The dominance of Romanticism

[Brian]

Additionally - and depending on how you define the romantic era - you could argue that the original great flourishing of romantic music runs from about 1810 to about 1950 (I'm basically counting Strauss as the end date).

What other musical era has lasted so long and been so diverse within itself? You have the self-expressive romantics, the literary/nature poets, the nationalist schools, the impressionists, the Mahlerian angst crew, and the salon/light music crew. (EDIT: Forgot virtuoso-composers. I think you could make a reasonable distinction between the art of someone like Mozart and the art of someone like Paganini or Liszt.)

Is that kind of diversity of motivation discernible in pre-romantic eras?

Heck, maybe the biggest influence romantic music has on the present is the very idea that there are many different reasons to compose music.

[Jo498]

Additionally - and depending on how you define the romantic era - you could argue that the original great flourishing of romantic music runs from about 1810 to about 1950 (I'm basically counting Strauss as the end date).

Despite Strauss and Rachmaninoff I don't think that 1930-50 should be counted as "great flourishing" of romantic music. It had been losing ground for more than a generation by then. I'd put the core more at 1820-1900 that would not make it much longer than the short epoch of classicism (ca. 1750-1820)

What other musical era has lasted so long and been so diverse within itself? You have the self-expressive romantics, the literary/nature poets, the nationalist schools, the impressionists, the Mahlerian angst crew, and the salon/light music crew. (EDIT: Forgot virtuoso-composers. I think you could make a reasonable distinction between the art of someone like Mozart and the art of someone like Paganini or Liszt.)

Is that kind of diversity of motivation discernible in pre-romantic eras?

This could also cast doubt on the plausibility treating all or most music from ca. 1810-1930 or even 1950 as "romantic". Of course this is similar in parallel cases of long epochs but I think the ca. 150 years of baroque or "figured bass" era are more unified stylistically and more plausible as an era.

[vers la flamme]

Additionally - and depending on how you define the romantic era - you could argue that the original great flourishing of romantic music runs from about 1810 to about 1950 (I'm basically counting Strauss as the end date).

What other musical era has lasted so long and been so diverse within itself? You have the self-expressive romantics, the literary/nature poets, the nationalist schools, the impressionists, the Mahlerian angst crew, and the salon/light music crew. (EDIT: Forgot virtuoso-composers. I think you could make a reasonable distinction between the art of someone like Mozart and the art of someone like Paganini or Liszt.)

Is that kind of diversity of motivation discernible in pre-romantic eras?

Heck, maybe the biggest influence romantic music has on the present is the very idea that there are many different reasons to compose music.

Interesting, thanks. Motivation might indeed be a part of it. To further clarify, in case my original post was still confusing, I am not talking about contemporary composers writing music that sounds like Schubert or Wagner or Brahms, which probably do exist though I don't know of any. I was more so referring to something like neo-Romanticism, sort of like how Stravinsky's brand of neo-Classical does not sound like Haydn or Mozart, but it's clear that he is attempting to incorporate the ideals of that era into his own brand of music. So yes, I guess I am wondering what makes Romanticism such a dominant influence, even if I would never call the majority of post-1950 composers straight-ahead Romantic. But I do like these answers, and I feel like some of these answers are starting to hit the nail on the head. I liked the bit about being blown away by Beethoven or Mahler or Debussy.

[Spotted Horses]

Don't take my word for it. Penderecki himself described his later period as being heavily influenced by late Romantic composers, and I don't think I'm the only one to hear the connection. For what it's worth, I hear, say, Shostakovich as neo-Romantic, too, with lots of parallels with the music of Mahler; maybe you don't, and we can agree to disagree.

It is obvious that Penderecki's later works were influenced by Romantic composers, but that doesn't mean that they aren't influenced by everything else he heard in his lifetime. I recently listened to Penderecki's viola concerto and second cello concerto. There was a romantic influence, but I found there were other influences. I never could have mistaken them for romantic concerti.

[Mandryka]

Additionally - and depending on how you define the romantic era - you could argue that the original great flourishing of romantic music runs from about 1810 to about 1950 (I'm basically counting Strauss as the end date).

Interesting that Rosenkav appeared in 1911, same time as Pierrot Lunaire.  It was already decadent at the time of its creation.

[Mandryka]

Don't forget that Schoenberg was definitely influenced by Brahms big time. Can you hear it? Does that make Brahms a modernist? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQt4eI5EWIM&ab_channel=ChicagoSymphonyOrchestra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1jWZgruVA4&ab_channel=SpektralQuartet-Topic

[pjme]

....many of the notable composers of the 21st century are clearly very informed by Romantic ideas, people like James Macmillan or Wolfgang Rihm. Why is it that Romanticism continues to be such a dominant force in so-called classical music? ...

I know nothing about young composers in the Americas or Asia.
Penderiecki however,  isn't alone in falling back on romanticism & (expanded) tonality.
Check out in France "les néo-tonalistes" - Beffa, Connesson, Baccri, Escaich - and earlier Olivier Greif and Jean Louis Florentz (both deceased).
They heaved a huge sigh of relief after Boulez' ( and Messiaen's) death....
In the Netherlands John Borstlap is quite a special case:
https://johnborstlap.com/
maybe of some interest:
https://www.sfcv.org/articles/feature/tonal-evolution-great-new-music-makes-room-tunes

https://thepanoptic.co.uk/2017/10/12/20-century-harmony/

[Mandryka]

Penderiecki however,  isn't alone in falling back on romanticism & (expanded) tonality.

What is expanded tonality?

[Spotted Horses]

This seems to be one of those polemics which relies on the terms not being defined.

What is "romanticism?" It is an artistic movement in the 19th century, but reading a romantic poem is about as attractive to me as drinking bleach, and romantic music can be wonderful.

My working definition of romanticism is more empirical. Basically, starting in the time of Mozart composers had to stretch the structural and harmonic conventions of music farther and farther to make an impression. By the middle of the 19th century people were writing music with almost unrecognizable form and with tortured harmonies, more and more distantly related to the tonal center. Different people did it to varying degrees (Liszt vs Brahms, etc). Then some people thought it had gone too far and sought a new music that was inspired by classical or pre-classical forms. At that point it was a free-for-all. But at this point all music draws from all previous traditions and techniques, in varying degrees. At least in the relatively recent music I listen to I don't notice that "romanticism" is particularly dominant.

[Mandryka]

This seems to be one of those polemics which relies on the terms not being defined.

What is "romanticism?" It is an artistic movement in the 19th century, but reading a romantic poem is about as attractive to me as drinking bleach, and romantic music can be wonderful.

My working definition of romanticism is more empirical. Basically, starting in the time of Mozart composers had to stretch the structural and harmonic conventions of music farther and farther to make an impression. By the middle of the 19th century people were writing music with almost unrecognizable form and with tortured harmonies, more and more distantly related to the tonal center. Different people did it to varying degrees (Liszt vs Brahms, etc). Then some people thought it had gone too far and sought a new music that was inspired by classical or pre-classical forms. At that point it was a free-for-all. But at this point all music draws from all previous traditions and techniques, in varying degrees. At least in the relatively recent music I listen to I don't notice that "romanticism" is particularly dominant.

But what there is in recent music is an interest in melody. I wonder if that's enough for being stigmatised a romantic, and whether anyone would say that these are romantic. Explain your answer in no more than 300 words.


Mai (Andriessen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3dktYwM4vU&ab_channel=GreenIsaacII


Verwandlung 2 (Rihm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxlr7RFUEJE&ab_channel=MatthiasPintscher-Topic


Cerha Langegger Nachtmusik III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNXu2C6xXQE&t=12s&ab_channel=ThorstenGubatz


Finnissy, Clarinet Sonata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-gXVxgn1fs&ab_channel=BasedScores

Stockhausen, Harmonien
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy1h0MTJBoE&ab_channel=PROTOTYPEdotCOM

Zorn Goddard
https://vimeo.com/515182690

[Spotted Horses]

But what there is in recent music is an interest in melody. I wonder if that's enough for being stigmatised a romantic, and whether anyone would say that these are romantic. Explain your answer in no more than 300 words.

I'm not sure melody is a particular marker of romantic music. One of Tchaikovsky's things was milking a melody for all it was worth (and he wrote some brilliant ones). I find melody in Brahms no less beautiful, but it is usually something that is gone before you have realized it is there, and you wait it vain for it to come back. Does that make Brahms more classical? I remember (I think) our Luke observing that in Brahms, "every voice sings," and I think there is no truer description.

I find the term "romantic" particularly ill defined.

[pjme]

What is expanded tonality?

maybe "extended" is a better word? my english is limited...In my uneducated, simplistic view: being "creative" with the rules.

https://www.epfl.ch/labs/dcml/a-formal-model-of-extended-tonality/#:~:text=Extended%20tonality%20is%20a%20central,music%2C%20film%20music%20or%20Jazz.

"In the Romantic period, expanded tonality offers a creative challenge to composers as they explore new ways of establishing the hierarchy of pitches and utilizing the chromatic and diatonic resources. Prominent compositional techniques of this period include the use of linear harmony with less clearly defined root movements, the structural placement of dominant function, new approaches that redefine tonal stability, motivic treatment that generates harmony and form, flexible treatment of rhythm and meter, and  functional treatment of chromatic pitches." From a dissertation by joshua Blizzard on the Undine sonata by Reinecke!

[Mandryka]

). I find melody in Brahms no less beautiful, but it is usually something that is gone before you have realized it is there, and you wait it vain for it to come back. Does that make Brahms more classical?

This is very much reminiscent of Schoenberg's idea of developing variation that he thinks you find in Brahms, and which made me ask if anyone thought that the second movement of Schoenberg's 3rd quartet is as romantic as the second movement of Brahms's second! Of course it isn't, but Brahms influenced Schoenberg alright.

[vers la flamme]

It is obvious that Penderecki's later works were influenced by Romantic composers, but that doesn't mean that they aren't influenced by everything else he heard in his lifetime. I recently listened to Penderecki's viola concerto and second cello concerto. There was a romantic influence, but I found there were other influences. I never could have mistaken them for romantic concerti.

Neither could I. I definitely didn't mean to imply that Penderecki wrote music that sounds like Brahms or Schumann or Tchaikovsky, and if I said anything that gave that impression I apologize.

[Mandryka]

Neither could I. I definitely didn't mean to imply that Penderecki wrote music that sounds like Brahms or Schumann or Tchaikovsky, and if I said anything that gave that impression I apologize.

Then what did you mean?  (Not an aggressive question, I hope. Just a probing one. I don't think you should give up easily, I think you're on to something, but I'm not sure what exactly. It's an area where it's easier to have vague ideas than clear and distinct ones.)

[vers la flamme]

Then what did you mean?  (Not an aggressive question, I hope. Just a probing one.)

It's a good question, and I'm not entirely sure what the answer is. Why is it exactly that I hear a Romantic element to Penderecki that I don't hear in his older contemporary Boulez? One idea, and it's a superficial one, is the use of the old forms, symphonies and concertos, but also things like vocal symphonies where Penderecki is setting texts about transience and transfiguration, like the 8th symphony. I don't know; it strikes me as very Mahlerian. But I'm not a musicologist, man. And I haven't studied Penderecki's scores. I couldn't tell you anything deeper than that. If that means I'm out of my depth in even starting a thread like this, and I've pissed a few people off in the process, then so be it; mods, lock it 

Maybe it's something to do with Penderecki taking Romantic era forms, Romantic instrumentation (the full romantic orchestra), and infusing these things with what Spotted referred to as "everything else he heard in his lifetime", ie, more Modernistic modalities of tonality and rhythm? Boulez for example never did anything like this—but then again he did write piano sonatas, and they're not something I would ever call post-Romantic.

[Mandryka]

It's a good question, and I'm not entirely sure what the answer is. Why is it exactly that I hear a Romantic element to Penderecki that I don't hear in his older contemporary Boulez? One idea, and it's a superficial one, is the use of the old forms, symphonies and concertos, but also things like vocal symphonies where Penderecki is setting texts about transience and transfiguration, like the 8th symphony. I don't know; it strikes me as very Mahlerian. But I'm not a musicologist, man. And I haven't studied Penderecki's scores. I couldn't tell you anything deeper than that. If that means I'm out of my depth in even starting a thread like this, and I've pissed a few people off in the process, then so be it; mods, lock it 

Maybe it's something to do with Penderecki taking Romantic era forms, Romantic instrumentation (the full romantic orchestra), and infusing these things with what Spotted referred to as "everything else he heard in his lifetime", ie, more Modernistic modalities of tonality and rhythm? Boulez for example never did anything like this—but then again he did write piano sonatas, and they're not something I would ever call post-Romantic.

Well the Cerha I posted uses a big orchestra. Romantic in your terms?

[vers la flamme]

Well the Cerha I posted uses a big orchestra. Romantic in your terms?

First impression, no, but then I'm also not hearing the big melodies you seem to have indicated, so it's entirely possible my ears are not tuned for this type of music at present. And just in case you intended a followup question to push "my terms" further to the limit of nonsensicality, no, even if he called it a symphony it would still not be very romantic on first impression.

[Florestan]

Quid est Romanticism?

[Mandryka]

First impression, no, but then I'm also not hearing the big melodies you seem to have indicated, so it's entirely possible my ears are not tuned for this type of music at present. And just in case you intended a followup question to push "my terms" further to the limit of nonsensicality, no, even if he called it a symphony it would still not be very romantic on first impression.

Did I say big melodies? You want hummable tunes! Got it, romanticism = hummable tunes.

(Like kindergarten music)