A Farewell to Romanticism

[Florestan]

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.

Musically speaking, I have come to realize I love Romantic music for the very same reason that I love Renaissance, Baroque and Classical music --- ie, for being music, period; that is, first and foremost for enjoying it in an aural, sensorial, sensuous way, and then, in some (not all) instances for giving my soul a feeling of intense pleasure and happiness --- none of which are in the least dependent on the extra-musical trappings and conceits of which the Romantics were so fond. What I mean is I can greatly enjoy Schumann's piano music without paying the slightest attention to, or being the least interested in, the erotic effusions which he purportedly encoded in his works. Actually, I believe that listening to his music with such extra-musical baggage expressly in mind would be like reading love letters which are not addressed to you --- an impudence. Music is music, period, and I couldn't care less if Schumann was madly in love when composing it; if it moves me, it's good, if it doesn't, it's not, irrespective of whether Clara Wieck had erotic faints when playing it (which I strongly suspect wasn't even the case).

Furthermore, I have come to take issues with a core tenet of (musical) Romanticism --- one that actually has been expressed by Horace long ago: Si vis me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi., iow one cannot compose a sad/joyful piece of music unless one is not himself sad/joyful. This is bollocks, as testified by all great composers, who composed sad/joyful music at moments in their life when they either experienced neither sadness nor joy, or experienced the contrary of what they expressed in their compositions. True and lasting art is not made of momentary, fleeting feelings (although they inspire it) but by calm reflection and industrious craft.

Plus, I have never understood why art/music inspired by, and expressing, a depressed and tormented soul/state of mind is ipso facto more authentic and valuable than art/music inspired by, and expressing, a contended and joyful soul/state of mind --- iow, why Beethoven is intrinsically more worthwhile than Rossini.

Finally, the typically Romantic notions of (1) art as a substitute for religion, (2) artists as high priests who have exclusive access to the hidden mysteries of the universe and are uniquely qualified to lead the mankind towards enlghtenment and salvation, and (3) a radical, irreconcilable opposition between art and world, artists and society, artistic-minded people and materialistic-minded people --- they had stricken me as self-serving nonsense even when I was a self-confessed Romantic.

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.

[Mandryka]

Interesting discussion of the meaning of the Horace here

https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=1163

[Florestan]

Interesting discussion of the meaning of the Horace here

https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=1163

Too technical and ultimately pointless.

Either one agrees with the gist of it, or one doesn't.

I don't.

Exhibit A: Verdi. He never ever personally experienced the whole range of emotions, feelings, passions and torments that he successfully expressed with his music.

[Mandryka]

Still, it has to be admitted that the visions that come in sleep are like paintings: they must have been made as copies of real things; so at least these general kinds of things – eyes, head, hands and the body as a whole – must be real and not imaginary. For even when painters try to depict sirens and satyrs with the most extraordinary bodies, they simply jumble up the limbs of different kinds of real animals, rather than inventing natures that are entirely new. If they do succeed in thinking up something completely fictitious and unreal – not remotely like anything ever seen before – at least the colours used in the picture must be real. Similarly, although these general kinds of things – eyes, head, hands and so on – could be imaginary, there is no denying that certain even simpler and more universal kinds of things are real. These are the elements out of which we make all our mental images of things – the true and also the false ones.

That's from Descartes' Meditations. I want to say that when someone expresses something he hasn't experienced - extreme jealousy for example - what he has experienced is jealousy  and he has experienced extreme feelings - thirst, for example, or tiredness. He has put together these two experiences which are real, true, for him, to create Otello in his imagination. In the same way as Descartes says that you can imagine a siren or a gorgon by putting together heads, snakes, etc - things you have experienced,

[Karl Henning]

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.

Musically speaking, I have come to realize I love Romantic music for the very same reason that I love Renaissance, Baroque and Classical music --- ie, for being music, period; that is, first and foremost for enjoying it in an aural, sensorial, sensuous way, and then, in some (not all) instances for giving my soul a feeling of intense pleasure and happiness --- none of which are in the least dependent on the extra-musical trappings and conceits of which the Romantics were so fond. What I mean is I can greatly enjoy Schumann's piano music without paying the slightest attention to, or being the least interested in, the erotic effusions which he purportedly encoded in his works. Actually, I believe that listening to his music with such extra-musical baggage expressly in mind would be like reading love letters which are not addressed to you --- an impudence. Music is music, period, and I couldn't care less if Schumann was madly in love when composing it; if it moves me, it's good, if it doesn't, it's not, irrespective of whether Clara Wieck had erotic faints when playing it (which I strongly suspect wasn't even the case).

Furthermore, I have come to take issues with a core tenet of (musical) Romanticism --- one that actually has been expressed by Horace long ago: Si vis me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi., iow one cannot compose a sad/joyful piece of music unless one is not himself sad/joyful. This is bollocks, as testified by all great composers, who composed sad/joyful music at moments in their life when they either experienced neither sadness nor joy, or experienced the contrary of what they expressed in their compositions. True and lasting art is not made of momentary, fleeting feelings (although they inspire it) but by calm reflection and industrious craft.

Plus, I have never understood why art/music inspired by, and expressing, a depressed and tormented soul/state of mind is ipso facto more authentic and valuable than art/music inspired by, and expressing, a contended and joyful soul/state of mind --- iow, why Beethoven is intrinsically more worthwhile than Rossini.

Finally, the typically Romantic notions of (1) art as a substitute for religion, (2) artists as high priests who have exclusive access to the hidden mysteries of the universe and are uniquely qualified to lead the mankind towards enlghtenment and salvation, and (3) a radical, irreconcilable opposition between art and world, artists and society, artistic-minded people and materialistic-minded people --- they had stricken me as self-serving nonsense even when I was a self-confessed Romantic.

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.

Most interesting, Mon cher

[Maestro267]

Wonder who gets to take over your salon... 

[Florestan]

Wonder who gets to take over your salon... 

It didn't have much success anyway. 

[Spotted Horses]

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.

Musically speaking, I have come to realize I love Romantic music for the very same reason that I love Renaissance, Baroque and Classical music --- ie, for being music, period; that is, first and foremost for enjoying it in an aural, sensorial, sensuous way, and then, in some (not all) instances for giving my soul a feeling of intense pleasure and happiness --- none of which are in the least dependent on the extra-musical trappings and conceits of which the Romantics were so fond. What I mean is I can greatly enjoy Schumann's piano music without paying the slightest attention to, or being the least interested in, the erotic effusions which he purportedly encoded in his works. Actually, I believe that listening to his music with such extra-musical baggage expressly in mind would be like reading love letters which are not addressed to you --- an impudence. Music is music, period, and I couldn't care less if Schumann was madly in love when composing it; if it moves me, it's good, if it doesn't, it's not, irrespective of whether Clara Wieck had erotic faints when playing it (which I strongly suspect wasn't even the case).

Furthermore, I have come to take issues with a core tenet of (musical) Romanticism --- one that actually has been expressed by Horace long ago: Si vis me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi., iow one cannot compose a sad/joyful piece of music unless one is not himself sad/joyful. This is bollocks, as testified by all great composers, who composed sad/joyful music at moments in their life when they either experienced neither sadness nor joy, or experienced the contrary of what they expressed in their compositions. True and lasting art is not made of momentary, fleeting feelings (although they inspire it) but by calm reflection and industrious craft.

Plus, I have never understood why art/music inspired by, and expressing, a depressed and tormented soul/state of mind is ipso facto more authentic and valuable than art/music inspired by, and expressing, a contended and joyful soul/state of mind --- iow, why Beethoven is intrinsically more worthwhile than Rossini.

Finally, the typically Romantic notions of (1) art as a substitute for religion, (2) artists as high priests who have exclusive access to the hidden mysteries of the universe and are uniquely qualified to lead the mankind towards enlghtenment and salvation, and (3) a radical, irreconcilable opposition between art and world, artists and society, artistic-minded people and materialistic-minded people --- they had stricken me as self-serving nonsense even when I was a self-confessed Romantic.

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.

I don't find myself much interested in musical movements or philosophies such as Romanticism. Composers' heads may be filled with silly notions such as you've described above. Whatever works for them. I only find myself interested in the music they create. Liszt or Brahms, I am equally open to both

[Cato]

Too technical and ultimately pointless.

Either one agrees with the gist of it, or one doesn't.

I don't.

Exhibit A: Verdi. He never ever personally experienced the whole range of emotions, feelings, passions and torments that he successfully expressed with his music.

The discussion concerns how to create a grammatically correct translation: the people responding seem to ignore the content.


My translation:


"If you wish to weep, you yourself must first grieve (feel pain)." 


As a former (or now, very occasional) composer, and as a constant creator of stories dramatic, humorous, and both, I can say that there is a distinction here: I hate to quibble with Horace, but I would specify that "if you wish to weep, you yourself must first imagine that you are grieving."

Possibly Horace was implying that, or thought his audience would understand it that way: Roman authors often assumed that their readers would fill in what we consider to be missing context.

In any case, the process of imagination allows me to create weeping, merry, angry, comically sarcastic, chronically dyspeptic, or gallingly serendipitous characters - along with any kind of music - at will: I do not necessarily need at the particular moment of summoning up e.g. a character's happiness, to be happy at the same time.

If an artist in fact had to travel up, down, into, out of, around, and through all the emotions possible while composing or painting or writing stories or whatever, such an artist would be a dysfunctional human being!  The artist can (rather coolly) imagine any of those feelings to create a story or a piece of music.

In fact, for music, the composer might just be following his or her ear without any particular emotion in mind: the music will express whatever it wants to express!  Stories can be similar: I always allow my characters free will.  Thus they follow whatever paths they want to follow and the characters create their stories.  The story is not imposed upon them from above: if it is, then you have a contrivance of little to no worth (like most of what is produced these days).  I have written fairly long novels and - ignoring what the professors advise -have not once ever outlined the story beforehand!  I never know where the story will go, until the characters show me.

And so, the artist's imagination is primary, not the emotion itself.

e.g. Actors or actresses yelling with anger do not need to be angry to create the illusion that they are mad.  They can use their imaginations to summon up the illusion.

It has not been perhaps sufficiently appreciated that memory is imagination: we can remember moments when we experienced certain emotions, and whenever we recall them, we are imagining them, as the events causing the emotions no longer exist.

To be sure, one's memory of an event might in fact bring back a feeling of fear, etc.  But most people can maintain an emotional distance.

[Florestan]

I don't find myself much interested in musical movements or philosophies such as Romanticism. Composers' heads may be filled with silly notions such as you've described above. Whatever works for them. I only find myself interested in the music they create. Liszt or Brahms, I am equally open to both

Very reasonable.

[Florestan]

The discussion concerns how to create a grammatically correct translation: the people responding seem to ignore the content.


My translation:


"If you wish to weep, you yourself must first grieve (feel pain)." 


As a former (or now, very occasional) composer, and as a constant creator of stories dramatic, humorous, and both, I can say that there is a distinction here: I hate to quibble with Horace, but I would specify that "if you wish to weep, you yourself must first imagine that you are grieving."

Possibly Horace was implying that, or thought his audience would understand it that way: Roman authors often assumed that their readers would fill in what we consider to be missing context.

In any case, the process of imagination allows me to create weeping, merry, angry, comically sarcastic, chronically dyspeptic, or gallingly serendipitous characters - along with any kind of music - at will: I do not necessarily need at the particular moment of summoning up e.g. a character's happiness, to be happy at the same time.

If an artist in fact had to travel up, down, into, out of, around, and through all the emotions possible while composing or painting or writing stories or whatever, such an artist would be a dysfunctional human being!  The artist can (rather coolly) imagine any of those feelings to create a story or a piece of music.

In fact, for music, the composer might just be following his or her ear without any particular emotion in mind: the music will express whatever it wants to express!  Stories can be similar: I always allow my characters free will.  Thus they follow whatever paths they want to follow and the characters create their stories.  The story is not imposed upon them from above: if it is, then you have a contrivance of little to no worth (like most of what is produced these days).  I have written fairly long novels and - ignoring what the professors advise -have not once ever outlined the story beforehand!  I never know where the story will go, until the characters show me.

And so, the artist's imagination is primary, not the emotion itself.

e.g. Actors or actresses yelling with anger do not need to be angry to create the illusion that they are mad.  They can use their imaginations to summon up the illusion.

It has not been perhaps sufficiently appreciated that memory is imagination: we can remember moments when we experienced certain emotions, and whenever we recall them, we are imagining them, as the events causing the emotions no longer exist.

To be sure, one's memory of an event might in fact bring back a feeling of fear, etc.  But most people can maintain an emotional distance.

Good points.

[Karl Henning]

Very reasonable.

Good points.

+ 1

[ritter]

Bye-bye Romanticism, welcome Darmstadt avant-garde! 

More seriously, you're OP is most interesting, and I agree with your position of enjoying the music for what it is, music. What I don't quite get is why you equate romanticism with "a depressed and tormented soul/state of mind". That's just one aspect of romanticism. One of the IMHO most joyful compositions ever, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, is by your arch-romantic bête noire Richard Wagner!

[Karl Henning]

Bye-bye Romanticism, welcome Darmstadt avant-garde! 

More seriously, you're OP is most interesting, and I agree with your position of enjoying the music for what it is, music. What I don't quite get is why you equate romanticism with "a depressed and tormented soul/state of mind". That's just one aspect of romanticism. One of the IMHO most joyful compositions ever, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, is by your arch-romantic bête noire Richard Wagner!

I've always loved the Prelude, which (it amused me to find) is used in the 1931 Dracula

[Florestan]

Bye-bye Romanticism, welcome Darmstadt avant-garde! 

More seriously, you're OP is most interesting, and I agree with your position of enjoying the music for what it is, music. What I don't quite get is why you equate romanticism with "a depressed and tormented soul/state of mind". That's just one aspect of romanticism. One of the IMHO most joyful compositions ever, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, is by your arch-romantic bête noire Richard Wagner!

Well, speaking of enjoying music as music: I dislike Wagner's music not because it's Romantic but because it bores the hell out of me. As Jules Renard aptly put it, art is no excuse for boring people.

[Karl Henning]

Well, speaking of enjoying music as music: I dislike Wagner's music not because it's Romantic but because it bores the hell out of me. As Jules Renard aptly put it, art is no excuse for boring people.

The old joke about the poet at the coffeehouse who tells the audience: I've suffered for my art and now it's your turn.

[Florestan]

The old joke about the poet at the coffeehouse who tells the audience: I've suffered for my art and now it's your turn.

[Jo498]

You seem to be overthinking this.
And you seem to take some popular caricature of biographical interpretation of art as an easy target. This caricature might be fair game but it's mostly a straw man.

I don't think Beethoven is considered more worthwhile than Rossini because of expression of some states of mind but (at least partly) because he didn't write mostly comic opera but cover a wide range of genres, innovative forms AND expressions of complex emotion, regardless of what was his state of mind.

Also note that the two only full scale "programmatic" works by Beethoven, the Pastoral symphony and "Les adieux", are both quite cheerful and not that personal. The latter might be based on a actual anecdote with the archduke Rudolph but they were not lovers and it was not a tragic farewell or so

[Florestan]

You seem to be overthinking this.
And you seem to take some popular caricature of biographical interpretation of art as an easy target. This caricature might be fair game but it's mostly a straw man.

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.

I don't think Beethoven is considered more worthwhile than Rossini because of expression of some states of mind but (at least partly) because he didn't write mostly comic opera but cover a wide range of genres, innovative forms AND expressions of complex emotion, regardless of what was his state of mind.

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.

[prémont]

Well, speaking of enjoying music as music: I dislike Wagner's music not because it's Romantic but because it bores the hell out of me. As Jules Renard aptly put it, art is no excuse for boring people.

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