It would be mostly impossible for music at the period to evolve into anything except where it evolved to. The concert music of the 19th century was thought of much differently than music today. The evolution of music in the romantic era was to break the traditions that were set before. The music began to lead more to chromaticism, unique forms, and unusual instrumentation. It didn’t happen overnight, because music of that kind was such a large demanding enterprise.
Since everything else was being labeled romantic at the time, it fell under the same umbrella. Often the music of the time was described as being more personal and emotional. I think composers of the time did not look at their music that way (at least not entirely). Composers I think approached their music more scientifically. They saw the the limitations and accomplishments of the classical era, and carefully and thoughtfully moved the music in a new direction without bulldozing the preconceived rules of music. In time the music gradually shifted.
Often the most “Romantic” and “emotional” pieces of music were hated by the very same composers who wrote them. Tchaikovsky disliked his own 1812 overture, Beethoven disliked his own Moonlight Sonata. They were more interested in when their music broke borders but still was effective. Obviously Beethoven wrote the 9th symphony and Tchaikovsky wrote the more critically accepted “Pathetique”
Okay, someone poke some holes in this. I’ve been studying my music history this year, I hope I got it all right
The answer to ‘why’ doesn’t come from looking at big capital-letter genres. These are only ways of describing, almost always retrospectively, the collective output of a group of composers. The question needs to be asked at the level of individuals - nobody set out to be ‘a romantic composer’, but by identifying common themes in philosophies, in technical approaches, or in the rejection of previous styles, it’s possible to describe them as a group.
This is why there are individuals who are in a position where they cannot be easily placed into one category or another, Beethoven being one, other examples including Wagner, Mahler and Shostakovich. In these cases, the level of individuality, and the weight of their influence on others (both contemporary and of subsequent generations), positions them outside of fixed labels.
Silly, that’s because it happened in Flanders! Dufay and Ockeghem say suck it, Florentines!
(sorry, boisterous northern Ren scholar moment there)
In art history the shift from neoclassical to Romantic is pretty marked (but a bit gradual), as is the 1848 shift, and the usual bullet-point “reasons” or context at least are fairly reasonable.
Whoops, kept forgetting to respond to this. I cannot think of any concrete examples off hand except for Beethoven. Its been a decade or so since I really studied Romanticism, and then I focused more on literature, which is where I think it first became a true style that authors consciously tried to emulate, especially under Wordsworth, Coleridge and Blake, though it built on previous works.
In regards to Beethoven, I think of his relationship with Bettina Brentano von Arnim and his admiration for Goethe which I think in turned shaped the direction his music took. A prime example is the Ode to Joy, giving the human voice equal footing with instruments. (Vocal works were common, but not in symphonies, as I remember it.) To me, that is an example of pure Romanticism, though I have heard other interpretations also. Ode to Joy is also notable for using a poem by Schiller, consciously choosing a neoclassical work and turning it into a Romantic piece.
As far as 1848, I don’t disagree that important Romantic works were produced after that date, but they no longer had the same impact as before. That was the year the rose lost its bloom.
The choice to use voices in a symphony with (in many ways) a traditional format is something which could only be done once - Brahms doesn’t seem to have been tempted! In this was it perhaps is more of a manifesto than a fundamental shift in musical principles.
The transition from Classical to Romanticism is often attributed to the French Revolution. Consider the contrast between Louis XVI and Napoleon.
Louis XVI was a dull-witted individual, uninspiring, who derived his legitimacy from being the heir of a family that had ruled France for 800 years. He offered France order and stability. When he made war against his fellow monarchs, it was via a small professional army fighting for minor tactical gain.
Napoleon was an evil genius, who derived his legitimacy through force of will. He offered France glory and excitement. He made war via the levee on masse, a mass movement of inspired citizens sweeping across Europe from Portugal to Moscow.
As one can imagine, these regimes called forth different artistic responses. Under Louis one celebrated order, beauty, timelessness. Under Napoleon one celebrated emotion, excitement, and individual will.
After Napoleon’s fall, political reaction set in. But artistically, the genie could never return to the Eighteenth Century bottle. Romanticism ruled the Nineteenth.
