Romanticism v. Classical style

[Preston]

Ah yes, I looked up the incident in the Marek book:

B. continues: "Look opera seria - that's not the Italians' nature. They don't have enough musical science to deal with real drama; and how could they acquire it in Italy?"

Ouch.

I thought he simply said it to Rossini's face- which, would have been all the better, .

Can anyone clarify?

[Preston]

"Who is your favorite deceased composer", asked the Englishman.

Beethoven replied, "It was Mozart. Now it is Handel."

Also, I think that by saying Mozart's name when asked for "one" particular composer shows his love for Mozart.

Yesterday, I was reading Thayer, and found some fascinating information. Since Beethoven was around 30, and possibly younger (I do not know, though, imagine so.) he worshiped, so to say, Mozart and Handel!!! I find this fascinating.

Also, he considered Bach to be not as worthy as Mozart and Handel.

I read all kind of fascinating letters from Beethoven's friends. I read this in chapter (year) 1805.

Also, apparently- even then- Beethoven was of unbelievable eccentricity. It said things such as, he would mess up furniture (especially the more expensive), he was very clumsy (In fact, so much, you could not hand him a glass, so to say, for he might spill it!), he would get very, very mad, etc.- all types of things.

What I read was in much more detail- though, I found it so fascinating and sad.

Long live the great genius!

[djmomo17]

I thought he simply said it to Rossini's face- which, would have been all the better, .

In my post I meant that he DID say that to his face. Part of the same conversation mentioned earlier.
I haven't read the Thayer books yet. I've been meaning to but there's so many books on the shelf waiting to be read. Like the Rosen book mentioned by Peter. I also have his "Sonata Forms" book too. Is there a book topic existing? Since I'm clearly going off-topic now...

[Preston]

In my post I meant that he DID say that to his face. Part of the same conversation mentioned earlier.
I haven't read the Thayer books yet. I've been meaning to but there's so many books on the shelf waiting to be read. Like the Rosen book mentioned by Peter. I also have his "Sonata Forms" book too. Is there a book topic existing? Since I'm clearly going off-topic now...

Thank you for the clarification, and sorry for my lack of detail in writing what I thought Beethoven said.

Yes, there is a thread in the General Discussion forum, called "What Are You Reading Now". Here is a link:

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3424

[Peter]

I Is there a book topic existing? Since I'm clearly going off-topic now...

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthre...ighlight=books

[Peter]

Yesterday, I was reading Thayer, and found some fascinating information. Since Beethoven was around 30, and possibly younger (I do not know, though, imagine so.) he worshiped, so to say, Mozart and Handel!!! I find this fascinating.

Also, he considered Bach to be not as worthy as Mozart and Handel.

I read all kind of fascinating letters from Beethoven's friends. I read this in chapter (year) 1805.

Also, apparently- even then- Beethoven was of unbelievable eccentricity. It said things such as, he would mess up furniture (especially the more expensive), he was very clumsy (In fact, so much, you could not hand him a glass, so to say, for he might spill it!), he would get very, very mad, etc.- all types of things.

What I read was in much more detail- though, I found it so fascinating and sad.

Long live the great genius!

You have to remember that Beethoven would only have known a small amount of Bach's music and even then his estimation of Bach was only slightly lower than that of Handel.

[Peter]

I thought he simply said it to Rossini's face- which, would have been all the better, .

Can anyone clarify?

Beethoven was actually slightly envious of Rossini's popularity and his speed of writing and he admired 'The Barber of Seville'. There is more to Rossini's music than the frivolous - some of his choral writing anticipates Verdi and undoubtedly was an influence on him.

[Preston]

You have to remember that Beethoven would only have known a small amount of Bach's music and even then his estimation of Bach was only slightly lower than that of Handel.

Yes, that seems to be the better wording.

[djmomo17]

Getting back to the original question, Machlis & Forney's book The Enjoyment of Music has some distinctions between Classical and Romantic Music

CLASSICAL
Melody: Symmetrical melody in balanced phrases and cadences; diatonic w narrow leaps

Rhythm: Clear, with regularly occuring accents, dance rhythms favored

Harmony: Diatonic harmony favored; tonic-dominant relationships expanded, became basis for large scale forms

Texture: Homophonic textures; horizontal perspective

Form: Ternary form predominant; sonata-allegro form developed; absolute forms preferred

Timbre: Changing tone colors between sections of works

Etc

ROMANTIC
Melody: Expansive, singing melodies; wide ranging; more varied; with chromatic inflections

Rhythm: Rhythmic diversity & elasticity; tempo rubato

Harmony: increasing chromaticism; expanded concepts of tonality

Texture: Homophony, turning to increased polyphony in later years

Form: Expansions of form and interest in continuous as well as miniature programmatic forms

Timbre: Continual change and blend of tone colors; experiments with new instruments and unusual ranges

etc

There's actually 8 more differing categories but that's all I'm willing to type at this point...

As far as Beethoven is concerned I think he started out Classical and ended up with some Romantic qualities. In fact Machlis lists Beethoven in both categories. Actually he puts Schubert in both as well...

[Peter]

Getting back to the original question, Machlis & Forney's book The Enjoyment of Music has some distinctions between Classical and Romantic Music

CLASSICAL
Melody: Symmetrical melody in balanced phrases and cadences; diatonic w narrow leaps

Rhythm: Clear, with regularly occuring accents, dance rhythms favored

Harmony: Diatonic harmony favored; tonic-dominant relationships expanded, became basis for large scale forms

Texture: Homophonic textures; horizontal perspective

Form: Ternary form predominant; sonata-allegro form developed; absolute forms preferred

Timbre: Changing tone colors between sections of works

Etc

ROMANTIC
Melody: Expansive, singing melodies; wide ranging; more varied; with chromatic inflections

Rhythm: Rhythmic diversity & elasticity; tempo rubato

Harmony: increasing chromaticism; expanded concepts of tonality

Texture: Homophony, turning to increased polyphony in later years

Form: Expansions of form and interest in continuous as well as miniature programmatic forms

Timbre: Continual change and blend of tone colors; experiments with new instruments and unusual ranges

etc

There's actually 8 more differing categories but that's all I'm willing to type at this point...

As far as Beethoven is concerned I think he started out Classical and ended up with some Romantic qualities. In fact Machlis lists Beethoven in both categories. Actually he puts Schubert in both as well...

Interesting because Charles Rosen (with whom I agree) arrives at the opposite conclusion, that Beethoven started off with more Romantic tendencies and ended up with a stricter classical style. Where I do agree with you is Schubert who I think was a pivotal composer between the two styles.

As to the Machlis & Forney list - Have they listened to any Haydn? Just by their classical rhythm definition alone Haydn isn't a 'classical composer'! Let me quote from Rosemary Hughes 'Haydn's music is full of odd phrase lengths' and his music is full of rhythmic twists, unexpected modulations. In Mozart there is a decided increase in the use of chromatic melody and harmony.

It is interesting how the 19th century ignored Haydn only to completely misunderstand Beethoven and this continued well into the 20th century.

[djmomo17]

...that Beethoven started off with more Romantic tendencies and ended up with a stricter classical style...
.

What? Wow. Ok the Rosen book is must read.

... 'Haydn's music is full of odd phrase lengths' and his music is full of rhythmic twists, unexpected modulations. In Mozart there is a decided increase in the use of chromatic melody and harmony.
.

Peter can you suggest some representative Haydn movements? Same with Mozart, which would be Mozart's most harmonically bold work?

[Peter]

What? Wow. Ok the Rosen book is must read.



Peter can you suggest some representative Haydn movements? Same with Mozart, which would be Mozart's most harmonically bold work?

The Classical period abounds in these features - Rosen points out that the standard 4 bar phrase wasn't the norm until the 1820s - from the start phrases of 3,6,7 etc are common. Haydn's quartet Op.20/4 starts with seven independent 6 bar phrases - only one example amongst thousands.

For harmonic boldness how about Mozart's Kleine Gigue K.574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0qq...eature=related
or the opening to the quartet k.465 'Dissonance' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZylz3nCwQ
Mozart's melodic writing is also full of chromaticism and I think that is one of the distinguishing features of his music compared to Haydn's.

I do highly recommend Rosen's book - no one to my mind has done a more comprehensive study of the Classical style and has such a thorough understanding that explains the many misconceptions, especially in relation to Haydn and Beethoven.

[Sorrano]

Schumann should have some serious consideration here. After all, not only does his music represent the "new" music, but he had an important voice via his journal in promoting the "new" music.

[djmomo17]

For harmonic boldness how about Mozart's Kleine Gigue K.574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0qq...eature=related
or the opening to the quartet k.465 'Dissonance' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZylz3nCwQ
Mozart's melodic writing is also full of chromaticism and I think that is one of the distinguishing features of his music compared to Haydn's.

Thanks, these are pretty cool, the Mozart Dissonance qrtt could definitely be mistaken for an Opus 18 work, possibly even an Opus 59.

So this sounds like a dumb question but I am being totally serious. On a purely harmonic and melodic level, what are the distinguishing differences between the Classical period and the post-Romantics like Debussy or Mahler. Is it just more of the same (chromaticism and wild modulations)?

Off the top of my head I can say Debussy used modes and unusual scales like whole tone. Tho I believe modal writing was present in at least the Heiliger Dankgesang. I guess this question boils down to the fact that my ear can immediately discern the difference between a Haydn symphony and a Debussy nocturne, but how does it do it?

[Peter]

Thanks, these are pretty cool, the Mozart Dissonance qrtt could definitely be mistaken for an Opus 18 work, possibly even an Opus 59.

So this sounds like a dumb question but I am being totally serious. On a purely harmonic and melodic level, what are the distinguishing differences between the Classical period and the post-Romantics like Debussy or Mahler. Is it just more of the same (chromaticism and wild modulations)?

Off the top of my head I can say Debussy used modes and unusual scales like whole tone. Tho I believe modal writing was present in at least the Heiliger Dankgesang. I guess this question boils down to the fact that my ear can immediately discern the difference between a Haydn symphony and a Debussy nocturne, but how does it do it?

Well the basic ingredients are the same - tonality, it is simply the use made of it. With Debussy the tonic key is not master as it is in a classical piece, his music is also more about texture and colour rather than formal structure. You are quite right about Debussy's use of different scales - diatonic harmony was not of the prime importance it was to the classical composer.