re: "Romantic," and then listen to a lot of the music which is called Romantic _within the boundaries of "that good old fashioned sense of the criterion,"_ and then go listen to *just anything at all* by Beethoven and or Mozart... 
_*then you will just know that neither Beethoven or Mozart are romantic, by any stretch of the imagination.*_ -- _No further book larnin' study, theoretical information needed, to boot. (I think that is what is called then, intuitive _


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> No, just no. You can't lay claim to 'good old fashioned criterion' and then say that if you can't just feel it, you're being picky!


But yes, indeed yes! You can say both of the things he said. We need both our eyes - looking at the music and seeing how it's made - and our ears, which tell us what all the marks on the staves mean and how significant they really are. The "old-fashioned criteria" are generally accurate, but if you can't hear and feel the differences you are indeed a "cold-hearted nit-picker."

The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as Erebus:
Let no such man be trusted.

-- _The Merchant of Venice_


----------



## Guest

So the only criterion are 'feelings' which is what, I had thought, we were trying to get away from!?

The "old-fashioned criteria" are generally accurate - but what are they?


----------



## aleazk

MacLeod said:


> So the only criterion are 'feelings' which is what, I had thought, we were trying to get away from!?
> 
> The "old-fashioned criteria" are generally accurate - but what are they?


If I want to give you an idea of what is the meaning of something to be 'blue' or 'red', I simply show you something blue or red, and that's it!

In the philosophical field of Philosophy of Mind, this is called Qualia. You can't expect from me a more deeper explanation of what is blue or red. Of course, I could talk about the electromagnetic spectrum, etc., but that doesn't even address the question! this Qualia thing is a central aspect in the appreciation of art, and it's precisely what makes art, well, art, and which distinguishes from, e.g., science!

Those asking for 'mathematical proofs' are, IMO, in the wrong building. And, as you know, I'm actually a mathematician, there would be nobody more happy than me to tell you about those mathematical proofs if they actually existed. But they don't.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> If I want to give you an idea of what is the meaning of something to be 'blue' or 'red', I simply show you something blue or red, and that's it!


No, that's not it. You would still be able (and I would require you) to offer criteria that at least distinguishes 'red' from 'flower' or 'love' or 'Romantic music'.


----------



## aleazk

MacLeod said:


> No, that's not it. You would still be able (and I would require you) to offer criteria that at least distinguishes 'red' from 'flower' or 'love' or 'Romantic music'.


Going back to the context of this thread, you are basically saying "give me reasons, intelligible and verbal reasons about why the Mozart is not Romantic". And I say that I certainly could try. But then I ask myself "what for? is that really necessary, and, most importantly, useful?". My answer is "No". And that's because music is a non-verbal medium. So, any explanation will be imperfect when compared to the actual experience of listening to the music: _because music is there to be listened and to be experienced in that way_. So, really, simply listen to the Mozart and then the Schumann, nothing more is needed, anything else is just superfluous babble.


----------



## Andreas

To me, the first True Romantics were Schumann (or half of him, anyway), Berlioz and Liszt. At least according to my notion of romanticism. Neither Mozart, nor Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, nor even Chopin, really, were romantics. Personally, I see musical romanticism as a style (or philosophy) that moves away from the abstract and self-sufficient nature of music and its inherent logic towards a more contextualized conception that, I guess, culminated in Wagner's Ring cycle.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> ...It may be too reasonable... I think that's the problem...


*LOL* of course, when we highlight that expression aspect in the Mozart piece while sweeping under the rug all of those other aspects also present in the same piece (you know, all of that Mozart/Classical style stuff, which, 'casually', make the biggest portion of the piece), and at the same time we do the same with Romanticism, yes, it's 'reasonable'.

Unfortunately for you, with these criteria of yours, we can also make to seem 'reasonable' the claim that a cat is the same thing as a dog.

All of your little game in this thread is simply akin to this:


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> *LOL* of course, when we highlight that expression aspect in the Mozart piece while sweeping under the rug all of those other aspects also present in the same piece (you know, all of that Mozart/Classical style stuff, which, 'casually', make the biggest portion of the piece), and at the same time we do the same with Romanticism, yes, it's 'reasonable'.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, with these criteria of yours, we can also make to seem 'reasonable' the claim that a cat is the same thing as a dog.
> 
> All of your little game in this thread is simply akin to this:


Again, we keep going back to the systematic structure to judge with. I'm talking about attitude here, the system and the cute names came after. There is definitely something very romantic about both Beethoven and Mozart. Their "breaking-away" mentality is the dawning of the widespread acceptance of this subjective method of composing. Both of them wanted to transcend the "noble institutions" of the day to a more progressive individualistic society. If we're saying that is not romantic, then we're really being quite ridiculous here. *And I keep saying I'm not looking to re-label Mozart and Beethoven as Romantics, I was just interested in finding the real birth-pains of this era.* I mean, this is a forum where most have an uncanny love for classical music, correct? I thought we could have a bit of fun. But I keep forgetting how many of you are structural sticklers.

Romanticism is the attitude and the ideology. A shift of cultural perspective. If all we can talk about is the formal, theoretical structure of a piece then we shouldn't be talking about art.

By the way, you made some great points in your previous post above. You should've just left it at that, instead of going backwards.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Going back to the context of this thread, you are basically saying "give me reasons, intelligible and verbal reasons about why the Mozart is not Romantic". And I say that I certainly could try. But then I ask myself "what for? is that really necessary, and, most importantly, useful?". My answer is "No". And that's because music is a non-verbal medium. So, any explanation will be imperfect when compared to the actual experience of listening to the music: _because music is there to be listened and to be experienced in that way_. So, really, simply listen to the Mozart and then the Schumann, nothing more is needed, anything else is just superfluous babble.


See my still-firmly-held-position on this posted earlier (where you say you've not been). I agree that this is not a necessary or useful discussion except to those who wish to assert that these verbal terms ("Romantic" "Classical") mean something and are useful to them.

http://www.talkclassical.com/34774-first-romantic-mozart-beethoven-post750226.html#post750226

However, I reject the principle that because verbal explanations will imperfect, they would add nothing to any such debate. Of course music is to be listened to, but should someone (a much maligned historian of the development of classical music, or a musicologist, for example) wish to assert that 'romanticism' began with Schumann, they would probably need to do more than just say, "listen to Schumann and it will be obvious."

Especially if they were intending to make some money out of publishing a book on the matter!


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> I agree that this is not a necessary or useful discussion except to those who wish to assert that these verbal terms ("Romantic" "Classical") mean something and are useful to them.


I really wish we can get past this hierarchal way of judging conversation. Particularly in a music forum like this, nothing is of much technical value. It's all sharing in the passion and excitement we get from this music with each other. That's all.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> I really wish we can get past this hierarchal way of judging conversation. Particularly in a music forum like this, nothing is of much technical value. It's all sharing in the passion and excitement we get from this music with each other. That's all.


You mean you get all passionate and excited over whether Mozart was the first Romantic?


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> You mean you get all passionate and excited over whether Mozart was the first Romantic?


That's not what I said. These silly conversations simply come out of the love of music and wanting to talk about it and explore it more. Lighten up.


----------



## Blake

Art is dramatic. It's not reasonable. There is no material benefit in its consumption. We are trying to turn it into a science, and that it's not. The whole point of this thread is an effort to lesson some of these walls we put up around it. If it's not obvious, I'm not so loyal to any concepts around the subject.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> That's not what I said. These silly conversations simply come out of the love of music and wanting to talk about it and explore it more. Lighten up.


Didn't know I was being heavy. I'm not the one referring to 'silly' conversations, or really wishing the conversation would go another way.

I'm very happy to discuss the criteria that might inform consideration of the OP. Without that, there is no conversation - whether it's worthwhile or not - and I see no reason why I shouldn't challenge those who argue that you can't advance criteria verbally, and assert my own view that it's just not reasonable to say, "Listen to the music and you'll get it."


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> Didn't know I was being heavy. I'm not the one referring to 'silly' conversations, or really wishing the conversation would go another way.
> 
> I'm very happy to discuss the criteria that might inform consideration of the OP. Without that, there is no conversation - whether it's worthwhile or not - and I see no reason why I shouldn't challenge those who argue that you can't advance criteria verbally, and assert my own view that it's just not reasonable to say, "Listen to the music and you'll get it."


I agree with this. You're well within your rights. My statement of hierarchal judgements wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular. You and I had already gotten over that bridge. It was a blanket statement on how many of us inflate the importance of technicalities.

I can't always control how much people take personally. I don't know any of you personally.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I'd say Mozart already had romantic tendencies, especially in the piano concertos. But so did Haydn, in some pieces. So, to answer the question - Mozart, even though I prefer Haydn's music in general.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> See, I don't think this response holds much water because it's due to your own personal biases. That's not an ignorant guy in that video... he's quite intelligent and seasoned. But you listen to whom you choose based on the concepts that you're currently attached to.
> 
> He got a little emotional there. But it requires enough reasonng in oneself to see what he was pointing to. There is something incredibly human about that piece, yet also transcendental. You can say this is relative, but I'd like to find someone who disagrees.


But without making any such emphasis, over and over, about Mozart being 'the first (virtual?) romantic -- I'm happy enough though with the already 'status quo' of Mozart having the kernal of a style which was to later flower -- that is just one more bit of pointing out that no one lives in a vacuum, and that 'art movements' are rarely, if ever, "Born overnight."


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> You mean you get all passionate and excited over whether Mozart was the first Romantic?


Let's put it this way... though they are chronologically further apart, if someone said Tudor era buildings and furniture were "the first Victorian style buildings and furniture" would you go, _"Hnnnh?"_ -- or just laugh?


----------



## Marc

hpowders said:


> I hate Haydn and Mozart played too slowly with slides and excessive vibrato. These dudes were NOT Mahler!!


Mahler wasn't all that slow.

Check out Mengelberg's Adagietto: portamenti, yes, but it takes him less than 7 1/2 minutes. And Mahler considered Mengelberg as the best interpreter of his works. He also wrote in a letter to Nathalie Bauer-Lechner that the 4th symphony would last 45 minutes. In his own score he wrote the timings: 15-10-12-8. 12 minutes for the 3rd movement! Imagine that.

I.c. Mozart as Romantic: if in Romanticism the personal feelings and emotions of the composer are both the foundation and most important tools for the composition, then I'm quite convinced that he wasn't really a Romantic. But there's little doubt that he was influenced by and part of the Sturm und Drang movement, which can be considered as a pre-romantic period.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> But without making any such emphasis, over and over, about Mozart being 'the first (virtual?) romantic -- I'm happy enough though with the already 'status quo' of Mozart having the kernal of a style which was to later flower -- that is just one more bit of pointing out that no one lives in a vacuum, and that 'art movements' are rarely, if ever, "Born overnight."


I thought that is precisely what I have been saying this entire time.



PetrB said:


> Let's put it this way... though they are chronologically further apart, if someone said Tudor era buildings and furniture were "the first Victorian style buildings and furniture" would you go, _"Hnnnh?"_ -- or just laugh?


This is simply melodrama to further a precarious stance. The movement is clear, as well as the direct connections... I keep saying -over and over- that the point is to look past these rigid structures at the connecting dots. And to give some attention to the fact that there is no vacuum.

The title was lifted from that BBC documentary, and I thought it would be a good way to get people to look past these walls we build. And, in fact, I'm not looking to crown anyone "The First Romantic." If you can't tell I've jumped from Mozart, to Haydn, and then to the idea that romanticism had always been around.

But I guess progressing the discussion isn't the goal of some. Instead we like to keep the noise up.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> The title was lifted from that BBC documentary, and I thought it would be a good way to get people to look past these walls we build. And, in fact, I'm not looking to crown anyone "The First Romantic." If you can't tell I've jumped from Mozart, to Haydn, *and then to the idea that romanticism had always been around.*


"...and then to the idea that romanticism had always been around."

Sorry, that is just _the_ worst bit, and I don't say that to make noise or hold up some academic banner.

Within or outside of academe, the intelligentsia, 
_"romanticism had always been around" *is just so wrong.*_


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> *and then to the idea that romanticism had always been around.*
> Sorry, that is just the worst bit, and I don't say that to 'make noise,' or hold up some academic banner. Within or outside of academe, the intelligentsia, _"romanticism had always been around" *is just so wrong.*_


It could be. Would you like to give reasons why? To say that it's not would have to be based on the criteria that romanticism is an unmoving structure and not a growing ideological perspective. Which, I think it's the latter.


----------



## Blake

Romanticism is the composing from subjective emotional reactions of one's surrounding environment. In every era there have been composers who have done this outside of their respective platform. It has just never been "okay" to do that until the Romantic era. It started becoming acceptable with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, etc...

That's where I've gotten to in my diagnosis. But the probability of being wrong, I accept.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> *Romanticism is the composing from subjective emotional reactions of one's surrounding environment.* In every era there have been composers who have done this outside of their respective platform. It has just never been "okay" to do that until the Romantic era. It started becoming acceptable with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, etc...


*^^^*
There you go, your new pan-global re-definition for the new age, and Groves. LOL.

This is painting the past with a brush 'invented' much later, or is only as good as "To me, _romantic is..._"

Go right ahead and water the term down to next to nothing if you care to; that I don't care for that approach should mean nothing to anyone who prefers to go at it another way.


----------



## Marc

Reminds me of an interview with Nikolaus Harnoncourt, somewhere mid 1990s, with a Dutch magazine. The interviewer confronted him with the criticism that his latest Bach performances were too romantic and not truly authentic anymore. Harnoncourt said that, according to him, there wasn't such a thing as authenticism and that every period got its own romanticism.

In the end, it seems that romanticism is a subjective term. Many people use their own personal definition. How romantic!


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> There you go, your new pan-global re-definition for the new age, and Groves. LOL.
> 
> This is painting the past with a brush 'invented' much later, or is only as good as "To me, _romantic is..._"
> 
> Go right ahead and water the term down to next to nothing if you care to; that I don't care for that approach should mean nothing to anyone who prefers to go at it another way.


I would like to obliterate the importance of this term, actually. And all other terms. I'm almost at ground zero.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Did we already forget that we _all_ unanimously agreed that Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher was the first true Romantic? Pure and simple.


----------



## Marc

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Did we already forget that we _all_ unanimously agreed that Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher was the first true Romantic? Pure and simple.


Definitely not. It was Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwurstle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- schönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft (of Ulm).


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> I would like to obliterate the importance of this term, actually. And all other terms. I'm almost at ground zero.


I don't know where anyone got the notion that composers before the romantic were some kind of detached music-writing machines, but 'the struggle' here seems to be coming to terms with the fact that say, the Baroque composer who wrote something of such pathos that it is undeniable to any listener _had to have some personal emotional resource_ in order to do so. Certainly, pre-romantic composers were not 'borrowing the emotions of someone else' in order to come up with what they came up with.

Contrary to your proclamation of obliterating terms, it seems the thrust of looking at earlier than romantic composers in a romantic light is an effort _in search of yet another term_ instead of just saying 'they were also personally expressive.'


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> I don't know where anyone got the notion that composers before the romantic were some kind of detached music-writing machines, but 'the struggle' here seems to be coming to terms with the fact that say, the Baroque composer who wrote something of such pathos that it is undeniable to any listener _had to have some personal emotional resource_ in order to do so. Certainly, pre-romantic composers were not 'borrowing the emotions of someone else' in order to come up with what they came up with.
> 
> *Contrary to your proclamation of obliterating terms, it seems the thrust of looking at earlier than romantic composers in a romantic light is an effort in search of yet another term instead of just saying 'they were also personally expressive.'*


I think I remember arguing this very point not too long ago in another thread. And it was received with - "No... Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, and Classical were not personal expressions, but in fact an institutionalized form of writing music. Only the Romantics were really free to do so." This is what I say no to. This is not absolute.

The wider acceptance of freely expressing subjectively and less institutionally happened in the Romantic era... which is why we call it the "Romantic Era." But that doesn't mean it wasn't happening in progressive increments before. Like I said, romanticism is an ideology, not a structure. This structural term is what I want to obliterate the importance out of. It's hogging all the meaning.


----------



## Marc

PetrB said:


> [....]Certainly, pre-romantic composers were not 'borrowing the emotions of someone else' in order to come up with what they came up with.[....]


Probably not, there is always a personal approach, but f.i. in the baroque most composers used the same pattern languages or doctrines to make sure that the listener understood which feelings and emotions were expressed. This is called _Affektenlehre_. This is not a theory or definition made up by scholars several centuries later, but already described and discussed in the baroque/classical period itself. Many of these doctrines were rooted in classical theories about _rhetorica_ and _oratio_. An important publication was _Der vollkommene Capellmeister_ (1739) by Johann Mattheson, who was a 'Capellmeister' himself.

I think that many of the 19th century composers were much more personal in their 'affects' and therefore probably created stronger and more varied reactions, because not each and every listener, from their own personal view, was able to agree or even understand what the composer had created.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> I think I remember arguing this very point not too long ago in another thread. And it was received with - "No... Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, and Classical were not personal expressions, but in fact an institutionalized form of writing music. Only the Romantics were really free to do so." This is what I say no to. This is not absolute.


LOL. You've got to pick and choose whose posts you want to believe -- and weirdly enough, some posters are actually well-informed, others write well but know only their opinion, etc. I hate to advocate 'pick and choose' from a forum as a way to go about learning. But then, if just everyone read Groves, owned a Harvard Dictionary of Music, ditto Larousse, etc. where would over half the discussion points come from? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## PetrB

Marc said:


> Probably not, there is always a personal approach, but f.i. in the baroque most composers used the same pattern languages or doctrines to make sure that the listener understood which feelings and emotions were expressed. This is called _Affektenlehre_. This is not a theory or definition made up by scholars several centuries later, but already described and discussed in the baroque/classical period itself. Many of these doctrines were rooted in classical theories about _rhetorica_ and _oratio_. An important publication was _Der vollkommene Capellmeister_ (1739) by Johann Mattheson, who was a 'Capellmeister' himself.
> 
> I think that *many of the 19th century composers were much more personal in their 'affects' and therefore probably created stronger and more varied reactions*, because not each and every listener, from their own personal view, was able to agree or even understand what the composer had created.


Ergo, _romanticism_, lol... and is exactly why I object to pushing the romantic pencil too far into other eras.


----------



## Marc

PetrB said:


> Ergo, _romanticism_, lol... and is exactly why I object to pushing the romantic pencil too far into other eras.


Sure.

OTOH: everything changes and returns unchanged.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Ergo, _romanticism_, lol... and is exactly why I object to pushing the romantic pencil too far into other eras.


We may be reaching a consensus in the overwhelming relativity of this term.

Wrapping things up... We have regained the obvious. Well done folks.

:tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> *Romanticism is the composing from subjective emotional reactions of one's surrounding environment. *
> 
> ...That's where I've gotten to in my diagnosis. But the probability of being wrong, I accept.


Odd, or ironic, isn't it, that your above definition _just happens to best and most closely fit those composers already designated as ROMANTIC, and they are from the era designated ROMANTIC._

:lol:


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Odd, or ironic, isn't it, that your above definition _just happens to best and most closely fit those composers already designated as ROMANTIC, and they are from the era designated ROMANTIC._
> 
> :lol:


It appears that's when it was widely acceptable, yes. At least that's what our history books keep telling us. 

I thought we already wrapped this thread up? No more hullabaloo. I shall go recumbent now in contentment.


----------



## Declined

Beethoven.


While some of Mozart's music was somewhat romantic, in that it was emotionally expressive rather than just sounding good, so too was Bach's, and Bach was not a romantic composer.


----------



## IBMchicago

I find Beethoven's music more romantic (in the stricter sense) than Mozart's, but I find Mozart's music (and Bach's and Corelli's, for that matter) no less expressive. To me, Mozart's music expresses the little rituals that make up a lifetime - the mysteries of being human that we rarely take the time to solve or even ponder. And I find this utterly moving.


----------



## Varick

Woodduck said:


> Mozart or Beethoven? Perhaps the honor of ushering in Romanticism in music belongs to neither of them. At this point in the conversation I wonder if it might not be pertinent to consider a far less well-known (in fact totally obscure) but strikingly original pioneering figure whose works, though mainly lost and unavailable for the examination of scholars, are known from contemporary descriptions in a few second-hand sources which have lately come into my possession. I have hesitated for some time to bring an unknown composer to widespread attention, partly, I must admit, for fear of being mocked and discredited. But I feel that I would be irresponsible in allowing personal considerations to stand in the way of a significant increase in our understanding of the genesis of Romanticism in the music of the eighteenth century, and therefore I recently published, under another thread which some will already have seen, the following biographical sketch. (I might mention that this is a preliminary draft of a longer biography which I hope to write when I am satisfied that the materials at my disposal are not entirely fraudulent. I am guessing at this point that the final draft will come to about twelve pages in length, including one page of text, four pages of introduction, five pages of notes, and a comprehensive index.)
> 
> Given the present state of my knowledge, here is what I can relate:
> 
> An exact contemporary, and in fact a neighbor, of Ludwig van Beethoven, Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher was born in Bonn in 1770 and died there in 1778, having barely passed his eighth birthday, but already having put the musical world - or at least the municipal bandmaster and the church organist - on alert that fresh currents were ruffling the serenely Classical surface of the mainstream of German music. Lippenschmacher was rumored to have been born an ominous thirteen minutes before Beethoven, who was to become little Ignaz's closest - some say only - friend and companion, despite the despised "von" in the latter's name.
> 
> Ignaz was, from the moment of his emergence into the world, recognized for his inconceivable musicality and preternatural vocal technique; he sang words long before he consented to speak them, exhibiting perfect pitch and a four-octave vocal range whenever he demanded from his parents another stack of staff paper, which he filled with works in every known musical form and for every available instrument, showing in particular a dogged fondness for the basset horn and 'bone. But, owing no doubt to his vocal gifts, it was opera which most preoccupied him, and after writing several derivative social comedies about betrayed countesses, mischievous servants, and androgynous mezzosexuals (even genius, as we know, has to begin somewhere), he found his true metier in the newly fashionable "search and rescue opera," composing, apparently in an astonishing eleven days, the revolutionary score of _Down in the Dumps with Flora and Stan_, for which he was said to have composed thirteen overtures before lighting upon the unprecedented idea of sticking his favorite one in the middle of the opera. This was considered too revolutionary at the time, and the work was never produced. But the boy was not to be discouraged, and even as hopes for production were dashed he continued to turn out orchestral works such as the _"Backyard" Symphony_, which, he insisted in a letter to Beethoven, was "more a depiction of bird noises than an expression of feeling - since, as mankind will come to realize once this Romanticism brouhaha (the German is untranslatable) has run its course, _music expresses nothing_" (italics in the original).
> 
> But Lippenschmacher's greatest work, and his ninth and last essay in symphonic form, was undoubtedly the immense _Symphony of Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine_, which required a nonet of vocal soloists (sub-bass, basic-baritone, Verdi baritone, heldentenor, comprimario tenor, semi-castrato, British hooting contralto, mezzo-whatever, and highly dramatic yet stratospheric coloratura soprano), in addition to antiphonal choirs with enhanced tessitural capability, Mahlerian woodwind doublings, and deaf backseat conductor. This work of truly Gothic proportions was the first symphony to require vocal forces; its final movement, structured as a stunning series of variations, was a setting of verses by the forgotten but otherwise distinguished Greek lesbian poetess Sappiplopogolopoulos from her almost hysterically rapturous yet superbly overwrought work, "Ode to You, Phoria". This final masterwork of Lippenschmacher, unfortunately, was deemed impracticable (apparently, for one thing, no singer could be found admitting to being a semi-castrato), and there is no record of any performance during or after the composer's lifetime.
> 
> It was presumably a great loss to music when Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher died suddenly of suspicious causes the morning after his eighth birthday party, at which his only friend Ludwig had presented him with a small box of chocolate bonbons (his last words were said to have been "Beethoven...aurgh!"). None of his innovative scores were ever published and all are now lost except for a recently discovered sketch, as usual of doubtful authenticity, of a harmonically ambiguous three-note motif scored for string quartet and inscribed with the words "Muss es sein? - oder muss es nicht sein? Das ist eine gute frage." A rumor, circulating even as he lived, held that the leading music houses were secretly being paid not to publish his works; and it was later whispered that shortly before his death he had entrusted his scores to Beethoven for safekeeping. What Beethoven did with these remains undocumented in any extant source on the Master of Bonn. It is recorded only that when pressed in later years about what he thought may have happened to his dear friend Lippenschmacher and his works, the great man pretended not to hear the question.


I haven't read much passed this post on the first page of this thread, and I now have to start cooking dinner, but I had to say this post had me LMAO throughout.

Brilliant and well done to one of the most erudite and eloquent members of this board! Outstanding!

V


----------



## PetrB

DiesIraeVIX said:


> "_*Ode to you, Phoria*_"


ohhh, that is a _good_ one. Thanks


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Paraphrasing that great user of this board, _the dude of the viola_: "_what's next, Monteverdi?_"
> 
> Mozart=classicism
> 
> Beethoven=classicism, romanticlassicism


LOL. Romanticlassicism.

But Violadude and "Who is next, Monteverdi?" Well, he just beat me to that punch, that's all -- after all, some of Monteverdi is _so personally expressive, emotive_ that _it must be romantic,_ no? :lol: :lol: :lol:

About current tags and labels, well, this is 'where we are now,' 




but about revising the old labels in a similar manner -- it just ain't / wadn't so, Joe.


----------



## Blake

Beethoven was more like off-roadin' classicism.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

PetrB said:


> ohhh, that is a _good_ one. Thanks


Haha, wish I could take credit. It's all Wooduck. 

He's the world's most distinguished and eminent Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher historian and biographer.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Vesuvius said:


> Beethoven was more like off-roadin' classicism.


Lol, I like that. Middle Period "Heroic" Beethoven most certainly was off-roadin' Classicism! Late Period Beethoven, however, well there's nothing else quite like it.


----------



## KenOC

Ruskin says, "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags, with here and there a dropped hammer."

Doesn't seem too ramantic to me! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Ruskin says, "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags, with here and there a dropped hammer."
> 
> Doesn't seem too ramantic to me! :lol:


Yes, I once knew an old bag who was quite upset by Beethoven. She preferred Ethelbert Nevin.


----------



## stevens

Where are Carl Maria von Weber?


----------



## Guillet81

Credit where it is due: The first Romantic was undoubtedly Beethoven. And further, Beethoven was overall far more influential over time than Mozart.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I see the Beethoven over-appreciation society is holding one of its annual meetings in town.


----------



## JAS

Has "neither" already been taken?


----------



## hpowders

The first Romantic? Mozart or Beethoven?

Try Carl Maria von Weber.


----------



## Logos

Anyone interested in the dawn of musical romanticism should simply play Weber's Freischuetz overture on a loop. It's all there: folk melodies, supernatural horror, word painting, and plenty of diminished sevenths.


----------



## KenOC

Logos said:


> Anyone interested in the dawn of musical romanticism should simply play Weber's Freischuetz overture on a loop. It's all there: folk melodies, supernatural horror, word painting, and plenty of diminished sevenths.


Two relevant remarks from Beethoven:

"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."

"Euryanthe is an accumulation of diminished seventh chords -- all little backdoors!"


----------



## licorice stick

KenOC said:


> Two relevant remarks from Beethoven:
> 
> "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."
> 
> "Euryanthe is an accumulation of diminished seventh chords -- all little backdoors!"


I'll give Beethoven precedent with the Eroica. But Weber bridged the gap to Schubert and Mendelssohn within 10 years of the Eroica milestone. Just consider some of the pieces with which you are likely familiar: the Turandot Overture (popularized by Hindemith) and the masterful clarinet concerti were composed in 1809 and 1811, respectively.

Edit: I really like this version of the Turandot.


----------



## Guillet81

Is Weber widely regarded as the first true Romantic among most musicologists and conservatory graduates? Not asking in jest, I'm honestly interested in knowing if there is such a consensus. Until today, I had only heard Beethoven mentioned as the candidate for such a "title".


----------



## licorice stick

Guillet81 said:


> Is Weber widely regarded as the first true Romantic among most musicologists and conservatory graduates? Not asking in jest, I'm honestly interested in knowing if there is such a consensus. Until today, I had only heard Beethoven mentioned as the candidate for such a "title".


Not being an "expert," I can only speculate from my association with "experts," and I would guess that if they study anything but John Cage and the occasional Schubert song, they would be aware of Weber as a forerunner of Wagner, but not as a major composer in his own right, and would probably consider Beethoven the only composer worth analyzing from the death of Mozart to late Schubert.


----------



## KenOC

I'd say there are other composers of Beethoven's time worth noting, primarily Hummel and to a lesser extent Reicha. But aside from Weber and maybe Spohr, not tending toward the "romantic." Schubert...of course.


----------



## licorice stick

KenOC said:


> I'd say there are other composers of Beethoven's time worth noting, primarily Hummel and to a lesser extent Reicha. But aside from Weber and maybe Spohr, not tending toward the "romantic." Schubert...of course.


Off the top of my head, late Clementi, Cherubini, late Haydn (extending to middle Beethoven). Not a deep bench, but not a total void without Beethoven.

Edit: And then, of course, there's Rossini and that strain, and Auber in France, starting in the 1820s. And some of the early Meyerbeer that I've heard is delightful.


----------



## Woodduck

Guillet81 said:


> Is Weber widely regarded as the first true Romantic among most musicologists and conservatory graduates? Not asking in jest, I'm honestly interested in knowing if there is such a consensus. Until today, I had only heard Beethoven mentioned as the candidate for such a "title".


Though I'm neither a musicologist nor a conservatory graduate, I'd say that the answer is that Weber was the first composer to speak with an unmistakable and influential Romantic voice. There were transitional figures - Hummel, Spohr, and Beethoven himself - but Weber plunged in headfirst, composing music of fresh and arresting harmonic and instrumental color in pursuit of specific qualities of expression that unmistakably proclaimed a new era. With a nod to _Fidelio_ (a work of Romantic humanism), _Der Freischutz_ can be called the fountainhead of German Romantic opera; its plot full of the supernatural and diabolical, its evocation of the black forest and the life of the "Volk" portrayed in music drenched in folk influence, its dreamy, long-spun melodies and delicately shaded instrumentation, its piquant chromatic harmony (carried further in _Euryanthe_), opened up an enchanting new world of expression that influenced Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and above all Wagner, who said that without Weber he might not have become a composer.


----------



## KenOC

Well...if somebody will put forward a definition of "romanticism" in music, we can continue this discussion in better order.

FWIW Rosen thought Beethoven was quite the romantic fellow when he was about 30 (Pathetique, Moonlight) but then went a different direction. Is the Appassionata romantic?


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Well...if somebody will put forward a definition of "romanticism" in music, we can continue this discussion in better order.
> 
> FWIW Rosen thought Beethoven was quite the romantic fellow when he was about 30 (Pathetique, Moonlight) but then went a different direction. Is the Appassionata romantic?


Big subject. Aren't there some good posts earlier in this thread?


----------



## licorice stick

I think it's fair to say that Beethoven was still looking over his shoulder to Handel, maybe Bach, and Mozart, while Weber had made a cleaner break with the older structures and sensibilities.


----------



## licorice stick

It's important to add that Weber was churning out music of unprecedented virtuosity for woodwinds and (correct me if I'm wrong) piano. This was occurring simultaneously with Rossini's adventures in orchestration -- I think it was largely driven by evolving tastes rather than mechanical breakthroughs in instrument construction in the period of 1805-1815, but again, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Woodduck

A case could be made for Mozart's _Magic Flute_ as a proto-Romantic opera: a libretto in the vernacular (even, I've been told, a bit slangy), a subject featuring fantasy and the supernatural, and a score with somewhat folkish elements, a conscious melodic simplicity strikingly unlike the sophistication of the Da Ponte social comedies or the opera seria. Given Mozart's stated desire to write opera in German, it's tempting to think that Weber's successful plunge into an indigenous national genre of opera would have interested him. Beethoven, though only peripherally interested in writing opera himself, certainly recognized that Weber was doing something remarkable. He was similarly impressed with Schubert's songs, another form essential to the Romantic movement, in which, as in opera, the intimate alliance of music and poetry was central.


----------



## Art Rock

I'd pick Weber or Schubert over either of them as the first romantic.


----------



## hpowders

Logos said:


> Anyone interested in the dawn of musical romanticism should simply play Weber's Freischuetz overture on a loop. It's all there: folk melodies, supernatural horror, word painting, and plenty of diminished sevenths.


Absolutely. The clarinet concertos wouldn't hurt either. Saturated with "Romantic Passion" at a time when this was new.


----------



## hpowders

eugeneonagain said:


> I see the Beethoven over-appreciation society is holding one of its annual meetings in town.


There's a group that I would NEVER join. :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic

When I first heard the first movement of Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24, I knew immediately that he had used a Time Machine to visit the future where he heard Brahms' Piano Concerto No. 1. So he beat Beethoven to Romanticism, but did it by cheating.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## Eusebius12

licorice stick said:


> Off the top of my head, late Clementi, Cherubini, late Haydn (extending to middle Beethoven). Not a deep bench, but not a total void without Beethoven.
> 
> Edit: And then, of course, there's Rossini and that strain, and Auber in France, starting in the 1820s. And some of the early Meyerbeer that I've heard is delightful.


Spontini, Cramer, Dussek, Rossini, Bellini, Ries, Kalliwoda, Mercadante, Bellini and Donizetti. Of course also Berlioz, Mendelssohn and Chopin


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Well...if somebody will put forward a definition of "romanticism" in music, we can continue this discussion in better order.
> 
> FWIW Rosen thought Beethoven was quite the romantic fellow when he was about 30 (Pathetique, Moonlight) but then went a different direction. Is the Appassionata romantic?


Yes it is, although it isn't _unbridled_ romanticism. The 8th symphony is quite classical, more so than some earlier works. Beethoven's stylistic development was more relevant to his own inner daemon than his advocacy of anything like Romanticism.


----------



## Eusebius12

licorice stick said:


> I think it's fair to say that Beethoven was still looking over his shoulder to Handel, maybe Bach, and Mozart, while Weber had made a cleaner break with the older structures and sensibilities.


Weber clearly looks back to Mozart, and saw Beethoven's 'excesses' as verging towards 'madness'. Weber is an important figure, not just a name in the history books, who also hugely influenced Mendelssohn (just look at his piano compositions) and virtually every musical figure who lived in the 1820s (not just Wagner, but Schumann, Marschner, Meyerbeer, Liszt et al)


----------



## Logos

In other ways, Weber was the prototypical romantic artist. Unlike earlier composers who were essentially craftsmen-servants of aristocrats, he aspired to be a complete, fully rounded intellectual: He had been well-educated, was a poet (deeper integration of literature and music is key to the romantic period), a critic, a man of the theater, and had a _volkisch_ interest in cultural history. Even his appearance was fully in the romantic style--the slim, almost wasted figure; the gaunt 'aristocratic' face with dark eyes; even his sickly pallor, pronounced limp, and consumptive cough became part of the gothic image of the sensitive artist too fragile for the crude material world.


----------



## Enthusiast

Romanticism-classicism is a continuum that can be used to "measure" music from any period. I do certainly find Mozart quite a bit more romantic (small r) than Haydn - just as I find Brahms a lot more classical (small c) than Schumann. I feel sure you can find Baroque composers who have more romantic or more classical natures. But the OP question seems to concern who was the first Romantic (capital R) composer and I think it is clear that of the two it was Beethoven. For all his romantic tendencies Mozart was 100% a Classical composer.


----------



## Logos

I think it's important to ask--Was Beethoven himself the first romantic or was he rather the romantics' greatest inspiration? In literature, Shakespeare was the single greatest literary inspiration during the romantic period, but that does not make Shakespeare himself a romantic author.


----------



## EdwardBast

Logos said:


> I think it's important to ask--Was Beethoven himself the first romantic or was he rather the romantics' greatest inspiration? In literature, Shakespeare was the single greatest literary inspiration during the romantic period, but that does not make Shakespeare himself a romantic author.


I think that's the right question - but Beethoven probably terrorized the Romantics at least as much as he inspired them, hence Brahms's acute symphonophobia  and the striking dearth of piano sonatas among the major figures.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mozart is my answer.


----------



## Eusebius12

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart is my answer.


What was the question?


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> What was the question?


I suspect it doesn't matter.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> I suspect it doesn't matter.


Mozart is truly the answer for almost everything.


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> Mozart is truly the answer for almost everything.


Hmmm... A local billboard says it's Jesus.


----------



## Eusebius12

"Man must not live on bread alone"


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> "Man must not live on bread alone"


Peanut butter is essential.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Cartoon: Haggard man is crawling through desert, approaching a man sitting comfortably in a chair. The man in the chair is offering an object in his extended hand, saying, "Peanut butter sandwich?"


----------



## eugeneonagain

See, Beethoven had to be a romantic because he was always suffering unrequited love, whereas Wolfgang was married, which can be like a fire blanket for the flames of romance.


----------

