Romantic Era

[Nightklavier]

Originally posted by Frankli:
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!

You should know better than that - Rod will never "forget Beethoven for a while" to try to like Schubert. I haven't been on this forum that long, but I've read enough to know that he's quite resolute in his stance. Unless he corrects me, I'm sure he thinks there's really nothing to be gained in listening to Romantic period music, not when Handel and Beethoven are up for comparison.

Now, I actually did what you prescribed: stopped listening to Beethoven and others to digest the entirety of Schubert's Piano Sonatas/Impromptus/Fantasies... It was like discovering fire by accident.

Schubert is not "as good as" Beethoven or Handel, fine. But he's still good - and there's nothing wrong with that.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by 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.

I think this is true Hershey, but the real problem seems to me to arise from the word Romantic - it is obviously an inappropiate word to use in defining solely a 19th century style of music and it does not reflect the very real stylistic changes that were taking place at the turn of the 18th century that I have tried to address. No one would deny there are very real differences between the Baroque with its focus on polyphony and counterpoint and the Classical with homophony and form. Romantic elements in the way you and Robert have suggested can be found in both these styles, so something more is needed if we are going to try to identify the new tonal outlook of the 19th century. There is a sea change in the music of the early 19th century that sees the weakening of the tonal structure - Beethoven's music is not part of this movement, indeed he expressed his dislike of the music of Spohr on these very grounds - his chromaticism.

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

[Frankli]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
You should know better than that - Rod will never "forget Beethoven for a while" to try to like Schubert. I haven't been on this forum that long, but I've read enough to know that he's quite resolute in his stance. Unless he corrects me, I'm sure he thinks there's really nothing to be gained in listening to Romantic period music, not when Handel and Beethoven are up for comparison.

Well, everybody is entitled to his own taste. But of course there is not any argument not to like Schubert, except that it's a matter of taste.

Now, I actually did what you prescribed: stopped listening to Beethoven and others to digest the entirety of Schubert's Piano Sonatas/Impromptus/Fantasies... It was like discovering fire by accident.

Yeah, I know that feeling. In fact, not hearing Beethoven for a few months makes me appreciate his (Beethoven's) music more when I start listening again.

Schubert is not "as good as" Beethoven or Handel, fine. But he's still good - and there's nothing wrong with that.

I wouldn't know what wondertool to use to find out who is better: Schubert or Handel. But for sure: how much I love Handel, it cannot denied that the man composed quite a lot of uninspired pages of music - had Schubert lived 43 years longer, he would probably have done the same. And the old story that Handel went through Bach's waste paper baskets simply isn't true: he went through his own.

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

[Chaseing33rd]

Unfortunately we only have words with which to discourse on music.

We are hearing the same notes,(are we really?)but are we really hearing them the same way?

Why should I trust someone elses' definition of "profundity" or "sentimentality"? Who hears what? How? How do we know?

[This message has been edited by Chaseing33rd (edited 09-19-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Chaseing33rd (edited 09-19-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by 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).]

Well I could easily say you should hear more Handel, for I can guarantee I have heard more Schubert than you have heard Handel. I am not a novice Frankli, all of my opinions are the result of 20 years of fine tuning. For a long time I had no time for Handel, because the establishment then had no desire to play it correctly and I was naiive enough to believe them - they were happy to have him sit in Bach's shadow. Now things are different, in 200 years time maybe the establishment will realise that it is Handel that is the undisputed master of Baroque.

I'll give you a fortepiano test if you are not careful, but it won't be mere extracts, everyone knows here the music I present is good enough to justify a whole movement! I think you missed out on the dozens and dozens of fp tracks I have displayed here via Peter's main site over the past few years.

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

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Frankli:
I wouldn't know what wondertool to use to find out who is better: Schubert or Handel. But for sure: how much I love Handel, it cannot denied that the man composed quite a lot of uninspired pages of music - had Schubert lived 43 years longer, he would probably have done the same. And the old story that Handel went through Bach's waste paper baskets simply isn't true: he went through his own.

Forgive me but this is the most nonsense I've read here in a long time, which is saying something.

Firstly please name the 'uninspired pages'?

Secondly what is this silly story you are talking about, I've never heard anything like it? There is not one iota of evidence that Handel heard a single note of Bach, whereas it is well known that Bach copied Handel for his own study and borrowed from many composers aslo, including Handel. It is little known but Bach had considerable admiration for Handel.

When you really know something about Handel, come back here and talk to me about Beethoven. Before then, I will only be indulging your comments politely.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chaseing33rd:
Unfortunately we only have words with which to discourse on music.

We are hearing the same notes,(are we really?)but are we really hearing them the same way?

Why should I trust someone elses' definition of "profundity" or "sentimentality"? Who hears what? How? How do we know?

This is true but the solution is simple - when you come to a Beethoven forum, you sould suspect the Beethoven idea of profundity and sentiment is probably the one regarded as the ideal. Or at least that should be the case...

If you disagree you are probably in the wrong place. Be true to yourself and mix with the kind you feel comfortable with. When in Rome...


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

[Frankli]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well I could easily say you should hear more Handel, for I can guarantee I have heard more Schubert than you have heard Handel.

Don't be too sure of that, Rod! Handel is one of my favorite composers. I can hum most of his works except a bunch of his oratoria and operas, which admittedly are for a part terra incognita to me. Still I have so many recordings of these that I put them on alphabet in my Handel collection.

I am not a novice Frankli, all of my opinions are the result of 20 years of fine tuning. For a long time I had no time for Handel, because the establishment then has no desire to play it correctly and I was naiive enough to believe them - they were happy to have him sit in Bach's shadow. Now things are different, in 200 years time maybe the establishment will realise that it is Handel that is the undisputed master of Baroque.

I certainly think that he is one of them. Though again: how to compare him to Rameau, to Lully, to Bach, to Vivaldi, when each are a class on their own? I bought my first Handel lp when I was 14 or so - it was a strange mixture of Beethoven sonatas on one side and two concerti grossi by Handel on the other side, which made me buy many more Handel after that. These first lps were actually recordings by "the establishment" (Barbirolli, Gould), but nevertheless they awoke my love for this composer. And that's not just because there is so much Handel in Beethoven.

I'll give you a fortepiano test if you are not careful, but it won't be mere extracts, everyone knows here the music I present is good enough to justify a whole movement! I think you missed out on the dozens and dozens of fp tracks I have displayed here via Peter's main site over the past few years.

Yes, I just came here to this place recently, so I missed them except the last one. A test is ok to me. It might even be a Handel test.

[Frankli]

Originally posted by Rod:
Forgive me but this is the most nonsense I've read here in a long time, which is saying something.
Firstly please name the 'uninspired pages'?

It's some of his chamber music and some of his vocal output which I call "routine". I don't blame him; the man was so incredibly productive that it's no wonder that he had an off-day now and then, or that time pressure played a role.

Secondly what is this silly story you are talking about, I've never heard anything like it? There is not one iota of evidence that Handel heard a single note of Bach, whereas it is well known that Bach copied Handel for his own study and borrowed from many composers aslo, including Handel. It is little known but Bach had considerable admiration for Handel.

Had you never heard that story about the waste paper baskets? It can be read in some oldfashioned non-English popular books, from the time that Handel was considered as a frivolous composer. Of course it is nonsense. But it is true that he, like Bach, Rameau, etc., recycled his own works now and then. No problem to me! What was it that I recently heard and which sounded so familiar to me? "Lascia la spina" from "Il trionfo del tempo..." (on the new Bartoli cd). Well, Handel had absolutely right in recycling this unearthly beautiful melody!

[Rod]

Originally posted by Frankli:
Had you never heard that story about the waste paper baskets? It can be read in some oldfashioned non-English popular books, from the time that Handel was considered as a frivolous composer. Of course it is nonsense. But it is true that he, like Bach, Rameau, etc., recycled his own works now and then. No problem to me! What was it that I recently heard and which sounded so familiar to me? "Lascia la spina" from "Il trionfo del tempo..." (on the new Bartoli cd). Well, Handel had absolutely right in recycling this unearthly beautiful melody!

Handle recycled his music from day 1! Usually the chamber stuff, even a humble harp exercise, would end up in the operas as a grand aria or a huge chorus in an oratorio decades later. People forget music was written for occsasions more than posterity in those days, and the crowds always demanded something different even in established pieces. However it was rare that a recycle was unmodified. His greatest work, Theodora, probably has the most recycles, and yet is unique in all music.

I know the Bartoli CD, not what I would call Handelian singing, but the instruments sound good. Handel has dozens of unearthly melodies, why do you think I am seduced so?

The vast majority of his instrumental music was not even designed for publication, but if you can remember the music that displeases I will post some of it here in the happy knowledge that you will be easily contradicted.

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


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

[Chaseing33rd]

Originally posted by Rod:
This is true but the solution is simple - when you come to a Beethoven forum, you sould suspect the Beethoven idea of profundity and sentiment is probably the one regarded as the ideal. Or at least that should be the case...

If you disagree you are probably in the wrong place. Be true to yourself and mix with the kind you feel comfortable with. When in Rome...

Why? Who says?

[HaydnFan]

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...

I see we are talking about Handel here...

...it certainly cannot be Schubert. I don't know where you got these ideas from but I am certain nobody else on the forum and no person with any idea about music would agree with you.

You may have heard more Schubert than I have Handel but obviously, you have not really "listened" to Schubert. When you start to hear something without also having an open mind to it, you tend to only look for that which is faulty.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chaseing33rd:
Why? Who says?

I merely offered a solution to something that really has no solution.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
I see we are talking about Handel here...

...it certainly cannot be Schubert. I don't know where you got these ideas from but I am certain nobody else on the forum and no person with any idea about music would agree with you.

You may have heard more Schubert than I have Handel but obviously, you have not really "listened" to Schubert. When you start to hear something without also having an open mind to it, you tend to only look for that which is faulty.

I have an open mind to everything, that's how I got into Handel when initially I had reservations.

It is true I look for the faults, but at this level - the suggestion that this composer is Beethoven's heir and equal - that is the first thing you should do. It is those who believe that about Schubert who have to justify it, not me my position.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-20-2006).]

[HaydnFan]

Rod, I actually do not believe Schubert is Beethoven's heir...in terms of equality, there are clearly genres in which Schubert excels compared to Beethoven and admittedly, many more in which he does not...

...for example, in symphony. Your description of Schubert's symphonies up to the 8th and 9th are not wholly incorrect - you can very much hear the influences of other composers, esp. Haydn in my opinion. Beethoven is clearly the master of the symphony. However, Schubert's songs are probably better than those of any other composer.

Also, in my opinion, some of Schubert's string music like the Trout Quintet and String Quintet in C are better than those of other composers. I do not typically enjoy this genre, only those works of Schubert. (that is just me).

But to say that his work is "by lottery draw" and "bits and pieces of average ideas..." does not fairly describe his larger output. If you are talking about his early symphonies, this description is not completely disagreeable (however, Symphony No. 5 is quite charming).