Correct, although the romantic movement in art, like most movements, including modernism and postmodernism, coincided across most forms, including painting and sculpture, after the movement became a commonly held idealogy across philosophy.

Ok GuitarBizarre we get the idea that you think you are right in everything. Romantic love is part of romanticism, Tristan and Isolde for example, the inspiration of love etc. Don't talk to me like I'm a fool and you are some kind of expert. Nature was another inspiration for the Romantics. And it was clearly more about secular emotions otherwise why wasn't there a huge outpouring of religious music like in the Renaissance (or Middle Ages) or Baroque? You see I know music.

Tristan und Isolde was dependent primarily on Wagner's concept of Gezamptkunstwerke (Total artwork, Wagner demanded absolute control over all elements of his operas, from music through to dancing to backdrops and even costume design), made extensive use of Idee fixe (the use of a particular amount of musical content, recontextualised repeatedly, to represent a given character or element in a work considered to be representative of events or story) and also, Wagner's use of nontonal harmony, including the self-explanatorily titled tristan chord, which is a half diminished 7th in second inversion, was noted for being an early, and surprisingly successful attempt, at shrugging off the percieved chains and limitations of the Germanic Harmonic tradition exemplified by Bach and Mozart. (Although there are still sections that fall back on established chord patterns typified by germanic harmony such as a perfect cadence of I IV V in the prelude, which is set up nontonally but resolves in the traditional manner, passing notes and chorale-esque movement included)

All of this was not necessarily by virtue of an adherence to any traditional structure. Indeed, any given "piece" of Wagner, such as Ride Of The Valkyries, is in fact a section of a larger work, often referred to as "Bleeding chunks of Wagner" as they were never intended to be removed from context. Any structure evident in a small piece of Wagner's work is illusory, likely not foreshawdowed in the larger portion of the work from which it comes, unless apportioned to idee fixe, or indeed, Strum und drang.

As for the outpouring of religious music, a religious inspiration doesn't necessarily imply that the work is made in order to worship god. And it doesn't follow that an ideology based on allowing god to work through you, using you as a vessel, would result in god praising or demanding worship for HIM/HER/ITSELF. The logic that implies religious works would have been the result of such a thought doesn't hold water.

since when did a thread about pop become classical?

There has to be some structure to operas, it's based on a libretto which tends to have a dramatic structure. And opera was quite important in the romantic period of course, Wagner, Verdi etc.

A religious inspiration to the extent suggested would certainly imply a lack of secular subjects. Romanticism was about the glorification of the feelings of the individual raised up to an ideal and worshiped level almost. At the same time, paradoxically, it was influenced by political nationalism because of the political circumstances of the time. I don't really know how anyone can ignore these secular aspects and just focus on religion in this time. Some composers may have been religious obviously, but that wasn't as defining as it was in Bach's cantatas.

What are you even arguing about? Everything has a structure if you analyse the crap out of it, but your previous argument was that structure is a means to an end, your current argument is that everything has a structure even if it was composed with no specific one in mind. You're at cross purposes with yourself.

Not to mention the secular or religious content of works from a given period is irrelevant when we're discussing the mindset that created those. We aren't discussing the rationale behind the presence or absence of religious feeling in a periods music as a whole, we're discussing the mindsets of periods of artistic endeavour and their relevance to the reduction in importance of explicit structure moving on from germanic traditions into the more broad base of western harmony in art music, including the rise of atonality, serialism, through-composition, the introduction of jazz (And a subsequent expansion of musical ideas to encompass microtonal harmony, already briefly explored by classical composers during the romantic vogue for east european and world music as applied to classical harmony) as a part of the western classical canon, forming a bridge between popular music and classical theory (Which in itself exposed a great number of problems with critical theory at the time, for example the inapplicability of schenkerian analysis to blues or black cultural music, it subsequently being replaced with the newer theory of "signifyin'" [Apostrophe included, really!] which became a crux for much of modern musical theory regarding the intermingling of black and white musical styles and traditions)

I never said something was composed for nobody, everything has an audience and I'm sure I've said that already. And for someone who makes a huge thing of a small grammatical mistake you just wrote a sentence which is far too long to even communicate its message very well. And my argument hasn't changed anyway whereas you seem to be bringing in all kinds of other issues to take it away from the original subjects.

I never said anything that I believe can even be misread as meaning this, what in blue blazes are you even talking about?

I'm sorry, but that is so incorrect. 3/4 is completely different from 6/8 in so many ways. Time division is not the only difference. Would you like to write me a piece in 2/4 using triplets? Because that's essentially nothing like 3/4, but is actually what 6/8 sounds like.
This statement you made was so incredibly wrong I just made an account to post this, that's how inclined I feel to educate you.
What the hell do you mean by "time division"? That doesn't make any sense. That would imply 4/4is the same as 8/8, which again, it is not at all the same.

Who are you addressing? Please quote posts you're responding to.