Why I dislike *most* music from the Romantic era

Before I begin, this is purely a rant of aesthetics. I am NOT, repeat, NOT by any means implying that the music from the Romantic era which I will describe is ultimately "lesser music", nor am I implying that people who like it are "lesser", again, this is just my own aesthetic view and I'd like to see it brew a discussion, and maybe even find some other like minds!

So I listen to a ton of music, and I of course study a very large amount of "classical music". For the sake of canon and simplicity, I'll forgo musicological posturing and just say "classical music". Anyway, as a composer, I love Medieval music, the Renaissance, *most* Baroque (that's another discussion altogether, but let's just stick to Bach, Corelli, Vivaldi, and Telemann for this discussion), Classical, early Romantic (basically starting with the Eroica symphony up through the 5th), very late romantic (Sibelius, Mahler, Strauss, Brahms) and then the many branches of 20th century modernists, period modernists ("neo-classicists"), minimalism, and whatever else. I love all of this music, however, you might note one thing I've left out, pretty much the BULK of the Romantic period.

This bulk I speak of includes, at least the most blatant examples to me: Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schumann, Saint-Saens, and many many many no names. Why do I not like the music of these composers? Part of it is the initial reaction, what to me seems to be a lack of substance, a reliance on synthetic emotion. The transparency and intricacies of the Classical era which came before is fizzled out in favor of homogeneous homophonic textures and a reliance on melody to drive the music. Usually a layman will comment on supposed simplicity of music from the Classical era. I ask these people to study a Mozart score, or even better, Haydn, play through a piano reduction, and don't tell me there isn't an extreme intricacy in counterpoint in these works. Polyphony still drives the music of the Classical era, whereas music of the Romantic is driven by, to say the least "melody and harmony". To put it even simpler "blocks on the bottom, one or two lines on top". This, to me, does not spell success for interesting music. Polyphony is the life force which drives this music that we all vow to best ourselves at. Polyphony is also what provides true interest in a piece.

If anyone wants me to list actual examples, I'd be glad to do so, but I'm sure anyone who knows familiar enough with their rep (and I'm sure there are a few on this board that have years of experience on me) will know exactly what I'm talking about. However, I WILL say to listen to some of your typical "classical radio stations". This is what prompted me to make this post, half of the recordings this particular radio station plays are generic Romantic era violin concertos by "no name" composers of the era. You know the type of pieces I'm talking about. Is this HORRIBLE music? Not by any means. Is it the most interesting? In fact, do I find it interesting or pleasing from any real aesthetic point of view. The answer to that would be an emphatic no.

Technically this musical movement where melody serves as dictator did not even really last for very long. People like Brahms began to kill it, and it pretty much died in the 20th century, when composers began becoming much more interested in polyphony. The people who didn't happen to be interested in polyphonic textures very much (Debussy) went ahead with experimenting with different languages, still trying to get away from the ROMANTICIST aesthetic. Out of the siege of modernism, good and bad, after Le Sacre, we had the perfect balance of Romanticist gestures with Classicist technique.

Heh. You've probably just never cried because a girl doesn't like you, or something. Tchaikovsky ftw.

You do seem to fit with Glenn Gould's opinion on music in general, though.

What has education got to do with liking polyphony? I love a good deal of the music he mentioned he loves as well.

Heh. You've probably just never cried because a girl doesn't like you, or something. Tchaikovsky ftw.

You do seem to fit with Glenn Gould's opinion on music in general, though.

This is actually my main complaint with a lot of NEO-romantic music too which I happen to really like (there's a section of the Corigliano piano concerto that I absolutely hate, and the lack of texture and interest in Barber's symphonies bores me to tears). It's interesting, because I like these composers a lot, and Barber was at his best texturally in pieces like Adagio for Strings, Knoxville: 1915, and the Summer Music quintet. These pieces are pretty rich, from a polyphonic point of view, then listen to the symphonies, and it's back to "melody and chords". I just find that approach very uninteresting.

Also funny that you mention Glenn Gould, since I love his playing. Listen to him play Schoenberg's pieces, great stuff. And Bach obviously....beautiful.

For the record....forgive my vulgarity but...

1) Tchaikovsky liked dudes (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just playing a game of semantics)

2) Schoenberg caught his wife having sex with a music critic or something, and look what he wrote (Pierrot Luinaire. Good piece, go listen to it). Certainly not romanticist kitsch.

1) Tchaikovsky liked dudes (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just playing a game of semantics)

Doesn't mean I can't interpret his music my way. Look at all the different opinions people over history have had over, say, Mozart's 40th symphony - they range from opera buffa to colossal tragedy.

2) Schoenberg caught his wife having sex with a music critic or something, and look what he wrote (Pierrot Luinaire. Good piece, go listen to it). Certainly not romanticist kitsch.

He also wrote things like Transfigured Night. (And I do know Pierrot Lunaire).

And btw, the word 'kitsch' is one I resent tremendously, due to its extremely subjective value. Many people tend to dismiss non-complex romantic music as 'kitsch', and I find that extremely insulting. I would, however, like to know what your definition of said 'kitsch' is.

If you find melody + chords boring, hey, it's your opinion. I adore many, many pieces which are basically that, and I don't feel remotely guilty.

Doesn't mean I can't interpret his music my way. Look at all the different opinions people over history have had over, say, Mozart's 40th symphony - they range from opera buffa to colossal tragedy.

He also wrote things like Transfigured Night. (And I do know Pierrot Lunaire).

And btw, the word 'kitsch' is one I resent tremendously, due to its extremely subjective value. Many people tend to dismiss non-complex romantic music as 'kitsch', and I find that extremely insulting. I would, however, like to know what your definition of said 'kitsch' is.

If you find melody + chords boring, hey, it's your opinion. I adore many, many pieces which are basically that, and I don't feel remotely guilty.

I don't really mean "boring", that's such a sophomoric way to put. I am simply saying that I prefer music that derives its energies from polyphonic textures as opposed to homophonic ones.

Anyway, please learn your history. Transfigured Night is op. 4, as opposed to Perriot which is op. 21, there is a very long stretch of time between these. Anyways, I'm not trying to knock you down or anything, but also keep in mind that Schoenberg's main early influences were Mahler and Zemlinsky, who are not the Romanticists I'm talking about (Mahler was the beginning of music going back to more polyphonic groundings, jeez, just listen to the 3rd symphony :P).

1) Tchaikovsky liked dudes (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just playing a game of semantics)

This almost sounds like you're saying his sexuality made his music romantic kitsch. Slippery slope. Or am I misunderstanding you?

This almost sounds like you're saying his sexuality made his music romantic kitsch. Slippery slope. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Someone doesn't have a sense of humor :-\ I thought I made it pretty clear I wasn't actually making a homophobic remark, but just making an absurd one, hence my mention of semantics.

This almost sounds like you're saying his sexuality made his music romantic kitsch. Slippery slope. Or am I misunderstanding you?

He was countering my first post.

To Greg: I know Transfigured Night is late romantic, I wasn't saying it was like the music you're criticizing. I'm just saying that it IS romantic.

And I'm also aware there's a gap between that and Pierrot, but you didn't tell me *when* he caught his wife in flagrante. Then again, why would it matter to such a commited revolutionary?

He was countering my first post.

To Greg: I know Transfigured Night is late romantic, I wasn't saying it was like the music you're criticizing. I'm just saying that it IS romantic.

And I'm also aware there's a gap between that and Pierrot, but you didn't tell me *when* he caught his wife in flagrante. Then again, why would it matter to such a commited revolutionary?

Well he caught his wife having sex with another man, I don't know if you've ever had a *mature* relationship with a woman, but this is a very traumatic experience.

Well he caught his wife having sex with another man, I don't know if you've ever had a *mature* relationship with a woman, but this is a very traumatic experience.

I didn't say it isn't, I'm saying that I don't see why it would necessarily influence the music of someone already so commited to his own movement.

I didn't say it isn't, I'm saying that I don't see why it would necessarily influence the music of someone already so commited to his own movement.

Is it possible you don't know that because you don't know the context? I'm not going to quote because I don't have the particular source that I'm referencing by me, but still, context....

Is it possible you don't know that because you don't know the context? I'm not going to quote because I don't have the particular source that I'm referencing by me, but still, context....

You never did tell me if that happened in his late romantic, free atonal, or dodecaphonic period. Again, I question the importance of it in his music.

You never did tell me if that happened in his late romantic, free atonal, or dodecaphonic period. Again, I question the importance of it in his music.

My bad, it was before his free tonal period, or at least in the early part. I'll double check my sources and get back to you, but I'm close.

Oh, cute. The guy who lied about being from Yale now deems it necessary to tell the forum why he doesn't like Romanticism. You are sorely mistaken both in your views on the use of polyphony both in the Classical and Romantic eras. Before you tell others to study Mozart and Haydn (and no, Haydn is not "even better" to study than Mozart), you should do the same. It's obvious you have no schooling, and are just trying to appear smarter than you really are. For what reason, I'm not sure?

Oh, cute. The guy who lied about being from Yale now deems it necessary to tell the forum why he doesn't like Romanticism. You are sorely mistaken both in your views on the use of polyphony both in the Classical and Romantic eras. Before you tell others to study Mozart and Haydn (and no, Haydn is not "even better" to study than Mozart), you should do the same. It's obvious you have no schooling, and are just trying to appear smarter than you really are. For what reason, I'm not sure?

Oy, I was obviously not preaching objectivity with this post, why the sour puss?

Sour puss comes from flamebait.

Pity I tend to agree (alberti bass really irks me for that reason), and even if I disagreed, don't really have the knowledge to argue.

This post isn't flamebait, I'm just sparking a bit of discussion sheesh.

And the implication that I have no schooling or am not coming from an educated background is slightly absurd. PM me if you want to talk to me about my schooling and experience....

Whenever someone smart comes around, you people try to scare him or her off.

W/e.

Thanks kid

Someone doesn't have a sense of humor :-\ I thought I made it pretty clear I wasn't actually making a homophobic remark, but just making an absurd one, hence my mention of semantics.

OK, just making sure. Ask anyone here, I actually have a pretty good sense of humour (fairly bawdy and off-the-wall even); I'm just not always sure when people are really joking. I'll take your word for it, then. :)

Tomas, I really was responding to what Greg said.

Being a Classicist myself, I tend to prefer that aesthetic, but I do listen to Romantic music from time to time. I have to be in the mood for it. There are certain flavours of it that often leave a bad taste in my mouth, such as:

- gratuitous virtuosity (vulgar pyrotechnics don't impress me);

- cheap sentiment;

- shallow melodrama;

- self-indulgence;

- opaque/incomprehensible density; etc.

Yet I often surprise myself at my tolerance even to these. My admiration of my kinsman Louis Moreau Gottschalk despite his violation of several of the aforegoing is an example.

Romantic composers that I greatly admire who I don't consider to be run-of-the-mill Romantics include:

Ludwig van Beethoven (obviously a Classicist in my view, the culimination of the period);

Franz Schubert (defies classification);

Felix Mendelssohn (his mastery of counterpoint was legendary and informed most of his work to some degree);

Johannes Brahms (also not a Romantic but a Neo-Classicist, the greatest 19th Century master of counterpoint);

Joseph Rheinberger (also a Neo-Classicist, second only to Brahms and perhaps Mendelssohn in mastery of counterpoint).

Interesting that all of these were either masters of counterpoint, or had a firm grounding in it (Schubert's studies with Simon Sechter are very revealing).

OK, just making sure. Ask anyone here, I actually have a pretty good sense of humour (fairly bawdy and off-the-wall even); I'm just not always sure when people are really joking. I'll take your word for it, then. :)

Tomas, I really was responding to what Greg said.

Being a Classicist myself, I tend to prefer that aesthetic, but I do listen to Romantic music from time to time. I have to be in the mood for it. There are certain flavours of it that often leave a bad taste in my mouth, such as:

- gratuitous virtuosity (vulgar pyrotechnics don't impress me);

- cheap sentiment;

- shallow melodrama;

- self-indulgence;

- opaque/incomprehensible density; etc.

Yet I often surprise myself at my tolerance even to these. My admiration of my kinsman Louis Moreau Gottschalk despite his violation of several of the aforegoing is an example.

Romantic composers that I greatly admire who I don't consider to be run-of-the-mill Romantics include:

Ludwig van Beethoven (obviously a Classicist in my view, the culimination of the period);

Franz Schubert (defies classification);

Felix Mendelssohn (his mastery of counterpoint was legendary and informed most of his work to some degree);

Johannes Brahms (also not a Romantic but a Neo-Classicist, the greatest 19th Century master of counterpoint);

Joseph Rheinberger (also a Neo-Classicist, second only to Brahms and perhaps Mendelssohn in mastery of counterpoint).

Interesting that all of these were either masters of counterpoint, or had a firm grounding in it (Schubert's studies with Simon Sechter are very revealing).

I agree 100% with this post, and very well said Mr. Graham. The gratuitous virtuosity is something else I failed to mention! Lord, just listen to any violin concerto from this era, it's annoying (to me) to say the least :-(. I like Mendolssohn, but the concerto is still a bit much, I love the Brahms of course.

Lord, just listen to any violin concerto from this era, it's annoying (to me) to say the least :-(. I like Mendolssohn, but the concerto is still a bit much, I love the Brahms of course.

Oh man, Mendelssohn is one of the better ones. Paganini actually embarasses me.

Oh man, Mendelssohn is one of the better ones. Paganini actually embarasses me.

AHAHAHA, you're right! Paganini....I do like the Caprice though, who doesn't.... But eh, Paganini was just like Liszt, great performer, did great things for his respective instrument, had NOOOO business writing anything for orchestra.

PAGANINI IS AMAZING!!!!

SO MUCH PASSION.

Too much passion, you mean. LOL! :toothygrin:

Don't mind me...I'm being an ol' fuddy-duddy again.