Why I dislike *most* music from the Romantic era

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

I never drink and don't plan to, hence the 'one bottle' reference.

By the way, for someone who's accusing others of immature posts, you sound like quite the kid.

Two things:

Schoenberg was working on his famous set of string quartets (the second, I'm pretty sure) when he caught his wife cheating on him. The last movement of the string quartet he was working on at the time included a soprano line, presumably to bring him closure to the emotional angst.

And one Romanticist you fail to even mention (who is probably the most important of the Romantics as he culminates the style) is Wagner. Listen to the opening prelude to Tristan und Isolde. Please tell me how this Romantic work even resembles a homophonic texture. There are too many Romantic works with polyphonic textures and other features you mention are absent in Romantic music. I really can't say I like "melody + chords" either, which is why I love Romantic music and music inspired by the Romanticists that you can hear today (Britten's War Requiem, Barber's Adagio for Strings, and so on).

Just my two cents.

i don't care much for any romantic era at all, even the contrapuntal.(except for some Wagner i guess ).But the contrapuntal is definately more interesting then the melody driven.As far as emotion goes the romantic has the least real and most synthetic shallow emotion.i think anyways...The emotions of the classical era and baroque era feel more authentic and realistic

And one Romanticist you fail to even mention (who is probably the most important of the Romantics as he culminates the style) is Wagner. Listen to the opening prelude to Tristan und Isolde. Please tell me how this Romantic work even resembles a homophonic texture.

Well, I agree completely, but I believe Greg meant the early romanticists, such as Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin and people like that. (However, many of these composers did have quite intricate counterpoint, especially Mendelssohn.)

As far as emotion goes the romantic has the least real and most synthetic shallow emotion.i think anyways...The emotions of the classical era and baroque era feel more authentic and realistic

To YOU. At least Greg made it clear he was stating an opinion. Many people here find the romantic era to have some of the most "real emotion" out of any era. In any case, it's silly to lump all the romantic composers together, considering the massive differences between, say, Schubert and Mahler.

As far as emotion goes the romantic has the least real and most synthetic shallow emotion.

lolz get your head checked.

haha. M_is_D, i was going to say that to him. :P

i love early romanticism no matter what. im just saying. its BEAUTIFUL. im not going to start one of those debates about the techniques and stuff. but im just saying that early/middle romanticism is what makes my heart sing.

I like how people try to turn threads that are quite subjective upfront into 'debates' about why the original poster is wrong.

Go, YC.

I like how people try to turn threads that are quite subjective upfront into 'debates' about why the original poster is wrong.

Go, YC.

Thank you Jamie

i love early romanticism no matter what. im just saying. its BEAUTIFUL. im not going to start one of those debates about the techniques and stuff. but im just saying that early/middle romanticism is what makes my heart sing.

Hearts don't have vocal cords or mouths, so I don't think they're capable of singing since that isn't their function.

Hearts don't have vocal cords or mouths, so I don't think they're capable of seeing since that isn't their function.

Vocal cords and mouths don't have eyes, so I don't think they're capable of seeing since that isn't their function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Lee Graham

- cheap sentiment;

- shallow melodrama;

Originally Posted by M_is_D

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

No, from what I've heard, there is sentiment and drama in your music, but not the cheap variety.

No, from what I've heard, there is sentiment and drama in your music, but not the cheap variety.

Oh. Then I really don't know what the cheap variety might be :P

Hearts don't have vocal cords or mouths, so I don't think they're capable of singing since that isn't their function.

How about you stop acting like a cold asshole who pretends there's no such things as metaphors?

That's the thing though... metaphors are indirect.

the heart pumps the blood.

the heart is a pump.

do you have understanding of a 'pump' if you have never seen, read or experienced it in a mode of work? no.

pump is a metaphor.

you don't get clean and rigid language just by believing in functionalist account of things. it (function) is a scientific METAPHOR.

simple.

yet hard to follow and be fair.

Oh. Then I really don't know what the cheap variety might be

I know it when I hear it.

Here's an example of what I consider cheap sentiment:

The title says it all. I'm distantly related to Gottschalk, which makes me proud mainly in that he was the first American-born "superstar" piano virtuoso (though he was educated in France, preferred to speak French, and spoke English with a thick French accent...but w/e). But music like this just makes me cringe. I mean, it's beautiful...but there is something about it that just rings in the air like an old lady's stale rosewater perfume. You know what I mean?

Now, Gottschalk wrote some really cool, unique, even ground-breaking music... he was one of the first to incorporate sounds and ideas in his art music from folk music he heard in his travels all over the New World. Some of his work presages ragtime by several decades.

An example:

Gottschalk: "Pasquinade"

Anyway, you get the picture. I just couldn't debase Gottschalk and his ilk entirely. Even the worst "cheap sentiment and melodrama" sinners often wrote wonderful stuff.

What is this obsession with declaring "I hate this music" to entire groups of music ?

What is with the follow-up "discussion" that blindly tries to validate that OPINION and turn it into some sort of objective statement of fact?

So, you don't like the Romantic period. Who cares. It's not really a topic for "discussion". It's a statement of opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

No matter how many times you repeat that music from that period has no real emotion, or is melodramatic, or is kitsch, it won't make it any more "true". It will always be nothing more than your OPINION.

For someone who has a nasty habit of calling everyone here "kids", you sure act like one some times.

Ok, that said, I don't know, I like SOME pieces from mid to late 19th century. I thoroughly love the Mendelssohn D minor piano trio. I like some Beethoven (yeah, I know, early 19th century, who cares, his name came up in the thread), I love the music of Faur

I think it's insulting to say that music is meant to be one thing and not another. Like Greg said, there is no "lesser" period, BUT, matters of "interest" are as strong as matter of the "heart", the "pump", the "metaphor" or even a god damn bowl of soup.

There's music that is rich in counterpoint, there's music made to describe something, there's music made to accompany scenes, there's music for every purpose, and I sincerely believe that the only "lesser" kind of music is the music that serves no purpose from the mind of the composer.

Not only are you wrong in saying that most Romantic composers don't have complex counterpoint, you're also forgetting that music like Berlioz's (some of it is pretty complex, mind you) is made to create pictures in your mind. Different purposes bring out different characteristics: Orchestration, melody, harmony, rhythm, counterpoint, etc.

No matter what justifications you give, this thread is still about nothing more than your taste. It's idiotic to start a discussion about taste. It's something you might answer if people ask you if you like something, but no one is going to start a discussion with "I think hazelnut chocolate is less interesting than black chocolate, because if we analyse the composition of the chocolate we find that hazelnuts have a heavy dose of..." etc, etc.

It's idiotic to start a discussion about taste.

I dunno...this particular one I've found rather interesting.

This is the forum equivalent of people sitting around drinking mint tea and the subject of Romantic music comes up. It wasn't intended to be a debate, and I don't think it's meant to prove anything one way or another. It's just people sharing opinions on something they find interesting.

we all like different things. period.

This is the forum equivalent of people sitting around drinking mint tea and the subject of Romantic music comes up.

And then someone pulls out a knife...

Seriously, this thread needs to die. I don't see why all of you (well, not ALL of you, but a lot) are so mad at Greg, anyway. He wasn't rude or anything. He made it clear he was stating his opinion, and stated why he felt that way. Of course, there was no good reason for him to do that, but that isn't the point.

we all like different things. period.

Not really. There are people here who strongly dislike Xenakis's music, some who love it. Same with Mozart, Brahms, Mahler, Prokofiev, or any other composer.

I know it when I hear it.

Here's an example of what I consider cheap sentiment:

The title says it all. I'm distantly related to Gottschalk, which makes me proud mainly in that he was the first American-born "superstar" piano virtuoso (though he was educated in France, preferred to speak French, and spoke English with a thick French accent...but w/e). But music like this just makes me cringe. I mean, it's beautiful...but there is something about it that just rings in the air like an old lady's stale rosewater perfume. You know what I mean?

Now, Gottschalk wrote some really cool, unique, even ground-breaking music... he was one of the first to incorporate sounds and ideas in his art music from folk music he heard in his travels all over the New World. Some of his work presages ragtime by several decades.

An example:

Gottschalk: "Pasquinade"

Anyway, you get the picture. I just couldn't debase Gottschalk and his ilk entirely. Even the worst "cheap sentiment and melodrama" sinners often wrote wonderful stuff.

I hear nothing wrong with that first piece, really. In no way does it repulse me. It's simple, pretty and pleasant, though IMO not profound at all.

And then someone pulls out a knife...

Seriously, this thread needs to die. I don't see why all of you (well, not ALL of you, but a lot) are so mad at Greg, anyway. He wasn't rude or anything. He made it clear he was stating his opinion, and stated why he felt that way.

That was his first post, but you can plainly see his attitude didn't keep on being that way.

Ok, he did kind kind of (well, very) rude later on. But there's no reason for any discussion about this anyway.

Well, rudeness creates flames.

Mahler + Tchaikovsky: A match made in heaven.

You almost say that like it's the everyone else's fault and not the person being a smug donkey.... perfect logic there. :blink: