And yet, listening to him, they could also be nothing but early Romantic - if they were written post-Schumann/Brahms, you'd hear _very_ different harmonies. But that's probably the same for anyone on this list.
Paganini could fit this potentially I feel like, he was born in 1782 and he started work on his caprices before Beethoven composed the Eroica but i've never heard him referred to as anything but a romantic composer
Great video! Although in some ways it is a bit overly simplistic. Yes these composers were in some ways ahead of or behind their time in a broad stylistic sense - but each of them was doing something massively unique. Rachmaninoff's idol was Tchaikovsky who was of course a late-romantic but Rachmaninoff's harmonic style is far more rich and sumptuous. He was still innovating, while retaining a broadly Romantic style. The same could be said for Bach - who was composing as the early Galant period was emerging - the streamlining of music we see in the Classical period. Bach was composing Fugues when they were already considered "Old-School". The reason he is still a musical giant, and considered a genius innovator? Well - he formulated a unique, rich, and extremely advanced contrapuntal style - the most advanced form of Baroque music - as Classical period music was already surpassing it in popularity! In fact Bach was not that widely known to the public until Mendelssohn began to popularized his music around 1830 or so - 80 years after Bach's death! I say all this because I believe that there is still life in old forms and old styles - you can do something unique and individual with them. You don't have to be modern, don't have to follow the "trends of your day". If you love older styles - go with your heart, and find a way to create a unique voice of your own with it. Radical innovation is overrated - subtly forging your own path is underrated!
I know what I am going to say is very controversial, but I always had the feeling that Mozart is actually one of the first romantic composer. Of course a lot of his work are purely classicaly inspired, but when you listen to his late works, where he truly unleash his feelings, it is almost like Beethoven was born in these pieces. Here, I think about the fantasia in D minor, and even more striking to me, the one in C minor. The late concerti like 24, 23, or even 20, etc... Obviously I will never say that Mozart belong to the romantic period, but I feel like he truly has written with the same idea of sensibility of emotions as the romantics after him
This isn't that crazy at all. I think it was Charles Rosen who pointed out that the great classical composers (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) were considered to be the first romantic composers by their contemporaries. Rosen attributes it to the sonata form adding a sense of long term drama that was never seen before with any of the baroque forms. That drama made classical period music way more expressive than what came before.
I agree firstly ages, eras or epochs are defined retrospectively so Mozart, Haydn and their contemporaries didn't know they were in "The Classical" period , they were just living and working in the time they were in. Secondly Mozart's music, for me, derives much of its power from the inherent tension between the adherence to a form versus the imperative for personal expression, including emotional expression. Works such as the Masonic Funeral Music and Dissonance Quartet opening are way out of 18th Century norms, when Mozart first sent the manuscript of the Dissonance to the publishers, they sent it back saying there were mistakes in the beginning!
@@klop4228 There had been innuendos and there has to be a point from which on Beethoven entered the Romantic era fully. There is no way works like the late quartets or the late piano sonatas could be classified as classical. And there is also wide agreement that already the symphony no. 3 is the first romantic symphony.
What about Bach? I mean, his approach to music was very old-fashioned, very different from any mainstream music of his time. At the time simplistic galante-style was starting to prevail, he was composing ricercares in 6 voices and 3-4-subject fugues. Don't these qualify him as "out of his time"? Or what about Ives? He used quarter tones before Haba and Wyschnegradsky, atonality before Schönberg along with polytonality and very often "pastiché" like references to other works, which would only appear as something mainstream with post-modernism! Or what about Wolf-Ferrari, Alkan, Debussy, Schönberg, Monteverdi... But great video anyway.
Good choices, yeah I mentioned Bach too. I think Bach was technically "behind his time" but also ahead of his time in many subtle ways. I mean very little Baroque period music is as INSPIRING as Bach - in the sense that you can play around with it and generate creative ideas. Chopin took only one book with him when writing his Preludes in Mallorca - Bach's Well Tempered Clavier! Proving that Bach's music is a fountain of inspiration - even for music of other periods and styles.
I think Beethoven belongs to his time when he was very young, but then he developed super-fast. He expressed himself by music, all speed up by becoming tone death.
I would add Charles Ives. His string quartet no. 2 is forward looking for 1911, you’d think it’s mid-century. Also, Richard Strauss, like Rachmaninoff, often sound Romantic. I would also include select trends of composers looking back that weren’t necessarily outside their era, such as Mozart’s fugues in his Requiem or the Dies Irae plainchant in Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique.
I have always been impressed by the case of Moussorgsky. At the same period, I find that some works of Liszt (particularly at the end) also look to the future.
Richard Strauss? The truly beautiful Four Last Songs written after WWII sound as though they were written before WWI and the same could be said of the Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings.
Knew from the beginning Beethoven (very futuristic) and Rachmaninov (very traditionalist) would have been in it. Sad the latest work by Schumann has been destroyed 😢😢...
Your list really surprised me because if you replace things in their context, these composers all belong to their time (with the exception of Rachmaninov who was indeed a romantic lost in the XXth century). Beethoven was one of the creators of the romantism in music, there's no wonder he sounds so unlike other composers of the same era. Romantic composers were trying to break free from the classical influences by two ways: by going further in audacity and virtuosity (Beethoven, Liszt and Paganini) or by doing the opposite, using older genres and styles as inspiration (Mendelssohn, with his use of a protestant choral for one his symphonies or Wagner, with the medieval/mythological setting of his operas). That wasn't to please everyone and some composers decided to protest against Wagner's grandiose style: one of them was to go back to symphony, which had been (almost) totally abandoned when Liszt created the symphonic poem. Finally, the second part of the XIXth century was a pretty tough period with a sudden resurgence of patriotism. This patriotism can be felt in the work of composers from lesser known countries like Czecho-Slovakia (Dvorak), Finland (Sibelius and of course, Russia (with the Group of Five where belonged Mussorgsky).
I think I have a controversial take about this topic. I think Bruckner sounds Baroque a lot of times. I don't have many arguments but I just wanna throw this thought and see if someone may pick it up. His orchestral sound is not baroque at all obviously, but the composition in itself is sometimes comparable to Vivaldi or Bach. For exemple: some of his sections have a circle of fifths like in the last movement of the 7th; the fugue in the finale of the 5th is somewhat bach-like; and many of the crescendos leading to the big climaxes use the dotted rythm repeatadly and that kind of reminds me of Vivaldi. Then there is ofc his choral music, which is not nearly as advanced as the orchestral and definitly follows the baroque sacred music lineage. I'm curious to know what others think.
I think Bruckner's masses are most definitely based on the symphonic style of Viennese classic models - Mozart, Haydn, Schubert and Beethoven - both in form and content; they do not strike me as being baroque in any way. Masses in baroque times often had separate movements within the main sections of the ordinary of the mass e.g. the Bach's B minor mass - Bruckner does not - everything within the Gloria, for example, is a single movement, ending in a fugue just as the Viennese composers did. Many of Bruckner's repetitions and cadences sound classical to me. The bare octave phrase "De ore leonis" in the "Domine Jesu Christe" section of Mozart Requiem bears a striking resemblances to what Bruckner wrote many times. Bruckner's Requiem of 1849 and Missa Solemnis in B flat minor are early works - both have figure bass continuo (perhaps the last ever written to use this feature) which does hark back to the baroque when the continuo was invented but it was also used in the classical period too. Bruckner's works often include fugues, a form perfected in the baroque period but then so do those of the Viennese classical conposers e.g. Mozart's Jupiter symphony, Mozart's Requiem, Beethoven's Eroica and 9th symphony finales. If anything, I sometimes hear echoes of medieval music in Bruckner because of gregorian melodies, unisons/octaves and bare fifths (,e.g. the Te Deum ostinato) or the Renaissance (some of the motets especially the modality of "Os Justi" written for the Cecilian movement as a deliberate throwback. We often hear the phrase "baroque splendour" and there is plenty of splendid baroque architecture in evidence in Austria e.g. the Abbey church at St Florian. Bruckner's music often has a similar splendour: it is just that his music does not have a direct connection with baroque music that I can discern. I think more often of gothic architecure when I listen to Bruckner rather than baroque.
I am very surprised how Berlioz isn't on this list! His time period is very much early Romantic, but his works are anything BUT early Romantic.
And yet, listening to him, they could also be nothing but early Romantic - if they were written post-Schumann/Brahms, you'd hear _very_ different harmonies.
But that's probably the same for anyone on this list.
I don't think Mozart and Chopin belonged to their periods. If so, why did they release their works in 2024?
😂😂😂😂
Paganini could fit this potentially I feel like, he was born in 1782 and he started work on his caprices before Beethoven composed the Eroica but i've never heard him referred to as anything but a romantic composer
His crazy technical pieces are some characteristic of the romantic era but the style is anything but that. It's a bit like Czerny.
Great video! Although in some ways it is a bit overly simplistic. Yes these composers were in some ways ahead of or behind their time in a broad stylistic sense - but each of them was doing something massively unique. Rachmaninoff's idol was Tchaikovsky who was of course a late-romantic but Rachmaninoff's harmonic style is far more rich and sumptuous. He was still innovating, while retaining a broadly Romantic style.
The same could be said for Bach - who was composing as the early Galant period was emerging - the streamlining of music we see in the Classical period.
Bach was composing Fugues when they were already considered "Old-School".
The reason he is still a musical giant, and considered a genius innovator?
Well - he formulated a unique, rich, and extremely advanced contrapuntal style - the most advanced form of Baroque music - as Classical period music was already surpassing it in popularity!
In fact Bach was not that widely known to the public until Mendelssohn began to popularized his music around 1830 or so - 80 years after Bach's death!
I say all this because I believe that there is still life in old forms and old styles - you can do something unique and individual with them. You don't have to be modern, don't have to follow the "trends of your day". If you love older styles - go with your heart, and find a way to create a unique voice of your own with it. Radical innovation is overrated - subtly forging your own path is underrated!
I love Saint-Saens! I think he is severely underrated. Great video!
CARNIVAL OF THE ANIMALS is FUN music!
I know what I am going to say is very controversial, but I always had the feeling that Mozart is actually one of the first romantic composer. Of course a lot of his work are purely classicaly inspired, but when you listen to his late works, where he truly unleash his feelings, it is almost like Beethoven was born in these pieces. Here, I think about the fantasia in D minor, and even more striking to me, the one in C minor. The late concerti like 24, 23, or even 20, etc...
Obviously I will never say that Mozart belong to the romantic period, but I feel like he truly has written with the same idea of sensibility of emotions as the romantics after him
This isn't that crazy at all. I think it was Charles Rosen who pointed out that the great classical composers (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) were considered to be the first romantic composers by their contemporaries.
Rosen attributes it to the sonata form adding a sense of long term drama that was never seen before with any of the baroque forms. That drama made classical period music way more expressive than what came before.
In the literary or philosophical sense of Romatic, sure. In terms of style, even Beethoven just isn't Romantic by any metric whatsoever.
I agree firstly ages, eras or epochs are defined retrospectively so Mozart, Haydn and their contemporaries didn't know they were in "The Classical" period , they were just living and working in the time they were in. Secondly Mozart's music, for me, derives much of its power from the inherent tension between the adherence to a form versus the imperative for personal expression, including emotional expression. Works such as the Masonic Funeral Music and Dissonance Quartet opening are way out of 18th Century norms, when Mozart first sent the manuscript of the Dissonance to the publishers, they sent it back saying there were mistakes in the beginning!
While I agree, many of Mozart's proto-romantic traits can be traced to C. P. E. Bach.
@@klop4228 There had been innuendos and there has to be a point from which on Beethoven entered the Romantic era fully.
There is no way works like the late quartets or the late piano sonatas could be classified as classical. And there is also wide agreement that already the symphony no. 3 is the first romantic symphony.
Last time I was this early, Haydn was still pranking his patrons
What about Bach? I mean, his approach to music was very old-fashioned, very different from any mainstream music of his time. At the time simplistic galante-style was starting to prevail, he was composing ricercares in 6 voices and 3-4-subject fugues. Don't these qualify him as "out of his time"? Or what about Ives? He used quarter tones before Haba and Wyschnegradsky, atonality before Schönberg along with polytonality and very often "pastiché" like references to other works, which would only appear as something mainstream with post-modernism! Or what about Wolf-Ferrari, Alkan, Debussy, Schönberg, Monteverdi... But great video anyway.
Good choices, yeah I mentioned Bach too. I think Bach was technically "behind his time" but also ahead of his time in many subtle ways. I mean very little Baroque period music is as INSPIRING as Bach - in the sense that you can play around with it and generate creative ideas. Chopin took only one book with him when writing his Preludes in Mallorca - Bach's Well Tempered Clavier! Proving that Bach's music is a fountain of inspiration - even for music of other periods and styles.
@@Stevie-SteeleI think you are just not a Baroque period fan... Bach is brilliant, but there is so much inspiring baroque music out there...
bach is still ahead even of our time
@@edvardskalva Bach was an old-fashioned composer.
Your statement makes no sense.
@@Ziad3195 he is the most non-typical baroque composer i've hard of
I think Beethoven belongs to his time when he was very young, but then he developed super-fast. He expressed himself by music, all speed up by becoming tone death.
I would add Charles Ives. His string quartet no. 2 is forward looking for 1911, you’d think it’s mid-century. Also, Richard Strauss, like Rachmaninoff, often sound Romantic. I would also include select trends of composers looking back that weren’t necessarily outside their era, such as Mozart’s fugues in his Requiem or the Dies Irae plainchant in Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique.
I will say one thing: Scarlatti
When I first heard the K 19 sonata I thought it was a much later composer doing something in the style of the baroque
Nice list. Enjoyed the backwards-forwards feel to it all.
I have always been impressed by the case of Moussorgsky. At the same period, I find that some works of Liszt (particularly at the end) also look to the future.
Chromaticism in Gesusldo.
The madman, Gesualdo!
Richard Strauss? The truly beautiful Four Last Songs written after WWII sound as though they were written before WWI and the same could be said of the Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings.
Chopin and Bach would be some respectable Jazz composers if they lived in that time. And let's not forget Medtner
Lovely!
Knew from the beginning Beethoven (very futuristic) and Rachmaninov (very traditionalist) would have been in it. Sad the latest work by Schumann has been destroyed 😢😢...
Lol @ turbulent boat rides!! 😂😂
H. I. F. Biber is another one
Yeah Justin Bieber!
pretty much all composers we learn about are anomalies to the typical expression of their time
No mention of JS Bach?
A relatable situation
Your list really surprised me because if you replace things in their context, these composers all belong to their time (with the exception of Rachmaninov who was indeed a romantic lost in the XXth century). Beethoven was one of the creators of the romantism in music, there's no wonder he sounds so unlike other composers of the same era. Romantic composers were trying to break free from the classical influences by two ways: by going further in audacity and virtuosity (Beethoven, Liszt and Paganini) or by doing the opposite, using older genres and styles as inspiration (Mendelssohn, with his use of a protestant choral for one his symphonies or Wagner, with the medieval/mythological setting of his operas). That wasn't to please everyone and some composers decided to protest against Wagner's grandiose style: one of them was to go back to symphony, which had been (almost) totally abandoned when Liszt created the symphonic poem. Finally, the second part of the XIXth century was a pretty tough period with a sudden resurgence of patriotism. This patriotism can be felt in the work of composers from lesser known countries like Czecho-Slovakia (Dvorak), Finland (Sibelius and of course, Russia (with the Group of Five where belonged Mussorgsky).
I think I have a controversial take about this topic. I think Bruckner sounds Baroque a lot of times. I don't have many arguments but I just wanna throw this thought and see if someone may pick it up. His orchestral sound is not baroque at all obviously, but the composition in itself is sometimes comparable to Vivaldi or Bach.
For exemple: some of his sections have a circle of fifths like in the last movement of the 7th; the fugue in the finale of the 5th is somewhat bach-like; and many of the crescendos leading to the big climaxes use the dotted rythm repeatadly and that kind of reminds me of Vivaldi.
Then there is ofc his choral music, which is not nearly as advanced as the orchestral and definitly follows the baroque sacred music lineage.
I'm curious to know what others think.
I think Bruckner's masses are most definitely based on the symphonic style of Viennese classic models - Mozart, Haydn, Schubert and Beethoven - both in form and content; they do not strike me as being baroque in any way. Masses in baroque times often had separate movements within the main sections of the ordinary of the mass e.g. the Bach's B minor mass - Bruckner does not - everything within the Gloria, for example, is a single movement, ending in a fugue just as the Viennese composers did. Many of Bruckner's repetitions and cadences sound classical to me. The bare octave phrase "De ore leonis" in the "Domine Jesu Christe" section of Mozart Requiem bears a striking resemblances to what Bruckner wrote many times.
Bruckner's Requiem of 1849 and Missa Solemnis in B flat minor are early works - both have figure bass continuo (perhaps the last ever written to use this feature) which does hark back to the baroque when the continuo was invented but it was also used in the classical period too.
Bruckner's works often include fugues, a form perfected in the baroque period but then so do those of the Viennese classical conposers e.g. Mozart's Jupiter symphony, Mozart's Requiem, Beethoven's Eroica and 9th symphony finales.
If anything, I sometimes hear echoes of medieval music in Bruckner because of gregorian melodies, unisons/octaves and bare fifths (,e.g. the Te Deum ostinato) or the Renaissance (some of the motets especially the modality of "Os Justi" written for the Cecilian movement as a deliberate throwback.
We often hear the phrase "baroque splendour" and there is plenty of splendid baroque architecture in evidence in Austria e.g. the Abbey church at St Florian. Bruckner's music often has a similar splendour: it is just that his music does not have a direct connection with baroque music that I can discern. I think more often of gothic architecure when I listen to Bruckner rather than baroque.
Someone called Brahms "the music of the future"...
Bortkiewicz comes to my mind
Liszt, Chopin and J.S. Bach.
litty!!!
Zalenka? Scarlatti?