# And Then There Were None...



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

View attachment Sound 1.mp3


View attachment Sound 2.mp3


View attachment Sound 3.mp3


View attachment Sound 4.mp3


The above works have a couple of things in common. First, unless one were to know the work(s), it would not be unusual to think that they might have been composed as early as 1860. Second, they were all composed 1899-1914. Works composed in the 'traditional' Romantic style of the latter half of the 19th century, for the most part, came to a sudden end before 1920. While I understand that there was already some experimentation occurring before the onset of the 20th century, the composition of works in the 'traditional' style was still not uncommon until about 1915. I know of no other period in classical music since the Baroque era wherein one form of classical music came to such an abrupt end instead of slowly giving way to a new tradition.

What is thought to be the cause of this? Composers suddenly wanting something new? The influence of Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School? Musicological academia forcing students to let go of the 'old ways'? The disruption of World War I? No value judgment of atonal music is intended here, but rather the question, what were the reasons that 'traditional' Romantic composition came to (almost) such an abrupt end rather than continuing side-by-side with atonal music.

Btw, while the works above are by composers that might be known to a number of those here, they are not classical music household names. I will post the composers, names and years of the compositions later. If anyone here recognizes one or all of them, feel free to post it.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Interesting question. I would guess it is World War I which catapulted the world into modern life. Before WW1 kings ruled, people listened to the priests and war was thought of a noble art. After WW 1 all that was gone. Romanticism suddenly was from a bygone era. Music had to be modern or be not at all.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A lot was happening in the early 20th c. Tonality was ripe for falling apart. The Western World was falling apart (WWI), physics was falling apart (relativity, quantum mechanics), mathematics was falling apart (Russell/Whitehead folllowed by Godel). The arts started following them (Cubism, stream of consciousness writing, absurdist plays, contemporary poetry a la Eliot/Pound/Yeats) It was a formidably tumultuous time, multiplied by the international isolations caused by the War. If ever there were a zeitgeist run amok, this was it.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2019)

DaveM said:


> View attachment 117948
> 
> 
> View attachment 117950
> ...


I don't recognize any of them but I have to say they all sound rather turgid, to be honest.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

TalkingHead said:


> I don't recognize any of them but I have to say they all sound rather turgid, to be honest.


Interesting. Their followers and countrymen would be surprised to hear that.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

MarkW said:


> A lot was happening in the early 20th c. Tonality was ripe for falling apart. The Western World was falling apart (WWI), physics was falling apart (relativity, quantum mechanics), mathematics was falling apart (Russell/Whitehead folllowed by Godel). The arts started following them (Cubism, stream of consciousness writing, absurdist plays, contemporary poetry a la Eliot/Pound/Yeats) It was a formidably tumultuous time, multiplied by the international isolations caused by the War. If ever there were a zeitgeist run amok, this was it.


And my favourite musical period is c. 1910-1930 - an incredible era in terms of evolution and variety.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I can't play these, so I don't know what you mean by "traditional." Why withhold identifications?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I can't play these, so I don't know what you mean by "traditional." Why withhold identifications?


Oh okay. 

1. Langgaard Symphony #2 Lento (1914-15)
2. Ryeland Symphony #4 Andante (1913)
3. Schmidt Symphony #1 Langsam (1899)
4. Saucer Piano Concerto #2 Adagio (1901)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It seems to me that Romantic music continued long into the 20th century and even developed further. Strauss, Rachmaninov and Puccini are major names but there were many others. We are slowly reassessing and revaluing Schmidt, for example. Sibelius can probably be heard as continuing a Romantic tradition and was Shostakovich not really continuing and developing this further? And even now .... there are many neo-Romantic composers writing today. 

Schoenberg wrote a number of major works of late Romanticism and even his serial compositions often used structures that he took from Romanticsm. Indeed, the influence of Romanticism is found in a lot of modern music that is not at all Romantic in itself. I suppose, though, that Romanticism lost its central place after WW1 and my personal feeling is that subsequent Romantic music often lacked the energy and, indeed, centrality of the greatest music of its time. Still, for those who don't like to step "beyond" (probably wrong word) it, there has been lots of good quality more or less Romantic music written in the last 100 years and it remains very popular with audiences. What has gone, though, is the sense that there is one tradition. The tradition diversified during the "Romantic era" with various nationalisms and then the early modernism of Debussy etc. but once we reach 1910 or so it becomes clear that diversity of approach and aesthetic is a defining feature of the new age.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Oh okay.
> 
> 1. Langgaard Symphony #2 Lento (1914-15)
> 2. Ryeland Symphony #4 Andante (1913)
> ...


Oops! Last one is Sauer, not Saucer..


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> What is thought to be the cause of this?


The rise of recording technology and radio.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Isn't the difference between the Baroque/Classical, and Classical/Romantic, and Romantic/early Modern, about the same? You even have transitional figures who are comparably 'transitional': Beethoven and Strauss. 

Also, I've have heard it said many times that there were actually more composers writing in Romantic styles than modern ones in this time period. I'm not familiar enough with all the composers of this time to agree or disagree with this though.

Then there are composers that are certainly 'Modern' in aesthetic but not atonal: what do you think of composers like Debussy and Ravel? or Prokofiev and early-mid Stravinsky?


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2019)

I spent some time trying to identify the works/composers of the 4 pieces, but without success. 

I have works by quite a few Romantic composers who were active over the relevant period, but I couldn't quite narrow down to identify any of the 4 works. 

The only one of the 4 composers whose works I am kind of familiar with is Langgaard. It turned out that I do have his Symphony No 2 (selection 1), but I didn't spot it. 

I thought that I had identified either items 1 and 3 as being by Charles Villiers Stanford (1852-1924) as they seemed to resemble one of the "Irish Rhapsody". 

I'm not sure that I fully agree with the notion that "Romantic" music fizzled out after WW1 quite so quickly as suggested. I would argue that it still had a bit of life still left in it at that time, and its eventual decline was rather more asymptotic. The likes of Rachmaninov, Elgar, Bax, Respighi were still churning out "romantic" works well into the 1930's, and even after that there were various other composers who continued to write in similar fashion.

Anyway, I've been enjoying re-listening to Langaard's Symphonies No 2 and 3.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I've been listening to a lot of Schmidt again, at the moment. It's also been good to revisit Langgaard so thanks for reminding me. I like both composers' romantic inclinations (esp. Schmidt).


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2019)

Merl said:


> I've been listening to a lot of Schmidt again, at the moment. It's also been good to revisit Langgaard so thanks for reminding me. I like both composers' romantic inclinations (esp. Schmidt).


I'm afraid to say that I haven't heard much about Franz Schmidt. I found a complete set of his symphonies 1-4 by Neemi Jarvi and the Chicago SO and Detroit SO. According to Wiki, these were composed in 1896, 1913, 1928, 1933 respectively. No 4 is reckoned to be the best. On a first listen, they all sound pretty good, and very easy to listen to.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Western society went through a major shift around the turn of the 19th century. After the enlightenment, worship of the divine stopped being tenable, and with nothing left for people to worship or find meaning in, worship of humanity itself filled part of the void. The 18th century had a tyrant ordained by god (Louis XVI), whereas the 19th century had a tyrant ordained by... himself (Napoleon).

This is reflected in art by the rise of romanticism in the early 19th century. The "old" music of Bach is clearly devout, whereas the music of Beethoven is clearly self-centered. It's a completely new conception of what expression is.

So, the terms of what makes for good art have now changed. It stops being a slow, gradual refinement of craft, and it instead becomes a competition to be seen as the most awe-inspiring, to do something original that nobody else has done before. Over the next hundred years, every part of music (and art, society in general) is pushed to its absolute limits, until it finally breaks in the 20th century.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Partita said:


> *I'm not sure that I fully agree with the notion that "Romantic" music fizzled out after WW1 quite so quickly as suggested.* I would argue that it still had a bit of life still left in it at that time, and its eventual decline was rather more asymptotic. The likes of Rachmaninov, Elgar, Bax, Respighi were still churning out "romantic" works well into the 1930's, and even after that there were various other composers who continued to write in similar fashion.
> 
> Anyway, I've been enjoying re-listening to Langaard's Symphonies No 2 and 3.





Partita said:


> I'm afraid to say that I haven't heard much about Franz Schmidt. I found a complete set of his symphonies 1-4 by Neemi Jarvi and the Chicago SO and Detroit SO. According to Wiki, these were composed in 1896, 1913, 1928, 1933 respectively. No 4 is reckoned to be the best. On a first listen, they all sound pretty good, and very easy to listen to.


I'm glad that the OP triggered your interest in Langgaard and Schmidt. Fwiw, my point wasn't that the broad category of 'Romantic' music fizzled out, but that 'traditional' Romantic music came to an abrupt end. By 'traditional', I mean a work such as the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 (1901). Compare that with his Piano Concerto #4. It's still purely tonal, but more obscure.

Likewise notice the difference between the Schmidt Symphony #1 (1899) and the Symphony #4 (1933). The #1 could easily be confused with a symphony composed in 1860. Not so the #4. It's as if, after the introduction of atonal music, the tonal composers felt the need to 'modernize' their tonal music. Some will argue (as a number have here in the past) that this was simply a change that has occurred in CM several times in the past. I suggest that that wasn't the case here. The change was too abrupt and irrevocable.


----------

