Classic or Romantic?

[urtextmeister]

It took me a long time to read all of these posts. A hot topic. I need to add my two cents.
About recent harmonic talk:
Beethoven didn't shy away from adventurous key areas, especially in his late works. Tonic and dominant still play a part, but just about any combination of keys was possible. One can also find almost all of the extended dominant harmonies of the romantics. The important point here is not what the chords are but,
HOW DO THEY FUNCTION?
A classical composer tends to think of harmonies as leading to or from. A romantic composer might use harmonies because of the color or drammatic effect.
I think that in Beethoven, the ultimate classical composer, the harmonic scheme is more important than with most romantic composers. You could probably change a few chords around in Liszt and have basically the same piece. In Beethoven it would like removing a foundation stone.
This is just one distinction I would make between classical and romantic.

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Rod:
Was the idea of 'spiritualisation' or 'divination' of nature not a pagan concept Amalie?

Yes Rod, in many senses it is.
The high priest of romanticism to continue the religious theme was I suppose Wordsworth. His view was that one literally communed with God in nature, even took communion with God in a formal christian sense. That seems to me virtually inseparable from being a Druid and wondering around Stonehenge with clerical garb on intoning chants at the summer solstice. That of course is pagan and I think you would agree on that.
It was the sort of stuff that the Roman Army was keen to stampout in Britian because Rome had its own forms of worship and what 'Gibbon' would call superstition which is very different from the nature cult and religion of the ancient Britians.
I am sure you are quite right, it is a pagan concept, because I think this vaquely druidical sense of worshipping nature persists in western culture and seems to me to be one of the wellsprings of inspiration for romantic poetry and art.
It is all very strange bearing in mind, 'Wordsworth' was a confirmed Anglican and a very conservative figure, ie. he first welcomed the French revolution, then like Beethoven, he turned to hating it and all its works.
I wonder whether 'Wordsworth' ever reflected that his professional concerns,poetry and individuality were essentially Druidic. And how he reconciled this with his Anglicanism.
But there again we have the example of the present Archbiship of Canterbury, a very strange hairy Welshman, who incredibly is also an actual member of one of the orders of Druids! I cannot see the Pope beeing very impressed with him!
What exactly happens when we are exposed to nature, trees, rivers, mountains etc. is very mysterious however, and I would not even pretend to understand it all.
But whatever it is, is something that the romantics identified themselves with, that sublime otherworld of mystical experience and insight, which we can feel in Beethoven's music and Wordswoth's poetry.
In Wordsworth's, 'Tintern Abbey' he talks about a presence that fills the earth and man with Joy and is in all living things and nature, and a time when the soul is laid asleep and with the inner eye begins to see into the hidden life of things.
Undoubdetly, it has something to do with the individual becoming part of the Universe, which philosophically is called idealism, when the individual becomes aware of becoming part of the oneness of the Universal mind. (p.s. I am not a hippy myself, and never liked the Beatles!)

So actually Beethoven's aggressive individualism, which is very much a romantic hallmark was really a cloak by which like many of the more extreme Romantics like ' Kleist' he was really looking to dissolve his personality and escape from the mysery of self by absorbing himself in the Universal mind, perceived in nature.
I am not sure whether Beethoven knew 'Byron' and possibly 'Coleridge', but the extraordinary thing is this new phenomenon of Romanticism can spring up in individuals who really know nothing of one another quite separately and independantly, like there is something in the cultural air of Europe that was propitious to Romanticism at this time.
As we know Beethoven praised God in nature.
They are all yearning and unhappy people and that is not just a pore, because it is a creative form of unhappiness which makes them lose themselves in their work.

Lysander.

[urtextmeister]

Thank you, Lysander. As usual, very deep and inspiring. It makes me want to break out some romantic poetry.
You speak of Beethoven's "aggressive individuality" and whether he wanted to become one with nature, a universal mind, etc.
I believe Beethoven was all about conflict. From his earliest pieces to his latest. He believed in his individuality, but he also loved universality of nature and I think, in some ways, he had respect for society. It seems he blamed his inability to be socially adept on his hearing problems.
Individual/society is one of the big conflicts in Beethoven's music. It is a metaphorical interpretation, or course. There are many ways to read the duality of almost everything he wrote. The heart of Beethoven's music, however, is the working out of conflicting elements to find some balance or resolution (the fascinating thing to me is whether he succeeded in the 9th symphony and the late quartets in which the conflicting elements seem SO conflicting...)
This search for balance and resolution is what makes Beethoven a classical composer in my mind. In fact, because Beethoven searched to such an extreme, I tend to think of him as the ultimate classicist.
You can point to something like the first movement of the Moonlight--it almost seems like a Schumannesque character piece. But after dwelling in one mood, one musical world for so long, he needs the other movements to wrench us back in the other direction. There is almost always a yin for every yang.
Not true, IN GENERAL, for romantic composers.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes your harmonic analysis is correct and it may be technical but it is also technical to say Baroque composers wrote in a more contrapuntal style or that Schoenberg used atonality! The point is that each music era has its stylistic characteristics and Beethoven's musical language is classical.

If Beethoven were the great inspiration behind the romantic movement, how come that he was able to write in 1822 that he was out of fashion? His music though revered and respected was indeed out of fashion - not in tune with the upcoming early romantics.

My harmonic knowledge only goes a little way, but mightn't it be true to say that the difference between writing a contrasting passage in the dominant or in the subdominant is less than the difference between say, using polyphony or monophony, or between using tonality and atonality. In other words, is it not a significantly smaller difference?

To illustrate this, if I were asked, as a reasonably experienced listener with some limited technical knowledge, about the difference between tonal and atonal music, or about the difference between polyphony and monophony, I would have no difficulty in replying simply. If I were then asked the difference between a classical and romantic symphony, I would reply that the Romantic seemed more expansive, longer, stretched out, more vividly and maybe melodramatically emotional, perhaps a little more self-indulgent (not in a negative way) and with more unpredictability as to when it might end and what pathways it might take to get there. It seems to me that Beethoven's music exemplifies these qualities. I would probably not say anything about dominants or subdominants being used in contrasting themes because I've been listening all my life and didn't notice that difference until you brought it to my attention. I still can't hear it when I listen and will need to sit down with a score at some point to try to pick it out. Yet I don't have any difficulty with the other two stylistic differences.

You're undoubtedly right that in the short run he was "outmoded." But would anyone seriously say early Romanticism is an equal for late Romanticism? That Rossini, Weber and Meyerbeer are as important as Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler? And who is the main inspiration for these later masters?

The artist Giotto founded Italian Renaissance painting, but naturally had one foot still in the Middle Ages. For a lifetime after his death other painters had not caught up with him. Then Massacio was able to recognize his values and build on them. But to call Giotto a medieval painter would be to ignore the qualities he had that brought about Renaissance painting. Because directly after his death his work was not understood, or was understood but could not be acted upon, doesn't change his importance as a founder.

[Amalie]

Chaszz, as you rightly say there is some distinction between early and late romanticism. The point is that by the 1840's, what one might call, romantic musical composition which you refer to had become really the musical estblishment in the works of Berlioz and Schumman. Like all movements, romanticism became rather stultifying even decadent as the 19th century wore on. And I think we can see this in the work of Mahler in particular, a very late romantic composer who was writing a hundred years after Beethoven.
By that time romanticism had become a studied pose and peole like Mahler and even late Brahms were more imprisoned by Beethoven model of the symphony than liberated by it. This was because the spirit of romanticism had departed and really people like Brahms and Mahler are just picking over the corpse. After all this was only about 20 or 30 years before the cataclism of the first world war and the trenches and Beethoven's heroic individualism was simply out moded in the new age of mass communications and inventions and warfare.
It is a bit like the movement in romantic poetry, first we have a galaxy of geniuses in the 1800's who initiate a revolution, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Byron, etc. and then 70 years later we have Browning and Tennison writing in the same romantic vein, but nothing can disguise the fact that by then the romantic impulse had all but died and like Brahms and Mahler, Browning and Tennison are looking back to a Golden Age of romaticism.
There is this same yearning and aching sense for a world that is now lost in the work of these artists. We see this particularly in Mahler, a composer quite literaly devastated by the modern age in all the sad circumstances of his life. Looking back with an unbearable nostalgia and poignancy on the great age of Beethoven and Mahler's 3rd and 5th symphonies pretty much sounding the funeral rights, the whole now vanished romantic age.
Giotto as you say is very interesting in that there is a rather stylized portraiture redolent of the middle ages, with a new vibrancy and movement which is typical of the developing renaissance.
Could we not call Beethoven a Giotto like figure?


PS.
I have found a new phrase for Beethoven, I suppose one could class him as
' Clamintic Romanssical'!! !!




[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited July 17, 2003).]

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chaszz:
My harmonic knowledge only goes a little way, but mightn't it be true to say that the difference between writing a contrasting passage in the dominant or in the subdominant is less than the difference between say, using polyphony or monophony, or between using tonality and atonality. In other words, is it not a significantly smaller difference?


Not at all - the change in the use of harmony in 19th century romanticism is a crucial stylistic difference. With classical composers The Tonic - Dominant relationship(or substitute dominants) creating a central climax is king. The composers immediately following such as Schumann who attempted works in allegro sonata form were usually unsuccessful (can anyone think of a sonata, symphony or quartet written 1830-1860 that rivals Beethoven?) - their greatest achievements being in the new forms that allowed for a weakening of this tonic-dominant relationship through a freer use of harmony. The greater use of chromatic harmony leading to the famous Tristan chord and eventually the breakdown of tonality was a road that Beethoven was complaining about in the music of Spohr precisely because it threatened classical tonality - no where in Beethoven do you find a weakening of classical tonality.


You're undoubtedly right that in the short run he was "outmoded." But would anyone seriously say early Romanticism is an equal for late Romanticism? That Rossini, Weber and Meyerbeer are as important as Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler? And who is the main inspiration for these later masters?

You missed out some of the most important early romantic composers - Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Berlioz and let's not forget that Liszt and Wagner were also part of the early romantics, though they lived longer!

The fact that later composers may have been influenced by the scale of some of Beethoven's works doesn't make Beethoven a romantic composer anymore than Beethoven's admiration for Handel makes him Baroque.


------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited July 17, 2003).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Amalie:
[B]
Chaszz, as you rightly say there is some distinction between early and late romanticism. The point is that by the 1840's, what one might call, romantic musical composition which you refer to had become really the musical estblishment in the works of Berlioz and Schumman. Like all movements, romanticism became rather stultifying even decadent as the 19th century wore on. B]

In my opinion the Romantic movement became stultifying virually immediately, beginning with certain of Beethoven's contemporaries who we have discussed in this context often before.

If one regards the Enlightenment and the revolutionary age also as Romanticism, then Beethoven could fit into this category. But regardless even in this case there is no connection between Beethoven's 'Romantisism' and any other subsequent form of it.

PS, do not regard Romantisim as portrayed in prose and paint as necessarily one and the same mentality as Romantisism in music. I have more sympathy for writing and paintings you may regard as romantic compared to the music, which by and large I think is awfull in every respect.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited July 17, 2003).]

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rod:


If one regards the Enlightenment and the revolutionary age also as Romanticism, then Beethoven could fit into this category. But regardless even in this case there is no connection between Beethoven's 'Romantisism' and any other subsequent form of it.


Yes and under this definition Mozart and Haydn are also Romantic composers as indeed they were known in their day. This is though not what is meant in the context of this discussion.

PS, do not regard Romantisim as portrayed in prose and paint as necessarily one and the same mentality as Romantisism in music. I have more sympathy for writing and paintings you may regard as romantic compared to the music, which by and large I think is awfull in every respect.

Well that's your opinion not a fact!
To dismiss every piece of music written after 1827 as awful is rather narrow in my view - again an opinion not a fact!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Amalie:

I am not sure whether Beethoven knew 'Byron' and possibly 'Coleridge', but the extraordinary thing is this new phenomenon of Romanticism can spring up in individuals who really know nothing of one another quite separately and independantly, like there is something in the cultural air of Europe that was propitious to Romanticism at this time.
Lysander.

Unfortunately I have not the time to consider much of the large essays that are becomming increasingly common at this page. I restrict myself to two or three short paragraphs maximum! Beethoven chose Schiller's text for the 9th, hardly a contemporary piece of writing by that time. Do you think Beethoven and Byron has a similar mindset Amalie?

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited July 17, 2003).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
[/b] Well that's your opinion not a fact!
To dismiss every piece of music written after 1827 as awful is rather narrow in my view - again an opinion not a fact!

[/B]

I believe I used the term 'by and large' Peter. Nevertheless, I like my opinion in this context. Within myself I regard it as very much a fact. But of course with regard to awfullness in music I am equally critical of most of the non-Romantic composers in relation to Beethoven's standard. I am nothing if not consistant Peter!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited July 17, 2003).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Rod,
I admire you for taking a stand and holding it despite all the flak you take for it, I just wish I could agree with you! If you set standards (admittedly arbitrary) that can only be scaled by 2 composers, then you have simply eliminated so many other possibilities for yourself. I submit to you that the chamber music of Mendelssohn, Brahms and Dvorak (to name but 3) are of such quality that if you allow yourself an opportunity to enjoy them, you would indeed have a different feeling about them afterward. I am not speaking of the orchestral works of any of them, since that is not my particular interest (although they have some merit too), but really, the concept of expanding your horizons a bit should not be anathema. I am not preaching at you, just trying to make a point. BTW, I quite agree with you on the lack of conscision in many posts, so I will sign off now.
Best Regards,
Gurn

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Rod:
Unfortunately I have not the time to consider much of the large essays that are becomming increasingly common at this page. I restrict myself to two or three short paragraphs maximum! Beethoven chose Schiller's text for the 9th, hardly a contemporary piece of writing by that time. Do you think Beethoven and Byron has a similar mindset Amalie?

The answer generally is yes, but with one or two important differences.
Both men were fiercly independent with proud aristocratic spirit, (Byron was of course a literal aristocrat). Both men struggled for the independence of the human spirit.
Byron of course literally struggled for Greek independence. They were contemptuous of social conventions.
Beethoven pushing through the nobles in that famous scene with Geothe, and Byron frequently challenging snooty English milords to duels. Both worshipped nature.
Look at this quote from Byron which links up with our earlier theme of the religion of romanticism in nature and which Beethoven may well have read.
The lines come from 'Childe Harolde's Pilgrimage' one of the most famous books in Europe in Beethoven's time. (Interesting B&B were almost exact contemporaries.

"My altars are the mountains and the Ocean,
Earth - air - stars, - and all springs the great Whole,
Hath produced, and will receive the Soul.

High mountains are a feeling, but the hum Of human cities torture; I can see
Nothing to loathe in nature, save to be
A link reluctant in a fleshy chain,
Class'd among creatures, when the soul can flee,
And with the sky, the peak, the heaving plain,
Of ocean, or the stars, mingle, and not in vain..........

Are not the mountains, waves and skies
a part of me and my soul, as I of them?

Or yet again...I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe".

Almost certainly Beethoven read these lines,
and I think that they have a particular meaning and application in Beethoven's music and art.






[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited July 18, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Amalie:
The answer generally is yes, but with one or two important differences.
Both men were fiercly independent with proud aristocratic spirit, (Byron was of course a literal aristocrat). Both men struggled for the independence of the human spirit.
Byron of course literally struggled for Greek independence. They were contemptuous of social conventions.
Beethoven pushing through the nobles in that famous scene with Geothe, and Byron frequently challenging snooty English milords to duels. Both worshipped nature.
Look at this quote from Byron which links up with our earlier theme of the religion of romanticism in nature and which Beethoven may well have read.
The lines come from 'Childe Harolde's Pilgrimage' one of the most famous books in Europe in Beethoven's time. (Interesting B&B were almost exact contemporaries.

"My altars are the mountains and the Ocean,
Earth - air - stars, - and all springs the great Whole,
Hath produced, and will receive the Soul.

High mountains are a feeling, but the hum Of human cities torture; I can see
Nothing to loathe in nature, save to be
A link reluctant in a fleshy chain,
Class'd among creatures, when the soul can flee,
And with the sky, the peak, the heaving plain,
Of ocean, or the stars, mingle, and not in vain..........

Are not the mountains, waves and skies
a part of me and my soul, as I of them?

Or yet again...I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe".

Almost certainly Beethoven read these lines,
and I think that they have a particular meaning and application in Beethoven's music and art.

These are of course the sentiments of Rousseau and the age of Enlightenment which is the inspritation behind both men.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Amalie:
The answer generally is yes, but with one or two important differences.
Both men were fiercly independent with proud aristocratic spirit, (Byron was of course a literal aristocrat). Both men struggled for the independence of the human spirit.
Byron of course literally struggled for Greek independence. They were contemptuous of social conventions.

And also, of course, Beethoven was a complete sex maniac just like Byron.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Rod]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Rod,
I admire you for taking a stand and holding it despite all the flak you take for it, I just wish I could agree with you! If you set standards (admittedly arbitrary) that can only be scaled by 2 composers, then you have simply eliminated so many other possibilities for yourself.

On the contrary, it is these composers who have eliminated themselves!

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:

I submit to you that the chamber music of Mendelssohn, Brahms and Dvorak (to name but 3) are of such quality that if you allow yourself an opportunity to enjoy them, you would indeed have a different feeling about them afterward. I am not speaking of the orchestral works of any of them, since that is not my particular interest (although they have some merit too), but really, the concept of expanding your horizons a bit should not be anathema. I am not preaching at you, just trying to make a point. BTW, I quite agree with you on the lack of conscision in many posts, so I will sign off now.
Best Regards,
Gurn

I have sampled many times the music I critisise, otherwise how could I pass judgement? Thank you for your conciseness.

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited July 18, 2003).]