Romanticism v. Classical style

[Megan]

I would like it explained to me the difference between classical and romantic music.

The pieces of Beethoven's music that have a romantic theme to my mind are: the Pastoral symphony, Moonlight Sonata, Choral symphony and even Fidelio and the 9th.

Of course you are perfectly at liberty to say that this is nonesense. But that is because I am purely an admirer of B's music , and lack any background in musicology.

[Preston]

The pieces of Beethoven's music that have a romantic theme to my mind are: the Pastoral symphony, Moonlight Sonata, and even Fidelio and the 9th.

Just because they could be similar to themes (not musical themes) that the Romantics focused on, does not mean that they are written in the styles the Romantics wrote in.

To my understanding, it has to do with the writing style. For instance, you have the Classical musicality, Baroque musicality, Renaissance musicality, Romantic musicality, etc. Each era of music is different styles and ways of writing music. Though, there are all kinds of experimentation in each era and many different styles and ways of writing the music in each era.

...and lack any background in musicology.

You are certainly not alone, .

I wonder if the early and late Romantics understood Beethoven's style or not? If not, could this be a reason they started creating a new style- because, the Classical style somewhat alluded them?

[Sorrano]

For a starter, I would suggest a wider harmonic vocabulary was developed during the Romantic period.

[Peter]

As I've posted on this forum on the subject at great length over the years, I'll just provide a few links to past discussions on this.

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/search.p...7&pp=25&page=9

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthre...light=romantic

[djmomo17]

As I've posted on this forum on the subject at great length over the years, I'll just provide a few links to past discussions on this.

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/search.p...7&pp=25&page=9

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthre...light=romantic

Wow talking about this since 2003 in the second link. The first link is not working for me tho

After reading those posts I'm starting to be convinced that Beethoven was neither a Classical nor a Romantic composer. I think I will call him a "Pan-harmonisticist".

[Peter]

Wow talking about this since 2003 in the second link. The first link is not working for me tho

After reading those posts I'm starting to be convinced that Beethoven was neither a Classical nor a Romantic composer. I think I will call him a "Pan-harmonisticist".

I think we probably started earlier than that! At the end of the day 'Classical' and 'Romantic' are merely labels applied to a particular era and style. I think there is a great misunderstanding of both in terms of what the styles actually are. Form and tonality are of primary importance to the Classical composer, whereas the Romantic composers have more emphasis on lyricism.
The eminent musicologist Charles Rosen has excellent books on this topic which I recommend to anyone who thinks Beethoven is a Romantic composer!

I see from your other comments in another thread you aren't convinced and site two works as examples - one a Fugue, the other variations - Both of which are strict Baroque forms and Beethoven was increasingly drawn to the past in his 3rd period. He had little sympathy for the upcoming Romatic school of Weber, Spohr, Rossini and indeed he was not going in their direction.

[Roehre]

I think we probably started earlier than that! At the end of the day 'Classical' and 'Romantic' are merely labels applied to a particular era and style. I think there is a great misunderstanding of both in terms of what the styles actually are. Form and tonality are of primary importance to the Classical composer, whereas the Romantic composers have more emphasis on lyricism.
The eminent musicologist Charles Rosen has excellent books on this topic which I recommend to anyone who thinks Beethoven is a Romantic composer!

I see from your other comments in another thread you aren't convinced and site two works as examples - one a Fugue, the other variations - Both of which are strict Baroque forms and Beethoven was increasingly drawn to the past in his 3rd period. He had little sympathy for the upcoming Romantic school of Weber, Spohr, Rossini and indeed he was not going in their direction.

May I point to the fact that Beethoven, nor any of his contemporaries or his immediate predecessors thought of themselves as "classicists", and that the only "rule books" merely were restricted to harmony and counterpoint, and didn't contain rules regarding (what we now have defined as) sonata form, "lied"form, rondo etcetera?

As a consequence the diaposition of several keys and different characters of melodies was something which was done as seemed right.
Hence monothematic works like some of the Haydn symphonies' 1st mvts, but e.g. Beethoven's opus 127 1st mvt as well, development-sections in Mozart and Schubert sonata form which hardly deserve that name(any of their symphonies' 1st mvts e.g.), extensive development sections following the re-capitulation/re-exposition in Beethoven sonata forms (e.g. Symphony 5 and 9 1st mvts) re-defining what is in Schubert's or Mozart's symphonies just a coda of a couple of bars' length.

It was the expanding of the forms (or should we say: formulae?) together with a more personal approach of music which aurally and technically started with "romanticism". It is very difficult listening to Mozart and Haydn to say who is who if you don't know the piece, but Mendelssohn and Schumann, let alone Weber and Beethoven [just to mention only some German-speaking composers] are generally speaking immediately recognizable.

And let's face that it were the musicologists, who emerged from the 1840s-1850s onwards, who defined the forms which I mentioned earlier, and defined them academically, made them to some kind of "mathematical" or "natural" law to which composers were supposed to "obey". Those who did, e.g. Raff, Gernsheim, Jenner, to mention just 3 contemporaries of Brahms', are now considered to be academic composers, with theoretically brilliantly composed works, but without much interest otherwise compared to those who broke those "rules" like Brahms or Liszt. The world's first music-historical society dates from 1869.

Beethoven shaped his music in ways which were inconceivable before he did so: expanding structures, new melodic shaping (rhythmical cells rather than a "proper melody" in the 5th e.g.), new instrumental combinations and colours(piano and timpani in the cadenza for opus 61a), rhytmical developments like the scherzo in the 9th (ritmo di tre battutte, ritmo di quattro battute e.g.) or the cross rhythms in opus 133, and harmonically, e.g. opus 95 or again op.133, looking forward to Bartok and Schönberg.

[Btw, I posted this text on the "greatest accomplishment" thread as well]

[Peter]

May I point to the fact that Beethoven, nor any of his contemporaries or his immediate predecessors thought of themselves as "classicists", and that the only "rule books" merely were restricted to harmony and counterpoint, and didn't contain rules regarding (what we now have defined as) sonata form, "lied"form, rondo etcetera?

As a consequence the diaposition of several keys and different characters of melodies was something which was done as seemed right.
Hence monothematic works like some of the Haydn symphonies' 1st mvts, but e.g. Beethoven's opus 127 1st mvt as well, development-sections in Mozart and Schubert sonata form which hardly deserve that name(any of their symphonies' 1st mvts e.g.), extensive development sections following the re-capitulation/re-exposition in Beethoven sonata forms (e.g. Symphony 5 and 9 1st mvts) re-defining what is in Schubert's or Mozart's symphonies just a coda of a couple of bars' length.

It was the expanding of the forms (or should we say: formulae?) together with a more personal approach of music which aurally and technically started with "romanticism". It is very difficult listening to Mozart and Haydn to say who is who if you don't know the piece, but Mendelssohn and Schumann, let alone Weber and Beethoven [just to mention only some German-speaking composers] are generally speaking immediately recognizable.

And let's face that it were the musicologists, who emerged from the 1840s-1850s onwards, who defined the forms which I mentioned earlier, and defined them academically, made them to some kind of "mathematical" or "natural" law to which composers were supposed to "obey". Those who did, e.g. Raff, Gernsheim, Jenner, to mention just 3 contemporaries of Brahms', are now considered to be academic composers, with theoretically brilliantly composed works, but without much interest otherwise compared to those who broke those "rules" like Brahms or Liszt. The world's first music-historical society dates from 1869.

Beethoven shaped his music in ways which were inconceivable before he did so: expanding structures, new melodic shaping (rhythmical cells rather than a "proper melody" in the 5th e.g.), new instrumental combinations and colours(piano and timpani in the cadenza for opus 61a), rhytmical developments like the scherzo in the 9th (ritmo di tre battutte, ritmo di quattro battute e.g.) or the cross rhythms in opus 133, and harmonically, e.g. opus 95 or again op.133, looking forward to Bartok and Schönberg.

[Btw, I posted this text on the "greatest accomplishment" thread as well]

Well I think many of the new things you attribute to Beethoven were found in Haydn - rhythmic cells and motives, monothematic movements, experimentation with orchestra effects, unusual choice of keys, to name just a few. I think there is an obvious difference between the music of Haydn and Mozart and I think Beethoven was more influenced by Haydn.

Yes the 'classical sonata form' was defined by academics after the event, but I don't think the fact that all their secondary tonalities showed an increase in tension was done as something that 'seemed right'. The Romantics tend to have a relaxation of tension in their secondary tonalities - Beethoven never undermines the importance of the tonic-dominant relationship and in this he is a truly classical composer.

As to Beethoven looking forward to Bartok and Schoenberg, I always find remarks like that odd - as though he had some cyrstal ball! Perhaps it might be more accurate to say Bartok and Schoenberg looking back to Beethoven?

[Preston]

Is it not possible that Beethoven made the Classical style what it is or used the Classical style to the fullest? By, basing a lot of his compositions on the form and techniques of Mozart and Haydn, then expanding them to new unprecedented heights, techniques, form, etc. If so, could it not be said that Beethoven stayed true to the Classical style, yet at the same time, brought new elements, effects, techniques, etc. to it?

I read in Thayer a while ago, that when someone (cannot remember who) asked Beethoven who his favorite composer was, Beethoven replied,

"It was Mozart, now it is Handel."

---------------------------------------
Also, why does everyone want to call Beethoven a composer of the Romantic style?

To my understanding, Beethoven heard the music of the early Romantics- Weber and Schubert- and enjoyed Schubert (not sure about Weber) but, did not love his style as much as that of the late Mozart and Handel? Is that correct?

[Preston]

As to Beethoven looking forward to Bartok and Schoenberg, I always find remarks like that odd - as though he had some cyrstal ball!

Peter, do you think a man of as great genius as Beethoven was, that he could have known the direction music would take? It seems as though it could be possible. I imagine genius of Beethoven's nature to be beyond belief, blessed by the divine powers. Though, I do not know?

[Peter]

Peter, do you think a man of as great genius as Beethoven was, that he could have known the direction music would take? It seems as though it could be possible. I imagine genius of Beethoven's nature to be beyond belief, blessed by the divine powers. Though, I do not know?

Well he wasn't pleased with the music of the upcoming Romantic school - (unable to think of a contemporary composer he admired except the academic Cherubini), rather strange since some are suggesting he was the main instigator of the new movement! He objected to the weakening of tonality 'too much chromaticism' was one of his objections to Spohr's music and of course this did finally lead to the atonal music of Schoenberg - perhaps he did forsee this might happen but his remarks hardly suggest it was a direction he himself would have approved of.

In the 1820s Beethoven was complaining that he was not appreciated and thought of as old fashioned - he was right. He was not fashionable at that time because of the craze for Italian opera and the rise of the Romantic movement. And what of his influence on the early Romantics? Charles Rosen points out that all that is best in the new movement is a reaction against Beethoven, and all that is weakest is the attempts to pay homage.

[Preston]

Well he wasn't pleased with the music of the upcoming Romantic school - (unable to think of a contemporary composer he admired accept the academic Cherubini), rather strange since some are suggesting he was the main instigator of the new movement! He objected to the weakening of tonality 'too much chromaticism' was one of his objections to Spohr's music and of course this did finally lead to the atonal music of Schoenberg - perhaps he did forsee this might happen but his remarks hardly suggest it was a direction he himself would have approved of.

In the 1820s Beethoven was complaining that he was not appreciated and thought of as old fashioned - he was right. He was not fashionable at that time because of the craze for Italian opera and the rise of the Romantic movement. And what of his influence on the early Romantics? Charles Rosen points out that all that is best in the new movement is a reaction against Beethoven, and all that is weakest is the attempts to pay homage.

Yes, I remember reading about his respect for Cherubini in Thayer. It actually was on the very same page when Beethoven mentioned Mozart and Handel.

I believe it went something like this:

"Who do you think is the greatest living composer", asked some Englishman (Maybe Smart was his last name, I forget?)

Beethoven hesitated (who knows if he really did hesitate), then replied, "Cherubini."

"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.


I too believe, it was almost anything but the direction Beethoven would have wanted to take.

As for Rossini, I remember reading about how Rossini came to Beethoven's house, at one point. All, I remember is that Beethoven told Rossini, "You do not know drama." Now that is funny, and true, imo.

[Roehre]

He objected to the weakening of tonality 'too much chromaticism' was one of his objections to Spohr's music and of course this did finally lead to the atonal music of Schoenberg - perhaps he did forsee this might happen but his remarks hardly suggest it was a direction he himself would have approved of.

I disagree to some extent, as the Serioso quartet as well as in the late quartets [especially op.133, but op.130 (Cavatina), 132 (Dankgesang) and 131 (variations) too] show that B himself was sometimes exploring the verges of atonality or at least of non-functional harmony .

As far as forward-looking is concerned: I find it very remarkable, that though there are certain beethovenian influences in Mendelssohn (late quartets in op.12 and 13 quartets), Schumann and Brahms, it were Schönberg and Bartok who continued the thread of exploring the art of the quartet where Beethoven had left it after op.130/133 [I am convinced that the late quartets have got to be split into three groups: 127; 132-130-133-131; finale 130-135. Beethoven was on the verge of entering a new, more classically orientated style imo. There is a stylistic rupture between op.130 vi/135 and the previous quartets.] The influence of op.135 on them seems to me to be of a lesser nature than that of the other late quartets.

Well I think many of the new things you attribute to Beethoven were found in Haydn - rhythmic cells and motives, monothematic movements, experimentation with orchestra effects, unusual choice of keys, to name just a few. I think there is an obvious difference between the music of Haydn and Mozart and I think Beethoven was more influenced by Haydn.

I certainly don't mean that Beethoven invented that all. On the contrary, I am with you that (apart from the piano concertos) Haydn (and to a lesser extent C.P.E.Bach , Dussek, Clementi and later to some extent Cherubini [overtures!]) was the first and foremost example for Beethoven.

[djmomo17]

Wow - so much to chew on in this thread! I may need some snacks before this is all over.

As to Beethoven looking forward to Bartok and Schoenberg, I always find remarks like that odd - as though he had some cyrstal ball! Perhaps it might be more accurate to say Bartok and Schoenberg looking back to Beethoven?

It was pointed out in one of Leonard Bernstein's Harvard Lectures that there is something like a 10-note tone row in the choral movement of the 9th Symphony. I think it's the hushed vocal recitative in the "Allegro energico, sempre ben marcato", but I that's just my wild shot, I wouldn't know a tone row unless it had numbers attached to the noteheads...

I often wonder if B had lived as long as Haydn, what would have been created? I'm convinced from Opus 135, the revised finale of Opus 130, and the reported sketches of the 10th symphony that there would have been some short-term retrenchment to a simpler harmonic language (I will not say 'classicism'), but then a leap forward into possibly impressionism. I don't think he would have liked Wagner actually...so I guess I don't feel B was a Romantic after all.

Edit: I just read up to your last post Roehre - so I am in agreement about the finale 130-135 points you mention above obviously.

As for Rossini, I remember reading about how Rossini came to Beethoven's house, at one point. All, I remember is that Beethoven told Rossini, "You do not know drama." Now that is funny, and true, imo.

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.

[Peter]

I disagree to some extent, as the Serioso quartet as well as in the late quartets [especially op.133, but op.130 (Cavatina), 132 (Dankgesang) and 131 (variations) too] show that B himself was sometimes exploring the verges of atonality or at least of non-functional harmony .

As far as forward-looking is concerned: I find it very remarkable, that though there are certain beethovenian influences in Mendelssohn (late quartets in op.12 and 13 quartets), Schumann and Brahms, it were Schönberg and Bartok who continued the thread of exploring the art of the quartet where Beethoven had left it after op.130/133 [I am convinced that the late quartets have got to be split into three groups: 127; 132-130-133-131; finale 130-135. Beethoven was on the verge of entering a new, more classically orientated style imo. There is a stylistic rupture between op.130 vi/135 and the previous quartets.] The influence of op.135 on them seems to me to be of a lesser nature than that of the other late quartets.


I certainly don't mean that Beethoven invented that all. On the contrary, I am with you that (apart from the piano concertos) Haydn (and to a lesser extent C.P.E.Bach , Dussek, Clementi and later to some extent Cherubini [overtures!]) was the first and foremost example for Beethoven.

Several interesting points that I think confirm Beethoven was not a 'Romantic' composer! Yes Beethoven's late works especially the chamber music had little influence at all on the upcoming Romantic school and it wasn't until the 20th century that they were influential. I don't accept your suggestion that Beethoven was hinting at atonality - as Rosen points out Beethoven was as rich as any composer in dissonances but it was always fully integrated within a diatonic framework leaving the tonic triad master.
Rosen goes on to say of the late works 'it is this concentration upon the simplest and most fundamental relationships of tonality that characterizes Beethoven's late style most profoundly'

Atonality didnot evolve from Beethoven's late works but out of the chromatic harmony and lack of resolution suggested in Wagner and Liszt.
Beethoven was not the beginning of a new style, Romanticism, he was the summing up and fulfilment of the Classical style. In his late works he became more'classical' than in his youth and to some extent even Baroque! He was looking back and I think perhaps this is where the influence on the 20th century comes in with the neo-classical and neo-Baroque.