A Farewell to Romanticism

[Que]

God knows that over the years I've been one of the most enthusiastical supporters of Romantic music qua Romantic music --- but the years of the Covid pandemics, and time going by, have challenged and changed my thought and perspective completely and as I am rapidly approaching my 50s I can safely say that I hereby part, publicly and without regret, with the Romantic aesthetics and philosophy, upon which Emil Cioran pronounced the ultimate sentence: The Romantics have filled the world with their sorrows, most of them imaginary. (quoted by memory and wholly agreed upon). Upon closer, dispassionate, coldly rational inspection I have found that there is no aesthetics and philosophy more far-fetched, misguided, misplaced, misinformed, egotistic, histrionic and downright harmful for the well-being of both the individuals and the society they live in than the Romantic ones. I now fully, wholeheartedly and unreservedly understand and subscribe to Goethe's dictum that Romanticism is sickness, Classicism is health.

[....]

To cut a long story short, I bid my farewell to Romantic aesthetics and philosophy while remaining a devotee of Romantic music --- except that Romantic music which is inextricably linked with the Romantic aesthetics and philosophy, ie Wagner and his ilk...

Thank you for reading. Feel free to disagree or discuss.

What a pity... I kind of liked your (Romantic) infatuation with Romanticism! 
But life changes us...

It's funny that you mention Goethe because he was the one who steered me away from any inclination towards Romanticism in my late teens. I found his novel Die Leiden des jungen Werthers so increcibly nauseating that it put me off for life. 
When I read later that after its publication several young men committed suicide, dressed in "Werthertracht": blue tailcoat, yellow waistcoat, trousers, and tall boots, I dediced there was something was decidedly unhealthy about the whole thing. A youthful lack of deeper insight and nuance, I admit...

That being said I do enjoy Romantic music and a lot of the contemporary poetry that Romantic composers used for their Lieder. In painting however, Romanticism is definitely not my favourite period.

[Jo498]

I'm not caricaturing anything. Read Wackenroder, Novalis, Hoffmann, Schopenhauer (actually, in your case it's rather re-read): you'll find exactly those far-fetched and self-serving notions about art in general and music in particular, presented with the utmost seriousness.

But did Beethoven or Schubert care? Or Brahms (who seems to have had no philosophical inclination whatsoever)? Except for Hoffmann (as writer, his composition seem to be mostly slightly romanticized Mozart, i.e. rather classicist) one might think of Schumann and Wagner (and maybe Berlioz who wasn't German) but almost all other 19th century composers seemed to have had little interest in aesthetic theory.
Isn't most of this a case of reflection post factum, as always?
It's also far more subtle than expressing personal states of mind or emotion. What Hoffmann writes about the special "aura" of Beethoven's instrumental music is quite different from some personal expression like Schumann's longing for Clara.
It's also not surprising that it seems sometimes like mumbo jumbo because people have struggled for 200 years to describe what is expressive or fascinating about "absolute music", i.e. "purely" musical processes that nevertheless seem to have dramatic archs, express emotions etc. There has been rather little progress (although apparently a bit more in the last few decades) partly because the whole point is that whatever is expressed in music can only be expressed musically, otherwise one might as well write an essay.

Actually, Rossini composed more opera seria than opera buffa and also chamber music, concertante pieces, vocal music, sacred music and piano music. It's just that his aesthetic doesn't sit well with precisely the (mostly German) Romantic musical aesthetic.

Most of Rossini was quite ephemeral; this has nothing to do with philosophical superstructure. It was comparably ephemeral also in France and even Italy because that's just what opera was most of the time (and traditional opera seria was on its deathbed anyway).

In any case, the question is why and how the 19th century Germans "got away" with their supposedly far-fetched philosophical mumbo-jumbo and corresponding music? (Especially considering the "head start" the Italians and French had since the 17th century when they dominated all Europe culturally...) Maybe the music really WAS more interesting, more expressive, more innovative etc. and thus prevailed, at least in the field large scale instrumental music?

I am always skeptical about too indirect explanations. An explanation should always first try to remain in the domain of the phenomenon to be explained, not employ some outside or hidden causes. It's quite implausible to me that "aesthetic theory" (that is usually always "too late", this is what Hegel meant with "the Owl of Minerva flying only at dusk", reflection and theory come after the facts and reality) should dominate reception of music, unless the music itself impresses other musicians and the public. No smart theory or eloquent review would work if the music didn't work. And if the music does work, the theory and reviews are only multipliers.

[Florestan]

What a pity... I kind of liked your (Romantic) infatuation with Romanticism! 
But life changes us...

Just to be clear: I parted only with the Romantic philosophy of music, not with Romantic music; I bid farewell to Kapellmiester Kreisler,  for instance, not to Schumann.  Most of my favorite composers are Romantic. 

[Florestan]

But did Beethoven or Schubert care?

Philosophically speaking Beethoven was firmly a man of the Enlightenment who held Schiller in the highest esteem, so I suppose he would have had little patience for Wackenroder and Hoffmann had he known their works --- but the irony is that, if ever a musician was close to Kapellmeister Kreisler, it was Beethoven; not by conviction but because of his deafness which forcibly isolated him from the society at large and turned him into a grumpy misanthrope ; it should not be forgotten than in his early years in Vienna he was a socialite.

As for Schubert, besides poetry he cared deeply for Fenimore Cooper; philosophy was outside his intellectual sphere of interest.

Or Brahms (who seems to have had no philosophical inclination whatsoever)? Except for Hoffmann (as writer, his composition seem to be mostly slightly romanticized Mozart, i.e. rather classicist) one might think of Schumann and Wagner (and maybe Berlioz who wasn't German) but almost all other 19th century composers seemed to have had little interest in aesthetic theory.

Liszt was also prone to philosophizing about art, but you are right in that most Romantic composers simply composed music and did not theorized about it.

In any case, the question is why and how the 19th century Germans "got away" with their supposedly far-fetched philosophical mumbo-jumbo and corresponding music? (Especially considering the "head start" the Italians and French had since the 17th century when they dominated all Europe culturally...) Maybe the music really WAS more interesting, more expressive, more innovative etc. and thus prevailed, at least in the field large scale instrumental music?

In the field of instrumental music the 19th century (ie Romantic) Germans "got away" because they successfully managed to make instrumental music (ie, first and foremost symphonies) the universal yardstick by which all music should be judged. Until 1850 there were many competing aesthetics and some musical centres (Paris first and foremost, but also Vienna) were rather immune to the "Romantic Germanization" of music. After 1850, though, this process gained momentum and by the advent of the 20th century it was complete, even in France which was swept away by Wagnerism, dissenting voices as Saint-Saens notwithstanding.

To be sure, in the realm of instrumental music the Romantic Germans produced absolute masterpieces --- but music is much more than symphonies or musical dramas. What I object to is not the Romantic German achievements, or even Romantic German superiority, in the field but the aesthetic hegemony the Romantic Germans imposed on the world. And because I can already hear you saying that this is a thing of the past, long superseded, I haste to add that it was not yet superseded at the level of concert culture, which is still essentially Romantic Germanic in repertoire, programming philosophy and behavioral etiquette.

Well, now that I wrote all that and think about it, it's obvious I take issues not that much with philosophical Romanticism in general (which in any case is very hard to define|) as with German philosophical Romanticism.

Be it as it might, you're again right in that I overthink it.

[Que]

Just to be clear: I parted only with the Romantic philosophy of music, not with Romantic music; I bid farewell to Kapellmiester Kreisler,  for instance, not to Schumann.  Most of my favorite composers are Romantic. 

No clarification needed, I got that.  Are you planning on keeping your Romantic music thread afloat?

[Florestan]

No clarification needed, I got that.  Are you planning on keeping your Romantic music thread afloat?

I certainly have no intention to lock it. Now that I think of it, I might turn it into a vehicle for promoting a more healthy, wholesome and cheerful side of Romanticism  than the German one (pace Jo  ). For instance, I might champion the music of Thalberg, Herz, Pixis and Doehler. 

[Karl Henning]

I use to say that Wagner's music would be ideal sleeping "pills", if it wasn't for the terrible noise it makes.

(* chortle *)

[Florestan]

(* chortle *)

+ 1.

If I want to be cheered, I play Rossini: Il barbiere di Siviglia and Il viaggio a Reims never ever fail to put a big smile on my face --- and every time I listen to them anew it is for a different reason. Heck, just very recently I burst into a Homeric laughter when hearing Ettore Bastianini uttering "Un non so che nell'occhio", which is not even a sung number. No, really, for a few days in a row it made me laugh out loud. Die Meistersinger von Nuernberg, on the other hand, never ever put the slightest smile on my face, and I am reminded of a joke I heard in my teens: Which is the smallest book in the world? The anthology of German humor. 

[Florestan]

It's funny that you mention Goethe because he was the one who steered me away from any inclination towards Romanticism in my late teens. I found his novel Die Leiden des jungen Werthers so increcibly nauseating that it put me off for life. 
When I read later that after its publication several young men committed suicide, dressed in "Werthertracht": blue tailcoat, yellow waistcoat, trousers, and tall boots, I dediced there was something was decidedly unhealthy about the whole thing. A youthful lack of deeper insight and nuance, I admit...

Funnier still that you mention all that ---- because it's only during the Covid pandemic that I read for the first time Die Leiden des jungen Werthers --- and I too found it a (well-written) piece of (extrenely dangerous if taken seriously) nonsense. Werther stroke me as a complete idiot: not for falling in love with an engaged woman (which is bad enough but ultimately incontrollable), but for failing to take one of the only two manly and decisive actions available in such a circumstance: either to convince/force the lady to elope, or to flee from her and find solace elsewhere. Instead he chooses to constantly whine and complain, and to constantly torture his soul as well as that of her lover, until he finally can bear no more and kills himself. On one hand, I was greatly surprised that Goethe of all people should have written such rubbish; on the other hand, I took it as a bitter, albeit unwittingly, satire of the Romantic attitude about life --- and it was the latter that opened my eyes to the grave errors of the Romantic mindset, which Goethe himself came to acknowledge later in his life.

AFAIC, philosophical, aesthetic and ethical Romanticism is fit for teenagers, especially of the rebellious-without-a-cause kind; an adult, reasonable and balanced person has no use for them.

[Florestan]

Most of Rossini was quite ephemeral; this has nothing to do with philosophical superstructure. It was comparably ephemeral also in France and even Italy because that's just what opera was most of the time

Why, exactly. Rossini operated in a culture where the ephemeral was taken for granted --- the opera, be it seria or buffa, was not supposed to express any immutable, definitive truth about life in a form made for the contemplation and awe of all future generations, but to supply the paying audience an evening-worth of an enjoyable and (hopefully) instructing pastime. I find this pragmatic, no-nonsense attitude far more natural and humane/humanistic than all the pseudo-philosophical, art-religion, artist-as-high-priest and Davidsbund-gegen-Philister mumbo-jumbo.

(and traditional opera seria was on its deathbed anyway).

Yes, but the keyword here is traditional, as in Gods-and-Goddesses, mythological operas . Real, historical, flesh-and-blood-character opera seria were composed well into the 19th century.