Romanticism v. Classical style

[Megan]

I would like it explained to me the difference between classical and romantic music.

The pieces of Beethoven's music that have a romantic theme to my mind are: the Pastoral symphony, Moonlight Sonata, Choral symphony and even Fidelio and the 9th.

Of course you are perfectly at liberty to say that this is nonesense. But that is because I am purely an admirer of B's music , and lack any background in musicology.

[Preston]

The pieces of Beethoven's music that have a romantic theme to my mind are: the Pastoral symphony, Moonlight Sonata, and even Fidelio and the 9th.

Just because they could be similar to themes (not musical themes) that the Romantics focused on, does not mean that they are written in the styles the Romantics wrote in.

To my understanding, it has to do with the writing style. For instance, you have the Classical musicality, Baroque musicality, Renaissance musicality, Romantic musicality, etc. Each era of music is different styles and ways of writing music. Though, there are all kinds of experimentation in each era and many different styles and ways of writing the music in each era.

...and lack any background in musicology.

You are certainly not alone, .

I wonder if the early and late Romantics understood Beethoven's style or not? If not, could this be a reason they started creating a new style- because, the Classical style somewhat alluded them?

[Sorrano]

For a starter, I would suggest a wider harmonic vocabulary was developed during the Romantic period.

[Peter]

As I've posted on this forum on the subject at great length over the years, I'll just provide a few links to past discussions on this.

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/search.p...7&pp=25&page=9

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthre...light=romantic

[djmomo17]

Originally Posted by Peter

As I've posted on this forum on the subject at great length over the years, I'll just provide a few links to past discussions on this.

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/search.p...7&pp=25&page=9

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthre...light=romantic

Wow talking about this since 2003 in the second link. The first link is not working for me tho

After reading those posts I'm starting to be convinced that Beethoven was neither a Classical nor a Romantic composer. I think I will call him a "Pan-harmonisticist".

[Peter]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

Wow talking about this since 2003 in the second link. The first link is not working for me tho

After reading those posts I'm starting to be convinced that Beethoven was neither a Classical nor a Romantic composer. I think I will call him a "Pan-harmonisticist".

I think we probably started earlier than that! At the end of the day 'Classical' and 'Romantic' are merely labels applied to a particular era and style. I think there is a great misunderstanding of both in terms of what the styles actually are. Form and tonality are of primary importance to the Classical composer, whereas the Romantic composers have more emphasis on lyricism.
The eminent musicologist Charles Rosen has excellent books on this topic which I recommend to anyone who thinks Beethoven is a Romantic composer!

I see from your other comments in another thread you aren't convinced and site two works as examples - one a Fugue, the other variations - Both of which are strict Baroque forms and Beethoven was increasingly drawn to the past in his 3rd period. He had little sympathy for the upcoming Romatic school of Weber, Spohr, Rossini and indeed he was not going in their direction.

[Roehre]

Originally Posted by Peter

I think we probably started earlier than that! At the end of the day 'Classical' and 'Romantic' are merely labels applied to a particular era and style. I think there is a great misunderstanding of both in terms of what the styles actually are. Form and tonality are of primary importance to the Classical composer, whereas the Romantic composers have more emphasis on lyricism.
The eminent musicologist Charles Rosen has excellent books on this topic which I recommend to anyone who thinks Beethoven is a Romantic composer!

I see from your other comments in another thread you aren't convinced and site two works as examples - one a Fugue, the other variations - Both of which are strict Baroque forms and Beethoven was increasingly drawn to the past in his 3rd period. He had little sympathy for the upcoming Romantic school of Weber, Spohr, Rossini and indeed he was not going in their direction.

May I point to the fact that Beethoven, nor any of his contemporaries or his immediate predecessors thought of themselves as "classicists", and that the only "rule books" merely were restricted to harmony and counterpoint, and didn't contain rules regarding (what we now have defined as) sonata form, "lied"form, rondo etcetera?

As a consequence the diaposition of several keys and different characters of melodies was something which was done as seemed right.
Hence monothematic works like some of the Haydn symphonies' 1st mvts, but e.g. Beethoven's opus 127 1st mvt as well, development-sections in Mozart and Schubert sonata form which hardly deserve that name(any of their symphonies' 1st mvts e.g.), extensive development sections following the re-capitulation/re-exposition in Beethoven sonata forms (e.g. Symphony 5 and 9 1st mvts) re-defining what is in Schubert's or Mozart's symphonies just a coda of a couple of bars' length.

It was the expanding of the forms (or should we say: formulae?) together with a more personal approach of music which aurally and technically started with "romanticism". It is very difficult listening to Mozart and Haydn to say who is who if you don't know the piece, but Mendelssohn and Schumann, let alone Weber and Beethoven [just to mention only some German-speaking composers] are generally speaking immediately recognizable.

And let's face that it were the musicologists, who emerged from the 1840s-1850s onwards, who defined the forms which I mentioned earlier, and defined them academically, made them to some kind of "mathematical" or "natural" law to which composers were supposed to "obey". Those who did, e.g. Raff, Gernsheim, Jenner, to mention just 3 contemporaries of Brahms', are now considered to be academic composers, with theoretically brilliantly composed works, but without much interest otherwise compared to those who broke those "rules" like Brahms or Liszt. The world's first music-historical society dates from 1869.

Beethoven shaped his music in ways which were inconceivable before he did so: expanding structures, new melodic shaping (rhythmical cells rather than a "proper melody" in the 5th e.g.), new instrumental combinations and colours(piano and timpani in the cadenza for opus 61a), rhytmical developments like the scherzo in the 9th (ritmo di tre battutte, ritmo di quattro battute e.g.) or the cross rhythms in opus 133, and harmonically, e.g. opus 95 or again op.133, looking forward to Bartok and Schönberg.

[Btw, I posted this text on the "greatest accomplishment" thread as well]

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Roehre

May I point to the fact that Beethoven, nor any of his contemporaries or his immediate predecessors thought of themselves as "classicists", and that the only "rule books" merely were restricted to harmony and counterpoint, and didn't contain rules regarding (what we now have defined as) sonata form, "lied"form, rondo etcetera?

As a consequence the diaposition of several keys and different characters of melodies was something which was done as seemed right.
Hence monothematic works like some of the Haydn symphonies' 1st mvts, but e.g. Beethoven's opus 127 1st mvt as well, development-sections in Mozart and Schubert sonata form which hardly deserve that name(any of their symphonies' 1st mvts e.g.), extensive development sections following the re-capitulation/re-exposition in Beethoven sonata forms (e.g. Symphony 5 and 9 1st mvts) re-defining what is in Schubert's or Mozart's symphonies just a coda of a couple of bars' length.

It was the expanding of the forms (or should we say: formulae?) together with a more personal approach of music which aurally and technically started with "romanticism". It is very difficult listening to Mozart and Haydn to say who is who if you don't know the piece, but Mendelssohn and Schumann, let alone Weber and Beethoven [just to mention only some German-speaking composers] are generally speaking immediately recognizable.

And let's face that it were the musicologists, who emerged from the 1840s-1850s onwards, who defined the forms which I mentioned earlier, and defined them academically, made them to some kind of "mathematical" or "natural" law to which composers were supposed to "obey". Those who did, e.g. Raff, Gernsheim, Jenner, to mention just 3 contemporaries of Brahms', are now considered to be academic composers, with theoretically brilliantly composed works, but without much interest otherwise compared to those who broke those "rules" like Brahms or Liszt. The world's first music-historical society dates from 1869.

Beethoven shaped his music in ways which were inconceivable before he did so: expanding structures, new melodic shaping (rhythmical cells rather than a "proper melody" in the 5th e.g.), new instrumental combinations and colours(piano and timpani in the cadenza for opus 61a), rhytmical developments like the scherzo in the 9th (ritmo di tre battutte, ritmo di quattro battute e.g.) or the cross rhythms in opus 133, and harmonically, e.g. opus 95 or again op.133, looking forward to Bartok and Schönberg.

[Btw, I posted this text on the "greatest accomplishment" thread as well]

Well I think many of the new things you attribute to Beethoven were found in Haydn - rhythmic cells and motives, monothematic movements, experimentation with orchestra effects, unusual choice of keys, to name just a few. I think there is an obvious difference between the music of Haydn and Mozart and I think Beethoven was more influenced by Haydn.

Yes the 'classical sonata form' was defined by academics after the event, but I don't think the fact that all their secondary tonalities showed an increase in tension was done as something that 'seemed right'. The Romantics tend to have a relaxation of tension in their secondary tonalities - Beethoven never undermines the importance of the tonic-dominant relationship and in this he is a truly classical composer.

As to Beethoven looking forward to Bartok and Schoenberg, I always find remarks like that odd - as though he had some cyrstal ball! Perhaps it might be more accurate to say Bartok and Schoenberg looking back to Beethoven?

[Preston]

Is it not possible that Beethoven made the Classical style what it is or used the Classical style to the fullest? By, basing a lot of his compositions on the form and techniques of Mozart and Haydn, then expanding them to new unprecedented heights, techniques, form, etc. If so, could it not be said that Beethoven stayed true to the Classical style, yet at the same time, brought new elements, effects, techniques, etc. to it?

I read in Thayer a while ago, that when someone (cannot remember who) asked Beethoven who his favorite composer was, Beethoven replied,

"It was Mozart, now it is Handel."

---------------------------------------
Also, why does everyone want to call Beethoven a composer of the Romantic style?

To my understanding, Beethoven heard the music of the early Romantics- Weber and Schubert- and enjoyed Schubert (not sure about Weber) but, did not love his style as much as that of the late Mozart and Handel? Is that correct?

[Preston]

Originally Posted by Peter

As to Beethoven looking forward to Bartok and Schoenberg, I always find remarks like that odd - as though he had some cyrstal ball!

Peter, do you think a man of as great genius as Beethoven was, that he could have known the direction music would take? It seems as though it could be possible. I imagine genius of Beethoven's nature to be beyond belief, blessed by the divine powers. Though, I do not know?

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Preston

Peter, do you think a man of as great genius as Beethoven was, that he could have known the direction music would take? It seems as though it could be possible. I imagine genius of Beethoven's nature to be beyond belief, blessed by the divine powers. Though, I do not know?

Well he wasn't pleased with the music of the upcoming Romantic school - (unable to think of a contemporary composer he admired except the academic Cherubini), rather strange since some are suggesting he was the main instigator of the new movement! He objected to the weakening of tonality 'too much chromaticism' was one of his objections to Spohr's music and of course this did finally lead to the atonal music of Schoenberg - perhaps he did forsee this might happen but his remarks hardly suggest it was a direction he himself would have approved of.

In the 1820s Beethoven was complaining that he was not appreciated and thought of as old fashioned - he was right. He was not fashionable at that time because of the craze for Italian opera and the rise of the Romantic movement. And what of his influence on the early Romantics? Charles Rosen points out that all that is best in the new movement is a reaction against Beethoven, and all that is weakest is the attempts to pay homage.

[Preston]

Originally Posted by Peter

Well he wasn't pleased with the music of the upcoming Romantic school - (unable to think of a contemporary composer he admired accept the academic Cherubini), rather strange since some are suggesting he was the main instigator of the new movement! He objected to the weakening of tonality 'too much chromaticism' was one of his objections to Spohr's music and of course this did finally lead to the atonal music of Schoenberg - perhaps he did forsee this might happen but his remarks hardly suggest it was a direction he himself would have approved of.

In the 1820s Beethoven was complaining that he was not appreciated and thought of as old fashioned - he was right. He was not fashionable at that time because of the craze for Italian opera and the rise of the Romantic movement. And what of his influence on the early Romantics? Charles Rosen points out that all that is best in the new movement is a reaction against Beethoven, and all that is weakest is the attempts to pay homage.

Yes, I remember reading about his respect for Cherubini in Thayer. It actually was on the very same page when Beethoven mentioned Mozart and Handel.

I believe it went something like this:

"Who do you think is the greatest living composer", asked some Englishman (Maybe Smart was his last name, I forget?)

Beethoven hesitated (who knows if he really did hesitate), then replied, "Cherubini."

"Who is your favorite deceased composer", asked the Englishman.

Beethoven replied, "It was Mozart. Now it is Handel."

Also, I think that by saying Mozart's name when asked for "one" particular composer shows his love for Mozart.


I too believe, it was almost anything but the direction Beethoven would have wanted to take.

As for Rossini, I remember reading about how Rossini came to Beethoven's house, at one point. All, I remember is that Beethoven told Rossini, "You do not know drama." Now that is funny, and true, imo.

[Roehre]

He objected to the weakening of tonality 'too much chromaticism' was one of his objections to Spohr's music and of course this did finally lead to the atonal music of Schoenberg - perhaps he did forsee this might happen but his remarks hardly suggest it was a direction he himself would have approved of.

I disagree to some extent, as the Serioso quartet as well as in the late quartets [especially op.133, but op.130 (Cavatina), 132 (Dankgesang) and 131 (variations) too] show that B himself was sometimes exploring the verges of atonality or at least of non-functional harmony .

As far as forward-looking is concerned: I find it very remarkable, that though there are certain beethovenian influences in Mendelssohn (late quartets in op.12 and 13 quartets), Schumann and Brahms, it were Schönberg and Bartok who continued the thread of exploring the art of the quartet where Beethoven had left it after op.130/133 [I am convinced that the late quartets have got to be split into three groups: 127; 132-130-133-131; finale 130-135. Beethoven was on the verge of entering a new, more classically orientated style imo. There is a stylistic rupture between op.130 vi/135 and the previous quartets.] The influence of op.135 on them seems to me to be of a lesser nature than that of the other late quartets.

Well I think many of the new things you attribute to Beethoven were found in Haydn - rhythmic cells and motives, monothematic movements, experimentation with orchestra effects, unusual choice of keys, to name just a few. I think there is an obvious difference between the music of Haydn and Mozart and I think Beethoven was more influenced by Haydn.

I certainly don't mean that Beethoven invented that all. On the contrary, I am with you that (apart from the piano concertos) Haydn (and to a lesser extent C.P.E.Bach , Dussek, Clementi and later to some extent Cherubini [overtures!]) was the first and foremost example for Beethoven.

[djmomo17]

Wow - so much to chew on in this thread! I may need some snacks before this is all over.

Originally Posted by Peter

As to Beethoven looking forward to Bartok and Schoenberg, I always find remarks like that odd - as though he had some cyrstal ball! Perhaps it might be more accurate to say Bartok and Schoenberg looking back to Beethoven?

It was pointed out in one of Leonard Bernstein's Harvard Lectures that there is something like a 10-note tone row in the choral movement of the 9th Symphony. I think it's the hushed vocal recitative in the "Allegro energico, sempre ben marcato", but I that's just my wild shot, I wouldn't know a tone row unless it had numbers attached to the noteheads...

I often wonder if B had lived as long as Haydn, what would have been created? I'm convinced from Opus 135, the revised finale of Opus 130, and the reported sketches of the 10th symphony that there would have been some short-term retrenchment to a simpler harmonic language (I will not say 'classicism'), but then a leap forward into possibly impressionism. I don't think he would have liked Wagner actually...so I guess I don't feel B was a Romantic after all.

Edit: I just read up to your last post Roehre - so I am in agreement about the finale 130-135 points you mention above obviously.

Originally Posted by Preston

As for Rossini, I remember reading about how Rossini came to Beethoven's house, at one point. All, I remember is that Beethoven told Rossini, "You do not know drama." Now that is funny, and true, imo.

Ah yes, I looked up the incident in the Marek book:

B. continues: "Look opera seria - that's not the Italians' nature. They don't have enough musical science to deal with real drama; and how could they acquire it in Italy?"

Ouch.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Roehre

I disagree to some extent, as the Serioso quartet as well as in the late quartets [especially op.133, but op.130 (Cavatina), 132 (Dankgesang) and 131 (variations) too] show that B himself was sometimes exploring the verges of atonality or at least of non-functional harmony .

As far as forward-looking is concerned: I find it very remarkable, that though there are certain beethovenian influences in Mendelssohn (late quartets in op.12 and 13 quartets), Schumann and Brahms, it were Schönberg and Bartok who continued the thread of exploring the art of the quartet where Beethoven had left it after op.130/133 [I am convinced that the late quartets have got to be split into three groups: 127; 132-130-133-131; finale 130-135. Beethoven was on the verge of entering a new, more classically orientated style imo. There is a stylistic rupture between op.130 vi/135 and the previous quartets.] The influence of op.135 on them seems to me to be of a lesser nature than that of the other late quartets.


I certainly don't mean that Beethoven invented that all. On the contrary, I am with you that (apart from the piano concertos) Haydn (and to a lesser extent C.P.E.Bach , Dussek, Clementi and later to some extent Cherubini [overtures!]) was the first and foremost example for Beethoven.

Several interesting points that I think confirm Beethoven was not a 'Romantic' composer! Yes Beethoven's late works especially the chamber music had little influence at all on the upcoming Romantic school and it wasn't until the 20th century that they were influential. I don't accept your suggestion that Beethoven was hinting at atonality - as Rosen points out Beethoven was as rich as any composer in dissonances but it was always fully integrated within a diatonic framework leaving the tonic triad master.
Rosen goes on to say of the late works 'it is this concentration upon the simplest and most fundamental relationships of tonality that characterizes Beethoven's late style most profoundly'

Atonality didnot evolve from Beethoven's late works but out of the chromatic harmony and lack of resolution suggested in Wagner and Liszt.
Beethoven was not the beginning of a new style, Romanticism, he was the summing up and fulfilment of the Classical style. In his late works he became more'classical' than in his youth and to some extent even Baroque! He was looking back and I think perhaps this is where the influence on the 20th century comes in with the neo-classical and neo-Baroque.

[Preston]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

Ah yes, I looked up the incident in the Marek book:

B. continues: "Look opera seria - that's not the Italians' nature. They don't have enough musical science to deal with real drama; and how could they acquire it in Italy?"

Ouch.

I thought he simply said it to Rossini's face- which, would have been all the better, .

Can anyone clarify?

[Preston]

Originally Posted by Preston

"Who is your favorite deceased composer", asked the Englishman.

Beethoven replied, "It was Mozart. Now it is Handel."

Also, I think that by saying Mozart's name when asked for "one" particular composer shows his love for Mozart.

Yesterday, I was reading Thayer, and found some fascinating information. Since Beethoven was around 30, and possibly younger (I do not know, though, imagine so.) he worshiped, so to say, Mozart and Handel!!! I find this fascinating.

Also, he considered Bach to be not as worthy as Mozart and Handel.

I read all kind of fascinating letters from Beethoven's friends. I read this in chapter (year) 1805.

Also, apparently- even then- Beethoven was of unbelievable eccentricity. It said things such as, he would mess up furniture (especially the more expensive), he was very clumsy (In fact, so much, you could not hand him a glass, so to say, for he might spill it!), he would get very, very mad, etc.- all types of things.

What I read was in much more detail- though, I found it so fascinating and sad.

Long live the great genius!

[djmomo17]

Originally Posted by Preston

I thought he simply said it to Rossini's face- which, would have been all the better, .

In my post I meant that he DID say that to his face. Part of the same conversation mentioned earlier.
I haven't read the Thayer books yet. I've been meaning to but there's so many books on the shelf waiting to be read. Like the Rosen book mentioned by Peter. I also have his "Sonata Forms" book too. Is there a book topic existing? Since I'm clearly going off-topic now...

[Preston]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

In my post I meant that he DID say that to his face. Part of the same conversation mentioned earlier.
I haven't read the Thayer books yet. I've been meaning to but there's so many books on the shelf waiting to be read. Like the Rosen book mentioned by Peter. I also have his "Sonata Forms" book too. Is there a book topic existing? Since I'm clearly going off-topic now...

Thank you for the clarification, and sorry for my lack of detail in writing what I thought Beethoven said.

Yes, there is a thread in the General Discussion forum, called "What Are You Reading Now". Here is a link:

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3424

[Peter]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

I Is there a book topic existing? Since I'm clearly going off-topic now...

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthre...ighlight=books

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Preston

Yesterday, I was reading Thayer, and found some fascinating information. Since Beethoven was around 30, and possibly younger (I do not know, though, imagine so.) he worshiped, so to say, Mozart and Handel!!! I find this fascinating.

Also, he considered Bach to be not as worthy as Mozart and Handel.

I read all kind of fascinating letters from Beethoven's friends. I read this in chapter (year) 1805.

Also, apparently- even then- Beethoven was of unbelievable eccentricity. It said things such as, he would mess up furniture (especially the more expensive), he was very clumsy (In fact, so much, you could not hand him a glass, so to say, for he might spill it!), he would get very, very mad, etc.- all types of things.

What I read was in much more detail- though, I found it so fascinating and sad.

Long live the great genius!

You have to remember that Beethoven would only have known a small amount of Bach's music and even then his estimation of Bach was only slightly lower than that of Handel.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Preston

I thought he simply said it to Rossini's face- which, would have been all the better, .

Can anyone clarify?

Beethoven was actually slightly envious of Rossini's popularity and his speed of writing and he admired 'The Barber of Seville'. There is more to Rossini's music than the frivolous - some of his choral writing anticipates Verdi and undoubtedly was an influence on him.

[Preston]

Originally Posted by Peter

You have to remember that Beethoven would only have known a small amount of Bach's music and even then his estimation of Bach was only slightly lower than that of Handel.

Yes, that seems to be the better wording.

[djmomo17]

Getting back to the original question, Machlis & Forney's book The Enjoyment of Music has some distinctions between Classical and Romantic Music

CLASSICAL
Melody: Symmetrical melody in balanced phrases and cadences; diatonic w narrow leaps

Rhythm: Clear, with regularly occuring accents, dance rhythms favored

Harmony: Diatonic harmony favored; tonic-dominant relationships expanded, became basis for large scale forms

Texture: Homophonic textures; horizontal perspective

Form: Ternary form predominant; sonata-allegro form developed; absolute forms preferred

Timbre: Changing tone colors between sections of works

Etc

ROMANTIC
Melody: Expansive, singing melodies; wide ranging; more varied; with chromatic inflections

Rhythm: Rhythmic diversity & elasticity; tempo rubato

Harmony: increasing chromaticism; expanded concepts of tonality

Texture: Homophony, turning to increased polyphony in later years

Form: Expansions of form and interest in continuous as well as miniature programmatic forms

Timbre: Continual change and blend of tone colors; experiments with new instruments and unusual ranges

etc

There's actually 8 more differing categories but that's all I'm willing to type at this point...

As far as Beethoven is concerned I think he started out Classical and ended up with some Romantic qualities. In fact Machlis lists Beethoven in both categories. Actually he puts Schubert in both as well...

[Peter]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

Getting back to the original question, Machlis & Forney's book The Enjoyment of Music has some distinctions between Classical and Romantic Music

CLASSICAL
Melody: Symmetrical melody in balanced phrases and cadences; diatonic w narrow leaps

Rhythm: Clear, with regularly occuring accents, dance rhythms favored

Harmony: Diatonic harmony favored; tonic-dominant relationships expanded, became basis for large scale forms

Texture: Homophonic textures; horizontal perspective

Form: Ternary form predominant; sonata-allegro form developed; absolute forms preferred

Timbre: Changing tone colors between sections of works

Etc

ROMANTIC
Melody: Expansive, singing melodies; wide ranging; more varied; with chromatic inflections

Rhythm: Rhythmic diversity & elasticity; tempo rubato

Harmony: increasing chromaticism; expanded concepts of tonality

Texture: Homophony, turning to increased polyphony in later years

Form: Expansions of form and interest in continuous as well as miniature programmatic forms

Timbre: Continual change and blend of tone colors; experiments with new instruments and unusual ranges

etc

There's actually 8 more differing categories but that's all I'm willing to type at this point...

As far as Beethoven is concerned I think he started out Classical and ended up with some Romantic qualities. In fact Machlis lists Beethoven in both categories. Actually he puts Schubert in both as well...

Interesting because Charles Rosen (with whom I agree) arrives at the opposite conclusion, that Beethoven started off with more Romantic tendencies and ended up with a stricter classical style. Where I do agree with you is Schubert who I think was a pivotal composer between the two styles.

As to the Machlis & Forney list - Have they listened to any Haydn? Just by their classical rhythm definition alone Haydn isn't a 'classical composer'! Let me quote from Rosemary Hughes 'Haydn's music is full of odd phrase lengths' and his music is full of rhythmic twists, unexpected modulations. In Mozart there is a decided increase in the use of chromatic melody and harmony.

It is interesting how the 19th century ignored Haydn only to completely misunderstand Beethoven and this continued well into the 20th century.

[djmomo17]

Originally Posted by Peter

...that Beethoven started off with more Romantic tendencies and ended up with a stricter classical style...
.

What? Wow. Ok the Rosen book is must read.

Originally Posted by Peter

... 'Haydn's music is full of odd phrase lengths' and his music is full of rhythmic twists, unexpected modulations. In Mozart there is a decided increase in the use of chromatic melody and harmony.
.

Peter can you suggest some representative Haydn movements? Same with Mozart, which would be Mozart's most harmonically bold work?

[Peter]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

What? Wow. Ok the Rosen book is must read.



Peter can you suggest some representative Haydn movements? Same with Mozart, which would be Mozart's most harmonically bold work?

The Classical period abounds in these features - Rosen points out that the standard 4 bar phrase wasn't the norm until the 1820s - from the start phrases of 3,6,7 etc are common. Haydn's quartet Op.20/4 starts with seven independent 6 bar phrases - only one example amongst thousands.

For harmonic boldness how about Mozart's Kleine Gigue K.574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0qq...eature=related
or the opening to the quartet k.465 'Dissonance' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZylz3nCwQ
Mozart's melodic writing is also full of chromaticism and I think that is one of the distinguishing features of his music compared to Haydn's.

I do highly recommend Rosen's book - no one to my mind has done a more comprehensive study of the Classical style and has such a thorough understanding that explains the many misconceptions, especially in relation to Haydn and Beethoven.

[Sorrano]

Schumann should have some serious consideration here. After all, not only does his music represent the "new" music, but he had an important voice via his journal in promoting the "new" music.

[djmomo17]

Originally Posted by Peter

For harmonic boldness how about Mozart's Kleine Gigue K.574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0qq...eature=related
or the opening to the quartet k.465 'Dissonance' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZylz3nCwQ
Mozart's melodic writing is also full of chromaticism and I think that is one of the distinguishing features of his music compared to Haydn's.

Thanks, these are pretty cool, the Mozart Dissonance qrtt could definitely be mistaken for an Opus 18 work, possibly even an Opus 59.

So this sounds like a dumb question but I am being totally serious. On a purely harmonic and melodic level, what are the distinguishing differences between the Classical period and the post-Romantics like Debussy or Mahler. Is it just more of the same (chromaticism and wild modulations)?

Off the top of my head I can say Debussy used modes and unusual scales like whole tone. Tho I believe modal writing was present in at least the Heiliger Dankgesang. I guess this question boils down to the fact that my ear can immediately discern the difference between a Haydn symphony and a Debussy nocturne, but how does it do it?

[Peter]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

Thanks, these are pretty cool, the Mozart Dissonance qrtt could definitely be mistaken for an Opus 18 work, possibly even an Opus 59.

So this sounds like a dumb question but I am being totally serious. On a purely harmonic and melodic level, what are the distinguishing differences between the Classical period and the post-Romantics like Debussy or Mahler. Is it just more of the same (chromaticism and wild modulations)?

Off the top of my head I can say Debussy used modes and unusual scales like whole tone. Tho I believe modal writing was present in at least the Heiliger Dankgesang. I guess this question boils down to the fact that my ear can immediately discern the difference between a Haydn symphony and a Debussy nocturne, but how does it do it?

Well the basic ingredients are the same - tonality, it is simply the use made of it. With Debussy the tonic key is not master as it is in a classical piece, his music is also more about texture and colour rather than formal structure. You are quite right about Debussy's use of different scales - diatonic harmony was not of the prime importance it was to the classical composer.

[djmomo17]

Can you contrast Beethoven and Mahler then? Or Prokofiev? Mahler and Prokofiev's symphonies have definite tonal centers, yet I can tell the difference within a few measures. Why? Also Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony has color, especially in the Storm section. Could that movement be called "impressionism"?

[Peter]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

Can you contrast Beethoven and Mahler then? Or Prokofiev? Mahler and Prokofiev's symphonies have definite tonal centers, yet I can tell the difference within a few measures. Why? Also Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony has color, especially in the Storm section. Could that movement be called "impressionism"?

From around the end of the 17th century up until the beginning of the 20th, the major-minor scale system was the common language used by composers. The reason you can tell the difference is because every great composer has his own voice, his own style that generally make his music instantly recognisable even when they are contemporary such as Bach, Handel, Scarlatti / Haydn and Mozart / Bruckner, Brahms / Mahler, Sibelius, Strauss / Shostakovich and Prokofiev - . This of course has its parallels in other art forms - Dickens, Austen and Hardy for example use the same language but are quite distinct.

[djmomo17]

Originally Posted by Peter

From around the end of the 17th century up until the beginning of the 20th, the major-minor scale system was the common language used by composers. The reason you can tell the difference is because every great composer has his own voice, his own style that generally make his music instantly recognisable even when they are contemporary such as Bach, Handel, Scarlatti / Haydn and Mozart / Bruckner, Brahms / Mahler, Sibelius, Strauss / Shostakovich and Prokofiev - . This of course has its parallels in other art forms - Dickens, Austen and Hardy for example use the same language but are quite distinct.

I agree that every composer has his own voice (well, every GOOD composer) but can you be more specific on a harmonic/melodic level? The major/minor scale is used by Billy Joel but I can tell his work from a Beethoven sonata instantly. Sorry if these seem like dumb questions, I'm really curious...

[Peter]

Originally Posted by djmomo17

I agree that every composer has his own voice (well, every GOOD composer) but can you be more specific on a harmonic/melodic level? The major/minor scale is used by Billy Joel but I can tell his work from a Beethoven sonata instantly. Sorry if these seem like dumb questions, I'm really curious...

It is the use a composer makes of the same basic ingredients that is the difference. To take your example of Billy Joel or most pop music - the harmonies are quite basic and the structures very short - the melodies often have much repetition and there is no real development of thematic material.
So there are characteristics that composers have - Beethoven for example has a tendency to try to avoid the classical tonic-dominant relationship, but as Rosen points out he uses 'substitute dominants' such as the mediant that function in the same way by providing the increase in tension that is common to secondary classical tonalities, but not to early Romantic composers who generally have a weakening of tension.

This is a very complex topic and Rosen's book is the one to help, BUT it is not easy reading and takes a lot of digesting to understand his perspectives - it helps if you are a musician!

[Bonn1827]

I absolutely agree, Peter, about the Rosen. I found it extremely difficult to grapple with and I have 2 other university degrees!! I also play piano (not well) and have studied up to 7th grade musicianship and still found Rosen challenging.

These issues are not simple to deal with. I think the question really involves musical "fingerprints" to a degree, really. And this was covered some time ago on another thread, if I'm not mistaken. And now I must return to "Anna Karenina"!!