Beethoven: Last great classicist ... or first great romantic?

[zamyrabyrd]

Beethoven had nothing in common with all that. He was a crafter, his music followed strict logical patterns and clear developments. His intellect went hand in hand with his heart, and nothing was ever left to chance or mere 'inspiration'. Everything had to be planned down to the last detail, which clearly brands him as a classicist.

Sounds like Brahms to me.

[longears]

Or Schoenberg

[Lethevich]

Looks like the diplomatic route has failed... time for a fist fight...

[karlhenning]

Looks like the diplomatic route has failed... time for a fist fight...

Nor can I break the tie; I couldn't vote for either option 

[BachQ]

He was classicist ........ No, he was romantic ........

http://www.youtube.com/v/X0UEHTsrZOc

[Mark]

Looks like the diplomatic route has failed... time for a fist fight...

Couldn't agree more ...

[Ten thumbs]

Beethoven was strongly grounded in the classical tradition and I suspect that if asked he would expressed strong dislike of the new Romantic ideas, as did that other great Classicist, Goethe.

[oyasumi]

It is difficult because both options assume that Beethoven was "great.'

[Mark]

It is difficult because both options assume that Beethoven was "great.'

And you think he isn't?

[quintett op.57]

Beethoven was strongly grounded in the classical tradition

Sometimes he flied

[longears]

It is difficult because both options assume that Beethoven was "great.'

Rather, both options report the incontestably well-established fact that Beethoven was great.  He's the very paradigm of the great artist, and his music, the paradigm of artistic greatness.  Might as well dispute the wetness of water.

[Mark]

Rather, both options report the incontestably well-established fact that Beethoven was great.  He's the very paradigm of the great artist, and his music, the paradigm of artistic greatness.  Might as well dispute the wetness of water.

I've re-worded the poll - any better?

[Al Moritz]

Sounds like Brahms to me.

Or Bruckner.

Edit: at least in the mature versions of his symphonies. Compare also the finale of the 1878/80 version of the Fourth Symphony with the one of the 1874 version, which is a wild-running, rather unorganized fantasy (and I suspect it is this movement that the symphony got the name "Romantic" from, music which has been abolished in the later, generally known version).

[Larry Rinkel]

I've re-worded the poll - any better?

It needs something - like the word "great" in both spots.

[Mark]

It needs something - like the word "great" in both spots.

Done.

[Josquin des Prez]

Reducing the whole Romantic thing to a fusion between literacy and music doesn't sound like understanding Romanticism, either.
I'm trying to see if branding Beethoven as a classicist because he had great attention for details is a sign of understanding Classicism too.

I didn't reduce anything, you are. I'm merely trying to single out those elements which to me represent the underlying essence of those particular eras (or rather, the composers that operated in those periods), leaving out traits which are often arbitrary or situational (I.E., orchestration). Standard definitions won't help.

You have to understand that the Romantics saw music in quite a different way then Beethoven, you can't just talk about orchestration, or harmony. When Schumann said he learned more about polyphony reading Jean Paul Richter rather then his counterpoint teacher, it denotes a particular attitude (shared by most Romantics) which is utterly contrary to the principles honed by Beethoven. 

I'm not talking about a simple fusion between literacy and music, it goes far beyond that. The essence of Romanticism is in the way they understood music from a purely poetic point of view, that they actually married the notes with words (when they did) it's irrilevant.

To be frank, i don't think Beethoven was a full classicist either (he was a classicist the same way Bach was a classicist), but the issue is not whether he belonged to one period or another, but whether he was actually pointing towards Romanticism, meaning, is the latter the fulfillment of his musical goals? Is Romanticism really taking the ideas of Beethoven to a 'new level', or is it something completely unique and distinct?

Take form for instance. For Beethoven, form was one of his principal tools for creative expression. All the twisting and expanding of form was NOT an attempt to 'brake free' and thus paving the way to the Romantics. Development was everything to him, how could anybody possibly believe he would have simply discarded a lifetime of structural progress and invention and simply give himself up 'to the muses' like the Romantics did? It's ridicolous. Brahms fully understood this and that his why he never abandoned form, as well.

Likewise for harmony, which is something Beethoven never fully approved. There's more chromaticism in Mozart or even Hummel (his sonata for instance) than there is in Beethoven. He simply didn't care for it. People like to cite his late period as the beginning of avant-garde (Stravinsky even referred to his grosse fugue as 'eternally modern'), which is usually associated with Schoenberg, and thus, chromaticism. Yet, there's nothing overly dissonant about his late sonatas or quartets. Harmonically, he even takes a complete step backwards by borrowing the polyphony of Handel (and possibly Bach, since he considered the latter to be the supreme master of harmony in the first place). It's obvious his 'modernity' owns to other things rather then harmony, which was one of the biggest concerns among 19th century composers.

Regardless of how influential he was to those who came after him, i have an hard time believing that, had he lived longer, he would have become another Wagner. Sorry...

[Josquin des Prez]

Sounds like Brahms to me.

Are you trying to insult my intelligence? I think it's common knowledge Brahms was an hybrid.

[zamyrabyrd]

Are you trying to insult my intelligence? I think it's common knowledge Brahms was an hybrid.

Whoa!! I was just admiring your posts and suddenly the above popped out.
According to your OWN definitions, Brahms could not be lumped together with Schumann or any other programmatic composer. What differentiates Beethoven and Brahms is a certain expansiveness of the latter in approach (call it Romantic if you will), more complex chords and harmonies, German nationalism (even though Beethoven was a German composer his music isn't necessarily nationalistic), more vocal compositions or those derived by (as in the 3rd movement of his violin and piano sonata), the local color and references to antiquity in the Ballades, for example, original shorter forms evolving from themes, etc.

These are descriptive norms, I know, but how else can one get a grip on Romanticism which is anyway so elusive. Structurally, though, Brahms could be considered classical, especially in his symphonies.

ZB

[Al Moritz]

Take form for instance. For Beethoven, form was one of his principal tools for creative expression. All the twisting and expanding of form was NOT an attempt to 'brake free' and thus paving the way to the Romantics. Development was everything to him, how could anybody possibly believe he would have simply discarded a lifetime of structural progress and invention and simply give himself up 'to the muses' like the Romantics did? It's ridicolous. Brahms fully understood this and that his why he never abandoned form, as well.

Again, same holds for mature Bruckner as well.

[Josquin des Prez]

Whoa!! I was just admiring your posts and suddenly the above popped out.

I assumed you were trying to debunk my point by implying that Brahms had all the characteristics i ascribed to Beethoven whilst still belonging to the Romantic period. My mistake.

According to your OWN definitions, Brahms could not be lumped together with Schumann or any other programmatic composer.

No, he's obviously a unique character, even a contradictory one. I think he understood perfectly well that Romanticism was going on a complete different and independent tangent (even if they used Beethoven as a starting point), which is why he tried to maintain a legacy the majority of his peers believed was already done for (erroneously since the threads of Beethoven were picked up in the 20th century by as diverse figures as Janacek, Bartok or Stravinsky).