Notes Toward a New Romanticism: Or why it's 1800 all over again
Comments
ggm
coldtea
Because the analogy he makes is with Romanticism, a specific trend/movement, for which 1800 is roughly a good reference point, whereas 1600 is not.
ggm
And my point is that it's a label on a cyclical trend. But sure, he wanted to reason about romanticism specifically. He cuts off very early in the new century, and the romanticism presaged a 50year cycle of revolution and revolt against the congress of Vienna. The tide swung back and forth.
coldtea
>And my point is that it's a label on a cyclical trend
Not so sure about that. Romanticism isn't related to Millinarianism conceptually or otherwise. The former was a re-adoption of a hollistic medieval stance on life and nature.
If you mean "some cultural things change every now and then, so a trend changing is nothing new", maybe, but it's a much smaller claim than that we see a rebirt of Romanticism specifically.
defrost
I'm not convinced Beethoven had contemporary groupies tossing him their muffs.
Liszt, however ...
vlian2088
>Nov 18, 2023
>Imagine people deciding that the good life starts with NOT learning how to code.
you monkey pawed it.
Is this just a posh version of Millinarianism? I don't think so but I ask "why stop at 1800" and look at 1900 and 1700 and 1600 thinking there's signals every 100 years of a bit of Apple Cart upsetting.
Girls swooning over Beethoven and the fortepiano maestro tour europe.