# Sell me Romantic Music!



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Although I changed my name, I'm afraid that I am still an 'ingénue' when it comes to classical music.

Since joining the site in February, I have learned a little more about Mahler & some 20th century composers, and have developed my existing knowledge on baroque and classical composers.

I have also noticed that some members care for Romantic Composers - whilst others appear not to like them, on the grounds that they are slushy, 'kitsch', unsubtle or whatever.

I have just gone to Yahoo & discovered that there is an early Romantic period, 'much like the classical', and a later which includes the 'big' composers, Debussy, Saint-Saens, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov. I only know the really popular 'ClassicFM' works by these men! 

Mind you, I like what I have heard.

I am hoping for some instructive posts on this thread from lovers of Romantic music. What are the virtues of the named, or any other, Romantic composers? Do they have weak points? What pieces by them would you recommend? What would be best avoided as 'not typical' or 'not their best'? 

So please - 'sell me Romantic Music'!

:tiphat: Thank you in advance for any replies.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Tchaikovsky's _1812 Overture_ has been mentioned with a degree of scorn on occasion. Is that because it is way-too-often played, or is there a musical reason for discounting it? (I have to admit - I like it; particularly the Russian anthem & cannon bits.)


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> [...] So please - 'sell me Romantic Music'!


Now then, the truly able salesperson will never seek to sell 'the product' without first checking the customer's requirements.
Why do you want me to sell this product to you? Do you really need it? Can you afford it? Would you accept an alternative product? What about mutually beneficial commercial terms? And so on...
However, whilst I leave you to ponder these questions I'll leave you a free, no-pressure-to-buy, return-after 30 days-if-not-entirely satisfied sample:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Thanks for the sample! I want the product to add to my 'musical education' collection, which is growing daily.

_*Excelsior!*_


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I suppose you're looking for a Chopin Liszt of Romantic composers?

With the exception of those two, I find the lush, German romanticism leaves me utterly cold. I find much of 19th century music unpalatable. I find some enjoyment at the end of the century and into the 20th century with the folk oriented composers - Grieg in particular is a fine example of a Romantic composer with something sensible to say. Anything from Peer Gynt or the Holberg suite for example. His short piano pieces, often informed by Norwegian folk themes are excellent. Here is the man himself in a (rather scratchy) 1903 recording:






As @Talking Head says, it's all down to what the customer wants.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

My understanding of the spirit of Romantic music is a loosening of structure beyond the one-off experimental tweak that Beethoven and Mozart did in their works. If you listen to Haydn or Bach, the music has a tight structure - or "identity" - it's a prelude, it's a fugue, it's a courante, it's a sarabande, that kind of thing. Those identities may be related to any aspect of the music - the rhythm, the way the music is exposed and developed, or even what kind of setting it's supposed to be played in. Any which way you look at it, the spirit of the music before the advent of Romanticism has a tighter sense of structure. There could be temporary flights of fancy, but that's it.

With Romanticism, you can sense the walls cracking. If you listen to Beethoven's Eroica (sorry for the popular example) it's like the music is suddenly taking itself more importantly. The music is grasping at more ambitious things - in highly simplified terms you can say it's more dramatic, and less rigorous than before - it's like the music is drunk. It has all the right things in its grasp, but it's not as refined and detail-oriented.

What you will also find is that music from before Romanticism can be played and heard on a number of different instruments without any great difference in the quality or effect of the music. A Bach cello suite can be played by a piano, a harpsichord, or even a flute - there is some essence to the music is not really dependent on the sound of the instrument. Romantic music is different - you will see 19th century music will completely change its nature if played on a different set of instruments than what the composer initially wrote it for.

Plus - music became like a vehicle for an individualism that was lacking before - in the strict sense, music has always been individualistic, but it's the subtle and the small changes which make a difference - as you know, music tends to be a very exact science in the playing and making of it, whatever vague impressions it might inspire in us.

Maybe all I said was what you already knew... so thanks for letting me speak!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I have just gone to Yahoo & discovered that there is an early Romantic period, 'much like the classical', and a later which includes the 'big' composers, Debussy, Saint-Saens, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov.


The "later" romanticism is often a pseudo-romanticism - the music which was somewhat emotional in the degree initiated by romantics and which people, for lack of other label, decided to cover with the older term. Saint-Saens, for example, was hardly a romantic composer. If you want to know romanticism, stick to composers such as Chopin, Schumann or Berlioz.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Thanks to all who posted so far. Shangoyal - no, I'm not feigning when I say I'm pretty ignorant. I am glad to have the information on how romantic music 'developed'. Aramis - ah, thanks; I like what I've heard of Schumann; and I had forgotten Chopin. I like him too, & have heard a little more of him because of Taggart's piano playing. I find him beautiful - plangent - reflective. (That's Chopin, I mean!) 

PS - TalkingHead, I'm listening to Bruckner's Fourth at present, and it's beautiful! I think I'm going to be pleased with the product.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh!, is not internet cruel with me?, definitely he wants to provoke me a heart attack... : Debussy listed on equal footing with Rachmaninoff!.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Please do tell me why you love Rachmaninoff, aleazk! And what should I listen to of his?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> Plus - music became like a vehicle for an individualism that was lacking before - in the strict sense, music has always been individualistic, but it's the subtle and the small changes which make a difference - as you know, music tends to be a very exact science in the playing and making of it, whatever vague impressions it might inspire in us.


I agree with this point. I think the defining characteristic of Romanticism is that it is difficult to define. It was a time when all composers wanted to do their own thing, and hence the results vary enormously. Whereas composers before Beethoven more or less composed with ideas of classical balance and proportion in mind, I see the Romantic period as a time when classicism was emphatically rejected and replaced by the notion of the artist as an individual. Composers relied on emotion rather than reason, you could say.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> Please do tell me why you love Rachmaninoff, aleazk! And what should I listen to of his?


I recommend his great Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, Nocturnes, La mer, Jeux, Cello Sonata, Piano Preludes, Piano etudes, and so many more.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I recommend his great Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, Nocturnes, La mer, Jeux, Cello Sonata, Piano Preludes, Piano etudes, and so many more.


Had a lot of pluck, that Russian guy, naming his music in French.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Schubert:
Nacht und Träume








Der Jüngling an der Quelle








Der Hirt Auf Dem Felsen




String Quintet in C major; II - Adagio




Symphony No. 8 ('unfinished')





Schumann ~ Fantasiestücke (no. 1, Des Abend -- evening)





Wagner ~ Siegfried Idyll





Brahms:
Piano Quartet in C minor; III - Andante




Sextet No. 2 in G major





Schoenberg ~ Verklärte Nacht









There is enough to keep you off the streets and out of trouble -- for a while, at least.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> [...] PS - TalkingHead, I'm listening to Bruckner's Fourth at present, and it's beautiful! I think I'm going to be pleased with the product.


Splendid! You like the product, so now we can talk 'price' ! Always a pleasure to do business with you, Ingélou! (Pourquoi tu a changé ton nom?)


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Parce que je ne suis plus jeune et il faut dire ça toujours - j'ai devenue fatiguée! 
(Pardon my French - literally!  I also wish that I knew how to do 'accents'.)

Where does 'romantic' stop and 'modern' (or whatever came next) stop, as a matter of interest?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

If you're going to listen to Rachmaninoff, don't forget his Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. I *do* like composers who are in touch with their local music.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> Tchaikovsky's _1812 Overture_ has been mentioned with a degree of scorn on occasion. Is that because it is way-too-often played, or is there a musical reason for discounting it? (I have to admit - I like it; particularly the Russian anthem & cannon bits.)


They are the fearfully sophisticated people who put newcomers off music---they don't like Bolero either. Listen to what YOU like !


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

My understanding is that Romanticism represented a transition away from absolute music, i.e. music could depict scenes, places, stories or feelings. Often this may be outlined by the composer -- it would feel like listening to an entirely different work, had Mendelssohn not titled his 3rd symphony, "Scottish", for example. Often it is not -- in which case the range of interpretation for the listener can be substantially vast (Mahler's 9th comes to mind). 

Clearly music evolved markedly between the early to late Romantics, and perhaps the bounds of form and even tonality became more and more loose as the 20th century approached. The use of the orchestra expanded too as the limits of expressiveness kept being pushed. The roles of brass and percussion in particular increased greatly, but the use of instruments as a whole extended, placing emphasis on colour and different effects of sound.

It is difficult to shortlist works to recommend, simply because there are so many. In my opinion, Tchaikovsky's 6th is one of the most remarkable achievements of the era and perhaps in the history of music. The range of expression and mood in the work from beginning to end is profound. The adagio finale which ends in silence, breaks the rules -- perhaps necessarily so -- to convey his own deepest feelings. Powerful, devastating and utterly timeless.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> [...] Where does 'romantic' stop and 'modern' (or whatever came next) stop, as a matter of interest?


I'm going to answer your question only on condition that you understand that the Beaujolais Nouveau (BN) arrived only yesterday, that I am sampling this wine and that I am very probably writing under the influence...
Off the top of my head I would put part of that down to a loosening of functional harmony ... and the fact that there was a sudden and unwelcome unleashing of accidentals all over the place that can be very distracting if one takes one glass too many of the above-mentioned BN. I think. That is my opinion and I'm not shifting from it.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

With Romanticism, there is more of a consensus of a single work which we can point at and say "THAT is the starting point of Romanticism" (Beethoven's Eroica). You can't really say that for other eras/movements. Even 20th-century/modern. Some say Debussy's Faun started it, some say The Firebird, some say The Rite.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

My fav




Not much classical music calms me down like that


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

My introduction to the Romantics were these two _"definitive recordings"_.
Admittedly, it _was_ a while ago.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

maestro267 said:


> With Romanticism, there is more of a consensus of a single work which we can point at and say "THAT is the starting point of Romanticism" (Beethoven's Eroica). You can't really say that for other eras/movements. Even 20th-century/modern. Some say Debussy's Faun started it, some say The Firebird, some say The Rite.


Other than the fact the usual work cited is the Mozart D minor piano concerto, specifically the middle movement, marked Romanza, and with a calm opening and closing, and a bodacious sturm und drang middle section -- the piano concerto which Beethoven was fascinated / obsessed with, which he performed, and for which he wrote cadenzas.

Yes, the hint / leaning toward romanticism also had to do with Beethoven {whose form and use of harmony re: its function remained classical from his beginning to his end) but it started, clearly, with Mozart -- and then there is that little fact / anomaly of Carl Maria von Weber, whose dates near parallel Beethoven, whose music is the first Romantic style, plainly, clearly, and from the get go.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> If you're going to listen to Rachmaninoff, don't forget his Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. I *do *[like composers who are in touch with their local music.


While you may love it, and many admire it, fine writing in the traditional Slavonic Church style (which the piece is) is not exactly representative of the composer's work in general. I would think it an interesting but secondary footnote if introducing this composer to anyone.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Thanks to all who posted so far. Shangoyal - no, I'm not feigning when I say I'm pretty ignorant. I am glad to have the information on how romantic music 'developed'. Aramis - ah, thanks; I like what I've heard of Schumann; and I had forgotten Chopin. I like him too, & have heard a little more of him because of Taggart's piano playing. I find him beautiful - plangent - reflective. (That's Chopin, I mean!)
> 
> PS - TalkingHead, I'm listening to Bruckner's Fourth at present, and it's beautiful! I think I'm going to be pleased with the product.


^ Concerning Bruckner's 4th, I completely agree, beautiful is the right word. I don't think there has ever been a better opening to a symphony as far as the power and inspiration of beauty, it makes everything else melt away for the listener.

As far as selling you on Romantic music, most probably you'll learn to appreciate it more and more in time. Favorite works and moments from Schubert and Brahms have taken up a very special yet necessary place for me.

_Words are not enough!_ :tiphat:


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Basically, the early Romantics took off from the emotionism of Beethoven's middle period ("heroic") style and tried to run with it, thinking they were emulating where he was going (although he pretty much went in another direction). This means Schumann, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Berlioz (sort of), Weber, some of Schubert, Chopin . . . For all he was experimental, Beethoven was a Classicist, and form mattered to him. Less so the Romantics, who tended to go with their feelings and invented forms to match. Chopin and the pianistic Schumann and Mendelssohn were basically miniaturists. As symphonists, Schumann and Mendelssohn and Late Schubert, and Brahms, all tried to write their version of "Beethoven" symphonies. Berlioz was kind of Sui generis and has to be treated separately. Similarly Weber's operas. Liszt's programmatic tone poems tried to be Beethoven overtures-plus. Stylistically, chromaticism continued to expand and more progressions than a Classicist would ever dare to think of were tried and became commonplace. The second halfof the Romantic epoch exploded in a lot of different directions. Generally, orchestras got bigger andorchestral effects proliferated. There came to be an absurd classic/romantic divide (characterized by the Brahms/Wagner war -- waged more by acolytes than the principals). "Tone poems" and programs tended to rule the orchestral world. Orchestral color came to be a thing in itself, and music often served it as much as it served the music. Pianism tended to evolve toward the grandiose and bravura and "anything goes" chromaticism. Impressionism brought in
the "wash of sound" and dreamy/grey/foggie sonorities. Late Romantics tended more to try to write the world into their music rather than just personal feelings, and music got more grandiose. The exception tended to be Brahms who was always more intellectual with Classical leanings. Always excepted is opera, which went in its own directions. Also chamber music was in general more intellectual and less "heart on sleeve" but still evolved in terms of chromaticism and (sometimes) tone painting.

Best to explore it chronologically for awhile and follow the byways as they interest you.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> Please do tell me why you love Rachmaninoff, aleazk! And what should I listen to of his?


I think it's Debussy he likes in fact. 
Dvorak will appeal to you ,I'm pretty sure of that.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Where does 'romantic' stop and 'modern' (or whatever came next) stop, as a matter of interest?


Impressionism is already considered "modern", because the functional harmony that had controlled music from the Baroque on had lost its grip entirely, and tonality existed only by suggestion and implication, rather than outright statement.

Some continued to compose in the Romantic style well into the 20th century, especially in Germany, but the French and Russian composers wanted to extricate themselves from the chromatic glut of post-Wagnerian harmony, and side-stepping the strictures of functional tonality was seen as the best way to do this, leading to movements such as Neoclassicism.

A list of important Romantic composers would include:
Berlioz, Brahms, Bruckner, Dvorak, Elgar, Faure, Franck, Mahler, Puccini, Saint-Saens, Schubert, Schumann, R. Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Wagner, and Carl Maria von Weber


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> A list of important Romantic composers would include:
> Faure (...) Puccini, Saint-Saens (...)


Well, it could include them, but it would mean it was made by quite thoughtless person.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Well, it could include them, but it would mean it was made by quite thoughtless person.


Why? What are they if not Romantic? And if you're referring to the "classicism" of Faure and Saint-Saens, why not include Brahms in your list of thoughtless inclusions?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> Why? What are they if not Romantic? And if you're referring to the "classicism" of Faure and Saint-Saens, why not include Brahms in your list of thoughtless inclusions?


Because Brahms was hardly as deeply classical as Saint-Saens, who didn't only draw inspiration from classical music but also associated himself with classical ideas. Puccini wasn't romantic because he was considerably involved in veristic movement, something that was anti-romantic in it's conception and besides that, the only two of his operas that truely look back to romanticism in any way are his early misfires that define him as much as Mahler is defined by his piano quartet.

Regarding "what are they if not Romantic", I think they are artists and composers. If it's neccessary for you to label them under some movement, I can't help in any other way than just reminding that they are surely not romantics.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I suppose there are always difficulties with movements and 'ages' of writers, artists and musicians. I myself am too thick to follow all the subtleties so am happy with a broad-brush list, but note that there can be polite disagreements! 

I'm thrilled with the way this thread is turning out. Thanks for the explanations of romantic style and development, :cheers: everyone, and thanks for the treasury of links, :tiphat: PetrB!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Well, it could include them, but it would mean it was made by quite thoughtless person.


Oh, please :-/..................


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

*Ingelou*, three words:

Trois Nouvelles Etudes






This 'sold' me on Romantic music and I've never looked back. Happy listening.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Svetlanov has a wonderful Myavskovsky symphony cycle that's absolutely worth your time. I guess you could call Myaskovsky a "late-romantic," who incorporated modernism into his style. In a similar vein to Prokofiev and Shostakovich, but more on the Romantic side. His slow movements are heavenly.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

A very cute Schubert impromptu


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Some 'canonical' recordings of romantic symphonies. Giulini's Bruckner 9, Reiner's Dvorak 9, Furtwängler's Schubert 9, Davis' Berlioz Symphony Fantastique, and Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky 5 & 6. All of these have been called 'definitive' at one point or another; they're all good starting points.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> A list of important Romantic composers would include:
> Berlioz, Brahms, Bruckner, Dvorak, Elgar, Faure, Franck, Mahler, Puccini, Saint-Saens, Schubert, Schumann, R. Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Wagner, and Carl Maria von Weber


Although I'm sure your list wasn't intended to be all-inclusive, I'm intrigued by your omission of Chopin, Mendelssohn and Liszt ...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Skilmarilion said:


> Although I'm sure your list wasn't intended to be all-inclusive, I'm intrigued by your omission of Chopin, Mendelssohn and Liszt ...


Accidental, all, I assure you! I knew that I would forget some of the most important names. Liszt is, after all, one of the arch-Romantics of his generation, and I love Chopin's music as well as some of Mendelssohn's.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Here's some of the my top Romantic-esque composers from different regions; with symphonies in mind:

German/Austrian: Bruckner and Schubert

Russian: Myaskovsky and Rachmaninov

English: Bax and Vaughan Williams

French: Roussel and Tournemire

Czech: Dvorak and Martinu

Finnish/Danish: Sibelius and Nielsen

It's kind of cool see the styles of different regions.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

I return to my potential customer Ingélou to make a complementary sale, this time Schubert's _Der Müller und der Bach_ (The Miller and the Brook). A good salesperson should never wax too lyrical over their wares (like the snake oil con merchants, pah!), but Madame, I assure you this product brings tears to my eyes (not least for the neat little Neapolitan 6th at around the 0.16 / 0.17 mark) :


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

So Ingélou, what do you make of the Bruckner (4th Symphony, Movt. 1) and the Schubert song mentioned just above? I know you're a baroque & folk fiddler*, but do these examples leave you cold?

*In Mahler's Ninth/Scherzo he writes a direction in the score "wie Fiedeln" - play it like a fiddle !!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Ah, just back after tea and an episode of Deep Space Nine...

I listened to the Bruckner this morning, and as I said then, it's beautiful. I'm playing the link again now as I type. It has a starlight-changing-to-dawn serenity about it at first, & has now changed into something more stirring & momentous. 

I just listened to the Schubert song. It's pretty & I enjoyed it, though I have no German, so I have no idea what it's about. It's odd - somehow I feel at home with the style. I asked myself why, and came up with the fact that for my Granny, 1889-1986, who was a classical music fan and pianist, it would have been very much her cup of tea. When I stayed with her as a child, we would sing songs round her piano, including Schubert's Rose Among the Heather, and other Victorian classics like 'Killarney', 'Juanita' & 'The Bay of Biscay'. She was a lovely person and I felt loved & secure with her, more than I did in my own home. I have no idea what a 'neat Neapolitan sixth' is either, btw - is it the way the tune changed at the 16/17 mark? That was lovely & almost eerie. 

So yes - I think I could develop a taste for the product. I'll take twelve boxes...


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Ah, just back after tea and an episode of Deep Space Nine...
> 
> I listened to the Bruckner this morning, and as I said then, it's beautiful. I'm playing the link again now as I type. It has a starlight-changing-to-dawn serenity about it at first, & has now changed into something more stirring & momentous.
> 
> ...


You'll be wanting a discount then? Oh alright - 7,5%, but no refunds or exchanges, OK?


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> [...] I have no idea what a 'neat Neapolitan sixth' is either, btw - is it the way the tune changed at the 16/17 mark? That was lovely & almost eerie [...]


you got it! Yeah, that 'foreign' A-flat (pretty fleeting, I'll grant you!) to G to F# - the classic N6.
It is a very eerie piece, isn't it? And that to me is something "Romantic".


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Mendelssohn violinconcerto would be a romantic work that will remain interesting for a very long time.
You usually get Bruch's with it as a package-deal, at least that was the case in the vinyl days. Don't know what they pair it with on CD these days.
Two romantic good ones methinks.

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

I will avoid my usual cultural/historical matrixing, where I'd launch from a discussion of the definition of Romanticism in literature, which some would argue starts all the way back with Homer's The Odyssey and Virgil's Aeneid, through Spenser's Fairie Queene and on through Milton's Paradise Lost, incorporating the courtly tradition along the way and washing up on the shores of Keats, then Yeats..... Where was I? Oh......

I see Romanticism simply as a shift away from counterpoint and harmony and towards melody. Think of counterpoint as the Enlightenment gears that drive the universe, harmony as the crowd of peasants gathered around those gears, singing, and melody as the heroic individual exhorting them to revolution against monarchy.

Melody took over, got solipsistic and then by the late 19th century went mad, leading to WWI.

The broken pieces left over from that were used to make modernism. So the gears and crowds came back but they were all kinda randomized at that point, thus, dissonance... and the heroic individual turned into an academic nebbish most people didn't understand or want to listen to.

Oh! And post-modernism is that nebbish trying to be cool.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Copperears said:


> .... Melody took over, got solipsistic and then by the late 19th century went mad, leading to WWI.


Because I had just swallowed that mouthful of coffee I had gulped one split second before reading the above, you do not "owe me" a new computer.

Thanks for the entertainment, solipsist though it was 

I owe you for one good laugh... but I'll first have to think of some fantastic fiction which is just as loosey goosey near believable as your hilariously funny quip on the profile / time line of _"What Melody Did."_

Your little history for me conjures up an image of several anthropomorphic personifications of melody, as being viewed through a one-way mirror, those personages in a police line up:

*"Sir, Ma'am: take your time -- which one of them did it?*


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Happy to have given you a chortle, and relieved it didn't lead to technological catastrophe!


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Jos said:


> Mendelssohn violinconcerto would be a romantic work that will remain interesting for a very long time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jos


Just to second the Mendelssohn. Here's a fabled performance by Arthur Grumiaux in 1961 - emotion without the least hint of sentimentality:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I've wondered from time to time why I don't like Mendelssohn and Brahms, and suppose it's because they are romantics with a heavier classical era influence. So maybe these are good composers to transition into the romantic repertoire? I never had to make the transition because I went for full fledged romantic music right from the start.

That said, I'm still not much of a romantic concerto fan. For my ears, some of the best romantic music can be found among the solo piano, tone poem, and symphonic repertoire. I really haven't explored much of the romantic chamber music repertoire, so I can't comment on that music.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

Speaking of pieces that "sold" me to Romantic music (besides the already mentioned Mendelssohn concerto), Schumann's piano concerto really did it for me. People have probably mentioned it a million times already, but still. And the fact that it often comes with Grieg's amazing concerto just makes it even better.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

starthrower said:


> I've wondered from time to time why I don't like Mendelssohn and Brahms, and suppose it's because they are romantics with a heavier classical era influence. So maybe these are good composers to transition into the romantic repertoire? I never had to make the transition because I went for full fledged romantic music right from the start.
> 
> That said, I'm still not much of a romantic concerto fan. For my ears, some of the best romantic music can be found among the solo piano, tone poem, and symphonic repertoire. I really haven't explored much of the romantic chamber music repertoire, so I can't comment on that music.


I think honestly movie soundtracks and commercialism have oversaturated our experience of base romanticism like Brahms and Mendelssohn, to the point where our associations are all treacle and clotted cream.

Just like John Williams' endless warmed-over variations on Holst's "The Planets" for Star Wars etc. has made that particular composition nearly unlistenable for me (plus radio stations play "Jupiter" as almost every third track every day).


----------

