A composer for each period

[aquablob]

Once again, sigh, I must point out that Beethoven's music is not Romantic but thoroughly Classical. His music is the culmination of the Classical Style. Mozart/Haydn/Beethoven...the Trinity of Classical Music.

Sarge

First of all, the "Classical" and "Romantic" styles are in no way mutually exclusive; these categorizations are broad generalities that were employed long after the fact.

With this in mind... to say that Beethoven's music is "thoroughly Classical" and "not Romantic" is simply off the mark. If we use Haydn and Mozart as the models for the "Classical" style, then early Beethoven certainly fits the mold. But saying the same of his later works (such as the late sonatas and string quartets) is more difficult. Structurally/formally, harmonically, and spiritually, these late pieces are a far cry from what came before.

I am not saying that late Beethoven does not contain strong elements of the "Classical" style -- it does! But how can you possibly ignore its "Romantic" qualities?

[Israfel the Black]

Heh, most of you aren't just picking one, which kind of defeats the purpose of the idea here.

Renaissance: Monteverdi
Baroque: Bach
Classical: Mozart
The Beethoven Era
Romantic: Bruckner
Modern: Shostakovitch
Contemporary: Glass

[BachQ]

I couldn't agree more, Sarge. 

It strikes me that the only workable, long-term solution is to recognize, once-and-for-all, that there exists a distinct period/era known as the "classico-romantic" era .......

The Classico-Romantic era is a distinct era, and not a mere transitory hybrid.

This era is inhabited by Schubert, Beethoven, Hummel, Weber, and others.

All of my prior posts (on whatever fora) are hereby overruled to the extent inconsistent herewith .......

(and I believe Gurn was the first person on GMG to use this phrase "classico-romantic", but Gurn fell one step short of identifying this as a separate, distinct chronological era [and, instead, Gurn focused on continuums]  ).

[Josquin des Prez]

Middle Ages: Gregorian Chant
Gothic: Matteo da Perugia
Early Renaissance: Josquin Des Prez
Late Renaissance: Palestrina
Early Baroque: Monteverdi
Late Baroque: Bach
Early Classical: Mozart
Late Classical: Beethoven
Early Romantic: Chopin
Late Romantic: Brahms
Early 20th Century: Debussy
Middle 20th Century: Bartok
Contemporary: Ligeti
Living: Henri Dutilleux

Yes, cheating is fun. 

[Mark]

Nice list, Josquin!

[George]

It strikes me that the only workable, long-term solution is to recognize, once-and-for-all, that there exists a distinct period/era known as the "classico-romantic" era .......

The Classico-Romantic era is a distinct era, and not a mere transitory hybrid.

This era is inhabited by Schubert, Beethoven, Hummel, Weber, and others.

All of my prior posts (on whatever fora) are hereby overruled to the extent inconsistent herewith .......

(and I believe Gurn was the first person on GMG to use this phrase "classico-romantic", but Gurn fell one step short of identifying this as a separate, distinct chronological era [and, instead, Gurn focused on continuums]  ).

While I am inclined to agree, I am also inclined to say that the difficulty we have finding a place to put Beethoven, Schubert, etc proves my point that the idea of separating the history of classical music into era's is pointless. Classical, Romantic - these are terms that some music scholars created to try to explain/simplify the history of music. Unfortunately, music history, like life, does not fit into neat little boxes. Terms like Neo-Classic and Classico-Romantic only try to hide this fact. Creating more boxes because we find exceptions, will only lead us to have so many eras that the original goal of simplification will vanish.   

[DavidW]

Well I wanted to say that:

I think that modernism has become synonymous with serial music, and postmodern is rejection of that school.  Cage is a good example of a postmodern composer.  But where does Bartok fit in?  He doesn't.  Where do we fit him in?  The convenient larger label-- 20th century music.

The labels for eras are to denote styles, outlooks that some of the great composers held.  Within any of these eras though a conflict of multiple styles is at war with each other, and the simplicity of the labels lose their meaning.

As for Beethoven mentioned on my thread, I think I now have my next topic for my classical thread.

[Mark]

This is an interesting one, George. Let me share how I view Beethoven's relationship to the so-called 'Classical' period.

When I hear Haydn, and particularly Mozart, it makes me think of perfection of form. Every note almost as if divinely sent. But when I hear Beethoven - specifically, the Beethoven of the Third and Fifth Symphonies and beyond - I hear not only that sense of the divine, but also much more of the human in his music. For me, this is what the 'Romantic' era is all about: the artist putting him or herself more and more into his or her art. Mozart seems detached from his art, as though it came from above and he simply wrote it down (far from true, I'm sure). With Beethoven, and with all the Romantics who came after him, it's like, 'Yes, there is the divine in my art, but there is also the recognition that I am human.' This earthly passion, this admission, if you will, in art that it's okay to be a man as well as an inspired artist, is what defines Romantic in my mind. And the first composer in whose work I hear evidence of such an admission is Beethoven.

[Don]

Baroque - JS Bach
Classical - Mozart
Early Romantic - Beethoven
Romantic - Brahms
Late Romantic - Mahler
Early 20th Century - Scriabin
20th Century - Shostakovich
Contemporary - Xenakis

[Symphonien]

I don't get this postmodernism malarky - want to help me out here? How can anything be postmodern if modern is by nature be now? As you may have seen in some of my other posts, I have exams soon and one of them is twentieth century, part of it perhaps mentioning postmodernism but not sure I've quite grasped it :-S

Maybe this thread will help.

Or maybe not.

[Scriptavolant]

I am not saying that late Beethoven does not contain strong elements of the "Classical" style -- it does! But how can you possibly ignore its "Romantic" qualities?

Late Beethoven is also polyphonic, but that doesn't make Beethoven a Baroque or Renaissance composer. He had the ability to trascend every prior historical achievement in a new form that - as Adorno once said (normally I would not cite Adorno  ) is able to revive the ruins.
Beethoven on the whole is romantic; culturally (the heroic titan agains society), formally (expansion of form far beyond classicism), aesthetically (the bearing of his Ego in the form, the emotional impact, the tranfiguration of cultural archetypes), historically (as an influence on culture).
As someone else said it's a matter of a continuum and evolution, not an all or none quality.

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm gonna use Josquin's system, as it allows me to fit everything in  (but I don't know much about Middle ages and 'Gothic', so I'm skipping them. Also, I seem to agree with him as far as late Classical.)

Early Renaissance: Josquin Des Prez
Late Renaissance: Palestrina
Early Baroque: Monteverdi
Late Baroque: Bach
Early Classical: Mozart
Late Classical: Beethoven
Early Romantic: Schubert
Late Romantic: Mahler
Early 20th Century: Schoenberg
Middle 20th Century: Shostakovitsch
Contemporary: What?
Living: Steve Reich

[not edward]

Renaissance: Ockeghem
Baroque: JS Bach
Classical: Haydn
Beethoven: Beethoven
Romantic: Brahms
Early 20th Century: Mahler
Mid 20th Century: Bartok
Late 20th Century: Ligeti

I imagine some of these would be controversial choices: Ockeghem is there because much Renaissance music is a lot more thorny and complicated than most non-specialists realise. Haydn edges out Mozart because of his huge importance in developing the forms vital to the later Classical period. For the 20th century: Mahler represents the collapse of Romanticism into the world of the Third Viennese School and atonality, Bartok the combination of modernism and folk-based nationalism that was important to so many mid-20th century (and later) composers, Ligeti the diverse interests in everything from serialism through postmodernism and the somewhat ambivalent "recovery of tonality" all the way through to minimalism in its purest forms.

[rach]

Baroque- Bach
Classical- Paganini
Early Romantic- Brahms
Late Romantic- Mahler
Early 20th Century- Prokofiev
Modern- Penderecki/Xenakis (hard to decide)

Paganini as in Nicoli?  He was born in 1782??

[aquablob]

Late Beethoven is also polyphonic, but that doesn't make Beethoven a Baroque or Renaissance composer. He had the ability to trascend every prior historical achievement in a new form that - as Adorno once said (normally I would not cite Adorno  ) is able to revive the ruins.
Beethoven on the whole is romantic; culturally (the heroic titan agains society), formally (expansion of form far beyond classicism), aesthetically (the bearing of his Ego in the form, the emotional impact, the tranfiguration of cultural archetypes), historically (as an influence on culture).
As someone else said it's a matter of a continuum and evolution, not an all or none quality.

My point exactly.

[BachQ]

the idea of separating the history of classical music into era's is pointless.

But if we must, for whatever reason, separate the history of music into eras .......... then ..........

Unfortunately, music history, like life, does not fit into neat little boxes. Terms like Neo-Classic and Classico-Romantic only try to hide this fact. Creating more boxes because we find exceptions, will only lead us to have so many eras that the original goal of simplification will vanish.   

You are, of course, correct here ........

[BachQ]

formally (expansion of form far beyond classicism),

Well, formally, LvB embraced the "sonata form" pretty much until the end, and that makes him formally a die-hard classicist .........

[Israfel the Black]

This is an interesting one, George. Let me share how I view Beethoven's relationship to the so-called 'Classical' period.

When I hear Haydn, and particularly Mozart, it makes me think of perfection of form. Every note almost as if divinely sent. But when I hear Beethoven - specifically, the Beethoven of the Third and Fifth Symphonies and beyond - I hear not only that sense of the divine, but also much more of the human in his music. For me, this is what the 'Romantic' era is all about: the artist putting him or herself more and more into his or her art. Mozart seems detached from his art, as though it came from above and he simply wrote it down (far from true, I'm sure). With Beethoven, and with all the Romantics who came after him, it's like, 'Yes, there is the divine in my art, but there is also the recognition that I am human.' This earthly passion, this admission, if you will, in art that it's okay to be a man as well as an inspired artist, is what defines Romantic in my mind. And the first composer in whose work I hear evidence of such an admission is Beethoven.

I disagree completely, and your assessment of Mozart is indeed very far from true. I think Mozart was very well aware of not only his humanity, but the mortality of is humanity, and I think it is very evident in his music. Haydn tends to color Mozart's music some because of his influence on Mozart and the similarities of their style. But Haydn should not represent the whole of Classical music. He should represent Haydn, in terms of artistic expression. Late Bach, Mozart, C.P.E Bach and other Classical composers were exceptionally humane in their artistic expression, while still adhering to clear, tonal sounds and form.

[lukeottevanger]

A lot of the 'Beethoven: Classical or Romantic' debate usually boils down to things like this on the one side:

But when I hear Beethoven - specifically, the Beethoven of the Third and Fifth Symphonies and beyond - I hear not only that sense of the divine, but also much more of the human in his music. For me, this is what the 'Romantic' era is all about: the artist putting him or herself more and more into his or her art. Mozart seems detached from his art, as though it came from above and he simply wrote it down (far from true, I'm sure). With Beethoven, and with all the Romantics who came after him, it's like, 'Yes, there is the divine in my art, but there is also the recognition that I am human.' This earthly passion, this admission, if you will, in art that it's okay to be a man as well as an inspired artist, is what defines Romantic in my mind. And the first composer in whose work I hear evidence of such an admission is Beethoven.

against things like this on the other:

Well, formally, LvB embraced the "sonata form" pretty much until the end, and that makes him formally a die-hard classicist .........

Both arguments hold some water, but it seems clear to me that Mark's statement is based not on the musical detail and techniques of the works at hand but on an intangible and indefinable feeling that on a supramusical level Beethoven's works are somehow different to what went before. I'm not saying that the statement is wrong in itself (though I don't think it applies to all or even most Beethoven by any means, nor that it might not apply to a fair amount of previous music too), but that definitions, if they must be made, have to be made by defined musical criteria: how did Beethoven make his pieces; to what extent does his musical language break from what went before, and to what extent does it continue the tradition whilst stretching its expressive range. And so on.

By my reckoning, then, by most/all of these criteria Beethoven's music is defiantly classical, even if his philosophic urges and heroic tendencies make Beethoven the man a Romantic. When these Romantic tendencies are made explicit in the music, they always do so through the medium of classical style and technique.

[Mark]

To be clear, my statement about Beethoven being a Romantic is most definitely NOT based on ANY musical criteria. My comments were made purely on the basis of how I feel when listening to Beethoven's music. For me, Romanticism comes across as a kind of 'mood'. It's personal, emotional, and often passionate in a way that I simply don't hear in the music of Mozart and Haydn - much of whose work often sounds rather polite and mannered to these ears. With Beethoven, I get the 'rush' that I associate with music from the 'Romantic' period.