Romanticism and late-romanticism, its meaning and psychology

[Henk]

Romanticsm was a cultural movement which originated at the end of 19th century. Originally it was a movement in art (Goethe, Beethoven).

It was a way of expressing our feelings and emotions. A form of liberation, or better said of discovering ourselves, in that sense. This was positive.

Later with literature and philosophy in the form of idealism, in rethinking our society it became a movement of reforming society. In fact this can be considered as a reaction. The motive was not liberation, but it was pessimism. The human spirit was believed not to exist, as Cornelis states, and romanticism was one big expression of dissapointment because of this. Men seek the human being in nature, one went back to nature, to seek the human being here, but this resulted in wrong sentiments and sentimental ways of thinking (with Rousseau).

This can be considered as quite negative. From here it became more nationalistic. It became a movement of people. As a struggle for rights for people, liberation of people. But it stayed rooted in romanticsm in the second sense, as a reaction and dissapointment.

All late-romantic music relates to romanticsm in the second sense.

[Henk]

@Henk: how can late Romantic music be considered nationalistic when it has such a wide-spread audience? Where is the nationalism, for example, in a French or Australian person enjoying the music of a Swedish composer.

A reason is of course practical: Stores sell this music. People in every country can buy it. It's always nice to discover some new music, something exotic for your ears.

But the argument to which you point to that late-romanticsm and what it expresses is not national, and that it's just a genre in classical music, is not true. Late-romanticsm is rooted in nationalistic ways of feeling, from romanticsm in the second sense I wrote about, a movement about the people.

Maybe it can overcome this and become a more esthetical genre in music, but then I think we have romanticism in the first sense.

But then it has to get rid of it's effect on our psyches as well. Much late-romantic music is attractive for people, I believe, because people get used to it, like it, because it's psychological effects. Bruckner and Mahler for instance, this music is "unnatural", because it's rest and unrest in this music is both excessively strong. The music of Liszt and Wagner on the other hand, it can lead to feelings human being can experience as beautiful, and I know these feelings, but it's not about reality, or you (have to) believe in it, then it becomes a reality. I don't say people shouldn't listen to it. But if you want to stay in reality, like I do, you avoid this music.

I think many people listen to music, from such psychological motives. This distracts from the question what people think is beautiful. Of course psychology is always in the experience, but music should not have ways of affecting our psyche or to satisfy certain pychological needs, this is not music I like to listen to. Then it's not music anymore, but then it's mainly psychology, and often a subsitute for life as well. Late-romantic music is not attractive to me at all anymore. I liked it years ago, but I prefer other kinds of music.

[Sammy]

I'm not sure at all what your premise here might be.  I know you don't enjoy listening to romantic/late romantic music, but you seem to have other objections as well.  Could you list those objections, and we can then discuss them?

I noticed that you stated that you "want to stay in reality"; what connections do you see between music and reality?  Personally, one of the major reasons I turn to music is to forget about reality, or at least its daily grind.  If I want reality, I can get into the news or observe and interact with other folks.

[Henk]

I don´t find myself losing temper because of these views, in fact there are some grains of truth in them, due to the militant and heroic nationalism or other parodical or mythical content in some romantic / late-romantic music. But the views should be underlined by concrete examples. I don´t think the views are valid to dismiss the romantic or the late-romantic repertoire in general. Universalism, social equality and critique, psychological realism, and spiritual development were on the programme of the Romantics / late-Romantics too, in spite of that quest also often leading to esoterism, egocentrism or escapism. If nothing else, their faults are relevant for our meditation today also, and their traits of nationalism and often genuine interest in the common people were contributing to the democracies that gradually promoted increased social equality and our present societies.

In a way it´s a bit amusing that I feel quite familiar with your characterizations of some classical music BUT concerning pre-1789 music, which I often find less involving than post-1789 music - due to that earlier music´s lesser content of contemporary value, its adherence to conservative political or religious dogmas in society, and it often-found character of pure upper class divertissements with occasional ridicule of the lower classes ... Yet you seem to like pre-1789 music a lot ... Do you really think that Boccherini for instance has more contemporary value or relevance for us, than Mahler ?

Thanks for your interesting commentary.

Culture in past times can be much higer than in more recent times. It's not a matter of relevance for me. The world of Boccherini can be closer to me, I can feel more related to it, than the world of Mahler. Of course Mahler's time is more recent to us, but as our world develops it can in ways look and become more like the world of Boccherini than that of Mahler's.

Things which can be called "classical" are true for ages, for eternity even. Boccherini can be more classical than Mahler, maybe people will play Boccherini in future, and Mahler will be forgotten. Mahler has some fans yet, but for how long? A fact is that Boccherini has survived a longer time than Mahler.

However, Mahler is for me also an icon, a great composer.

[Leon]

Culture in past times can be much higer than in more recent times. It's not a matter of relevance for me. The world of Boccherini can be closer to me, I can feel more related to it, than the world of Mahler.

Things which can be called "classical" are true for ages, for eternity even. Boccherini can be more classical than Mahler, maybe people will play Boccherini in future, and Mahler will be forgotten. Mahler has some fans yet, but for how long? A fact is that Boccherini has survived a longer time than Mahler.

I am not convinced it matters if people listen more to Mahler or Boccherini, now or in the future.  Listen and let listen, I say.

[Sammy]

Things which can be called "classical" are true for ages, for eternity even. Boccherini can be more classical than Mahler, maybe people will play Boccherini in future, and Mahler will be forgotten. Mahler has some fans yet, but for how long? A fact is that Boccherini has survived a longer time than Mahler.

Are you kidding me?!  Boccherini has survived longer because he's from an earlier time period; just do the math.  I hope you can do better than this in presenting your premises.  By the way, just what are those premises?

[Henk]

I am not convinced it matters if people listen more to Mahler or Boccherini, now or in the future.  Listen and let listen, I say.

Sure, I agree. I don't want to spoil anyone's pleasure of listening to music. I want to discuss romanticsm and late-romanticsm in this thread. And in this thread I like to see things from a pychological point of view. That results in a critical examination of late-romantic music.

[eyeresist]

BOURGEOIS COMPLACENCY!!!!

That's why we're all here, right?

[Henk]

I'm not sure at all what your premise here might be.  I know you don't enjoy listening to romantic/late romantic music, but you seem to have other objections as well.  Could you list those objections, and we can then discuss them?

I noticed that you stated that you "want to stay in reality"; what connections do you see between music and reality?  Personally, one of the major reasons I turn to music is to forget about reality, or at least its daily grind.  If I want reality, I can get into the news or observe and interact with other folks.

If you listen to music, do you feel the feeling that you're out of reality suddenly? Music can give feelings that are true, it can stimulate you. But it can also give wrong respresentations of reality, when it is more about psychology, the beauty of the music lies then for an important past in it's psychological effects.

[Florestan]

Henk, you don't like romantic music and that's ok with all of us, I think. Why should you rationalize this by way of an all-out attack on romanticism itself as something evil and pernicious? I'm sorry and don't want to offend you but such an attitude is absurd.

I think - actually I am convinced - that classicism and romanticism are first and foremost psychological traits. Take any period of history you want and you'll find, in any of the arts, "classical" and "romantic" artists (for instance, Gesualdo and Caravaggio were as romantic as it gets, not only in their art but also in their life). Besides, most if not all of the artists we now consider as "classical " or "romantic" had absolutely no idea during their lifetime about this classification. They just expressed themselves in whatever manner best suited their personality and inclinations. And you should follow their example: just listen to the music that best suits you and let others do the same.

[Karl Henning]

[Music] can also give wrong respresentations of reality . . . .

You're giving a wrong representation of what music can and cannot do.

[Leon]

If you listen to music, do you feel the feeling that you're out of reality suddenly?

No.  But I do get that feeling reading your posts.   

Music can give feelings that are true, it can stimulate you. But it can also give wrong respresentations of reality, when it is more about psychology, the beauty of the music lies then for an important past in it's psychological effects.

My impression is that you have read some books on the "philosophy of art" and want to discuss music from that context.  I cannot speak for all the members of GMG, but have a feeling that an interest in this kind of discussion is not shared by many other GMG-ers.

[snyprrr]

What about Busoni? Is he nationalistic? What about the 'universal' nationalism?

I think it's the putrefication(sic) at the turn of the century... the NEED for a world war...

[Leo K.]

"The appreciation of autonomous, non-referential musical structure, while admittedly constituting a form of escapism for most...

"...is at its best a fundamentally subversive act..."

--composer John Halle

[Cato]

If you listen to music, do you feel the feeling that you're out of reality suddenly? Music can give feelings that are true, it can stimulate you. But it can also give wrong representations of reality, when it is more about psychology, the beauty of the music lies then for an important past in it's psychological effects.

You're giving a wrong representation of what music can and cannot do.

Stravinsky for one would tell you, Henk, that music represents itself.  And if you think that a piece of "descriptive music" will always, or even a majority of times, mean the same thing to people, you would be wrong.  I have all sorts of stories from my work in schools that when you play something that seems obvious as "a representation of reality," the listeners will not agree.  The opening of Smetana's Moldau , which might seem obvious to be rain drops coming together to flow into a swirling stream and then a river, or even the "storm section" of Beethoven's Sixth Symphony, are not necessarily the images occurring to people...unless they are specifically told so before listening.

when it is more about psychology, the beauty of the music lies then for an important past in it's psychological effects.

I do not understand what you mean here: is "past" a typing error perhaps for "part" ?  Even if it is, then I am still not sure what you mean.

[Cato]

Let me recommend the books on aesthetics, the artist, morality, etc. by Jacques Maritain.

[Henk]

I might fail in my explanations, but it's how I feel about it.

I need to add that (late-)romantic music gives unnatural rest and unnatural unrest, is a remark by Nietzsche.

I also feel it's perceived as a bit negative what I write. I understand this.

[Florestan]

I need to add that (late-)romantic music gives unnatural rest and unnatural unrest, is a remark by Nietzsche.

Before or after his quarrel with Wagner? 

[Karl Henning]

I need to add that (late-)romantic music gives unnatural rest and unnatural unrest, is a remark by Nietzsche.

Well, what you need to add really is a lucid English version of Nietzsche's remark.  The fact that the source quote is from Nietzsche, does not improve a wretchedly unintelligible translation.

But, of course, if your purpose is just to name-drop, and prove how "clever" one is because he cites Nietzsche . . . .

[Sammy]

If you listen to music, do you feel the feeling that you're out of reality suddenly?

I feel that I'm out of the reality of the daily grind when I start thinking about what music I'll play.