Beethoven - Classical or Romantic?

[starrynight]

Should Beethoven be considered (more) Romantic rather than (instead of) Classical, not because of any consideration of musical form, but because of the idea of the Artist as Demiurge, the Artist as Hero, the Artist as Prometheus, which role he fits quite nicely?

Further: Could Beethoven still have sounded like Beethoven if he avoided his "fantasia" style, and adhered much more closely to standard 18th century practice?

Or, even worse: Does Beethoven create his sound by not breaking completely with the previous tradition?   

The Romantics wanted to make Beethoven their own.  But Beethoven himself studied all through his life the works of previous composers like Mozart and JS Bach and always spoke warmly of them and indicated he was happy to be talked about being in their company.

As the imposing of his personality on music that some have talked about.....Beethoven was probably trying to move away from that, certainly by the end of his life.  And his outlook on music was often similar to earlier baroque or classical style composers in that he saw his music as representing not simply himself but some eternal values (for example religious ones or the representation of humanity itself as in the 9th symphony).

[chasmaniac]

Or is the question: Beethoven — Mendelssohnian or Lisztian? ; )

Wheels within wheels! Do you mean Songs-Without-Words-Mendessohnian or String-Quartet-#6-in-Fm-Mendelssohnian?

[starrynight]

I think of Mendelssohn as more like Mozart, maybe Schumann is more like Beethoven.

[Cato]

C.P.E. Bach wrote orders of magnitude more 'fantasias' than Beethoven did (called so or otherwise) and yet he is considered an archetypal 'Classical' composer. FWIW.

For all:
It is now, was and always will be my opinion that there is no division between 'classical' and 'romantic', and there fore any attempt to categorize Beethoven (or any other composer) into one side or the other is doomed to failure. The best you can say is that a composer tends more towards the attributes in his music that we now call classical, or he tends more towards what we call romantic. And that's it.

We are talking about essentially tonal, homophonic music. Usually with what we call retrospectively "sonata-allegro" form in the first movement. Not always though, and maybe in all or none. And maybe with a little polyphony thrown in to sound cool. Any definition that attempts to separate these 2 stylistic extremes into 2 discrete groups instead of a 'more or less' blend of the two extremes is inherently wrong and doomed to fail. And until you come up with definitions that withstand this test any placing of Beethoven in a box like a museum piece is merely a laughable joke and self-indulgent mental masturbation.

And yet a contemporary critic, whom I mentioned earlier, Augustus Wendt found fault with that: would he also have considered C.P.E. Bach a deleterious influence because of the "fantasia" style?

Quote from earlier:

"Contemporary critics of the early 19th century wrote some fascinating reviews about Beethoven's works.  Augustus Wendt complained that the sonatas and symphonies were formless, "marred" by use of the fantasia style.  In contrast, Haydn's works subordinated Fantasy to Reason, and they were intertwined in Mozart's works.  Reason, in Beethoven's works, was replaced with the willful personality of the composer, whose works therefore lacked unity."

Certainly the invention of the Artist as Hero, rather than an employee of the Church or of an aristocrat, is more of a rediscovery and reification of tendencies present in artists and manifested even in ancient myths like Orpheus and Prometheus.  In some cases it is still alive: one thinks of Chinese artists sitting in prison right now, or earlier of Solzhenitsyn in Siberia.

The Middle Ages stand in stark contrast: the artist was a tool of the Divine, and subordinated his ego to his God-given talent.  The result is that a good number of medieval artworks were created by the ubiquitous Anonymous.   0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

And yet a contemporary critic, whom I mentioned earlier, Augustus Wendt found fault with that: would he also have considered C.P.E. Bach a deleterious influence because of the "fantasia" style?

Rhetorical question, no doubt.

Quote from earlier:

"Contemporary critics of the early 19th century wrote some fascinating reviews about Beethoven's works.  Augustus Wendt complained that the sonatas and symphonies were formless, "marred" by use of the fantasia style.  In contrast, Haydn's works subordinated Fantasy to Reason, and they were intertwined in Mozart's works.  Reason, in Beethoven's works, was replaced with the willful personality of the composer, whose works therefore lacked unity."

This is in large part due to a certain (willful?) ignorance on the part of the reviewer. Modern analysts find it elementary to parse the form of Beethoven's works. Even a fantasia has a form, after all, it isn't just aimless doodling on the keyboard, so to speak. Since we don't have any idea what personal baggage Wendt carried around with him (if any), we can't necessarily take his opinion as gospel, especially when his results are refuted by even the rankest novitiate musicologist of today.

Certainly the invention of the Artist as Hero, rather than an employee of the Church or of an aristocrat, is more of a rediscovery and reification of tendencies present in artists and manifested even in ancient myths like Orpheus and Prometheus.  In some cases it is still alive: one thinks of Chinese artists sitting in prison right now, or earlier of Solzhenitsyn in Siberia.

The Middle Ages stand in stark contrast: the artist was a tool of the Divine, and subordinated his ego to his God-given talent.  The result is that a good number of medieval artworks were created by the ubiquitous Anonymous.   0:)

Yes. I think it would merit some reflection on all of our parts that Romanticism was a literary movement, not a musical one. At a strictly personal level, Beethoven (by all appearances) was a Romantic in many ways (although conservative in many others).

To all again;
Those of you who have said (and presumably will keep saying?) that Beethoven was a Romantic (arguable) and therefore his music was Romantic despite its Classical structure are simply wrong. Plus you aren't entitled to declare for one or the other without definitions. Gut feelings are worth a bucket of warm spit.    0:)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The Bridgemeister. We have everything up till his late period that spells classicist but with that op.131 thing a new epoch has dawned.   

[Gurn Blanston]

The Bridgemeister. We have everything up till his late period that spells classicist but with that op.131 thing a new epoch has dawned.

While I agree with you that Op 131 marks a turning point in Beethoven's oeuvre, I am justifiably curious in what way that this and future works are thus "Romantic". And what is "Romantic"? And what about Op 135 then? 



----------------
Now playing:
The Hanover Band / Goodman - Hob 01 077 Symphony in Bb 4th mvmt - Finale: Allegro spiritoso

[eyeresist]

The Romantics wanted to make Beethoven their own.  But Beethoven himself studied all through his life the works of previous composers like Mozart and JS Bach

Well, he was not really in a position to study the composers who came after him, was he?

Beethoven started Classical but ended Romantic. Unlike his predecessors, he would not submit his music to elegant order, but instead desired to stir or even shock the listener, and to express his passions without restraint, and was not afraid to do things considered chaotic or ugly to achieve this. The character of Classical music is submission; the character of Beethoven is individualistic rebellion.

The matter of his continued reference to Classical forms is meaningless, unless you also want to argue that we are still in the Classical era, two centuries after his death.

I am BEETHOVEN!

[Dancing Divertimentian]

While I agree with you that Op 131 marks a turning point in Beethoven's oeuvre, I am justifiably curious in what way that this and future works are thus "Romantic". And what is "Romantic"? And what about Op 135 then? 

Uh, oh...

Well, in view of the op.135's conciseness - it's the shortest of the last quartets by a significant margin - I'd say the piece is more an homage to its forbearers than anything. Nothing wrong with a throwback piece or two in Beethoven's oeuvre any more than there's a problem with his tendency for the ol' switch-a-roonie all throughout his composing career. Bouncing between styles seems to be a signature of B's (the fifth and sixth symphonies the obvious example) so I see the op.135 as little more than a naturally occurring piece of the B composing puzzle. The man was nothing if not an enigma.

As far as the op.131, it's puzzling to me how anybody could view the work as anything BUT romantic. Echt-romantic, to be more precise. I would say the language of the work speaks for itself: the looseness, the crooning, the fixation on the obtuse, etc... Heck, the work actually reminds me of Berlioz for God's sake! But the power of Beethoven's resolve to reel in the meandering tendencies of the work to give it such a fine overall sense of architecture is nothing short of amazing. But, again, those are the hallmarks of the romantic Berlioz himself!!

But not just Berlioz. Sibelius, Wagner, the other Bridgemeister Schubert, and any number of romantics. In fact, I can thoroughly see that ultra-form-breaker Schumann taking as his point of departure the op.131.

Anyway, I don't have a lot of time but that's what I think of when I think of (late) Beethoven the romantic. Laying the foundation for those to follow. Quite a nice foundation I'd say!  


EDIT: oops, that should have been Schumann taking his cue from op.131.

[starrynight]

Beethoven started Classical but ended Romantic. Unlike his predecessors, he would not submit his music to elegant order, but instead desired to stir or even shock the listener

And previous composers like Haydn didn't want to surprise people?

, and to express his passions without restraint, and was not afraid to do things considered chaotic or ugly to achieve this.

But Beethoven liked restraint and order as well.  Not sure he would agree to his music being quite as you say.

The character of Classical music is submission; the character of Beethoven is individualistic rebellion.

That seems a bit simple / stereotypical.

As far as the op.131, it's puzzling to me how anybody could view the work as anything BUT romantic. Echt-romantic, to be more precise. I would say the language of the work speaks for itself: the looseness, the crooning, the fixation on the obtuse, etc... Heck, the work actually reminds me of Berlioz for God's sake! But the power of Beethoven's resolve to reel in the meandering tendencies of the work to give it such a fine overall sense of architecture is nothing short of amazing. But, again, those are the hallmarks of the romantic Berlioz himself!!

Divertimentos are quite meandering and diverting too, that is what op130 is sometimes compared to in some ways.  And the opening fugue of op131 and the set of variations are paricularly Romantic in what way?  Op 127 with it's Haydnesque high spirits in the last two movements.  Somebody even suggested the influence of Mozart's A major Haydn quartet in op132....

www.aproposmozart.com/Lodes%20--%20Beethoven%20&%20Mozart%20rev.pdf

This article is also very good on how Beethoven related to the earlier composers.

Anyway, I don't have a lot of time but that's what I think of when I think of (late) Beethoven the romantic. Laying the foundation for those to follow. Quite a nice foundation I'd say!

I don't remember the great string quartets of Berlioz, Lizst, Chopin, Wagner...

[eyeresist]

That last quote wasn't by me!

Of course Beethoven has Classical aspects. But at his most vital, and in the works for which he is most renowned, he stretches musical bounds in an overtly individualistic expressiveness that was almost unprecedented - a way we call Romantic.

This webpage has some nifty quotes (some self-contradictory) from B on composition:
http://www.public-domain-content.com/books/beethoven/6.shtml

36. "Yes, yes, then they are amazed and put their heads together
because they never found it in any book on thorough bass."

(To Ries when the critics accused him of making grammatical
blunders in music.)

37. "No devil can compel me to write only cadences of such a kind."

(From notes written in his years of study. Beethoven called the
composition of fugues "the art of making musical skeletons.")
...
42. "Many assert that every minor piece must end in the minor.
Nego! On the contrary I find that in the soft scales the major
third at the close has a glorious and uncommonly quieting effect.
Joy follows sorrow, sunshine--rain. It affects me as if I were
looking up to the silvery glistering of the evening star."

(From Archduke Rudolph's book of instruction.)

43. "Rigorists, and devotees of antiquity, relegate the perfect
fourth to the list of dissonances. Tastes differ. To my ear it
gives not the least offence combined with other tones."

(From Archduke Rudolph's book of instruction, compiled in 1809.)
...
46. "In order to become a capable composer one must have already
learned harmony and counterpoint at the age of from seven to
eleven years, so that when the fancy and emotions awake one
shall know what to do according to the rules."

(Reported by Schindler as having been put into the mouth of
Beethoven by a newspaper of Vienna. Schindler says: "When
Beethoven came to Vienna he knew no counterpoint, and little
harmony.")
...

55. "On the whole, the carrying out of several voices in strict
relationship mutually hinders their progress."

(Fall of 1812, in the Diary of 1812-18.)
...
61. "Were it not that my income brings in nothing, I should
compose nothing but grand symphonies, church music, or, at the
outside, quartets in addition."

(December 20, 1822, to Peters, publisher, in Leipzig. His income
had been reduced from 4,000 to 800 florins by the depreciation of
Austrian currency.)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Divertimentos are quite meandering and diverting too, that is what op130 is sometimes compared to in some ways.  And the opening fugue of op131 and the set of variations are paricularly Romantic in what way?  Op 127 with it's Haydnesque high spirits in the last two movements.  Somebody even suggested the influence of Mozart's A major Haydn quartet in op132....

Sorry, but I don't see the point in any of this. There's still an advanced language in late Beethoven despite the outward appearances. Later generations can easily look through the facade to take cues from various points in the music.

www.aproposmozart.com/Lodes%20--%20Beethoven%20&%20Mozart%20rev.pdf

This article is also very good on how Beethoven related to the earlier composers.

All that indicates is that Beethoven was influenced by earlier composers! So now we know that influence exists!

I don't remember the great string quartets of Berlioz, Lizst, Chopin, Wagner...

Sheesh, lay off the red herrings and strawmen already. Influence can be used in a variety of ways. There's no law that says someone has to write a string quartet just because they've been influenced by a string quartet!!! Any more than future generations (modernists) restricted themselves to writing orchestral works ONLY after Debussy's massively influential Faun debuted!

[starrynight]

String quartets were not as important to the romantics as to the classicists, I find that interesting and not a red herring.  And someone who is influenced by a string quartet is likely to use that influence within a similar form.  Indeed for many years alot of people seemed to think his last quartets were incomprehensible.  George Bernard Shaw felt it necessary to talk about them as " these beautiful, simple, straightforward, unpretentious, perfectly intelligible posthumous quartets". 

His words and influences show that Beethoven considered himself a classicist.  Beethoven was able to build on the classicists who went before so of course he can be 'advanced' in that sense, that doesn't  mean he saw and agreed to what would happen in music in the future.  Debussy isn't really relevant to this argument unless you see him as a romanticist, and I don't think Beethoven would find much in common with him.  Modernism is a whole different subject (red herring) and took different forms in its development, some taking a more 'classical' and sparer approach than others.

[eyeresist]

First para doesnt make any sense.

Beethoven's opinion of himself as a classicist - any sources on this? Irrelevant anyway, as of course he could not have larger historical perspective. Wagner certainly thought Beethoven was Romantic.

[Gurn Blanston]

First para doesnt make any sense.

Beethoven's opinion of himself as a classicist - any sources on this? Irrelevant anyway, as of course he could not have larger historical perspective. Wagner certainly thought Beethoven was Romantic.

Well, since, as I said earlier, there didn't then exist "Classicist" or "Romantic", he can scarcely have said "Hey wait, I'm not a freakin' Romantic!    " now can he?   However, there is plentiful documentation that he felt himself to be an extension of his predecessors and that his contemporaries were less so. I think the inference that he felt he was a Classicist is logical from that.

Wagner (and his contemporaries) did not base their opinion of Beethoven's Romantic classification simply on his music. It was based on his personality. I personally discount that altogether. Being a Romantic personally and composing "Romantic" music are two different things.

BTW, no one yet has defined what the hell you are talking about when you say "he was a Romantic composer" or "he was a Classical composer". Can it be that since no one has risen to the challenge that in fact there IS no difference?  'Cause ya know, everyone here is all full of intellectual rigor when we're talking about the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11 conspiracy (George W. done it!), and yet now we've come to al alleged dichotomy in the very subject we are here for, and no one seems able to delineate it.   

[Florestan]

Who really cares, anyway? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Who really cares, anyway? 

You do. Smartass.

[Florestan]

You do. Smartass.

Ummm... no, I don't. I just keep visiting the thread because it's informative and enjoyable. But about whether Beethoven was Classical or Romantic I couldn't care less. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Ummm... no, I don't. I just keep visiting the thread because it's informative and enjoyable. But about whether Beethoven was Classical or Romantic I couldn't care less. 

Oh, no, well neither do I. It was the bigger picture that I was trying to shift the focus to. That I do care about.

[Florestan]

For me, and this is vastly simplfied the Classical period celebrated restraint and the espression of emotions through accepted formal practices whereas the Romantic era celebrated freedom, rebellion even, or the release from the "chains" of the Classical restraint.

Then the iconic Romantic is Arnold Schoenberg (as quoted in haydnfan's signature):

"I strive for complete liberation from all forms, from all symbols of cohesion and of logic."