Gurn's Classical Corner

[karlhenning]

This exchange is interesting . . . because of the parallel discussion of Classical VS. Romantic.

Chopin is certainly a post-LvB composer, of course . . . but with a strong classicist element in his compositional mix.

[Gurn Blanston]

Not much of a stretch from Beethoven and Schubert, Gurn. And oh such a rewarding one.

It has nothing to do with Chopin per se, and everything to do with his music not being Classical but rather solidly Romantic. If we wanted to stretch out, I would incorporate Vivaldi as soon as I would Chopin, with some justification since his immediate successors considered that his music was galant, IOW, pre-Classical. However, we have rather arbitrarily laid down 1828 (the death of Schubert) as the endpoint of our time period, so no matter how much we love Chopin (or Mendelssohn etc etc etc), you have to draw a line somewhere.

[Florestan]

Now David. I have combed the lists for a Classical Era composer named 'Chopin', to no avail.

Hey, Gurn... there is a guy roaming this very thread, talking about some Classico-Romantic continuum, The Era of Homophony. He once told me he liked Chopin.

Can't remember his name though... 

[Mn Dave]

It has nothing to do with Chopin per se, and everything to do with his music not being Classical but rather solidly Romantic. If we wanted to stretch out, I would incorporate Vivaldi as soon as I would Chopin, with some justification since his immediate successors considered that his music was galant, IOW, pre-Classical. However, we have rather arbitrarily laid down 1828 (the death of Schubert) as the endpoint of our time period, so no matter how much we love Chopin (or Mendelssohn etc etc etc), you have to draw a line somewhere.

Hey, YOU brought him up! 

[Florestan]

Hey, YOU brought him up! 

Nope. Milk did.

[Gurn Blanston]

This exchange is interesting . . . because of the parallel discussion of Classical VS. Romantic.

Chopin is certainly a post-LvB composer, of course . . . but with a strong classicist element in his compositional mix.

Well, then we should adopt Brahms too. But no, I think not. Some composers are in on style, others on chronology. It follows then that other composers are out on style or chronology. I think someone who has a compelling interest should start something like Mn Dave's Romantic Hideaway or something to that effect...

[karlhenning]

Well, then we should adopt Brahms too. But no, I think not. Some composers are in on style, others on chronology. It follows then that other composers are out on style or chronology. I think someone who has a compelling interest should start something like Mn Dave's Romantic Hideaway or something to that effect...

Mn Dave's Romantic Redoubt, perhaps? ; )

[Florestan]

However, we have rather arbitrarily laid down 1828 (the death of Schubert) as the endpoint of our time period,

Excellent. Then Carl Maria von Weber fits in perfectly. 

His two symphonies are marvels of Early Romanticism, paving the way for...

Ooops, wrong thread. 

Or maybe not?

[chasmaniac]

we have rather arbitrarily laid down 1828 (the death of Schubert) as the endpoint of our time period, so no matter how much we love Chopin (or Mendelssohn etc etc etc), you have to draw a line somewhere.

You do. When I needed to arbitrate I drew the line at 1780. Born before classical, born after romantic. That put Beethoven on the classical side, where I grudgingly admit he belongs, and Schubert on the romantic, where I think his later stuff and lieder fit best. Signs, Signs, everywhere Signs...

[Gurn Blanston]

Excellent. Then Carl Maria von Weber fits in perfectly. 

His two symphonies are marvels of Early Romanticism, paving the way for...

Ooops, wrong thread. 

Or maybe not?

No, Weber is fair game, on the chronology side anyway. I agree with you, Weber was, IMO, the first Romantic composer. But he is so solidly embedded in the Late Classical that he is part of the group, if only to show contrast. One of the interesting facts I like about Weber is that he hated having to compose in "sonata form", and any of his works that have an sonata-allegro first movement, the entire work was completed before he forced himself to sit down and write the opening movement. Can it be that "Romantic style" was born from a composer's dislike of the discipline involved in writing a structured form?

[Antoine Marchand]

Well, then we should adopt Brahms too. But no, I think not. Some composers are in on style, others on chronology. It follows then that other composers are out on style or chronology. I think someone who has a compelling interest should start something like Mn Dave's Romantic Hideaway or something to that effect...

I knew this bloody day would arrive to this musical Arcadia: the old battle between the founder and his unruly followers. 

[Florestan]

No, Weber is fair game, on the chronology side anyway. I agree with you, Weber was, IMO, the first Romantic composer. But he is so solidly embedded in the Late Classical that he is part of the group, if only to show contrast. One of the interesting facts I like about Weber is that he hated having to compose in "sonata form", and any of his works that have an sonata-allegro first movement, the entire work was completed before he forced himself to sit down and write the opening movement. Can it be that "Romantic style" was born from a composer's dislike of the discipline involved in writing a structured form?

An interesting question, but I'm not sure "dislike" is the right term. Maybe "unsuitable to their personality"?

[Gurn Blanston]

An interesting question, but I'm not sure "dislike" is the right term. Maybe "unsuitable to their personality"?

Well, that's a reason certainly, but the ultimate result is dislike.

Do you notice how Hummel and Spohr evolved from Classical structures into composing things like "potpourris" and the like around 1805 and on from there? I think there is an element of Romantic influence in that, since that is a rejection of some formal conventions also. These sorts of influential relationships among these composers are an area that I would really like to get more information about. Someone must have written on it and I missed it...

[Florestan]

Well, that's a reason certainly, but the ultimate result is dislike.

Do you notice how Hummel and Spohr evolved from Classical structures into composing things like "potpourris" and the like around 1805 and on from there? I think there is an element of Romantic influence in that, since that is a rejection of some formal conventions also. These sorts of influential relationships among these composers are an area that I would really like to get more information about. Someone must have written on it and I missed it...

My own theory is that Hummel, Spohr, Weber or whoever else of the gang have always been "Romantics" --- it's only that around 1800 the general mentality shifted towards "Romanticism" and they "came out of the closet", so to speak.

I firmly believe "Romanticism" and "Classicism" to be first and foremost psychological categories, which are prevalent or latent according to the general mentality of the society, whose pendulum swings back and forth.

Actually, one can find "Romantic" and "Classical" people not only in art, but also in science & philosophy or even among relatives, friends & colleagues. 

[kishnevi]

My own theory is that Hummel, Spohr, Weber or whoever else of the gang have always been "Romantics" --- it's only that around 1800 the general mentality shifted towards "Romanticism" and they "came out of the closet", so to speak.

I firmly believe "Romanticism" and "Classicism" to be first and foremost psychological categories, which are prevalent or latent according to the general mentality of the society, whose pendulum swings back and forth.

Actually, one can find "Romantic" and "Classical" people not only in art, but also in science & philosophy or even among relatives, friends & colleagues. 

I've always viewed Beethoven's generation as being more Romantic than Classical.  Perhaps "early Romantic" or 'protoRomantic" or "post Classical"--they are more or less a bridge generation )  (with LvB being the Golden Gate).

[Mn Dave]

Mn Dave's Romantic Hideaway or something to that effect...

No. 

[Gurn Blanston]

No. 

Aw, Dave, it would have been wonderful. Quiet, secluded, moonlight on the terrace...  0:)

[Mn Dave]

Aw, Dave, it would have been wonderful. Quiet, secluded, moonlight on the terrace...  0:)

I couldn't handle it. I'm not as gung-ho as Gurn. 

[Antoine Marchand]

My own theory is...

You love theories, Florestan.

Me too!!! We're slightly Platonic; our dear Gurn, on the other hand, is a bit Aristotelian, slightly sceptic, a good-humored Haydnian finally.

Another theory, as you can see. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I've been reading the Downs' book on The Classical Era and in the first two chapters he describes the social and cultural milieu that contributed to the "classical" style.  The ideas of the Age of Reason prompted much of the stylistic attitudes, and many musicians were also amateur philosphers buying into the general mechanisitic view of the universe, with music no exception, and that feelings were not as championed as much as intellect, with rules and structures for everything. 

I would venture a guess that as the 18th proceeded into the 19th century, feelings became more promiment  and this led to changes in how music was expressed.

I would agree with that. Where Florestan says that Romanticism is an attitude (I know, it isn't a quote, just my interpretation) I think that Classicism was also an attitude.

In that silly "Was Beethoven..." thread, I postulated that there was no divide between Classical & Romantic on the music front, that one is a natural extension of the other and together the represent a natural progression of homophonic, tonal music. I carefully avoided the philosophical aspects because, as an Aristotelian (so I hear) I am committed to dealing with what I can see and hear as opposed to what I believe must have been in the minds of men...

You love theories, Florestan.

Me too!!! We're slightly Platonic; our dear Gurn, on the other hand, is a bit Aristotelian, slightly sceptic, a good-humored Haydnian finally.

Another theory, as you can see. 

I love theories too, I just try to avoid getting too committed to them.