schubert

[imbetter]

is Schubert considered a romantic composer or classical?

[invictious]

He was, IMGO, considered a crossover between a classical and romantic composer.
Put it this way, he was a late classical composer, and show signs of romanticism.

[imbetter]

if i were to play him for an exam would he be considered my romantic piece or classical?

[elevateme_returns]

early schubert = classical late = romantic. but it would be a good idea to do some mozart or haydn just to be sure.

[mikey6]

I had the same problem figuring out where to put late Beethoven.  I think in general, Beethoven=Classical, Schubert=Romantic (although obviously it's not 100% accurate)

[invictious]

well obviously
Let's take Beethoven
if you're talking about Pathetique, then you put it in the classical period.
if it's appassionata, then you stick it in romantic!

[Kassaa]

well obviously
Let's take Beethoven
if you're talking about Pathetique, then you put it in the classical period.
if it's appassionata, then you stick it in romantic!

Why is the appassionata romantic?

[pianistimo]

it's a - passion - ata.  if anything has an inkling of passion - it's romantic.  as i see it - schubert was passionately classical.  therefore - he is a romantic classicist.  beethoven, too.  there is always an element of 'the brain.'  and the late sonatas are not so much 'romantic' or 'contemporary' as they are fully and completely germs of music that are spread over much larger distances - that do their little returns.  it is a mathematic formula not unlike mozarts and completely classical.  even though the form seemingly disintegrated before one's very eyes with beethoven and schubert.  all based on 'the golden mean.'  somehow- in one form or other. 

with liszt - the little germs - leave completely and turn into something completely new and different.  take some of the ballades.  that is romantic.  no repeats.  nothing stable.  they are boundless in another sense.  not with silence - but more and more notes and occasional small bits of silence.  no massive silence. 

schubert and beethoven were both nature lovers, too.  this brings an element of nature into their playing - whereas - i thought the 'romantic' spirit was against this 'natural' element of classicism.  romanticism to me - means completely leaving 'this world.'  not using it as a measuring stick.  schubert would have had to leave his 'schoolmaster' ideas and take off his socks.  liszt did this easily.

also, schubert, beethoven, and brahms seem to me to be on the side of 'careful' when it comes to dealing with biblical matters - whereas many of the romantics felt that God was dead.  maybe that's why they tend to be on the careful side of passion.

[ramseytheii]

Since you're asking about classification for school auditoins or competitions or whatever, Schubert would go squarely into the Classical category.  The reason is he wrote in Classical forms (even his Impromptus and other short pieces suggest sonata style), he died only a year after Beethoven, and his biggest influences were the Viennese Classicists: Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.

For Romantic music, you have to go outside of Vienna and after 1830.  Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, those kind of composers.

This is the limitations though of auditions, having to strictly categorize everything.  There is a much more interesting discussion that can be had on thsi topic, obviously.  For one thing, E.T.A. Hofmann, the music critic and Gothic-story author, was one of the first critics to group together Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, and called them "Romantic" composers, meaning composers whose music exhibited strongly contrasting emotions that could seduce the audience. 

Calling them that today, by our understanding of the terms, would be confusing, like the Republicans saying they are the party of Lincoln.  (After leaving the Whig party, he might have been a "Republican," but today's Republicans surely would not have denied the state right to slavery).

On the other hand, Schubert's music exhibits a freedom from a lot of the formal restraint that those three composers employed.  When I say restraint, I don't mean their music was restrained, but that they achieved innovation against a backdrop of familiarity.  Schubert often just put the torch to the wind; listen for instance to the last movement of his E-flat sonata.  The harmonies verge on incomprehensibility as far as their succession is concerned.  Schubert's contribution to formal innovation is slight, and for that reason he can be considered actually more forward-looking.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

agreed. and, schubert extended the boundaries by following the rhythms of words in his lieder.  he was also aware of the importance of certain words - just like the importance that he occasionally gives to certain notes.  a very haydenesque attribute.  so, on the one hand - we have predictable and the other hand - a very planned unpredictability.  like someone who planned a kiss a day or month before.  the romantics didn't really plan it out.  but, there is a spontaneity to schubert that isn't 'unromantic.'  it's just not fully expressive yet of the fully blooming romantic period where caution is thrown to the wind and doesn't return with any germ of what started the song or the sonata movement - or whatever.

i personally feel that brahms (despite being born in the 'romantic period') was also a romantic classicist.  his forms are concise and often ABA.  intermezzos.  dances. etc.  even the paganini variations seemed classically conceived, somehow.

[thalberg]

One of the local competitions around here places all Schubert in the Romantic category just for simplicity.

[amanfang]

I think it depends on what you are playing.  Like Ravel, he could fall into the Romantic, Impressionist, or 20th century category, depending on the piece.