Romantic Era

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
I agree, at the end he was even further away from the Romantic sentiment than he was during his 'first period'.

I'm pleased we all agree on this!

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I'm pleased we all agree on this!

A rare occasion. Worthy of a toast in my local Wetherspoons!

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

[robert newman]

We all agree that romanticism exists. But it's interesting there are those who appeal to technical definitions. I would not in the first instance define a living creature by the number of pairs of chromosomes that it has - though such definitions may be used by geneticists to classify species. I can see that a monkey is not a tortoise. And I can hear that some music is jazz while another piece may be romantic. Nor should we define romanticism in the first instance by chords or by technical definitions. But only if we disagree should we seek such definitions.

I note that the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Musical Romanticism' much more liberally as that music which is -

'characterised by the subordination of form to them, and by imagination and passion'.

(That definition, admittedly, comes from 1885 but it seems fair to me).

There are surely works in which Beethoven is emphasising his imagination and passion and these, I respectfully suggest, are works we can fairly call 'romantic'. But there are others where he is clearly emphasising baroque elements etc.

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

We all agree that romanticism exists. But it's interesting there are those who appeal to technical definitions. I would not in the first instance define a living creature by the number of pairs of chromosomes that it has - though such definitions may be used by geneticists to classify species. I can see that a monkey is not a tortoise. And I can hear that some music is jazz while another piece may be romantic. Nor should we define romanticism in the first instance by chords or by technical definitions. But only if we disagree should we seek such definitions.

I note that the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Musical Romanticism' much more liberally as that music which is -

'characterised by the subordination of form to them, and by imagination and passion'.

(That definition, admittedly, comes from 1885 but it seems fair to me).

There are surely works in which Beethoven is emphasising his imagination and passion and these, I respectfully suggest, are works we can fairly call 'romantic'. But there are others where he is clearly emphasising baroque elements etc.

I would not categorise musical Romanticism quite like that. I agree about the lack of form, but I refer to the 'sentiment'. The overt melodrama and sentimantality is what especially characterises the genre for me. This is not the same as 'passion'. There is plenty of passion in Handel's music but who would call him a Romantic? This is what I was referring to earlier regarding natural music drama v's 'art for art's sake' etc. It is not easy to quantify.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-19-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

We all agree that romanticism exists. But it's interesting there are those who appeal to technical definitions. I would not in the first instance define a living creature by the number of pairs of chromosomes that it has - though such definitions may be used by geneticists to classify species. I can see that a monkey is not a tortoise. And I can hear that some music is jazz while another piece may be romantic. Nor should we define romanticism in the first instance by chords or by technical definitions. But only if we disagree should we seek such definitions.

I note that the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Musical Romanticism' much more liberally as that music which is -

'characterised by the subordination of form to them, and by imagination and passion'.

(That definition, admittedly, comes from 1885 but it seems fair to me).

There are surely works in which Beethoven is emphasising his imagination and passion and these, I respectfully suggest, are works we can fairly call 'romantic'. But there are others where he is clearly emphasising baroque elements etc.

Without resorting to technical matters such as tonality how else are we to define a style? It is not enough to use solely the terms you mention because elements of this to some degree can be found also in music of the 18th century. There is no strict crossover period granted, and the stylistic definitions themselves are really inadequate to describe the music of either the 18th or 19th centuries. The most accurate way we have of determining what the differences are, is through the approach to tonality. To dismiss that is to lump the whole of western music under the same umbrella - Romantic.

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

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Rod:

I would not categorise musical Romanticism quite like that. I agree about the lack of form, but I refer to the 'sentiment'. The overt melodrama and sentimantality is what especially characterises the genre for me. This is not the same as 'passion'. There is plenty of passion in Handel's music but who would call him a Romantic? This is what I was referring to earlier regarding natural music drama v's 'art for art's sake' etc. It is not easy to quantify.

It is interesting to me that you make this comment in respect to musicologists I know who compare Baroque music to Romantic and Classical to Contemporary (20th Century, or whatever you want to call it).

[HaydnFan]

Rod, you say that Romantic music is too melodramatic for you...that it lacks passion.

I agree that SOME Romantic music is over the top (like Tchaikovsky is often in my opinion) but some Romantic pieces should surely meet the definition of passionate!

Of course, we can probably agree that Beethoven is the king of emotional content and Schubert, heir to the throne (something which, I agree with you here, Rod, probably none of the Romantics equalled)...but this should not mean that Romantic music should be thrown away as rubbish!

[Rod]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
Rod, you say that Romantic music is too melodramatic for you...that it lacks passion.

I agree that SOME Romantic music is over the top (like Tchaikovsky is often in my opinion) but some Romantic pieces should surely meet the definition of passionate!

Of course, we can probably agree that Beethoven is the king of emotional content and Schubert, heir to the throne (something which, I agree with you here, Rod, probably none of the Romantics equalled)...but this should not mean that Romantic music should be thrown away as rubbish!

Well regardless Beethoven is just too good, when it comes it instrumental music especially. And sorry I cannot accept Schubert's piano sonatas or other instrumental music as being equal or better than Beethoven's, from Op1 onward!! Absolutely no way.

But Beethoven left some other alleyways for the others - with opera and oratorio and other vocal genres (Fidelio is a supreme work, but 1 opera does not an opera composer make!). Alas in this case I judge Handel to be the master of the voice. I am astounded by the huge number of his masterpieces that nobody has heard and may only have one recording.


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


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-19-2006).]

[HaydnFan]

But I would argue that many of Schubert's pieces have an introspectiveness that Beethoven often lacks, with of course the exception of a very few pieces.

Schubert, to me, is highly poetic and remarkably personal.

Schubert though, certainly does not have the same quality of thematic development as Beethoven, possibly because he did not work on his music as long or as hard as LvB.

Here is my philosophy:

Mozart - in the head
Beethoven - in the stomach
Schubert - in the heart

[Rod]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
But I would argue that many of Schubert's pieces have an introspectiveness that Beethoven often lacks, with of course the exception of a very few pieces.

I'm sorry but Beethoven is not the one-dimentional composer you seek. But that being said, in a way with Schubert you get all three in your list in one, for he blatantly imitated the styles of the other two, amongst others, but the result is never as good as either!

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


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-19-2006).]

[Frankli]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
Schubert though, certainly does not have the same quality of thematic development as Beethoven, possibly because he did not work on his music as long or as hard as LvB.

It's more that Schubert's way of dealing with development is incomparable to what Beethoven did. Not better, not worse, but different.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Frankli:
It's more that Schubert's way of dealing with development is incomparable to what Beethoven did. Not better, not worse, but different.

Exactly - Schubert found his own solutions in his late music that is no mere imitation of Beethoven or anyone else.

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

[Hershey]

The word "Romantic," when it comes to music - has always been a moniker that I am interested in really understanding, mainly because the word "romantic" means something different to everyone. I have always interpreted Romantic to mean a connection to feeling and human condition - and subsequently, an expression thereof. I find some of of Bach's output wildly romantic, and some of Chopin's less so - almost cold and controlled - as some of his students said his playing indeed was. As for Beethoven - the beginning of Romantic for me is the first chord of the Pathetique Sonata, its violence, energy, closely voiced chorcal structure, Sfz subito piano, (and really a first unleashing, as it were of some form of emotional violence in music) which we find over and over again, so deeply connected, to a huge emotional expressiveness, that I can't help but think that that chord is a benchmark of musical romanticism - or at least, romanticism the way i see and feel it.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Exactly - Schubert found his own solutions in his late music that is no mere imitation of Beethoven or anyone else.

Well, still it still sounds like music by lottery draw to me. Bits and pieces of average ideas thrown together at random does create something different I suppose. Perhaps he should have spent more time with his sketchbooks...

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

[Frankli]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well, still it still sounds like music by lottery draw to me. Bits and pieces of average ideas thrown together at random does create something different I suppose. Perhaps he should have spent more time with his sketchbooks...

Or perhaps you should try harder. I remember hearing a Froberger harpsichord suite for the first time. It sounded as if the instrument produced sounds at random. Only after years of repeated listening I started to hear structure in the complex polyphonic phrases, and now I just love it, and it all makes sense to me.
So Rod, forget Beethoven for a while, and listen just as long enough to Schubert - not difficult, since some of the piano's used in the recordings are absolutely ravishing - until you are addicted!

[This message has been edited by Frankli (edited 09-19-2006).]