Thread: The Dawn of Symphonic Romanticism

I came across this that seems to sum things up quite well:
"The 'Eroica' is one of the great pivotal works of the repertory.It provides on one hand the final summation of the classical approach to the symphony as developed by Haydn and Mozart, and opens the way to the lyric drama of the romantic symphony as it was to be explored by Beethoven himself and a century of later composers ending with Mahler.
The great conductors of the classical school read the score consistantly as the apotheosis of the 18th century symphonic style. The great romantic conductors carried the work into the future,finding dramatic contrasts and emotional intensity often more appropriate to the close of the 19th century than the beginning".

I cannot easily agree with your last post, Ramako.
Romanticism, whether some people wish to establish it as "an emotional style", it is, in musical terms, a concrete era of a specific way of writing music. So, whether it produces emotions more often or easily to audiences, it is not that counts. The technical characteristics, the way the actual works were written counts. Expressive melodies, vivid harmony, creative combination of orchestral colours (not necessarily "heavy" orchestration), breaking of harmony (in some cases), chromaticism (sometimes in excess) even breaking tonality (in late romanticism) characterise the era. Whether the works of this period produce more tense emotions, it is a subjective personal issue and not a common feature. Whether the composers wanted to express emotions more than the composers of other eras is also a subjective element and not a musical characteristic of the movement or the era.
"Technicalities" play also a primordial role in Romanticism. Starting from the "Unfinished" by Schubert to the glorious Mendelssohn's 3 & 4 or Schumann's or Brahms' Symphonies, perfection of writing and the exclusive use of Sonata form in the First Movements are omnipresent. Any innovation in orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, use of tonalities, modulations are quite respectful of the past and composers pay great attention to that.
I can understand what you said about the influence of a generation or individual composers got from Bach or Mozart. However, this fact cannot possibly determine that Bach or Mozart were the "dawn of Romanticism". Bach has influenced composers of 20th century too (see Shostakovich). Is he also the predecessor of 20th century music? Stravinsky, Schnittke and some other composers of 20th century wrote specific works based on Baroque. So? Baroque composers herald the music of 20th century?
As for the specific examples by Mozart: Symphony No 40 and the Quintet in g minor, k.516 are some of the best and perfect examples of the most Classical writing. Any emotional impact is a personal issue. The piano concerti too. Particularly, the piano parts constitute the best example of Classical Piano writing. Of course, Mozart in the minor (all of your examples are works in the minor mode) is a very rare thing (he wrote a "handful" of works) and all these few works constitute major musical events in the History of Music (Requiem, Don Giovanni, Piano Quartet in g minor; even his Violin Sonata in e-minor is such a work!).
Of course, as Moody suggests, any composer and any work can be performed in any way. So, there is Mozart, romantically performed, even Bach (particularly in some glossy orchestrations of Stokowski and his likes) and vice versa (listen to some Mendelssohn, Schumann even Brahms or Berlioz with "original instruments", smaller orchestral forces, etc. and, then, you may wonder how Romantic is Schumann's Second, which was inspired by the sheer appreciation of Schumann for Beethoven). Or listen to Andreas Staier performing Schumann on fortepiano; it can be anything but "romantic".

Principe

Originally Posted by principe

Romanticism, whether some people wish to establish it as "an emotional style", it is, in musical terms, a concrete era of a specific way of writing music. So, whether it produces emotions more often or easily to audiences, it is not that counts. The technical characteristics, the way the actual works were written counts. Expressive melodies, vivid harmony, creative combination of orchestral colours (not necessarily "heavy" orchestration), breaking of harmony (in some cases), chromaticism (sometimes in excess) even breaking tonality (in late romanticism) characterise the era.

Expressive of what? Just about any way you answer that question will contradict the basic premise of your post, which seems to be that Romanticism must be defined only according to its technical features.

No one doubts that the expressive content of a piece of music (Romantic or otherwise) is subjective and cannot be concretely defined. But that didn't stop composers (Romantic or otherwise) from trying. We are free to develop a definition of Romanticism that does not take into account subjective emotional content, but if we do so then we are no longer using a definition that the Romantics themselves would have recognized, and one has to wonder how useful such a definition would be.

The term "expressive melodies" have to do with the use of tonalities and the modulations used in the Romantic era. As in Romanticism, we move to more frequent to almost constant use of minor tonalities as well as remote and unexpectede modulations, even chromaticism, the melodies become more..."expressive" vis a vis the more straightforward and strict on the major tonalities used much more frequently in the Classical period (see Mozart, for instance, or Haydn).
So, the "expressive melodies" does not have to do with specific emotions, but with music that may be more expressive in abstracto.

Principe

It's the "in abstracto" part that is the key to Romanticism, I think. All of the technical things you mentioned--tonality, modulation, chromaticism, etc.--were undeniably central to Romanticism, but they were the means, not the ends.

Agreeing to disagree on the emotionalism score for the time being, the first generation of Romantics follow on a line of descendants which has more to do with Hummel and other contemporaries of Beethoven than the man himself. Hummel etc. loosened the clarity of sonata form in favour of a greater emphasis on melody. These composers follow on primarily from Mozart. So actually, me putting Mozart as the dawn of Romanticism is strongly rooted in technicalities, more so indeed than it is in expression.

Originally Posted by Ramako

So actually, me putting Mozart as the dawn of Romanticism is strongly rooted in technicalities, more so indeed than it is in expression.

On the other hand, E. T. A. Hoffman, who did more than almost anyone else in the early 1800s to define romanticism, famously claimed that Mozart and Haydn were also romantics, and his claim is strongly rooted in expression more than technicalities. So it's not like we have to choose between the two. Moreover, Hoffman made this claim in his famous review of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which corroborates your point that the "dawn" of romanticism is in Mozart and Haydn, and already in full swing by the time Beethoven comes around.

Originally Posted by Ramako

Hummel etc. loosened the clarity of sonata form

It should also be noted that sonata form was never the strict formula it is sometimes made out to be for the pre-Beethoven generation. There is no shortage of Haydn and Mozart sonatas that appear to "deviate" from the rules (recaps starting in the wrong key, themes coming back in the wrong order); needless to say, these are only "deviations" if one assumes a rather rigid definition of sonata form that Haydn and Mozart didn't have. The basic theory of sonata form we all use now (exposition, development, recap) wasn't formulated until the Romantic period, and they were formulated more with Beethoven in mind than Haydn or Mozart.

Originally Posted by Ramako

Agreeing to disagree on the emotionalism score for the time being, the first generation of Romantics follow on a line of descendants which has more to do with Hummel and other contemporaries of Beethoven than the man himself. Hummel etc. loosened the clarity of sonata form in favour of a greater emphasis on melody. These composers follow on primarily from Mozart. So actually, me putting Mozart as the dawn of Romanticism is strongly rooted in technicalities, more so indeed than it is in expression.

I'd never really thought about it that way, but I can totally see it.

Eschbeg, by all means, the " technicalities" (actually the way the work is formulated and written) are the "means" not the "ends". However, the "means" characterise whether a work is Classic, Baroque, Romantic, Modern or Contemporary. No the "ends" (whichever each one of us may see from listening to the score and based on the performance in question). The fact that the Sonata form was not codified in the Classical period or the fact that we have some "deviations" from the absolute correctness of the use of the form, it doesnot change the fact that the composers had the knowledge of what they have to follow and what to do. The fact remains that Classicism is characterised by a perfection in form, while Romanticism moves to more loose forms but more innovative concepts of composition and perception ot the total composition (see Schumann's Third, for instance).

I can agree with Ramako that "Hummel and other contemporaries" may have contributed more towards the actual (the technical) way to Romanticism, like Weber, Ries, Czerny, etc. At least Hummel, composed a marvelous large scale Septet (transcribed also in Piano Quintet by himself) in the audacious E flat minor! At the same time, he was a true Classical figure (see his Piano Trios, String Quartets, a lot of his Piano Music). Weber was the most "slippery" case: an hybrid of a Classic - Romantic composer. He was really squeezed between the late and glorious phase of Classical period and the real dawn of Romanticism.

Principe

Originally Posted by principe

the "means" characterise whether a work is Classic, Baroque, Romantic, Modern or Contemporary. No the "ends" (whichever each one of us may see from listening to the score and based on the performance in question).

Why not? There is simply no good reason to confine the definition of any style to just the means or just the ends. You're building a false dichotomy. You're free to do so, as I mentioned, but then you are no longer using a definition of romanticism that romantics themselves would have recognized, which effectively means you are not describing the romantics.

Originally Posted by Eschbeg

On the other hand, E. T. A. Hoffman, who did more than almost anyone else in the early 1800s to define romanticism, famously claimed that Mozart and Haydn were also romantics, and his claim is strongly rooted in expression more than technicalities. So it's not like we have to choose between the two. Moreover, Hoffman made this claim in his famous review of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which corroborates your point that the "dawn" of romanticism is in Mozart and Haydn, and already in full swing by the time Beethoven comes around.

Yes, though I wasn't sure of the details, I was thinking of mentioning it, but it was late and I couldn't be bothered to continue the argument last night and wanted rather to make the other point without argument.

Originally Posted by Eschbeg

It should also be noted that sonata form was never the strict formula it is sometimes made out to be for the pre-Beethoven generation.

My statement that Hummel etc. loosened sonata form relies on this - probably they wrote in a form closer to the canonized version than Haydn and Mozart.

None of the above!

Because it is not Beethoven at all, classicist to his bitter end, but Carl Maria von Weber, by near exact parallel dates a contemporary of Beethoven, who was a romantic by style from the get-go.

That is the overt 'dawn,' the more covert and generally agreed upon? The Romanza middle movement of Mozart Piano Concerto K.466, D minor - hint, it is 'Romanza.'

Originally Posted by PetrB

None of the above!

Have to agree with that. Although Beethoven is often considered a "transition figure" between classicism and romanticism, it just ain't so. Beethoven did a few "romantic" things in his early years, then abandoned that. By the time of his death, his music, however respected and even venerated, was hopelessly out of touch with the times. Kind of like Bach, in fact. It was Weber and maybe a few others who led to Berlioz and the disaster that followed...

BTW, ETA Hoffman's remarks on what he considered "romanticism" in 1810 are well worth reading.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocs...n-on-beethoven

I don't think "Romanticism" is simply a "style" or "expression of emotion," but also a defined set of musical procedures and attitudes toward the musical materials (all in the service of artistic expression).

If we define some of these musical factors, it helps us detect "Romantic" elements in music, regardless of the composers, the historical time-contexts or individual artistic accomplishments, which may blind us to seeing these elements by "disquaification," so I will approach music on musical terms, not as a historian.

How do you define Romanticism? I define it this way:

• A greater use of minor key areas, which leads to more chromaticism

• More modulation through or into distant key areas (as in the Ninth's transitional passages of root movement by thirds); extended sequences of changing chords

• A "turning inward" into a subjective world, in which the artist's state of being is on display

• More dynamic expression, as if the music were a sentient "voice;" music which seems to be "reacting" and embodying states of mind

Beethoven, although a unique figure beyond mere categorization, embodies all these elements. The earlier Mozart YouTube clip shows us how earlier "Classicists" can also share these elements. (I love that clip!)

I think a key factor (reminded by the Hoffman statement) is opera, and the human voice, which are inherently passionate and "Romantic" in a prototypical way, and that the rising prevalence of non-vocal symphonic and instrumental music began to take on the vocal expressivity and the residual "dramatic gesture" of opera. This is most evident in Schoenberg's Pelleas and Transfigured Night, in which the music is using dramatic gesture in the absence of illustrating any real and present dramatic action or dialogue.