Survey

[chopithoven]

This is a survey for everybody to answer:

Do you think that:

a) Beethoven's most important works after 1800 are classical in style because they use the musical procedures which were born in the classicism of the 18th centry, although he evolved them to new forms through his musical genius? So, since B. did never abandon the classical structures and procedures, specially in the "middle period", his style is still classical.

or

b) Beethoven's most important works after 1800 deserve to be categorized in a new style than the traditional classical style of the 18th century, because there are many big innovations, principally, the radical change in the overall sound of music (the new textures opposed to the old common textures of classicism) and the always more complex musical structures? To accept this would be to call Beethoven a neo-classicist composer, because his oeuvre is mainly based in the classical style, specially in the "middle period", but its style is new, and different.

I'd appreciate not only to see "as" or "bs" but explanations on agreement or disagreement.

Thanks.

[orpheus]

The way I understood was, unfortunately, as a bit of both.

Beethoven's very late works - Charles Rosen sites the Hammerklavier onwards - do mark a return to classical principles in being rooted in the dialectic opposition of tonal forces. But the experimental works just before - such as op.101 see a slacking of these procedures. Here Beethoven really does invent something new in his approach to tonality and use of cyclic/open forms, ideas which had a great influence on the next generaation of composers, particularly Schumann.

So I think he basically did retain classical forces, but with an interuption in which he did something completely different yet very influential.

[Peter]

I think he expanded and developed the classical forms in new ways. The real difference between Classical and Romantic composers which people seem to get confused over is the approach to tonality, (key-relationships) - in this Beethoven is Classical.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by orpheus:
The way I understood was, unfortunately, as a bit of both.

Beethoven's very late works - Charles Rosen sites the Hammerklavier onwards - do mark a return to classical principles in being rooted in the dialectic opposition of tonal forces. But the experimental works just before - such as op.101 see a slacking of these procedures. Here Beethoven really does invent something new in his approach to tonality and use of cyclic/open forms, ideas which had a great influence on the next generaation of composers, particularly Schumann.

So I think he basically did retain classical forces, but with an interuption in which he did something completely different yet very influential.

I agree that even in the late period Beethoven could still be connected strongly with 'classical princilpes' in addition to looking back even further. I regard the 9th Symphony as a largely Classical work for instance. The structure of op101 is not particularly novel in terms of its 'flexibility' of form (if this is what you are getting at), one could say op27/1 did much the same much earlier. I have a handel organ concerto which exhibits the same structural characteristics much much earlier. I assume there could be other examples if this.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I think he expanded and developed the classical forms in new ways. The real difference between Classical and Romantic composers which people seem to get confused over is the approach to tonality, (key-relationships) - in this Beethoven is Classical.

Absolutely. I always say to those who bundle Beethoven with the Romantics, just pick any piece of B's at random and play it alongside any piece of the same genre from one of the established Romantic composer. Within seconds you can hear there are two different worlds of music. But even within the realm of Classisism Beethoven went on a lonely path, which is why people don't know where to categorise him. I have described B as a quasi-Baroque Classisist! I heard a Mozart piano concerto last night, segments of which (the orchestral tuttis mainly) sounded stylistically more Romantic than anything Beethoven ever wrote!

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

[orpheus]

Originally posted by Rod:
Absolutely. I always say to those who bundle Beethoven with the Romantics, just pick any piece of B's at random and play it alongside any piece of the same genre from one of the established Romantic composer. Within seconds you can hear there are two different worlds of music. But even within the realm of Classisism Beethoven went on a lonely path, which is why people don't know where to categorise him. I have described B as a quasi-Baroque Classisist! I heard a Mozart piano concerto last night, segments of which (the orchestral tuttis mainly) sounded stylistically more Romantic than anything Beethoven ever wrote!

E.T.A. Hoffmann, one of Beethoven's contemporaries and critics, refers to Mozart as a romantic composer.

[Peter]

Originally posted by orpheus:
E.T.A. Hoffmann, one of Beethoven's contemporaries and critics, refers to Mozart as a romantic composer.

Indeed Haydn and Mozart were referred to as Romantic composers before any of those we regard as Romantics were born! There is clearly a stylistic difference between Mozart and Schumann and that lies as I said before in the approach to tonality amongst other things. There are also obvious stylistic diffences amongst the classical composers (Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven each have a unique voice) but their approach to tonality is based on the Tonic-Dominant relationship (or in middle and later Beethoven substitute Dominants such as the mediant or submediant which serve the same purpose) with an increase in tension away from the tonic key.

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

[orpheus]

Originally posted by Peter:
Indeed Haydn and Mozart were referred to as Romantic composers before any of those we regard as Romantics were born! There is clearly a stylistic difference between Mozart and Schumann and that lies as I said before in the approach to tonality amongst other things. There are also obvious stylistic diffences amongst the classical composers (Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven each have a unique voice) but their approach to tonality is based on the Tonic-Dominant relationship (or in middle and later Beethoven substitute nts such as the mediant or submediant which serve the same purpose) with an increase in tension away from the tonic key.

Ok, but what about say Schubert, Chopin, Mendelsohn, even Brahms for that matter? I think their approach tonality is not essentially different from "classical composers", excepting that they did of course extend it some. I agree that Schumann is quite an exceptional case. In my opinion Schumann gets far too little credit for the innovative aspects of his music.

[This message has been edited by orpheus (edited April 23, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by orpheus:
Ok, but what about say Schubert, Chopin, Mendelsohn, even Brahms for that matter? I think their approach tonality is not essentially different from "classical composers", excepting that they did of course extend it some. I agree that Schumann is quite an exceptional case. In my opinion Schumann gets far too little credit for the innovative aspects of his music.

The secondary tonalities of the early Romantic composers tend to diminish the tension by going to the subdominant, especially in works that are not trying to copy classical forms such as the sonata. Charles Rosens cites the examples of Schumann's C major Fantasy and Chopin's Ballade in F minor which he points out are typical. An anticipation of this can be found in the last movement of Schubert's Trout Quintet which has an exposition going to the subdominant. If you look at composers such as Schumann and Chopin it is in the smaller forms that they are at their most successful - where sonata form is not used.

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

[Kreutzer]

B, then A. Haydn: B, then A. Bach, Brahms, Verdi, Liszt: B, then A. Mozart: B (because he died too young). The pattern is: B: in their young age, freedom, energy and a clash between overflowing emotions and ideas on one hand, and an expert grasp, but not complete mastery of form on the other hand. Phase A: In their advancing years, realization that experimentation is not as satisfying as a perfect mastery of form to contain a distillation of their most intimate musical ideas. Think of Haydn's "Sturm und Drang 39-63 symphonies, and his later, "perfect" 92-104. Or Brahm's Piano concertos 1 (B) and 2 (A). Of course the language may remain romantic, but the quest for perfection has overtaken the urge to communicate.

As has been mentioned above, Beethoven returned to classicism in his late years. The need to give the most perfect realization of musical thoughts explains that artistic journey.

[This message has been edited by Kreutzer (edited April 23, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Kreutzer (edited April 23, 2003).]

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Rod:
I heard a Mozart piano concerto last night, segments of which (the orchestral tuttis mainly) sounded stylistically more Romantic than anything Beethoven ever wrote!

Which concerto was this?

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
Indeed Haydn and Mozart were referred to as Romantic composers before any of those we regard as Romantics were born! There is clearly a stylistic difference between Mozart and Schumann....

Yes, the use of "Romantic" by Hoffmann is clearly a result of his need to have a term to use to describe that school of composition, since the use of the word "classical" had not come into being yet in this context. The Romantic of the era that we recognize as such is an "overflow" from the use of that term to describe the other schools of fine arts of the time, not necessarily romantic in the "love" context that we recognize it today even. Sonata form itself was not even described and defined until the mid 1830's, and most famously by Carl Czerny in 1840. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven did not think of themselves as "classical composers", but rather as "learned" or somewhat such.
Regards, Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by orpheus:
... I agree that Schumann is quite an exceptional case. In my opinion Schumann gets far too little credit for the innovative aspects of his music.

[This message has been edited by orpheus (edited April 23, 2003).]

Yes, quite so. Schumann was actually a tremendous innovator in style, and if I actually had to put a finger on the progenitor of the "Romantic" movement, Schumann would probably be my choice. Schumann's 3 sonatas date from quite early in his oeuvre (1832-36), and he already regarded the form as dead: "it is a form of music which meets only with condescending laughter in France and is still hardly more than tolerated in Germany... the public doesn't buy it, the publishers don't print it, and composers generally refrain from such old-fashioned music..." Clearly, the fantasia and its kin were the future at this point in history, and Schumann was a master of them. Which is not to also say that his essays in old-fashioned music were not only quite good, but also influential on his peers, as he himself was.
Regards, Gurn

[orpheus]

I have been rediscovering Schumann in the last few weeks, particularly the piano music. It is amzing stuff, very modern in conception. Carnaval, Davidsbundlertanze, the Fantasy etc. are so original in terms of form. I like the way Schumann creates unity in what are on the surface collections of independent pieces. This reminds me of those late Beethoven variation sets. Schumann seems to have taken the same idea - creating unity between indivicual character pieces - dispensing with the idea that this could only work with variations. ALthough the argument has been made by writers that Beethoven did this in some of the Bagatelle sets. Anyway, Schumann seems to have taken this idea to a new level of maturity.

I agree with what Peter says about the key relationships weakening tensions in composers after Beethoven. I read the Cambridge guite to the Chopin Ballades, and Jim Samson makes the same remark about the Key relationships. Other pieces come to mind such as the F minor Walz, op. 69 I think, in which F min and A flat are double key centres, not in tension (as they would be in B), just alteratives. I was thinking before more on a forground level, that here tonal funcions are essentially the same as in Bach as opposed to what happend when, for example, Debussy came along.

[Rod]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
Which concerto was this?

Can't remember! It was a late one. I've heard other Mozart pieces that exhibit the same phenomenon, much to my surprise. Don't ask me for their catalogue numbers though!

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