Romanticism and late-romanticism, its meaning and psychology

[Florestan]

what is excessive anyway? I cannot think of a romantic piece where there are excesses.

Apparently the excesses which are reproached to Romantics and in particularly Late Romantics are mainly 2 --- at least these I've gathered from the posts of their critics.

1. Excessive emotionality and sentimentality; they punch you in the stomach with the overt display of their feelings.

To which I reply just like you: give me 3 examples.

2. Excessive length; their compositions are much longer than they should be.

To which I reply just like you: give me 3 examples and correspondingly show what cuts should be made in order for them to be of acceptable length.

Not that I expect any concrete answer; my feeling (pun intended) is that for the anti-Romantics it's not emotionality or length that is at fault, but the music itself --- if it had been for their tastes, such music should not have been composed at all... 

[Florestan]

music is not a kind of language; language is a kind of music.

I've spent over fifty years listening to music and studying language

Unfortunately you've badly neglected logic.   

[Henk]

I'm glad you live in an ideal world. Most of us don't and that's possibly why we can appreciate Rachmaninoff and Medtner.

That's not what I meant. With ideals and wordly I mean not reality. Some music sound wordly, like the music of Mahler, late-romanticism in general and many of the Italian composers of concertos. It's false, and I don't like it..

[Florestan]

That's not what I meant. With ideals and wordly I mean not reality. Some music sound wordly, like the music of Mahler, late-romanticism in general and many of the Italian composers of concertos. It's false, and I don't like it..

"2+2=5" is false; "males give birth to children" is false; "at normal atmopsheric pressure water boils at 20 degrees C" is false; now pray tell how are Mahler's 3rd or Vivaldi's Spring false?

[Henk]

"2+2=5" is false; "males give birth to children" is false; "at normal atmopsheric pressure water boils at 20 degrees C" is false; now pray tell how are Mahler's 3rd or Vivaldi's Spring false?

It's false in the sense that it wants to represent the (entire) world and reality in that sense. That's at least my perception of it. Fairytales.

Vivaldi's Seasons doesn't belong to the category I mean.

[Florestan]

Why take 400 bars to say something that Haydn said in 12? 

Gustav Mahler: A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything. When did Haydn ever think that, let alone say it? 

[Florestan]

It's false in the sense that it wants to represent the (entire) world and reality in that sense.

Which one wants that, Mahler's 3rd or Vivaldi's Spring, or maybe both? (it is not clear from your answer)

[Gurn Blanston]

Gustav Mahler: A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything. When did Haydn ever think that, let alone say it? 

Thank heavens, I can say the answer is "NEVER". Plus, if you haven't considered this. just because someone (even a famous someone) says something, doesn't mean he isn't full of crap. That can actually happen, amazingly. This is a direct example of the philosophical issue I brought up earlier which didn't get discussed.

[Henk]

Which one wants that, Mahler's 3rd or Vivaldi's Spring, or maybe both? (it is not clear from your answer)

I edited my answer, you replied earlier.

[Henk]

Thank heavens, I can say the answer is "NEVER".

That's exactly the point and the difference in an esthetical point of view.

[Florestan]

Plus, if you haven't considered this. just because someone (even a famous someone) says something, doesn't mean he isn't full of crap.

Hey, read what I've wrote in this very thread about one of Stravnsky's statements being sheer nonsense. 

This is a direct example of the philosophical issue I brought up earlier which didn't get discussed.

Now that you get me started let's discuss it. 

1. How could the Classical philosophy of music have survived after Classicism exhausted all its potentialities and its historical role came to its natural end? Writing music a la Haydn after Haydn's death was already obsolete; after Beethoven, it would have been plainly ridiculous. 

2. It is not the Romantics who destroyed Classicism; it is Beethoven the arch-Classicist. He exploited to death all that constituted the glory of Classicism: the sonata, both as form and genre; the symphony; the string quartet --- he literally squeezed them of all their "Classical" juice and whoever came after him had perforce to pour new wine in old forms or to discard the old forms altogether. The alternative would have been to stuck forever into mere epigonism of no worth whatsoever --- the death of music as an art form. 

3. Romanticism was a "fusionist" movement from its inception till its end. For the Romantics the dividing lines between music, literature, painting or philosophy were artificial and conventional and they sought to unify art, philosophy and religion into an organic whole. For that task they felt the old Classical rules to be too narrow and constrictive, which indeed they were. Look at it this way: when your soul is overwhelmed by joy or sorrow, or when you are passionately in love, or in ecstasy after reading a poem or admiring a painting, and when all this happens to you after Beethoven's death --- what use could you have for the Classical rhetoric of the sonata form in expressing your feelings? 

So there. 

[mszczuj]

I am in the camp of the Absolutists, if you are keeping score.

But you know, this is an extremely Romantic approach. I'm afraid no one in Classical Era would accept this concept - they just knew that musical signs were involved im meaning as all signs were.

[Florestan]

hmmmmmmmm dynamics/expressive markings & tempo/rubato & pulse & time & shaping & feel & phrasing & touch/articulation & breathing & color & intensity & energy & excitement & tension & calm & implication & dialog & accompaniment & subject matter & text & themes & personality, etc.,etc., etc.

Your point being... ?

[Gurn Blanston]

Hey, read what I've wrote in this very thread about one of Stravnsky's statements being sheer nonsense. 

Now that you get me started let's discuss it. 

1. How could the Classical philosophy of music have survived after Classicism exhausted all its potentialities and its historical role came to its natural end? Writing music a la Haydn after Haydn's death was already obsolete; after Beethoven, it would have been plainly ridiculous. 

2. It is not the Romantics who destroyed Classicism; it is Beethoven the arch-Classicist. He exploited to death all that constituted the glory of Classicism: the sonata, both as form and genre; the symphony; the string quartet --- he literally squeezed them of all their "Classical" juice and whoever came after him had perforce to pour new wine in old forms or to discard the old forms altogether. The alternative would have been to stuck forever into mere epigonism of no worth whatsoever --- the death of music as an art form. 

3. Romanticism was a "fusionist" movement from its inception till its end. For the Romantics the dividing lines between music, literature, painting or philosophy were artificial and conventional and they sought to unify art, philosophy and religion into an organic whole. For that task they felt the old Classical rules to be too narrow and constrictive, which indeed they were. Look at it this way: when your soul is overwhelmed by joy or sorrow, or when you are passionately in love, or in ecstasy after reading a poem or admiring a painting, and when all this happens to you after Beethoven's death --- what use could you have for the Classical rhetoric of the sonata form in expressing your feelings? 

So there. 

Oh no! I'm done in     

Well, I never did, nor do I now, say that there weren't reasons for music to take the nasty turn it took. Although I've always thought that the ones you've listed (predecessors having wrung the juice out of it, so to speak) are excuses rather than reasons. Certainly the classicizing composers, thin on the ground though they were (like Brahms), found ways to move music forward with a minimum of the baggage that others had. I avoid naming names here, not because I don't have any on tap, but because names are secondary to the argument, and introduce elements of diversion that are not necessary to the point. Which is that the philosophical aspects of German Romanticism were brought about by social changes, not by the well running dry. The rise of public concert venues, published criticism, literary tastes, educational differences, Composer-as-God cultism, performer-as-God cultism; all these things and more are what led music down the path it went. 

As with every other historical occurrence, there are a multiplicity of reasons for it which avoid definition due to their apparent unrelatedness until studied especially. I haven't done that and don't claim to know a whole lot more than this. But it's there for the looking.

[Gurn Blanston]

But you know, this is an extremely Romantic approach. I'm afraid no one in Classical Era would accept this concept - they just knew that musical signs were involved im meaning as all signs were.

It's hard to define yourself within a system without adopting their terminology. I believe that music is music, not something greater. This would have put me in opposition to my peers if I said it in 1875. That's all I'm saying.

[Karl Henning]

(* munches popcorn *)

[mszczuj]

1. How could the Classical philosophy of music have survived after Classicism exhausted all its potentialities and its historical role came to its natural end? Writing music a la Haydn after Haydn's death was already obsolete; after Beethoven, it would have been plainly ridiculous. 

I'm afraid that it is not true at all as writing music a la Haydn was the main way of writing music in first quarter of 19th century.

For that task they felt the old Classical rules to be too narrow and constrictive, which indeed they were.

In fact this "old Classical rules" was other Romantic abstraction - in Classical era there were rather the ways to write musics in the especially effective mode. So for example there were much more diffrent popular types of of sonata cycle in Classical Era than in Romantic Era.

[Florestan]

Well, I never did, nor do I now, say that there weren't reasons for music to take the nasty turn it took.

"Nasty" implies a quality judgment which, for all my deep sympathy for you, I reject as completely groundless. Haydn good, Liszt nasty --- do you really subscribe to this hand on heart, or are you just... being nasty? 

Although I've always thought that the ones you've listed (predecessors having wrung the juice out of it, so to speak) are excuses rather than reasons.

Let's put it another way. Berlioz the arch-Romantic was just as much a man of his time as Haydn was before him, as Bach was before Haydn and as Monteverdi was before Bach. None of them had to make any excuse for being what they were. Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis --- Haydn himself was well aware of that. 

Besides that, when the galante style appeared from which the whole Classicism was to evolve, the Baroque conservatives lamented the nasty turn the music was taking and predicted it would go down the wrong path. For you Haydn is a hero, for them he would have been a monster. 

Certainly the classicizing composers, thin on the ground though they were (like Brahms), found ways to move music forward with a minimum of the baggage that others had.

Brahms was fundamentally a Romantic (his music is heart-on-sleeve compared to Haydn's). Pray tell, what in Haydn's entire output can match the soul-wrenching melancholia of his clarinet sonatas and quintet? 

Which is that the philosophical aspects of German Romanticism were brought about by social changes, not by the well running dry. The rise of public concert venues, published criticism, literary tastes, educational differences, Composer-as-God cultism, performer-as-God cultism; all these things and more are what led music down the path it went.

Without the public concert venues and the educational shift, music would have continued to be a private affair of a few aristocrats, clergymen and high bourgeois, to the almost complete exclusion of the lower classes.

Without published criticism, most of the music of the past would have remained buried in the archives. 

Without composer-as-God cultism, Haydn would have been long forgotten. 

Without performer-as-God cultism, we would not have had the vast array of choices regarding styles and instruments that we enjoy today. 

In fact, had the whole social, cultural and musical outlook of Haydn's time remained unchanged till today, it is hardly unlikely that we two would have ever heard a iota of his music, let alone have this debate. 

[Gurn Blanston]

"Nasty" implies a quality judgment which, for all my deep sympathy for you, I reject as completely groundless. Haydn good, Liszt nasty --- do you really subscribe to this hand on heart, or are you just... being nasty? 

Let's put it another way. Berlioz the arch-Romantic was just as much a man of his time as Haydn was before him, as Bach was before Haydn and as Monteverdi was before Bach. None of them had to make any excuse for being what they were. Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis --- Haydn himself was well aware of that. 

Besides that, when the galante style appeared from which the whole Classicism was to evolve, the Baroque conservatives lamented the nasty turn the music was taking and predicted it would go down the wrong path. For you Haydn is a hero, for them he would have been a monster. 

Brahms was fundamentally a Romantic (his music is heart-on-sleeve compared to Haydn's). Pray tell, what in Haydn's entire output can match the soul-wrenching melancholia of his clarinet sonatas and quintet? 

Without the public concert venues and the educational shift, music would have continued to be a private affair of a few aristocrats, clergymen and high bourgeois, to the almost complete exclusion of the lower classes.

Without published criticism, most of the music of the past would have remained buried in the archives. 

Without composer-as-God cultism, Haydn would have been long forgotten. 

Without performer-as-God cultism, we would not have had the vast array of choices regarding styles and instruments that we enjoy today. 

In fact, had the whole social, cultural and musical outlook of Haydn's time remained unchanged till today, it is hardly unlikely that we two would have ever heard a iota of his music, let alone have this debate. 

Of course. I'm nasty by nature.

Let me introduce a parable which is analogous to this situation.

When I was a kid, there were only 6 teams in the National Hockey League. Then, as now, there were thousands of hockey players, but with only 6 teams at the top tier, only the cream rose to the top, so to speak. Hockey then was a pure sport, fighting was minimal, passing and play-making and goal-tending were supreme. As a result of people seeing hockey played at that level, it became so popular that the league owners decided that they needed to expand in order to take advantage of the opportunities. Within a few short years, there were 22 or 24 teams, and the net result was that not only players of lesser caliber but also fans of lesser knowledge packed the arenas. But alas, the watering down of the player pool by needing to stock 24 teams with top level players instead of 6 teams inevitably led to a change in the sport; even though there were still a few top-level players like Wayne Gretzky, for every one like him there were 23 others that couldn't carry his jockstrap, so to speak. Fights became commonplace, precision passing became rare, and the sport became less than it was, something which is only obvious if you are an old guy who saw the sport back in those days.

I submit to you that the era post Beethoven & Schubert is precisely the same thing. When you list the 'benefits' of 19th century culture, for me I see that it is change, but I say to myself "is all change improvement?". Clearly I don't think it is.

[Florestan]

Then I take it you would have really prefered not hearing a iota of Haydn's music if that was the price for Classicism reigning supreme till this very day?