What's Your Favorite Romantic Era Classical Music?

[Good Lt]

Just thought I'd throw something out there for the high art crowd.

I personally enjoy anything and everything from Rachmaninoff and Liszt, and take in as much Chopin, Tchaikovsky and Beethoven as I can. Conceding, of course, that Beethoven was the first true romantic.

Have at you! :g1:

[Ysidro]

Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies. Some Chopin to play but not so much to listen and since I haven't played since high school.... Oh and Offenbach but just for Orpheus in the Underworld. That's a great one to say to folks "so you know that can-can music? Guess what it's called!"

Lessee... Suppé's Light Cavalry Overture. Greig and Bizet and a few others.

But if we hit late era, my all time #1 favorite of any orchestral music is Antonin Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 in E Minor "From the New World". Nothing in the world beats it!

[Good Lt]

Also Mahler. Particularly Mahler 2.

[Ysidro]

Mahler 2: Electric Boogaloo!

[Good Lt]

Mahler 2: Electric Boogaloo!It totally is!

[TraneWreck]

I've really been enjoying Rachmaninoff lately. For some reason I sort of had the impression he was a viruoso player that wrote technically impressive but musically bland compositions--sort of like Paganini. I was really wrong.

[Good Lt]

He's great. The layers upon layers of color, melody and harmony across nearly all of his piano repertoire are the key.

He was a keeper of the romantic flame.

[Aitch]

Also Mahler. Particularly Mahler 2.

Oh, I can't be doing with Mahler. With the possible exception of the chamber orchestra arrangement by Schoenberg (and another bloke, whose name escapes me) of Das Lied von der Erde. I have this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahler-Das-Lied-von-Erde/dp/B000FDFO30/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1270971566&sr=1-1) recording of it.

As for the Romantics? Yes to Tchaikovsky and late Beethoven chamber works.

[Andúril]

Wagner all the way. Supreme orchestration and greater-than-life motives. Problem is that it takes a great orchestra and conductor to play Wagner well.

Sufficient to say, if I'm not planning to watch a whole opera, I'm usually looking for orchestral versions - without singers.

[jenspen]

Lieder - where German Romantic poetry mates with great German/Austrian Romantic music. Particularly love the Lieder of Schubert, Schumann and Hugo Wolf but Brahms, Richard Strauss, Mahler and lesser Romantic composers wrote great stuff in the genre.

Here is a Schumann/Heine collaboration interpreted by the incomparable Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwZFrb-mt8I

[Liszt]

Liszt of course. I've played quite a few of his pieces in concerts.

also Scriabine, Chopin, Rachmaninov and Beethoven. Paganini is great for violin.

[Liszt]

I've really been enjoying Rachmaninoff lately. For some reason I sort of had the impression he was a viruoso player that wrote technically impressive but musically bland compositions--sort of like Paganini. I was really wrong.

Have you heard Paganini's violin concertos? Absolutely amazing - both of them.

Rachmaninov changed his style at Op 32 and beyond. No one really knows why, but compare the Op 33 preludes with his early work. They could be from different composers.

[Damien Evans]

Tchaikovsky and Wagner for me.

[Chris Hegarty]

I'm a huge fan of Chopin; my boyfriend's a pianist and Chopin's also his favorite. In particular, I enjoy his Nocturne #20 in C# minor. Just remember; the version with the violin is a newer thing. My very favorite, though, is the rather obscure Waltz #15 in E Major (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlA2rQzWNsQ). The boyfriend is working on the absolutely wonderful but absolutely infuriating to play Waltz No. 42 in A-Flat Major. Here's a cute guy playing it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eonA6PK5Do&feature=PlayList&p=C36812DD9806D791&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=39). The hardest part of it is, in my opinion, the fact that it operates simultaneously in duple and triple meter. It's short and sweet sounding. I've tried to learn how to play piano (I'm a bassist and cellist), but I can't really play anything except for the first movement of Moonlight.

Liszt is also a huge favorite of mine. I also enjoy Clara Schumann (Roger's wife). She was, in her own right, a very accomplished composer, and I find her lieder every bit as good as her husband's or Schubert. Although he's technically Impressionist, I really love Debussy. I mean, come on, Claire de Lune is just a beautiful piece.

Since I am a classically trained bassist, I love Wagner. :cool:
Mahler is also excellent, if sometimes a bit slower (in my opinion) than Wagner. I like listening to Paganini but from a bassist's perspective he isn't as much fun to play. I love Symphonie Fantastique by Berlioz. The March to the Scaffold is way fun!

[Liszt]

The A flat op 42 is not as difficult as it sounds - mainly because it repeats the rondo section so many times. Much more difficult is the Fantasy Impromptu in C#m - it has LH - RH ratios on 3 to 4 throughout. (I played it in a competition when I was 14, and came 2nd. 2nd!)

Oh, and it's Robert Schumann, not Roger ;)

Can anyone recoment some Mahler?

[headscratcher4]

Wagner totally copied REO Speedwagon.

[JcR]

Wagner totally copied REO Speedwagon.

Wagner totally kicked Bigfoot butt, way better than Steve Austin ever did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-mqn8kX2e0&feature=related

[LibraryLady]

Can't stand Wagner. I don't care for romantic music in general--too syrupy and emotional. However, Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Choral) and Strauss waltzes appeal to me greatly. The Beethoven because it is so big and overpowering. The waltzes because I like to imagine myself waltzing with....


nevermind.

[TraneWreck]

Have you heard Paganini's violin concertos? Absolutely amazing - both of them.

Rachmaninov changed his style at Op 32 and beyond. No one really knows why, but compare the Op 33 preludes with his early work. They could be from different composers.

Let me qualify everything I say by pointing out that Paganini was an amazing musician, but we're comparing great musicians to great musicians.

It's like saying the guy on the bench on an NBA team "sucks." He's superhuman compared to normal people, but by NBA standards he's sub-par.

That being said, I've listened to most of Paganini's compositions. I find them to be very literally scalar. The harmonies and the progressions I don't find to be very subtle or creative. He was writing to show off violin technique. It's impressive, but not as musically interesting as the other composers who have been mentioned in this thread.

But that's my opinion. I appreciate classical music through an understanding of jazz. That's what I learned and loved first, I have moved to classical music from that frame of reference. I like listening to smooth and clever voice leading--Ravel is one of my favorites on that score--I don't hear that in Paganini.

Again, not saying he sucks, but most classical people I've talked to acknowledge the focus on technique.

[Chris Hegarty]

Oh, and it's Robert Schumann, not Roger ;)

Can anyone recoment some Mahler?

D'oh!

I've never been a particularly big fan of Mahler, but I like his Second Symphony.

[JcR]

I'm still stuck in the Bach ages.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9ZVuV8Py24&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9ZVuV8Py24&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Liszt]

People seem to love Mahler's 2nd. Any more comments about it? I'll go and buy it tomorrow.

Let me qualify everything I say by pointing out that Paganini was an amazing musician, but we're comparing great musicians to great musicians.

It's like saying the guy on the bench on an NBA team "sucks." He's superhuman compared to normal people, but by NBA standards he's sub-par.

That being said, I've listened to most of Paganini's compositions. I find them to be very literally scalar. The harmonies and the progressions I don't find to be very subtle or creative. He was writing to show off violin technique. It's impressive, but not as musically interesting as the other composers who have been mentioned in this thread.

But that's my opinion. I appreciate classical music through an understanding of jazz. That's what I learned and loved first, I have moved to classical music from that frame of reference. I like listening to smooth and clever voice leading--Ravel is one of my favorites on that score--I don't hear that in Paganini.

Again, not saying he sucks, but most classical people I've talked to acknowledge the focus on technique.

Well, Paganini, along with Chopin and Liszt, composed their concertos specificly to show off their skills (2 concertos each). People often moan about Liszt's lack of ability regarding orchestration - true for the 2 concertos. They are not the greatest examples of his work though.

The harmonies in Pag's first movements of his concertos are utterly amazing (not so much with the other movements) - try listening to them again (please!)

Liszt's best work was his Annee de Pelerenage and of course his Paganini and transcendental etudes - both sets of etudes introduced new techniques.

One of these techniques is to "not angle your wrists" - the thumb to little finger jumps that can be heard, for example, in La Campanella (which is a theme and variation on a melody from one of Pag's concertos.)

What about Scriabine's successive forths? He went all atonal halfway through his career (first 5 sonatas are in the Romantic style, the last five are quite bonkers)

[roger]

You cretins. Not one mention of Brahms.

Brahms is a God - one of the 3 Bs. The rest are mortals.

[Liszt]

You cretins. Not one mention of Brahms.

Brahms is a God - one of the 3 Bs. The rest are mortals.

True.

Brahms seems to be difficult for people to get into for some reason. His Piano concertos and violin sonatas are great - the sonatas are underrated.

Brahms is also difficult to play for musicians - at least as tricky as Chopin - but because his ego was tiny, it doesn't sound like it should be that hard.

[SonOfLaertes]

DeBussy, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, Sibelius.

Not necessarily in that order.

[shadron]

Brahms' First Symphony, without a doubt.

[fls]

If you couldn't guess by looking at my list, I'm a pianist, so my choices mostly reflect pieces I play (or like to pretend I can play).

Beethoven - late piano sonatas especially Op. 110 (any piano sonatas, really), 5th piano concerto (love the transition from the 2nd to 3rd mvt.)
Schuman - piano concerto in A minor, lots of other pieces
Chopin - the ballades, the etudes, the piano sonatas
Brahms - lots and lots
Liszt - admittedly some of the popular stuff just to play with wild abandon, but also Il penseroso and Funerailles
ETA: I forgot La Campanella and I'll second Annees de Pelerinage.
Mendelssohn - a small shout out cuz I didn't see his name mentioned

Debussy is a Romantic?

Linda

[Liszt]

If you couldn't guess by looking at my list, I'm a pianist, so my choices mostly reflect pieces I play (or like to pretend I can play).

Beethoven - late piano sonatas especially Op. 110 (any piano sonatas, really), 5th piano concerto (love the transition from the 2nd to 3rd mvt.)
Schuman - piano concerto in A minor, lots of other pieces
Chopin - the ballades, the etudes, the piano sonatas
Brahms - lots and lots
Liszt - admittedly some of the popular stuff just to play with wild abandon, but also Il penseroso and Funerailles
ETA: I forgot La Campanella and I'll second Annees de Pelerinage.
Mendelssohn - a small shout out cuz I didn't see his name mentioned

Debussy is a Romantic?

Linda

If you can really play those pieces, well done indeed. Late Beethoven - his 32nd in particular, in Cm - is outstanding.

(go to youtube and look up "Beethoven's 33rd sonata". Yes, I know he didn't write one, but I recorded the Dudley Moore parody and stuck it up on youtube)

Il Peneroso & Funeralles - you seem to know your Liszt, Linda. Funeralles was written for Chopin's funeral - the middle section was a homage to Chopin's A flat Pollanaise.

Yes, Debussy is technically a Romantic composer. He wasn't though. (He was an impressionist)

[Good Lt]

I'm still stuck in the Bach ages.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9ZVuV8Py24&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9ZVuV8Py24&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>Get thee back to thine musical epoch, I prithee!

[roger]

True.

Brahms seems to be difficult for people to get into for some reason. His Piano concertos and violin sonatas are great - the sonatas are underrated.

Brahms is also difficult to play for musicians - at least as tricky as Chopin - but because his ego was tiny, it doesn't sound like it should be that hard.Well, his harmonics are complex. Beethoven would go from chord X to chord Y, changing the key, Bam! Brilliantly and innovativally, but pretty abruptly. Brahms, having learned from Beethoven, will make that same key change over a few measures, to the point that you aren't sure what key you are in in the middle of it. More brilliant, in my estimation, but a lot more subtle as well. It's the kind of thing that speaks to the music geek, but lacks the more in your face structures that transition you more obviously from emotion to emotion (hate using that word in the context of music, but you know what I mean).

I adore the Brahms Cello Sonatas. Especially the Harrell/Askenazy recordings.

[Good Lt]

Liszt's Years of Pilgrimage, Books 1-3 is really a work worth having. You could spend years studying and internalizing everything he threw in there. All of Liszt's etudes, Hungarian rhapsodies and Beethoven symphony transcriptions are also fun. Along with quite a lot of other stuff - guys just poured out music. Or rather, shot it through a flamethrower of virtuosic awesomeness.

I've been obsessed with Rachmaninoff's Suites 1 & 2 for two pianos recently - and, in fact, all of the music he wrote for four hands. It's incredible, deep, emotional, heady stuff - the second Suite is an unheralded masterpiece of the instrument, IMHO. Apart from Rach 1, 2 and 3, this (for me) is the most interesting stuff in his too-small catalog along. Also, his Etudes Tableaux Op. 39 are incredible - real art.

YouTube some performances and treat yourself. Martha Argerich is frequently in them along with many others.

Confession: Keyboardist and piano enthusiast :eye-poppi.

[JcR]

Get thee back to thine musical epoch, I prithee!

There were too many Hammonds around when I was younger.
Maybe Alice Cooper can get me back?
Just give me a Moog synth, and I will be OK. :)

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyOf_L4cNHc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyOf_L4cNHc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Soapy Sam]

I'm curious about the meaning of "Romantic Era" here.

There can be only one.
Ludwig.

[JcR]

OK! So I am stuck in the Baroque.

Hey but I like Chopin. Not Chopin the wood.
That guy that composed that ...Ballade no 1 in g minor.

If I stub my toe, I feel like playing Mazeppa, cause I like double octaves. :)

[Liszt]

Well, his harmonics are complex. Beethoven would go from chord X to chord Y, changing the key, Bam! Brilliantly and innovativally, but pretty abruptly. Brahms, having learned from Beethoven, will make that same key change over a few measures, to the point that you aren't sure what key you are in in the middle of it. More brilliant, in my estimation, but a lot more subtle as well. It's the kind of thing that speaks to the music geek, but lacks the more in your face structures that transition you more obviously from emotion to emotion (hate using that word in the context of music, but you know what I mean).

I adore the Brahms Cello Sonatas. Especially the Harrell/Askenazy recordings.

That's pretty much nailed Brahms - damn good explaination.

[fls]

If you can really play those pieces, well done indeed. Late Beethoven - his 32nd in particular, in Cm - is outstanding.

(go to youtube and look up "Beethoven's 33rd sonata". Yes, I know he didn't write one, but I recorded the Dudley Moore parody and stuck it up on youtube)

Thank you. That was quite enjoyable. :)

Yes, Debussy is technically a Romantic composer. He wasn't though. (He was an impressionist)

'Technically' in what way?

Linda

[fls]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyOf_L4cNHc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyOf_L4cNHc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Take out the extended bit with him singing along and Gould looks almost normal in that clip, although the low seat is still obvious. I also preferred to sit low at the piano, long before I became aware of Gould doing so. Then I became quite self-conscious about it because I didn't want it thought that I was trying to imitate him.

Linda

[JcR]

Take out the extended bit with him singing along and Gould looks almost normal in that clip, although the low seat is still obvious. I also preferred to sit low at the piano, long before I became aware of Gould doing so. Then I became quite self-conscious about it because I didn't want it thought that I was trying to imitate him.

Linda

I like sitting low also. I never felt right on most benches either, always felt like they were trying to push me off. I found a old stool I am quite fond of though.

[themusicteacher]

I'm a brass guy so if I'm playing, it has to be Mahler. Tchaich is okay but a lot of his stuff is overrated but it's in the standard rep so it can't be gotten rid of. Debussy (btw, he did not like his music being described as "impressionism") and Ravel are fun and interesting though they stretch into the 20th Century. I'm not sure you can call Stravinsky a Romantic composer (neo-romanticism was one of his periods). Surely I'm shortchanging some folks but I really am a concert band person so I don't focus too much on orchestral music.

[schrodingasdawg]

People seem to love Mahler's 2nd. Any more comments about it? I'll go and buy it tomorrow.

It may be a bit late, but I'd recommend the Klemperer 63 recording.

To the OP: I don't really see much reason for dividing up classical music into eras. Late Beethoven and Mahler sound more different to me than Mahler and Schoenberg; and Bach and Monteverdi sound more different to me than Bach and Mozart. Even if there is still a huge Mahler/Schoenberg or Bach/Mozart difference. It really sounds more like a continuum, and the point for dividing into eras seems rather arbitrary.

'Course, it could be just me.

Still, I do have favorites among the composers generally considered romantic. Wagner and Mahler, definitely. I'd consider Beethoven, Schoenberg, and Bartok if any of the three is considered romantic to any degree (I'm not really sure; the first can be considered capital-C Classical just as well, and the other two could be considered modernist). There are a few more popular ones I absolutely can't stand, like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff: they bore me to tears.

[Liszt]

'Technically' in what way?

Linda

Well, he is just included in most lists of Romantic composers. I don't think he is at all. (I'm no expert on Debussy - only play 3 pieces by him)

Gould singing along! I've got some CDs of him doing that.

I'm glad you liked my Beethoven parody - Dudly Moore does it better though.

[Liszt]

Liszt's Years of Pilgrimage, Books 1-3 is really a work worth having. You could spend years studying and internalizing everything he threw in there. All of Liszt's etudes, Hungarian rhapsodies and Beethoven symphony transcriptions are also fun. Along with quite a lot of other stuff - guys just poured out music. Or rather, shot it through a flamethrower of virtuosic awesomeness.

I've been obsessed with Rachmaninoff's Suites 1 & 2 for two pianos recently - and, in fact, all of the music he wrote for four hands. It's incredible, deep, emotional, heady stuff - the second Suite is an unheralded masterpiece of the instrument, IMHO. Apart from Rach 1, 2 and 3, this (for me) is the most interesting stuff in his too-small catalog along. Also, his Etudes Tableaux Op. 39 are incredible - real art.

YouTube some performances and treat yourself. Martha Argerich is frequently in them along with many others.

Confession: Keyboardist and piano enthusiast :eye-poppi.

What about Rachmaninov's 4th? Probably not as good as the 2nd or 3rd, but it has some truly inspired moments. I must confess to never even hearing his first concerto. Is it worth digging out?

Do you play these pieces, Good Lt? Rach's Etude Tableaux are incredibly difficult. The 6th (5th?), in E flat minor, is my favorite piece by him. Staggeringly hard to play, but definately worth putting in the hours.

Liszt Bm sonata has to be the pinicle of Romantic piano playing. Four melodies, fighting against each other. I can play it in 45 minutes - 15 minutes longer than it should take. :(

[Chris Hegarty]

Well, he is just included in most lists of Romantic composers. I don't think he is at all. (I'm no expert on Debussy - only play 3 pieces by him)

Grr. I've never considered Debussy to be Romantic. He's just a bit of a weird guy in terms of the structure of his compositions.

[Liszt]

It may be a bit late, but I'd recommend the Klemperer 63 recording.

To the OP: I don't really see much reason for dividing up classical music into eras. Late Beethoven and Mahler sound more different to me than Mahler and Schoenberg; and Bach and Monteverdi sound more different to me than Bach and Mozart. Even if there is still a huge Mahler/Schoenberg or Bach/Mozart difference. It really sounds more like a continuum, and the point for dividing into eras seems rather arbitrary.

'Course, it could be just me.

Still, I do have favorites among the composers generally considered romantic. Wagner and Mahler, definitely. I'd consider Beethoven, Schoenberg, and Bartok if any of the three is considered romantic to any degree (I'm not really sure; the first can be considered capital-C Classical just as well, and the other two could be considered modernist). There are a few more popular ones I absolutely can't stand, like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff: they bore me to tears.

Not too late - I haven't got round to going to the shops yet. Damn students. Thanks for the tip.

How can you be bored by Rachmaninov? Argh!

Romantic music is supposed to be long lined melodies, large orchestras, wide harmonies. The dividing into eras often seems to be more out of convenience though.

If you play piano, Tchaikovsky's Seasons (12 pieces - it should have been called "Months") are wonderful - more interesting than his famous work.

[Liszt]

Grr. I've never considered Debussy to be Romantic. He's just a bit of a weird guy in terms of the structure of his compositions.

Yes, I only learnt his pieces because I had to. Never could get into the guy - same goes for Ravel. Some people love them though.

I sometimes get together with other musicians/performers/music teachers. These subjects - the merits of various composers - are meant to be discussed, but in the end, we talk about how good the tea or coffee is at our student's places.

[fls]

It may be a bit late, but I'd recommend the Klemperer 63 recording.

To the OP: I don't really see much reason for dividing up classical music into eras. Late Beethoven and Mahler sound more different to me than Mahler and Schoenberg; and Bach and Monteverdi sound more different to me than Bach and Mozart. Even if there is still a huge Mahler/Schoenberg or Bach/Mozart difference. It really sounds more like a continuum, and the point for dividing into eras seems rather arbitrary.

'Course, it could be just me.

Still, I do have favorites among the composers generally considered romantic. Wagner and Mahler, definitely. I'd consider Beethoven, Schoenberg, and Bartok if any of the three is considered romantic to any degree (I'm not really sure; the first can be considered capital-C Classical just as well, and the other two could be considered modernist). There are a few more popular ones I absolutely can't stand, like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff: they bore me to tears.

It may make more sense if you think of it as 'composers who exhibit romanticism in music' (which interestingly could contain J.S. Bach and Monteverdi). Romanticism was a general cultural movement (not necessarily happening at the same time among literature, for example, as it was among music) taking place in the 19th century, with threads persisting into the 20th. It's about individualism, intensity of feeling, nationalism, escapism, in contrast to the moderation, harmony and discipline of classicism. It also means that wildly contrasting styles and themes will be found within this movement and that composers writing at the same time or even later may not share that label with their contemporaries. Schoenberg, whose work may be taken as the logical extension of the Austro-German tradition may be seen as less 'romantic' than that of his pupil, Berg, for example.

Linda

[Liszt]

that's what I meant to say ;)

[Liszt]

What do people here think is the most difficult Romantic era piano piece?

The ABRSM regards Liszt's Bm sonata as top tier (meaning that it is a set piece for their highest level diploma)

However, that is mainly because it is 30 minutes long.

The most complicated pieces I can think of are...

Solo - Liszt's Feux Follet - trancendental etude. Boris Beresovky (not the oligarch!) played it when he won the 1990 Tchaikovsky competition.

Concerto - Prokofiev's 3rd, the C major piano concerto. I bought the score 20 years ago, and still can't play it properly.

Thoughts?

[schrodingasdawg]

How can you be bored by Rachmaninov? Argh!

Dunno, his music just never got me interested. I've met other people who feel the same way, but we're definitely a minority. I suppose I should appeal to the concept of 'personal taste' for this one.

Romantic music is supposed to be long lined melodies, large orchestras, wide harmonies. The dividing into eras often seems to be more out of convenience though.

A lot of romantic music doesn't use large orchestras. The music for orchestra does generally seem to use larger ones that that for classical music, though.

Forgive me if this is a silly question (I'm not so much a music buff as someone marginally interested in music), but what do you mean by 'wide harmonies'? If you mean that the music from the era tends to use complex harmonic progressions and makes more liberal use of dissonance than previous eras, I can see that. But this also seems like a continuum to me.

I suppose 'long-lined', lyrical melodies is a good qualifier, though. Most of the stuff generally considered romantic does seem a lot more lyrical than music from previous and following eras.

If you play piano, Tchaikovsky's Seasons (12 pieces - it should have been called "Months") are wonderful - more interesting than his famous work.

I'll keep that in mind. To listen, I mean. I don't play piano, nor any instruments for that matter. Thanks for the recommendation though.

It may make more sense if you think of it as 'composers who exhibit romanticism in music' (which interestingly could contain J.S. Bach and Monteverdi).

I suppose, but wouldn't this defeat the purpose of considering it an era? But then...

Romanticism was a general cultural movement (not necessarily happening at the same time among literature, for example, as it was among music) taking place in the 19th century, with threads persisting into the 20th.

...this probably makes more sense. I don't know anything about the visual arts or literature and little about the social conditions, so I guess I can't say anything there. I'm just thinking about what I can hear when I listen, without taking the cultural context into mind. Which may be why I'm missing the 'era'.

[Liszt]

Boris playing Liszt's Feux Follett

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJlJ8dZL_Uc

[fls]

Well, he is just included in most lists of Romantic composers.

Oh, I didn't realize that. I don't recall ever seeing him categorized in that way.

Linda

[Liszt]

schrodingasdawg, (great name, btw) by wide harmonies, I meant mainly the style of piano/keyboard.

Bach didn't stretch his hands. Chopin and Liszt, for example, would rather play an A major chord with a C# minor bass note by using the little finger for the C#, stretching up to the A (middle finger) and dumping the thumb on the top E.

Often, the thumb would then be followed by another finger playing a higher note - giving a "broken chord". Chopin's Ballades are good examples - compare them to Bach's WTC - wide harmonies never happened, in 48 pieces (but were not needed really). He kept the harmonies within the limits of his left little finger and his right little finger.

[Liszt]

Oh, I didn't realize that. I don't recall ever seeing him categorized in that way.

Linda

You know what? Niether have I - but that is just the "accepted" view of my musical colleagues. You are right to question it - I haven't really though about it a lot.

[Liszt]

Here's an example, fls


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Romantic-era_composers

Debussy is there. Who decides this? Wiki editors? I hope not.

[schrodingasdawg]

schrodingasdawg, (great name, btw) by wide harmonies, I meant mainly the style of piano/keyboard.

Bach didn't stretch his hands. Chopin and Liszt, for example, would rather play an A major chord with a C# minor bass note by using the little finger for the C#, stretching up to the A (middle finger) and dumping the thumb on the top E.

Often, the thumb would then be followed by another finger playing a higher note - giving a "broken chord". Chopin's Ballades are good examples - compare them to Bach's WTC - wide harmonies never happened, in 48 pieces (but were not needed really). He kept the harmonies within the limits of his left little finger and his right little finger.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Here's an example, fls


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Romantic-era_composers

Debussy is there. Who decides this? Wiki editors? I hope not.

Isn't this list just based on when composers are born?

[fls]

I suppose, but wouldn't this defeat the purpose of considering it an era?

Yes. :)

Fortunately, by keeping to a fairly strict definition of the era (say 1828 to 1880) most of the composers were exhibiting 'romanticism in music' during the 'romantic era'. But then you are left with figuring out how to indicate what people were doing in the era which followed which includes composers extending romanticism and composers reacting against romanticism. These problems are typical for any classification system, though.

Linda

[Liszt]

Isn't this list just based on when composers are born?

Yes - it is a dumbed down version...

17th C, Baroque

18th C, Classical

19th C, Romantic

20th C, erm, 20th Century music.

Not the best way to sort them out. fls has a better idea - perhaps she could edit Wikipedia?

[fls]

Here's an example, fls


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Romantic-era_composers

Debussy is there. Who decides this? Wiki editors? I hope not.

Well, they at least put him as transitional, which is reasonable in the sense that his compositional style was in contrast to romanticism - moderation by alluding to an impression, rather than overt expressions of emotion. Contrast this with Ravel who seemed more influenced by the form and structure of classicism. Although, I suppose now you'll tell me that Ravel is on that list too (I guess I should check). :)

ETA: Okay, I checked. Fortunately, they don't seem to have included Ravel.

Linda

[JcR]

Romantic composers kinda liked to manipulate the rules, brake away once and awhile from the strict structure of the classical form.
Like Bad boy Beethoven eventually did.

[Liszt]

Yes, Ravel is on the same list. Wikipedia is run by fools.

You seem to know lots about this, Fiona - enough to write about it in depth.

I've been playing in public since I was 5 - so about 35 years now - but I'm still learning stuff from this thread. Thanks to all - keep it up.

[Liszt]

oops, saw you edit, and Ravel is only mentioned (I did a page search). Sorry.

[fls]

Yes, Ravel is on the same list. Wikipedia is run by fools.

You seem to know lots about this, Fiona - enough to write about it in depth.

I've been playing in public since I was 5 - so about 35 years now - but I'm still learning stuff from this thread. Thanks to all - keep it up.

Linda...but you can confuse me with Fiona anytime you like (if we are thinking of the same Fiona (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=21949)).

I'm not an expert. I do have a bachelor's degree in music (and as a Canadian, I also went through the full set of Royal Conservatory of Toronto exams) and have also been playing since I was 5 (a little more than 40 years now) but not in public anymore. As far as scholarly activities go, I'm merely an interested lay person.

Linda

[Good Lt]

What about Rachmaninov's 4th? Probably not as good as the 2nd or 3rd, but it has some truly inspired moments. I must confess to never even hearing his first concerto. Is it worth digging out?

Do you play these pieces, Good Lt? Rach's Etude Tableaux are incredibly difficult. The 6th (5th?), in E flat minor, is my favorite piece by him. Staggeringly hard to play, but definately worth putting in the hours.

Liszt Bm sonata has to be the pinicle of Romantic piano playing. Four melodies, fighting against each other. I can play it in 45 minutes - 15 minutes longer than it should take. :(I wish I could play that Rach stuff. I'm quite familiar with the scores as study material, but can (and will only attempt) fragments at a time of any of them. I fear it. Liszt too, although I can play some of the easier Liszt stuff (some Consolations, easier etudes, etc.) Beethoven is more my speed. Rach is organized harmonic chaos, and it's incredibly difficult (and I'd imagine rewarding) to play.

Rach 4 is not bad and worth a listen (if for no other reason than to see why it's sometimes considered the more forgettable of the 4 concertos) - it's rhythmically interesting, and the second movement is really beautiful (highlight of the concerto IMO, really).

[themusicteacher]

You know, Wagner thought Mahler was a terrible composer so i wonder what he would think of someone who likes both his and Mahler's music? Then again, Wagner was a self-aggrandizing douche (you can hear it in his music) so I think maybe I wouldn't have like to have heard his opinion on anything.

If you're going to go Mahler 2 (always a fine choice but I also enjoy 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8; 4 bugs me) I like my recording of the Weiner Philharmoniker with Mehta at the helm.

[roger]

Damn this thread. Now I'm on a youtube/Horowitz kick. Send help if you don't hear from me in in 3 days.

[NotJesus]

You know, Wagner thought Mahler was a terrible composer so i wonder what he would think of someone who likes both his and Mahler's music?

I doubt that Wagner ever expressed an opinion on Mahler. He died before Mahler had written much besides student works.

[Good Lt]

Damn this thread. Now I'm on a youtube/Horowitz kick. Send help if you don't hear from me in in 3 days.Try looking for stuff from Cziffra or even Valentina Lisitsa (who has lots of fabulous DVD-quality stuff on YT).

You won't be sorry. Or ever heard from again :D

[fls]

What do people here think is the most difficult Romantic era piano piece?

The ABRSM regards Liszt's Bm sonata as top tier (meaning that it is a set piece for their highest level diploma)

However, that is mainly because it is 30 minutes long.

The most complicated pieces I can think of are...

Solo - Liszt's Feux Follet - trancendental etude. Boris Beresovky (not the oligarch!) played it when he won the 1990 Tchaikovsky competition.

Concerto - Prokofiev's 3rd, the C major piano concerto. I bought the score 20 years ago, and still can't play it properly.

Thoughts?

That's a hard question to answer - one would have had to put in a good effort to learn the pieces in order to compare them. I haven't played the Liszt sonata. The transcendental etudes in general (as well as Feux Follet specifically) are certainly among the hardest.

I've played at playing the Prokofiev 3rd piano concerto, but haven't put in enough effort to make a comparison.

Some of the latter Beethoven sonatas - maybe the Hammerklavier is the hardest.

I'm not sure I can add much except...now Prokofiev is Romantic?! ;)

Linda

[kidtwist]

Franz Schubert. Trio for Violin, Cello, and Piano No. 2 in E flat major.

[HistoryGal]

Can't stand Wagner. I don't care for romantic music in general--too syrupy and emotional. However, Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Choral) and Strauss waltzes appeal to me greatly. The Beethoven because it is so big and overpowering. The waltzes because I like to imagine myself waltzing with....

Beethoven's 9th Symphony is my favorite. There is this little bit in the fourth movement that brings tears to my eyes - ever single time I hear it.

I do also really like Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D Major. Makes me think of the Mercury 7 for some strange reason. :D

nevermind.Tease.

[jenspen]

Franz Schubert. Trio for Violin, Cello, and Piano No. 2 in E flat major.

So glad somebody has mentioned Schubert, the most seductively lyrical of the great composers. Think I'll settle down and listen to that trio as soon as I've posted this.

I love the other piano trio too and Notturno. And how about:

the last 3 piano sonatas
the song cycles
the later string quartets
the string quintet


Die belauschen sie mit Lust.

[Good Lt]

Related: I'm going to catch the Philly Orchestra and Nicholai Lugansky play Rachmaninoff's 3rd Concerto at the end of May.

TOTALLY, totally stoked. Anybody else attending?

[Walrus32]

Yes - it is a dumbed down version...

17th C, Baroque

18th C, Classical

19th C, Romantic

20th C, erm, 20th Century music.

Not the best way to sort them out. fls has a better idea - perhaps she could edit Wikipedia?

Baroque - that's an interesting word.

In Italian "barocca" or "barroca" is an irregularly shaped pearl, of low quality, not suitable for fine jewelry. So these pearls were used for gaudy or flashy ornamentation only, or elaborate costume jewelry. The term was therefore readily applied to the art form we know as "Baroque".