Your Desert Island Era în Classical Music

[Florestan]

If it makes you feel better, I can do without Bellini. I've never gotten through any of his operas, nor seen any live. But these divisions are mostly arbitrary, the product of music historians and music appreciation lessons. Classicism didn't suddenly die out with the death of Beethoven, as composers like Mendelssohn and Brahms continued to work within the Classical language. While on the other hand Brahms adopted the short characteristic piece for piano that was largely a Romantic innovation (though undoubtedly having roots in works like the Beethoven bagatelles).

But with the Berlioz Fantastique, already we see a new world only three years after the great Ludwig died. Despite the great Hector's reverence for the great Ludwig, Berlioz in the first movement attempts to write something like a sonata form - but those up-and-down chromatic scales in his "development" section prove he hadn't the faintest idea how to develop anything, let alone how to construct a main theme that lended itself to development in the Classical sense. And by the finale any connection to Classicism goes totally off the rails. Yet even so, in the Troyens Berlioz shows the influence of Gluck, one of his (though not one of my) favorite composers. So go figure.

So to revise my original statement without cheating: my era is the 19th century, which allows me to claim Beethoven. As well as Sir Arthur Sullivan, whose music I love though I can't agree with Hurwitz that he's England's greatest composer. Sad to say I lose Mozart, but with relief I lose Dittersdorf. And Elgar, whose language remains Romantic, can't fit because his best creative years were early 20th century.

No argument from me here. I too think that the first full-fledgedly Romantic orchestral work is Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique and therefore Romanticism proper began in 1830.

[DavidW]

I may be wrong but I don't recall seeing you posting much recent music from this era you are discussing in 'What are you listening 2 now?'. I've been listening to Messiaen, Glass, Reich, Takemitsu and Partch recently among others and have posted about it in that thread. What post WWII composers have you been listening to?

Yeah you're wrong lol.  Too many composers to list right here.

[DavidW]

If I were in charge, I'd do away with such terms as Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism altogether. Not a single one of the composers active within those respective eras called themselves as such, the chronological delimitations are diffuse and for each two consecutive eras composers and works can be found which belong rather to the other one than that to which they are assigned.

Gurn used to make the argument that the transition between classicism and romanticism was subtle enough that we should really just see a large era called classico-romanticism.

[Florestan]

Gurn used to make the argument that the transition between classicism and romanticism was subtle enough that we should really just see a large era called classico-romanticism.

Yes, he is a follower of the German musicologist Friedrich Blume.



Available for free at archive.org (requires registration)

[atardecer]

Yeah you're wrong lol.  Too many composers to list right here.

Well I guess its hard to tell just from what we share here. Some people from their posting really strike me as interested in the music of that era like Brewski, Steve Ridgeway, Ritter and some others. I seem to recall you just listened to Boulez for the first time like 3 weeks ago.

[DavidW]

Well I guess its hard to tell just from what we share here.

Well no you just weren't paying close enough attention.  I don't know how often I've posted about Carter, Xenakis, Ligeti, Penderecki, Simpson, Lutoslawaski, Schnittke, Pettersson, Weinberg, etc etc etc they make up a huge portion of my listening.

[atardecer]

If I were in charge, I'd do away with such terms as Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism altogether. Not a single one of the composers active within those respective eras called themselves as such, the chronological delimitations are diffuse and for each two consecutive eras composers and works can be found which belong rather to the other one than that to which they are assigned.

The terms are imperfect and artists generally hate labels. But I wonder what you would suggest instead? One name for that entire era? What would it be? No label at all? In the Romantic era some referred to Haydn and Mozart as 'Romantic' composers. Brahms seemed to differentiate his era from the one preceding it, and to feel his era was one of musical decline.

On one hand I can see seeds of Romanticism in earlier music, (I believe it was Harnoncourt who stated he thinks all music is 'Romantic' in terms of how it should be performed, in other words he doesn't think earlier music should be performed in a detached/impersonal/objective way but with rubato and emotion) and of course there are composers who occupy liminal areas, but on the other hand to take a step back and suggest that Haydn and Wagner are basically the same kinds of composers with similar aesthetic aims, seems to muddy more than it clarifies.

[Florestan]

The terms are imperfect and artists generally hate labels. But I wonder what you would suggest instead? One name for that entire era? What would it be?

On one hand I can see seeds of Romanticism in earlier music, (I believe it was Harnoncourt who stated he thinks all music is 'Romantic' in terms of how it should be performed, in other words he doesn't think earlier music should be performed in a detached/impersonal/objective way but with rubato and emotion) and of course there are composers who occupy liminal areas, but on the other hand to take a step back and suggest that Haydn and Wagner are basically the same kinds of composers with similar aesthetic aims, seems to muddy more than it clarifies.

Nobody ever suggested that but I think a distinction should be made between Romantic music and music composed during the Romantic era. IMHO, of all the big names of the 19th century, only three were genuine Romantics: Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner. Haydn is very different from any of them but much less different from their contemporaries Mendelssohn, Bruckner and Brahms. And what is the common ground between Saint-Saens and Mahler, or Granados and Hugo Wolf? I'd replace the umbrella term "Romanticism" with "19th century music", a much more neutral description which is factually correct for all of the above without lumping them together aesthetically. "Romantic music" should be reserved for the corresponding subset of 19th century music. All that, without even getting into the detail that Romantic and romantic are two different things, which may or may not overlap.

[atardecer]

I think a distinction should be made between Romantic music and music composed during the Romantic era. IMHO, of all the big names of the 19th century, only three were genuine Romantics: Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner.

That is interesting. On what basis do you think only the music of those three is Romantic? To me the composer whose music stands out as the starting point is Chopin. He predates Berlioz and there is a certain harmonic richness in his sound that I associate with Romanticism. I think this aspect is present in all of the major names of the era to differing degrees. I hear it at times a little less in Berlioz, whose harmony can sometimes sound a little thinner and reminiscent of the textures of the classical era. (Though I think his music is Romantic). The Romantic composers put their own personalities into this new harmonic language in different ways, but they were all speaking a similar language. This is also true for Classicism, Baroque etc. It starts to become more varied in the 20th century where we eventually get composers speaking in different harmonic languages co- existing in the same era.

I'd replace the umbrella term "Romanticism" with "19th century music", a much more neutral description which is factually correct for all of the above without lumping them together aesthetically.

That is not bad. I agree it is more neutral and factually correct. The thing is I hear general differences between the basic aesthetics of these different eras. These changes happen in ways that are complex and don't happen within any specific frame of years. So in that sense distinguishing musical periods by centuries is arbitrary and more vague than the current system.

[Florestan]

To me the composer whose music stands out as the starting point is Chopin

IMO, based on extensive readings about Chopin, his personality and aesthetics, he was the least Romantic of the Romantics. He worshiped Bach, Mozart and Italian bel canto, didn't care much for Beethoven and anything at all for Schumann or Mendelssohn and his esthetics is radically different from Liszt's or Berlioz's. He did not share their compulsive interest in literature (his extra-musical talents were drawing and acting, and neither in the same degree of interest as literature for the others) and never wrote one single bar of programmatic music (the titles which have been attached to several of his compositions are not his own). His personal life, though marred by illness, was one of aristocratic elegance and refinement, he was reserved and even aloof, not prone to the sentimental effusions of a Liszt or a Berlioz. One cannot imagine him writing vehement pamphlets like the former or doctored memoirs like the latter, or even editing a newspaper like Schumann. He was, by temperament and taste, thoroughly a man of the 18th century.

[(poco) Sforzando]

IMO, based on extensive readings about Chopin, his personality and aesthetics, he was the least Romantic of the Romantics. He worshiped Bach, Mozart and Italian bel canto, didn't care much for Beethoven and anything at all for Schumann or Mendelssohn and his esthetics is radically different from Liszt's or Berlioz's. He did not share their compulsive interest in literature (his extra-musical talents were drawing and acting, and neither in the same degree of interest as literature for the others) and never wrote one single bar of programmatic music (the titles which have been attached to several of his compositions are not his own). His personal life, though marred by illness, was one of aristocratic elegance and refinement, he was reserved and even aloof, not prone to the sentimental effusions of a Liszt or a Berlioz. One cannot imagine him writing vehement pamphlets like the former or doctored memoirs like the latter, or even editing a newspaper like Schumann. He was, by temperament and taste, thoroughly a man of the 18th century.

All this is valid, yet it applies mainly to extra-musical aspects of Chopin's personality and much less if at all to his musical style. Which I would say departs quite radically from the Classical aesthetic that is based primarily on what we now call sonata form. Even in Chopin's larger works like the Ballades and Fantasy, which are each about the dimensions of a single movement of a Beethoven sonata, you will not find anything quite like sonata form. The 3rd Ballade for example which comes closest, does not start its brief development section until quite late in the piece, and then is succeeded by a return to the main theme which is more like a coda than a typical classical recapitulation. (I have an unprovable theory that Wagner modelled the forms of his Meistersinger and Parsifal preludes on a piece like this.) But in its emphasis on short piano pieces (even though not titled) which you rarely find in the Classical style, Chopin's oeuvre is very much of the Romantic world.

[71 dB]

Very well. Pick one (and only one) of them for your desert island.

Romantic era composers did orchestrate baroque music. That way there's Elgar and baroque music orchestrated to romantic form.

[Henk]

Mozart and Haydn are classical.
Beethoven to me is in between classical and romantic.
Schubert and Mendelssohn are romantic.
Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt, Schumann, Ravel, Debussy and all kinds of others are perverted romanticism though I'm not qualified enough to claim this since I don't know the music so much except Ravel and Debussy. I try to stay away from it. I don't count Chopin under this rubric.

[atardecer]

IMO, based on extensive readings about Chopin, his personality and aesthetics, he was the least Romantic of the Romantics. He worshiped Bach, Mozart and Italian bel canto, didn't care much for Beethoven and anything at all for Schumann or Mendelssohn and his esthetics is radically different from Liszt's or Berlioz's. He did not share their compulsive interest in literature (his extra-musical talents were drawing and acting, and neither in the same degree of interest as literature for the others) and never wrote one single bar of programmatic music (the titles which have been attached to several of his compositions are not his own). His personal life, though marred by illness, was one of aristocratic elegance and refinement, he was reserved and even aloof, not prone to the sentimental effusions of a Liszt or a Berlioz. One cannot imagine him writing vehement pamphlets like the former or doctored memoirs like the latter, or even editing a newspaper like Schumann. He was, by temperament and taste, thoroughly a man of the 18th century.

Some good points, but as noted above regarding mainly extra-musical matters, which I consider secondary in defining a style. As far as Beethoven he was not the only composer around that time that was pointing the way towards Romanticism. There were others such as Weber and Hummel. It may have been Chopin's relative lack of interest in Beethoven that was a part of him finding a new sound. Schubert I think still retains much of Beethoven's language and  I also hear it in some Berlioz. Chopin was the one who was able to take a full step forward into new harmonic territory. Beethoven had taken the classical language as far as it could go. Music became less homophonic again after, more focused on using vertical harmony in expressive ways. This is why Rosen pointed out in some respects Bach helped this transition in sound more than Beethoven.

[atardecer]

Mozart and Haydn are classical.
Beethoven to me is in between classical and romantic.
Schubert and Mendelssohn are romantic.
Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt, Schumann, Ravel, Debussy and all kinds of others are perverted romanticism though I'm not qualified enough to claim this since I don't know the music so much except Ravel and Debussy. I try to stay away from it. I don't count Chopin under this rubric.

Well, you are qualified to say that those are your subjective responses to that music. I don't hear it that way though. Perhaps there is a certain darkness in the music of the composers you listed, but there is that element to some extent in all composers that wrote good music. A kind of mixture of dissonance and consonance. If a composer's music was only pure and good it would be boring. Even Haydn used strong dissonance sometimes. Similarly every good story or movie, will have a strong dark element of some kind, that is what makes it an interesting story. If the story just featured a person waking up and laughing in the sunshine and then going to bed, it would be pretty dull. 

[Florestan]

All this is valid, yet it applies mainly to extra-musical aspects of Chopin's personality and much less if at all to his musical style.

I don't claim that Chopin's music is not Romantic, only that it is the product of a non-Romantic personality. In Jeremy Siepmann's apt formulation, Chopin was a reluctant Romantic. Significantly enough, he was close friends with Delacroix, who is regarded today as an iconic Romantic, yet who personally rejected any association with Romanticism (one day in the streets of Paris he crossed ways with Victor Hugo and, when somebody commented "Here is someone of your own school!" he protested vehemently, saying something to the effect that he and Hugo had nothing in common).

Which I would say departs quite radically from the Classical aesthetic that is based primarily on what we now call sonata form.

Well, if rigorous use and treatment of sonata form marks one's music as Classical, then Medtner was the last Classical composer.   

Even in Chopin's larger works like the Ballades and Fantasy, which are each about the dimensions of a single movement of a Beethoven sonata, you will not find anything quite like sonata form. The 3rd Ballade for example which comes closest, does not start its brief development section until quite late in the piece, and then is succeeded by a return to the main theme which is more like a coda than a typical classical recapitulation. (I have an unprovable theory that Wagner modelled the forms of his Meistersinger and Parsifal preludes on a piece like this.)

Wagner dismissed Chopin's music, calling him "a composer for the right hand". And I doubt that a German nationalist would have modeled anything on the music of a half-French Pole.

But in its emphasis on short piano pieces (even though not titled) which you rarely find in the Classical style, Chopin's oeuvre is very much of the Romantic world.

Undoubtedly true.

[Florestan]

Mozart and Haydn are classical.
Beethoven to me is in between classical and romantic.
Schubert and Mendelssohn are romantic.
Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt, Schumann, Ravel, Debussy and all kinds of others are perverted romanticism though I'm not qualified enough to claim this since I don't know the music so much except Ravel and Debussy. I try to stay away from it. I don't count Chopin under this rubric.

What do you mean by perverted romanticism? What did they pervert and in what ways?

[Florestan]

It may have been Chopin's relative lack of interest in Beethoven that was a part of him finding a new sound.

Chopin rejected Beethoven on esthetical grounds. Here is an excerpt from Delacroix's Journal:

"I asked [Chopin] to explain what it is that gives the impression of logic in music. He made me understand the meaning of harmony and counterpoint; how in music, the fugue corresponds to pure logic, and that to be well versed in the fugue is to understand the elements of all reason and development in music ... As Chopin said to me, "Where Beethoven is obscure and appears to be lacking in unity, it is not, as people allege, from a rather wild originality - the quality which they admire in him - it is because he turns his back on eternal principles.' Mozart never does this. Each part has its own movement which, although it harmonizes with the rest, makes its own song and follows it perfectly. This is what is meant by counterpoint, punto contrapunto. ""

In 1845, a monument to mark Beethoven's 75th anniversary of birth was unveiled in Bonn. All prominent musicians were in attendance, except Chopin, whose comment on the upcoming event was "You know how likely I am to go!"

It's obvious that he was spiritually incompatible with Beethoven.

[Henk]

What do you mean by perverted romanticism? What did they pervert and in what ways?

It's not nature and human nature, the nature of civilisation that they express aesthetically in music, which they pretend, it's a delusion.

But I listened to Berlioz's Fantastic Symphony yesterday, and I must say I liked what I heard. The Romantic Age has quite some enigma and charm, but I don't think that it lasted, like Mozart and Haydn did. It was a peak in European culture that soon flattened. Today we don't recognize any truth in it. Even Nietzsche was manipulated by it, because of which his authority to me has diminished slightly.

[Florestan]

It's not nature and human nature, the nature of civilisation that they express aesthetically in music, which they pretend, it's a delusion.

I still don't get it. If, say, Schumann's music expresses neither nature nor human nature, then what does it express?

But I listened to Berlioz's Fantastic Symphony yesterday, and I must say I liked what I heard. The Romantic Age has quite some enigma and charm, but I don't think that it lasted, like Mozart and Haydn did. It was a peak in European culture that soon flattened.

You're wrong. Our world is still governed by many Romantic ideas.