# Romantic Period



## Tiguras (Jan 24, 2014)

I am currently writing an essay on how composers in the romantic period adapted the literary focus of to time to focus on human psychology, fear, guilt etc.

I was wondering which works you thought embodied this the most. I have gone for of course the Schubert songs (Der Doppelganger), Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique and Dvorak Noon Witch symphonic poem. Would you agree with these?
Thanks


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

The first work that popped into my head when I read your post was Schumann's_ *Kreisleriana*_


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Wagner and Liszt were sometimes said by their contemporaries to write "psychological music".


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> The first work that popped into my head when I read your post was Schumann's_ *Kreisleriana*_


Of those works mentioned so far, that's the one that fits the Romantic Period best, because of the literature tie-in. If the OP wants an Early Big Work hook, Beethoven's 3rd Symphony is that.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Carnaval by Schumann.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Expand the time period to Mahler and you could have a field day.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Tiguras said:


> I am currently writing an essay on how composers in the romantic period adapted the literary focus of to time to focus on human psychology, fear, guilt etc.
> 
> I was wondering which works you thought embodied this the most. I have gone for of course the Schubert songs (Der Doppelganger), Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique and Dvorak Noon Witch symphonic poem. Would you agree with these?
> Thanks


No.

First thing to do is to read some essays on the romantic period.

Make sure you get a pretty comprehensive sense of what romantic means and what years the romantic period covers. For nineteenth century people, the romantic period was over by mid-century. No one ever came up with a term for the music of the next fifty or sixty years, so all that stuff just got grandfathered in.

Might be a good idea to get serious about what psychology means, too. "Fear, guilt etc." only covers a very small portion, and only the negative portion.

And lastly, read Jacques Barzun on Berlioz' symphony. It's a perspective that you might not find anywhere else, but it's the only thoroughly reliable account of that work. (The only one that doesn't rely on simply repeating the same old cliches about it. OK, the only one besides the one that started all the cliches.)


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

When thinking about the romantic period I wouldn't think first of this aspect. To me the most important characteristic of romanticism whether in art or music or literature and whether in germany or france or rusland or england, is the expression of a personal emotion. Then I would think of the "rêverie", dreaming away of the hard world and the horrors of real life, and to connect this with the emotions, to kind off "decorate a wound until it looks a bit less cold and meaningless so that it will hurt you less". Then of the association with natural and historical, the love for nature and the longing for something that once was. But eventually the focus on simple, suppressed and discriminated people and on the psychological is also a very important aspect which I seem to overlook many times! 

I think Liszt and Shumann are great examples but as Im not very familiar with vocal music and these things are almost impossible to be sure of in instrumental music I cant really think of a work in particular, save perhaps some things by Schoenberg but he was of course later.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

The OP is correct in identiftying Schubert as among the first of the great composers to write music with a literary "romantic" link.

Schubert's D 118 _"Gretchen am Spinnrade"_, written in 1814, when Schubert was only 17, is often cited as the first "lied" ever written, the words being taken from Goethe's _Faust_. Of course, Schubert went on subsequently to do great things with this new genre, writing many more lieder and a couple of song cycles (three if D 957 "Schwanengesang" is included). Some of his instrumental and orchestral works also embodied "romantic" traits.

Later composers - especially Schumann, Liszt, Brahms - made further important contributions in the lieder genre, and extended the romantic concept into instrumental and orchestral music. Schumann was the first of these with some of his piano solo works written in the 1840's. His songs and song cycles came a short while later.

Berlioz _Symphony Fantastique_, whilst being a very early program symphony, was not, as far as am aware, based on a romantic poem as such, but is nevertheless a work written in the romantic idiom. Berlioz began writing this work as early as 1830 but it didn't get into print until the mid 1840's.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

. <---- romantic period


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Excellent point, Aramis.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Surely *this* is *romantic period*, bang in the middle? ------> :angel:* ( . )* :kiss:


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

lupinix said:


> To me the most important characteristic of romanticism whether in art or music or literature and whether in germany or france or rusland or england, is the expression of a personal emotion.


Which is a bit of a pity, because this is not so much a characteristic of romanticism as it is a particular consequence of things that are characteristics of romanticism, the elevation of the individual and the emphasis on imagination over reason.

But probably the most important element of romanticism is inclusivity. The romantics set out to include all the things that they perceived as having been left out of earlier world views. Of course, it might appear that that means that some of the heretofore included things are excluded. But as they worked it, inclusion was really the basic principle. So reason was not rejected, simply given a less important position. A good example of how inclusivity works is exoticism. The romantics really got all worked up about exotic places and peoples and ideas. But they got equally worked up about common, ordinary, mundane realities of their local reality.

Indeed, that's how some critics distinguish later trends from romanticism. Realism, for instance, and naturalism, were both aspects of romanticism. The romantic era included all sorts of things. Later eras would work one or two of the many veins, exclusively.

It's instructive to remember that the era we call "classical" was referred to, at least once, as romantic. And if you heard the phrase "Sturm und Drang" without knowing anything about the "classical era," what would you think? Right. That it was something to do with romanticism.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

some guy said:


> No.
> 
> For nineteenth century people, the romantic period was over by mid-century. No one ever came up with a term for the music of the next fifty or sixty years, so all that stuff just got grandfathered in.


yeah I agree that music after about 1850 or at least many music isn't "real Romanticism" anymore, and within the nineteenth century there were a lots of different styles like realism (I believe to have read some works by verdi or maybe another opera composer - romantic opera isn't my thing, are associated with this movement), naturalism (some things by Holst are considered naturalistic), symbolism (for instance Alexander Scriabin), nationalism, late classicism, early impressionism,.... (problem of these styles is lots of composers have only integrated elements from them but only few have really written in one of these styles - with or without integrating elements from the others - for all their life)
Also in the very beginning of the century music was very alike in every country of europe (much like in the classical time), while later on music of every country or environment gets their own characteristics.

When talking about 19th century music I would (very personally) at least make a distinction between three periods: early romantic period, which might even maybe start with late mozart, because some of those works already sound not very different from field anf hummel and paganini and guiliani, mendelssohn could also be a late representative, and much of beethovens work also fall in this cathagory (late Beethoven isn't easy to classify, some works of this period point all the way to early 20th century yet others retain something classicistic and clear too in a way) also there isn't much or no distinction of national styles in this period. Then from about Chopin, Valentin Alkan and Shumann I would speak of the romantic period, music gets more personal and also nationalistic styles come up. Liszt was also born in this time and wrote in the beginning in a kind of beethovenesque but still real own style imo, but was later a reprensentative of Late Romanticism, like Wagner.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

some guy said:


> Which is a bit of a pity, because this is not so much a characteristic of romanticism as it is a particular consequence of things that are characteristics of romanticism, the elevation of the individual and the emphasis on imagination over reason.


Expressive aesthetic theories were central to romanticism in music, the basis of a fundamentally new conception of subjective time and large-scale structure.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

some guy said:


> Which is a bit of a pity, because this is not so much a characteristic of romanticism as it is a particular consequence of things that are characteristics of romanticism, the elevation of the individual and the emphasis on imagination over reason.


Yeah I am aware that "personal emotional expression" is actually a kind of summary of more 'actual' characteristics combined, or the result from them, I do like to say it this way because its just shorter and I already said a lot, but maybe the next time I should put it in quotation marks.
Two of those characteristics were those you already mentioned, but I would also say the centralisation of emotion, which also isn't a rule but still definitely something important in this age. I know, in early baroque emotions already became important and in later empfindsamkeit they even reached a certain peak, but also many late baroque music and later style galant give emotion less attention, for instance because the function of music become a bit more representative of status, also because of the enlightment much classicistic music (but not sturm und drang) is rather focussed on ratio than emotion, and in the beginning of romanticism music became more vague and unclear (classical music being usually more or less strictly organised into clear musical sentences with halfcadenses and cadenses after an even number of measures, and also slow harmonic rhythms and relatively simple or at least clear texture) to work more on your feelings than your mind, so I do think it is of importance



> But probably the most important element of romanticism is inclusivity. The romantics set out to include all the things that they perceived as having been left out of earlier world views. Of course, it might appear that that means that some of the heretofore included things are excluded. But as they worked it, inclusion was really the basic principle. So reason was not rejected, simply given a less important position. A good example of how inclusivity works is exoticism. The romantics really got all worked up about exotic places and peoples and ideas. But they got equally worked up about common, ordinary, mundane realities of their local reality.


Yeah thats very true, I should have mentioned that, but in return I also personally think this inclusiveness has connections to some other characteristics as well as resulting in new ones, like exoticism, of which I guess orientalism is a form?



> It's instructive to remember that the era we call "classical" was referred to, at least once, as romantic. And if you heard the phrase "Sturm und Drang" without knowing anything about the "classical era," what would you think? Right. That it was something to do with romanticism.


I didn't know this! but I can imagine, like what I said earlier about late mozart sounded similar to early romanticism. Sturm und Drang is indeed also something related to it. I would personally still call this kind of actually romantic music up to at least Beethoven "Early Romanticism" though, if Chopin is Romanticism. Also I would say in this classical period and there were kind of two trends: early romanticism and enlightment, because though the music might technically be much the same, the focus is different and also the music in my ears is totally different in experience. This is of course my personal division and I might even be ignorant of too many things I haven't taken into account but so far it works best for me.

Thanks for replying, I think its nice to talk about these things (also thanks OP!)


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

lupinix said:


> When talking about 19th century music I would (very personally) at least make a distinction between three periods: early romantic period, ........


For the purpose of my computerised classical music collection, I have made 6 time-based distinctions for "romantic-era" music based on composers' dates of birth. There may be some slight crossover anomalies in style (eg when a composer lived a long life) but on the whole I find it very useful to have this classification as I have music by about 300 romantic composers. I got the dates from reading the relevant articles on Wikipedia:

i. classical-romantic transition (1780-1799)
ii. early romantic (1800-1819)
iii. middle romantic (1820-1839)
iv. late 19th C romantic (1840-1859)
v. late 19th/20th C romantic (1860-1879)
vi. neo-romantic (1880- )

[NB these are dates of birth of the various composers, not the time periods purporting to represent the different styles of romantic music.]


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

I still don't know if I find Mahlers music a real "style on its own" (like some people have said in school) or rather one of the most true romantics. Maybe he is both in a way, because being individualistic is a part of being a romantic, and he really has all of the other romantic characteristics. And he is also (one of) the most inclusive composers, to him a symphony must be "... like the world. It must embrace everything"

Also funny enough, I also have always felt a kind of connection to scriabin and symbolism, don't know why though.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Partita said:


> For the purpose of my computerised classical music collection, I have made 6 time-based distinctions for "romantic-era" music based on composers' dates of birth. There may be some slight crossover anomalies in style (eg when a composer lived a long life) but on the whole I find it very useful to have this classification as I have music by about 300 romantic composers. I got the dates from reading the relevant articles on Wikipedia:
> 
> i. classical-romantic transition (1780-1799)
> ii. early romantic (1800-1819)
> ...


Organizing by date is a common way to do things, and though I tried to organize by date of composition for a while, I found organizing by birth date of composer much easier to do (and much easier to work with and maintain).

I don't get carried away with this method, though, as a way to understand eras. For one thing, some composers (i.e. Bruckner) were late bloomers, so it tends to throw things off a bit.

But, also, I don't completely buy into the linear model of music history. Rather than people consciously adopting a certain style, it seems more likely that as one individual's experiments with the expressive possibilities of music had success, contemporary and subsequent composers found themselves adopting similar means to expand music's vocabulary.

Conscious cross-cultural composers, such as Schumann, may have been the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

lupinix said:


> I still don't know if I find Mahlers music a real "style on its own" (like some people have said in school) or rather one of the most true romantics. Maybe he is both in a way, because being individualistic is a part of being a romantic, and he really has all of the other romantic characteristics. And he is also (one of) the most inclusive composers, to him a symphony must be "... like the world. It must embrace everything"


Some people see German late Romanticism (Strauss, Mahler, and Wolf but NOT Pfitzner) as a kind of pre- or early modernism, so you're not alone.



lupinix said:


> Also funny enough, I also have always felt a kind of connection to scriabin and symbolism, don't know why though.


Debussy considered himself a symbolist (rather than impressionist) and was interested in symbolist authors and texts.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Partita said:


> For the purpose of my computerised classical music collection, I have made 6 time-based distinctions for "romantic-era" music based on composers' dates of birth. There may be some slight crossover anomalies in style (eg when a composer lived a long life) but on the whole I find it very useful to have this classification as I have music by about 300 romantic composers. I got the dates from reading the relevant articles on Wikipedia:
> 
> i. classical-romantic transition (1780-1799)
> ii. early romantic (1800-1819)
> ...


Nice list! I would personally only be carefull with the term Neo-Romantic though (Don't say you shouldn't use it this way, just that I wouldn't  ), of which I reckon personally only music from about Shostakovich, because Neo-Romanticism is usually used to refer to styles later in 20th century, for instance Penderecki (but even then Neo-Romanticism had many "waves", for instance the one of Benjamin Britten and contemporaries) who still writes neo-romantic works. I mostly put Rachmaninov/Myaskovsky/Mahler/Sibelius/Elgar under Late Romantic, but actually its already another style, which I believe is mostly called Postromanticism, but Im not sure

The music on my pc are now more based on country though, but also within those on periods


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> But, also, I don't completely buy into the linear model of music history. Rather than people consciously adopting a certain style, it seems more likely that as one individual's experiments with the expressive possibilities of music had success, contemporary and subsequent composers found themselves adopting similar means to expand music's vocabulary.


Of all the stupid things I've written in TC in my history here, this may be the stupidest.

I was going to edit it, but what's the use? I'll just let it stand as an example of "how not to post".


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Debussy considered himself a symbolist (rather than impressionist) and was interested in symbolist authors and texts.


Oh wow, maybe I will look different to his music knowing he thought of himself as a symbolist. I knew about him not thinking of himself as a impressionist though, which I found odd when I first found out because in my opinion he is the "least romantic" of those generally considered impressionists. Imo Ravel has very "romantic" works and Faure was originaly a romantic composer, English composers have also integrated many elements of this style but never entirely I guess, some the group des six seem like neo-classicists with impressionistic traits and also for instance early Stravinsky comes really close to my idea of impressionism but still had a different focus. Erik Satie has always been a hard one for me to classify, is he romantic or impressionistic, neo-classicistic or maybe 'protominimal'? It almost seems as if he actually has his own personal style but that its so simple you dont dare to call it something completely different or something, but then again the simpleness I think is part of what is great about him. I also had thought of symbolistic once and after reading this I think that would fit him best, I wonder what others think?

(really love this thread, even though the intentions of the OP might be maybe somewhat different)


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Vesteralen said:


> Of all the stupid things I've written in TC in my history here, this may be the stupidest.
> 
> I was going to edit it, but what's the use? I'll just let it stand as an example of "how not to post".


I don't think its that stupid, if you look for stupid or stupidly saying things you should read my posts


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

lupinix said:


> Oh wow, maybe I will look different to his music knowing he thought of himself as a symbolist.


Well, he did write a Maeterlinck opera... 

I don't necessarily mean that he said "I'm not an impressionist, I'm a symbolist!", but simply that as far as artistic movements go, he showed the most interest in symbolist literature and poetry.

And he certainly didn't think of himself as a Romantic!



lupinix said:


> some the group des six seem like neo-classicists with impressionistic traits and also for instance early Stravinsky comes really close to my idea of impressionism but still had a different focus. Erik Satie has always been a hard one for me to classify, is he romantic or impressionistic, neo-classicistic or maybe 'protominimal'? It almost seems as if he actually has his own personal style but that its so simple you dont dare to call it something completely different or something, but then again the simpleness I think is part of what is great about him. I also had thought of symbolistic once and after reading this I think that would fit him best, I wonder what others think?


Satie ran in a number of circles during his life. Debussy and Ravel were interested in what he was doing in the 1890s. Les Six considered him, along with Stravinsky, a forerunner of their Neoclassical style and their ideas of a music rooted in the people rather than in the myth and grandeur of Wagner and Late Romanticism.

He's also an interesting case in that, of all composers, he seemed to have so little technical ability (unlike Ravel, Debussy, or Poulenc), and somehow he turned that into a defining characteristic.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Of all the stupid things I've written in TC in my history here, this may be the stupidest.
> 
> I was going to edit it, but what's the use? I'll just let it stand as an example of "how not to post".


 I admit feeling a bit of 'thought-blockage' (the sensation is somewhat like a plugged sinus) when I finished reading that paragraph. But I've been getting that sensation more lately anyway.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Vesteralen said:


> Organizing by date is a common way to do things, and though I tried to organize by date of composition for a while, I found organizing by birth date of composer much easier to do (and much easier to work with and maintain).
> 
> I don't get carried away with this method, though, as a way to understand eras. For one thing, some composers (i.e. Bruckner) were late bloomers, so it tends to throw things off a bit.
> 
> ...


I also tried to classify my "romantic" collection by date of composition. That's the system I had for a while but I decided to change it about a year ago to date of birth because of simplicity.

I would briefly mention that I have done a similar thing with all of my other computerised classical music. I mainly used the various Wikipedia classifications, but I also found the "Kentucky" classical music website to be useful in classifying some of the composers, especially 20th C composers. Altogether, some 450 composers are thus allocated on my PC.

I have done this with the main sub-periods of each of Medieval and Renaissance music. In the baroque era, I found it very useful to split this into "early", "middle", "late" periods.

There was quite a long transition period from baroque into "classical", with both co-existing for a while. For the latter, I have sub-divided my collection into (i) galante, (ii) "early classical", "middle classical", "late classical".

Romantic music, as previously described. Then followed by Impressionist music.

Things get more difficult in the 20th Century because of the fact that some of the big-names composers followed different styles at various points in their careers. I used each of the main 20th C categories such as neo-classical, expressionist, minimalist, avant-garde, nationalistic (split into each main country). I made an allocation based on their main works. Overall it's better than simply relying on an alphabetical listing, but I don't fully trust some of these results because of various crossover issues.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, he did write a Maeterlinck opera...
> 
> I don't necessarily mean that he said "I'm not an impressionist, I'm a symbolist!", but simply that as far as artistic movements go, he showed the most interest in symbolist literature and poetry.
> 
> ...


So many really interesting things! Wasn't Ferruccio Busoni already some kind of Neo-Classicist before Satie though?
Yeah I know its really admirable I think, at least to me he showed technical ability isn't everything and that there is power in simpleness (though I still don't like many of his works, but I love the gnossiennes)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Carl Maria von Weber / Schubert / Schumann are about it before the name Romantic means less, or changes, as already pointed out by Some Guy, the class, "Romantic" given to a time later than the era's Romantic ethos was still generally in the air.

Schubert -- early to early mid-romantic, as directly attached to the texts set in his lieder. These are often perfect mini psycho-dramas, terse and self-contained, which quite directly deal with the 'romantic' psychology as coming through, what better for an essay in words, the written word.

_Du liebst mich nich_ gets nastier and nastier as the spurned young maiden sings her plight and becomes more angry and embittered. The lugubrious pre-occupation with death, longing, etc. comes out in abundance in the Winterreise, or another sort of height of romantic era sensibility, the Lied _Nacht und Traume_, with a paper-thin analogy to sleep as preferred over waking life, and sleep as death.

A number of Schumann songs might serve the purpose just as well.

To go to Beethoven as being in any way "romantic" other than a few hints of musical procedure later to come after his death -- a technical paper on music theory -- would be a huge mistake.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> To go to Beethoven as being in any way "romantic" other than a few hints of musical procedure later to come after his death -- a technical paper on music theory -- would be a huge mistake.


No, the argument is easy to make, though "romantic" would no more encompass his style than would "classical."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> No, the argument is easy to make, though "romantic" would no more encompass his style than would "classical."


My criterion is technical, as to musical procedures, which is directly along the lines of those categories as when assigned.

Currently, and I think legitimately, Mozart is being re-viewed, seen in a new light as the first and very strong manifestation of what we later call 'romantic' traits as far as personal expression goes... that musical language cemented in classicism; Beethoven's, to his last penned note remained in the classical matrix, while everyone knows, or is informed, he nearly burst the classical envelope of form and expected harmonic usage to tatters while nonetheless remaining in it.

Otherwise, those categories would be meaningless free-for-all melees of any and everyone's emotional reaction to any and all music of any 'era.'


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

lupinix said:


> problem of these styles is lots of composers have only integrated elements from them but only few have really written in one of these styles - with or without integrating elements from the others - for all their life


Most composers write music rather than manifestos, and to me that's not a problem.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Partita said:


> I also tried to classify my "romantic" collection by date of composition. That's the system I had for a while but I decided to change it about a year ago to date of birth because of simplicity.
> 
> I would briefly mention that I have done a similar thing with all of my other computerised classical music. I mainly used the various Wikipedia classifications, but I also found the "Kentucky" classical music website to be useful in classifying some of the composers, especially 20th C composers. Altogether, some 450 composers are thus allocated on my PC.
> 
> ...


I'd find it a waste of time trying to categorise things by style, just like ranking things by how great I think they are. Chronological is the best way I feel, it doesn't directly correlate to style as time goes on, but that's fine. In fact it's nice to have an honest full view of a period looking at all styles then, for example, when you play through some things from a decade of the 20th century you enjoy the full variety, and it probably makes the listening more pleasurable too.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> My criterion is technical, as to musical procedures, which is directly along the lines of those categories as when assigned.
> 
> Currently, and I think legitimately, Mozart is being re-viewed, seen in a new light as the first and very strong manifestation of what we later call 'romantic' traits as far as personal expression goes... that musical language cemented in classicism; Beethoven's, to his last penned note remained in the classical matrix, while everyone knows, or is informed, he nearly burst the classical envelope of form and expected harmonic usage to tatters while nonetheless remaining in it.
> 
> Otherwise, those categories would be meaningless free-for-all melees of any and everyone's emotional reaction to any and all music of any 'era.'


still its funny that I find that way of cathagorising you just mention, even though it might be technically, more fitting to my emotional experience, I had never heard of it before but I can only agree with it when reading it


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

starry said:


> Most composers write music rather than manifestos, and to me that's not a problem.


...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I didn't say that its a problem of composers I just say that its a problem to think in styles...... did you even read what I said?

I particularly like composers that don't follow a certain style strictly. It was actually meant as a kind of compliment for those composers.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

starry said:


> I'd find it a waste of time trying to categorise things by style, just like ranking things by how great I think they are. Chronological is the best way I feel, it doesn't directly correlate to style as time goes on, but that's fine. In fact it's nice to have an honest full view of a period looking at all styles then, for example, when you play through some things from a decade of the 20th century you enjoy the full variety, and it probably makes the listening more pleasurable too.


I think the best way would be emotion-based. Ive tried it once but it was hard to change everything and there were to many emotions and didn't know how I would group them together, but Im certainly gonna try again some day
Another related way is on which things you like to listen at the same times/ in the same kind of moods, but that takes even more effort and you really have to get to know yourself which is for me hard, yet also important. I think by cathagorising music into styles, countries, emotions, genres, atmospheres, etc Im coming closer to that in a way, I have also tried chronological but that seems a bit too distant from the music for me


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

That's why I laugh every time I see a new list category on TC. Meaningless as far as I'm concerned. 
Stop the labeling madness. Relax. Enjoy! Keep it simple!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_Lupinix:_
"I think the best way would be emotion-based. Ive tried it once but it was hard to change everything and there were to many emotions and didn't know how I would group them together, but Im certainly gonna try again some day."

If we disregard the music theory/musicology approach, all music is 'emotion based', especially if we consider non-physical pleasure as emotion-induced. Not all emotions are strong; an analogy from physics would be _weak forces_. There is no period in western music that doesn't contain music capable of inducing strong emotions, depending on who is listening. If there is a progression, it is toward the decadence known as _refinement_, and the elevation in status of music that propagates weak forces.

[The above is the best ponderous pontification I can come up with this morning. I hope you can settle for it.]


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Not sure how it's labeled. But I feel it has some of the most emotional music in all Eras of Classical Music. Tchaikovsky probably my favorite.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well you seemed to say there was a problem in some way with composers not writing in one style. I was just posting my opinion in relation to that, but if you agree with me then great.



lupinix said:


> I think the best way would be emotion-based. Ive tried it once but it was hard to change everything and there were to many emotions and didn't know how I would group them together, but Im certainly gonna try again some day
> Another related way is on which things you like to listen at the same times/ in the same kind of moods, but that takes even more effort and you really have to get to know yourself which is for me hard, yet also important. I think by cathagorising music into styles, countries, emotions, genres, atmospheres, etc Im coming closer to that in a way, I have also tried chronological but that seems a bit too distant from the music for me


Chronology should be the nearest to the music I feel, and it's neutral without the subjective opinion on emotion or style. Geographic categorisation isn't so useful in classical which is more a universal music. Emotions are way too restrictive, and I don't want to be boxed in too much with categorising music like that. It's good for me to hear a variety of things together, in style and emotion. That stretches you and makes you more critical towards what you are hearing, assuming you have some initial familiarity with it already.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

hpowders said:


> That's why I laugh every time I see a new list category on TC. Meaningless as far as I'm concerned.
> Stop the labeling madness. Relax. Enjoy! Keep it simple!


I agree for the most part. I would like to see all styles of music merge in a way people can only make free "styleless" music or at least people wouldn't compare things based on styles. I do find it interesting though purely "philosofical" (i guess), its just one of many interesting ways of looking at things and I will have to delve deeper into it to see how it is for me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

lupinix said:


> I agree for the most part. I would like to see all styles of music merge in a way people can only make free "styleless" music or at least people wouldn't compare things based on styles. I do find it interesting though purely "philosofical" (i guess), its just one of many interesting ways of looking at things and I will have to delve deeper into it to see how it is for me.


That's fine. Music can be analyzed or simply listened to without complications.
I prefer listening without analyzing.
If that makes me a bad person, let me go on record as saying, my other qualities are good.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Not sure how it's labeled. But I feel it has some of the most emotional music in all Eras of Classical Music. Tchaikovsky probably my favorite.


Yet he was so insecure and unsure about the value of his music when he wrote it, according to what I've read. What a shame.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

hpowders said:


> That's fine. Music can be analyzed or simply listened to without complications.
> I prefer listening without analyzing.
> If that makes me a bad person, let me go on record as saying, my other qualities are good.


I don't usually analyse music too, at least not technically. I especially don't like to do this with music I really like (for instance Chopin/Scriabin/well just many music) and hope I won't ever have to for things like my studies.

But on the other hand, i do like to think about musical less technical but more spiritual sides of it like what was the intention of the composer (being a composer myself this is something really important to me) or what is the emotion I feel while listening, or also things like styles and which composer was friends with whom or didn't like whose music or was influenced by whom or somethings like that

And I think that makes you a great person, what you do should more people (including myself) do


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

neoshredder said:


> Not sure how it's labeled. But I feel it has some of the most emotional music in all Eras of Classical Music. Tchaikovsky probably my favorite.


yeah same here, chopin and rachmaninov are mine


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Yet he was so insecure and unsure about the value of his music when he wrote it, according to what I've read. What a shame.


true, many of the greatest composers were =/ also rachmaninov


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> I'd find it a waste of time trying to categorise things by style, just like ranking things by how great I think they are. Chronological is the best way I feel, it doesn't directly correlate to style as time goes on, but that's fine. In fact it's nice to have an honest full view of a period looking at all styles then, for example, when you play through some things from a decade of the 20th century you enjoy the full variety, and it probably makes the listening more pleasurable too.


I agree with you fully that chronology is the most 'exposing' knowledge of all. Carl Maria Weber is a near parallel _to Beethoven_ by dates, but was "romantic" in procedure and sound long before Schubert, "the early romantic" whose earliest works still sound near Mozartean at times.

But, do you think that memorizing all those composers, their dates, etc. would fit neatly in a short chapter in a music textbook, or condensed, into "wiki" LOL! That's why those headings were wide, general... _(not for Wiki. lol, but to not be a three volume tome per era) _with an accompanying expectation, maybe, that those interested would look further and deeper than a handful of general headings each bracketing a general group of composers who all lived between ____ & ____. Beethoven, and many others, quite inconveniently were born mid-way of one 'era' and lived half-way into the next


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

So much time is wasted on creating "lists". Might as well just take a class if you simply want to lose your enthusiasm for music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> I agree with you fully that chronology is the most 'exposing' knowledge of all. Carl Maria Weber is a near parallel _to Beethoven_ by dates, but was "romantic" in procedure and sound long before Schubert, "the early romantic" whose earliest works still sound near Mozartean at times.
> 
> But, do you think that memorizing all those composers, their dates, etc. would fit neatly in a short chapter in a music textbook, or condensed, into "wiki" LOL! That's why those headings were wide, general... _(not for Wiki. lol, but to not be a three volume tome per era) _with an accompanying expectation, maybe, that those interested would look further and deeper than a handful of general headings each bracketing a general group of composers who all lived between ____ & ____. Beethoven, and many others, quite inconveniently were born mid-way of one 'era' and lived half-way into the next


When someone is born is far less interesting to me than when something was composed. Even then I find it more just a way of organising some music than anything, I'm not saying it's essential for my enjoyment of something.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I agree with you fully that chronology is the most 'exposing' knowledge of all. Carl Maria Weber is a near parallel _to Beethoven_ by dates, but was "romantic" in procedure and sound long before Schubert, "the early romantic" whose earliest works still sound near Mozartean at times.


Rosen calls Weber and Schubert and Hummel "classicising" composers, by which he means that they adopted the forms of the Viennese classical style but used distinctly romantic procedures (circular form and a focus on themes in particular).

Schubert wrote some intentional homages to Mozart (the 5th symphony in particular) which surely shouldn't count.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

hpowders said:


> So much time is wasted on creating "lists". Might as well just take a class if you simply want to lose your enthusiasm for music.


I would agree that a lot of time seems to be wasted on creating useless lists, but that doesn't mean that all lists are useless. Most of the recent lists that I have seen fall into the useless category, but that's because there is no control over the process at all, with anyone free to create whatever list they want however repetitive or ill-conceived it may be.

When my classical collection was small, I had no interest whatsoever in creating any kind of "lists" categorising its components. I knew where everything was, who was who, etc. The only kinds of lists that I was interested were external ones that purported to set out the "best" works of the "greatest" composers. Without becoming in any way a slavish believer in any of these lists (in fact I took them all with a huge pinch of salt), I found some of them to be useful as a learning device to set me off in the right direction, especially with regard to some of the lesser "greats".

However, I soon jettisoned all that and found other more reliable procedures for expanding my collection. There are several ways of identifying the best works that are worth collecting, one of which is identify a decent classical music radio station that employs knowledgeable staff, who genuinely know what they're talking about, as opposed to all the half-wits that dominate some stations, and try to establish a profile of what material they play given a free choice of suitable material over an extended period of time. I have found that it provides a pretty good "canon". No prizes for guessing which radio station I'm referring to (beginning with B..)

As my collection grew, it reached the point about 2 years ago when I had acquired works by about 450 composers spread around from the 9th Century to the present day. Although the vast majority of these are mainstream and reasonably well known composers (with no "noise artists" included) I found it impossible to keep tabs on what I had without a proper system of classifying them in some way. It meant that I wasn't in a position to extract maximum benefit from my collection as I had completely forgotten about what I had in some of the darker recesses.

I experimented with various different systems, but finished up with one based largely on the time period classification as set out in Wikipedia, up to an including the Impressionists. After that, going further into the 20th Century, it's based mainly on styles like Neo-Classical, Expressionist, Minimalist, Nationalist, Avant-garde, etc.

Having now completed the job, it means that if I want to listen to, say, some early baroque I can get to the relevant composers very quickly. I found this process of experimentation to be a very educational process as it stimulated an interest in reading up more fully on some of these composers. It was also a useful way of identifying a few lacunae with regard to some composers' work, and an opportunity to carry out some "pruning" of weaker versions of duplicated material etc. In carrying out work like this, i.e. beyond the elementary level, I found places likes Wikipedia to contain more useful information than may normally be gleaned from music forums.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

First comes A, then comes B, then C and D and E, then comes F and G and so forth.

Easy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

I hope that I'm not repeating unnecessarily what several other contributors have already stated in connection with the identification of "romantic" music traits, but here's my take on this subject which I trust may be of some worth ...

It often appears to be the case that many individuals, especially "noobs", appear to have a dubious understanding of "romanticism" in classical music. They think it has something to do with the expression of emotion and feeling rather than purely abstract sounds typified by the "classical" and "baroque" predecessors. This is why Beethoven is often said to be among the first of the "romantics", because he imbued some of his music with an emotional or programmatic feel. 

In fact, I'm not convinced that Beethoven tried to play on one's emotions any more than other classical composers did. Some of his music may have that effect on some listeners, but his intent was probably a different matter. As for the incorporation of programmatic features, the "Pastoral Symphony" is about the only example there is, and apparently Beethoven didn't intend these connotations to be taken all seriously (but I'm not too sure about this).

In any event, the expression of emotion per se was not a necessary feature of "romantic" music. Rather its main driver was literary expression, conveying the power of words and especially poetry through music, both in the sense of narratives (as in the case of Wagner and Liszt) or through citation of beautiful poetry (chiefly Schubert and Schumann). The key thing is that the welding together of literature and music resulted in a sense of spontaneity and greater freedom of expression than was the case with classical composers who followed more regimented procedures. According to the "romantics", a true poet was not one who used rules and formulae to organize words into a strict aesthetic pattern, but one who allowed the "gods" to inspire him in order to gain glances of true (Platonic?) genius, following on from which was the mundane process of trying to encapsulate these glances into a musical expression.

On this reckoning, Beethoven had nothing in common with all this type of music-writing activity, i.e. allowing the "gods" or "muses" to inspire him in anything like the same fashion. He was a god-fearing individual but that's a different matter. Rather he was a highly focused, diligent, almost pedantic crafter, aiming to follow strict patterns consistent with the musical precedence set by the likes of Haydn, Mozart and various others. This brands him as chiefly a classicist. Moreover, Beethoven wasn't the last great classical composer; this accolade goes to Brahms.

As I stated previously in this thread, I would maintain that Schubert was the first true great romantic composer in the sense described above. It was, for example, Schubert who first applied German poetry to the lied genre. Beyond that, a good deal of his later writing was far less constrained and wandering in nature, as if it if was inspired in some way by an external influence. Sadly, some people grossly mistake this Schubertian feature as involving excessive repetition, but once this aspect of his musical expression is appreciated it may help gain a different understanding of why he wrote that way. His late piano sonatas provide good examples of this wandering style, as of course does the very famous second movement of his magnificent string quintet. The same kind of thing is also evident in several previous orchestral works (e.g. Symphony No 8), quite apart from all the lieder and song cycles in which the poetic dimension was evident.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

It may be worth noting that with questions like the one in the OP as posed by newly joined members, on some other boards, and here on T-C as well, there used to be a time with queries of this nature that the main body of members would not attempt to provide answers quite so readily. 

Some respondents may not care about the reasons why the question was posed and just see this as an opportunity to be helpful. But for many it was normally seen as not being helpful to the person asking the question if other people who got not credit did all the work, and the person asking the question simply cobbled together a paper based on contributions obtained. These days it would seem that all that's gone out of window and people simply pile in gleefully doing someone else's homework. 

It rather reminds me of a reported situation several years in the British Press when it was alleged that Prince Charles has six qualified chefs lined up each morning at the kitchen in his country mansion all vying with other simply to decide who should boil his eggs for breakfast. 

I have no idea what the OP's motives are here in regards the topic of his thread on romantic music, but if it's to aid homework, or to meet some other kind of formal education submission, I would hope that T-C gets an acknowledgement for the effort put in by the members.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Partita said:


> I have no idea what the OP's motives are here in regards the topic of his thread on romantic music, but if it's to aid homework, or to meet some other kind of formal education submission, I would hope that T-C gets an acknowledgement for the effort put in by the members.


A simple thank you should suffice, but any further acknowledgement or credit, or citing a source as coming from an internet open admissions forum? Laughable.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

some guy said:


> First comes A, then comes B, then C and D and E, then comes F and G and so forth.


I thought the C comes first, then C#, D...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For those of you still here in the future I do believe any person who comes here, sets up a thread asking for help with research should be immediately shut down, and it should be adapted as a "no-no" for TC.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> When someone is born is far less interesting to me than when something was composed. Even then I find it more just a way of organising some music than anything, I'm not saying it's essential for my enjoyment of something.


Such a contrarian, really! Isn't that 'Chronology?'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> For those of you still here in the future I do believe any person who comes here, sets up a thread asking for help with research should be immediately shut down, and it should be adapted as a "no-no" for TC.


As if a rag-tag assemblage of a forum with an open-admissions policy for membership would be the right place to go to begin with....

Maybe let it run, and wish you were a fly on the wall when the teacher reads their paper on atonal music, for example.

Serve'em right


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Partita said:


> It often appears to be the case that many individuals, especially "noobs", appear to have a dubious understanding of "romanticism" in classical music. They think it has something to do with the expression of emotion and feeling


Actually it is more than just noobs. It is people who know something about the history of aesthetics. Expressive aesthetic theories are central to romanticism. Read M. H. Abrams _The Mirror and the Lamp_ and any anthology of writing on aesthetics from the Romantic Era.



Partita said:


> In fact, I'm not convinced that Beethoven tried to play on one's emotions any more than other classical composers did. Some of his music may have that effect on some listeners, but his intent was probably a different matter.


The issue is not playing on ones emotions. That is what Baroque music generally aims to do. The Baroque composer is an orator moving the audience to feel particular affects. Hence the influence of rhetorical treatises on baroque theory and the so-called "doctrine of the affections." Beethoven's new trick was structuring music as coherent emotional/psychological experience. He carefully sequenced the expressive qualities of successions of thematic transformations to give them a sense of overall expressive teleology.



Partita said:


> Beethoven . . . was a highly focused, diligent, almost pedantic crafter, aiming to follow strict patterns consistent with the musical precedence set by the likes of Haydn, Mozart and various others. This brands him as chiefly a classicist.


Of course there are many works by Beethoven in a classical mold. But as an overall assessment of his oeuvre, this is just blatantly wrong. Down to the very construction of themes, Beethoven was radical from his middle period on. His approach to sonata form in works like the Eroica, The Appassionata, the Fifth Symphony, The Tempest Sonata, the middle period quartets, etc., is miles from anything Haydn or Mozart ever attempted. How about scherzos rather than minuets? Cyclic construction. The whole Late Period?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Folks who are assigned research by their professors need to get down, dirty and dusty with the library stacks.
None of us should be doing any of their work for them.
There's too much dumbing down already. Enough's enough!


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Partita said:


> It often appears to be the case that many individuals, especially "noobs", appear to have a dubious understanding of "romanticism" in classical music. They think it has something to do with the expression of emotion and feeling rather than purely abstract sounds typified by the "classical" and "baroque" predecessors. This is why Beethoven is often said to be among the first of the "romantics", because he imbued some of his music with an emotional or programmatic feel.


I hope I have clarified my reason why I say personal emotional expression is central in the romanticism enough, and also that it's not just about music but rather of all art? I might not have made it clear enough that its also mostly my own way of seeing the term romantic though, also it was based upon the romantic period as it is mentioned in most music history books, and I just compared it to the traits of romantic art and (english, dutch, german and mostly french) literature I wasn't aware the term originally was only meant for a small part of the composers of that period, does that make me a 'noob'? Its not always so easy to find things about that and I think knowledge is overrated as well as a bit arrogant, I do like to think for myself and get deeper into certain things, and looking at other ones' points of view, because its just interesting, not because it actually means anything. Besides every term for a musical style is just something of which people associated the music with. I always thought (for myself) "true romantic" music was the kind in which personal feelings are expressed (like in most romantic artforms, especially french literature) rather than literary driven music, which was to me another style. Appearantly it was the other way round the way people saw it. Ive never seen Beethoven as very romantic though, I considered him half romantic just because he is mentioned that way in most books but I always thought he was more classicistic.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Partita said:


> It may be worth noting that with questions like the one in the OP as posed by newly joined members, on some other boards, and here on T-C as well, there used to be a time with queries of this nature that the main body of members would not attempt to provide answers quite so readily.
> 
> Some respondents may not care about the reasons why the question was posed and just see this as an opportunity to be helpful. But for many it was normally seen as not being helpful to the person asking the question if other people who got not credit did all the work, and the person asking the question simply cobbled together a paper based on contributions obtained. These days it would seem that all that's gone out of window and people simply pile in gleefully doing someone else's homework.
> 
> ...


I don't care about credit, not one bit, and would have helped if I knew more of the type of music he refers to


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

lupinix said:


> I think the best way would be emotion-based.


Ha Ha Ha!

Unless you want to completely reorganize all the catalogue of music repertoire about every seven to nine years from now by your then current personal index of emotions, you are better off going by musical vocabulary and structural trends vs. 'emotion.'

Most people change, even if but a little, as time passes, and that includes their "emotional take" on things.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> That's fine. Music can be analyzed or simply listened to without complications.
> I prefer listening without analyzing.
> If that makes me a bad person, *let me go on record as saying, my other qualities are good.*


That's okay, but I don't know about heaven for you....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> That's why I laugh every time I see a new list category on TC. Meaningless as far as I'm concerned.
> Stop the labeling madness. Relax. Enjoy! Keep it simple!


It is only madness if those who insist on making up their highly personal-emotive definitions keep it up.

Dolmetsch online music dictionary / Groves / Harvard Dictionary of Music / Larousse Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians = all good. 
But nooooo, some would rather keep up with "To me, atonal is..."

Then you get "discussion" over terms which have become, through that personal-emotive magic, "Babble."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> I thought the C comes first, then C#, D...


Well, if it is ascending... of course, but that is but one of two directions music goes in, so:

C, B, Bb, A....


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Ha Ha Ha!
> 
> Unless you want to completely reorganize all the catalogue of music repertoire about every seven to nine years from now by your then current personal index of emotions, you are better off going by musical vocabulary and structural trends vs. 'emotion.'
> 
> Most people change, even if but a little, as time passes, and that includes their "emotional take" on things.


the past 17 years (probably longer but I don't dare to say anything before that because then I was 5 years old and I can't remember much of listening to music) at least it hasn't changed  the things I really loved more than anything else I might love less now that I know more music and others I might lke more because of nostalgic reasons, and also the emotional "muchness" might have grown more or less, but still my emotions havent chaged and I can't imagine to ever listen to chopin's 20th nocturne while feeling happy or to listening to prokofievs morning serenade (from romeo and Juliet) while being desperate. As emotions to me are the most pure things in life of which everything depends you do and desire and think, I can't believe they won't change with the same music that easily, I also don't think even if I think some music that is written by someone sad sounds joyful it still wouldn't feel sincere to me while listening to it.

Of course I am young so a lot can change still, but then still 7 years is a really long time, and I don't think I would mind that much


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> It is only madness if those who insist on making up their highly personal-emotive definitions keep it up.
> 
> Dolmetsch online music dictionary / Groves / Harvard Dictionary of Music / Larousse Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians = all good.
> But nooooo, some would rather keep up with "To me, atonal is..."
> ...


I like madness  Also I think a style period is a whole different issue than atonal music, which is something only technical


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> It is only madness if those who insist on making up their highly personal-emotive definitions keep it up.


I think our discussions would be a lot easier if we just adopted the same names for the various periods in music. Names that make sense. I propose:

- Renaissance: The boring hootage period
- Baroque: The complicated sewing-machine period
- Rococo: The simple-minded period
- Classical (pre-Beethoven): The polite period
- Classical (Beethoven): The impolite period
- Early Romantic: The highly emotional period
- Late Romantic: The neurotic period.

Labels for music of the 20th century and beyond are up for grabs. Suggestions are welcome.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Well, if it is ascending... of course, but that is but one of two directions music goes in, so:
> 
> C, B, Bb, A....


also it could start on F# or D or G or can have microtones in it  isn't music wonderfull? 
and on top of that it can also move in both directions like A A# A Ab G!!!! or make leaps like D F# G B
or the next one takes some more time than the previous or less!
ORRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrr TWO NOTES CAN ACTUALLY SOUND TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I think our discussions would be a lot easier if we just adopted the same names for the various periods in music. Names that make sense. I propose:
> 
> - Renaissance: The boring hootage period
> - Baroque: The complicated sewing-machine period
> ...


I like that! maybe first half 20th century: The even more impolite period
second half: The no composer is really sure what the others are actually doing period
21st century': The very now period

don't forget the middle ages:
Plainchant/early organum: The only actually interesting for christians period
Ars antiqua: The irritating rhythm period
Ars nova/subtillior: The very complex rhythm period

(also I should say I like music from every period, and don't think renaissance is boring, but can understand the describtion well, maybe the everything sounds about the same period could be even better or the consonant period)


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I think our discussions would be a lot easier if we just adopted the same names for the various periods in music. Names that make sense. I propose:
> 
> - Renaissance: The boring hootage period
> - Baroque: The complicated sewing-machine period
> ...


I see that you have placed Beethoven in "Classical", which of course I wouldn't argue with.

I was going going to make some suggestions for the post-romantic era but on second thoughts they're so naff I'm withdrawing them.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Currently, and I think legitimately, Mozart is being re-viewed, seen in a new light as the first and very strong manifestation of what we later call 'romantic' traits as far as personal expression goes... that musical language cemented in classicism; Beethoven's, to his last penned note remained in the classical matrix, while everyone knows, or is informed, he nearly burst the classical envelope of form and expected harmonic usage to tatters while nonetheless remaining in it.


I would be curious to hear how you define this alleged classical matrix in which Beethoven remained fixed. This is just empty and vague assertion. Mozart a strong manifestation of romantic traits? More so than Beethoven? Also sounds like empty assertion. Who says this? Can you back it up?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> I would be curious to hear how you define this alleged classical matrix in which Beethoven remained fixed. This is just empty and vague assertion. Mozart a strong manifestation of romantic traits? More so than Beethoven? Also sounds like empty assertion. Who says this? Can you back it up?




It's all irrelevant to us peons anyway... I read somewhere that Haydn 'broke the rules' more often than the other two guys. Far as I'm concerned, Romanticism was closely related to republicanism, was an attitude, and Beethoven had the attitude.

:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mozart's 20th and 24th piano concertos, string quintet in g minor, piano quartet in E Flat, 40th symphony, A minor piano sonata. Arias for female voices in Figaro, Don Giovanni and Cosi FanTutti.
Some examples of Mozart's music with "romantic" tendencies".

How can anybody familiar with Figaro, Don Giovanni and Cosi Fan Tutti not consider Mozart to be among the most "romantic" of composers who more than most truly understood the HUMAN condition!

A perfect example of why labeling can be foolish.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

lupinix said:


> I might not have made it clear enough that its also mostly my own way of seeing the term romantic though,...


Then, clearly this essay you write has nothing whatsoever to do with assignments, academia, or credit.

Using the "My own way of" approach) leads to the rather terrible personal and idiosyncratic redefining of words with already well-established definitions, _a trend within a generation who do not seem to understand all that does is make a situation where language "is confounded" and people can then no longer communicate_ (there is too much written and floating about on the internet using the "My own way of" approach), and that leads to...

numerous accumulated definitions, too many to count, each and all "my own way of" interpreting Romantic, rendering any specific -- and accurate -- meaning or use of the word as applied to music, dead and gone.

And all that -- sorry -- personal made-up stuff -- ends up online and on blogs, with all the appearances of perhaps having been well-written while primarily being one more kernel on the heap of a mountain of seeds of misinformation.

As far as ties to literature, I've already given you very good advice: stay with works actually and really tied to literature, i.e. songs or opera. A piece with a title referring to a piece of literature, poem, or with simply a title which colors the idea of what we hear, unless documented from the composer as intended to be ______ thus, is more than dubious.

*Here is an intriguing bit of business about the writing and titling of Liszt's Les Preludes, from Wikipedia."

In autumn 1857, in Franz Brendel's Anregungen für Kunst, Leben und Wissenschaft ("Hints for Art, Life and Science"), Felix Draeseke published an essay with an analysis of Les préludes. He presumed that the preface was the program after which the work had been composed. The essay was read and approved by Liszt.[6] Notwithstanding this, the preface, only added when the composition was already finished,[7] cannot be regarded as source of Liszt's inspiration while he was composing the work. Also questionable is whether or to which extent he was influenced by the ode by Lamartine. According to Peter Raabe (1931), Liszt's symphonic poem had nothing at all to do with it.[8] Raabe's position was shared by Emile Haraszti (1953). Both authors claimed that Liszt had taken one of his older works, an overture for an unpublished cycle of male chorus pieces Les quatre élémens, and later added the title "Les préludes", referencing to Lamartine, to it.

Raabe's and Haraszti's view was challenged by Alexander Main (1979) who tried to show that there was a close connection between Liszt's Les préludes and the ode by Lamartine. From this he concluded that Liszt must have composed Les préludes by following the ode as programmatic model, may he even have taken some materials from the abandoned overture to Les quatre élémens. Andrew Bonner (1984), however, in a paper that was read at an annual meeting at Philadelphia of the American Musicological Society,[9] came to the conclusion that Main's view was wrong. Bonner's position was supported by Rena Charnin Mueller (1986).[10] In a published version of his article, Bonner (1986) eventually tried to give additional evidence in favour of his view.

Liszt himself, in a letter to Eduard Liszt[11] of March 26, 1857, still gave another hint with regard to the title "Les préludes". According to this, "Les préludes" was only the prelude to Liszt's own path of composition.[12] Indeed, with the first performance of the work a new genre had been introduced. Les préludes is the earliest example for an orchestral work that was performed as "symphonic poem". In a letter to Franz Brendel of February 20, 1854, Liszt still had called it "a new orchestral work of mine ("Les preludes")".[13] Two days later, in the announcement in the Weimarische Zeitung of February 22, 1854, of the concert on February 23, it was called "Les preludes-symphonische Dichtung".[14] The term "symphonic poem" thus may have been invented at that time."*

There are very few examples from letters or other sources where composers have directly stated 'what literary' association they may have had in mind when composing a piece. A few have titles which are suggestive, without their being in any way more direct in saying what the piece is 'about.' And through the whole period, there is just not a lot in the way of document via letters or diaries which says "this symphony with its one-word title means this, exactly." [You do know that Chopin never gave a title to any of the Etudes or Preludes other than "Etude" and "Prelude?"]

The rest, then, about literary associations and content in music not so specifically named by the composer, or not explained beyond a suggestive title, is in the realm of sheer guesswork and speculation -- which may be a fun exercise, but is not informative as to the facts of 'what was romantic.'

All the above is not just "my own way of" about the Romantic era and music


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

hpowders said:


> Arias for female voices in Figaro, Don Giovanni and Cosi FanTutti


Yeah, _Una donna a quindici anni_ is totally a monument for romantic idea of love.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Mozart's 20th and 24th piano concertos, string quintet in g minor, piano quartet in E Flat, 40th symphony, A minor piano sonata. Arias for female voices in Figaro, Don Giovanni and Cosi FanTutti.
> Some examples of Mozart's music with "romantic" tendencies".
> 
> How can anybody familiar with Figaro, Don Giovanni and Cosi Fan Tutti not consider Mozart to be among the most "romantic" of composers who more than most truly understood the HUMAN condition!
> ...


Clarid points all. Love it.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Then, clearly this essay you write has nothing whatsoever to do with assignments, academia, or credit.


This "essay" I write according to you (which I didn't meant to, I was just talking, I'm just curious and like to talk about these kind of things, nothing more) does have to do with assignments and academia. I'm a student at a conservatory and have had lessons about the romantic period from history teachers as well as a general music theory & analysis teacher, also I have read a lot of books about music history. But the writers and teachers that I've come to know so far seem to all have kind off their own view of what is romantic. Most though, say it is a musical style period or wave in the 19th century, some are very specific and only put the first half under "Romantic", and the latter half under either the second half of 19th century, or the various little (mostly national) styles that music has been described with, or just "Late Romantic". Most books of the first kind (though not all) do mention though that the second half isn't actually considered "Romantic" anymore. 
Also there seems not to be a real consensus about whether Beethoven is Romantic. Some writers think of him as a late Classicist composer and others as an early Romantic, others see his very late late works as Romantic. Most though seem to find the border is somewhere about his third or fifth symphonies. All have there own arguments. It still IS my opinion though, which I base on information and music I have learned about the period and also on the different views of the term ´romantic´

Im a bit tired of people acting like a term `Romantic` is a fact in itself or something. Its just a word people use to describe certain styles of art (usually those terms refer to the past). It´s just a more organized way of teaching history than putting all composers of western music history in the same pot, basicly because music has changed a lot in all kinds of ways. I have never heard there was "one good" way of using the term romantic, most writers have used it in a way that suited best to the actual information they had to present. I have never read a book though that was entirely about the term romantic or romanticism, so maybe there it would be more specific. Does that mean those other writers and historians are just "wrong" and "noobs" though? Some might have stayed closer to the way people of the 19th centuries used those terms, which is of course interesting but doesn't mean its "better". It isn't about which music people then described with "romantic", its about how we use it now to describe music from those periods. I don't think all Baroque composers have thought of themself as "Baroque". Also sometimes smaller style waves that were notable in a certain period, or had a lot of influence on other small waves at the time are kind of metonymicly used to describe the whole period, I don't see why that is wrong. The meaning of a word depends on the way it is used.

Now if there are people that know or think to know better, and know the real and only way of using the term romantic, Id like to see them to - rather than just replying to everyone that what they think is wrong and giving a few examples - give a brief but nevertheless clear summary of it including the exact composers which have anything to do with it in any way, which were the 'true' core romantics (were there other than Weber, Schubert and Schumann?) and which you can or must also see as romantic composers, which others have also many romantic traits and which are often thought to be romantic by so called 'noobs' but haven't the slightiest thing to do with it, also the exact first piece in history that is really called romantic and the last piece. Its clear to me now though that it has to do much with literary association, but not which works should specifically called romantic and which don't, and also not where the term romantic is adjusted to that meaning.

Then I also would like to see a list of your sources, and an explaination why these are so much better than other books about music and why these are the only ones that are "right". I'd like to read them for myself and might even, if Im feeling manicly enough, confront my teachers with what they think about it and why we don't use these books if they also agree they are better.

I guess this would be too much to hope for though, its just a wish, if someone will actually do this I will probably really have loads of respect for that person though. If someone thinks this is going too far for a public forum but nevertheless wants to talk you can also send me a pm.

P.S. Im sorry to be so difficult, Im just not that naive as some of you might have thought and some of you might even still think after reading this


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Mozart's 20th and 24th piano concertos, string quintet in g minor, piano quartet in E Flat, 40th symphony, A minor piano sonata. Arias for female voices in Figaro, Don Giovanni and Cosi FanTutti.
> Some examples of Mozart's music with "romantic" tendencies".
> 
> How can anybody familiar with Figaro, Don Giovanni and Cosi Fan Tutti not consider Mozart to be among the most "romantic" of composers who more than most truly understood the HUMAN condition!
> ...


Yes, but until someone defines these tendencies in some more or less objective terms, this statement is pretty much content free. And what is the relationship between romanticism and understanding the human condition? Once again, until this is established, the statement is meaningless.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, but until someone defines these tendencies in some more or less objective terms, this statement is pretty much content free. (...) Once again, until this is established, the statement is meaningless.


I'll make sure to write this down in my notebook as the ultimate reply applicable to 99,9% of claims about composers.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Essay:
es·say
1.
a short piece of writing on a particular subject.
*2.
formal
an attempt or effort.
* synonyms:	attempt, effort, endeavor, try, venture, trial, experiment, undertaking
From the French, "essayer" to try.

Good on you then, exactly what an essay is, a working out of an idea or concept.

Some of the preoccupations of the Romantic era were often dark, lugubrious, even. The sense of a society and world which had only very slowly changed now at the brink of a radical change, all the old ways and thoughts about to be laid to rest, ergo:
Death / Longing / Unrequited love / a feeling the world as they knew it was coming to an end, ghostly thoughts of doppelgangers, and all the rest. That is all quite the opposite of what any contemporary thoughts of "romantic" means to us now, and is also far away from Mozart's dealing with romantic love in his operas!

Schubert's Lied, _Death and the Maiden_ is one example, death comes for a young person, and rather weary as an immortal could become, says essentially, "it is nothing personal, it is my job to take the living." In his _Nacht und Träume_, we have a text which is transparently longing for sleep as a better and more desired state than waking and being in the full of life -- i.e. it is a "romantic" longing for death. 





Cheery lot, who of course once in a while had a more typical sweet sentimental regard on certain aspects of life and living. Man more than small and insignificant in the face of nature is another platform, with again here and there a sentiment about the loveliness of nature while still acknowledging that we are fleeting things in the big picture.

The 'heroic' romantic comes later in the period, with an eventual occupation with 'gigantism' -- whether it was the fin de siecle building of the Eiffel tower, huge industrial constructions, or our relative size compared to a mountain range. This, whether couched within the classicism of Brahms, or the Symphonies of Bruckner, Saint-Saens Symphony no. 3, led to those overt large orchestral works, and symphonies on a grand scale of enormous length and construction -- you see this in the works of much expanded length by Schubert, the early romantic, those expanded scale pieces coming later in his time-line.

The above, some of the more general 'abstract' ideas / emotions which were very much part of the period, for your consideration in better understanding 'what romantic era music' is, was, and still is about (regardless of contemporary notions of 'what romantic means' 

P.s. I have no idea why anyone thought you may have been looking for help on homework. I did say something about the formal use of Romantic within academic context because that would be expected within academia. 
I do advocate, even on a more casual forum of discussion, staying within the academic definitions as basic to clearer communication; every individual 'interpretation' of a term which is so well established as already defined just leads to confusion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I would say there's more heat than light, but in fact there's more smoke than anything.

Edit: this was not a comment directed solely at PetrB, it is only a coincidence that he happened to post seconds before I did.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Essay:
> es·say
> 1.
> a short piece of writing on a particular subject.
> ...


 okay



> Some of the preoccupations of the Romantic era were often dark, lugubrious, even. The sense of a society and world which had only very slowly changed now at the brink of a radical change, all the old ways and thoughts about to be laid to rest, ergo:
> Death / Longing / Unrequited love / a feeling the world as they knew it was coming to an end, ghostly thoughts of doppelgangers, and all the rest. That is all quite the opposite of what any contemporary thoughts of "romantic" means to us now, and is also far away from Mozart's dealing with romantic love in his operas!


 hm funny because I do think of these kind of things when I think of romanticism, I can't think of the romantic era without thinking of death, longing or melancholia (also for instance because of the frequent use of the alleluia melodie which is better known as Dies Irae, which I believe also Rachmaninov has used in maybe half of his works even though being 20th century)



> Schubert's Lied, _Death and the Maiden_ is one example, death comes for a young person, and rather weary as an immortal could become, says essentially, "it is nothing personal, it is my job to take the living." In his _Nacht und Träume_, we have a text which is transparently longing for sleep as a better and more desired state than waking and being in the full of life -- i.e. it is a "romantic" longing for death.


Its very beautiful thank you. But do you think Schubert hadn't meant part of that feeling of longing for death autobiographical? (even if its collectively autobiographical) He might not, but mostly people that haven't had these kind of feeling themselves can never really imagine it and don't like to think about it and think they should keep away from people having these thoughts.



> Cheery lot, who of course once in a while had a more typical sweet sentimental regard on certain aspects of life and living. Man more than small and insignificant in the face of nature is another platform, with again here and there a sentiment about the loveliness of nature while still acknowledging that we are fleeting things in the big picture.
> 
> The 'heroic' romantic comes later in the period, with an eventual occupation with 'gigantism' -- whether it was the fin de siecle building of the Eiffel tower, huge industrial constructions, or our relative size compared to a mountain range. This, whether couched within the classicism of Brahms, or the Symphonies of Bruckner, Saint-Saens Symphony no. 3, led to those overt large orchestral works, and symphonies on a grand scale of enormous length and construction -- you see this in the works of much expanded length by Schubert, the early romantic, those expanded scale pieces coming later in his time-line.


 so this is also still called romanticism? Is that because it naturally comes forth from the original romantic ideas? or because it was also schubert? I like it that you describe Brahms as classical not romantic btw, even if its "true" and it hasnt to do anything with describing.



> The above, some of the more general 'abstract' ideas / emotions which were very much part of the period, for your consideration in better understanding 'what romantic era music' is, was, and still is about (regardless of contemporary notions of 'what romantic means'


 thanks, funny thing is though all of these ideas were things I was already aware of and though I might have overlooked some and may have focussed on other (less true) things or have "concluded" other summarizing traits from them, I was thinking in this direction when making my early reactions to this thread.



> P.s. I have no idea why anyone thought you may have been looking for help on homework. I did say something about the formal use of Romantic within academic context because that would be expected within academia.


I have no idea either and wasn't aware of people thinking that? I didn't even make this thread



> I do advocate, even on a more casual forum of discussion, staying within the academic definitions as basic to clearer communication; every individual 'interpretation' of a term which is so well established as already defined just leads to confusion.


still, it doesn't change the fact (one of the few things that are a fact) of many academic books on music history have their own view of what music they consider romantic or romanticism, I just don't like people calling others noobs and naive just because they have read other books, or because they were ignorant of the fact the books they read aren't "right" even if they are used at conservatories


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

lupinix said:


> okay
> 
> hm funny because I do think of these kind of things when I think of romanticism, I can't think of the romantic era without thinking of death, longing or melancholia (also for instance because of the frequent use of the alleluia melodie which is better known as Dies Irae, which I believe also Rachmaninov has used in maybe half of his works even though being 20th century)
> 
> ...


I adhere to the more clinical (near to but never "fully objective") way of going at all of this. The reason is simple. Academics will take their point of (academic) view, but when it comes to all the completely intangible elements of music, the evoked emotions, "composer's personal intent of communicating _______," there is no ever fully proving it, like a court case  Ergo, that part is all elaborated conjectures. Ignoring the very real ethos of an era, the intellectual and emotional outlook, is I think also silly, but conclusive statements that this composer was "saying that" are, I think, to be very lightly regarded. It is I think not even a question that any artist, to some degree, has much of their personal self present in whatever they do, and that is always of some interest; guesses as to what those personal bits are are guesses unless we have a document (academic rules and regulations) straight from the composer, i.e. in writing, in a verifiable document. No second hand hearsay is allowed.

Outside of that academic rigor, all is fair game 

Because of that clinical approach via theory, analysis, harmonic function, I think you can almost never go wrong identifying one period from another, regardless of any and all associations with literature, "narrative," etc. Analyze any Beethoven, you end up with all the workings of Common Practice Harmonic procedure, and form for that matter. The gestures in Beethoven, the overt drama, the emotional import are clearly what the later romantics looked to as a springboard to their aesthetic, which led to that music and its new take on harmonic procedures and structures.

Even those given dates for one style or era are not wholly reliable! Back up to Carl Maria von Weber, a chronological peer of Beethoven and your analysis has to go toward romantic harmonic procedures 'to work.'

The names of those periods were given after the fact: by the associations with the terms of the contemporaries of the time who chose them. [In disregarding those limits and making up our own, academic or guy on the street, we get things like the naive citing John Williams' Star Wars Suite as 'classical,' where they actually meant, 'a classic.'] So we are stuck with terminology which is from another age, and whatever the logic applied by those who first felt the need to create a music history and define the different eras.

At some point, I think we have to accept their logic, even though all such namings are going to be to some inevitable degree "personal" and therefore somewhat arbitrary. It is entirely possible, that in very slow motion, all the academics who write the tomes will shift the definitions, making yet another, and the history books will be re-written. (The first change I would advocate would be another term than "modern" for 1890 to 1975, and ditching the temporal-tied "contemporary" for 1975 to present. What will either 'modern' or 'contemporary' mean to later generations reading about old music from 1975 - 20__? Now that is far more nonsensical than "Romantic." LOL!)

Not being at all an academic, I'd prefer to use the definitions which are held to be understood within the greatest consensus, and not be much concerned about the varied essays and papers arguing for 'something else.' When there is a new consensus, I'll adapt because it will be then the latest and accepted set of terms, and make communication when discussing periods and eras and styles relatively clear. To get hung up on a storm in a tea saucer while wanting to study music, music history and all the rest I think a pretty losing distraction; there is so much else to cover, gain some 'academic' and personal understanding of, and somewhere in there as a student, you want to learn to play, compose, and become aware of an ocean of all kinds of repertoire. Without being lazy of mind, I advocate keeping the area of period names and styles fairly 'simple' so there is room and time for all the rest.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I adhere to the more clinical (near to but never "fully objective") way of going at all of this. The reason is simple. Academics will take their point of (academic) view, but when it comes to all the completely intangible elements of music, the evoked emotions, "composer's personal intent of communicating _______," there is no ever fully proving it, like a court case


 I understand, but I don't care much for proving or truth, I don't think its even possible to know the truth about anything, everyone is just too dependant on uncertain sources, but I don't care, I think life is about feeling and experiencing and believing and thinking for oneself rather than knowing 



> Ergo, that part is all elaborated conjectures. Ignoring the very real ethos of an era, the intellectual and emotional outlook, is I think also silly, but conclusive statements that this composer was "saying that" are, I think, to be very lightly regarded. It is I think not even a question that any artist, to some degree, has much of their personal self present in whatever they do, and that is always of some interest; guesses as to what those personal bits are are guesses unless we have a document (academic rules and regulations) straight from the composer, i.e. in writing, in a verifiable document. No second hand hearsay is allowed


.
Do you perhaps refer to me asking if you think schubert meant it partly autobiographical? I did not say he did, I just think it isn't excluded and I asked for your personal opinion on the possibility, if you like to give it of course. Subjectively I also can't imagine him not at least unintentionally recognizing his own feelings in it, because when I hear this it sounds very sincere, but its a subjective thing so you don't have to do anything with it 



> Outside of that academic rigor, all is fair game


 yay 



> Because of that clinical approach via theory, analysis, harmonic function, I think you can almost never go wrong identifying one period from another, regardless of any and all associations with literature, "narrative," etc. Analyze any Beethoven, you end up with all the workings of Common Practice Harmonic procedure, and form for that matter. The gestures in Beethoven, the overt drama, the emotional import are clearly what the later romantics looked to as a springboard to their aesthetic, which led to that music and its new take on harmonic procedures and structures.
> 
> Even those given dates for one style or era are not wholly reliable! Back up to Carl Maria von Weber, a chronological peer of Beethoven and your analysis has to go toward romantic harmonic procedures 'to work.'
> 
> The names of those periods were given after the fact: by the associations with the terms of the contemporaries of the time who chose them. [In disregarding those limits and making up our own, academic or guy on the street, we get things like the naive citing John Williams' Star Wars Suite as 'classical,' where they actually meant, 'a classic.'] So we are stuck with terminology which is from another age, and whatever the logic applied by those who first felt the need to create a music history and define the different eras.


 true indeed



> At some point, I think we have to accept their logic, even though all such namings are going to be to some inevitable degree "personal" and therefore somewhat arbitrary. It is entirely possible, that in very slow motion, all the academics who write the tomes will shift the definitions, making yet another, and the history books will be re-written. (The first change I would advocate would be another term than "modern" for 1890 to 1975, and ditching the temporal-tied "contemporary" for 1975 to present. What will either 'modern' or 'contemporary' mean to later generations reading about old music from 1975 - 20__? Now that is far more nonsensical than "Romantic." LOL!)


yeah indeed, modern as well as contemperary are the most useless terms ever, especially the latter (as modern does mean more than just new as far as I know) and I hope there will be a new term for it once we reach another musical era



> Not being at all an academic, I'd prefer to use the definitions which are held to be understood within the greatest consensus, and not be much concerned about the varied essays and papers arguing for 'something else.' When there is a new consensus, I'll adapt because it will be then the latest and accepted set of terms, and make communication when discussing periods and eras and styles relatively clear. To get hung up on a storm in a tea saucer while wanting to study music, music history and all the rest I think a pretty losing distraction; there is so much else to cover, gain some 'academic' and personal understanding of, and somewhere in there as a student, you want to learn to play, compose, and become aware of an ocean of all kinds of repertoire. Without being lazy of mind, I advocate keeping the area of period names and styles fairly 'simple' so there is room and time for all the rest.


I can understand that ^^


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Whether those late Schubert pieces are directly autobiographical or not, I have little concern about that. Certainly though, without saying yea or nay, the fact he was young, gravely ill and 'felt it' and perhaps was pretty certain he would die is something he could not completely put aside while sitting down to compose? That I think is pretty much 'there,' and part, in a way, of that music.

I am one who does not dwell on any of that, and only "allow" the music to speak for itself, which it does. I also (very non-academic) don't give a fig to look further into what I already know of his biography and the chronology of his compositions... and I think for those who have no need to be a student, "all that" his health, the melancholy, the sorrow, grief, whatever one feels when pretty certain they are facing a very early death -- are somehow present in those works, _and are conveyed completely through musical means._ That means 'all the rest,' about them cannot, even known, add one bit to their value or meaning, at least to my way of thinking.

... so all that extra-musical stuff may be or may not be of real or minor interest, but for me, if the music does not say it, I'm not much interested in what else anyone thinks to say it is saying, the music being all we are left with.

I.e. if in order to listen to or understand / get the import of a piece of music that it also necessarily includes reading and understanding reams of accompanying written biographical and other information, the piece is not worth the time it takes to listen to it.

Schubert, at least, autobiograhical piece or not, seemed to think the score was enough without giving us any other information. I'll take the composer's "word" (i.e. the score) for it over anything else written about it, first and almost always.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aramis said:


> I'll make sure to write this down in my notebook as the ultimate reply applicable to 99,9% of claims about composers.


This was not primarily responding to a claim about a composer. It was about defining the notion of "romantic tendencies."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> This was not primarily responding to a claim about a composer. It was about defining the notion of "romantic tendencies."


Is there a religion based clinic somewhere, who by way of group meetings and aversion therapy, are helping people get rid of or suppress their "romantic tendencies?"


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

PetrB said:


> the fact he was young, gravely ill and 'felt it' and perhaps was pretty certain he would die is something he could not completely put aside while sitting down to compose? That I think is pretty much 'there,' and part, in a way, of that music.


 Thank you, that is not only what I thought so too, but also I did not expect more of an answer than something like this 



> I am one who does not dwell on any of that, and only "allow" the music to speak for itself, which it does. I also (very non-academic) don't give a fig to look further into what I already know of his biography and the chronology of his compositions... and I think for those who have no need to be a student, "all that" his health, the melancholy, the sorrow, grief, whatever one feels when pretty certain they are facing a very early death -- are somehow present in those works, _and are conveyed completely through musical means._ That means 'all the rest,' about them cannot, even known, add one bit to their value or meaning, at least to my way of thinking.


 That is exactly what I think too and how I look at music, in fact all of it you say, if you thought different im sorry I gave the wrong impression. I don't know though what you mean with "all the rest", I mean what could be more to it than that? Also I don't understand what you mean with "for those who have no need to be a student"? Thats sounds firstly like you have concluded I needed to be a student and secondly that people who do music for a study have to look at it differently. I am a student in the conservatory not because I had a certain need of studying music, rather that I had to anything after highschool and music, more specifically composing was the only thing I could think of, especially in a type of school were the environment is warm and friendly and things like 'letting the music speak for itself' and developping your perssonal music (instead of being very technical and learning to write like your teachers) were important. Other subjects like history and solfege and harmony just come along with that, its not like I have chosen for them, some I find interesting though and I like to be busy with music in any way either way, as long of course as it doesn't ruin the music itself.



> ... so all that extra-musical stuff may be of real or minor interest to know about the rest, but for me, if the music does not say it, I'm not much interested in what else anyone thinks to say it is saying, the music being all we are left with.


 to me neither, I just listen what the music says, if the music makes me interested about the composers personallity I might search for some biographical things like the things you just mentioned about his life, but most of it you can know already by listening



> I.e. if in order to listen to or understand / get the import of a piece of music that it also necessarily includes reading and understanding reams of accompanying written biographical and other information, the piece is not worth the time it takes to listen to it.


 Ive never said otherwise, that would be very stupid indeed. I would never listen to music that way



> Schubert, at least, autobiograhical piece or not, seemed to think the score was enough without giving us any other information. I'll take the composer's "word" (i.e. the score) for it over anything else written about it, first and almost always.


 all I meant with "autobiographical" (which might not have been the right term) was what you have already confirmed, so (at least) I guess we think in this alike, and I do the same


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Because of that clinical approach via theory, analysis, harmonic function, I think you can almost never go wrong identifying one period from another, regardless of any and all associations with literature, "narrative," etc. Analyze any Beethoven, you end up with all the workings of Common Practice Harmonic procedure, and form for that matter. The gestures in Beethoven, the overt drama, the emotional import are clearly what the later romantics looked to as a springboard to their aesthetic, which led to that music and its new take on harmonic procedures and structures.


If you believe the use of "Common Practice Harmonic procedure" distinguishes between romantic and classical music, then you have misunderstood and are misusing the term. It applies to everything from Corelli through Rachmaninoff (at least). From the context, it sounds like you mean something like standard classical harmonic vocabulary and formal structures, in which case you are quite wrong in your assessment of how much Beethoven conforms to this standard. If, for example, one adopts Charles Rosen's perspective in The Classical Style, that tonic-dominant polarity is the essential structural marker for the exposition of movements in sonata form, then Beethoven is beyond the classical pale. As early as the middle period he was quite willing to abandon this in favor of mediant or submediant (altered and otherwise) secondary key areas. (e.g., Op. 57, i, bVI, Op. 95, i bVI, Op. 53, III#). The thematic interpenetration of movements in multimovement works, the virtual abandonment of minuet and trio form by the middle period, the favoring of sonata based forms for finales over rondos, the introduction of fragmentary principal themes in sonata form, movements connected without break,the relative proportions of development sections and codas in sonata form movements - all of these features are objective and central aspects of his style that transcend classical norms. And we haven't even gotten to the late period yet . . .


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2014)

This thread would appear to have become rather bogged down in what looks like quite a lot of nit picking and confusion. I must say that I do not understand much of what has been said since my last contribution at post #53. To be frank, I think that most of it is not clearly written and is hardly comprehensible.

In view of this, please allow me to elaborate somewhat on my earlier comments at post #53 concerning mistaken views about the nature of "romantic" music. I will try to keep this as simple as possible. What I had intended to say in that post (and I think it is sufficiently clear from what I actually said) were the following main things, from which I hope some clarity will again emerge:

The mere expression of emotion or feeling in a piece of music is not a sufficient condition for that work to be considered to be a "romantic" era piece in the sense as normally understood. Emotion or feeling of one sort or another in music can be identified in various works from the baroque and classical eras. Whilst it can be identified in some works of Beethoven, there is just as much and probably a good deal more in Mozart (think no further than the various operas for some perfect examples), or even Purcell or Handel, or Monteverdi for that matter.

Nor is expression of emotion or feeling a necessary condition for that work to be considered to be a "romantic" piece. A work can be romantic in nature but which contains no obvious emotional element, except possibly as felt by some individuals on certain occasions when they listen to it because it may have special connotations for them. An example might be a symphonic poem of some description in which the implied subject matter is in the name only, with the work itself giving no clues, or at least none that is obvious to most listeners.

Beethoven was not the sole or even the main originator of the Romantic style. Some of his work contained some romantic traits (mainly the Pastoral Symphony which is evocative of a countryside scene), but like all of Beethoven's output it was written on classical principles in terms of form and structure. Incidentally, I never sated that Beethoven did not innovate beyond what he inherited from Mozart and Haydn, as suggested by one poster. On the contrary, I fully accept that he was a great innovator and that he extended the classical style beyond its former limits, e.g. by incorporating a wider range of harmony and textures, and experimenting with different forms and layouts. Nevertheless, these were all carried out within the "classical" mind-set.

Romanticism in music has several distinguishing features in terms of compositional style. It entails new genres of music like symphonic poems, piano miniatures, song cycles that tell stories. In terms of construction, it involves greater use of dissonance than with the classicists (in Beethoven there is very little), and greater importance was attached to free-flowing melody rather than form and harmony.

However, the features in the paragraph above, important though they, are only the outward signs of the "romantic" style of music, a style which was by no means uniform across all composers of the new school or one which remained fixed over later decades. One of the main drivers of this new outlook to music writing was the desire to allow the power of narrative and poetry to be channelled through music. This combination of literature and music resulted in the development of looser forms, as referred to above, than was the case with classical composers who followed more standardised layouts.

I mentioned Schubert being a far more "romantic" composer than Beethoven was, and gave examples of Schubert's romantic contributions. I did not say that Schubert was the first "romantic"; just that he was the first great composer to develop romantic traits in a big way. I do not count Weber and Hummel in anything like the same league, so discussion of their earlier role was of little concern to me, although I do accept that they were part of the very early romantic movement.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> If you believe the use of "Common Practice Harmonic procedure" distinguishes between romantic and classical music, then you have misunderstood and are misusing the term. It applies to everything from Corelli through Rachmaninoff (at least). From the context, it sounds like you mean something like standard classical harmonic vocabulary and formal structures, in which case you are quite wrong in your assessment of how much Beethoven conforms to this standard. If, for example, one adopts Charles Rosen's perspective in The Classical Style, that tonic-dominant polarity is the essential structural marker for the exposition of movements in sonata form, then Beethoven is beyond the classical pale. As early as the middle period he was quite willing to abandon this in favor of mediant or submediant (altered and otherwise) secondary key areas. (e.g., Op. 57, i, bVI, Op. 95, i bVI, Op. 53, III#). The thematic interpenetration of movements in multimovement works, the virtual abandonment of minuet and trio form by the middle period, the favoring of sonata based forms for finales over rondos, the introduction of fragmentary principal themes in sonata form, movements connected without break,the relative proportions of development sections and codas in sonata form movements - all of these features are objective and central aspects of his style that transcend classical norms. And we haven't even gotten to the late period yet . . .


Of course you are correct, but I still think Beethoven is generally thought of a classicist, with all you pointed out in such detail falling under stretching the envelope to tatters while never fully stepping outside of it.

If I wanted to address the particular post as if they were sitting in third year undergrad theory and analysis classes, okeedoh.

No period is one thing (if the post I am now responding to has not gone over the heads of the general reader or turned them away from this thread altogether) and the more "interesting composers" also developed, somewhat radically, their musical language throughout their careers.

Sometimes I think it is wiser, with all the erudition one may have, to tailor a response to the inquiry, and not assume the entire membership are undergrad theory majors. Really.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> If you believe the use of "Common Practice Harmonic procedure" distinguishes between romantic and classical music, then you have misunderstood and are misusing the term. It applies to everything from Corelli through Rachmaninoff (at least). From the context, it sounds like you mean something like standard classical harmonic vocabulary and formal structures, in which case you are quite wrong in your assessment of how much Beethoven conforms to this standard. If, for example, one adopts Charles Rosen's perspective in The Classical Style, that tonic-dominant polarity is the essential structural marker for the exposition of movements in sonata form, then Beethoven is beyond the classical pale. As early as the middle period he was quite willing to abandon this in favor of mediant or submediant (altered and otherwise) secondary key areas. (e.g., Op. 57, i, bVI, Op. 95, i bVI, Op. 53, III#). The thematic interpenetration of movements in multimovement works, the virtual abandonment of minuet and trio form by the middle period, the favoring of sonata based forms for finales over rondos, the introduction of fragmentary principal themes in sonata form, movements connected without break,the relative proportions of development sections and codas in sonata form movements - all of these features are objective and central aspects of his style that transcend classical norms. And we haven't even gotten to the late period yet . . .


Hey, I had to skim all the way through "The Classical Style", and I almost (maybe) understand your post! I don't know whether to be impressed with you or with me... I'll go with you.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Partita said:


> This thread would appear to have become rather bogged down in what looks like quite a lot of nit picking and confusion. I must say that I do not understand much of what has been said since my last contribution at post #53. To be frank, I think that most of it is not clearly written and is hardly comprehensible.
> 
> In view of this, please allow me to elaborate somewhat on my earlier comments at post #53 concerning mistaken views about the nature of "romantic" music. I will try to keep this as simple as possible. What I had intended to say in that post (and I think it is sufficiently clear from what I actually said) were the following main things, from which I hope some clarity will again emerge:
> 
> ...


I agree with about everything. Its just that I didn't like being called a 'noob' for saying I think expression of personal emotions are important in the romantic era because of three reasons: I don't think you have to know anything about the romantic time to enjoy music or "be not a noob" as if it is a competition, secondly because anyone is allowed of making mistakes or giving his personal opinion on something and thirdly because I did have my reasons for saying such a thing and I have never said that either "the mere expression of emotion or feeling in a piece of music" means it is considered romantic, or that expression of emotion is a "nessasarily condition" of romantic music, I just think that it has some overal importance within the era.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> If you believe the use of "Common Practice Harmonic procedure" distinguishes between romantic and classical music, then you have misunderstood and are misusing the term. It applies to everything from Corelli through Rachmaninoff (at least). From the context, it sounds like you mean something like standard classical harmonic vocabulary and formal structures, in which case you are quite wrong in your assessment of how much Beethoven conforms to this standard. If, for example, one adopts Charles Rosen's perspective in The Classical Style, that tonic-dominant polarity is the essential structural marker for the exposition of movements in sonata form, then Beethoven is beyond the classical pale. As early as the middle period he was quite willing to abandon this in favor of mediant or submediant (altered and otherwise) secondary key areas. (e.g., Op. 57, i, bVI, Op. 95, i bVI, Op. 53, III#). The thematic interpenetration of movements in multimovement works, the virtual abandonment of minuet and trio form by the middle period, the favoring of sonata based forms for finales over rondos, the introduction of fragmentary principal themes in sonata form, movements connected without break,the relative proportions of development sections and codas in sonata form movements - all of these features are objective and central aspects of his style that transcend classical norms. And we haven't even gotten to the late period yet . . .


What have we here I wonder? Ummm... Let's a have closer look.

First of all, this "technicalia" for want of a better word, says nothing other than the fact that Beethoven developed the classical style in various directions, but it doesn't suggest or imply that he broke out of it altogether and developed something completely different, as per the achievments of the "romantics".

Secondly, the material you have set out above looks remarkably like a precis of just one part of *Teflik Dorak's* long essay on Beethoven that's been available on the internet for several years: http://www.dorak.info/music. It's all there in the section "Personal Fingerprints", using the same or similar examples and musical terminology. I'm not suggesting this was necessarily your source, just that it looks close.

Third, whatever your source, the kind of material you have posted above is, I guess, likely to go way over the heads most of T-C's membership. In my last post, just a few above this one, I could very easily have cobbled together an equally technical post based on this Dorak's article, but I didn't do so because it is too technical and most importantly because it is largely irrelevant material. As noted above, all it does is exemplify how innovative Beethoven was in some areas,but not much more.

Fourth, the key point is that Dorak concludes (if you read his entire article on this and other aspects of musical history) that, despite these innovations, Beethoven remained largely within the "classical" school, and that the romantics had a different approach, a fact which you appear to glide over. In fact, Dorak draws a distinction between Beethoven's style and the "romantic" school proper.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Partita said:


> What have we here I wonder? Ummm... Let's a have closer look.
> 
> First of all, this "technicalia" for want of a better word, says nothing other than the fact that Beethoven developed the classical style in various directions, but it doesn't suggest or imply that he broke out of it altogether and developed something completely different, as per the achievments of the "romantics".
> 
> ...


I feel vaguely and weirdly vindicated


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Partita said:


> Fourth, the key point is that Dorak concludes (if you read his entire article on this and other aspects of musical history) that, despite these innovations, Beethoven remained largely within the "classical" school, and that the romantics had a different approach, a fact which you appear to glide over. In fact, Dorak draws a distinction between Beethoven's style and the "romantic" school proper.


Added to which I recall from my cursory reading of Rosen's _The Romantic Generation_ that the difference between Beethoven and the Romantics who followed was not the use of key areas related by thirds so much as the idea that these needed to be balanced (i.e. if one moves a third in one direction one must use the key area a third in the opposite direction to compensate, similarly to the balancing of dominant and subdominant regions).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Partita said:


> Secondly, the material you have set out above looks remarkably like a precis of just one part of *Teflik Dorak's* long essay on Beethoven that's been available on the internet for several years: http://www.dorak.info/music. It's all there in the section "Personal Fingerprints", using the same or similar examples and musical terminology. I'm not suggesting this was necessarily your source, just that it looks close.


That list of Beethoven style traits has been delivered to undergraduate music history classes across the face of our little planet for decades upon decades. Including mine - before the internet age.

PetrB:

When a standard term like "Common Practice" is prominently misused in a way that bears on the substance of an ongoing point of discussion, it should be corrected. In case anyone needs to know, it is a good and useful term for that period when all of Europe shared a common tonal language, from roughly the middle Baroque to whenever you think tonality went on life support. Wouldn't hurt all music lovers to know it, actually.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Added to which I recall from my cursory reading of Rosen's _The Romantic Generation_ that the difference between Beethoven and the Romantics who followed was not the use of key areas related by thirds so much as the idea that these needed to be balanced (i.e. if one moves a third in one direction one must use the key area a third in the opposite direction to compensate, similarly to the balancing of dominant and subdominant regions).


I can't say that I'm all that surprised at some of the misconceptions that have surfaced in this thread, or at some of the agitation expressed in some quarters by people whose opinions have been questioned. I have seen similar before on other threads on this but mainly other "boards" over several years. I have tried not to react to much of it

The underlying issues are usually the same, revolving around (i) whether or not emotional and/or programmatic content in music is either a necessary or sufficient condition for the piece to be considered "romantic" in nature, and (ii) whether or not Beethoven was the first great composer to develop the romantic style.

I fully accept that there is no settled doctrine on these matters, but what I set out in my posts #53 and 93 is a summary of what I consider to be a reasonable intermediate position. I tried to do so without going into any unnecessary technical discussion, which clearly might have simply obfuscated the main issues, as would seem to be the case with some contributions.

The fact is that purely technical features of the music and the degree of emotion don't tell anything like the whole story in defining the main attributes of romantic music. Rather, the main factor was the desire of the "romantics" to allow narrative and poetry to be channelled through music, and this required additional new types of musical forms to act as vehicles of delivery. Even when the old forms were retained, they were adapted to be less constrained by the formalities of the earlier classical style.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Of course you are correct, but I still think Beethoven is generally thought of a classicist, with all you pointed out in such detail falling under stretching the envelope to tatters while never fully stepping outside of it.


When an envelope is that tattered one throws it in the trash. You were minimizing the distinctions between Beethoven and other Classical composers. Moreover, you are acting like there is something to be gained by insisting Beethoven be shoved into one corral or the other. I think not. Every era since wants a piece of him. And every era has eaten of his flesh.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Partita said:


> Third, whatever your source, the kind of material you have posted above is, I guess, likely to go way over the heads most of T-C's membership. In my last post, just a few above this one, I could very easily have cobbled together an equally technical post based on this Dorak's article, but I didn't do so because it is too technical and most importantly because it is largely irrelevant material. As noted above, all it does is exemplify how innovative Beethoven was in some areas,but not much more.


PetrB made claims about Beethoven's and Mozart's relative "romantic-cred," which he claimed were based on technical criteria. I quote from #31: "My criterion is technical, as to musical procedures, which is directly along the lines of those categories as when assigned."

Since he has claimed the authority of technical knowledge to back his opinion, this obviously invites and requires a technical refutation from anyone who disagrees with him. If you think the discussion has become too technical, I'm not the one you should be addressing.



Partita said:


> Fourth, the key point is that Dorak concludes (if you read his entire article on this and other aspects of musical history) that, despite these innovations, Beethoven remained largely within the "classical" school, and that the romantics had a different approach, a fact which you appear to glide over. In fact, Dorak draws a distinction between Beethoven's style and the "romantic" school proper.


Dorak is not the name of any of the many Beethoven specialists I have read. Everyone "draws a distinction between Beethoven's style and the "romantic" school proper." No one is arguing otherwise.

To cite just one example relevant to your claims of a new approach: When Schubert used third-related secondary keys (Like the submediant and submediant minor) in the expositions of his sonata forms, he usually followed with a third key, the dominant, so as not to entirely break the classical mold. Beethoven didn't care. He just broke it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> That list of Beethoven style traits has been delivered to undergraduate music history classes across the face of our little planet for decades upon decades. Including mine - before the internet age.


You appear to have misconstrued. My point is that all that all the technical stuff you quoted from somewhere is not just a sledgehammer to crack a nut in the context of this discussion, but the wrong "nut" because it's not disputed that Beethoven innovated within the broad confines of the classical style with its emphasis on form and structure. The relevant issue is what distinguishes the "romantics" from their predecessors, and as far I can see you haven't said anything on this but instead have gotten yourself bogged down in technical detail about Beethoven's development of the classical style.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Partita said:


> The underlying issues are usually the same, revolving around (i) whether or not emotional and/or programmatic content in music is either a necessary or sufficient condition for the piece to be considered "romantic" in nature, and (ii) whether or not Beethoven was the first great composer to develop the romantic style.


This is a topic that interests me greatly. The presence of programmatic content is neither necessary nor sufficient for a piece to be classified as romantic. However, their is an entirely new conception of programmatic content that is almost never found in classical period music but is characteristic of the romantic style - a different conception of time. Classical programmatic music, like characteristic symphonies, battle pieces, etc., is conceived as unfolding in real time. The onomatopoeia of cuckoos, storms, cannon shots, and so on, happens in real time. Dances recall people dancing in real time. Dialog among chamber instruments recalls human dialogue in real time. Much Romantic program music, on the other hand, unfolds in what philosopher Susanne Langer (In _Feeling and Form_, somewhere around page 114 I think(?))has called "virtual time," a flexible, infinitely expandable subjective time incommensurate with clock time. Liszt, for example, purports to embody a lifetime of experience in _Les Preludes_. Berlioz's _Symphonie fantastique_ is fascinating for employing both conceptions of time in different movements. The "March to the Scaffold" and, at least in part, The "Dream of a Witches Sabbath" are standard, classical, real-time programmaticism. The first movement, on the other hand, purports to embody the internal experience of our hero for an indeterminately long period before he first saw his beloved - this is Romantic, virtual time, incommensurate with clock time. Strauss, even, exploits both conceptions in different programmatic works. (Til Eulenspiegel, real time, Also sprach Zarathustra, virtual time.)



Partita said:


> The fact is that purely technical features of the music and the degree of emotion don't tell anything like the whole story in defining the main attributes of romantic music. Rather, the main factor was the desire of the "romantics" to allow narrative and poetry to be channelled through music, and this required additional new types of musical forms to act as vehicles of delivery. Even when the old forms were retained, they were adapted to be less constrained by the formalities of the earlier classical style.


Ironically, the usual complaint is that they are _more constrained_ by some classical conventions than Haydn and Beethoven, not less! Rosen points this out in _The Classical Style_. And he isn't the only one who has made the point.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Partita said:


> You appear to have misconstrued. My point is that all that all the technical stuff you quoted from somewhere is not just a sledgehammer to crack a nut in the context of this discussion, but the wrong "nut" because it's not disputed that Beethoven innovated within the broad confines of the classical style with its emphasis on form and structure.


No, you have simply failed to closely read the point in dispute and now you are misrepresenting it. PetrB was claiming that Beethoven's tonal/harmonic language and formal structures don't significantly depart from classical norms. I was demonstrating that they do and listing the ways.



Partita said:


> The relevant issue is what distinguishes the "romantics" from their predecessors, and as far I can see you haven't said anything on this but instead have gotten yourself bogged down in technical detail about Beethoven's development of the classical style.


Relevant to you, perhaps. Not the only issue addressed in this thread, however. And, in fact, I have made statements on this issue earlier in the thread, suggesting authoritative sources that define characteristics of both romanticism and the classical style - just the sort of information necessary to make the distinctions you claim to seek.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> This is a topic that interests me greatly. The presence of programmatic content is neither necessary nor sufficient for a piece to be classified as romantic.


Thanks. I would go along with that comment. As I've said previously, not all romantic music has either programmatic content or an emotive feel, and even when it does it's not always obvious, e.g. as in the case of several of Liszt's symphonic poems (S 96-107). Brahms of course shunned use of programmatic content in his chamber and orchestral works. But it doesn't alter the fact that the aim of the "romantics" was to allow freer expression in music as the vehicle for expressing lofty ideals as set out in some kind of prose that suited and appealed to them.
,


> Ironically, the usual complaint is that they are _more constrained_ by some classical conventions than Haydn and Beethoven, not less! Rosen points this out in _The Classical Style_. And he isn't the only one who has made the point.


I've heard something like that too but all I took it to mean was that the shadow of Beethoven was so great for many decades after his death that the "romantics" felt some kind of duty not to depart too far from the style that he had refined, and some would say perfected. For example, Robert and Clara Schumann would spend hours gazing in wonder and bewilderment at the extremely high quality of some of Beethoven's piano solo work, even though much of Schumann's piano solo was of a different style. In practice I don't really believe that the "romantics" felt all that constrained, as new forms were developed and there is quite a definite loosened up feel concerning much of their orchestral and chamber works. It wasn't until the Impressionists came along much later in the 19th C, led by Debussy, that the old system began to change more fundamentally, on the premise that the pervading influence of Beethoven (and Mozart to some extent) had gone on for long enough.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> That list of Beethoven style traits has been delivered to undergraduate music history classes across the face of our little planet for decades upon decades. Including mine - before the internet age.
> 
> PetrB:
> 
> When a standard term like "Common Practice" is prominently misused in a way that bears on the substance of an ongoing point of discussion, it should be corrected. In case anyone needs to know, it is a good and useful term for that period when all of Europe shared a common tonal language, from roughly the middle Baroque to whenever you think tonality went on life support. Wouldn't hurt all music lovers to know it, actually.


Silly me, I thought tying in with Beethoven specified which bit of "common practice" was under scrutiny. Of course, as much as I feel a bit responsible for what people read on a forum which is (actually) fairly casual, it seems some are more in a mode of "school is not out yet" than I, or are more interested in the more obvious displays of their education than reigning in their vast wealth in store to better address the person who asked the question.

The person to whom I was responding is a young music student who seems to have a very strong and deep intuitive grasp of and about music and its varieties through its history than many who have studied up on it, and via an exchange of PM's it was clear he was not at all confused, humble undergrad 'n00b' that he is.


----------

