What is the Problem with the Romantic Period?

For me the music got too fat and too sweet. My theory is that it is, for me personally, to do with 5HT - a neuro transmitter in the brain that amoungst other thing has something to do with mood. It also happens that this important chemical is also to be found in large quantities in the gut. When I hear a waltz for example I literally feel a little nauseous. As if I'd eaten a too sweet fatty meal.
atb
SJ

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan: Glenn Gould is probably the famous and easy example to cite of this...

Glenn Gould is hardly a representative sample of one to base such a vast generalisation on!
(And Alfred Brendel, say, is the opposite.)

If you look at record sales, what composers are actually recorded, and the composers who are programmed at concerts, it rapidly becomes clear that, for a large majority of the people who claim to like 'classical' music, twentieth century ‘classical’ music simply does not exist. At best, it runs until the end of the first world war. Only a tiny number of later works, many of which have usually become popular through association with films or ads – like Barber’s Adagio, a mere 70 years old – have been added to the popular canon.

And, amongst groups of people you would expect to be interested in twentieth century ‘classical’ music, there is in fact very little awareness of anything written after the end of the second world war. Very little of it is programmed for performance, and composers who have had a full working life are represented by one or two CDs issued by small labels. Strip out all the easy listening, ultra simplistic minimalists (Glass, Part, Reich, Adams et al) and there is very little left indeed.

On the other hand, pick up a copy of Gramophone magazine and wallow in page after page of Schubert, Beethoven and so on, which is being continually rerecorded because there is a market of it.

in romantic music, i find the fullest expression of the musical imagination and the complete fruition of the notion of musical emotion.

romantic music is when those with the appetite, inclination and aptitude to do so took all the lessons of the baroque out for a ride, and they really laid into the gas pedal.

it's easy to forget the first rule of music : do something new. in the middle ages that meant experimenting with instrumental colors (among other things). form became a major concern in the Rennissance, along with a healthy interest in fusing literature to music. by the baroque, form had developed to the point where major works with plot lines
achieved the level of perfection demonstrated in Bach's passions.

with much romantic music, the central struggle is to assimilate these plot driven gains into purely musical forms.

this is one interpretation among many possible interpretations. and in the end, interpertations don't really matter.

i am on a quest.

i hope to train my ear, mind and heart to respond to music as music and nothing else. i seek the emotion in melody and counterpoint.

if successful, i will have attained a state where i can enjoy music through the lens of comprehension. i speculate that this will have at least two aspects :

1 - feeling that comes into my heart directly from the music - that's right, a blast of raw, inexplicable emotion piped into my soul directly from the music!

and

2 - a window opens across time and space, death a vapor dispersed, so that i can see into a composer's heart and mind across centuries.

now all of this may be so much bullshit, but it's useful bullshit.

get yourself worked up into a frothing frenzy of overblown emotion, and you might achieve a state of mind where you can enjoy romantic music.

it's just like trying new foods :-)

or keep a stick up your ass to stay ramrod straight, and listen to Telemann all day and night.

---->>>> the joy in art comes when the consumer (you) feels empathy for the producer (the artists). that has to be worked at.

before i die, i would like to taste it all.

Could you define the Romanic Period ....

Beethoven is sometimes defined as Romantic and sometimes as Classical.

Strauss and Mahler seem to be generally defined as Late Romantic ...

Brahms and Shubert ???

Just a thought.

James H.

quote:

Originally posted by James Hamilton:
Could you define the Romanic Period ....

Beethoven is sometimes defined as Romantic and sometimes as Classical.

Strauss and Mahler seem to be generally defined as Late Romantic ...

Brahms and Shubert ???

Just a thought.

James H.

one common definition is that it starts with beethoven's symphony no. 3 "Eroica" and ends with stravinsky's "pulcinella" and schoenberg's "Perriot Luniare" (sp?).

the ending border is "fuzzy" because a lot of romantic music is still being written (for movies, etc ...)

you can take a look here for more details :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music

and here :

http://www.ipl.org/div/mushist/rom/index.htm

I thought the romantic period was roughly between 10p.m. and midnight.....

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:
I thought the romantic period was roughly between 10p.m. and midnight.....

OR 1980 to about 1984?

Jono

I didn't start really listening to Classical till I was in my mid 30s. One roommate really had a distaste for Romantic works which I thought were fun. He Only liked the early period, the way violins or trumpets would answer each other and the formality of it all. Most of it was too busy for me. But I was brought up on R&R and 50s singers on my parents radio. I took to much 20th C stuff starting with Rite of Spring. Not too dissimilar, he stripped out almost all melody and left you with pounding rhythms.

I've heard some of the European serial music and it was rough and is now dieing out.I see it as an exercise much as Cubism was in art. Not always great in itself but it sure did influence art after that. Salonen conducts Lutoslawski and I have a tough time with it. But give me John Adams any day, love his Naive and Sentimental music.

Well, off to Sunday morning breakfast, gorgeous day.

First off, to dispel any further misconceptions for Chris and Jono, I should have titled this as “…the Romantic Period Music.” Sorry to disappoint

quote:

Could you define the Romanic Period ....

I do not generally like to use dates to assign a strict time period, as there are always exceptions. Rather, I would like to define the style or the point of view of a composer (or artist/writer etc). But in a broad sense you will always hear people connect Romanticism with the 19th century, Classicism with the 18th century, and so on. This is partly true because for Western Art Music things started to really change rapidly after the French Revolution (1799) and through the time of Napoleon. So yes, Beethoven for sure was indeed starting to deliver some of the early ideals of Romanticism by upping the ante on Classicism in his music. He was definitely the right person for the job. Certainly by 1820 or 1825 Romanticism was the title wave to come. For myself, I would say Schubert and Mendelssohn pushed it a little further and Chopin, Liszt and Schumann really were the first hard core Romanticist. Fast forward now to the 20th century and the first 20 or 30 years had many representatives who firmly held onto Romanticism or else just modified Romanticism as Beethoven modified Classicism. Rachmaninoff and Mahler might represent the former and the Impressionists (Ravel, Debussy) could fit to the latter (IMO).

What is Romanticism? It is generally the polar opposite of Classicism. The classical spirit seeks order, form, poise, and serenity; the romantic ideal is about wonder, ideals, ecstasy, intimacy, strangeness, questioning, and emotion. It’s objectivism versus subjectivism. Even Friedrich Nietzsche described classicism as Apollo (god of light and measure) against Dionysus (god of intoxication and passion.)

I posed my questions here not because I believe there are no adherents of Romantic music. There are many I am sure, myself included. I just wonder really why the two forms can’t peacefully coexist maybe? I personally know many professional musicians who fit the mold in the same way as I described Glenn Gould above. They simply will not recognize Romanticism as something valid or give it any credence or respect.

I have two theories for this. The first being that maybe something along the line turned them off and they haven’t given it a proper chance. I’ll bet that many people who have never properly been exposed to “classical” music period would think that say Liberace, parlor music, or flailing arms and an overabundance of body movement represents what Romanticism is. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Not to disparage this but a few may give the wrong impression to the whole; not every does this). To find out for yourself, I would suggest digging a little deeper and seeking out the truth and what is on offer. I’d be glad to help anyone who is interested on this. You don’t have to like it all (I don't) but I am positive that something somewhere within this 100 year period could interest anyone who gave it a shot.

The second theory I have relates to peoples personalities. Classicism tends to be non-intrusive whereas, Romanticism in its truest form is definitely intrusive. It asks you to involve yourself and explore the nether regions of your soul. This might be the key because this takes work and involves risk. Many people are not interested in this sort of activity. I believe, if you are human, then you have much to gain from exploring your own emotions, which extend from happiness to sadness and everything in between. I sometimes think it is like a person who has a 24” comfort zone around them. Any closer than this and you feel threatened. Then someone comes and shakes your hand, looks you in the eye, touches you, worse yet, hugs you and you start to have a panic attic. If you were raised in a home or culture that valued closeness then you would probably think nothing of it and wouldn’t understand the other persons fears.

Again, I’d love to hear what others think about this as well. Has romanticism been unfairly given a poor reputation? Please share your experiences.

Regards,
Doug

Doug,

Sorry to divert, but it was begging for it.

Jono

No problem Jono. I actually thought that was quite funny. I just don't understand how I could have missed that because taken literally, well, their is no problem with that "Romantic Period"

quote:

I just wonder really why the two forms can’t peacefully coexist maybe? I personally know many professional musicians who fit the mold in the same way as I described Glenn Gould above. They simply will not recognize Romanticism as something valid or give it any credence or respect.

I still don't get where this fight is. In what sense are classical music and Romantic music not peacefully coexisting? Do cite some writers on this subject.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

it's easy to forget the first rule of music : do something new.

In my view, the first rule, maybe the only rule, of music, or of any art, is "do something true."

Best,
Fred

What is the problem with [music of] the Romantic Period?

Absolutely none as far as I'm concerned.

Best,
Fred

A couple points here I should clarify. I am not asking the question here of “What is wrong with the Romantic Period Music” as if I think something is wrong with it. To be clear, as a pianist who started playing at 4, my love of music started right in the middle of the Romantic Period (I was about 7 years old when I bought my first Chopin LP’s of the Scherzos/Impromtus). As I matured and investigated all types of music my interests surely point out that I gained a solid appreciation of music in either direction of about 1830.

I understand the fact that not every type of music is for everyone and I myself have freely admitted that there are certain types of music that currently, I have difficulty with too. I wish to respect other people’s interest as I hope they respect mine. I get excited about someone else's love for something even though we may not agree). I have outlined my reasons elsewhere in the past as well for my choices. I guess I’m just really interested in why people (including myself here) make the choices they do. I also realize that over time, I also can and have changed. Many things I didn’t care for 25 years ago are now among my favorite things to listen to or appreciate now. This is why I like to have an open mind about things and ask questions. I’m always trying to learn.

With this post, I was hoping to go beyond just the typical trashing of ideas and those who present ideas to shed some light on this subject. I’m interested more in the psychology of why we become the way we are. Why does one person claim Romantic music makes them physically sick and others discount every last word someone expresses in a typical schoolyard bully fashion?

Jeremy, I realize that my answers will undoubtedly never satisfy you but quite frankly, I am speaking of things that I have personally observed over the least 40 years, at least. I have had piano teachers and been in many musical circles (both professional & amateur) whom have made their opinions known (try learning something from a teacher who doesn’t care about Chopin or Beethoven. Their heart is not in it and you have to go elsewhere if you want to learn this, for example). Just read through any forum (including this one) and you will find people start to fit into a predictable pattern. My comments about Glenn Gould are generally known by anyone who has an interest in classical music. Glenn Gould did not record anything by early romantic composers and those on the periphery such as Beethoven he did so in a mocking fashion really. It is no secret that it was Bach or the like and then 20th century (Schoenberg etc) that he enjoyed playing. (he did do some late romantic transcriptions of Wagner, Strauss etc.). What would cause a musician to ignore a good chunk of repertoire from this period. I see this trend over and over and it has made me wonder why. Why do many dislike the ideals of the Romantic period specifically? Is it related also to their personality in general? Really, it’s fine and it is there choice but from a psychologists perspective maybe, I’m just trying to understand why.


"In what sense are classical music and Romantic music not peacefully coexisting?" What happens when a pianist records Bach on the “piano” let alone if they use a slight bit of pedal to color the music (which is a taboo romantic device). A common outcry by some is that this is not authentic, this was never meant to be…..

Jeremy, I can point you to any Music History texts, many of which I have gone through more than once, over the years to introduce you to many widely held views on this subject. In general, you should surely be aware that many of the 20th century composers wrote the music they did precisely to make the point that they did not want anything to do with the Romantic period ideals. These are well documented facts and not opinions.

What I am trying to ask here is why are the ideals of the Romantic Period (see descriptions of Romantic music in previous posts) frowned upon when one chooses to play Bach in this way, for instance. Why would 20th century composers rebel like they did against an identified target. This is the essence of what I am referring to here overall. What is really wrong with the Romantic Ideals being used to express any form of music?

And yes, I truly would like to see classical/20th century values coexist peacefully with the romantic period ideals. What saddens me deeply is musical ideology and fundamentalism, in any form, as this really kills the real purpose of music in the first place.

Best regards,
Doug

it is acceptable to speak of music as emotion, but it is not acceptable today to allow yourself to feel real emotions, when you react to romantic music.

everything today must be reduced to a kind of machine-work.

romantic music depends on the honest flow of emotion. it's the glue that holds a romantic piece together. without it, all you have is a parts bin full of phrases.

dissection over synthesis.

so people run to punk or rock or wherever they can give vent to their feelings.

classical music no longer possesses the vitality of all new music, because it has been subjected to the poison called perfection.

it has been studied to death.

and that comes out as a revulsion to romantic music precisely because the fruits of music's labors came to its apex during the romantic era.

there is the possibility that classical music has played itself out now.

so we strive for the perfection of knowledge of the museum. romantic music is anathema to this museum.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

romantic music depends on the honest flow of emotion.

As far as I'm concerned, all music depends on the honest flow of emotion.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

My comments about Glenn Gould are generally known by anyone who has an interest in classical music. Glenn Gould did not record anything by early romantic composers and those on the periphery such as Beethoven he did so in a mocking fashion really.

I don't know your comments about Gould, but actually he did record a series of Brahms' Ballades and Rhapsodies in 1982 (the year of his death), and ten Intermezzi in 1960, none of which in a "mocking fashion."

I especially enjoy these early recordings of the Intermezzi, which Gould, who, believe it or not, once described himself as "an incurable romantic," said he wanted to play as though they were being improvised. To my ears, he succeeded wonderfully; they are among my favorite recordings of Brahms' Intermezzi.

He also performed and/or recorded other works by Brahms, including the Piano Quintet, Op. 34, the first Piano Concerto, the third Piano trio, and violin and cello sonatas.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

I don't know your comments about Gould, but actually he did record a series of Brahms' Ballades and Rhapsodies in 1982 (the year of his death), and ten Intermezzi in 1960, none of which in a "mocking fashion."

I especially enjoy these early recordings of the Intermezzi, which Gould, who, believe it or not, once described himself as "an incurable romantic," said he wanted to play as though they were being improvised. To my ears, he succeeded wonderfully; they are among my favorite recordings of Brahms' Intermezzi.

this is also one of my favorite recordings.

quote:

As far as I'm concerned, all music depends on the honest flow of emotion.

Thanks Fred and Mike for your input.

This is probably the kernel of wisdom I was seeking here. What I think is happening though is that some people may disagree with the degree of emotion necessary (for anything). This is why my premise here is about if the type of music you like could, to a large degree, predict your personality. A fundamental principle of classic & 20th century music/art/literature is specifically the separation of Art and Emotion from the outcome. Emotion (and emotions) was viewed as a weakness in man and not relevent. Could this possibly explain why music/art/literature may move one person to tears and the next people would never allow themselves to reach that point. It is the same music but there is a willful effort not to show emotion or be affected by it by one facet. I suppose it is more akin to an academic vision then as opposed to an emotional experience. Is it the risk of excess emotion that might turn people off of Romantic music?

quote:

“there is the possibility that classical music has played itself out now.”

This may be true if you allow society to dictate or guide your life and choices. It is true of most things in that you must turn the noise of the world and mass media off and educate yourself on your own terms. Where I am today is a result of years of self-discovery and just being honest with my ideals and myself. Did classical music ever have a mass following? No, I doubt it. But for those who have come to know it and possibly play an instrument it needs no marketing hoopla to exist and continue on. In a sense though I feel the obligation of a missionary or ambassador in that I hope to pass on the love of music to my children and anyone else that may show interest.

Regards,
Doug

quote:

I don't know your comments about Gould, but actually he did record a series of Brahms' Ballades and Rhapsodies in 1982 (the year of his death), and ten Intermezzi in 1960, none of which in a "mocking fashion."

I especially enjoy these early recordings of the Intermezzi, which Gould, who, believe it or not, once described himself as "an incurable romantic," said he wanted to play as though they were being improvised. To my ears, he succeeded wonderfully; they are among my favorite recordings of Brahms' Intermezzi.

Hi Fred,
This again is not a surprise to me. You will note that I specifically referred to "the early Romantics." If you study the life of Brahms and his musical structure and listen to it you will understand that he was born in the Romantic Period but he "was a traditionalist" at heart. He was known to have turned his eye back to Classicism as he believed that new and important things could still be said within the language and purity of the Classical style.

By the way, I have most of Glenn Gould's recordings and find him to be a fascinating character. As with any musician I do respect their viewpoint and I commend him for taking a stand on something he believed strongly in. Like him or not he introduced many people to the music of Bach, for instance, who may never have otherwise had the interest. I respect him but I don't necessarily have to agree with his stance on everything. As far as the being "an incurable romantic" this is the dilemma most people who resolve to suppress their emotions face at some point. It is the dichotomy of who we want to show the world we are and who we are when we stand alone and look into the mirror at ourselves.

Regards,
Doug