Talk:Romantic music/Archive 1

Most important
I've removed the askterisks which indicated which composers were most "important". It's very speculative and not NPOV to have such an indication without any suggestion of what made them important. Glinka (who wasn't marked) was very important in establishing a Russian music, and Widor (also not marked) was a very significant composer for the organ, but neither of them are particularly relevent to, for example, early 20th century German music. Does that make them important or not? I think that some indication of who is significant is useful, but a bare list of askterisks without explanation doesn't seem useful to me. I'd much rather we had a few paragraphs about the development of romantic music wherein we can say who is regarded as most significant and why they are so regarded. I'll have a go at something like this later tonight, I think. --Camembert


 * OK, I've written a bit. Later I'll have a go at annotating the list to give some indication of what the significance of each particular composer was. --Camembert

Hmm, now I've started annotating the list, I think it looks awful. However, I'll try finishing it off and see how it comes out. --Camembert

Well I've annoted the list. I don't think I like the result. Maybe I've written too much about each composer, or maybe it's something else, I don't know. I'll leave it a day or two and see if it grows on me. If anybody can improve it in some way then please please do so (in fact, if anybody were to just remove all the annotations I wouldn't really mind). --Camembert


 * One person, at least, has told me that they like it, so I guess it stays. Hm, been talking to myself a lot here... --Camembert


 * I rather like the annotated lists. I think for a person who doesn't know much about "classical" music but wants a quick idea of what different composers did, without looking up all the individual articles, these kind of lists can be quite useful.  (They have to be short one-liners though or it turns into long appendix of sub-articles!)  Antandrus 15:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Beethoven NOT a Romantic composer
I beg to differ with the categorization of Beethoven as the first Romantic composer. Though I certainly understand that the volatility of emotional content and the manipulation of formal structure in his music could be interpreted as symptomatic of Romanticism, I can think of nothing by him that ever abandons the tenets of classicism. The author comments that Beethoven pushed the boundaries of Classicism and this is certainly true, but his push was from the perspective of one who was steeped in the Classical tradition of Haydn and Mozart. He asserted himself within a compositional procedure that was already fully evolved by these predecessors. One of the main points of Charles Rosen's Classical Style was that Beethoven never crossed the line into Romanticism. The genius of his music was that it undermined but never abandoned formal structure nor did it ever stray from the most basic fundamental harmonic relationships. Beethoven, like Bach represents the culmination of an era and not the start of a new one. It is misleading to classify him otherwise.


 * Friedrich Blume, Classic and Romantic Music 1970 demonstrates that the dichotomy of imagined polarities "Classic" and "Romantic" is spurious.

Do Chopin or Mendelssohn "abandon the tenets of classicism?"


 * Document the controversy people. Stirling Newberry


 * It's not a matter of that. The point is what the composers' perspective was on the music they created. The classical structural model has nothing to do with content and that model continues to be a vehicle for compositional organization to this day. What is the point (other than philosophical) in the argument that Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Haydn are all writing from similar perspectives? A listener could confuse Haydn with Mozart or Beethoven, or perhaps Mendelssohn with Chopin but not the first 3 with the last 2. There is a noticeable change from the first 3 to the last 2 because of orientations toward composing that are discernably different - hence different Periods of Music.


 * That's one POV, on that we should document. We should also document the POV of most musical textbooks. We should also document other POVs to the extent that they have a following and are rooted in verifiable information and have identifiable followings. Stirling Newberry 13:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I daresay there are all sorts of views on this. Some will tell you that Beethoven was essentially a Classical composer, some will point to the politics of Fidelio, the harmonic language of the Grosse Fuge and the sheer scale of the ninth symphony and tell you he was a Romantic, some will say there's no clear line between the two so to try to distinguish is silly...


 * The article as it stands says that Beethoven is "often regarded as the first romantic composer" and "regarded by many as the first romantic composer" (my emphasis). Regardless of your own personal views on the matter, is that really so misleading? --Camembert

Hmmm...I beg to differ. You know, many sources do refer to Beethoven as a bridge between the classical and romantic periods. To back this up, it is also said that Beethoven's early works were synonymous with composers like Haydn and Mozart, but in his later works, he developed a more dramatic style characteristic of romantic music. Any thought here...? --65.73.0.137

I agree with 65.73.0.137. --Ncosmob

I agree, sort of. I think that music is very objectionable. In my opinion I think that the Romantic and Classical period are the same. I don't think there are enough differences between the two periods to classify them differently. But I understand why there are two different periods there, it is easier to identify composers this way. Also we don't need to spend so much time worrying about what period composers are in. But that isn't a good explanation of why I agree with 65.73.0.137. I have studied a couple of Beethoven piano sonatas and he is definitely pushing the boundaries of classicism. But no more than Haydn was in his day and Mozart was in his day. Every new composer is going to do something different. So I think it is ok to classify Beethoven as a Romantic and a Classicist. Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I think that the difference between periods of music is very objectionable. Also between the Romantic period and the Modern period, things are very objectionable. I definitely think that Debussy and Ravel are Romantic. I think that the Romantic period ended about 1950. I think that early Stravinsky is Romantic and most of Bartok is Romantic. I said this last part because some of you will think differently than I do. This shows how objectionable music can be. Sorry to ramble.


 * Beethoven is more different from Mozart than Mozart is from Haydn. I think most romantic composers (especially the early romantic composers) would cite Beethoven as their major influence due to the sheer scale, emotional scope, and expressiveness of his music. Who was the VERY first romantic composer hardly matters, as no other candidate made as great an impact on music as Beethoven. Moreover, Beethoven produced both classical and romantic works. So it is correct to state that Beethoven was the (principal) bridge between the two eras. Spartan


 * I was that user who posted the reply. It is generally considered that the Romantic period ended about 1900 or 1910.  I think it began about 1803, the beginning of Beethoven's middle period.  Beethoven broke the boundaries of classicism from the first composition of his middle period onward, and instead started romanticism.  Debussy is clearly seen as an Impressionist composer, and Ravel is also considered to be by many.  Debussy was sort of a Romantic, but mostly Modernist, and Ravel being practically, if not, totally Modernist.  Stravinsky and Bartok were entirely Modernist composers.  They broke the boundaries of Romanticism and are universally named Modern composers.  Early Rachmaninoff was chiefly Romantic I think, and late Rachmaninoff was pretty much Modern.  Marcus 03:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, but let me say, I totally agree with the original post in this discussion. Beethoven never crossed into Romantisicm. He never broke tradition, nor did he use romantic harmony (which Schubert, the true beginning of Romantisicm, did). There should not be a drop of Beethoven in this article, at the most, a disclaimer that he wasn't a romantic. Just because he was quite emotional compared to Mozart does not mean he's a Romantic. The sources that say that Beethoven is the 'bridge' are wrong... that was Schubert. It's just he's not as acclaimed as Beethoven. (in response to one of the posts above, Debussy is considered much more of an 'Impressionist' than a romantic.) Doublea 21:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have any of you taken music in school? I Have and I know that Beethoven is a classical composer. One of the most well known too. Just ask 99% of the population of the North America. Have any of you ever seen Beethoven portrayed as a Romantic composer on TV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.187.21.11 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, 99% of the population in America will say Beethoven is a classical composer. However, I'll bet my arm that is because the term 'classical' has come to encompass all Western orchestral and art music from 1600 to now, and is now seen as a genre rather than an era. Nice try, though. It's been said before, but there is always going to be debate on this, but the majority of scholars and fans of music agree Beethoven is a 'bridge' of sorts between the two eras. (192.77.143.156 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Strictly speaking, 99% of the population of America would say Beethoven is a dog from a Disney film. 79.79.144.229 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in my third year of university studying music in the UK, where we're taught that Beethoven was both a Classical and a Romantic composer: a bridge, or link between the two periods. I don't think you can see it as a clear-cut topic, there are different ways of interpreting it, in the same way that there are many ways for performers to interpret the same piece of music. KLF Fitton 14:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is your answer - Beethoven straddles the delineation between the two periods. It determining the conclusion, you too soon forget that the 'periods' are separations made after the fact - Beethoven didn't decide to be part of either genre, and displays characteristics of each period during different stages of his life. If musical scholars have pondered this question, a bunch of cursory amateurs like us (minus KLF) can't and won't find the answer. It's neither helpful nor detrimental to leave his mention in this article, so I suggest you leave it be. ALTON   .ıl  02:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I take music, and I would agree with 'UTC'. His later works began to lead into Romantic period. 210.246.6.158 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Musir

Beethoven is the link between the two eras, seen as the creator of Romantic music. His change in instrumentation and less than fluid melodies in his later career are signature of the Romantic's period. Alton is completely correct, and Beethoven can bee seen as a composer in both periods. His music exemplifies both. 149.175.113.106 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is romantic era? And what is classical era? I think that classical is more defined and more strict in rules and sound, romantic is more free. Beethoven certainly have both of those elements, so I think Beethoven stretched the line of the idea of classical music because his works are more passionate with feelings rather than form. However, no one can say the exact date that romantic era started or the classical era ended because composers certainly sometimes remain to compose in the old form or style when a new one starts. I'm not saying that music is a form or style, that's just the ways to compose music. Anyway, I think that Beethoven can be both a classical and romantic composer. 16: 22, 18 July 2007 (XTL)

From Encyclopedia Britannica : "Musical Romanticism was marked by emphasis on originality and individuality, personal emotional expression, and freedom and experimentation of form. Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Schubert bridged the Classical and Romantic periods, for while their formal musical techniques were basically Classical, their music's intensely personal feeling and their use of programmatic elements provided an important model for 19th-century Romantic composers." (192.77.143.156 23:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Beethoven's music is beyond trivial debates about historical style. Having said that, if one has to place him within an era he most certainly belongs within the Classical period, even though he unquestionably exerted a huge influence on Romantic composers. 90.205.92.24 (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Scriabin and Respighi
Scriabin and Respighi have been taken out of the list twice (apparently on account of them not being Romantics) and I've put them back in twice. It is true that Scriabin's later works are rather adventurous and go beyond what is thought of as the Romantic style, but his earlier pieces - up to about 1910, I think - are very much in the style of Chopin or Liszt or somebody like that. Respighi... well, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how anybody could doubt his style is basically Romantic - have you heard his symphonic poems? --Camembert


 * Do you not trust me with my research on Respighi and Scriabin? This is an enilightened argument. Why not move info on these composers to the 20th century classical music section? This time period is most associated with them. My deletions are not erroneous. --65.73.0.137 ''(moved by Camembert from my talk page)

Quote from Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1,000 Greatest Works, "(Twentieth Century: Italy: Honorable Mention) Ottorino Respighi, 1879-1936, who blended many styles, including Impressionism, in creating the symphonic poems The Fountains of Rome and The Pines of Rome;" But I agree completely with your interpretation of Scriabin. --65.73.0.137


 * So you're OK with Scriabin being in the list now? OK, good - I think his early preludes, etudes, mazurkas, sonatas and the piano concerto provide ample evidence of his Romantic style. I'll admit I don't know as much about Respighi, but take The Fountains of Rome, probably his best-known piece: It certainly sounds to me like it's written in a Romantic harmonic language, and it's a symphonic poem trying to give an impression of something non-musical, which is a Romantic trait. Calling it Romantic seems reasonable to me. That's not to say that he wasn't influenced by impressionism as well - I agree that he was - but it was one trait of many. One composer often cited as an important influence on Respighi is his teacher Rimsky-Korasakov, who was certainly Romantic, so, you know, it's not straight forward. I still think it's reasonable to call Respighi's music Romantic in style.


 * Of course, it's fine that they're included in the list of 20th century classical composers (Scriabin is also mentioned in passing at 20th century classical music), but I think they should be listed here too, because I feel that for a substantial part of their careers they wrote music in a Romantic style. --Camembert


 * Labelling the 19th century as "romanticism" was a giant act of imposing POV on music, and it has stuck as a conventionalization. The reason there are so mny "borderline" cases is because what, exactly, is being lumped together isn't clear. Respighi and Strauss have a lot more incommon with each other than either has with Karl Maria von Weber for example. But the solution here is to label such figures as "transitional", point out differing views of which side of the line they fall on and let the reader make up their mind. NPOV is subversive, since most sources want to pretend that their POV is somehow definitive. Just by documenting the controversy it changes the nature of the discussion. Stirling Newberry 13:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that, of course, but when you're dealing with lists it becomes a little more complicated (or simple, depending on how you look at it), because either somebody is in the list or they're not - there's no sensible way of having an in between where you can say "well, some people would like so-and-so to be in the list, but others wouldn't, so here they are in limbo". I'd argue for a generally inclusive approach to lists: that is, if a composer is at all considered romantic (or whatever the list happens to be about), they should be included (possibly with a note saying support for said classification is marginal, if indeed it is). --Camembert


 * Lists should indeed be inclusive. A good indicator is what a composers enemies say about him. If a composer is criticized in the 20th century for being "too conservative" it's a pretty good indication they should be there....

Bluebeard as romantic work
Well to my ear it isn't Romantic at all, its part of the Victorian/Edwardian period. However, given the strange definition of Romantic which musical academia has:

"Composed in 1911, and first performed in 1918, Bluebeard's Castle was Bartok's first masterpiece. Yet its status as a genuine opera, rather than as a cantata-like piece for concert performance, has been gained only slowly; the symbolism of Bela Balazs's text, in the confrontation between Bluebeard and his latest bride Judith, is so complete that any theatrical trappings need to be carefully calculated.

Bluebeard is the perfect opera to hear on disc: the sumptuousness of Bartok's orchestral writing deserves close scrutiny. At that stage, Bartok was still digesting influences, and Wagner and Richard Strauss are juxtaposed in the music with the impressionism of Debussy and Ravel."

Alexander Clements

See also: http://www.allscout-classics.com/book/Inside_Bluebeard_s_Castle_Music_and_Drama_in_Bela_Leafstedt_English.htm

"Berlioz would produce the first important post-Beethoven symphony with his programatic Sinfonie Fantastique." I'm confused at that quoted statement, and I'm probably just missing something. Given the details concerning the process Brahms endured to write the great c min. symphony, and given the symphony's profound nobility and towering magnificence, the work is generally known as the first symphony anyone was brave enough to compose after Beethoven's ninth. Is there a difference in classification I've missed? The "Fantastique" has not become at all dated, as have quite a few often-performed works more recently composed, and it is justly very popular. Most people share Paganini's enthusiam for the works of Berlioz - ahead of their time and wonderfully orchestrated. (Indeed, it is more than conceivable that were it not for Paganini's considerable gift of money, we might not have much of Berlioz' wonderful output.) The Brahms four sympnonies, however, are out-and-out masterpieces which - I believe - have always stood very well alongside those of Beethoven. (To be somewhat prosaic, I always told my students that when a building is taller than a hundred stories, but a nearby building is taller by a few stories, what you have is not that much difference. All else being equal, you have two very impressive landmarks.) Please enlighten me concerning the quote. Rolland Puckett


 * If I recall correctly the Symphonie Fantastique is 1830, just a couple years after Beethoven died, so having it called the "first important post-Beethoven symphony" seems arguably correct (though I'd have to check to see what, if any, symphonies were written in the late 1820s which survive). The Brahms 1st was premiered in 1876, quite a long time later.  Generations of music critics have considered both to be masterworks, but the Berlioz was first.  Hope this answers your question,  Antandrus 01:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Early 1800s?
The opening sentence states that Romantic music runs "from the early 1800s", implying the decade between 1800-1809, yet the history panel at the side of the article gives 1815 as the beginning of this era. Should this be amended to "early 20th century", or was there actually Romantic music around during that decade? (I don't know the subject well enough to judge myself)


 * There really isn't a definite start date; 1815 is a pretty good compromise (that is the year of Schubert's Erlkönig, as well as Beethoven's opus 101, seen as the beginning of his last style period). I presume you mean "early 19th century"?  Antandrus  (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The role of Antonin Dvorak
A quick use of the 'Crtl+F' function showed me no hits on either Antonin or Dvorak, neither did a quick scan of the article. What was the influence of Antonin Dvorak on the romantic music? Is he not regarded one of the greater composers from the latest part of this era? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TRBlom (talk • contribs) October 13 2006.

Moving back the beginning of the Romantic period to 1803
1815 seems to me much too late. I think there are a number of good reasons to date the beginning of the Romantic period as 1803, with the composition of the Eroica. The Eroica seems to be essentially Romantic for a few reasons. First, it established the four-movement symphonic form as a reference point for the rest of the Romantic period. Second, it represented a shift towards the lionized individual (both Beethoveen and the unnamed hero for whom he wrote the symphony) that seems characteristic of Romanticism. Beethoven wrote the Eroica after coming into his own as a composer in an enormously successful concert in 1803, featuring Christus am Olberge. The kind of celebrity those successes afforded him is a uniquely romantic quality. Beethoven also began his work on opera in 1803, subsequently rejecting a Schikaneder libretto (Vestas Feuer, literally a Classical story about Romans) for the Republican love story, Leonore (which became FIDELIO). Finally, many of the the musical qualities of the Eroica were romantic. The orchestration is far more dense than most Mozart symphonies, for example, and the harmonic structure more ambitious.

Basing the beginning of the romantic period on 1815 (the Erlkonig and beginning of Beethoven's late period) doesn't make much sense to me. Why the Erlkonig and not Gretchen am Spinnrade? (Neither was Erlkonig the first major work of the period to use a Goethe text; Beethoven, for one, published a setting of Mephisopheles’ “Flohlied” in 1810). Why Schubert, when his symphonic style is essentially Beethovenian? Why late Beethoven, when by that point Romanticism wasn't beginning but was in full swing with the late string quartets? Why 1815, when at that point, LEONORE had been around for 9 years, having undergone two revisions?

1803 seems a much less arbitrary and better informed way to date the beginning of Romantic music. Kanmalachoa 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but then the basic premise of this article, that the Romantic period lasted until 1910, is not one I accept anyway. Romanticism is only one of many -isms that influenced 19th century music. (IMO This article is being used to (mis) reference the infoboxes that have recently appeared on composers' pages.) --Kleinzach 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I just say that in British schools we are taught that the romantic period really started in 1820 and Beethoven was the 'bridge' between Classical and Romantic. I think we have to look at the Classical Era, as many Classical composers were around until the late 1830's (Source: List_of_Classical_composers ). I would personally leave it where it is. -- 86.112.148.213 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1803 is an absurd date for the beginning of Romanticism in music. Why not move it all the way back to the Sturm und Drang movement, as represented by Haydn's symphonies in the 1770s? After all, E.T.A. Hoffman called both Haydn and Mozart 'Romantic' composers! Or perhaps even to the Empfindsamer Stil of C.P.E. Bach?! The Romantic period began roughly around the year 1830. No earlier than that. Certainly there were adumbrations of Romanticism from composers prior to this date, but no composer with a substantial and mature body of music written pre-1830 can be called truly Romantic, in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.92.216 (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Romantic Opera or not!
This is the section at present (in full):

''In opera, the forms for individual numbers that had been established in classical and baroque opera were more loosely used. By the time Wagner's operas were performed, arias, choruses, recitatives and ensemble pieces often cannot easily be distinguished from each other in the continuous, through-composed music. The decline of castrati led to the heroic leading role in many operas being ascribed to the tenor voice. The chorus was often given a more important role. In France, operas such as Bizet's Carmen are typical, but towards the end of the Romantic period, verismo opera became popular, particularly in Italy. It depicted realistic, rather than historical or mythological, subjects.''

In my view this has nothing to do with Romanticism! Is this article about 19th century music? In which case this entry is inadequate but could be re-written. Or about Romanticism in music? In which case this paragraph is irrelevant. --Kleinzach 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No response - so I have now changed the heading of Romantic Opera to 19th century opera. I hope that's an improvement. --Kleinzach 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this article/Misleading tag
I'd like to explain why I have put the 'Misleading' tag on this article. It's already been noted that there are no sources. I don't think it would be possible to find support for the idea that all music from 1815 to 1910 is Romantic. The 19th century saw many movements, many -isms, of which Romanticism is only one. IMO it would be better to simply re-title the article as 19th century music (moving the 20th century material to a new article). What do other people think? --Kleinzach 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I half-heartedly agree with this, only because if "Romantic" is a misonomer, many thousands of music students have been misled for years. As far as I know, the Music Teacher Association and College Board AP Tests always refer to the era in classical music between Classical and Contemporary as Romantic. The Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music and Musicians reports under Romantic:


 * Based on definition alone, It encompasses the 19th century exactly, so I would concur with the aforementioned proposal. I have to admit, it's not a terribly ingenious name, as it might also be misleading to cursory viewers looking for music of endearment. ALTON   .ıl  05:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems thus that to not call this article "Romantic music" would also be misleading. Hyacinth (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible change of article title to 19th-century music
We have had an interesting discussion about definitions of Romantic music (and the possible change in name of this article here) on the Composers Project, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers. --Kleinzach 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Change of article title to 19th-century music
As there have been no objections or comments above (Problems with this article/Misleading tag, and Possible change of article title to 19th-century music) I propose to change the name of this article and make the necessary changes to the text for consistency within the next few days. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well whatever you change it to, you've got the problem you've got to say just a bit more about Brahms! Bob aka 80.177.213.144 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)aka Linuxlad 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the title "Romantic music" either. I'm not sure about "19th-century music" -- which would imply all the music written between 1801 and 1900, everywhere.  19th-century musical romanticism?  Music of the Romantic period?  Musical Romanticism?  The Prentice-Hall outline series book title is "19th Century Romanticism in Music" which I think is descriptive.  I'm having trouble coming up with a good title though.  I think the article should start with precursors of Romanticism in the 18th century, and go all the way through the 20th century post-romantics, and maybe even have a section on living composers.  Any other suggestions for title and/or article scope?  Antandrus  (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article is to be about Romanticism, the movement, then the title "19th Century Romanticism in Music", as you've suggested, would be good (or perhaps just 'Romanticism in Music'?). This implies leaving out the non-Romantic, but why not?


 * On the other hand, if this article is about a period - in general - I still think "19th-century music" or "19th-century classical music" is the best title - after all there is a 20th century classical music article. (Also a cut-off at 1900 seems better than 1910.) Actually looking at the content we could go either way on this, hence my hesitation about going ahead with any substantial change. --  Kleinzach 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like anyone has gone ahead with this, but I'd agree with Antandrus above: moving this article to "19th-century music" would be a bit of a slight to the many types of music composed in that century which this article has nothing to do with. --Starwed 07:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that this article could either concentrate on the Romantic movement or on the 19th century, and be developed accordingly - I don't think it can do both successfully. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)