Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beethoven's shift from Classical to Romantic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Peter:
    I really think too much is being read into this 9 number in an almost superstitious 19th century melodramatic manner, after all Beethoven was working on a 10th and even projected an 11th at the time of his premature death. OK you haven't heard of Havergal Brian and I admit he is pretty obscure - but what about Shostakovich's 15? Mahler nearly completed 11 massive symphonies (Das Lied von der erde really is a symphony in Mahlerian terms) and would have written more had he not been compelled to compose in his spare time and had he also not died prematurely. The same goes for Schubert who most certainly would have clocked up many more symphonies had he lived as long as Beethoven. The dominant form of the 19th century was opera - just look at the number of Wagner or Verdi operas (all on a much grander scale than any symphony) to see that this argument is meaningless.

    Fifteen is still much closer to nine or ten than to Mozart's 40+ or Haydn's 100+. You're conveniently ignoring the main point of my argument, which is that the symphony underwent an enlargement to giant proportions from Beethoven's examples. But then you acknowledge it sideways by seeming to need to downplay the importance of symphony as a form. Of course opera predominated, a composer could make a lot more money if an opera was a hit than if a symphony was a hit. An hit opera could play for 100 or more performances in a single season, whereas a popular symphony would be lucky to see 30 or 40 performances in a composer's lifetime, if even anywhere near that. By this measure, opera could also be said to predominate in the 18th C., when Handel and Mozart both rushed to mount as many as they could. The impressive number of important 19th composers who produced major symphonies belies this argument.

    There is still my other contention, which I now invite response to, that if you speak about classical with a small 'c', in general terms, and put romantic with a small 'r', on the other side, generic also, and open up the whole history of the arts, there is little doubt where Beethoven belongs. It's difficult to find parallels in music outside the 19th century, because we don't know enough about how music actually sounded before 1600 or 1700, and the scale of forces was always smaller. But if you step outside music for a moment, and look at the passage from formal classical to more romantic, directly emotional art that took place in ancient Greece, from the classical to the Hellenistic period; and in Italy, between the Renaissance to the Mannerist and then Baruqoe periods, the issue is pretty plain. Beethoven bears almost exactly the same relation to Mozart and Haydn, as does the Laocoon or the Altar of Zeus at Pergamon to the Parthenon, and as does Michelangelo to the classicism of Raphael and Bramante. Nobody would call Michelangelo or the Laocoon classical. And Beethoven's spirit is much closer to theirs than to pure classicism.

    And in neither case, Michelangelo or early Hellentistic art, were classical vocaularies abandoned, they were modified and enlarged. Michelangelo enlarged the column and pilaster to giant proportions in architecture exactly as Beethoven enlarged sonata form. And in Baroque art and later Hellenistic art forms were loosened further or abandoned as they were in later Romantic music. But it can't be denied that Michelangelo, while holding onto these forms and enlarging them, was the primary impetus for Baroque painting, architecture and sculpture. And Beethoven had a similar effect on the 19th century.

    So in specific 19th century musical terms there is an argument, but in the wider polarity which reappears in the arts again and again between these two tendencies, the situation is pretty plain.
    See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.

    Comment


      #17
      Chaszz,
      I am not disagreeing with what you say, and perhaps we are of one spirit here after all, but in saying that Beethoven expanded classical (read: sonata) form to greatly enlarged boundaries, this does not, to me, constitute abandoning classical form in favor of romantic, it is merely expanding what is already there and has been prepared by the likes of Mozart and Haydn to vastly greater stretches. I think that the fact that others didn't follow in this is because of their perception (fear?) that B had gone as far as one could go down that road. I doubt that this is true, but I can understand the intimidation factor (listen to Brahms talking about hearing giant footsteps!). There was a fork in the road developing at the turn if the 19th century, and the simple fact that B took one fork and not the other was enough to insure that romanticism, as we think of it today, would thrive. It was the fork he didn't take! But my assertion still stands, the far greater influence B had on composers who followed him was in spirit and attitude, not in music structure or style. BTW, IMHO B was not responsible for making the symphony a piece de concert, this happened in his youth. He did, however, exploit the phenomenon to its fullest. Havergal Brian, indeed!


      ------------------
      Regards,
      Gurn
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Regards,
      Gurn
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Comment


        #18
        Chaszz,
        Oh yes, forgot to mention, don't be put off by anyone throwing Mahler or Bruckner in your face. They are actually making your point for you!! These guys may have exceeded your magic number by one or two, but hell, that's all they did! They were symphony specialists, and neither of them turned out another type of work of any significance (lieder don't fall in that category, sorry, neither do a piano quintet or two for a lark). ANd even THEY didn't beat it by a mile, Havergal Brian notwithstanding! The only major composer who turned out as many as 9 symphonies IN ADDITION TO a body of work which would have been significant even without the symphonies was Antonin Dvorak. I suppose if you count his 4 Symphonic Poems as 1 symphony, that would be 10


        ------------------
        Regards,
        Gurn
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Regards,
        Gurn
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Chaszz:
          Fifteen is still much closer to nine or ten than to Mozart's 40+ or Haydn's 100+. You're conveniently ignoring the main point of my argument, which is that the symphony underwent an enlargement to giant proportions from Beethoven's examples. But then you acknowledge it sideways by seeming to need to downplay the importance of symphony as a form. Of course opera predominated, a composer could make a lot more money if an opera was a hit than if a symphony was a hit. An hit opera could play for 100 or more performances in a single season, whereas a popular symphony would be lucky to see 30 or 40 performances in a composer's lifetime, if even anywhere near that. By this measure, opera could also be said to predominate in the 18th C., when Handel and Mozart both rushed to mount as many as they could. The impressive number of important 19th composers who produced major symphonies belies this argument.

          There is still my other contention, which I now invite response to, that if you speak about classical with a small 'c', in general terms, and put romantic with a small 'r', on the other side, generic also, and open up the whole history of the arts, there is little doubt where Beethoven belongs. It's difficult to find parallels in music outside the 19th century, because we don't know enough about how music actually sounded before 1600 or 1700, and the scale of forces was always smaller. But if you step outside music for a moment, and look at the passage from formal classical to more romantic, directly emotional art that took place in ancient Greece, from the classical to the Hellenistic period; and in Italy, between the Renaissance to the Mannerist and then Baruqoe periods, the issue is pretty plain. Beethoven bears almost exactly the same relation to Mozart and Haydn, as does the Laocoon or the Altar of Zeus at Pergamon to the Parthenon, and as does Michelangelo to the classicism of Raphael and Bramante. Nobody would call Michelangelo or the Laocoon classical. And Beethoven's spirit is much closer to theirs than to pure classicism.

          And in neither case, Michelangelo or early Hellentistic art, were classical vocaularies abandoned, they were modified and enlarged. Michelangelo enlarged the column and pilaster to giant proportions in architecture exactly as Beethoven enlarged sonata form. And in Baroque art and later Hellenistic art forms were loosened further or abandoned as they were in later Romantic music. But it can't be denied that Michelangelo, while holding onto these forms and enlarging them, was the primary impetus for Baroque painting, architecture and sculpture. And Beethoven had a similar effect on the 19th century.

          So in specific 19th century musical terms there is an argument, but in the wider polarity which reappears in the arts again and again between these two tendencies, the situation is pretty plain.

          Gurn is quite right that Beethoven took the classical style and forms to their ultimate limits, which is why the early Romantics had such a hard time of it, and their most succesful achievements are in smaller newer forms - Schumann for example is at his best in his sets of piano music and lieder.

          In Charles Rosen's words 'all that is most interesting in the next generation is a reaction against Beethoven, or an attempt to ignore him, a turning away into new directions: all that is weakest submits to his power and pays him the emptiest and most sincere of homages.'

          The fact that the 9th symphony influenced later composers doesn't make Beethoven a Romantic.


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

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Peter:

            Gurn is quite right that Beethoven took the classical style and forms to their ultimate limits, which is why the early Romantics had such a hard time of it, and their most succesful achievements are in smaller newer forms - Schumann for example is at his best in his sets of piano music and lieder.

            In Charles Rosen's words 'all that is most interesting in the next generation is a reaction against Beethoven, or an attempt to ignore him, a turning away into new directions: all that is weakest submits to his power and pays him the emptiest and most sincere of homages.'

            The fact that the 9th symphony influenced later composers doesn't make Beethoven a Romantic.


            You haven't dealt with two of my contentions: 1. that is wasn't only the Ninth that influenced later composers but Beethoven's whole conception of the scale of the symphony, beginning with the Third and continuing more or less through all the odd numbered ones; and 2. the matter of whether or not he is classical with a small 'c' as opposed to romantic with a small 'r', that is, in reference to the wider history of the arts. But perhaps it's time to let this issue rest for now. It will no doubt return at some point.

            See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.

            Comment

            Working...
            X