Music, then, is seen as abstract, detached from life, a form of direct expression, non-mimetic, non-imitative, and at the furthest possible remove from any kind of objective description of anything. Nevertheless, the Romantics did not think that the arts ought to be unbridled, that one should simply sing whatever comes into one’s head, paint whatever one’s mood orders one to paint, or give completely undisciplined expression to the emotions – they have been charged with this by Irving Babbitt and others, but mistakenly. Novalis says very clearly, ‘When storms rage in the poet’s breast, and he is bewildered and confused, gibberish results.’ A poet must not wander idly all day in search of feelings and images. Certainly he must have these feelings and images, plainly he must allow these storms to rage – for how indeed can he avoid it? – but then he must discipline them, then he must find the proper medium for their expression. Schubert said that the mark of a great composer is to be caught in a vast battle of inspiration, in which the forces rage in the most uncontrolled way, but to keep one’s head in the course of this storm and direct the troops. This is quite clearly a far more genuine expression of what artists do than the remarks of the more unbridled Romantics, who were unaware of the nature of art inasmuch as they were not artists themselves.

— The Roots of Romanticism by Isaiah Berlin, John Gray, Henry Hardy