Romanticism

OK, so the more I listen, the more I get confused. There are elements to music composition that are imperceptible to my plebeian, non-musician ear–emotion expressed through dynamics and tonal shifts alone, as well as voices of instrument solos are not enough to tell pieces apart. I am sure I am CAPABLE of developing my ear, but I am skeptical of the time frame. It is very similar to observing a classroom–it is one thing to focus on what Sammy or Lizzy are doing, and a whole another thing to know HOW much they progress, what their social situations are, and many other things that shape their PRESENT behavior. Their teacher sees a whole lot more than what I see in the timeframe I may have in the classroom, though I like to indulge in thought that maybe I can see something the teacher does not…

…or maybe I am feeling totally inadequate and being a sore loser because I keep mixing up Mendelssohn with Brahms.

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed professors, Members of the Committee, peers, brutes: let it be known–I am deaf! And not Beethoven-deaf–I am deaf in the most horrific way, like those who think Kanye West makes music.

Therefore, I read. A lot. So many cool things that are turning up!

I started a Prezi presentation to make sense of relationships, timelines, and whatever else I dig up as I move along this period.

https://prezi.com/p/q9myk1dwxu9l/romantic-period/

First of all, Schubert reminds me very much of Haydn–humble beginnings and incredible talent definitely find converge in their sound (obviously, I am judging only by what little I heard)–sturm und drang, but definitely evolving.

The neverending revolutions are shaping (and being shaped by) all kinds of thinking–not just politics and philosophy. Music, too. The uncertainty, and the latter rise of nationalist thought that came after the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be, and the multiple revolutions swept over Europe.

Transportation! Steam locomotion was still in infancy, which means pockets of intellectual development maintain their sphere of influence geographically. Leipzig School, then later Weimar School; this, of course, did not change that much from the last century, but Romanticism suddenly made so much more sense as man and nature lined up to be measured.  As technology continued to defy the limits of man and what was possible, I think the role and significance of nature had to be reexamined from many possible angles. …And as a side thought… just to think that Berlioz was able to take a “long” way home from Rome he hated so much–and probably gained so many more opportunities to reflect on his experiences and to compose… Good thing they did not drive at that time–he probably would have killed his fiancee Marie Moke and her mother the “hippopatame,” and never lived to reach the mastery he reached because of his romantic and family conflicts and relative freedom of a person who did not commit any crimes. I was thrilled to learn that his “Harold in Italy” was written in response to Paganini’s request, though Paganini decided there was not much for him to play in “Harold” after all…. Paganini came up so much as an influence in other composer’s lives, too.

The “Jewish” question, too–here in the States and in education there is so much that revolves around race, so it was good to be reminded that the ugly has many heads. Just to think that Mendelssohn had to negotiate his Jewish heritage as a musician and an authority figure in cultural life. Mahler, too… he was even closer in the timeline to the stench that eventually led to Holocaust… It made me so angry and brokenhearted to learn that my favorite “party” in the War of the Romantics–Wagner, Liszt, Cosima Wagner Liszt were tainted by antisemitism.

I don’t know if they were my favorite, but much like Wagner, I believe that any “purity” can be a dangerous thing (which is why his antisemitic inclination seems such a puzzle to me!)–I love that he experimented with music, and did not think of it as a stable form; I love it that he thought so much of literary and visual modes of expression to champion their evolution…

It is funny how both the absolutists and the arts of the future camps found their inspiration in Beethoven. I read Schumann initially named his First Symphony “Spring,” but in later editions changed his mind. Why? Pride? The budding paradigm shift that put Liszt and Wagner on one side of the chasm and Schumann and Mendelssohn on the other–in other words, politics?

The new art was considered “dangerous.” Why? There is more than one answer, of course, but dangerous? I find myself now in a similar epistemological paradigm shift as a researcher. Statistics, though a dominating method of analysis are being countered by competing forms, and “danger” of relativism is being echoed in many conversations. Poststructuralism is being accused of being a dangerous interruption in social scientific thought, and maybe I can understand why proponents of fundamentalism would think so, but I disagree all the same. We cannot stay rooted in tradition–roots eventually rot!

Nevertheless, I still enjoy Schubert and Schumann, and Brahms, and Mendelssohn’s works. They are difficult for me to tell apart at this moment, sure, but I find myself renewed after being immersed in the sound. So many times I actually dream many of the main themes at night, waking up to the dramatic timpani  and all kinds of oompa-oompas, or the folksy melodies of Bohemian and Austrian dances… I wonder if this is what being a musician feels like, and so I dream well into my mornings.