Something that is very difficult in convey in words without risking giving the wrong impression is the extent to which one's own attititude to various composers can change over time. It's perfectly possible and probably not unusual for a beginnier to be very impressed by, say, Beethoven, or Mozart or whoever and not like some other composers, even if the latter wrote music in broadly similar vein, eg Brahms or Sibelius, just to give two hypothetical examples. Years later, perhaps 2 years or 5 years or 10 years as it all depends, one's attitutude can change a lot, especially in regard to composers one may have disliked much earlier. For this reason, I think it's largely an unproductive area of discussion to pontificate on such things as which composers are more coherent, or have more or rigourous development etc. It's all relative to one's experience and evolving tastes. I hope that makes sense.

 

Yep, maybe my OP was a bit hyperbolic, as I said I haven't listened to that many romantic symphonies yet. It's not my complete and definite opinion, it's more like a call for discussion.

I am not saying that all romantic symphonies "pass besides me" instead of engaging me, I think it's just kind of likely to happen with some works, still more likely than when I listen to a Beethoven symphony.

 

Genoveva is right about the effect of time on one's taste, at least in my case as well. The first two years of listening to classical music, Beethoven was the man for me. Brahms was thick, Mahler weird, Bach just OK, Mozart elegant. Gradually over the years, this changed, and for a long time now my three favourite composers are Bach, Mahler and Brahms. Beethoven has fallen to somewhere around #20-30.

The other angle is that we are all different. Maybe you will still have Beethoven as your #1 even decades further down the line, and still don't like Mahler then. And there's nothing wrong with that. Whatever works for you.

 

Well, I'm game! The main point I would want to make is that there is (I think) much more variety in compositional approach among romantic composers than there was during classical times. This went so far as to cause animosities between some composers - Wagner vs Brahms etc. - but also meant that some composers were more concerned with .... (what words to use?) poetry and fantasy (Schumann?) while others seem to have had all the structural discipline of the classical times (Brahms?). In the same way some were musical revolutionaries (Wagner?) or showmen (Liszt?) or concerned with programme and picture painting (which was much more rare during the classical period). The romantic period was also the time when some composers found it possible to work outside of the Austro-German tradition (Dvorak, Berlioz?).

Of course, some consider Beethoven to have been the first romantic composer and I think it is easy enough to draw a line between Mozart and Haydn to Beethoven and on to Brahms. It is the others who used the opportunities of romantic values to go off in different directions. The diversification became even more fertile in the modern period

 

IMO the reason why Beethoven's symphonies are considered so great is because they combine the rigor and logic of classicism with passion and drama of Romanticism.
I haven't listened to that many romantic symphonies, but for those that I did listen to, my general impression is that they are even more dramatic and unpredictable than Beethoven's, there are long slow movements in which at any moment there's a possibility of a sudden fortissimo, there are fast movements in which there's pronounced use of percussion, trumpets, etc... generally very dramatic. But still, I feel less moved by this drama than by Beethoven's drama, and I think the reason is that the drama of romantic symphonies kind of passes besides me. They fail to fully engage me, to fully draw me in. On the other hand Beethoven easily draws me in, engages me with the logic and rigor of his development, and THEN when I am fully immersed into it, he provides drama. And even if this drama is perhaps a bit less pronounced than in romantic symphony, it has much greater effect on me.

On the other hand, romantic symphonies are IMO usually a bit less coherent, perhaps they have less rigorous development, or they have too many unnecessary notes... and for this reason for them it's kind of more difficult to draw the listener in.

Any opinions? Agree? Disagree?

The only Romantic composer whose symphonies needed to be abridged IMO, was Bruckner.

However the Brahms Symphonies are fairly "compact", given that the Romantic Era tended to produce long works in general.

As a matter of fact Brahms was attacked for being old-fashioned and conservative, his symphonies "looked back", instead of "ahead".

A mind-blowing experience is taking a Haydn symphony such as 94 or 102 and comparing it to say Bruckner's Symphony No. 4 or 6.

Haydn says more in 25 minutes than Bruckner, in an hour.

Reminds me of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address-in one minute Lincoln got right to the emotional point, that the one hour bloviaters couldn't.

Bloviating is bloviating, whether it's from posters, speakers or composers.

 

I don't think Haydn was trying to "say" the same things as Bruckner. I say this as a Bruckner agnostic: I only want to listen to his music very occasionally but when I do I am not sure what would be a good substitute.

 

I think Haydn didn't want to say anything with his symphonies. Most of the time he just wanted to make interesting music. I enjoy listening to his symphonies... There's not a single of his symphonies that I don't like. All of his symphonies to me seem perfect, like a little universe of their own, never boring, yet no excess in them... very few extra-musical associations. I'd compare them to snowflakes, but not in a cliche way... they are not like snowflakes just because they are unique, but also because they are all beautiful, simple and unpretentions. They are also like snowflakes because to me they seem a bit kind of ephemeral, not really striking, memorable, etc... they quickly melt. Haydn created so many gems without really trying, that's why his symphonies seem so spontaneous, fresh, etc... Just like snowflakes they have a rigid, crystalline structure, yet it never feels heavy, and it melts quickly.

Beethoven, and especially romantic composers, on the other hand, I think always wanted to say something with their symphonies. They wanted to make a point. They wanted to express important ideas or feelings. They were aware they were creating art, and they wanted to make a big artistic statement. They took themselves way more seriously than Haydn did.

In this process Beethoven retained Haydn's crystalline structure, yet infused it with drive to express himself in an important, passionate way, to make a point... he is kind of heavyweight version of Haydn to me. I'd compare his symphonies with diamonds. Or perhaps with big iron structures, like Eiffel Tower.

Romanticists on the other hand, were so focused on expressing big ideas and making important art, that the structure of their works became less important, so their symphonies are akin to uncut gemstones. But not any kind of gemstones. More like uncut huge and precious gemstones.

 

Beethoven's symphonies had more objective quality like other Classical composers, the language is clearer. Late Romantic had more subjective qualities, especially Mahler. Tonality was weaker, and modulations more abrupt with less preparation. The also became generally more expansive in form, and the ideas less concentrated, more diffuse

 

Now listening to some CPE Bach symphonies... and wow, I'm impressed. Maybe I even prefer them to Haydn's. To me they somehow sound more substantial, even though they are equally lively. But I feel there's more passion to them. And I like the remnants of baroque style that can be felt...
It was a bit offtopic, but CPE Bach sounds to me in a way closer to Beethoven than Haydn does, maybe not in form or style, but in dynamics and emotion. And it's also more structured than romantic works... quite like Beethoven.

 

Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony, written 1803, is generally considered the first romantic symphony, setting off the romantic 19th century. Brahms, who was so full of self-doubt and so in awe of the comparison to Beethoven, destroyed all his early symphonies until finally publishing No. 1 in 1854. By that time romantic symphonists had sprung up all over the place.

What differentiates Beethoven from the later romantic era was his death in 1827. Most romantic symphonies in mid- or late century were accompanied by some kind of nickname or dedication or were drawn from romantic literature -- Mendelssohn's "Italian," Schumann's "Rhenish," Tchaikovksy's "Winter Dreams" (No. 2), "Fate" (No. 4) and "Pathétique" (No. 6), the Liszt "Dante" symphonies and many others were given such romantic titles.

Beethoven's only "titled" symphony was No. 3 which he first dedicated to Napoleon and then, upon hearing Napoleon declared himself emporer, he removed the dedication and made it to Prince Lobkowitz, a benefactor. It is unclear from whom or where the heroic tag originated. He did not call Symphony 9 "choral."

The essence of a later romantic symphony is great ebb and flow in pacing, volume, duration and theatrics, elements that are in less quantity in Beethoven's symphonies. Beethoven clung to the classical model of Haydn (sonata form) throughout his career even when he elongated the symphony beyond what anyone knew. By the time Liszt came along, sonata format was dramatically changed in symphonies by having, for example, long development sections during recapitualtion. This is the lack of coherency you note in your commentary.

This would come completely undone by the last great romantic symphonist, Gustav Mahler. After him, everyone save serialists would return to a classical model with romantic elements. The 20th century is full of these people.

 

Interesting explanation larold. What I find interesting is what you say about symphonies after Mahler. Could you elaborate a bit? You say they are more like Beethoven? Not like typical romanticists?

 

I just dig this:

 

The idea that Beethoven's mature works (not just the symphonies) are generally more tense, have a greater sense of dramatic unity and seem to elicit (or coerce?) a more compelling kind of personal engagement compared to those of his Romantic successors has been entertained by many writers and critics and various explanations have been offered for these effects. You should definitely have a look at Scott Burnham's book, Beethoven Hero, especially the first two chapters. The second chapter, which has the subtitle "Presence and Engagement in the Heroic Style," tries to explain exactly the sense of personal engagement you feel listening to Beethoven.

Charles Rosen, who heard tonic-dominant polarity as the essence of the Classical style, believes this polarity and the tension it creates was often weakened in romantic works by a tendency to use less tense subdominant-side keys as secondary tonal centers.

Several musical narrative theorists trace Beethoven's compelling sense of drama to his thematic processes. Rather than just developing individual motives and themes in the way Haydn and Mozart did, Beethoven often introduced a critical motivic opposition into his principal themes and then developed not the motives in isolation, but the dramatic relationship between them. For example, the ascendancy of one might be systematically linked to a downturn in the fortunes of the other. Gregory Karl analyses the first movement of the Appassionata in such dramatic terms ("Structuralism and Musical Plot." Music Theory Spectrum 19 (1997): 13-34.)

 

Beethoven's symphonies are considered so great is because they combine the rigor and logic of classicism with passion and drama of Romanticism.

Just this past week I had to sub for an ailing Music Appreciation teacher. The topic: Beethoven. The text book:The Enjoyment of Music by Machlis, et al.

And essentially your quote was what the Beethoven chapter stressed. And I had no problem in pushing that view on to the class.

 

"Bloviate"..... What a truly wonderful word!

 

Interesting how we so often try to define Beethoven in terms of the way he or his music was perceived by this generation or that (or this Burnham or that Sullivan). That seems pretty silly. Better, I think, to experience his music directly and cut out the middle man!

 

The OP requested opinions on certain issues. Burnham has and Rosen had opinions on precisely those issues. So, silly or not, it was what was requested.

 

Interesting explanation larold. What I find interesting is what you say about symphonies after Mahler. Could you elaborate a bit? You say they are more like Beethoven? Not like typical romanticists?

I meant later symphonists went back to sonata form (exposition, development, and recapitulation) and discarded the lengthy and often bewildering additions wrought by Liszt and later Mahler to a symphony. Composers like Sibelius, Elgar, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Vaughan Williams all used sonata form in their symphonies without the changes the late romantics added. This was also true of the mid-century school of American symphonists that included Barber, Schuman and Copland. Things got dicey later with minimalism.

 

In support of your point: This adoption of and eventual return to Beethovenian ideals was especially pronounced in Russia and the USSR, beginning with Tchaikovksy's Fourth, the first of his works to pick up on the dramatic thematic oppositions and cyclic unity of Beethoven, and which he acknowledged was just "a reflection of Beethoven's Fifth." Rachmaninoff took up the pattern in nearly all of his multimovement works. Later, under the doctrine of Socialist Realism, where healthy optimism was the only politically correct tone for symphonic composition, Beethoven's Fifth became the archetypal model for those wishing to avoid censure. A number of Miaskovsky's symphonies, Prokofiev's Fifth and Shostakovich's Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth (with its embedded hidden and contrary meanings) are prime examples. Some of these then had an influence on Vaughan Williams (whose Fourth seems to have an especially strong Russian influence) and others in the West.

 

I like to see Beethoven not as the beginning of romanticism but as some kind of endpoint in classicism. It feels as if he tries to stretch the classicist structures as far as possible without leaving them. In a lot of movements of his symphonies he stays faithful to sonata form but his development and coda are so far evolved from traditional sonata form that they almost define a new form on it's own. In his symphonies especially I think his dramatic and prolonged coda's in combination with fairly faithful use of classicist structure sets him apart from his predecessors AND his successors. Also his faithfulness to typical graceful classicist ornament sets him a bit apart from later romanticists. Weber and Schubert being maybe examples of composers still making use of these same traditional ornamentation (and more or less using the same "language" as Beethoven) and Liszt being an example of one that virtually makes no use at all anymore of these ornaments (a new "language"). A late romantic composer that makes no use of classicist structure and ornamentation has to deal with other difficulties namely balancing the amount of musical "effect" and of course shaping a form or structure when there's virtually total freedom.

From the viewpoint of a "true romanticist" or a "true classicist" Beethovens' (middle and late) works may seem strange due to this combination of traditionalism and at the same time searching the boundaries of that tradition but for a "true Beethovenist" it's a killer combination.

 

Perhaps it's a slight offtopic but I just heard Beethoven's 6th symphony again... and I have an impression that it is by far, the most romantic of all of his symphonies. Long, slow movements. Melodic. Sudden outbursts of passion (the storm movement)... Practically it's romantic by definition. A bit of classical style can still be felt, but I think it's his only symphony that's definitely more romantic than classical.

 

What's the definition of romantic? Don't go to google define that isn't very useful . The Oxford Dictionary of Music suggests there are romantic elements in all music of all ages. But it defines overtly romantic music as that written mainly between c.1830 to c.1900 by the likes of Weber, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, and Wagner, where emotional & picturesque expression appeared to be more important than formal or structural considerations - the antithesis of classicism.

But this worries me, Beethoven's symphonies continuously move my emotions very much, usually more than the "overtly romantic" composers. Didn't Beethoven use formal structure with the full intention to generate great emotions? So, for Beethoven, isn't the ultimate intention to generate great emotion, and formal structure is just as secondary to him as to the romantics?

Many of Haydn's symphonies don't generate much emotion. But many others generate much emotion. So what was Haydn playing at in his lesser symphonies? Was he just making classical experiments in form and structure that we are meant to admire dispassionately without demanding to have an emotional high? Why did Prince Esterhazy let him get away with this? Was he happy to listen to formality without emotion?

 

Many of Haydn's symphonies don't generate much emotion. But many others generate much emotion. So what was Haydn playing at in his lesser symphonies? Was he just making classical experiments in form and structure that we are meant to admire dispassionately without demanding to have an emotional high? Why did Prince Esterhazy let him get away with this? Was he happy to listen to formality without emotion?

That's what music was in the late eighteenth century -- an elegant pasttime that wouldn't curdle your dinner.

 

^^^ "Not an exploration of human passions". Mozart and Haydn frequently flirted with "human passions".

The Mozart female opera arias, and Mozart/Haydn Andantes and Adagios from their symphonies and piano sonatas and Mozart piano concertos and string quartets/quintets are quite deeply felt.

Haydn may have sucked people in with his extroverted and witty allegros, but a troubling andante/adagio wasn't very far away. Same with Mozart.

The folks of the 18th century may have wished to be pleasantly entertained by the music of the day, but it didn't always turn out that way.

I imagine if all Mozart and Haydn were supposed to do was write pleasant trifles to entertain the nobility, they would have either burned themselves out or gone into a different profession.

 

^^^ "Not an exploration of human passions". Mozart and Haydn frequently flirted with "human passions".

The Mozart female opera arias, and Mozart/Haydn Andantes and Adagios from their symphonies and piano sonatas and Mozart piano concertos and string quartets/quintets are quite deeply felt.

Haydn may have sucked people in with his extroverted and witty allegros, but a troubling andante/adagio wasn't very far away. Same with Mozart.

The folks of the 18th century may have wished to be pleasantly entertained by the music of the day, but it didn't always turn out that way.

I imagine if all Mozart and Haydn was supposed to do was write pleasant trifles to entertain the nobility, they would have either burned themselves out or gone into a different profession.

You are right of course. The general tendencies have exceptions and it is no surprise one hears them prominently in the work of the era's best composers. In the quotation (bold above) I should have specified human passions under an expressive theory. Baroque composers, for example, explored human passions in the more abstract sense of attempting to evoke them in their audiences in the calculated way an orator might. This is why, for example, assuming Bach was expressing his emotions musically would be anachronistic. It is an interesting question whether the passionate music of Haydn and Mozart tends more toward the Baroque impersonal model or the romantic notion of personal expression.

In addition to the cases you cited, it is clear CPE Bach was composing under an expressive theory, as when he subtitled one work "CPE Bach's Feelings."

 

ETA Hoffman (1810) defined "romantic" music not in terms of the author's intent, but instead based on the feelings called forth in the listener. Of course by his definition all three of the major classical symphonists were "romantic."

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven

 

The term "Romantic" was already in use in Mozart's time, and someone (I forget who) applied it to Mozart's Don Giovanni, no doubt with the spooky music for the talking statue and the flames of hell in mind (the kind of thing that would make a proper Enlightenment gentleman flip his peruke).

 

I'm listening through Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies at the moment. Would you describe them as romantic? Haydn said he wanted the slow movement of No.44 "Mourning" played at his funeral, which seems like a romantic request - a personal expression of feeling and a desire to affect the feelings of others, i.e., those attending his funeral.

 

I've always thought those symphonies connect nicely with CPE Bach's more intensely expressive music, as a sort of proto-romantic undertow?

 

In general I go to Haydn for string quartet listening (I heard his Op.76 quartets before any of Mozart's, so I have a first encounter bias). What I don't go for is his piano concertos, which are quite insipid in the way the worst examples of galant music can be. So not ugly, but it would need to be a blind date for us to have another encounter.

 

I have that same first encounter bias toward the quartets. Friends of mine used to have quartet-playing sessions in their home, and there was always Haydn. Of course Beethoven took the string quartet (among other things) into another dimension, and my friends loved to take the plunge into his late quartets (and Bartok's, which I've never learned to like but must admire). But for players and lovers of the string quartet Haydn doesn't take a back seat to anyone.

 

Bruckner modeled symphonies after Beethoven's Ninth. Wagner was not impressed.