Music theory question about Late Classical/Romantic era music

Cafe Society
1

While I thoroughly enjoy Baroque and early Classical music (Bach, Handel, Mozart), I simply can’t enjoy the workds from almost all subsequent classical composers. Beethoven for me is the start of what I perceive as boring, pompous, and long-winded music that is perfected by Wagner. Listening to the final aria in Handel’s Theodora gives me goosebumps; Wagner, on the other hand . . . yawn.

Can anyone versed in music theory explain why this is the case? I understand what I perceive as boring and long-winded may come down to lack of sophistication in taste ( :smiley: ), but I’ve been listening to classical music for over 20 years now and simply have never warmed up to post-Classical era music. Was there a change in composition techniques that made post-Mozart music less “catchy” to listeners?

2

Are you talking about vocal music (choral, opera, etc.), instrumental music, or both?

3

Both.

4

I personally find post-Classical music/Romantic era the most “catchy.” I like Baroque, I like late-Classical through Romantic, but Classical era puts me to sleep and bores the hell out of me (I feel like a Philistine saying that, but it’s just too “dainty” to me, for lack of a better discriptor). One of the big changes is the exapanded harmony of Romantic music. More dissonance is used; the music becomes more chromatic; melody lines become more expansive, free-form, and less rigidly structured; harmonies, as mentioned, become richer, with a more expansive harmonic palette, specifically with the diminished seventh becoming a more widely used chord; modulations to less-related keys becomes more common; the flatted second and augmented fourth shows up more and more; rhythmically, rubato (which is a type of rhythmic freedom) becomes prevalent. In my experience, both dynamic and tempo changes become more contrasted/extreme.

Somebody can chime in with a much more in-depth discussion, but those are basic differences that I hear (and why I find the music more interesting and rich, myself.)

5

For what it’s worth, I kind of agree with you when it comes to vocal classical music, in which I like the works from the Baroque and early Classical periods better than what came later. When it comes to instrumental music, though I like all periods, I do appreciate the greater variety and complexity that came with the Romantic era. And I’ve never been a particular fan of Wagner; if you don’t like the Romantic Era in music, he could easily epitomize what you don’t like about it.

During the late Romantic era, musicians themselves were somewhat divided into two rival factions, which were epitomized by Wagner on the one hand and Brahms on the other (the “War of the Romantics”). Both “sides,” however, tended to be more long-winded and ambitious and chromatic (meaning they didn’t mainly just stick to the notes of the particular major or minor scale of the key they were writing in) than the earlier Classical and Baroque Eras, and both sort of saw themselves as continuing down the trail that Beethoven had blazed.

So in reaction, the “Neoclassical” movement came along in the early 20th century—the description of which may help you see what you find appealing in earlier music:

6

Very informative responses, especially the part about the “perceived formelessness” of late Romanticism. And pulykamell, I find it interesting that the more free-form and less structured nature of later music is one of the reasons you find it enjoyable! That’s one of the things that I do not like about post-Classical music.

I suppose another thing I like about Baroque music is the strong use of counterpoint, which to my ears seem to be missing from later music.

7

This is better suited to Cafe Society than General Questions.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

8

There’s still plenty of form in Romantic music, but it’s not as rigid. I find the music much more expressive, myself. Chopin can bring me to tears in a way Classical era music never has. (When I die, I want his Nocturne in E-flat played at my funeral.) It’s completely personal, but Mozart, for example, leaves me cold.

That’s what I love about Baroque, as well. My favorite composers to play, when I was a kid learning piano (and still today, although I don’t play much classical music anymore, more improvisational styles and pop/rock music) were Bach, Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann. I loved the intricate countermelodies in Bach, and the lush chord orchestrations of Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann. Especially on piano, it just sounded so rich and grandiose.

Of course, that is all personal opinion. No doubt people are as affected by Mozart as I am by my Romantic favorites, but as much as I’ve tried and tried and tried to really “get” Mozart and other composers of that era like Haydn, I just could not get into it. It’s not until Beethoven shows up that I start enjoying the music again.

9

Simply a matter of taste. I have been listening to classical music for 30 years, and for me the opposite holds. Handel has disappeared completely from my collection, while I love the late romantics (like Wagner and Mahler). Nobody has to like all of it.

10

I am no expert but I too enjoy many vocal works of the Baroque - though I prefer instrumental works - and earlier periods and dislike many later vocal works. For me, a lot of it is the tendency for solo and duet performers in later works to demonstrate their vocal range rather than actually sing. Instrumental later music is just fine, however.

11

The thing you have to remember is that the two periods are essentially different genres. The harmonies changed. The forms changed. The instrumentation changed. And perhaps most importantly the subject matter changed.

About that last point, the Classical period moved away from the (largely) religious influences of music predominant in the Renaissance and Baroque periods. It became more music for music’s sake (the opera notwithstanding). This is why the Symphony became such a popular form for the period.

With the late Classical and especially with the Romantic period, music started to become about something again. Sometimes it was nationalistic. Chopin’s promotion of Polish dance styles and Sousa’s American patriotism for examples. Also, you find a lot of myth and supernatural stories influencing music. Wagner’s Ring Cycle opera and Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique are good examples of these. With Romantic music, it helps to understand what the composer is trying to express to appreciate the music.

12

I’ll reiterate my same point from post 64 in the MC Escher thread..

The Dope has a lot of members who majored in science, and many who majored in humanities. When the science guys enjoy the arts, it’s not surprising what aspects they “get.”

To me, Bach is OK, but it’s like listening to math. And I never liked math. I bet Pierre Curie made some amazing discoveries, which if I spoke French and if French TV cranked out documentaries like PBS or the BBC, could be explained down to me. So on my side all I “get” about Pierre Curie is that he didn’t look both ways when crossing the street (which proves that scientists like Curie are just as stupid as artists like Antoni Gaudí).

13

I love a lot of Bach, although a ton of his output just leaves me cold. I think it’s because I’m too stupid to hear the math. I don’t dislike math, as such, it’s just that trying to make me understand it is like explaining quantum theory to a codfish. I get that Bach has a musical brain the size of a planet and the technical complexity of his music is off the charts. That doesn’t do anything for me.

But, and it’s a big but, at times he also takes me places emotionally that I didn’t know existed. He rips my heart out and then puts it back in. Literally makes me cry. Not at all like math, more like the voice of God.

I guess the complexity is there in the pieces with the emotional content, too, but again, I’m just too dumb too hear it. So, I’m lucky enough to get the beauty when it’s there without the brainy stuff distracting me. Sometimes being a moron can have its advantages, I guess.

14

When faced with such a question, my reaction is always to answer that it’s OK to like what you like and that you shouldn’t force yourself to listen to things that bore you.

However you’re looking for specific, theoretical reasons and pulykamell has provided an excellent summary in his first post.

Like many others, I don’t care much for Baroque and Classical-era music (the huge exception being Bach). The best I can say about **Haendel **'s music is that it’s pleasant. As far as Mozart is concerned, I’d save Don Giovanni and, to lesser extent, his Requiem plus a couple of concertos and late symphonies (38, 40). That’s about it. They way I hear it, Baroque and (even more so) Classical music are all about pretty melodies with fairly predictable modulations in rigid structures (a typical work will have movement 1 in sonata form, 2 as a slow movement, 3 as a scherzo or minuet and 4 as a fast concluding movement). All of this was masterly done by the major composers from those eras.

But I expect more from music than pleasant melodies in a set form. I want to be surprised, amazed, moved and, sometimes puzzled. I don’t always want a clear, unambiguous V-I ending. And if it gets there, then I prefer the journey to be bumpy and full of weird turns. And that’s why as far as I’m concerned, things start being interesting with Beethoven.

I’d even go as far as saying that Beethoven was one of the greatest musical architects in western music. The way he structures his work is breath-taking. I don’t consider him as a great melodist (his themes rarely move me) but what he does with his melodies (or sometimes fragments of melodies, mere motifs) is quite simply magnificent.

So, if I make a list of my favourite composers, don’t be surprised to see Bach as the only Baroque composer and a big black hole between 1750 and 1800. Chronologically, the list would go:

Bach
Beethoven
Chopin
Brahms
Tchaïkovsky
Fauré
Debussy
Prokofiev
Dutilleux
Ligeti

In short, it’s Bach + music from 1800 up to now.

Among these, I consider Bach, Beethoven and Brahms as masters of structure. Tchaïkovsky appeals to me for the quality of his melodies and so does Fauré but in a more subtle way. Chopin - can there be more heart-breakingly beautiful music? The more modern composers (Debussy, Prokofiev, Dutilleux and Ligeti) fascinate me with their mysterious, oneiric soundscapes.

Good choice (that’s Op. 9 No. 2, right?). I’d go with the one in G minor (Op. 15, No. 3)

15

Excellent OP, and excellent responses.

I’ll add that you might also prefer the range if typical sounds – that is, orchestrations – of music before 1825 or whatever date. Baroque and early Classical ensembles tended to be smaller, and the instruments themselves tended to have thinner, sparer sounds (harpsichord vs. piano; viola da gamba vs. cello; even vocal styles; etc.) Bach’s “concertos” and “orchestral suites,” for example, were played by groupings that more or less resemble the largest chamber groups of the Romantic era (one that would play, say, a Mendelssohn octet or a Dvorak piano quintet).

If, among the Romantic composers, you prefer their chamber music, and generally dislike their symphonies and concertos, this might support my suggestion.