The dominance of Romanticism

[greg]

The problem as I see it is not that some composers write esoteric, elitist music, but that some of those composers openly express their utter contempt for both anyone who doesn't understand / appreciate their music and composers who write music for a larger audience. The most outspoken practitioner of this haughty dismissal of "philistines" was Robert Schumann, with Berlioz, Liszt* and Wagner contributing their no small share as well. Unfortunately, their misguided crusade has largely succeeded: even today there are large swaths of music lovers who believe that only music born out of suffering and soul torture is any worth and that any esthetic that aims for lightness, tunefulness and accessibility is of a lower order than that which aims for profundity, dissonance and elitism --- and this is yet another way by which Romanticism indeed still dominates our culture.


* Liszt's case is a special one: having been in his youth a hugely popular virtuoso, the very opposite of Robert Schumann's ideal musician, he gradually turned into an elitist.

There is plenty room for both to exist in this world, and they both should.
I think the open disdain just comes from the fact that light, cheery music dominates our public spaces so much that it becomes grating when one either dislikes or is indifferent to it.
Imagine how the average person would feel if one day every single store and concert venue started playing nothing but atonal music- pretty sure there would be some complaining, to put it mildly. That's how people like me feel every day lol.

[staxomega]

Actually, there is yet another way in which Romanticism dominated the 20th century, and it's precisely by way of atonalism, serialism and avant-garde, all of which are the embodiment of typically Romantic notions such as art as an esoteric pursuit reserved to the happy few who can understand it (those who cannot being branded as philistines and haughtily dismissed or even held in utter contempt) and the artist as a high priest leading mankind to new and higher levels of conscience. When Schoenberg wrote the famous words "If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art" he was pushing to the most extreme but only too logical consequences the Romantic elitism already present in Schumann, Liszt, Berlioz and Wagner. And the culmination of this elitism is to be found in Milton Babbitt's (in)famous article "Who cares if you listen?".

Schoenberg's quote holds true in the reverse as well, there are many people that do not connect with Haydn, Mozart, Boccherini, etc and Schoenberg's very quote makes this music valid art

Now to answer the thread starter there was a thread similar to this and if I'm remembering right amw had one of the most satisfying answers- people now are just accustomed to romantic music, so they connect with it. Apologies if I misremembered the poster or misconstrued their views!

Would most classical listeners be familiar with Schoenberg's writings on harmony, the history with the War of the Romantics, etc? I'm not sure, which is why I agree with that person's take on it.

[Florestan]

There is plenty room for both to exist in this world, and they both should.

Absolutely. I love both Robert Schumann's and Henri Herz's music --- and I have (strong) reasons to suspect that the former would have been much more astonished by that than the latter...

I think the open disdain just comes from the fact that light, cheery music dominates our public spaces so much that it becomes grating when one either dislikes or is indifferent to it.

How does this applies to what we call "classical" music? Mahler isn't being played in malls and parking lots, granted, but neither is Emile Waldteufel. 

Imagine how the average person would feel if one day every single store and concert venue started playing nothing but atonal music- pretty sure there would be some complaining, to put it mildly. That's how people like me feel every day lol.

See above. "Store" and "concert venue" are very different things.

[Florestan]

there are many people that do not connect with Haydn, Mozart, Boccherini, etc

Sure. They do not connect with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern etc. either. They connect with Eminem, Brittney Spears, Justin Biber. etc

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

and Schoenberg's very quote makes this music valid art

Please define art. The please define valid art. 

Would most classical listeners be familiar with Schoenberg's writings on harmony, the history with the War of the Romantics, etc? I'm not sure

Would most classical listeners be familiar with the history of the musical esthetics and philosophy since Middle Ages to nowadays? I'm not so sure. 

[greg]

How does this applies to what we call "classical" music? Mahler isn't being played in malls and parking lots, granted, but neither is Emile Waldteufel. 

See above. "Store" and "concert venue" are very different things.

I am getting ahead of myself here, but I think it is similar- go outside in any European city, at any time period (or more like anywhere in the world, at any time period) and the music in the street is mostly diatonic stuff, usually light and cheery, but maybe at the most somewhat melancholic but not really intense. So I think the composers back in the 1800's-1900's are experiencing the same thing as me, even if today it is worse (the dominant music being even more mundane and shallow than before).

It's just... not spicy. We are spice fanatics, living in a world dominated with people who low spice tolerance. 

Like, going Christmas shopping for a while, I can't wait to get back home to listen to something like the Schoenberg Variations for Orchestra, listening to music with that dark power after listening to Christmas music feels almost like getting into a hot tub after being in the pool, like I've arrived at home.  0:)

[staxomega]

Sure. They do not connect with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern etc. either. They connect with Eminem, Brittney Spears, Justin Biber. etc

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

That other music might have a valid reason, Copland says humans are drawn to music that has a beat.

Please define art. The please define valid art. 

I was jokingly flipping Schoenberg's quote around with what he defined as art As in I do not think that quote should have anything malignant associated with it.

Would most classical listeners be familiar with the history of the musical esthetics and philosophy since Middle Ages to nowadays? I'm not so sure. 

I'm not sure. That point was people might "connect" with romantic music because that is what they are used to, or what feels most familiar to them (I wish I could find the original post I was thinking of, it was quite lucid) rather than forming an opinion based off what they've read on theory or history.

To be clear - I'm not denying that it is not elitism from Schumann, Wagner, etc.