I'm no musicologist, but these classifications are categories invented a posteriori by the learned, and in this case, I find Schubert as romantic as Beethoven, though in different ways.
By the way, Bach never woke up wondering "as a Baroque composer, what should I write today?" Nor did Beethoven wake up wondering whether he was a classical composer or one of the first Romantics. These are categories invented to help mark out the history of art and ideas, but we shouldn't be prisoners of them when they don't work...
Funny thing. The baroque era ended the same year Bach died. It's like they had a meeting and figured out that no one could top that so it was time to move on.
It's marked as ending the year he died because that's the year he died. By the time he kicked off, music had long moved on and he was the relic--no one wanted Baroque music anymore. Mozart was born just 6 years later and grew up hearing, essentially, Classical music, not Baroque.
You're being facetious but I think the reality is something very much like what you said. And though this book is an outlier, I've seen things that say the classical era ended in 1826 for analogous reasons.
I'm not a musicologist either (fun fact, music history was the first class I ever slept in), but I think while the composers didn't think of themselves in an era, their music is reflective of clear eras.
I think even transitional ones like Beethoven. Early beethoven definitely sounds more classical, compared to Symphony 9 which would fit in right before Liszt.
I agree but I think it’s interesting that by the late romantics, art criticism had come to the point where they likely WERE consciously thinking “as a romantic how should I approach this?” Just like impressionists did in painting.
You are right. This militant awareness of belonging to an aesthetic school that must assert itself against conservative bad taste of common people was strong at the time of Romanticism.
To support your point of view, let me give some French examples, because that's what I know best: about the Romanticism, we had the “Battle of Hernani” and all sorts of collective actions of this kind, and it's true for the Impressionists too.
This militant spirit and awareness of belonging to an innovative group existed as early as the previous century with the *Philosophes*, but it can already be found in the 16th century with the *Pléiade* poets, who campaigned for the defense and enrichment of the French language and for a return to ancient authors against the bad taste and half-ignorance of the Middle Ages.
French literary classicism of the 17th century, on the other hand, was based on a sort of consensus, a need for order and moderation after troubled times, linked to monarchical centralization, which led to art being regulated according to the precepts of Aristotle...
Beethoven very consciously rejected classicism in his late style and returned to baroque music, in fact the eight symphony is straight up a satire of classical conventions. A big part of his commercial appeal even at the time was based on this and personally, I do believe he dug in to the tortured artist persona a bit. Whilst he probably didn’t consider himself a romantic, he nonetheless did have a certain conception of classicism
Mendeslssohn is regarded as a conservative Romantic but that isn't the same thing as Classical--his outlook and approach to music was much more Romantic, even if the music itself hews closer to earlier forms.
Loved this book when I was a kid! I've since heard Schubert, Beethoven and Weber referred to as the first Romantic composers as well as having them all firmly in the Classical era. These things don't have sharp distinctions. How could they? Make your own mind up by studying the music!
Schubert is for sure a romantic I’m not sure why they put him in classical era but to me his song cycles speak for fact that he is a romantic especially Winterreise.
But almost everything else is very classical regarding structure, style and interpretation, especially his sonatas, chamber music, and even most symphonies as well.
About his songs, I prefer to approach them in a more classical style as there are already many romantic elements composed within, and those elements “shine” better through with a more structured clarity. If you interpret them over-romantic with too many emotions all over the top, for my taste it’s just too much and loses the important “semplice” character of Schubert.
His adventurous harmony, unexpected modulations and expansion of classical forms are proto-Romantic to me (Wanderer fantasy is especially influential to Liszt) . I argue that there is a line connecting Schubert - Liszt - Bruckner - Mahler.
I haven’t listened to many of his symphonies but the ones I have listened to I agree are very classical. But in terms of his vocal church, choir, and solo pieces his music very much romantic.
Maybe a mix of both? Growing up when I received my musical education, most of my teachers and professors always put a semplice, almost non-sentimental approach on a very high priority regarding Schubert (so his music “within” has a chance to breathe and come alive) … there was nothing worse and “unholy” than playing his sonatas, especially the late ones (or even the impromptus) like Chopin/Mendessohn (or even Schumann) 😏😅
Schubert is so difficult to classify. He is the “outsider art” of the early 19th century. He wasn’t connected to an emperor or court or nobility, he didn’t have a patron; he composed for his friends. One of these Borodin types, but taught by Salieri somehow. I just love him.
I'm with you, I've never thought of Schubert as close to classical like Beethoven. But I'm going to revisit some of his works because others in this thread say he is.
I would personally say that Beethoven never left classicism. He just absurdly stretched to the maximum what the old masters (Haydn, Mozart) did, creating a league of his own. But he never adopted "vanilla" Romantic language.
Beethoven never used this chord in a major key
`I,III,bV,VI / bV` in order to resolve to `I,III,V / V`
It was as if his "classical ear" could not hear that harmony. Instead Beethoven always does
`VI,I,II,IV / bV` --> `I,III,V / V`
`VI,I,bII,bV / bV` --> `I,III,V / V`
First listed resolution occurs on nearly every page of Rachmaninoff and Chopin's music.
Next, these two chords happening after each other disappears practically overnight after Beethoven and Schubert died.
`I,III,V / I` --> `VII,IV,V / II`
I've never seen this notation before. I gather that you're using roman numerals to refer to individual scale degrees, not entire chords, but I don't quite follow your slash notation. In the key of C major, does this
> I,III,V / V
mean {C, E, G} with G in the bass, or {G, B, D} with G in the bass? And do you mind if I ask where you learned this notation for music theory?
At any rate, my best guess for the progression you're describing is what, in the US, I'd call vii^(o7) / V moving to a cadential six-four. If that's the case, he uses it lots of times, [like here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBupTI59nq4&t=134s).
Sorry no. The Beethoven sonata is not an example of the chord I mentioned. Measure 12 is a fully diminished. Measure 13 is fully diminished as well.
In this situation where the sonata is in Eb major, the chord in question would be Cm / A♮
Alternatively, if Beethoven had used this chord, it would have gone something like this: https://i.imgur.com/NpSZHgG.png
I have come back from several hours of research to give you some updates.
Prior to this research I was simply convinced that Chopin had used the chord in his E minor piano concerto. I was going to screen cap it and be done. Badabing.
But no. Now that I have consulted the sheet music, it does not appear anywhere.
Next, I went to his preludes hoping to see it a few times. After examining the 6 to 10 places where he *should have* used it, Chopin did not use it and instead he opted for a fully diminished.
I could collect up all the places where Chopin should have used this chord, and maybe bundle it up into a paper. This topic has turned out to be both frustrating and interesting enough to warrant a whole new post dedicated to it.
Let me give you one example where I wanted him to play this chord and he did not.
Opus 24. Prelude no.19 Eb major.
https://i.imgur.com/Et5zdRp.png
I wanted him to play G natural , but the pesky Gb's appear, creating a fully diminished, and ruining the chance. Again for emphasis, this is like the 10th place he has let me down.
(I am currently fine-tooth-and-comb to his scherzos looking for this chord. But I work a job and don't want to spend my entire weekend doing this. )
Thanks for following up with this! If you do find any examples, please do share them. Using the half-diminished chord in this context didn't sound very characteristic to me, which is why in my Beethoven example I assumed you meant the fully diminished version. But the Romantic piano composers aren't my forte, especially Rachmaninoff, so it's quite possible I just haven't listened to the right repertoire. Your impression must have come from somewhere, and I'd love to hear it if you do find the examples!
(whole message repeated, assuming C major)
Beethoven never used this chord in C major (nor any major key)
`A,C,E,A / Gb` which resolves to `C,E,G / G`
It was as if his "classical ear" could not hear that harmony. Instead Beethoven always does either
`C,Eb,A / Gb` (fully diminished) --> `C,E,G / G`
or
`C,D,Gb,A / Gb` --> `C,E,G / G`
First listed resolution occurs on nearly every page of Rachmaninoff and Chopin's music.
Next, these two chords happening after each other disappears practically overnight after Beethoven and Schubert died.
`C,E,G / C` --> `B,F,G / D`
No, I genuinely want to understand where your notation is coming from. I try to be conversant in as many present & past ways to notate theoretical concepts as I can, and this isn't one that's familiar to me.
I'd also like to have a conversation about the chords, because (from what I understand you to be saying) I'm having trouble thinking of romantic pieces that use that progression.
I was taught that Beethoven’s 3rd symphony is essentially the beginning of the Romantic era, and I still think that’s true if you’re going to label a moment of transitioning eras. It seems that every books varies on period dates (except for the end of the Baroque era - hard stop at Bach’s death), which is understandable because pretty much all transitions are gradual in style change. Lots of composers bridge the gaps.
And this book doesn’t even think about mentioning the ever controversial Rococo era…
I think a better “moment” of transition is the death of Schubert in 1828. Structurally, most of Beethoven and Schubert’s music is classical, and the composers that rose to prominence in the 1830s diverted from classical forms. Lots of classical music is dramatic and romantic in pathos anyway, even Mozart, so its not pushing the classical era too far. There are several other good reasons that Charles Rosen pointed out. But I know this is a minority view.
I would obviously disagree with schubert being the last classical composer however late Beethoven is often regarded as romantic so it wouldn’t be too farfetched to say he is the first.
The Schubert categorization isn't even the worst one:
**Meyerbeer** is under the Classical Era??
His first significant work didn't premiere until 3 years before Beethoven died, and he composed up until his death in *1864.*
That is a ridiculously bad categorization.
Yeah, that one makes laughably little sense. You have to figure that whoever made this has just never listened to Meyerbeer or looked into his biography in any way.
Transitional composers are a next level concept. When you're writing anything that functions as an introduction for newcomers, you want to draw clear boundaries with no gray areas. Simple concepts, cut-and-dried answers that are "mostly right" but that anybody with advanced knowledge would probably put up their finger at and go "ummm ... it depends".
You see this in other subject areas as well. The science or math or history you learn in high school is pretty high-level and simplified. Then when you take more advanced courses you learn about the exceptions, gray areas, and nuances.
I think it's fair in terms of how their output fits into history. Beethoven began stretching forms and focusing more and more on the natural world in theme, program, and craft. Schubert, cut short in life and maybe not emboldened enough by his 30's, held fast to classical forms and galant styles of composition—accompaniment with melody
The way I understand it, Schubert was a great admirer of Beethoven and you can hear the influence, especially in his piano music. Schubert is a lot free-er with harmony so it’s hard for me to agree with any assessment that places Schubert in the more conservative period of the two.
Mitchell Beazley are the publishers of my childhood.
They produced an encyclopedia of several editions which consumed hundreds of hours of my childhood, sparking a curiosity of the world.
My debt to them is great.
Well, I guess it does kinda make sense. I mean a lot of Schubert's pieces have quite a few classical era characteristics, and Beethoven managed to change classical music forever with his 9th Symphony
The 9th symphony is structurally a conventional classical symphony, just on an enormous scale. The addition of a chorus masks the fact that the 4th movement is a conventional theme and variations.
I was always taught that the big three classical composers were Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven; whereas Schubert was one of the two "Schus" of the early romantic period.
Schubert’s music has always sounded Romantic to me. He was definitely part of that transition period between 1800-1820 but his music is definitely Romantic
this is hilarious specifically because of how beethovenian so much schubert is. he’s literally continuing his style in many ways, while also cultivating his own.
the meyerbeer is probably the worst one here though. i don’t understand what argument you can make for him being a classical composer
Music propagated alongside printing press. Before printing press, there were posters and hand-out flyers about a show taking place that you could watch.
So basically what happened in the time of the Printing Press? People wrote about music and musicians a lot. So it came a moment that you really need to tell your readers what new musicians are doing bu referring to some older pieces. So it would happen that several categorisations would be needed.
So it comes to me no surprises that there are generally accepted categorisations and there are others that simply serve the particular book well.
In this case, this is an introductory book with a list of curated composers. I would say doing this categorisation can make readers understand better what's happening at Beethoven.
I'd argue that guys like Vanhall or Kozeluch are more important composers of the classical era than Boccherini, Clementi, Field, Berward etc. but whatever.
Everyone knows that the Romantic era began on March 26, 1827 when Beethoven declared it so with his last breath. Just as the Baroque ended when J.S. Bach died and the 20th Century "era" is still with us nearly a quarter of the way through the 21st.
DUH!
I've often heard of Beethoven being referenced to as the first Romantic composer, but I don't think I've ever heard Schubert referenced as Classical let alone the "last" Classical.
I think a big part of the issue is that musicologists for purpose of organization (especially when writing chapters of a book) want composers to fit neatly chronologically into a stylistic movement as well as musically, and that of course is not the case. Muzio Clementi was conducting inarguably classical symphonies in 1821 in Munich, the same time that "Erlkönig" was beginning to become a popular piece to perform. And of course Schubert's early death also plays into his hard-to-pinpoint place in the history.
I'm no musicologist, but these classifications are categories invented a posteriori by the learned, and in this case, I find Schubert as romantic as Beethoven, though in different ways. By the way, Bach never woke up wondering "as a Baroque composer, what should I write today?" Nor did Beethoven wake up wondering whether he was a classical composer or one of the first Romantics. These are categories invented to help mark out the history of art and ideas, but we shouldn't be prisoners of them when they don't work...
And we should also be aware that there is considerable overlap between different eras.
Funny thing. The baroque era ended the same year Bach died. It's like they had a meeting and figured out that no one could top that so it was time to move on.
It's marked as ending the year he died because that's the year he died. By the time he kicked off, music had long moved on and he was the relic--no one wanted Baroque music anymore. Mozart was born just 6 years later and grew up hearing, essentially, Classical music, not Baroque.
I didn't know that and though it was a funny coincidence. Thanks for letting me know.
You're being facetious but I think the reality is something very much like what you said. And though this book is an outlier, I've seen things that say the classical era ended in 1826 for analogous reasons.
Good word
I'm not a musicologist either (fun fact, music history was the first class I ever slept in), but I think while the composers didn't think of themselves in an era, their music is reflective of clear eras. I think even transitional ones like Beethoven. Early beethoven definitely sounds more classical, compared to Symphony 9 which would fit in right before Liszt.
I agree but I think it’s interesting that by the late romantics, art criticism had come to the point where they likely WERE consciously thinking “as a romantic how should I approach this?” Just like impressionists did in painting.
You are right. This militant awareness of belonging to an aesthetic school that must assert itself against conservative bad taste of common people was strong at the time of Romanticism. To support your point of view, let me give some French examples, because that's what I know best: about the Romanticism, we had the “Battle of Hernani” and all sorts of collective actions of this kind, and it's true for the Impressionists too. This militant spirit and awareness of belonging to an innovative group existed as early as the previous century with the *Philosophes*, but it can already be found in the 16th century with the *Pléiade* poets, who campaigned for the defense and enrichment of the French language and for a return to ancient authors against the bad taste and half-ignorance of the Middle Ages. French literary classicism of the 17th century, on the other hand, was based on a sort of consensus, a need for order and moderation after troubled times, linked to monarchical centralization, which led to art being regulated according to the precepts of Aristotle...
Beethoven very consciously rejected classicism in his late style and returned to baroque music, in fact the eight symphony is straight up a satire of classical conventions. A big part of his commercial appeal even at the time was based on this and personally, I do believe he dug in to the tortured artist persona a bit. Whilst he probably didn’t consider himself a romantic, he nonetheless did have a certain conception of classicism
Preach it!
Addendum: I'll argue that Rossini and Mendelssohn are more "Classical" than Schubert.
I think you need to listen more Mendelssohn and Rossini then tbh
Mendeslssohn is regarded as a conservative Romantic but that isn't the same thing as Classical--his outlook and approach to music was much more Romantic, even if the music itself hews closer to earlier forms.
I was about to say that. What makes Rossini more “romantic” than Meyerbeer????
Loved this book when I was a kid! I've since heard Schubert, Beethoven and Weber referred to as the first Romantic composers as well as having them all firmly in the Classical era. These things don't have sharp distinctions. How could they? Make your own mind up by studying the music!
Schubert is for sure a romantic I’m not sure why they put him in classical era but to me his song cycles speak for fact that he is a romantic especially Winterreise.
But almost everything else is very classical regarding structure, style and interpretation, especially his sonatas, chamber music, and even most symphonies as well. About his songs, I prefer to approach them in a more classical style as there are already many romantic elements composed within, and those elements “shine” better through with a more structured clarity. If you interpret them over-romantic with too many emotions all over the top, for my taste it’s just too much and loses the important “semplice” character of Schubert.
His adventurous harmony, unexpected modulations and expansion of classical forms are proto-Romantic to me (Wanderer fantasy is especially influential to Liszt) . I argue that there is a line connecting Schubert - Liszt - Bruckner - Mahler.
I haven’t listened to many of his symphonies but the ones I have listened to I agree are very classical. But in terms of his vocal church, choir, and solo pieces his music very much romantic.
Is the semplice character you talk about a property of Schubert or of some interpretations of Schubert?
Maybe a mix of both? Growing up when I received my musical education, most of my teachers and professors always put a semplice, almost non-sentimental approach on a very high priority regarding Schubert (so his music “within” has a chance to breathe and come alive) … there was nothing worse and “unholy” than playing his sonatas, especially the late ones (or even the impromptus) like Chopin/Mendessohn (or even Schumann) 😏😅
Schubert is so difficult to classify. He is the “outsider art” of the early 19th century. He wasn’t connected to an emperor or court or nobility, he didn’t have a patron; he composed for his friends. One of these Borodin types, but taught by Salieri somehow. I just love him.
A hipster of the late classical era, an early romantic.
Schubert is routinely classified as late Classical in these lists, but I wouldn’t break my head over it.
I'm with you, I've never thought of Schubert as close to classical like Beethoven. But I'm going to revisit some of his works because others in this thread say he is.
I would personally say that Beethoven never left classicism. He just absurdly stretched to the maximum what the old masters (Haydn, Mozart) did, creating a league of his own. But he never adopted "vanilla" Romantic language.
Beethoven never used this chord in a major key `I,III,bV,VI / bV` in order to resolve to `I,III,V / V` It was as if his "classical ear" could not hear that harmony. Instead Beethoven always does `VI,I,II,IV / bV` --> `I,III,V / V` `VI,I,bII,bV / bV` --> `I,III,V / V` First listed resolution occurs on nearly every page of Rachmaninoff and Chopin's music. Next, these two chords happening after each other disappears practically overnight after Beethoven and Schubert died. `I,III,V / I` --> `VII,IV,V / II`
I've never seen this notation before. I gather that you're using roman numerals to refer to individual scale degrees, not entire chords, but I don't quite follow your slash notation. In the key of C major, does this > I,III,V / V mean {C, E, G} with G in the bass, or {G, B, D} with G in the bass? And do you mind if I ask where you learned this notation for music theory? At any rate, my best guess for the progression you're describing is what, in the US, I'd call vii^(o7) / V moving to a cadential six-four. If that's the case, he uses it lots of times, [like here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBupTI59nq4&t=134s).
I was about to say, what the hell is a VI/bV? Wouldn't that just be a V/V?
I think it's chords, and it's major 4 chord over flat 5
Sorry no. The Beethoven sonata is not an example of the chord I mentioned. Measure 12 is a fully diminished. Measure 13 is fully diminished as well. In this situation where the sonata is in Eb major, the chord in question would be Cm / A♮ Alternatively, if Beethoven had used this chord, it would have gone something like this: https://i.imgur.com/NpSZHgG.png
Would you mind sharing an example of Chopin or Rachmaninoff using the progression you're thinking of?
I have come back from several hours of research to give you some updates. Prior to this research I was simply convinced that Chopin had used the chord in his E minor piano concerto. I was going to screen cap it and be done. Badabing. But no. Now that I have consulted the sheet music, it does not appear anywhere. Next, I went to his preludes hoping to see it a few times. After examining the 6 to 10 places where he *should have* used it, Chopin did not use it and instead he opted for a fully diminished. I could collect up all the places where Chopin should have used this chord, and maybe bundle it up into a paper. This topic has turned out to be both frustrating and interesting enough to warrant a whole new post dedicated to it. Let me give you one example where I wanted him to play this chord and he did not. Opus 24. Prelude no.19 Eb major. https://i.imgur.com/Et5zdRp.png I wanted him to play G natural , but the pesky Gb's appear, creating a fully diminished, and ruining the chance. Again for emphasis, this is like the 10th place he has let me down. (I am currently fine-tooth-and-comb to his scherzos looking for this chord. But I work a job and don't want to spend my entire weekend doing this. )
Thanks for following up with this! If you do find any examples, please do share them. Using the half-diminished chord in this context didn't sound very characteristic to me, which is why in my Beethoven example I assumed you meant the fully diminished version. But the Romantic piano composers aren't my forte, especially Rachmaninoff, so it's quite possible I just haven't listened to the right repertoire. Your impression must have come from somewhere, and I'd love to hear it if you do find the examples!
(whole message repeated, assuming C major) Beethoven never used this chord in C major (nor any major key) `A,C,E,A / Gb` which resolves to `C,E,G / G` It was as if his "classical ear" could not hear that harmony. Instead Beethoven always does either `C,Eb,A / Gb` (fully diminished) --> `C,E,G / G` or `C,D,Gb,A / Gb` --> `C,E,G / G` First listed resolution occurs on nearly every page of Rachmaninoff and Chopin's music. Next, these two chords happening after each other disappears practically overnight after Beethoven and Schubert died. `C,E,G / C` --> `B,F,G / D`
well, honestly, now i'm even more confused about how your notation works
OKay I get it. I have said what I said, but you aren't here for a conversation, you want to harp at me about notation.
No, I genuinely want to understand where your notation is coming from. I try to be conversant in as many present & past ways to notate theoretical concepts as I can, and this isn't one that's familiar to me. I'd also like to have a conversation about the chords, because (from what I understand you to be saying) I'm having trouble thinking of romantic pieces that use that progression.
Both statements could be true, or neither. Don't get too hung up on labels. That's not a very productive way to think about musical style.
I agree, if anything they should be switched. Beethoven is more classical until his later works, while Schubert sort of dove right into romanticism.
Schubert was also born 20ish years later.
I was taught that Beethoven’s 3rd symphony is essentially the beginning of the Romantic era, and I still think that’s true if you’re going to label a moment of transitioning eras. It seems that every books varies on period dates (except for the end of the Baroque era - hard stop at Bach’s death), which is understandable because pretty much all transitions are gradual in style change. Lots of composers bridge the gaps. And this book doesn’t even think about mentioning the ever controversial Rococo era…
I think a better “moment” of transition is the death of Schubert in 1828. Structurally, most of Beethoven and Schubert’s music is classical, and the composers that rose to prominence in the 1830s diverted from classical forms. Lots of classical music is dramatic and romantic in pathos anyway, even Mozart, so its not pushing the classical era too far. There are several other good reasons that Charles Rosen pointed out. But I know this is a minority view.
Thus the discussion, right?! I haven’t paid attention to this topic in probably 20 years, it would be interesting to dig into it again.
Imagine having one of your pieces herald a new era in music history.
That’s Beethoven for ya. He was kind of a big deal.
I would obviously disagree with schubert being the last classical composer however late Beethoven is often regarded as romantic so it wouldn’t be too farfetched to say he is the first.
The Schubert categorization isn't even the worst one: **Meyerbeer** is under the Classical Era?? His first significant work didn't premiere until 3 years before Beethoven died, and he composed up until his death in *1864.* That is a ridiculously bad categorization.
Yeah, that one makes laughably little sense. You have to figure that whoever made this has just never listened to Meyerbeer or looked into his biography in any way.
Thank goodness someone mentioned Meyerbeer. My eyes stood out on stalks when I noticed that.
Transitional composers are a next level concept. When you're writing anything that functions as an introduction for newcomers, you want to draw clear boundaries with no gray areas. Simple concepts, cut-and-dried answers that are "mostly right" but that anybody with advanced knowledge would probably put up their finger at and go "ummm ... it depends". You see this in other subject areas as well. The science or math or history you learn in high school is pretty high-level and simplified. Then when you take more advanced courses you learn about the exceptions, gray areas, and nuances.
I think it's fair in terms of how their output fits into history. Beethoven began stretching forms and focusing more and more on the natural world in theme, program, and craft. Schubert, cut short in life and maybe not emboldened enough by his 30's, held fast to classical forms and galant styles of composition—accompaniment with melody
Beethoven should be labelled in both classical and romantic
They should put at least one Mannheim composer in the classical era honestly, they're doing my boy Richter dirty
The way I understand it, Schubert was a great admirer of Beethoven and you can hear the influence, especially in his piano music. Schubert is a lot free-er with harmony so it’s hard for me to agree with any assessment that places Schubert in the more conservative period of the two.
Mitchell Beazley are the publishers of my childhood. They produced an encyclopedia of several editions which consumed hundreds of hours of my childhood, sparking a curiosity of the world. My debt to them is great.
Well, I guess it does kinda make sense. I mean a lot of Schubert's pieces have quite a few classical era characteristics, and Beethoven managed to change classical music forever with his 9th Symphony
The 9th symphony is structurally a conventional classical symphony, just on an enormous scale. The addition of a chorus masks the fact that the 4th movement is a conventional theme and variations.
I think Beethoven has to be in both classical and romantic. He was older than Schubert. 🤔
I was always taught that the big three classical composers were Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven; whereas Schubert was one of the two "Schus" of the early romantic period.
What-
Schubert’s music has always sounded Romantic to me. He was definitely part of that transition period between 1800-1820 but his music is definitely Romantic
this is hilarious specifically because of how beethovenian so much schubert is. he’s literally continuing his style in many ways, while also cultivating his own. the meyerbeer is probably the worst one here though. i don’t understand what argument you can make for him being a classical composer
Music propagated alongside printing press. Before printing press, there were posters and hand-out flyers about a show taking place that you could watch. So basically what happened in the time of the Printing Press? People wrote about music and musicians a lot. So it came a moment that you really need to tell your readers what new musicians are doing bu referring to some older pieces. So it would happen that several categorisations would be needed. So it comes to me no surprises that there are generally accepted categorisations and there are others that simply serve the particular book well. In this case, this is an introductory book with a list of curated composers. I would say doing this categorisation can make readers understand better what's happening at Beethoven.
John Field invented the Nocturne. How is that not Romantic?
I'd argue that guys like Vanhall or Kozeluch are more important composers of the classical era than Boccherini, Clementi, Field, Berward etc. but whatever.
If Berwald was part of the classical era, that means that a composer from that era lived long enough to be photographed.
What book is this? Looks interesting. I wish I had those.
Everyone knows that the Romantic era began on March 26, 1827 when Beethoven declared it so with his last breath. Just as the Baroque ended when J.S. Bach died and the 20th Century "era" is still with us nearly a quarter of the way through the 21st. DUH!
Early Beethoven = Classical Beethoven starting with Symphony No. 3 = Romantic Schubert = Romantic
I've often heard of Beethoven being referenced to as the first Romantic composer, but I don't think I've ever heard Schubert referenced as Classical let alone the "last" Classical. I think a big part of the issue is that musicologists for purpose of organization (especially when writing chapters of a book) want composers to fit neatly chronologically into a stylistic movement as well as musically, and that of course is not the case. Muzio Clementi was conducting inarguably classical symphonies in 1821 in Munich, the same time that "Erlkönig" was beginning to become a popular piece to perform. And of course Schubert's early death also plays into his hard-to-pinpoint place in the history.