Beethoven - Classical or Romantic?

[Chaszz]

Yes, and all told he was a Classicist. You can say it, Jo...    

Composers here have to be judged on their music, not their biography/personality. His music is classicizing way more than romanticizing. In addition, though he can be said to have been a heavy influence on Romantic composers, that doesn't make him a Romantic himself.

We have been down this road a dozen times or so (and I first went down it 9 years ago when Chaszz started this same thread at a Beethoven web site), and my opinion then has only been strongly reinforced by the reading and listening I have done in the last 9 years.

The guy I'm listening to right now was at the beginning of Romanticism.



----------------
Now playing:
Colin Lawson (Clarinet / Neal da Costa (Pianoforte) - Weber Op 48 Grand Duo Concertante in Eb for Clarinet & Pianoforte 1st mvmt - Allegro con fuoco

What a memory this Gurn has. You cannot put anything over on him.

I would say that Beethoven was expressing the feelings and attitudes of the Romantic age in the vocabulary and technique of the classical style. His ethos would certainly be judged closer to the full-fledged Romanticism of Shelley, Byron and Coleridge than to the 18th C. poets who they overthrew, led by the classicist Pope. So he was stretching the Classical style in music but to express that ethos, and probably expressed it as powerfully as Wagner, Berlioz, and Lizst. If the Romantic movement in music had not come along (so that we can see the purely musical differences), Beethoven would be it.

[DavidW]

I would say that Beethoven was expressing the feelings and attitudes of the Romantic age in the vocabulary and technique of the classical style.

Well said, my sentiments exactly.

[jochanaan]

Yes, and all told he was a Classicist. You can say it, Jo...

No I can't!  And I wasn't satisfied nine years ago either.

Classical simplicity and perfection beyond Mozart?  Not sure I can agree on that.  ...

I said "...in his melodies." That is, in only one aspect of his music.

Yes, but I'm not sure that by "Romantic' he meant what we mean...

That quote sure sounds Romantic to me.

But that may be a valid point, Conte.  We may all mean different things by "Romantic."

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, but I'm not sure that by "Romantic' he meant what we mean.

There is no doubt that ETA Hoffmann did not mean what we mean by 'Romantic'. In the context that we use these two words, 'Classical' and 'Romantic' hadn't been invented yet when Hoffmann wrote that (1812? A bit earlier? Somewhere around there anyway). As with all labels, they don't exist except ex post facto.



----------------
Now playing:
Rundfunkorkester Kaiserlautern des SWR \ Moesus  Kronenberg (Piano) - Wölfl Op 49 Concerto #6 in D for Piano 1st mvmt - Allegro

[Florestan]

That quote sure sounds Romantic to me.

The quote itself, yes. But the "romanticism" that he writes about is not "our" Romanticism.

Actually, do you know a harsher and more definitive indictment of the "Romantic music" as we know it than this paragraph?

Did you poor composers of instrumental music who have labored to express certain feelings, nay, even occurrences, have even the faintest idea of its peculiar nature?--How could you even think of trying to treat this art that is the very opposite of plastic depiction, in a plastic manner? Your sunrises, your thunderstorms, your battles of three emperors and so on were certainly ridiculous errors and are deservedly punished by being entirely forgotten.

(all underlines are mine)

In four lines he dismisses avant la lettre all the symphonic output of Berlioz and Liszt who for we are the arch-Romantic composers. 

[Cato]

Yes, but I'm not sure that by "Romantic' he meant what we mean.

Many thanks to Florestan for the excerpt from Hoffmann!

Yes, Hoffmann's definition is different, but yet still connects to what many people would consider "Romantic" notions: the artist as hero, for example:

Quote from E.T. A. Hoffmann (above):

"Romantic taste is rare, and even more rare is the romantic talent; this is probably why there are so few who can play the lyre whose sound opens up the wonderful realm of romanticism. ...
 
Mozart evokes the super-human, the wonderful that dwells in the innermost of spirit. Beethoven's music moves the levers of fear, of shudder, of horror, of pain and thus awakens that infinite longing that is the essence of romanticism. Therefore, he is a purely romantic composer, and may it not be because of it, that to him, vocal music that does not allow for the character of infinite longing,--but, through words, achieves certain affects, as they are not present in the realm of the infinite--, is harder?

Beethoven's mighty genius crushes the musical riff-raff; in turn, it wants to revolt against it, but in vain.--However, the wise judges, looking around in a dignified manner, reassure us that we can believe them, as men of great intellect, that the good B. is, not in the least, lacking a rich, lively fantasy, but that he is not able to constrain it!  To him, there would not even arise the concept of selection and formation of musical thought,  but rather, following the so-called genius method, he would write everything down as it would occur to his fiery fantasy.  What if your limited grasp would not recognize the deeper connection in every composition of Beethoven?  What if it is only you who can not understand the master's language that only the initiated can understand, that the door to the innermost sanctum remains closed to you? "

Wow!  Where are critics like Hoffmann today?!   0:)

Hoffmann's "infinite longing" which he finds in Beethoven trumps any tone-poem, apparently because the tone-poem, the programmatic symphony, is too rooted in the finite.  Here we have the Heroic Artist, opening doors to an Infinity of Longing (and what is that precisely?) for us uninitiated, as opposed to the "Aesthetic Measurement Artists."

What a great insult! "You sir, are a mere artist of aesthetic measurement!" 

[karlhenning]

Hah!

[Henk]

What a memory this Gurn has. You cannot put anything over on him.

I would say that Beethoven was expressing the feelings and attitudes of the Romantic age in the vocabulary and technique of the classical style. His ethos would certainly be judged closer to the full-fledged Romanticism of Shelley, Byron and Coleridge than to the 18th C. poets who they overthrew, led by the classicist Pope. So he was stretching the Classical style in music but to express that ethos, and probably expressed it as powerfully as Wagner, Berlioz, and Lizst. If the Romantic movement in music had not come along (so that we can see the purely musical differences), Beethoven would be it.

HIP, goes in my archive: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18240.msg501131.html#msg501131

Henk

[karlhenning]

Has the fun ended, then? ; )

[Philoctetes]

I voted for classical because his music is quite restrained.

[Henk]

Has the fun ended, then? ; )

Hi Karl,

I feel sorry for having made the impression I want to force things, I mentioned you as a magnanimous man (you are!) who should provide more. I regret that, I didn't mean it in a bad way, I found it rather funny to express.

People can continue having fun, I just try to contribute in a way I think is fruitful and focus a little bit more on the educational potential of these boards.

Henk

[Superhorn]

   I had a musicology professor in grad  school who dogmatically insisted that Beethoven was
   strictly classical.  Maybe.  Yes, Beethoven does use classical forms, but so did composers of the Romantic period.
    But his use of these forms is often radically innovative,such as the string quartet no 14 in C# minor and other works.
   Let's say that Beethoven is definitely a transitional composer who anticipated many later 19th century  ones,and certain had a profound influence on them..

[Cato]

Has the fun ended, then? ; )

I hope not!   

Let's pose a question based on Hoffmann's excerpt provided by Florestan: e.g.

"The master's fantasy having been fired up by an entire tone-painting with richly adorned groups, bright lights and deep shadows, he was able to bring it to life at the piano, so that it emerged colorfully and brilliantly from the inner world.   The complete score with all parts, this veritable musical book of magic, that contains in its notes all miracles of the art of music, the mysterious chorus of manifold instruments, comes to life under the hands of the master at the piano, and, if well-performed, can be compared with an excellent etching prepared from a great painting."

(My emphasis)

Should Beethoven be considered (more) Romantic rather than (instead of) Classical, not because of any consideration of musical form, but because of the idea of the Artist as Demiurge, the Artist as Hero, the Artist as Prometheus, which role he fits quite nicely?

Further: Could Beethoven still have sounded like Beethoven if he avoided his "fantasia" style, and adhered much more closely to standard 18th century practice?

Or, even worse: Does Beethoven create his sound by not breaking completely with the previous tradition?   

[Florestan]

Many thanks to Florestan for the excerpt from Hoffmann!

You're welcome. It's taken from this excellent site: http://www.raptusassociation.org/.

[chasmaniac]

Should Beethoven be considered (more) Romantic rather than (instead of) Classical, not because of any consideration of musical form, but because of the idea of the Artist as Demiurge, the Artist as Hero, the Artist as Prometheus, which role he fits quite nicely?

Yes. No music as self-absorbed as Beethoven's deserves to be called Classical. Three cheers for equanimity!

[Philoctetes]

Yes. No music as self-absorbed as Beethoven's deserves to be called Classical. Three cheers for equanimity!

See, in all the music I've heard of his. I've never felt that he was self-absorbed or indulgent. I always sort of assumed that his talk and his walk were different.

[chasmaniac]

See, in all the music I've heard of his. I've never felt that he was self-absorbed or indulgent. I always sort of assumed that his talk and his walk were different.

Fair point. We might be approaching Ludie's music with quite different expectations, preoccupations. I don't dislike everything I hear that gets called Romantic (that would be silly), but the idea of the Artist as the tragically self aware yet misunderstood trailblazing hero of his own biography is detestable to me. And aside from his earliest Haydnesque pieces, I hear this narrative playing out all over Beethoven's work. IMO, the creation is more important than the creator.

[Gurn Blanston]

Further: Could Beethoven still have sounded like Beethoven if he avoided his "fantasia" style, and adhered much more closely to standard 18th century practice?

C.P.E. Bach wrote orders of magnitude more 'fantasias' than Beethoven did (called so or otherwise) and yet he is considered an archetypal 'Classical' composer. FWIW.

For all:
It is now, was and always will be my opinion that there is no division between 'classical' and 'romantic', and there fore any attempt to categorize Beethoven (or any other composer) into one side or the other is doomed to failure. The best you can say is that a composer tends more towards the attributes in his music that we now call classical, or he tends more towards what we call romantic. And that's it.

We are talking about essentially tonal, homophonic music. Usually with what we call retrospectively "sonata-allegro" form in the first movement. Not always though, and maybe in all or none. And maybe with a little polyphony thrown in to sound cool. Any definition that attempts to separate these 2 stylistic extremes into 2 discrete groups instead of a 'more or less' blend of the two extremes is inherently wrong and doomed to fail. And until you come up with definitions that withstand this test any placing of Beethoven in a box like a museum piece is merely a laughable joke and self-indulgent mental masturbation.

[Philoctetes]

Fair point. We might be approaching Ludie's music with quite different expectations, preoccupations. I don't dislike everything I hear that gets called Romantic (that would be silly), but the idea of the Artist as the tragically self aware yet misunderstood trailblazing hero of his own biography is detestable to me. And aside from his earliest Haydnesque pieces, I hear this narrative playing out all over Beethoven's work. IMO, the creation is more important than the creator.

I support your sentiment. I'm not a huge fan of Romanticism's idea of genius, or the artist. I just don't see any of that in Beethoven, but as you said, we're probably listening with different ears. Even in his late works, I still hear the form over the content.

[karlhenning]

Or is the question: Beethoven — Mendelssohnian or Lisztian? ; )