Sturm und Drang?

[DavidW]

Not being an opera nut I did not know of Gluck.  A sturm und drang opera would be pretty wild...

[jochanaan]

Well, although the name Sturm und Drang is, as has been said, the name of a very specific movement in music and literature, the phrase has also been applied many times to the music of Beethoven--who is, depending on who you ask, either the last great Classical composer or the first great Romantic.

[Chaszz]

Really?

Let's see:

Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies and SQs date from 1768-1772;

Schiller's Sturm und Drang dramas date from 1781-1785; Goethe's, from 1771-1776.

As for Rousseau and Gluck, they have never been associated with Sturm und Drang.

"Gluck's ballet [Don Juan, 1761] is widely credited with helping set off what is called the Austrian Sturm und Drang in music." 
                               -  Bruce Allen Brown, Gluck and the French Theatre
                                  in Vienna, Clarendon Press, 1991, p.325.

"The exponents of the Sturm und Drang were profoundly influenced by the thought of Rousseau and Johann Georg Hamann, who held that the basic verities of existence were to be apprehended through faith and the experience of the senses. The young writers also were influenced by the works of the English poet Edward Young, the pseudo-epic poetry of James Macpherson's 'Ossian,' and the recently translated works of Shakespeare."
                               - Encyclopedia Britannica Online

Rousseau was already well known for his ideas by the latter part of the 1750s.

As for Goethe and Schiller, I did get my dates wrong and must say mea culpa.

[Florestan]

"Gluck's ballet [Don Juan, 1761] is widely credited with helping set off what is called the Austrian Sturm und Drang in music." 
                               -  Bruce Allen Brown, Gluck and the French Theatre
                                  in Vienna, Clarendon Press, 1991, p.325.

"The exponents of the Sturm und Drang were profoundly influenced by the thought of Rousseau and Johann Georg Hamann, who held that the basic verities of existence were to be apprehended through faith and the experience of the senses. The young writers also were influenced by the works of the English poet Edward Young, the pseudo-epic poetry of James Macpherson's 'Ossian,' and the recently translated works of Shakespeare."
                               - Encyclopedia Britannica Online

My turn for mea culpa, then.  0:)

IMHO, consistent Sturm und Drang in music is to be found rather in Weber, Beethoven, Berlioz, Liszt and Schumann than in Haydn, Gluck or Mozart. 

[Chaszz]

My turn for mea culpa, then.  0:)

IMHO, consistent Sturm und Drang in music is to be found rather in Weber, Beethoven, Berlioz, Liszt and Schumann than in Haydn, Gluck or Mozart. 

Yes, for sure the Romantic era is sturmier than the Classical era. But it is very interesting to find this little period of proto-Romanticism nestled between the classicism before and after it. As if these Classical era titans were unconsciously anticipating the cataclysms ahead, both social and artistic. 

[Florestan]

Yes, for sure the Romantic era is sturmier than the Classical era. But it is very interesting to find this little period of proto-Romanticism nestled between the classicism before and after it. As if these Classical era titans were unconsciously anticipating the cataclysms ahead, both social and artistic.

First of all, I apologize if my previous post came out as rather defiant. I'm often prone to "first shoot, then ask!" --- yet at the bottom of my heart I'm a very peaceful guy.... 

Second, I think that Sturm und Drang proper --- as a programmatic, consciously Storm and Stress-ly outlook --- is much more a literary movement than a musical one.

Third, I think that Sturm und Drang-ish outlook in music is belated by at least three decades as compared to its literary counterpart.  IMHO, there is more Sturm und Drang in Beethoven's Eroica and Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique than in all Haydn's and Mozart's symphonies taken together; more Sturm und Drang in Weber's Der Freischuetz  than in all Mozart's and Gluck's operas taken together; more Sturm und Drang in Schumann's Fantasy op. 17 and Liszt's Annees de pelerinage than in all Haydn's and Mozart's piano works taken together.

Fourth, I love Haydn, Gluck & Mozart just as much as Beethoven, Berlioz, Schumann & Liszt.

0:)

[Chaszz]

First of all, I apologize if my previous post came out as rather defiant. I'm often prone to "first shoot, then ask!" --- yet at the bottom of my heart I'm a very peaceful guy.... 

Second, I think that Sturm und Drang proper --- as a programmatic, consciously Storm and Stress-ly outlook --- is much more a literary movement than a musical one.

Third, I think that Sturm und Drang-ish outlook in music is belated by at least three decades as compared to its literary counterpart.  IMHO, there is more Sturm und Drang in Beethoven's Eroica and Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique than in all Haydn's and Mozart's symphonies taken together; more Sturm und Drang in Weber's Der Freischuetz  than in all Mozart's and Gluck's operas taken together; more Sturm und Drang in Schumann's Fantasy op. 17 and Liszt's Annees de pelerinage than in all Haydn's and Mozart's piano works taken together.

Fourth, I love Haydn, Gluck & Mozart just as much as Beethoven, Berlioz, Schumann & Liszt.

0:)

Being an artist and a musician, and a history enthusiast, I am inclined to see cross-influences among the arts. Sometimes I may push them together a little more than the facts warrant. Yet I think with the late 18th c. Sturm und Drang the question of whether influences went from one art to another is still an open one, even after all the back and forth here.

It seems to me that classical music fans both on this board and others often seem to see the history of music in a sort of vacuum, where nothing influenced composers except other composers or new instruments or new systems of harmony. I find all the arts responsive at least somewhat to history and to each other.

Finally, who is denying that there is more Sturm and Drang in middle and late Beethoven or in Berlioz, or etc., than in all the Classical period combined, in order to merely remark that this little period of earlier Romanticism is interesting?  The Classical period is relatively short, about 50 or 60 years, compared with the Baroque that preceded it and the Romantic which succeeded it, each at least a hundred years or more. And each of those given to relatively unrestrained emotion and form in some ways compared with the Classical. To see that even in the midst of this shorter period there was an outbreak of less classical, more directly emotional music is noteworthy, at least, I would think. Nothing more, and no denying that the Romantic era fits the Sturm und Drang description to a greater degree.

As an example of the same kind of noteworthiness, after his own Sturm und Drang period Goethe went on to found a classical movement, but that sort of makes Young Werther all the more interesting in contrast. The artist sort of looms larger by containing more alternatives, as Shakespeare does with his range of tragedies, histories, and comedies. So too do Haydn and Mozart I think gain a little extra interest from this -- though of course they do not need it.

[starrynight]

Finally, who is denying that there is more Sturm and Drang in middle and late Beethoven or in Berlioz, or etc., than in all the Classical period combined, in order to merely remark that this little period of earlier Romanticism is interesting?  The Classical period is relatively short, about 50 or 60 years, compared with the Baroque that preceded it and the Romantic which succeeded it, each at least a hundred years or more. And each of those given to relatively unrestrained emotion and form in some ways compared with the Classical. To see that even in the midst of this shorter period there was an outbreak of less classical, more directly emotional music is noteworthy, at least, I would think. Nothing more, and no denying that the Romantic era fits the Sturm und Drang description to a greater degree.

Yes, and if the baroque and romantic style can be said to have developed over time then why can't why say the same of the classical style?  And the period it covers is somewhat open to discussion anyway.  Maybe the romantic period started in 1830 with the Symphonie Fantastique.  Even after then of course there could be some overlap with pieces more influenced by the old classical style sometimes.  I'm not sure if the classical style ever just went away like the baroque might have.