The dominance of Romanticism

[vers la flamme]

Listening to Krzysztof Penderecki's 3rd symphony, a question occurred to me. This symphony was written in 1995, the year of my birth, 168 years after the death of Beethoven, and yet it exists clearly within the framework of the Late Romantic symphony. Beyond Penderecki, many of the notable composers of the 21st century are clearly very informed by Romantic ideas, people like James Macmillan or Wolfgang Rihm. Why is it that Romanticism continues to be such a dominant force in so-called classical music? Of course, neo-Baroque and neo-Classical ideas have always been a thing, throughout the Romantic (people like Reger), Modern (people like Stravinsky), Postmodern (people like Schnittke) periods and beyond into the present. But does it seem to anyone else that Romantic music has an unusual longevity? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, and if so, please, prove me wrong, but on the off chance I'm onto something, does anyone have any ideas why this might be?

[Florestan]

Listening to Krzysztof Penderecki's 3rd symphony, a question occurred to me. This symphony was written in 1995, the year of my birth, 168 years after the death of Beethoven, and yet it exists clearly within the framework of the Late Romantic symphony. Beyond Penderecki, many of the notable composers of the 21st century are clearly very informed by Romantic ideas, people like James Macmillan or Wolfgang Rihm. Why is it that Romanticism continues to be such a dominant force in so-called classical music? Of course, neo-Baroque and neo-Classical ideas have always been a thing, throughout the Romantic (people like Reger), Modern (people like Stravinsky), Postmodern (people like Schnittke) periods and beyond into the present. But does it seem to anyone else that Romantic music has an unusual longevity? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, and if so, please, prove me wrong, but on the off chance I'm onto something, does anyone have any ideas why this might be?

Boy, in just 24 hrs you started two topics of great interest to me. 

IMNSHO, romanticism (notice the small r) is not a temporarily circumscribed artistic era (that would be Romanticism, notice the capital R), but a permanent psychological disposition of the human soul. There were romantics in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Baroque and the Classical period --- and there were romantics long after Romanticism run its course. There are romantics right now.  Actually, there will always be romantics.

[Jo498]

But this seems an ambiguity. Verse la flamme seems not to have meant a psychological disposition but a core or bundle of features common to music (and maybe other arts) since the early 19th century but not most other eras.
I don't really know if "dominance" is true. (I think some of the most famous early modern works like La Mer, Le sacre, some of Ravel etc. are if not "anti" at least orthogonal to romanticism.) But it would not be that strange, partly because 200 years is not such a long time.

In literature we mostly take the "dominance of the novel" for granted but this form was frequently derided and considered "low" in the 18th century, it only became "respectable" less than 200 years ago and a lot of the 19th century classics were not considered "high/serious literature" back then. Whereas epic poetry, considered the highest form from Homer to Milton is purely historical and esoteric nowadays.

[vers la flamme]

But this seems an ambiguity. Verse la flamme seems not to have meant a psychological disposition but a core or bundle of features common to music (and maybe other arts) since the early 19th century but not most other eras.
I don't really know if "dominance" is true. (I think some of the most famous early modern works like La Mer, Le sacre, some of Ravel etc. are if not "anti" at least orthogonal to romanticism.) But it would not be that strange, partly because 200 years is not such a long time.

In literature we mostly take the "dominance of the novel" for granted but this form was frequently derided and considered "low" in the 18th century, it only became "respectable" less than 200 years ago and a lot of the 19th century classics were not considered "high/serious literature" back then. Whereas epic poetry, considered the highest form from Homer to Milton is purely historical and esoteric nowadays.

Fascinating—especially re: Debussy, Ravel and Stravinsky taking a perpendicular path to Romanticism, being that I may have been taking for granted that these composers (sometimes referred to as post-Romantic) took late Romantic music as a starting point. This may be true, but any idiot listening to any of the works you mentioned vis-à-vis something by, say, Brahms or Wagner would be able to tell the difference. Furthermore I like how you've brought up the novel, because—and I might not have realized until now—there really are many parallels between the novel as a form and the Romantic conception of the symphony (which, of course, is not in itself a "Romantic" form, but a "Romantic" evolution of an earlier form.) But here I guess my question is this: is Romantic music longer-lived than Baroque or Classical Period music? Or am I somehow skewing this in my head because we're still in the midst of the aftermath of Romanticism?

@Florestan, I completely agree with all your comments—and I would definitely self-identify as a small-R romantic, or maybe, if I'm feeling extra pompous, a "romantic modernist" But Jo is correct in that I was thinking more about your big-R Romanticism: the Romantic forms of symphonic development, etc.

Thank you both for your thought-provoking responses to my thread!

[greg]

But does it seem to anyone else that Romantic music has an unusual longevity?

IMNSHO, romanticism (notice the small r) is not a temporarily circumscribed artistic era (that would be Romanticism, notice the capital R), but a permanent psychological disposition of the human soul. There were romantics in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Baroque and the Classical period --- and there were romantics long after Romanticism run its course.

The style of Romanticism seems more universal and broad. In many video games that have an epic adventure story, much of the soundtrack often sounds like it was written in the 1890's.

In contrast, Classical/Baroque seems more focused. It doesn't really remind me about as many things- mostly the time period itself, or can be the soundtrack to areas or characters that express nobility. Most people just don't connect as much with that sort of thing.

[Maestro267]

Because there is scope to plumb the depths of the human experience in Romanticism that the earlier eras don't have. Plus more instruments at one's disposal in percussion. Expansiveness, symphony-as-world-unto-itself.

[Mandryka]

I just note some things with respect to Penderecki and romanticism

1. The symphony seems more much more romantic than the violin sonata and cello suite or string trio written around the time of the 3rd symphony, 1988 - 1995.

For this reason I am tempted to tentatively conclude that

2. Penderecki is not a principled romantic. He can swing both ways.

Now, let's try and work out why. I start by noting that as a matter of fact

3. It's easier to find an orchestra who'll put on romantic music, the musicians feel in their comfort zone.

And of course

4. The composer makes money out of performances.

On the other hand

5. You can always find someone to play a spiky modernist violin and piano duo, at least you can if your Penderecki.

So basically, my postulate is that Penderecki wrote romantic music because he wanted to max the cash.

[Maestro267]

Yes he realized avant-garde was not where the money was at.

[Spotted Horses]

I don't really find a romantic dominance in the 20th and 21st century music I listen to. Around the beginning of the 20th century classical music became more eclectic, and music of every style and combination of styles came to be produced. I haven't really been drawn to the new "romantic" stuff because it seems to me the original romantics did it better. I am attracted to something that takes advantage of the more wide open field of post-19th century music and does something new.

[Brian]

Hmm, for me this thread raises more questions than answers. I have not yet heard anything by Rihm that connects to romanticism in any way. So I might not know what you are talking about 

Two thoughts that do come to mind:
1. Romanticism could be taken to mean a certain openness of emotional expression? i.e. that music is about emotion and the experience of having it. In this case I think quite a lot of music will always be romantic, because people will always have things to express. While many of us love to listen to music that makes us think, or excites us with new and original sounds, it is hard to get away from the dominance of music that makes us feel something.

I don't know if that is by definition "romantic", but maybe it is what you mean? Wanna help here?  Before the "romantic era," music also made people feel things; but those feelings tended to be in a narrower range, I guess. (delight, diversion, tragedy, religious reverence)

2. When you listen to a lot of the justly forgotten stuff from the romantic era proper, certain tropes and themes arise as being distinctly Romantic in character, which contemporary composers have dropped. Lots of trite cliches. Beethoven inspired everyone to try the gloom-to-triumph symphonic arc. I can only tolerate so many chamber music works that start in bar 1 with a long, flowing melody. And don't even talk to me about symphonies where the finale has a fugue in it for no reason. 

[Mandryka]

Hmm, for me this thread raises more questions than answers. I have not yet heard anything by Rihm that connects to romanticism in any way. So I might not know what you are talking about 

Try this, inspired by Schumann's trios he says

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP_RcS8R8Ws&ab_channel=HyerimMa

I have a book by Rihm where he talks about his relationship to old dead composers, and I'm trying to find a suitable quote. But it's difficult, philosophical. And my book is in French, translated from the German, so . . .

[Mandryka]

. . . what I can say now is this: he says that when he listens to Schumann,  he has a sense of the composer's imagination passing from inside to the public gaze, outside, without being "strangled" in any way -- and by strangled he means being made to fit into some pre-existing form. He says that he senses this very rarely in music, citing only Schumann, Debussy, late Beethoven, Varese and Schoenberg around the year 1910.

In the French the expression is "sans arguties autour de la forme, sans de jolis parcours modèles"

There -- that's romanticism. The contents of the composer's soul turned to sound for public consumption,  with no distortion.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I just note some things with respect to Penderecki and romanticism

1. The symphony seems more much more romantic than the violin sonata and cello suite or string trio written around the time of the 3rd symphony, 1988 - 1995.

For this reason I am tempted to tentatively conclude that

2. Penderecki is not a principled romantic. He can swing both ways.

Now, let's try and work out why. I start by noting that as a matter of fact

3. It's easier to find an orchestra who'll put on romantic music, the musicians feel in their comfort zone.

And of course

4. The composer makes money out of performances.

On the other hand

5. You can always find someone to play a spiky modernist violin and piano duo, at least you can if your Penderecki.

So basically, my postulate is that Penderecki wrote romantic music because he wanted to max the cash.

Yes he realized avant-garde was not where the money was at.

I'm not so sure about that.  Perhaps other factors were involved:  experimenting when younger, maybe partly also the times, going back to things/styles that resonated with him or were familiar to him when he was younger?   

PD

[vers la flamme]

To paraphrase Penderecki's words on the matter, he turned more to conducting in the '70s, was conducting things like Bruckner, Tchaikovsky etc., and drew influence from this kind of music on his own compositions. I'm not sure that this equates to doing it for some quick cash, especially being that there are much easier ways to make money than writing a multi-movement symphony, but maybe.

[Spotted Horses]

To paraphrase Penderecki's words on the matter, he turned more to conducting in the '70s, was conducting things like Bruckner, Tchaikovsky etc., and drew influence from this kind of music on his own compositions. I'm not sure that this equates to doing it for some quick cash, especially being that there are much easier ways to make money than writing a multi-movement symphony, but maybe.

I seriously doubt it was for "cash." But hem may have been influenced by the engagement of the audience when conducting more traditional music, and wanted to have a similar engagement with the audience in his own music.

[Mandryka]

" But hem may have been influenced by the engagement of the audience when conducting more traditional music, and wanted to have a similar engagement with the audience in his own music.

The last time I went to a "traditional music" night out a good 20% of the audience were texting on their phones while listening. They looked like the sort of age of music students. In Covent Garden they're always whispering to each other and passing mints, rattling their jewlery. You don't get that sort of behaviour when you go to hear Stockhausen or Ferneyhough.

[Brian]

The last time I went to a "traditional music" night out a good 20% of the audience were texting on their phones while listening. They looked like the sort of age of music students. In Covent Garden they're always whispering to each other and passing mints, rattling their jewlery. You don't get that sort of behaviour when you go to hear Stockhausen or Ferneyhough.

That's because nobody is there. 

I think actually your post highlights the huge gulf between classical music experiences in the US and UK. For one thing, cell phone use is strictly prohibited here - just yesterday I saw an usher telling someone to put their phone away. But for another, the US classical audience has an average age of about 60, and the noises they make are almost all to do with unwrapping cough drops. Young people who attend US classical concerts are usually very committed to the genre. (Or they are on a date and want to look smart.)

[DavidW]

yet it exists clearly within the framework of the Late Romantic symphony.

You use the word clearly, but it's not clear to me at all.  It has an enormous passacaglia.  And on top of all his counterpoint, Penderecki is rhythmically free and complex in a way that hearkens back to Bartok more than the Romantic era.

I find this troubling pattern of labeling anything post-Schoenberg that's tonal as neo-romantic.  It is just not that simple.  Especially with anything Penderecki wrote.

[vers la flamme]

You use the word clearly, but it's not clear to me at all.  It has an enormous passacaglia.  And on top of all his counterpoint, Penderecki is rhythmically free and complex in a way that hearkens back to Bartok more than the Romantic era.

I find this troubling pattern of labeling anything post-Schoenberg that's tonal as neo-romantic.  It is just not that simple.  Especially with anything Penderecki wrote.

Don't take my word for it. Penderecki himself described his later period as being heavily influenced by late Romantic composers, and I don't think I'm the only one to hear the connection. For what it's worth, I hear, say, Shostakovich as neo-Romantic, too, with lots of parallels with the music of Mahler; maybe you don't, and we can agree to disagree.

[Brian]

I guess I didn't understand the question then. Is the question just why are so many contemporary composers so strongly influenced by romantic music?

I think the answer would be that there are not a lot of predecessor styles available to be influenced by. You're going to be inspired by Bach or Mozart or Beethoven or Mahler or Schoenberg or Boulez. Or you are going to be wholly original.

We do have more styles than ever in our living composer community. But I don't feel surprised by the romantics having a continuing influence because they are some of the most iconic, beloved composers around. What percentage of composers grew up listening to Beethoven's Fifth or being blown away by their first live Mahler or practicing Debussy at the piano? 95%?