Classic or Romantic?

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Rod:
Concerning Romantic music as we generally agree upon, I find the latent emotional and intelectual effect to be irritating. Either sickly sentimental, and/or dramatically naiive or self indulgent - either way unconvincing compared to a natural dramatist like Beethoven. I have found it hard to take even the grandest Romantic composition seriously, especially instrumental music. None could come close to portraying a convincing intrumental rhetoric as Beethoven could as far as I am concerned. For him it was natural, for the other guys it was not. Perhaps that's why I find so much 'serious' Romantic music to be perversely amusing.

Obviously, it is not for you to find post Beethoven (serious) music enjoyable. But remember, the so-called romantics did not compose for the masses. Wagner, Liszt, Berlioz, and others composed what they did for the sake of novelty and doing something that had not been done previously. I find many of these experiments for their own sake interesting and enjoy the music on a more personal level as well. Others did compose more for the masses as Brahms and Bruckner.

[John Rasmussen]

Ai-yi-yi-yi! The thread that won't die!

The sub-text of several of the above posts seems to be: "I dislike Romantics; I love Beethoven; therefore Beethoven can't be a Romantic!"

Also, I suspect we're dealing with differing definitions of Romanticism. Some think it is simply self-indulgent; some call it a synthesis of nature, fantasy, and religion; some, like me, see it as the search for true self-expression.

And some composers who lived during the Romantic period simply used the trappings and colors of Romanticism because they would create a splash and bring fame and money, but had little interest in the deeper artistic struggle. Rossini comes to mind, and Meyerbeer. Others may have used Romantic instrumentation and harmonies, but were very Classic in their search for balance and rigorous form; Mendelssohn, Brahms and Bruckner are examples. These may be wonderful musicians, but they don't really have much in common with those who sought new forms, consciously or not, to fill with the stuff of their souls, such as Berlioz, Wagner, and Mahler. Then there were those who, without any apparent effort, simply poured their souls into their music and created some new forms as afterthoughts: Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, and even Grieg fit this pattern. In short, the Romantic period was as diverse as what followed and preceded it.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by John Rasmussen:
Ai-yi-yi-yi! The thread that won't die!

The sub-text of several of the above posts seems to be: "I dislike Romantics; I love Beethoven; therefore Beethoven can't be a Romantic!"

Also, I suspect we're dealing with differing definitions of Romanticism. Some think it is simply self-indulgent; some call it a synthesis of nature, fantasy, and religion; some, like me, see it as the search for true self-expression.

And some composers who lived during the Romantic period simply used the trappings and colors of Romanticism because they would create a splash and bring fame and money, but had little interest in the deeper artistic struggle. Rossini comes to mind, and Meyerbeer. Others may have used Romantic instrumentation and harmonies, but were very Classic in their search for balance and rigorous form; Mendelssohn, Brahms and Bruckner are examples. These may be wonderful musicians, but they don't really have much in common with those who sought new forms, consciously or not, to fill with the stuff of their souls, such as Berlioz, Wagner, and Mahler. Then there were those who, without any apparent effort, simply poured their souls into their music and created some new forms as afterthoughts: Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, and even Grieg fit this pattern. In short, the Romantic period was as diverse as what followed and preceded it.

I concur with that! At best it was a breakaway from the traditions of the classical period, although many still used the same tools.

[Rod]

Originally posted by John Rasmussen:
[B]Ai-yi-yi-yi! The thread that won't die!

The sub-text of several of the above posts seems to be: "I dislike Romantics; I love Beethoven; therefore Beethoven can't be a Romantic!"

Also, I suspect we're dealing with differing definitions of Romanticism. Some think it is simply self-indulgent; some call it a synthesis of nature, fantasy, and religion; some, like me, see it as the search for true self-expression.
B]

We are discussing the issue on two levels. The Romantic mentality and the nature of the music.

If one regards the music of the names you mention as Romantic, then I cannot see Beethoven in this company, listening to the music concerned.

Nor do I believe they were comparable on an intellectual or emotional level.

Therefore I cannot regard Beethoven as a Romantic as we popularly know the term in classical music.

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

[Chaszz]

I think John Rasmussen's points, and his divisions of Romantic composers into different subgenres, are very well taken. Romanticism was not any one thing, but a diversity.

Maybe we could say it was unified, to some extent, in its exploration of intense emotion thru new instumental, harmonic and melodic means.

And although Beethoven did not use these technical means, keeping to the classical ones, may we not say that spiritually and emotionally he opened the door to these explorations in music. Schubert asked to be buried near him.

May we not perhaps call him a classic in technique and partially a Romantic in inspiration, as Natalie has shown.

Also, by the way, listening to some Wagner yesterday (surprise!) I thought that the loose form of the music followed the suggestions of the melody; each part of the melody gave birth naturally to the next part. This is of course one of Beethoven's strengths, that each section is predetermined by what happens before it. But Beethoven struggles to keep this development within sonata form or other precast form (perhaps not very successfully, or shall I say instead concisely, in some of his longer development sections). While Wagner lets the mdlodic suggestions be free to go where they will. In this respect, Beethoven might be compared to a poet who writes in sonnet form, as Shakespeare did in his sonnets, while Wagner is more like the poetry of Shakespeare of the plays, where the conversations as they come from the characters' minds determine the form.

For someone who prizes form above emotion, or seeks an equal fusion of form and emotion, perhaps only a Beethoven will satisfy.

(As an aside, for myself when younger, in the arts form meant almost everything to me. As I've gotten older, emotion has come to mean more. And I don't know if there is a relationship, but in my personal life I know I was suppressing emotion in my younger days. Now I'm not, and feel happier for it.)

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chaszz:

Also, by the way, listening to some Wagner yesterday (surprise!) I thought that the loose form of the music followed the suggestions of the melody; each part of the melody gave birth naturally to the next part. This is of course one of Beethoven's strengths, that each section is predetermined by what happens before it. But Beethoven struggles to keep this development within sonata form or other precast form (perhaps not very successfully, or shall I say instead concisely, in some of his longer development sections).

Please provide examples of Beethoven's lack of success in this respect.

Originally posted by Chaszz:

While Wagner lets the mdlodic suggestions be free to go where they will.

And this is the failure of so much Romantic music to my mind. Allowing themselves freedom, they all too often end up on a road to nowhere.

Originally posted by Chaszz:

For someone who....seeks an equal fusion of form and emotion, perhaps only a Beethoven will satisfy.

This is the ultimate challenge to the disciplined artiste Chaszz, and in this respect above all, Beethoven will never be surpassed.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited July 21, 2003).]

[urtextmeister]

Rod,

Was Beethoven always "successful" when he grappled with sonata form and other classical forms and compositional procedures?
I, for one am not sure. Some of the late quartets come awfully close to falling apart at the seams. That's what makes studying them so much fun. How about the "Grosse Fuge?" Don't you find a few question marks lingering at the end of that behemoth?
Personally, at the conclusion of the 9th symphony, when most people are thinking, "Ah, closure. All the loose ends are tied up neatly," I'm not entirely convinced. Is ALL the darkness overcome by light?
This is not to say that Beethoven was not capable of a perfectly classical piece contained within it's form. Most of his early and middle period works fit that description. I think towards the end, however, he was questioning whether everything could be reconciled by time the final tonic cadence is sounded.

The road to nowhere? Yes, I think that fits a lot of romantic music. Why not? Can't we enjoy the journey instead of the destination?

[Rod]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
Rod,

Was Beethoven always "successful" when he grappled with sonata form and other classical forms and compositional procedures?
I, for one am not sure. Some of the late quartets come awfully close to falling apart at the seams. That's what makes studying them so much fun. How about the "Grosse Fuge?" Don't you find a few question marks lingering at the end of that behemoth?

No I don't. Forgive me but I have no problems with these late quartets. See how ineffectual the various orchestral arrangements that have been made of them are compared to the originals.

Originally posted by urtextmeister:

Personally, at the conclusion of the 9th symphony, when most people are thinking, "Ah, closure. All the loose ends are tied up neatly," I'm not entirely convinced. Is ALL the darkness overcome by light?
This is not to say that Beethoven was not capable of a perfectly classical piece contained within it's form. Most of his early and middle period works fit that description. I think towards the end, however, he was questioning whether everything could be reconciled by time the final tonic cadence is sounded.

I would say most of B's output are not overtly concerned with travelling from darkness to light, but where they are this is justified musically. In the minor key works he feels the need to end on a bright note usually. Perhaps true Romantics would never resist the temptation to end a piece in chaos and misery! But there are also logical musical reasons I think for B's behaviour, contrast being the essence of his output.

Originally posted by urtextmeister:

The road to nowhere? Yes, I think that fits a lot of romantic music. Why not? Can't we enjoy the journey instead of the destination?

One a road to nowhere...standing still! How enjoyable is that?


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

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
I think John Rasmussen's points, and his divisions of Romantic composers into different subgenres, are very well taken. Romanticism was not any one thing, but a diversity.

Maybe we could say it was unified, to some extent, in its exploration of intense emotion thru new instumental, harmonic and melodic means.

And although Beethoven did not use these technical means, keeping to the classical ones, may we not say that spiritually and emotionally he opened the door to these explorations in music. Schubert asked to be buried near him.

May we not perhaps call him a classic in technique and partially a Romantic in inspiration, as Natalie has shown.

Also, by the way, listening to some Wagner yesterday (surprise!) I thought that the loose form of the music followed the suggestions of the melody; each part of the melody gave birth naturally to the next part. This is of course one of Beethoven's strengths, that each section is predetermined by what happens before it. But Beethoven struggles to keep this development within sonata form or other precast form (perhaps not very successfully, or shall I say instead concisely, in some of his longer development sections). While Wagner lets the mdlodic suggestions be free to go where they will. In this respect, Beethoven might be compared to a poet who writes in sonnet form, as Shakespeare did in his sonnets, while Wagner is more like the poetry of Shakespeare of the plays, where the conversations as they come from the characters' minds determine the form.

For someone who prizes form above emotion, or seeks an equal fusion of form and emotion, perhaps only a Beethoven will satisfy.

(As an aside, for myself when younger, in the arts form meant almost everything to me. As I've gotten older, emotion has come to mean more. And I don't know if there is a relationship, but in my personal life I know I was suppressing emotion in my younger days. Now I'm not, and feel happier for it.)

I agree with your way of thinking Chazz,
Inevitably Beethoven's technique is classical or baroque, because that was the only form in which musical content could be expressed.
I think there is a lot of truth in what your are saying about Beethoven being compared to a poet, because Beethoven's natural expression is the poetic, with its metre's and dance like rythms, and the way that his musical 'chiaroscuro' is ever changing and predominatly episodic in form.
Wagner however, I think is programmatic in a more extended or Operatic sense in a way that Beethoven really hadn't developed beyond 'Fidelio', and there is a parallel with Shakespeare, because both Wagner and Shakespeare have a profound grasp of the nuances of human nature and character.


Lysander

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amalie:
I agree with your way of thinking Chazz,
Inevitably Beethoven's technique is classical or baroque, because that was the only form in which musical content could be expressed.


I don't agree it was inevitable - In the earlier works such as Adelaide and some of the early sonatas, Beethoven was closer to the Romantics than in his later works. Romanticism didn't begin with Beethoven or spring from him, it was running alongside with Weber, Hummel, Field, Spohr.



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

[Peter]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
The road to nowhere? Yes, I think that fits a lot of romantic music. Why not? Can't we enjoy the journey instead of the destination?

I wouldn't describe Romanticism in those terms - I wonder which pieces or composers you had in mind?

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited July 22, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Perhaps true Romantics would never resist the temptation to end a piece in chaos and misery!

Actually there aren't that many Romantic symphonies beginning in the minor that do end in the minor - Tchaikovsky's 6th is the best example (and one of the most despairing) I can think of.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Actually there aren't that many Romantic symphonies beginning in the minor that do end in the minor - Tchaikovsky's 6th is the best example (and one of the most despairing) I can think of.

Well, from a purely musical perspective perhaps this should not be surprising. And audiences, at least then, tended not to like it. Of B's output, only the Moonlight and Appassionata come to my mind as works that end on what one could say a less than happy note.


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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited July 22, 2003).]

[Chaszz]

Chaszz: "...But Beethoven struggles to keep this development within sonata form or other precast form (perhaps not very successfully, or shall I say instead concisely, in some of his longer development sections)..."

Rod: "Please provide examples of Beethoven's lack of success in this respect."

I changed it to "concisely" out of respect. But I think his use of codas is a tacit admission that he could not always say everything he wanted to within the confines of the classical movement.

Chaszz: "While Wagner lets the melodic suggestions be free to go where they will."

Rod: "And this is the failure of so much Romantic music to my mind. Allowing themselves freedom, they all too often end up on a road to nowhere."

Wagner's free melodies move inevitably forward and to a climax as all great music does. I never said they went nowhere, that was your interpreation. I was talking about the difference between predetermined form, as in a sonata or a sonnet, and free form, which grows organically but still grows toward an end. To a critic to whom strict form was everything, Antony's great funeral oration in Shakespeare"s "Julius Caesar" would be inadmissable because it did not follow the form of a sonnet or other recognized format. And indeed during the classical 18th century Shakespeare was out of favor for just this reason, that he was "wild" and "formless".

Chaszz: "For someone who....seeks an equal fusion of form and emotion, perhaps only a Beethoven will satisfy."

Rod: "This is the ultimate challenge to the disciplined artiste Chaszz, and in this respect above all, Beethoven will never be surpassed.

Ultimate is an objective word which you apply subjectively. Perhaps those who are more comfortable within the classic forms they aspire to, such as Bach and Handel, give a more serene and satisfying classical experience in some respects, while Beethoven may be about restlessness and contrasts, tragedy and triumph, except in his latest work. When I think of classical, I think of the Parthenon marbles, which you in London are lucky to have nearby, while with Beethoven or Michelangelo I think of a mighty straining at the bounds of the classical forms.

In any case, your formulation would downplay romantics (with a small 'r') like Shakespeare and Rembrandt, who penetrate so far into human character as to be beyond comparison in their own realms. For neither of these is form, or a perfect fusion of emotion and form, the goal, and I think they are equally valid as artists to Beethoven. (And the Beethoven of the last quartets is possibly closer to them than to his earlier self.)

(I argue using other art forms besides music, because I think there is only one Romantic composer who can be compared with Beethoven in stature, we both know who he is, and I don't want to argue HIM with you. Simply out of respect, because this is a Beethoven forum and I'll get carried away. ...But we can step outside if you like.)



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited July 22, 2003).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chaszz:

Ultimate is an objective word which you apply subjectively. Perhaps those who are more comfortable within the classic forms they aspire to, such as Bach and Handel, give a more serene and satisfying classical experience in some respects, while Beethoven may be about restlessness and contrasts, tragedy and triumph, except in his latest work. When I think of classical, I think of the Parthenon marbles, which you in London are lucky to have nearby, while with Beethoven or Michelangelo I think of a mighty straining at the bounds of the classical forms.

One could say there is far more tragedy and triumph in Handel's output than Beethoven's despite his conservatism. Only a few of B's works reflect this dendency. Don't restrict the possiblities of displaying such emotions to romantisism alone. As I have said, I find the Romantic composers' display of music drama to be less than convincing.

Call me Mr. Superficial, but the Parthenon marbles are in such a ruined state I get little enjoyment from looking at them.


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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited July 22, 2003).]