Why I dislike *most* music from the Romantic era

Anybody who knows me would probably expect me to pop up here at the mention of Liszt. I'm sure the subject of his piano concerti will crop up sooner or later, so I'll just speed the process up. They fit perfectly amidst here, orchestral works that display a certain "vulgar virtousity" from the soloist, if you will. I'm not impressed with virtuosity itself, I do not need to be blown away with the rapidity of notes and trills and scales and showy gestures to like the music, however, for whatever reason, I love the Liszt concerti. They are two of my favourite works, and easily my favourite piano concerti of all time. They seem to be very complex and maturely orchestrated, yet simple and explicit when they need to be. Again and again people insult Liszt's orchestration. While I am no scholar on Liszt or orchestration, I feel that what Liszt did with the piano and orchestra together as a unit transcends what any other composer has done. People have shown me examples of other works deemed greater, and after several tries, I've dismissed each of them. Something about these works brims with passion and character - a life like no other. I think he had every business writing for orchestra and I'm disappointed that such works are few and far in between.

On the subject of Paganini... I like him. It's "let your hair down" music. It's fun, it has character, and it's something cute and charming. What more could we ask for in music? I think it's a pleasure to listen to from time to time.

Samuel Adler uses a Liszt piece as an example of WHAT NOT TO DO when writing for strings in his Orchestration textbook. This is a very popular textbook by the way, you'll probably study from it (or the Grantham...or both, both are good) when you go to college, or whenever you take a class on orchestration. I'm not saying Liszt is awful or something, he wrote good stuff for *solo* piano and pushed tonality in interesting ways.

I really don't think it's a good idea to make some absolutist decisions about an art that you are not entirely familiar with. I'm not saying you "don't know anything", you seem like someone well grounded, but honestly, there are so many piano concertos, it's kind of ridiculous to say these 2 concertos are "the best of all time". By the way, have you heard the Lutoslawski or Ligeti piano concertos? I'm just curious...

i have no problem with people not liking certain styles i like.

but i find it weird how theres this "clump" of stuff that you dont like between "clumps" of stuff. (sorry, i dont make sense.)

i mean, you like early romantic, and late romantic...

anyways, i just find it weird how that "middle romantic clump of composers" stands out in your mind so much. :P

i have no problem with people not liking vertain styles i like.

but i find it weird how theres this "clump" of stuff that you dont like between "clumps" of stuff. (sorry, i dont make sense.)

i mean, you like early romantic, and late romantic...

anyways, i just find it weird how that "middle romantic clump of composers" stands out in your mind so much. :P

Because Beethoven is completely different from Tchaikovsky...

It's interesting that you mention the late romantic period and onward as things you like and enjoy. Without the music of the middle Romantic period the evolution to the bust of tonality would never have happened - nor would the development of many different musical tools now used (motif, advanced harmony, etc.)

I prefer the music of the classical era because you had structure, form, elegance, and emotion all woven together - brought to a head in Beethoven. The music after Beethoven was fully influenced by Beethoven, as witnessed by the memoirs from many composers from Schubert on up to Mahler. Perhaps that is what you dislike?

By the way, I'm not really sure if you've ever examined the scores to the Barber symphonies, but they are FAR from being "melody over harmony".

They are both heavily contrapuntal. About as far from simple melody over harmony as can be. And where there IS melodic leading, it's done in a quite ingenius manner.

And yes, I am VERY familiar with both of his symphonies.. actually with ALL of his orchestral works. I gave a seminar on structure in the Barber symphonies, many years ago.

PAGANINI IS AMAZING!!!!

SO MUCH PASSION.

Seconded, but without your heavy dose of sarcasm.

I adore Mendelssohn's concerto (when properly played, that is: by Kreisler or Ferras) but I find Brahms' to be like a huge austere gray wall: sitting there in all its intricate, well-built structure whilst not saying anything (I feel that with a lot of Brahms' orchestral works, actually, but that concerto stands out).

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

W/e.

Oh yay, more 'cerebral tastes in music = intelligence.'

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

When I find this in a piece, I stop caring about the composition itself and put my attention on the performer, judging his technical ability. One might argue that Wieniawski's first violin concerto, for example, is a poorly-built, unimaginative wanker piece, and while this is probably true, I really don't care as long as it's well performed (Rabin's version is outstanding). The Paganini caprices may suffer from the same criticism, but they were always intended as mere pedagogical exercises. His concerti - in my opinion - manage to use virtuosic writing for musical purposes.

- cheap sentiment;

- shallow melodrama;

Hmmm, a bit hard to define. I always considered my music to somewhat have these, actually.

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.

I dislike most of the caprice, actually. And yes, he was a simplistic writer for orchestra - which hardly matters, since that's not the focus of his music. He's no less a capable orchestrator than people like Donizetti.

People who don't like Romanticism have no emotion. The end. close thread plox>

(jkjk)

But seriously, so far Romanticism (early, mid, late, neo) has been the only period that's made me cry. Well, other than modernism, but that's for a different reason....I like Romanticism.

People who don't like Romanticism have no emotion. The end. close thread plox>

(jkjk)

But seriously, so far Romanticism (early, mid, late, neo) has been the only period that's made me cry. Well, other than modernism, but that's for a different reason....I like Romanticism.

Marry me plz.

Marry me plz.

If I did then I would be a gay/bisexual Jew, which is pretty much the formula to becoming a great composer.

Edit: Also, I'm sorry. I just can't. My love is for Vaughan Williams. :(

Great pianist.**

People who don't like Romanticism have no emotion. The end. close thread plox>

(jkjk)

But seriously, so far Romanticism (early, mid, late, neo) has been the only period that's made me cry. Well, other than modernism, but that's for a different reason....I like Romanticism.

This post is extremely ignorant

Greg -

Interesting post --- but I think your assessment is a little too general in some spots and therefore flawed.

As QC said Barber's symphonies are quite more than melody and harmony --- actually they tend to get a little dull for my tastes due TO the recurrence of contrapuntal textures (same things happens in a few of Bach's works).

As for Romanticism - well even in the Baroque era composers and some music lovers complained about vapid virtuosity. And music being reduced to melody and harmony - well look at some of the lighter vocal works from the Rennaissance (a few of Dufay's Chansons, even a few Monteverdi Madrigals).

What I do think arose in Romanticism which I dislike is the idea of composer/performer as a superhuman creative being. This unfortunately leads to poor judgement of a piece of music as personality is confused with product --- as seen in its last gasp in some areas of pop culture -- the peak of which can be said at least in US and UK, the mid 1970s. I think the early Baroque and prior had the right idea (except the horrible prejudices) - music is a craft when executed well can do emphemerally fantastic things. I think in the 20th century that viewpoint has returned to the point that we see music and the fine arts melding in novel ways (compositions being considered as sound sculptures, music based on architectural models, visual arts and music combined to create art installations).

Oh, one last comment - the one composer who contributed quite a bit to contrapuntal writing is of all people Chopin. Unfortunately as his music was so idiomatic to the piano the scope of some of his little "revolutions" were not heard until 50 or 60 years later in some instances or were taken up by Wagner and late Romanticists and a few 20th century composers (eg Bartok). Look carefully at his Preludes or a few of his Etudes (Etudes - the E flat minor op 10, the famous A minor Op 25 - look carefully at the right hand - interweaving of 2 lines while the bass successfully exploits the piano registers to create a great bass line and tenor/alto melody/accompaniment, the C # minor Op 10) also a few of his Nocturnes contain far reaching counterpoint - the B major and E major op 62 especially.

For me, I do not listen much to mid period Romantic music because it informs so much pop music and appears on so many classical recitals that the idiom is too overplayed. Yet, yesterday in the store I heard a recording of Lipatti playing the Chopin Waltzes and was quite entranced by some of his performances. God, that generation from about Cortot to Gould was one of the golden eras of pianism.

Thank you CO

This post is extremely ignorant

No.

The first part of it was a joke (thus the bad grammar at the end and the "jkjk" in the poorly-hidden color.)

The second part is my musical taste, which you should still respect even if it is different from yours. Yay!

No.

The first part of it was a joke (thus the bad grammar at the end and the "jkjk" in the poorly-hidden color.)

The second part is my musical taste, which you should still respect even if it is different from yours. Yay!

I've already sent you a page about this, but please keep your immaturity out of my thread please. Either sit here and join my discussion of aesthetics like a grown up, or don't talk. This isn't lunch time with your marching band buddies or something, no offense.

If I did then I would be a gay/bisexual Jew, which is pretty much the formula to becoming a great composer.

Edit: Also, I'm sorry. I just can't. My love is for Vaughan Williams. :(

Lol it was a way of saying 'I agree wholeheartedly'. You'll never see me marry a guy unless I also happen to be holding an empty whisky bottle.

I've already sent you a page about this, but please keep your immaturity out of my thread please. Either sit here and join my discussion of aesthetics like a grown up, or don't talk. This isn't lunch time with your marching band buddies or something, no offense.

Yeah right. As if my marching band buddies would care about this at all. All they care about is getting fast 16th notes. :(

I honestly would have been fine if you hadn't included the whole "I know you're 15 and that's all you know how to do." That just kinda bugged me a little. Not because I'm acting like a typical 15-year-old rebellious teen who's trying to prove something, but because your sort of being prejudice and generalizing due to my age....

Actually, never mind. This is probably gonna get off topic from the original point of the thread. Just...being adult doesn't mean being serious all of the time. It's not wrong to have fun with stuff, even if you don't agree with the person with whom your taking.

Lol it was a way of saying 'I agree wholeheartedly'. You'll never see me marry a guy unless I also happen to be holding an empty whisky bottle.

Yeah, I know, but it's true. Gays and Jews make great composers. It's too bad I'm only 50% of that.

Anyway, certain aspects I do agree with, but before I go on, I just have a question. What exactly are you saying you don't like about the aesthetics of Romanticism? Is it, like, how they go about creating emotion? Is it just polyphony?

Lol it was a way of saying 'I agree wholeheartedly'. You'll never see me marry a guy unless I also happen to be holding an empty whisky bottle.

So that's all it would take? You're a cheap date.

Yeah right. As if my marching band buddies would care about this at all. All they care about is getting fast 16th notes. :(

I honestly would have been fine if you hadn't included the whole "I know you're 15 and that's all you know how to do." That just kinda bugged me a little. Not because I'm acting like a typical 15-year-old rebellious teen who's trying to prove something, but because your sort of being prejudice and generalizing due to my age....

Actually, never mind. This is probably gonna get off topic from the original point of the thread. Just...being adult doesn't mean being serious all of the time. It's not wrong to have fun with stuff, even if you don't agree with the person with whom your taking.

Yeah, I know, but it's true. Gays and Jews make great composers. It's too bad I'm only 50% of that.

Anyway, certain aspects I do agree with, but before I go on, I just have a question. What exactly are you saying you don't like about the aesthetics of Romanticism? Is it, like, how they go about creating emotion? Is it just polyphony?

Please stop saying "emotion", it doesn't mean anything. Everything is capable of stirring some sort of emotion inside people. Romanticists didn't discover "emotion", this is a ridiculous and adolescent notion.

I've already been pretty specific and clear, just reread the topic, I'm not going belabor anything.

Please stop saying "emotion", it doesn't mean anything. Everything is capable of stirring some sort of emotion inside people. Romanticists didn't discover "emotion", this is a ridiculous and adolescent notion.

I've already been pretty specific and clear, just reread the topic, I'm not going belabor anything.

I wasn't saying that they discover emotion or anything...

I'm sorry. I guess I was kinda misunderstanding what you were trying to get at. You used aesthetics and emotion so much in your first post, and the two seem so closely related.

Anyway, I just like Romanticism. Not because of my age, but because it sounds good. I listen to music, for the most part, because I like how it sounds. I honestly can't stand those 9-hour generically romantic violin concerti (most of the time). But most Romanticism I just like. It's okay if you don't like it. I mean, most people I know hate all "classical" music (but then again, they are generalizing without giving it a chance or realizing how many different types of "classical" music exist). I don't like most of the music they listen to. That's fine. I guess everyone just listens to music for different reasons.

I wasn't saying that they discover emotion or anything...

I'm sorry. I guess I was kinda misunderstanding what you were trying to get at. You used aesthetics and emotion so much in your first post, and the two seem so closely related.

Anyway, I just like Romanticism. Not because of my age, but because it sounds good. I listen to music, for the most part, because I like how it sounds. I honestly can't stand those 9-hour generically romantic violin concerti (most of the time). But most Romanticism I just like. It's okay if you don't like it. I mean, most people I know hate all "classical" music (but then again, they are generalizing without giving it a chance or realizing how many different types of "classical" music exist). I don't like most of the music they listen to. That's fine. I guess everyone just listens to music for different reasons.

A musical experience is far deeper than just listening to it and taking pleasure in "nice sounds". My post went partially in depth, short of posting score examples and truly digging in so to speak.

What do people think about the idea that neo-classicism, in retrospect, has been more respected academically than neo-romanticism. Let's say Stravinsky's middle period or Honegger versus a Peter Mennin or Barber or something.

I wasn't saying that they discover emotion or anything...

I'm sorry. I guess I was kinda misunderstanding what you were trying to get at. You used aesthetics and emotion so much in your first post, and the two seem so closely related.

Anyway, I just like Romanticism. Not because of my age, but because it sounds good. I listen to music, for the most part, because I like how it sounds. I honestly can't stand those 9-hour generically romantic violin concerti (most of the time). But most Romanticism I just like. It's okay if you don't like it. I mean, most people I know hate all "classical" music (but then again, they are generalizing without giving it a chance or realizing how many different types of "classical" music exist). I don't like most of the music they listen to. That's fine. I guess everyone just listens to music for different reasons.

By the way, do you understand *why* I'm saying what I am? I'm not just speaking from an "emotional" point of view, I've been talking about technical aspects of pieces. Please don't make this an argument of the heart.

^Well, I don't know...most people like music because it appeals to them, not because of any technical aspects of the music. Certainly, the composer's techniques contribute to the appeal of their music, but if people enjoy the music without the composer being amazing, there's nothing wrong with that.

Anyway, I dislike most music from almost any era. (Luckily, we never hear of most of it, either...)

This is quite an entertaining thread...

Did you really mention Schumann as one of those "melody and accompaniment" composers, without polyphony? Really?