GMG Classical Music Forum

Before anyone says a word, let me say this: I know we've had this debate before. And I also know that technically speaking, there's really no need for debate. Beethoven was the climax of the classical period. You can hear classicism throughout his works. On a purely academic level, I acknowledge this.

But personally, I don't hear Beethoven as a classicist, but as the birth of romanticism. I was reminded of this earlier today, as I listened to Abbado and the VPO from 1987 giving a very 'old skool' reading of the Seventh Symphony. You can hear the classical structure, its points of reference. Yet, it feels romantic. And I get this with most of Beethoven's work.

So I started thinking, 'Am I alone in this?' I'm curious to find out from members here whether or not knowing that Beethoven was truly a classicist makes them hear him as one. Or whether, like me, they hear in Beethoven the birth pangs of romanticism.

Mark,
Let me just say this, it is easier than a great technical debate. You can FEEL anything your mind tells you to feel. But Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by feeling, rather by structure, form, harmonic &c. It is your reaction to the music that is Romantic, not the music itself. :)

8)

Well, both. Or neither.
If I had to choose, I'd say first great Romantic. I think his achievements must be weighed in terms of innovations and push forward; I don't see the point in considering him as the composer who exhausted classicism. That's reductive.
The idea by which Beethoven is a classicist tout court, well, I have to say I've read only on GMG. In every book I've read, he was almost unanimously considered a Romantic. Or, at the most, the bridge between Classicism and Romanticism.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2007, 04:51:15 PM
But Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by feeling, rather by structure, form, harmonic &c.

I don't think that the two things (feelings and form) can be so easily separated, as was discussed in another topic recently. And Beethoven is the prototypical example of a perfect fusion between poetical issues and form, to the point where you cannot clearly distinguish the two things.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 26, 2007, 04:55:57 PM
I don't think that the two things (feelings and form) can be so easily separated, as was discussed in another topic recently. And Beethoven is the prototypical example of a perfect fusion between poetical issues and form, to the point where you cannot clearly distinguish the two things.

To my mind, no one put it better than Toscanini. I am in complete agreement, perhaps even on a larger scale than he intended, when he spoke about the opening movement of the 5th Symphony:

"To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is Allegro con brio."

I observed your discussion, but it didn't settle the matter for me, since I was in complete disagreement with you. :)

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2007, 05:09:25 PM
"To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is Allegro con brio."

I completely agree with Toscanini there, but I think that this is a totally different point. He seems to reject extra-musical associations, not to affirm that music can be dissociated into form and emotional content as if they were day and night.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 26, 2007, 05:15:12 PM
I completely agree with Toscanini there, but I think that this is a totally different point. He seems to reject extra-musical associations, not to affirm that music can be dissociated into form and emotional content as if they were day and night.

Please explain to me then: how is emotional content NOT an extra-musical association?  In Beethoven, not in Liszt or any actual Romantic, that is.

8)

LvB reached his peak during the Classico-Romantic period (1807-1830), which resides as a transitional sub-era in the netherworld between the Classical period (1750-1807) and the Romantic Period (1830-1897).

The Classico-Romantic era began with the premiere of the Eroica Symphony, and ended with Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique (which ushered in the start of the Romantic era).

Quote from: D Minor on August 26, 2007, 05:24:18 PM
LvB reached his peak during the Classico-Romantic period, which resides as a transitional subgenre in the netherworld between the Classical period (1750-1807) and the Romantic Period (1830-1897).

The Classico-Romantic era began with the premiere of the Eroica Symphony, and ended with Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique.

Ah, d minor, the Great Compromiser. :)

I submit that this period began with J. Stamitz and isn't quite ended yet. Only a question of degree and balance. :)

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2007, 05:17:11 PM
Please explain to me then: how is emotional content NOT an extra-musical association? 

It is not when the emotional contents mould directly the musical form, as it happens in almost all Beethoven and many Romantics.
I don't call it an extra-musical association because, in my opinion, it is all in the music.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 26, 2007, 05:32:10 PM
It is not when the emotional contents mould directly the musical form, as it happens in almost all Beethoven and many Romantics.
I don't call it an extra-musical association because, in my opinion, it is all in the music.

I would suggest that you are confusing emotional content with drama. Certainly Beethoven uses drama, and plenty of it. That works into form in the way you are talking about. But I have a different concept of emotional content. Other than the 6th Symphony, in which he specifically outlined a programme, and then added not to take it too seriously, he doesn't toy with your emotions any more than other classical composers, who also used major/minor key associations to promote Affekts as they were called. CPE Bach delighted in making his audience cry, and you aren't calling HIM a Romantic. :)

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2007, 05:41:24 PM
CPE Bach delighted in making his audience cry, and you aren't calling HIM a Romantic. :)

Well, as Alfred Einstein put it, Romantic art existed long before Romanticism.
I understand the example of the "Pastoral". My doubts begin when I listen to compositions such as the "Coriolan Overture" or the Waldstein. What's classicist there?

I picked the second choice, mostly because I usually prefer interpretations that fall in line with this view. 

However, in some performers hands, I could easily be persuaded the other way.

I think Beethoven was the first great Modernist. ;)

Beethoven was both IMO.
But I wouldn't place the shift as early as the Eroïca. Like Gurn said - the use of drama doesn't mean the music is Romantic. Only the 9th symphony is the first (early) Romantic one. And I would only call the late string quartets as "Romantic" as well - maybe the late piano sonatas too.

Q

The correct answer is Beethoven was a transitionary figure.  Both options in the poll are not mutually exclusive.  I picked last great Classicist because I think that is how he viewed himself.  He was carrying on the tradition of Haydn and Mozart.  The first real Romantic was Schubert in my opinion.  But also in my opinion Brahms was the real last Classicist.

And I wouldn't put too much faith in how you hear the music played.  There are conductors who make Bach sound like a Romantic.

I voted for the classicist option, but in fact Schubert, Hummel, Rejcha, Rossini and Cherubini were all classicists and died after Beethoven.

And following Catison's logic, we should add Brahms and Mendelssohn as well... ;)

QuoteThe idea by which Beethoven is a classicist tout court, well, I have to say I've read only on GMG. In every book I've read, he was almost unanimously considered a Romantic.

Scriptavolant, there are many books (and serious ones, not just descriptive) where Beethoven is firmly described as a classicist.

Of course there is an artificial content in such time divisions: Beethoven is quite different from Mozart, and Mozart quite different from C. P. E. Bach, but they are all generally included in the Classical era.

Both.  And then some.  Remember, classifications are but intellectual templates laid onto experience. 

(* munches on popcorn *)

Quote from: longears on August 27, 2007, 05:31:21 AM
Both.  And then some.  Remember, classifications are but intellectual templates laid onto experience. 

Sing it, brother!

Quote from: Gabriel on August 27, 2007, 05:05:08 AM
Of course there is an artificial content in such time divisions: Beethoven is quite different from Mozart, and Mozart quite different from C. P. E. Bach, but they are all generally included in the Classical era.

Of course, Haydn Mozart and Beethoven are called the Classical triad. Said that, interpretations I've read, and I tend to agree with, usually point out that Beethoven, notwithstanding his chronological belonging to the classical period, it is a whole of a different story (some go on, claiming that this difference is synonym of superiority. On this I disagree, since it's a view which tends to belong to idealistic interpretations of History as a progression towards perfection..but this is a different subject.)
Of course classifications are abstract concepts. Nevertheless they're sometimes useful.

As I wrote above, and to quote Longears, I think Beethoven is both the options offered in the poll. Each single choice leads to an incomplete view of his Art.

Quote from: Catison on August 26, 2007, 08:00:06 PM
The correct answer is Beethoven was a transitionary figure. 

You can hear find roots to romanticism in the "London symphony".
The problem is that music evolves continuously. There are much more transitions than what we usually believe.
It's not Beethoven, Schubert, Weber or Paganini who created Romanticism, It's the scholars who decided to consider that a new period had begun at the beginning of the XIXth and who decided to call it romanticism.

The problem, i think, is that most individuals simply do not understand Romanticism. The general assumption is that it's purpose was the expression of emotion, which was paramount to Beethoven, but not necessarely to the Romantics, who's chief aim was literary expression, conveying the power of words (and poetry) through music, both in the sense of clear narratives (Wagner, Liszt) or brief glimpses of poetic beauty (Schumann).

This union between literacy and music was then converged into a sense of spontaneity and freedom. A true poet, according to the Romantics, was not one who used rules and formulae to organize words into a strict aesthetic pattern. A poet was supposed to speak freely, openly, hoping for the muses to grace him with a few glimpses of true artistic genius, after which it came the painstaking process of trying to capture that fleeting moment of brilliance and write it down on paper, usually only in partial form (as Chopin often lamented).

Beethoven had nothing in common with all that. He was a crafter, his music followed strict logical patterns and clear developments. His intellect went hand in hand with his heart, and nothing was ever left to chance or mere 'inspiration'. Everything had to be planned down to the last detail, which clearly brands him as a classicist.

He still remains one of the most influential composers of all time (see my contribution to the Beethoven: Innovator thread), but it's a mistake to think he was a transitory figure. Romanticism did NOT develop out of classicism and Beethoven would have NOT moved towards the latter had he lived longer.

Schubert was the first great, indubitable Romantic to my ears, in terms of the music itself and all its Romantic literary ties. Either way, Classicism and Romanticism in music are akin to ends of a spectrum of techniques, forms, and personal expressiveness, with many composers drawing from each end. Even Haydn and Mozart have their "Romantic" moments.

it's pointless to talk about who is "first" of this, or "last" of that, that matters really little, sometimes you don't have a choice, you were born into that era by sheer accident. Therefore, instead of wasting our tongues on who was actually "first" we should rather talk about who is A great classicist, or who is A great romantic, and give our reasons, and we all agree, and go sleep.

Reducing the whole Romantic thing to a fusion between literacy and music doesn't sound like understanding Romanticism, either.
I'm trying to see if branding Beethoven as a classicist because he had great attention for details is a sign of understanding Classicism too.

Given that definitions are mere abstractions, I consider Beethoven a Romantic composer because I'm forced to do that by the options given in the OP. If one considers every definition as an abstraction, and wants to be completely coherent, then the definition of Beethoven as "classicist" should be banned for it is equally worthless.
If one considers Romanticism as a huge cultural movement there are many things that Beethoven introduced and that are arbitrarily classified by scholars as signs of a moving towards Romanticism. The artist who's independent of aristocratical commission, who has a social mission (the so called vate), who's influenced by political and philosophical issues and that consciously include and transifigure them in his works.
Of course one can find such features in a lot of composers before and after Beethoven, the point infact is not to establish which period invented something, or introduced something completely new, but to understand which period gave the greatest importance to that "something".

Obviously, we need an agreed-upon definition of Romanticism as applied to music.

Allrefer.com has this definition:

Romanticism

In music, the period from about 1810 to around 1910 – that is, after the classical period. Classical composers had tried to create a balance between expression and formal structure; Romantic composers altered this balance by applying more freedom to the form and structure of their music, and using deeper, more intense expressions of moods, feelings, and emotions. An increased interest in literature, nature, the supernatural, and love, along with nationalistic feelings and the idea of the musician as visionary artist and hero (virtuoso) all added to the development of Romanticism. The movement reached its height in the late 19th century, as in the works of Robert Schumann and Richard Wagner.

With the emphasis on imagination and vision, the formal structure was stretched to accommodate a wider range of keys and sudden changes between them, and dynamic and instrumental timbres were also used. Harmonies became richer, dissonance was more freely used, and modulation played a more important role. Fantasy and imagination were important to the Romantic style. Composers were often widely read and were inspired by poems, novels, plays, and paintings. There was a large increase in the orchestra at this time, both in the number of instruments and in their range of pitches and timbres. The symphony, concerto, and opera were all written on a larger scale and an interest in programme music led to the development of a new musical form, the symphonic poem. At the opposite end of the scale, composers also wrote extended, virtuosic works for just one or two musicians. These included much work for piano (which was a favourite instrument), and a large number of songs. Virtuoso instrumental players were becoming increasingly popular and the virtuoso composer-performer was a much admired musician. Great examples of these are Niccolò Paganini and Franz Liszt. A strong move towards nationalism developed as composers reacted against the powerful German influences by developing a musical style that expressed the characteristics of their own country. They did this by including tunes from their nation's folk music, and taking scenes from their country's history, legends, and folk tales, as a basis for their compositions.

Quote from: D Minor on August 29, 2007, 03:24:58 AM
Obviously, we need an agreed-upon definition of Romanticism as applied to music.

Allrefer.com has this definition:

Romanticism

In music, the period from about 1810 to around 1910 – that is, after the classical period. Classical composers had tried to create a balance between expression and formal structure; Romantic composers altered this balance by applying more freedom to the form and structure of their music, and using deeper, more intense expressions of moods, feelings, and emotions. An increased interest in literature, nature, the supernatural, and love, along with nationalistic feelings and the idea of the musician as visionary artist and hero (virtuoso) all added to the development of Romanticism. The movement reached its height in the late 19th century, as in the works of Robert Schumann and Richard Wagner.

With the emphasis on imagination and vision, the formal structure was stretched to accommodate a wider range of keys and sudden changes between them, and dynamic and instrumental timbres were also used. Harmonies became richer, dissonance was more freely used, and modulation played a more important role. Fantasy and imagination were important to the Romantic style. Composers were often widely read and were inspired by poems, novels, plays, and paintings. There was a large increase in the orchestra at this time, both in the number of instruments and in their range of pitches and timbres. The symphony, concerto, and opera were all written on a larger scale and an interest in programme music led to the development of a new musical form, the symphonic poem. At the opposite end of the scale, composers also wrote extended, virtuosic works for just one or two musicians. These included much work for piano (which was a favourite instrument), and a large number of songs. Virtuoso instrumental players were becoming increasingly popular and the virtuoso composer-performer was a much admired musician. Great examples of these are Niccolò Paganini and Franz Liszt. A strong move towards nationalism developed as composers reacted against the powerful German influences by developing a musical style that expressed the characteristics of their own country. They did this by including tunes from their nation's folk music, and taking scenes from their country's history, legends, and folk tales, as a basis for their compositions.

This'll do for me.

Quote from: Mark on August 29, 2007, 03:27:53 AM
This'll do for me.

....... Quick ........ Lock the thread ........  :D

A couple more definitions:

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

Encyclopedia britannica
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9083836/Romanticism

Quote from: D Minor on August 29, 2007, 03:31:46 AM
....... Quick ........ Lock the thread ........  :D

Not before we promote a new poll.
What does the dawn mean to you.
1. The end of the night
2. The beginning of the day

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 29, 2007, 03:34:30 AM
A couple more definitions:

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

As to Beethoven:

The romantic generation viewed Beethoven as their ideal of a heroic artist--a man who challenged Emperor Napoleon by striking him out from the dedication of the Eroica Symphony. In Beethoven's Fidelio he creates the apotheosis of the 'rescue operas' which were another feature of French musical culture during the revolutionary period, in order to hymn the freedom which underlay the thinking of all radical artists in the years of hope after the Congress of Vienna.

* * *

Beethoven's use of tonal architecture in such a way as to allow significant expansion of musical forms and structures was immediately recognized as bringing a new dimension to music. The later piano music and string quartets, especially, showed the way to a completely unexplored musical universe. The writer, critic (and composer) Hoffmann was able to write of the supremacy of instrumental music over vocal music in expressiveness, a concept which would previously have been regarded as absurd. Hoffmann himself, as a practitioner both of music and literature, encouraged the notion of music as 'programmatic' or telling a story, an idea which new audiences found attractive, however irritating it was to some composers (e.g. Felix Mendelssohn). New developments in instrumental technology in the early nineteenth century—iron frames for pianos, wound metal strings for string instruments—enabled louder dynamics, more varied tone colours, and the potential for sensational virtuosity. Such developments swelled the length of pieces, introduced programmatic titles, and created new genres such as the free standing overture or tone-poem, the piano fantasy, nocturne and rhapsody, and the virtuoso concerto, which became central to musical romanticism.


Richard WagnerIn opera, a new Romantic atmosphere combining supernatural terror and melodramatic plot in a folkloric context was most successfully achieved by Weber's Der Freischütz (1817, 1821). Enriched timbre and color marked the early orchestration of Hector Berlioz in France, and the grand operas of Meyerbeer. Amongst the radical fringe of what became mockingly characterised (adopting Wagner's own words) as 'artists of the future', Liszt and Wagner each embodied the Romantic cult of the free, inspired, charismatic, perhaps ruthlessly unconventional individual artistic personality.

It is the period of 1815 to 1848 which must be regarded as the true age of Romanticism in music - the age of the last compositions of Beethoven (d. 1827) and Schubert (d. 1828), of the works of Schumann (d. 1856) and Chopin (d.1849), of the early struggles of Berlioz and Richard Wagner, of the great virtuosi such as Paganini (d. 1840), and the young Liszt and Thalberg. Now that we are able to listen to the work of Mendelssohn (d. 1847) stripped of the Biedermeier reputation unfairly attached to it, he can also be placed in this more appropriate context. After this period, with Chopin and Paganini dead, Liszt retired from the concert platform at a minor German court, Wagner effectively in exile until he obtained royal patronage in Bavaria, and Berlioz still struggling with the bourgeois liberalism which all but smothered radical artistic endeavour in Europe, Romanticism in music was surely past its prime—giving way, rather, to the period of musical romantics.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 29, 2007, 03:34:30 AM
A couple more definitions:

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

Encyclopedia britannica
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9083836/Romanticism

Yep, I'll go with those, too.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 29, 2007, 03:39:28 AM
Not before we promote a new poll.
What does the dawn mean to you.
1. The end of the night
2. The beginning of the day

Option two. In the same way that dusk is the beginning of night. Night only ends because day begins. That's my rather simplistic way of seeing it. :D

Quote from: Mark on August 29, 2007, 03:44:55 AM
Night only ends because day begins.

Exactly  :D

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 29, 2007, 03:52:04 AM
Exactly  :D

Ergo, romanticism began with Beethoven. Perhaps not in his earlier works, which bear all the hallmarks of classicism, but certainly in his later works.

Glad we cleared that up. ;)

Quote from: Mark on August 29, 2007, 03:55:15 AM
Ergo, romanticism began with Beethoven. Perhaps not in his earlier works, which bear all the hallmarks of classicism, but certainly in his later works.

Glad we cleared that up. ;)

Except that in some of his more mature works, he seems to have deliberately looked back to classic forms, style, and proportions. The outstanding example is the Quartet #16 in F, op. 135, where the first movement looks back to Haydn. But this could be said too of the middle movements of the 8th symphony, the 3rd movement of the C major Rasumofsky, no doubt others.

Larry, note my little ;)

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 29, 2007, 06:09:09 AM
Except that in some of his more mature works, he seems to have deliberately looked back to classic forms, style, and proportions. The outstanding example is the Quartet #16 in F, op. 135, where the first movement looks back to Haydn. But this could be said too of the middle movements of the 8th symphony, the 3rd movement of the C major Rasumofsky, no doubt others.

I don't understand. Does this make Beethoven a classicist? Didn't Mozart look back at Bach in the 41th? Didn't Brahms look back at the German Baroque tradition in the Deutsche Requiem? Something analogous happens with Bruckner too. And Stravinskij, Schonberg, Webern. No-one I guess would accept Schonberg to be considered as a XXth Century Baroque composer or Brahms to be considered as a Classicist in the literaly meaning of the term.
Precisely the fact that Beethoven had to look back should suggest that as a matter of fact he had gone far beyond.

Quote from: Catison on August 26, 2007, 08:00:06 PM
The first real Romantic was Schubert in my opinion.  But also in my opinion Brahms was the real last Classicist.

Seconded.

Quote from: Mark on August 29, 2007, 06:30:49 AM
Larry, note my little ;)

Noted. Eighth-noted, in fact (or quavered, for those of you on the other side of the Pond).  :D

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 27, 2007, 07:36:58 PM

Beethoven had nothing in common with all that. He was a crafter, his music followed strict logical patterns and clear developments. His intellect went hand in hand with his heart, and nothing was ever left to chance or mere 'inspiration'. Everything had to be planned down to the last detail, which clearly brands him as a classicist.

Sounds like Brahms to me.

Or Schoenberg

Looks like the diplomatic route has failed... time for a fist fight...

Quote from: Lethe on August 31, 2007, 08:07:56 AM
Looks like the diplomatic route has failed... time for a fist fight...

Nor can I break the tie; I couldn't vote for either option  8)

He was classicist ........ No, he was romantic ........

http://www.youtube.com/v/X0UEHTsrZOc

Quote from: Lethe on August 31, 2007, 08:07:56 AM
Looks like the diplomatic route has failed... time for a fist fight...

Couldn't agree more ... (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=beethoven+classicist&word2=beethoven+romantic)

Beethoven was strongly grounded in the classical tradition and I suspect that if asked he would expressed strong dislike of the new Romantic ideas, as did that other great Classicist, Goethe.

It is difficult because both options assume that Beethoven was "great.'

Quote from: oyasumi on September 01, 2007, 09:25:39 AM
It is difficult because both options assume that Beethoven was "great.'

And you think he isn't?

Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 01, 2007, 04:50:51 AM
Beethoven was strongly grounded in the classical tradition

Sometimes he flied

Quote from: oyasumi on September 01, 2007, 09:25:39 AM
It is difficult because both options assume that Beethoven was "great.'

Rather, both options report the incontestably well-established fact that Beethoven was great.  He's the very paradigm of the great artist, and his music, the paradigm of artistic greatness.  Might as well dispute the wetness of water.

Quote from: longears on September 02, 2007, 02:11:56 PM
Rather, both options report the incontestably well-established fact that Beethoven was great.  He's the very paradigm of the great artist, and his music, the paradigm of artistic greatness.  Might as well dispute the wetness of water.

I've re-worded the poll - any better?

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 29, 2007, 09:32:42 AM
Sounds like Brahms to me.

Or Bruckner.

Edit: at least in the mature versions of his symphonies. Compare also the finale of the 1878/80 version of the Fourth Symphony with the one of the 1874 version, which is a wild-running, rather unorganized fantasy (and I suspect it is this movement that the symphony got the name "Romantic" from, music which has been abolished in the later, generally known version).

Quote from: Mark on September 02, 2007, 02:21:31 PM
I've re-worded the poll - any better?

It needs something - like the word "great" in both spots.

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on September 02, 2007, 03:08:28 PM
It needs something - like the word "great" in both spots.

Done. :)

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 29, 2007, 03:12:19 AM
Reducing the whole Romantic thing to a fusion between literacy and music doesn't sound like understanding Romanticism, either.
I'm trying to see if branding Beethoven as a classicist because he had great attention for details is a sign of understanding Classicism too.

I didn't reduce anything, you are. I'm merely trying to single out those elements which to me represent the underlying essence of those particular eras (or rather, the composers that operated in those periods), leaving out traits which are often arbitrary or situational (I.E., orchestration). Standard definitions won't help.

You have to understand that the Romantics saw music in quite a different way then Beethoven, you can't just talk about orchestration, or harmony. When Schumann said he learned more about polyphony reading Jean Paul Richter rather then his counterpoint teacher, it denotes a particular attitude (shared by most Romantics) which is utterly contrary to the principles honed by Beethoven. 

I'm not talking about a simple fusion between literacy and music, it goes far beyond that. The essence of Romanticism is in the way they understood music from a purely poetic point of view, that they actually married the notes with words (when they did) it's irrilevant.

To be frank, i don't think Beethoven was a full classicist either (he was a classicist the same way Bach was a classicist), but the issue is not whether he belonged to one period or another, but whether he was actually pointing towards Romanticism, meaning, is the latter the fulfillment of his musical goals? Is Romanticism really taking the ideas of Beethoven to a 'new level', or is it something completely unique and distinct?

Take form for instance. For Beethoven, form was one of his principal tools for creative expression. All the twisting and expanding of form was NOT an attempt to 'brake free' and thus paving the way to the Romantics. Development was everything to him, how could anybody possibly believe he would have simply discarded a lifetime of structural progress and invention and simply give himself up 'to the muses' like the Romantics did? It's ridicolous. Brahms fully understood this and that his why he never abandoned form, as well.

Likewise for harmony, which is something Beethoven never fully approved. There's more chromaticism in Mozart or even Hummel (his sonata for instance) than there is in Beethoven. He simply didn't care for it. People like to cite his late period as the beginning of avant-garde (Stravinsky even referred to his grosse fugue as 'eternally modern'), which is usually associated with Schoenberg, and thus, chromaticism. Yet, there's nothing overly dissonant about his late sonatas or quartets. Harmonically, he even takes a complete step backwards by borrowing the polyphony of Handel (and possibly Bach, since he considered the latter to be the supreme master of harmony in the first place). It's obvious his 'modernity' owns to other things rather then harmony, which was one of the biggest concerns among 19th century composers.

Regardless of how influential he was to those who came after him, i have an hard time believing that, had he lived longer, he would have become another Wagner. Sorry...

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 29, 2007, 09:32:42 AM
Sounds like Brahms to me.

Are you trying to insult my intelligence? I think it's common knowledge Brahms was an hybrid.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 02, 2007, 04:58:50 PM
Are you trying to insult my intelligence? I think it's common knowledge Brahms was an hybrid.

Whoa!! ??? I was just admiring your posts and suddenly the above popped out.
According to your OWN definitions, Brahms could not be lumped together with Schumann or any other programmatic composer. What differentiates Beethoven and Brahms is a certain expansiveness of the latter in approach (call it Romantic if you will), more complex chords and harmonies, German nationalism (even though Beethoven was a German composer his music isn't necessarily nationalistic), more vocal compositions or those derived by (as in the 3rd movement of his violin and piano sonata), the local color and references to antiquity in the Ballades, for example, original shorter forms evolving from themes, etc.

These are descriptive norms, I know, but how else can one get a grip on Romanticism which is anyway so elusive. Structurally, though, Brahms could be considered classical, especially in his symphonies.

ZB

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 02, 2007, 04:58:22 PM

Take form for instance. For Beethoven, form was one of his principal tools for creative expression. All the twisting and expanding of form was NOT an attempt to 'brake free' and thus paving the way to the Romantics. Development was everything to him, how could anybody possibly believe he would have simply discarded a lifetime of structural progress and invention and simply give himself up 'to the muses' like the Romantics did? It's ridicolous. Brahms fully understood this and that his why he never abandoned form, as well.

Again, same holds for mature Bruckner as well.

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 03, 2007, 12:29:12 AM
Whoa!! ??? I was just admiring your posts and suddenly the above popped out.

I assumed you were trying to debunk my point by implying that Brahms had all the characteristics i ascribed to Beethoven whilst still belonging to the Romantic period. My mistake.

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 03, 2007, 12:29:12 AM
According to your OWN definitions, Brahms could not be lumped together with Schumann or any other programmatic composer.

No, he's obviously a unique character, even a contradictory one. I think he understood perfectly well that Romanticism was going on a complete different and independent tangent (even if they used Beethoven as a starting point), which is why he tried to maintain a legacy the majority of his peers believed was already done for (erroneously since the threads of Beethoven were picked up in the 20th century by as diverse figures as Janacek, Bartok or Stravinsky).

Alright let me just say this--

If you divide classical from romantic based on "emotional content" then you have just been kicked in the head a few times too many.  Classical composers write emotionally expressive music.  If you do not find resonance with classical era music, that's your own problem.  Defining romanticism as the music that turns you on is personal and subjective.  For me classical and romantic music are passionate.  For others classical turns them on, but romanticism doesn't.  This is simply not good enough to discuss music simply by describing their emotional impact on YOU.

Look, you have to look at more discernable, objective features of the music.  The basics-- harmony, rhythm, and melody.  Start with those.  I think that you could make a case for Beethoven being a classicist.  I think that you could also make the case that he's a transitional figure.  But I don't think a case can be made for him being purely romantic.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 02, 2007, 04:58:22 PM


Take form for instance. For Beethoven, form was one of his principal tools for creative expression. All the twisting and expanding of form was NOT an attempt to 'brake free' and thus paving the way to the Romantics. Development was everything to him, how could anybody possibly believe he would have simply discarded a lifetime of structural progress and invention and simply give himself up 'to the muses' like the Romantics did? It's ridicolous. Brahms fully understood this and that his why he never abandoned form, as well.

This point I agree with, but I don't think it solves the problem. Romanticism - in its various forms - doesn't imply an obligatory rejection of the form. I would add that there is practically no musical period which is completely detached from form. Schonberg himself composed String Quartets, or Piano Suites which recalled baroque forms. But you can look at Bruckner and Mahler as well. So it is not a problem of labelling as a Romantic he who escapes the form, and non-romantic he who is devoted to it.
Furthermore, you can count very different nuances in Romanticism. As Alfred Einstein points out it would be quite impossible to gather such different personalities as Bruckner, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Wagner et al. under a monolithic aesthetical brand. Each one was Romantic in his particular way (that's a reason why scholars tend to divide the Romantic Period in first and second Romanticism).

When we come to Beethoven is rather obvious he had a completely different approach to music and creation with regard to his predecessors, the true Classicists. He doesn't "break free" from form, but still his approach tends toward freedom. He takes codified forms, and begin to push against the boundaries from within, to expand far beyond codified styles. A logically ordered and weighed freedom, but still freedom. A great bearing of poetical, ideological, political issues which - for the first time - break directly in musical creation.

Said that, as I've stated before, I don't consider him to be a Romantic tout court, I would be much more inclined toward considering him a meta-historical composer, at least for what concerns his late period.
That's it. To consider him a Romantic composer is nevertheless less bizarre than to consider him a classicist. I've never heard of that, in any Music History book I've glanced through. Maybe in the US they have a different Music History.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 02, 2007, 04:58:22 PM
Likewise for harmony, which is something Beethoven never fully approved. There's more chromaticism in Mozart or even Hummel (his sonata for instance) than there is in Beethoven. He simply didn't care for it.

Interesting point :) Berlioz, one of the 3 primary "radicals" of Romanticism, also wasn't interested in writing particularly chromatic music, unlike Liszt and Wagner.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on September 02, 2007, 04:58:22 PMLikewise for harmony, which is something Beethoven never fully approved.

:o

QuoteRegardless of how influential he was to those who came after him, i have an hard time believing that, had he lived longer, he would have become another Wagner.

8) Of course not.  That would be like suggesting Shakespeare would become another Norman Mailer.

Quote from: Al Moritz on September 02, 2007, 03:03:56 PM
Or Bruckner.

Edit: at least in the mature versions of his symphonies. Compare also the finale of the 1878/80 version of the Fourth Symphony with the one of the 1874 version, which is a wild-running, rather unorganized fantasy (and I suspect it is this movement that the symphony got the name "Romantic" from, music which has been abolished in the later, generally known version).

perhaps, perhaps, but I also believe that the 1874 Scherzo is a masterpiece, unfortunately it has been forgotten over the years, and most people nowadays only know of the "hunt" scherzo.

Ok so some of you will say he transitioned to a romantic composer, but exactly what? Where did he break away from classical tradition, and if not why did he earn the disgrace of being called a romantic?

Quote from: Mozart on November 19, 2008, 11:00:13 PM
Ok so some of you will say he transitioned to a romantic composer, but exactly what? Where did he break away from classical tradition, and if not why did he earn the disgrace of being called a romantic?

Why disgrace? What's wrong about being a Romantic?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 27, 2007, 07:36:58 PM
The problem, i think, is that most individuals simply do not understand Romanticism. The general assumption is that it's purpose was the expression of emotion, which was paramount to Beethoven, but not necessarely to the Romantics, who's chief aim was literary expression, conveying the power of words (and poetry) through music, both in the sense of clear narratives (Wagner, Liszt) or brief glimpses of poetic beauty (Schumann).

Where did you get this idea if I may ask?

Quote from: Herman on November 20, 2008, 03:37:57 AM
Where did you get this idea if I may ask?

Well, isn't that the whole idea behind program music, which was the basic tenet of the Romantic movement?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 20, 2008, 10:28:55 AM
Well, isn't that the whole idea behind program music, which was the basic tenet of the Romantic movement?

I was more like asking is there a book you read  -  possibly about Schumann  -  that gave you this idea.

However, even though it's true there is a lot of program music in the Romantic era, I don't think program music = Romanticism in music.

1. There is program music before Romanticism. Beethoven, anyone?

2. Some of the most notable Romantic era composers didn't write program music. Ex A Chopin

3. I'm also thinking when was the last time "program music" was rigorously defined? In other words, do we really know what we're talkign about when we're talking about "program music", "classicism" and "romanticism"?

Quote from: Herman on November 20, 2008, 11:27:41 AM
1. There is program music before Romanticism. Beethoven, anyone?

And Baroque. 8)

Q

No: the last great classicist was Schubert. He beats Beethoven by a year.  :P
As far as "first romantic" goes, I don't really know. Here's a question - which of these titles would you grant to Chopin?
Was the first great romanticist Berlioz?

Quote from: Brian on November 20, 2008, 12:11:20 PM
As far as "first romantic" goes, I don't really know. Here's a question - which of these titles would you grant to Chopin?

The "first" Romantic was .... Schubert!  8)

Of course both are transitional - but Beethoven was an older composer who developed a Romantic style at the end of his career. Schubert was still a young man when he was a full swing Romantic composer. Although his symphonies are still rather Classical, his vocal and chamber music is thoroughly Romantic IMO.

Q

Quote from: Brian on November 20, 2008, 12:11:20 PM
No: the last great classicist was Schubert. He beats Beethoven by a year.  :P
As far as "first romantic" goes, I don't really know. Here's a question - which of these titles would you grant to Chopin?
Was the first great romanticist Berlioz?

No, Carl Maria von Weber.

8)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 20, 2008, 10:28:55 AM
Well, isn't that the whole idea behind program music, which was the basic tenet of the Romantic movement?

I presume by this that you mean that the basic tenet of the romantic movement was structure. The program is structure just as any good poetry or novel is highly structured. Although this structure is not as simply defined as classical forms it is present nevertheless. Form becomes all the more important when recapitulated themes are mutated or placed in different contexts of rhythm or harmony.
One of the most important aspects of Romanticism has not been mentioned, that being the blurring or absence of a distinction between 'theme' and 'accompaniment'. Both become of equal importance. Both Beethoven and Schubert developed accompaniment figuration but generally maintained the distinction. It begins to disappear with the Mendelssohns and with Schumann.

The title of this topic assumes that Beethoven was great. A little biased?

Quote from: The Six on November 20, 2008, 05:03:32 PM
The title of this topic assumes that Beethoven was great. A little biased?

There are still mediocre classicists running around though  ;D

I don't think we need to assume Beethoven was great.  ::)

Quote from: Brian on November 20, 2008, 08:31:13 PM
There are still mediocre classicists running around though  ;D

In fact, some have them have been dredged back up from their well-earned Sleep in Obscurity  0:)

Quote from: karlhenning on November 21, 2008, 04:41:48 AM
In fact, some have them have been dredged back up from their well-earned Sleep in Obscurity  0:)

Good idea. Without the lesser lights how can we appreciate Beethoven's greatness?

Quote from: Ten thumbs on November 21, 2008, 10:11:49 AM
Good idea. Without the lesser lights how can we appreciate Beethoven's greatness?

Do you really believe that?

Quote from: karlhenning on November 21, 2008, 10:17:26 AM
Do you really believe that?

I guess by this logic we should be thankful for George Bush, because he made Lincoln a better president.

Sorry, I can't vote on this one.  It's an unanswerable question.  It's like asking in a popular music context: Is Bob Dylan folk? pop? rocK? country? blues?  He's all those things, and none of them.

I think one of the earliest posts on the thread nailed it fairly well.  Beethoven was trained in, and composed in, the classical style.  As he developed, he assimilated into his work those aspects of his culture (in this case the emerging romantic movement) that suited his purposes, thereby infusing his take on the classical style with romantic elements to an increasing degree.

One could argue that by the time of the late quartets and sonatas he had crossed a line, so that what we have is early romantic music informed by touches of classicism (instead of the other way around), but that's just a matter of semantics.  To varying degrees throughout his life Beethoven is a fusion of the old and new, a revolutionary who lived in revolutionary times.  Like all great artists he builds on what has come before, and informs and inspires what will come later. 

I think that's one key to explaining his "greatness" -- some of us here like 20th & 21st century music and dislike Haydn or Mozart, some love Bach and hate Chopin, but nearly everybody agrees on Beethoven.  When people point to music that they don't understand or find dissonant and say that it's on the fringe or out of the mainstream, I think Beethoven often represents the unspoken center to which classical music is still compared and from which ideas and perceptions continue to flow.   

Quote from: jwinter on November 21, 2008, 11:13:48 AM
I think that's one key to explaining his "greatness" -- some of us here like 20th & 21st century music and dislike Haydn or Mozart, some love Bach and hate Chopin, but nearly everybody agrees on Beethoven.  When people point to music that they don't understand or find dissonant and say that it's on the fringe or out of the mainstream, I think Beethoven often represents the unspoken center to which classical music is still compared and from which ideas and perceptions continue to flow.   

I 100% disagree with this. I think Beethoven's just fine, I listen to his stuff every once in a while, but he's definitely not the "unspoken center". That would be Haydn, for be unspoken about largely. I think this whole idea of classical music being a sort of preparation for and elaboration of LvB is a very old-fashioned and damaging idea.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on November 21, 2008, 10:11:49 AM
Good idea. Without the lesser lights how can we appreciate Beethoven's greatness?

Quote from: Herman on November 21, 2008, 11:16:09 PM
I 100% disagree with this. I think Beethoven's just fine, I listen to his stuff every once in a while, but he's definitely not the "unspoken center". That would be Haydn, for be unspoken about largely. I think this whole idea of classical music being a sort of preparation for and elaboration of LvB is a very old-fashioned and damaging idea.

This is more or less what I meant. Without historical context, wildly inaccurate ideas develop concerning the works of major composers like Beethoven. These are exaggerated even further by the popular media as opposed to academic research. One has the impression that they were giants constantly shocking their contemporaries with daring new ideas. This was not the case. There were nearly always other composers trying out these same ideas. It's just that these other composers were not as good at it.

All things considered, are we today able to fully appreciate the kind of shock and awe that Eroica provoked on its premiere? I think not. We take for granted things that during Beethoven's time were as revolutionary in music as Napoleon was in politics..

Quote from: Florestan on November 22, 2008, 12:43:28 PM
All things considered, are we today able to fully appreciate the kind of shock and awe that Eroica provoked on its premiere? I think not. We take for granted things that during Beethoven's time were as revolutionary in music as Napoleon was in politics..

So what?

It would be interesting to research when in the 20th Century this point about breakthrough works of art became so all-important. The same thing has been said about Stravinsky's Sacre so many times it's become the biggest cliche AFAIC in music commentary. Mozart's Dissonanzen quartet is not the most intriguing of his ten mature quartets, not by a long shot, and yet, because there's this quate about some contemporaries being puzzled about the chromaticism of the opening bars, this is the piece we all know the name of. One of the reasons Haydn has plenty of reputation but does not get performed as much is because of this silly meme that great art should stun people first.

It's largely a journalistic point, and I suspect it came into heave use after the sixties when classical music had to compete with pop music more and more, and so one strategy was turning CM composers into kind of pop musicians too, who had to play louder and faster than last year's band. When I listen to a LvB symphony (which doesn't happen very often) it's usually nr 4. Not nearly as revolutionary as nr 3, arguably. Why should that matter to me?

Quote from: Herman on November 23, 2008, 12:58:14 AM
So what?

So nothing. I just made a historical point. It has nothing to do with your liking or disliking Beethoven.

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2008, 12:58:26 PM
So nothing. I just made a historical point. It has nothing to do with your liking or disliking Beethoven.

Certainly not. Most of us love Beethoven but who exactly expressed that shock and awe? Was it the critics, or the audience or other composers? To take another case, the premiere of his 9th symphony was a great success. People no doubt wondered at this new major opus but that hardly amounts to shock and awe and neither is it evident in the reaction of young composers such as Mendelssohn. Even old-timers like Clementi took it in their stride.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on November 23, 2008, 01:47:01 PM
Certainly not. Most of us love Beethoven but who exactly expressed that shock and awe? Was it the critics, or the audience or other composers? To take another case, the premiere of his 9th symphony was a great success. People no doubt wondered at this new major opus but that hardly amounts to shock and awe and neither is it evident in the reaction of young composers such as Mendelssohn. Even old-timers like Clementi took it in their stride.

The "shock and awe" of the 3rd Symphony's premiere, by contrast, is evident in the reaction of listeners like Haydn...

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2008, 12:58:26 PM
So nothing. I just made a historical point. It has nothing to do with your liking or disliking Beethoven.

As I was trying to indicate, I'm not really sure you are making a historical point. I suspect this notion of Beethoven's shock and awe is rather more a thing people like to say about him since some point in the mid-20th century.

It's not unlikely there were other musical productions in the classical - romantic era that shocked the audience, it was a time of experiments after all. We just don't know about these pieces because they didn't withstand the test of time, as music to please the ear the way the Eroica did. So what this could tell us is that the shock and awe part is not the critical part of LvB's Eroica.

Quote from: Brian on November 23, 2008, 02:19:38 PM
The "shock and awe" of the 3rd Symphony's premiere, by contrast, is evident in the reaction of listeners like Haydn...

Spot on. Thank you.

Quote from: Herman on November 21, 2008, 11:16:09 PM
I 100% disagree with this. I think Beethoven's just fine, I listen to his stuff every once in a while, but he's definitely not the "unspoken center". That would be Haydn, for be unspoken about largely. I think this whole idea of classical music being a sort of preparation for and elaboration of LvB is a very old-fashioned and damaging idea.

Beethoven is not the unspoken center for you, nor should he be.  Nor should any other single composer, for that matter -- your tastes and experiences as a listener are far broader than most (at least judging from your posts here over the years), so of course you don't see all music in relation to Beethoven or Chopin or anybody else.  Neither do I, nor do most posters here, I'd imagine. 

I think I may not have made myself clear -- I certainly don't think that all classical music is a "preparation for and elaboration of LvB."   What I meant to convey is that when many people say they don't understand modern music, what they really mean, to a large extent, is that it doesn't meet their preconceived notions of what classical music is supposed to sound like, and for many people, that's Beethoven.  For lots of casual listeners, "classical music" is shorthand for something that sounds like Beethoven, or in a broader sense, something that sounds like it fits into the Bach-Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms-Tchaikovsky continuum of "The Great Composers," with LvB dead center in the list.  You and I and most of the folks on this forum wouldn't agree with that, for lots of reasons, but there it is.  I was not suggesting that modern music should be evaluated in relation to Beethoven, merely that it often is.

I think it's inarguable that Beethoven drew heavily on Haydn and many of his other predecessors, and that LvB's influence in turn is strongly felt in Brahms and many other later composers -- but I don't consider that to be the great unifying theory of music or anything like that.  One can also hear the influence of Bach in Shostakovich, or Tchaikovsky in Prokofiev, or Chopin in Rachmaninoff.  There are any number of different chains one can move along, that interconnect and branch off in many different directions, rather like that old James Burke TV show Connections.  Objectively, there's no one gold standard that's better than all the rest and against which all music should be measured.   But you have to admit, Beethoven does serve that kind of purpose for many -- threads like this are clear evidence that throwing Beethoven's name into a discussion can get folks exceedingly worked up, rather like comparing another band to The Beatles or another writer to Shakespeare. 

And yes, I realize that none of the above is particularly new or insightful; but as I am probably already known around here as "that guy with all the Beethoven CDs," I just wanted to make sure that I don't get written off as a mild crank on the subject.   I have not written "Beethoven is God" on any restroom walls for at least a fortnight.  :)

Quote from: jwinter on November 24, 2008, 07:13:33 AM
 What I meant to convey is that when many people say they don't understand modern music, what they really mean, to a large extent, is that it doesn't meet their preconceived notions of what classical music is supposed to sound like, and for many people, that's Beethoven.  For lots of casual listeners, "classical music" is shorthand for something that sounds like Beethoven,

you may be right, thanks for the explanation.

Quote from: Brian on November 23, 2008, 02:19:38 PM
The "shock and awe" of the 3rd Symphony's premiere, by contrast, is evident in the reaction of listeners like Haydn...

That does perhaps explain it. Haydn was 72 that year.

He wrote in both styles but he wasn't a great "Classical" composer, good but not great. He was however a great Romantic Composer

Quote from: c#minor on November 24, 2008, 05:59:38 PM
He wrote in both styles but he wasn't a great "Classical" composer, good but not great. He was however a great Romantic Composer

That's an interesting perspective ... one I shall ruminate on.

FK

Both. His earliest period is tied with classicism but from Eroica onwards it is romantic. You could say that Eroica was the work that kickstarted the romantic movement.

I'm not well-versed in Beethoven's music at all, but from what I've heard it seems like he could be compared to Schoenberg. Just like Schoenberg's early work (i.e. "Verklarte Nacht" or even the more radical "Chamber Symphony No. 1") pushes the limits romanticism by pushing the limits of tonality, Beethoven's work pushes the limits of classicism by going beyond diatonic writing and writing more chromatically.

There could be no doubt, pure classicist, conscious and inspired, who has nothing to do with this naive and ridiculous (though nice and colourful) romantic decadency.

Beethoven was the culmination of the Classical Style.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 15, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
Beethoven was the culmination of the Classical Style.

Sarge

which also happened to be the birth of the Romantic Style.

But I am pretty sure that if you asked the man himself, he would refuse to be classified as anything other than a man who wrote Music.

The last great Classicist was Brahms. The first great Romantic was CPE Bach.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 15, 2014, 01:40:00 PM
which also happened to be the birth of the Romantic Style.

But I am pretty sure that if you asked the man himself, he would refuse to be classified as anything other than a man who wrote Music.

According to Harold Schonberg's "The Lives of the Great Composers", Beethoven was really one of the first composers to see himself as an artist. I don't think that he would be happy at all that his music is used as background music often today. Who knows, though? Maybe in 150 years or so the classical radio stations will regularly play Xenakis for background music in waiting rooms. And, perhaps, most people will be accustomed to it by then. Of course, this is nothing more than pure (and doubtful ;)) speculation. As for Schonberg's writing, well, that's his view (I don't really have a 'view' on this because I don't know too much Beethoven).

Here's the passage that I found by Googling the first few words: http://books.google.com/books?id=VawrK1CRFJgC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=%22the+difference+between+beethoven+and+all+other%22&source=bl&ots=nIw9fFo_UZ&sig=RYLglzwq5j-6pwBGjPtKa__4t20&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1Dp1U8edO6fgsATqvYHQDA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20difference%20between%20beethoven%20and%20all%20other%22&f=false

Classic or Romantic?  Yes. ;)

Who cares?

Quote from: Florestan on May 17, 2014, 11:12:33 AM
Who cares?

Rightists and Leftists.

Quote from: Ken B on May 17, 2014, 12:15:28 PM
Rightists and Leftists.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Ken B on May 17, 2014, 12:15:28 PM
Rightists and Leftists.

No.  Academics and market researchers.  The rest of us just love the music. ;D