Let's say you're asked to pick the composers who broadly represent each of the (generally agreed upon) periods in Western Art Music.
But you're only allowed one composer per period.
Who do you choose?
For me:
Renaissance - Palestrina
Baroque - Bach (JS)
Classical - Mozart
Romantic - Beethoven*
Modern - Shostakovich
Contemporary - Schoenburg
I wouldn't necessarily conclude that these composers are the representatives of each period. They're just the 'archetypes' that spring to mind for me, personally.
*Yes, I appreciate this one is technically inaccurate. But I see Beethoven as the birth of the Romantic period, and therefore its representative.
I'm not clear on the differece between modern and contemporary.
Baroque - Bach
Classical - Mozart
Romantic - Beethoven
20th Century 1 - Stravinsky
20th Century 2 - Strauss
20th Centruy 3 - Bartok
20th Century 4 - ?
As I understand it, 'Modern' runs from about 1910-1960, and 'Contemporary' is from 1960 onwards.
A generalisation, obviously. :)
Can we split Romantic into Early and Late?
Middle Ages: Hildegard von Bingen
Renaissance: I don't care
Baroque: Bach
Classical: Mozart
Early Romantic: Beethoven
Late Romantic: Mahler
20th Century: Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Webern, whatever
Quote from: Mark on May 26, 2007, 09:00:09 AM
As I understand it, 'Modern' runs from about 1910-1960, and 'Contemporary' is from 1960 onwards.
A generalisation, obviously. :)
You do realize Schoenberg died in 1951, while Shostakovich wrote quite a bit of music after 1960?
Renaissance - Don't care
Baroque - Bach (JS)
Classical - Mozart
Romantic - Berlioz
Modern - Berg
Contemporary - Carter
Quote from: Wendell_E on May 26, 2007, 09:31:08 AM
You do realize Schoenberg died in 1951, while Shostakovich wrote quite a bit of music after 1960?
Renaissance - Don't care
Baroque - Bach (JS)
Classical - Mozart
Romantic - Berlioz
Modern - Berg
Contemporary - Carter
Wheres the love for LvB? :( :(
Renaissance - Dowland
Baroque - Bach (JS)
Classical - Haydn
Romantic - Berlioz
Modern - Stravinsky
Contemporary - Adams
Quote from: Wendell_E on May 26, 2007, 09:31:08 AM
You do realize Schoenberg died in 1951 ...
Actually, I didn't know that. But as I said, I'm not saying my representatives are
the representatives. :)
Renaissance - Josquin
Baroque - Bach (JS)
Classical - Mozart
Romantic - Brahms
Modern - Schoenberg
Contemporary - Part
Quote from: johnshade on May 26, 2007, 08:58:28 AM
I'm not clear on the differece between modern and contemporary.
In the arts, "modern" refers to that movement of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries during which the artist became a cultural hero lionized in proportion to his success in shattering and remaking traditional forms. The aesthetic was generally direct, economical, theoretical, individualistic, and highly influenced by the materials, technologies, and social changes wrought by industrialization...often fueled by a new faith in man as the measure of all things and the promise of a technological Utopia just around the bend.
Contemporary, on the other hand, means present day.
Here's the timeline I was using:
As to why Schoenberg under 'Contemporary', I think I hear his influence the most in works by later composers like Lutoslawski or Penderecki, both of whom I consider (rightly or wrongly) as contemporary.
BAROQUE - Bach/Handel
CLASSICAL - Haydn/Mozart
CLASSICO-ROMANTIC - Schubert/Beethoven
ROMANTIC - Wagner/Brahms/Mahler/Tchaikovsky
MODERN - Schoenberg/Stravinsky/Shostakovich/Bartok
CONTEMPORARY - Ligeti/Schnittke/Xenakis/Carter
Renaissance - Palestrina
Baroque - Bach
Classical - Mozart
Romantic - Brahms
Modern - Stravinsky/Schoenberg/Debussy
Quote from: johnshade on May 26, 2007, 08:58:28 AM
Post Modern - Bartok
I don't get this postmodernism malarky - want to help me out here? How can anything be postmodern if modern is by nature be now? As you may have seen in some of my other posts, I have exams soon and one of them is twentieth century, part of it perhaps mentioning postmodernism but not sure I've quite grasped it :-S
Renaissance: Palestrina
Baroque: Vivaldi
Classical: Mozart(is there any others?)
Early Romantic: Beethoven
Late Romantic: Brahms
Renaissance -- Palestrina, Monteverdi, or Gesualdo (the wife-murderer)
Baroque -- Bach
"Early" Classical -- Haydn or Mozart
"Late" Classical -- Beethoven
Early Romantic -- Schubert, Schumann, or Chopin
Late Romantic -- Debussy
20th Century -- Prokofiev or Shostakovich
This is silly!
Baroque- Bach
Classical- Paganini
Early Romantic- Brahms
Late Romantic- Mahler
Early 20th Century- Prokofiev
Modern- Penderecki/Xenakis (hard to decide)
Quote from: Mystery on May 26, 2007, 11:17:02 AM
I don't get this postmodernism malarky
I don't get it either. After reading about postmodernism online, I have changed the designation of Bartok.
JS
Once again, sigh, I must point out that Beethoven's music is not Romantic but thoroughly Classical. His music is the culmination of the Classical Style. Mozart/Haydn/Beethoven...the Trinity of Classical Music.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 26, 2007, 01:33:24 PM
Once again, sigh, I must point out that Beethoven's music is not Romantic but thoroughly Classical. His music is the culmination of the Classical Style. Mozart/Haydn/Beethoven...the Trinity of Classical Music.
Sarge
I couldn't agree more, Sarge. :)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 26, 2007, 01:33:24 PM
Once again, sigh, I must point out that Beethoven's music is not Romantic but thoroughly Classical. His music is the culmination of the Classical Style. Mozart/Haydn/Beethoven...the Trinity of Classical Music.
Sarge
First of all, the "Classical" and "Romantic" styles are in no way mutually exclusive; these categorizations are broad generalities that were employed long after the fact.
With this in mind... to say that Beethoven's music is "thoroughly Classical" and "not Romantic" is simply off the mark. If we use Haydn and Mozart as the models for the "Classical" style, then early Beethoven certainly fits the mold. But saying the same of his later works (such as the late sonatas and string quartets) is more difficult. Structurally/formally, harmonically, and
spiritually, these late pieces are a far cry from what came before.
I am not saying that late Beethoven does not contain strong elements of the "Classical" style -- it does! But how can you
possibly ignore its "Romantic" qualities?
Heh, most of you aren't just picking one, which kind of defeats the purpose of the idea here.
Renaissance: Monteverdi
Baroque: Bach
Classical: Mozart
The Beethoven Era
Romantic: Bruckner
Modern: Shostakovitch
Contemporary: Glass
Quote from: George on May 26, 2007, 01:48:24 PM
I couldn't agree more, Sarge. :)
It strikes me that the only workable, long-term solution is to recognize, once-and-for-all, that there exists a distinct period/era known as the "classico-romantic" era .......
The Classico-Romantic era is a distinct era, and not a mere transitory hybrid.
This era is inhabited by Schubert, Beethoven, Hummel, Weber, and others.
All of my prior posts (on whatever fora) are hereby overruled to the extent inconsistent herewith .......
(and I believe Gurn was the first person on GMG to use this phrase "classico-romantic", but Gurn fell one step short of identifying this as a separate, distinct chronological era [and, instead, Gurn focused on continuums] ::) ).
Middle Ages: Gregorian Chant
Gothic: Matteo da Perugia
Early Renaissance: Josquin Des Prez
Late Renaissance: Palestrina
Early Baroque: Monteverdi
Late Baroque: Bach
Early Classical: Mozart
Late Classical: Beethoven
Early Romantic: Chopin
Late Romantic: Brahms
Early 20th Century: Debussy
Middle 20th Century: Bartok
Contemporary: Ligeti
Living: Henri Dutilleux
Yes, cheating is fun. ;D
Nice list, Josquin!
Quote from: D Minor on May 26, 2007, 03:35:33 PM
It strikes me that the only workable, long-term solution is to recognize, once-and-for-all, that there exists a distinct period/era known as the "classico-romantic" era .......
The Classico-Romantic era is a distinct era, and not a mere transitory hybrid.
This era is inhabited by Schubert, Beethoven, Hummel, Weber, and others.
All of my prior posts (on whatever fora) are hereby overruled to the extent inconsistent herewith .......
(and I believe Gurn was the first person on GMG to use this phrase "classico-romantic", but Gurn fell one step short of identifying this as a separate, distinct chronological era [and, instead, Gurn focused on continuums] ::) ).
While I am inclined to agree, I am also inclined to say that the difficulty we have finding a place to put Beethoven, Schubert, etc proves my point that the idea of separating the history of classical music into era's is pointless. Classical, Romantic - these are terms that some music scholars created to try to explain/simplify the history of music. Unfortunately, music history, like life,
does not fit into neat little boxes. Terms like Neo-Classic and Classico-Romantic only try to hide this fact. Creating more boxes because we find exceptions, will only lead us to have so many eras that the original goal of simplification will vanish.
Well I wanted to say that:
I think that modernism has become synonymous with serial music, and postmodern is rejection of that school. Cage is a good example of a postmodern composer. But where does Bartok fit in? He doesn't. Where do we fit him in? The convenient larger label-- 20th century music.
The labels for eras are to denote styles, outlooks that some of the great composers held. Within any of these eras though a conflict of multiple styles is at war with each other, and the simplicity of the labels lose their meaning.
As for Beethoven mentioned on my thread, I think I now have my next topic for my classical thread. :)
This is an interesting one, George. Let me share how I view Beethoven's relationship to the so-called 'Classical' period.
When I hear Haydn, and particularly Mozart, it makes me think of perfection of form. Every note almost as if divinely sent. But when I hear Beethoven - specifically, the Beethoven of the Third and Fifth Symphonies and beyond - I hear not only that sense of the divine, but also much more of the human in his music. For me, this is what the 'Romantic' era is all about: the artist putting him or herself more and more into his or her art. Mozart seems detached from his art, as though it came from above and he simply wrote it down (far from true, I'm sure). With Beethoven, and with all the Romantics who came after him, it's like, 'Yes, there is the divine in my art, but there is also the recognition that I am human.' This earthly passion, this admission, if you will, in art that it's okay to be a man as well as an inspired artist, is what defines Romantic in my mind. And the first composer in whose work I hear evidence of such an admission is Beethoven.
Baroque - JS Bach
Classical - Mozart
Early Romantic - Beethoven
Romantic - Brahms
Late Romantic - Mahler
Early 20th Century - Scriabin
20th Century - Shostakovich
Contemporary - Xenakis
Quote from: Mystery on May 26, 2007, 11:17:02 AM
I don't get this postmodernism malarky - want to help me out here? How can anything be postmodern if modern is by nature be now? As you may have seen in some of my other posts, I have exams soon and one of them is twentieth century, part of it perhaps mentioning postmodernism but not sure I've quite grasped it :-S
Maybe this (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,399.0.html) thread will help.
Or maybe not. ;D
Quote from: aquariuswb on May 26, 2007, 03:00:23 PM
I am not saying that late Beethoven does not contain strong elements of the "Classical" style -- it does! But how can you possibly ignore its "Romantic" qualities?
Late Beethoven is also polyphonic, but that doesn't make Beethoven a Baroque or Renaissance composer. He had the ability to trascend every prior historical achievement in a new form that - as Adorno once said (normally I would not cite Adorno ;D) is able to revive the ruins.
Beethoven on the whole is romantic; culturally (the heroic titan agains society), formally (expansion of form far beyond classicism), aesthetically (the bearing of his Ego in the form, the emotional impact, the tranfiguration of cultural archetypes), historically (as an influence on culture).
As someone else said it's a matter of a continuum and evolution, not an all or none quality.
I'm gonna use Josquin's system, as it allows me to fit everything in ;D (but I don't know much about Middle ages and 'Gothic', so I'm skipping them. Also, I seem to agree with him as far as late Classical.)
Early Renaissance: Josquin Des Prez
Late Renaissance: Palestrina
Early Baroque: Monteverdi
Late Baroque: Bach
Early Classical: Mozart
Late Classical: Beethoven
Early Romantic: Schubert
Late Romantic: Mahler
Early 20th Century: Schoenberg
Middle 20th Century: Shostakovitsch
Contemporary: What?
Living: Steve Reich
Renaissance: Ockeghem
Baroque: JS Bach
Classical: Haydn
Beethoven: Beethoven
Romantic: Brahms
Early 20th Century: Mahler
Mid 20th Century: Bartok
Late 20th Century: Ligeti
I imagine some of these would be controversial choices: Ockeghem is there because much Renaissance music is a lot more thorny and complicated than most non-specialists realise. Haydn edges out Mozart because of his huge importance in developing the forms vital to the later Classical period. For the 20th century: Mahler represents the collapse of Romanticism into the world of the Third Viennese School and atonality, Bartok the combination of modernism and folk-based nationalism that was important to so many mid-20th century (and later) composers, Ligeti the diverse interests in everything from serialism through postmodernism and the somewhat ambivalent "recovery of tonality" all the way through to minimalism in its purest forms.
Quote from: greg on May 26, 2007, 11:44:17 AM
Baroque- Bach
Classical- Paganini
Early Romantic- Brahms
Late Romantic- Mahler
Early 20th Century- Prokofiev
Modern- Penderecki/Xenakis (hard to decide)
Paganini as in Nicoli? He was born in 1782??
Quote from: Scriptavolant on May 27, 2007, 04:54:16 AM
Late Beethoven is also polyphonic, but that doesn't make Beethoven a Baroque or Renaissance composer. He had the ability to trascend every prior historical achievement in a new form that - as Adorno once said (normally I would not cite Adorno ;D) is able to revive the ruins.
Beethoven on the whole is romantic; culturally (the heroic titan agains society), formally (expansion of form far beyond classicism), aesthetically (the bearing of his Ego in the form, the emotional impact, the tranfiguration of cultural archetypes), historically (as an influence on culture).
As someone else said it's a matter of a continuum and evolution, not an all or none quality.
My point exactly.
Quote from: George on May 26, 2007, 04:21:50 PM
the idea of separating the history of classical music into era's is pointless.
But if we
must, for whatever reason, separate the history of music into eras .......... then ..........
Quote from: George on May 26, 2007, 04:21:50 PM
Unfortunately, music history, like life, does not fit into neat little boxes. Terms like Neo-Classic and Classico-Romantic only try to hide this fact. Creating more boxes because we find exceptions, will only lead us to have so many eras that the original goal of simplification will vanish.
You are, of course, correct here ........
Quote from: Scriptavolant on May 27, 2007, 04:54:16 AM
formally (expansion of form far beyond classicism),
Well, formally, LvB embraced the "sonata form" pretty much until the end, and that makes him formally a die-hard classicist .........
Quote from: Mark on May 26, 2007, 04:41:40 PM
This is an interesting one, George. Let me share how I view Beethoven's relationship to the so-called 'Classical' period.
When I hear Haydn, and particularly Mozart, it makes me think of perfection of form. Every note almost as if divinely sent. But when I hear Beethoven - specifically, the Beethoven of the Third and Fifth Symphonies and beyond - I hear not only that sense of the divine, but also much more of the human in his music. For me, this is what the 'Romantic' era is all about: the artist putting him or herself more and more into his or her art. Mozart seems detached from his art, as though it came from above and he simply wrote it down (far from true, I'm sure). With Beethoven, and with all the Romantics who came after him, it's like, 'Yes, there is the divine in my art, but there is also the recognition that I am human.' This earthly passion, this admission, if you will, in art that it's okay to be a man as well as an inspired artist, is what defines Romantic in my mind. And the first composer in whose work I hear evidence of such an admission is Beethoven.
I disagree completely, and your assessment of Mozart is indeed very far from true. I think Mozart was very well aware of not only his humanity, but the mortality of is humanity, and I think it is very evident in his music. Haydn tends to color Mozart's music some because of his influence on Mozart and the similarities of their style. But Haydn should not represent the whole of Classical music. He should represent Haydn, in terms of artistic expression. Late Bach, Mozart, C.P.E Bach and other Classical composers were exceptionally humane in their artistic expression, while still adhering to clear, tonal sounds and form.
A lot of the 'Beethoven: Classical or Romantic' debate usually boils down to things like this on the one side:
Quote from: MarkBut when I hear Beethoven - specifically, the Beethoven of the Third and Fifth Symphonies and beyond - I hear not only that sense of the divine, but also much more of the human in his music. For me, this is what the 'Romantic' era is all about: the artist putting him or herself more and more into his or her art. Mozart seems detached from his art, as though it came from above and he simply wrote it down (far from true, I'm sure). With Beethoven, and with all the Romantics who came after him, it's like, 'Yes, there is the divine in my art, but there is also the recognition that I am human.' This earthly passion, this admission, if you will, in art that it's okay to be a man as well as an inspired artist, is what defines Romantic in my mind. And the first composer in whose work I hear evidence of such an admission is Beethoven.
against things like this on the other:
Quote from: D MinorWell, formally, LvB embraced the "sonata form" pretty much until the end, and that makes him formally a die-hard classicist .........
Both arguments hold some water, but it seems clear to me that Mark's statement is based not on the musical detail and techniques of the works at hand but on an intangible and indefinable
feeling that on a supramusical level Beethoven's works are somehow different to what went before. I'm not saying that the statement is wrong in itself (though I don't think it applies to all or even most Beethoven by any means, nor that it might not apply to a fair amount of previous music too), but that definitions, if they must be made, have to be made by defined
musical criteria: how did Beethoven make his pieces; to what extent does his musical language break from what went before, and to what extent does it continue the tradition whilst stretching its expressive range. And so on.
By my reckoning, then, by most/all of these criteria Beethoven's
music is defiantly classical, even if his philosophic urges and heroic tendencies make Beethoven the
man a Romantic. When these Romantic tendencies are made explicit in the music, they always do so through the medium of classical style and technique.
To be clear, my statement about Beethoven being a Romantic is most definitely NOT based on ANY musical criteria. My comments were made purely on the basis of how I feel when listening to Beethoven's music. For me, Romanticism comes across as a kind of 'mood'. It's personal, emotional, and often passionate in a way that I simply don't hear in the music of Mozart and Haydn - much of whose work often sounds rather polite and mannered to these ears. With Beethoven, I get the 'rush' that I associate with music from the 'Romantic' period.
Quote from: Mark on May 27, 2007, 08:49:18 AM
To be clear, my statement about Beethoven being a Romantic is most definitely NOT based on ANY musical criteria. My comments were made purely on the basis of how I feel when listening to Beethoven's music. For me, Romanticism comes across as a kind of 'mood'. It's personal, emotional, and often passionate in a way that I simply don't hear in the music of Mozart and Haydn - much of whose work often sounds rather polite and mannered to these ears. With Beethoven, I get the 'rush' that I associate with music from the 'Romantic' period.
No, I understand and respect that. To the extent that my reactions to some of Beethoven's music appear to be broadly similar to yours, I am in agreement with you. My point remains, though - 'feelings' though vital do not help us define style, and I know you wouldn't suggest that they do. Otherwise, on the strength of certain works Bach too is a Romantic etc. etc.
[Of course, on memorable but very rare occasions one's slapping on of labels based solely on technical definitions can be taken further than it should, too, but only for a joke, or if one is extremely blinkered, I suppose. The most famous such occassion is probably the op111-based 'Beethoven was a Ragtime composer' schtick that I've never quite bought; more convincing to me is that Bach was the first phasing minimalist, based solely on the opening movement of Brandenburg 6 ;D ]
Hey, Luke, I know you weren't taking a swipe at me. ;) I certainly wouldn't want to reduce all of Western Art Music to purely scholastic definitions that overlook how any given work makes a listener feel, and I appreciate that we have these defined periods to aid academic study. They're good broad generalisations, but little more, IMO.
Incidentally, I've just thought of an analogy that might make my feelings crystal on this:
For me, Mozart is Jane Austen, while Beethoven is Charles Dickens.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 27, 2007, 08:28:16 AM
Both arguments hold some water, but it seems clear to me that Mark's statement is based not on the musical detail and techniques of the works at hand but on an intangible and indefinable feeling that on a supramusical level Beethoven's works are somehow different to what went before. I'm not saying that the statement is wrong in itself (though I don't think it applies to all or even most Beethoven by any means, nor that it might not apply to a fair amount of previous music too), but that definitions, if they must be made, have to be made by defined musical criteria: how did Beethoven make his pieces; to what extent does his musical language break from what went before, and to what extent does it continue the tradition whilst stretching its expressive range. And so on.
By my reckoning, then, by most/all of these criteria Beethoven's music is defiantly classical, even if his philosophic urges and heroic tendencies make Beethoven the man a Romantic. When these Romantic tendencies are made explicit in the music, they always do so through the medium of classical style and technique.
But what of Beethoven's expansive harmonic vocabulary? And although he composed in forms and genres characteristic of the past (sonata form, theme and variation, fugue, etc.), he most certainly transformed them in ways that Mozart and Haydn never did.
His Op. 26 piano sonata, for example, doesn't even contain a movement in sonata form! And before Beethoven, theme-and-variation was associated with amateur, not-too-serious music-making; in some of his later works, he combined this "low-brow" genre with perhaps the most complicated and "high-brow" type of composition there is: the fugue. Just take a look at the Diabelli Variations or the last movements of the Op. 109 and Op. 110 piano sonatas or the Op. 131 string quartet if you need convincing.
And what of his expansion of the sonata form? Starting as early as the 3rd symphony and the 21st piano sonata, he really got inventive. In the first movement of the "Waldstein" sonata, for example, the second theme isn't brought back in the tonic key until the coda (not to mention that the contrasting key area in the exposition is the distant major mediant). And speaking of codas, he began to treat them as almost a second development section, giving them far more weight and length than the earlier "Classicists" ever did. And his works were far longer in general.
Periods in history are defined long after the fact; we must take them with a grain of salt. Most certainly Beethoven was strongly influenced by those who came before him, and those composers that we call the "Romantics" were strongly influenced by them, as well -- and by Beethoven even more.
As I've stated above, Beethoven was an innovator, but one should not forget that Haydn and Mozart were also innovators in their own right (though to lesser degrees). In the first movement of Mozart's most famous C Major sonata (K. 545), for example, the first theme in the recapitulation is presented in the subdominant rather than the expected tonic. As part of the shift to "Romanticism" involved more frequent emphases on the subdominant, this gesture can be viewed as an early "Romantic" tendency.
The point is that history does not divide neatly into sections. Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were all influenced by what came before them, just as they all influenced later artists.
We can certainly all agree, though, that Beethoven's innovations were more frequent and generally starker than those of Mozart or Haydn. And we can also agree that the music of the early "Romantics" takes more
direct influence from Beethoven than just about any other composer (in general). With all of this in mind, doesn't it make sense to say that Beethoven's music possesses characteristics both of what we label the "Classical" and "Romantic" idioms? In my opinion, this is more accurate than saying Beethoven was either a strict "Classicist" or a strict "Romantic."
My two cents.
Quote from: aquariuswb on May 27, 2007, 10:00:14 AM
But what of Beethoven's expansive harmonic vocabulary? And although he composed in forms and genres characteristic of the past (sonata form, theme and variation, fugue, etc.), he most certainly transformed them in ways that Mozart and Haydn never did.
His Op. 26 piano sonata, for example, doesn't even contain a movement in sonata form! And before Beethoven, theme-and-variation was associated with amateur, not-too-serious music-making; in some of his later works, he combined this "low-brow" genre with perhaps the most complicated and "high-brow" type of composition there is: the fugue. Just take a look at the Diabelli Variations or the last movements of the Op. 109 and Op. 110 piano sonatas or the Op. 131 string quartet if you need convincing.
And what of his expansion of the sonata form? Starting as early as the 3rd symphony and the 21st piano sonata, he really got inventive. In the first movement of the "Waldstein" sonata, for example, the second theme isn't brought back in the tonic key until the coda (not to mention that the contrasting key area in the exposition is the distant major mediant). And speaking of codas, he began to treat them as almost a second development section, giving them far more weight and length than the earlier "Classicists" ever did. And his works were far longer in general.
Periods in history are defined long after the fact; we must take them with a grain of salt. Most certainly Beethoven was strongly influenced by those who came before him, and those composers that we call the "Romantics" were strongly influenced by them, as well -- and by Beethoven even more.
As I've stated above, Beethoven was an innovator, but one should not forget that Haydn and Mozart were also innovators in their own right (though to lesser degrees). In the first movement of Mozart's most famous C Major sonata (K. 545), for example, the first theme in the recapitulation is presented in the subdominant rather than the expected tonic. As part of the shift to "Romanticism" involved more frequent emphases on the subdominant, this gesture can be viewed as an early "Romantic" tendency.
The point is that history does not divide neatly into sections. Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were all influenced by what came before them, just as they all influenced later artists.
We can certainly all agree, though, that Beethoven's innovations were more frequent and generally starker than those of Mozart or Haydn. And we can also agree that the music of the early "Romantics" takes more direct influence from Beethoven than just about any other composer (in general). With all of this in mind, doesn't it make sense to say that Beethoven's music possesses characteristics both of what we label the "Classical" and "Romantic" idioms? In my opinion, this is more accurate than saying Beethoven was either a strict "Classicist" or a strict "Romantic."
My two cents.
A great post. But I don't think any of the technical points you make here really disagrees with the classifying of Beethoven as a classicist on technical grounds. For instance:
A Sonata with no movement in sonata form? Well, there is of course the point that the 'sonata form' you imply is a post classical extrapolation. Or if you prefer there's the example of Mozart's A major sonata, which also has no 'sonata form' movements, and there is no doubt that it is a classical work, is there? ;)
An expansive harmonic vocabulary? It isn't Beethoven's harmony that is the extraordinary thing about him, even if it is easy to find shockingly new chords in his music. After all, one can do the same in Mozart, Haydn and so on. The issue is that Beethoven uses extended harmony in a functionally different way to the kind of colouristic chromaticism associated with Romanticism.
The expanded tonal scope of some of his music - your example is the Waldstein, another would be the Hammerklavier - is an interesting case in point precisely because the logic of the modulations is so severely classical. Whilst modulation to the mediant itself is a strongly Romantic trait (as Rosen discusses very interestingly), Beethoven's manner of using it comes from a classical logic, which is what makes it interesting. Put more briefly: in Schubert the mediant modulation is to an extent a colouristic device imposed for its sensuous effect; in Beethoven it never is.
(Have you read Rosen, btw? I ask because some of the examples you use are similar to his, but other points you make perhaps tend to suggest that you might not have read him yet. There would be no stronger advocate of Beethoven the Classical than Rosen, I'd venture to suggest. The other great writer on this issue, IMO, is Dahlhaus, whose description of the 19th century is refreshingly free of the simplifying but misleading labels we retrospectively place on the period.)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 27, 2007, 10:33:21 AM
A great post. But I don't think any of the technical points you make here really disagrees with the classifying of Beethoven as a classicist on technical grounds. For instance:
A Sonata with no movement in sonata form? Well, there is of course the point that the 'sonata form' you imply is a post classical extrapolation. Or if you prefer there's the example of Mozart's A major sonata, which also has no 'sonata form' movements, and there is no doubt that it is a classical work, is there? ;)
An expansive harmonic vocabulary? It isn't Beethoven's harmony that is the extraordinary thing about him, even if it is easy to find shockingly new chords in his music. After all, one can do the same in Mozart, Haydn and so on. The issue is that Beethoven uses extended harmony in a functionally different way to the kind of colouristic chromaticism associated with Romanticism.
The expanded tonal scope of some of his music - your example is the Waldstein, another would be the Hammerklavier - is an interesting case in point precisely because the logic of the modulations is so severely classical. Whilst modulation to the mediant itself is a strongly Romantic trait (as Rosen discusses very interestingly), Beethoven's manner of using it comes from a classical logic, which is what makes it interesting. Put more briefly: in Schubert the mediant modulation is to an extent a colouristic device imposed for its sensuous effect; in Beethoven it never is.
(Have you read Rosen, btw? I ask because some of the examples you use are similar to his, but other points you make perhaps tend to suggest that you might not have read him yet. There would be no stronger advocate of Beethoven the Classical than Rosen, I'd venture to suggest. The other great writer on this issue, IMO, is Dahlhaus, whose description of the 19th century is refreshingly free of the simplifying but misleading labels we retrospectively place on the period.)
I've read some Rosen, but probably not the particular work(s) you have in mind. Any suggestions?
Well, the relevant ones, and the best books of their kind around, are The Classical Style and The Romantic Generation. Must-read books if ever there were any. :)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on May 27, 2007, 11:25:14 AM
Well, the relevant ones, and the best books of their kind around, are The Classical Style and The Romantic Generation. Must-read books if ever there were any. :)
And, if you get into 'em aquariuswb, you can be a second questioner on my thread. I've been posting fluff questions so far, but I'm about to get onto the topic of derived motifs in a day or so. I don't really get it, and it should be fun if posters here can help with it. If that sounds vague, it should be less vague when I post it. I'll take enough time to try to make it clear.