Unpopular Opinions

[Todd]

Isn't it what we all do here, saying this or that?

True, but the assertion that many people hugely overrate late romanticism on a board with only a few dozen active posters is dubious. 

[Florestan]

True, but the assertion that many people hugely overrate late romanticism on a board with only a few dozen active posters is dubious.

Oh, okay. Let me reformulate: Late Romanticism is hugely overrated by many GMGers. Better?

[Todd]

Oh, okay. Let me reformulate: Late Romanticism is hugely overrated by many GMGers. Better?

Not really. 

[Florestan]

Not really.

Please tell me why I'm wrong. If you have a little time to waste, of course. If not, not.

[Todd]

Please tell me why I'm wrong. If you have a little time to waste, of course. If not, not.

I've never seen evidence on this forum that late romanticism is overrated.

[Florestan]

I've never seen evidence on this forum that late romanticism is overrated.

Replace "overrated" with "more frequently listened to than any other era in the history of Western music". If still dissatisfied, I can't help it: this is my impression and hence my unopular opinion.

[Jo498]

It depends what you mean with late romanticism. ca. Brahms to Mahler or later. The main too-late-romantic that seems overly popular to me is Rachmaninoff. And maybe Richard Strauss, but the latter is a somewhat special case, he was on top of his era until ca. WW 1 and except for a few operas not too many people care about, some Lieder and Metamorphosen all of his major works are earlier.
Of others born in the 1870-90 and still sticking to romanticism like Schmidt, Korngold etc. some have had (usually minor) revivals but don't seem overly popular.
As for ca. 1870-1910 romantic music (disregarding the impressionist and early modern pieces from the time) it is obviously hugely popular, not only in this forum. Especially orchestral music and this is not surprising because together with slightly later music (Ravel, Debussy, early Stravinsky, Prokofiev...) it's where orchestras can shine in all their departments and it is not too modern or otherwise overtaxing for the listener.
But I don't think this periods dominates e.g. solo piano, chamber or vocal music. Opera has many pieces from that time but also Mozart, Belcanto, earlier Verdi etc. For piano Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann and Liszt, all of which are earlier certainly dominate Brahms, Rachmaninoff or Scriabin.

[Florestan]

My impression is that music written between 1880 and 1914 is way more popular on GMG than music written between 1780 and 1814. I might be wrong, though.

[Madiel]

My impression is that music written between 1880 and 1914 is way more popular on GMG than music written between 1780 and 1814. I might be wrong, though.

You're probably not wrong, but there's probably also a lot more music available from later. Various changes in technology and culture mean it becomes easier to circulate music the later you get...

To the point where nowadays all you need is a phone in your bedroom to upload your latest masterpiece to YouTube, though at that point you have a different problem of so much music circulating that it becomes difficult to notice anything in particular.

[Florestan]

You're probably not wrong, but there's probably also a lot more music available from later. Various changes in technology and culture mean it becomes easier to circulate music the later you get...

To the point where nowadays all you need is a phone in your bedroom to upload your latest masterpiece to YouTube, though at that point you have a different problem of so much music circulating that it becomes difficult to notice anything in particular.

I'm not talking about general availability. I'm talking about GMG only: my impression is that music written between 1880 and 1914 is way more popular on GMG than music written between 1780 and 1814. I might be wrong, though.

[Brian]

I'm not talking about general availability. I'm talking about GMG only: my impression is that music written between 1880 and 1914 is way more popular on GMG than music written between 1780 and 1814. I might be wrong, though.

Depends on whether Mirror Image is posting or not

[Madiel]

I'm not talking about general availability. I'm talking about GMG only: my impression is that music written between 1880 and 1914 is way more popular on GMG than music written between 1780 and 1814. I might be wrong, though.

And I'm talking about how people on GMG find out about music and the names of composers. If you're trying to argue that somehow GMG is out of step with the general classical music listening population, then I think you're wrong. People on GMG listen to more music from 1880-1914 than they do from 1780-1814 because there's a much wider range of music and composers generally available from one era than the other. Not because GMG somehow attracted late Romantic fetishists.

[Jo498]

I was not referring to GMG; except for the relative neglect of vocal music, especially opera (which is understandable because there are separate fora for opera) and a few odds (like niche 20th century composers such as Braga Santos I had not even heard the name of before joining the forum) I don't think the GMG focus is so much different from the typical classical listener or from the typical concert programming.
As for the two periods, Madiel is obviously correct. There are three main composers in the earlier period, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. And the early third of Haydn and the late Beethoven is missing. Even extending 15 years to Beethoven's and Schubert's death we only gain Schubert, Weber, Rossini and a bit of earliest Mendelssohn.
Whereas the later period has most of mature Dvorak, Brahms, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky and other Russians, all of Mahler and Debussy, most of R. Strauss, early Schoenberg and Stravinsky, late Verdi, most of Puccini, most of Fauré and a dozen or more major composers I am too lazy to mention.

[amw]

Present-day people also find it harder to relate strong emotions and mental images to the music of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven et al because it is more distant from our time in all respects—aesthetically, socially, politically, hermeneutically. This pattern increases exponentially with each century further back one goes (1680-1714, 1580-1614 etc). Indeed although classical music listeners skew older, thus are still relatively able to relate to music from 1880-1914 (although even then "difficult" composers like Mahler and Wagner and Stravinsky have already fallen into being "easy listening" for most classical listeners—and I think this is the general motivation for most classical listeners to prefer late romanticism/early modernism, it has already been absorbed into the cultural milieu but not so long ago as to require any additional historical knowledge, and therefore is aesthetically unchallenging and comfortable), I've noticed younger people have a much harder time connecting with and understanding that music as well, compared to that written between 1980-2014.

[Todd]

This pattern increases exponentially with each century further back one goes (1680-1714, 1580-1614 etc).

What does this mean?  I'm not sure the concept of exponential growth applies to music appreciation.  Is it not possible for listeners to leap styles and centuries, and, say, connect with Renaissance style and structure when it comes to songs, while otherwise mainly being into romantic works?  Could not a person's religious upbringing influence appreciation for chant or polyphony while otherwise preferring post-war modernism? 

[Brian]

Is it not possible for listeners to leap styles and centuries, and, say, connect with Renaissance style and structure when it comes to songs, while otherwise mainly being into romantic works?  Could not a person's religious upbringing influence appreciation for chant or polyphony while otherwise preferring post-war modernism?

Sure, it is possible and it could be, but it's less likely or perhaps harder (except in the presence of a major influence like churchgoing or a baroque-obsessed parent or whatever). I know anecdotally for me as a millennial, most stuff from before, say, Haydn's Paris Symphonies are going on my stereo because they're "pleasant" or "nice" and true emotional engagement is a lot rarer. Once you get pre-Bach, especially, boy I have just nooooooo context to understand guys like Victoria or Marais or Machaut or you-name-them. A genre like trio sonatas, one really good disc is plenty to cover my needs. And especially not having been raised by Christians, early sacred music is totally "other" to me in a way that makes me sad because I picked up, for example, that box set of Savall on Warner with the 1300s-1600s stuff and I know I'm missing out on 90% of the pleasure in it.

Another related thought I've had in live concert halls is a continuing low key resentment that most modern full-size orchestras keep doing so much Mozart and Haydn when they generally can't. As in, they don't bother with HIP and don't adjust to the lessons of the movement, and they have like an 80-person ensemble for them, but tragically they do not have the other element necessary for a totally modern grand orchestra interpretation to work, which is to be conducted by either George Szell or Josef Krips. So why bother?

[Brian]

Oh, also worth adding that the increasing difficulty of getting today's listeners into 300+ year old music is a big part of why the HIP movement is so ADD-sounding sometimes with the huge contrasts and wild tempos. Imho. Even outside of HIP, we have the example of Manfred Honeck adding new dissonance to Beethoven's Third Symphony explicitly to replicate for us today the shock people must have felt back then at dissonances which now sound totally normal!

[Que]

My opinion on Bruckner is that he is conducted much too slowly by everyone, and that the 6th symphony should be over in under 50 minutes, the 7th symphony in about 52 (15', 18-19', 7:30ish, and a bit over 10'). The 3rd probably should be much faster in most recordings, but at least we have the Szell recording, which is perfect.

Agreed!

[Todd]

Once you get pre-Bach, especially, boy I have just nooooooo context to understand guys like Victoria or Marais or Machaut or you-name-them.

I'm thinking more like Dowland or Monteverdi and their songs.  The structure and tenor of some of the songs clearly mirror and predate modern songs.  When I finally got around to them, I was startled at the similarities; modern pop music is not particularly adventurous.

Victoria and much polyphony may be much harder to get into without a more religious background.  Someone like Machaut, who is even earlier, may prove even harder to get into since now we're talking medieval.  And the Savall box reflects the artist's tastes in performing, which is, at times, idiosyncratic, as well as great.

I'm not bothered by modern bands playing anything in any style.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and in either case I just move on as the experiences are ephemeral.  Every once in a while, I have attended great performances - a modern, big band Creation for instance.

[Florestan]

And I'm talking about how people on GMG find out about music and the names of composers. If you're trying to argue that somehow GMG is out of step with the general classical music listening population, then I think you're wrong. People on GMG listen to more music from 1880-1914 than they do from 1780-1814 because there's a much wider range of music and composers generally available from one era than the other. Not because GMG somehow attracted late Romantic fetishists.

Fair enough.