# Please recommend good music from the Romantic era?



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

I've started listening to classical music in a serious manner for about 8 months or so. Right now, I'm trying to have a broader scope. My only problem is, however, that I'm missing something when it comes to the Romantic era. Maybe I simply haven't heard the right pieces yet, but so far, I find every Romantic composer, with the exception of Chopin and Schubert, to be unbearable to listen to. Their music sounds way too . . . how you say. . . pretentious. I don't know why I'm using that word to describe them, but it's the first thing that comes to mind whenever I listen to Romantic music. I've tried Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms etc.
Now, going back to my point about the "the right pieces", maybe someone can recommend me something based on what I like from the other eras:

I love pretty much everything by Bach (The Art of Fugue, B minor Mass, St. Matthew Passion, St. John Passion, and the WTC books are among my all time favorites). The only Bach pieces I dislike are the Brandenburg Concertos, which in my opinion, are just as pretentious as the Romantic pieces. I also really like other Baroque composers (e.g. Buxtehude, Scarlatti etc.)
I dislike most of Mozart and Beethoven with the exception of Mozart's Requiem, Don Giovanni, and some other dark works of his; and Beethoven's 7th and Symphony and 14th String Quartet.

Well, any recommendations?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Strange tastes...

I was going to suggest Schumann and Brahms as two of the less overblown Romantic composers. Mendelssohn is the only other name which comes to mind, a very classical Romantic. But then you don't like Mozart...

If Sibelius still counts as a Romantic he might be worth a listen. His seventh symphony is essentially the very opposite of Mahler.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

To answer your question, it would help if you could pinpoint what you find pretentious about the Romantic Period? Is that at all possible?


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> I dislike most of Mozart and Beethoven with the exception of Mozart's Requiem, Don Giovanni, and some other dark works of his; and Beethoven's 7th and Symphony and 14th String Quartet.


Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. If you like Mozart's requiem there's no reason why you shouldn't like his symphony no.40 for example. If you like Beethoven's 7th you should LOVE his 3rd, 5th, and 9th. If you love the 14th SQ you should love all of the late quartets.

Just being honest.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. If you like Mozart's requiem there's no reason why you shouldn't like his symphony no.40 for example. If you like Beethoven's 7th you should LOVE his 3rd, 5th, and 9th. If you love the 14th SQ you should love all of the late quartets.
> 
> Just being honest.


Secret: taste isn't always logical. Shh...

Anyway, if you haven't, try the Impressionists (Ravel/Debussy/arguably Satie). They reacted against the bombast of the Romantic era, which I suppose you're averse to.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Anyway, if you haven't, try the Impressionists (Ravel/Debussy/arguably Satie). They reacted against the bombast of the Romantic era, which I suppose you're averse to.


But they aren't really Romantic composers then are they? Other than Debussy's early works.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I'll answer this question as though you haven't been listening to classical music for very long, because that's the sense I get. And you are coming at it from a particular (and I might use the adjective, "heavy and melodic")baroque angle, a less common but not unheard of approach to the classical repertoire as a listener. I have a question for you: What do you think of the "lighter" baroque composers at their best?(Telemann, Handel, Rameau, Vivaldi, Boyce, Corelli) Now moving on. It seems that you like "tightly formed" music that also packs a lot of intensity, so you prefer the best melodies and novel harmonies in the most intensely concentrated forms, you maybe have high standards. Watch your standards change over time...but I do have some recommendations.

So, I recommend that you keep listening to what you like and keep trying the stuff you find pretentious and have confidence that your curiosity about the Romantic era will one day overwhelm your initial negative impressions about it. Its curious you like Beethoven's 7th symphony and not any other symphonies, I love that work too, but what makes it so accessible to you out of the others? 

All the composers you listed were in fact german composers excepting Liszt and Chopin. You didn't mention any Russians or French composers. The French may not be harmonically intense enough for you based on my vague hypothesis, but a "focused" Russian might do the trick. 

Have you tried early Scriabin? Have you tried Tchaikovsky's 6th and 1st symphonies?


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. If you like Mozart's requiem there's no reason why you shouldn't like his symphony no.40 for example. If you like Beethoven's 7th you should LOVE his 3rd, 5th, and 9th. If you love the 14th SQ you should love all of the late quartets.
> 
> Just being honest.


I do like Mozart's 40th symphony, which is why I said "some other dark works of his". Beethoven's 5th is just a tiny bit pretentious for me, except maybe for the second movement. His 9th is not bad. And I haven't really heard much of the late quartets yet.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "pretentious", though you use it quite a lot. I understand that you don't like the composers you mentioned, but they, as people, were hardly pretentious, and nor are their works.

Anyway, if clavichorder and I understand you correctly, then:



clavichorder said:


> It seems that you like "tightly formed" music that also packs a lot of intensity


= Brahms



clavichorder said:


> so you prefer the best melodies and novel harmonies in the most intensely concentrated forms


= Brahms



clavichorder said:


> you maybe have high standards


= Brahms!

I say that as a confessed Brahms zealot, and because Brahms is generally agreed to have composed very _dense_ music - complex in its form and development, though with gorgeous melodies throughout. Can I ask what Brahms you've listened to so far?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

It may also help to watch videos of pianists fingers playing romantic pieces
Scriabin op 8 no 12(this piece is a bit like Chopin on steroids to me)




This is a Brahms you might find some interest in




Immediate Rachmaninoff, lacking the push and pull of most romantic music, played by a master





There's something.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

What's to find pretentious about Schumann? Er ist Wundervoll!

What exactly do you mean by pretentious? Could you be more pacific?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "pretentious", though you use it quite a lot. I understand that you don't like the composers you mentioned, but they, as people, were hardly pretentious, and nor are their works.
> 
> Anyway, if clavichorder and I understand you correctly, then:
> 
> ...


He may also dislike the "push and pull"(I guess by that I mean delay and build up) of a lot of romantic music, although Brahms is not exactly a high dose of that either. I did find Brahms odd at the very start though, I would never call him pretentious, but he may have all these qualities but his melodies might be too strange and wrapped up in his harmonies and architecture. Still, I've recommended his op 118 no 3 ballade because that is a stunner!


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

violadude said:


> To answer your question, it would help if you could pinpoint what you find pretentious about the Romantic Period? Is that at all possible?


Well, how can someone listen to this and not call it pretentious?






Or this:






Sorry, I really can't pinpoint what I find pretentious about it or why I don't exactly like it, which is why I think I'm really missing out on something here.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Well, how can someone listen to this and not call it pretentious?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do call _that_ pretentious (if by pretentious you mean bombastic).

You're listening to the wrong pieces, try Schumann's _Kinderszenen_.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Well, how can someone listen to this and not call it pretentious?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I tried right off the bat and apparently missed. A little lost now. Refer back to the second paragraph of my first post in this thread.

It would also be nice if you reviewed my pieces posted and gave me your impressions. Sometimes its hard to warm up to a piece right away, but see what you think.

And I'll confess that when younger and less experienced, I used to have pretty strange ideas about what I liked as well, its just the angle you are coming from, keep listening and your interests and tastes will evolve.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Well, how can someone listen to this and not call it pretentious?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A lot of Liszt's music is virtuosic and pretentious, but digging reveals some genuine stuff (I don't like either though).

The Brahms is just a fun little encore piece, not really something you should be forming an opinion of a composer on. His concerti, symphonies and chamber music (especially clarinet quintet) are where you need to spend your time.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

The first two were unbearable. But the third one was better.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

It seems that perhaps you are looking for 19th century music that is not too flashy and virtuosic (like the two youtube clips you just posted), or too mushy, moody, and, well, _romantic_ (like late romantic composers you don't care for - Brahms, Mahler, etc.). Have you listened to much of Beethoven's piano music, or mostly just his symphonies? If you like the tight structure of baroque music, you might also like how Beethoven often takes just a short motive and structures an entire movement around it. You didn't like his 5th symphony, which is a perfect example of this, so maybe not, but maybe orchestration has something to do with it. If you haven't already, try some Beethoven sonatas. They are immensely varied, so you might have to try several to find one you like. I recommend #26. If you want vocal music, try An die ferne Geliebte or the Missa Solemnis.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I'll answer this question as though you haven't been listening to classical music for very long, because that's the sense I get. And you are coming at it from a particular (and I might use the adjective, "heavy and melodic")baroque angle, a less common but not unheard of approach to the classical repertoire as a listener. I have a question for you: What do you think of the "lighter" baroque composers at their best?(Telemann, Handel, Rameau, Vivaldi, Boyce, Corelli) Now moving on. It seems that you like "tightly formed" music that also packs a lot of intensity, so you prefer the best melodies and novel harmonies in the most intensely concentrated forms, you maybe have high standards. Watch your standards change over time...but I do have some recommendations.
> 
> So, I recommend that you keep listening to what you like and keep trying the stuff you find pretentious and have confidence that your curiosity about the Romantic era will one day overwhelm your initial negative impressions about it. Its curious you like Beethoven's 7th symphony and not any other symphonies, I love that work too, but what makes it so accessible to you out of the others?
> 
> ...


From what I've so far heard by them, I dislike Handel and Telemann. Rameau, Vivaldi, Boyce, and Corelli are more interesting in my opinion.
I haven't listened to anything by Scriabin. I've heard a few Tchaikovsky pieces, and I'd say he's better than the other Romantic composers (except Chopin and Schubert, of course).


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)




----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

And I know you said you don't like Brahms, but (not knowing how much you've listened to), I would second jalex's recommendation of the clarinet quintet. It is not showy like Liszt, and a very different sort of Brahms from the example you posted. And it's sometimes dark, which you said you like. It is often described as "autumnal."


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Have you tried Saint Saens? Try his second piano concerto and try to see past the grainy quality of this recording


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Meaghan said:


> It seems that perhaps you are looking for 19th century music that is not too flashy and virtuosic (like the two youtube clips you just posted), or too mushy, moody, and, well, _romantic_ (like late romantic composers you don't care for - Brahms, Mahler, etc.)


Yes, exactly!

And no, I haven't listened to much of Beethoven's piano music. But I will in the near future.
Thanks.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I understand that you find it difficult to describe what you think of these different types of music, but repeatedly calling things pretentious and saying "I don't know why" is obviously going to give us a hard time. :/

Oh, and the Hungarian Dances are in no way representative of Brahms.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

Pretentiousness is why I love the Romantic era! :tiphat:


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I understand that you find it difficult to describe what you think of these different types of music, but repeatedly calling things pretentious and saying "I don't know why" is obviously going to give us a hard time. :/
> 
> Oh, and the Hungarian Dances are in no way representative of Brahms.


I think I've been mistaken about Brahms all this time. Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hey as long as we're recommending Brahm's clarinet quintet, why not the clarinet trio as well?


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Have you tried Saint Saens? Try his second piano concerto and try to see past the grainy quality of this recording


This is great!
Anything else like it?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Brahms Breakthrough?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Oh of all the Romantic composers it's Saint-Saens who finally cracks him. Who would have thought it?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> I think I've been mistaken about Brahms all this time. Thanks for the suggestion.


As much as I'm in love with Brahms, I'm hoping that's biting sarcasm, just because it'd make me laugh!


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

jalex said:


>


All of these were really great. Thanks!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

More from Saint Saens
Be warned, this one may turn you off due to the flashiness of the violin




But I have more confidence in the next one


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

jalex said:


> Oh of all the Romantic composers it's Saint-Saens who finally cracks him. Who would have thought it?


Well, I did apparently!


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Polednice said:


> As much as I'm in love with Brahms, I'm hoping that's biting sarcasm, just because it'd make me laugh!


Nope. I was perfectly honest.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic this time either.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Well, I did apparently!


But it's so...weird. It's like someone hating all Classical music until they listen to Clementi or Stamitz.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

jalex said:


> But it's so...weird. It's like someone hating all Classical music until they listen to Clementi or Stamitz.


What's wrong with Clementi or Stamitz? I always liked the light stuff, its just as good, never underestimate the skill that goes into tightly formed lighter classics. Saint Saens has a bad rep that he doesn't deserve in that category as well, his violin concertos and two of his piano concertos are top notch to the tenth degree.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> More from Saint Saens
> Be warned, this one may turn you off due to the flashiness of the violin
> 
> 
> ...


Uhh . . . Sorry, both were pretty bad.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> What's wrong with Clementi or Stamitz? I always liked the light stuff, its just as good, never underestimate the skill that goes into tightly formed lighter classics.


Nothing wrong with them, I just assume that most people will respond better to the bigger names I guess.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Nope. I was perfectly honest.
> And no, I'm not being sarcastic this time either.


Damn! Well, that was just a bit of very, very late, nearly dead, depressed, introspective Brahms.  You'll probably hate most of his other stuff!


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Brahms Breakthrough?


This is great as well.
I was definitely mistaken about Brahms!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Uhh . . . Sorry, both were pretty bad.


You mean to your tastes, now for another two suggestions for the hell of it and then I'm done here


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Damn! Well, that was just a bit of very, very late, nearly dead, depressed, introspective Brahms.


Really? So that's why I loved it so much! 

But seriously, anyone kind enough to recommend some more dead, depressed, and introspective Brahms? I'd be truly grateful.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Really? So that's why I loved it so much!
> 
> But seriously, anyone kind enough to recommend some more dead, depressed, and introspective Brahms? I'd be truly grateful.


The one that I recommended was actually early Brahms, as a very odd young man! I guess I broke my vow not to be done here...


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> I do like Mozart's 40th symphony, which is why I said "some other dark works of his". Beethoven's 5th is just a tiny bit pretentious for me, except maybe for the second movement. His 9th is not bad. And I haven't really heard much of the late quartets yet.


How the hell are these works pretentious? In what respect? Again it makes absolutely no sense. The fifth is no more pretentious than the seventh, which isn't pretentious.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Really? So that's why I loved it so much!
> 
> But seriously, anyone kind enough to recommend some more dead, depressed, and introspective Brahms? I'd be truly grateful.


Brahms wrote four sets of late piano music

7 fantasias Op. 116
3 Intermezzi Op. 117
6 piano pieces Op. 118
4 piano pieces Op. 119


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)




----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Really? So that's why I loved it so much!
> 
> But seriously, anyone kind enough to recommend some more dead, depressed, and introspective Brahms? I'd be truly grateful.


You should listen to the Op, 116, Op. 117, Op. 118, and Op. 119 Klavierstucke (Piano Pieces) - the one I posted was the first from Op. 119. Some of them are a bit flashy, so you may not like them, but there are a good few depressive ones too.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> How the hell are these works pretentious? In what respect? Again it makes absolutely no sense. The fifth is no more pretentious than the seventh, which isn't pretentious.


The 5th's first movement is very pretentious. The second movement is much better. The third and fourth are not bad.
All of this is, of course, simply my opinion and nothing more.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

In what way is the first movement of the fifth pretentious? Explain please.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And here's a composer I bet you've never heard before, Medtner


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> In what way is the first movement of the fifth pretentious? Explain please.


Don't derail the thread, its HerlockSholmes opinion that he/she is very much entitled to, newcomers come at there own unique angles and its best to respect that.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> The 5th's first movement is very pretentious. The second movement is much better. The third and fourth are not bad.
> All of this is, of course, simply my opinion and nothing more.


just so you know, HerlockSholmes, member Curiosity has a tendency to go into "rapid bulldog mode" whenever criticism of Beethoven is involved.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> And here's a composer I bet you've never heard before, Medtner


Fantastic. Thank you!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)




----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> In what way is the first movement of the fifth pretentious? Explain please.


Sorry, I'm not interested in arguing about this. I simply dislike that piece.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Don't derail the thread, its HerlockSholmes opinion that he/she is very much entitled to, newcomers come at there own unique angles and its best to respect that.


I'm a guy by the way.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> I'm a guy by the way.


Well then welcome Mr. Sholmes. Apart from this thread devoted to helping you, there are plenty of threads to peruse as well that have a lot of links you may like.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

violadude said:


> just so you know, HerlockSholmes, member Curiosity has a tendency to go into "rapid bulldog mode" whenever criticism of Beethoven is involved.


I see . . .


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Well then welcome Mr. Sholmes. Apart from this thread devoted to helping you, there are plenty of threads to peruse as well that have a lot of links you may like.


Thanks.
And yeah, that's why I came to this website.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

This maybe the kind of Beethoven you could be looking for?...






or this


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

You are welcome. And my advice on Medtner, he more than any composer I can think of in the Romantic style rewards repeated hearings and doesn't exhaust you, I can't think of a less pretentious composer in the Romantic idiom, but he's almost too real for some, too cool and classy! That's my opinion, you are entitled to your own, but I suggest you give a variety of his and Brahms works a try, they are both very cool and unpretentious at their most serious.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Don't derail the thread, its HerlockSholmes opinion that he/she is very much entitled to, newcomers come at there own unique angles and its best to respect that.


I'm not derailing anything. The piece has been labelled in this thread as pretentious. I want to know why HerlockSholmes finds the piece (along with, apparently, most other romantic music) pretentious, then perhaps I can give recommendations.

To label an entire era of music "pretentious", along with some of the most famous and acclaimed musical compositions in history, without any justification or explanation and then proceed to ask for recommendations is a bit much in my opinion...


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

violadude said:


> just so you know, HerlockSholmes, member Curiosity has a tendency to go into "rapid bulldog mode" whenever criticism of Beethoven is involved.


And watch yourself on your criticism of Schumann.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Really? So that's why I loved it so much!
> 
> But seriously, anyone kind enough to recommend some more dead, depressed, and introspective Brahms? I'd be truly grateful.


Perhaps the crown jewel of his late piano pieces: Op.118 No.2. Note the use of canon in the middle section.  The late piano pieces were written for a dying Clara Schumann to play.





Horn Trio Op.40 - Written at the time of his mother's death





Clarinet Sonata Op.120 No.1





"Poco Allegretto" from Symphony No.3


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Not in the romantic era, some pieces you may like, both pieces are in D Minor!
WF Bach Adagio and Fugue




Telemann you might like for solo recorder, very dark and melodic


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

As a non-musician who is still trying to "make his way" so to speak through the beauty and intricacies of classical music, I agree with my fellow member Curiosity when he asks the other poster just what he means by the term *pretentious*, since he seems so fixated on it in several of his comments and descriptions. I don't think this would "derail" the thread at all; indeed, it would serve--IMHO--to both give it better focus and assist our more knowledgeable members in their quest to offer better advice to the OP, so maybe he can find what he is searching for in a shorter amount of time.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

By pretentious, do you mean overly showy and virtuosic? (Liszt could be considered pretentious if you don't like that sort of thing). Or do you think they're being too exaggerated?

I don't see how you can call Beethoven pretentious. His symphonies and piano sonatas are incredibly dramatic, but easy to grasp and not too long. Certain composers do tend to exaggerate everything and drag things out, that's just part of their style: Mahler and Wagner are prime examples. They can both be incredibly rewarding and beautiful if you have the patience to sit through them, though.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

The romantic and late romantic era is where I live as far as music goes so this posters comments are confusing to me. If it hasn't been mentioned I'd suggest Brahms 2nd piano concerto. By the way I have always thought of Brahms as the least "pretentious" romantic.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Beethoven's 6th symphony
Charles Ives 1st Symphony
Smetana- The Moldau 
Cesar Frank-Symphony in D Minor
Brahms-Variation on a theme by Haydn


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

After listening to most of the suggestions, I reached this conclusion in regards to the Romantics:
Brahms and Beethoven were great.
Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Medtner were pretty good.
Saint-Saens was not bad.
The rest are all ****. In my opinion, of course.

Thanks everyone!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Post deleted - may have been mistaken for a bad joke.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Whoops - I'm getting into more trouble, not less.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> After listening to most of the suggestions, I reached this conclusion in regards to the Romantics:
> Brahms and Beethoven were great.
> Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Medtner were pretty good.
> Saint-Saens was not bad.
> ...


That opinion is ****. In my opinion, of course.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

HerlockSholmes said:


> After listening to most of the suggestions, I reached this conclusion in regards to the Romantics:
> Brahms and Beethoven were great.
> Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Medtner were pretty good.
> Saint-Saens was not bad.
> ...


I don't know what circumstances one has to be brought up and live in to be of the opinion that the following are "all ****", but I hope it's a situation of mere ignorance, and I'm eternally thankful to God I was able to escape them.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Couchie said:


> I don't know what circumstances one has to be brought up and live in to be of the opinion that the following are "all ****", but I hope it's a situation of mere ignorance, and I'm eternally thankful to God I was able to escape them.


I made it clear in my previous posts that I liked Schubert and Tchaikovsky, so repeating their names in my comment would have been redundant. They are certainly not part of the "**** list".
But Wagner still is.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

HerlockSholmes said:


> I made it clear in my previous posts that I liked Schubert and Tchaikovsky, so repeating their names in my comment would have been redundant. They are certainly not part of the "**** list".
> But Wagner still is.


Ah, sorry then. I don't usually read well.

Wagner however is the summit of the entire Romantic movement (including art and literature). He took it as far as it can go, and when he was done with it, it was done.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Ah, sorry then. I don't usually read well.
> 
> Wagner however is the summit of the entire Romantic movement (including art and literature). He took it as far as it can go, and when he was done with it, it was done.


Nope, not until Mahler wrote his 9th symphony was it done.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> But Wagner still is.


Let's see if we can change your mind:











If this one doesn't change your mind I can't imagine what would:


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Please, listen to the entire _Tristan und Isolde_ first before calling Wagner ****.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

jalex said:


> Let's see if we can change your mind:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I actually did my own research as well, and check out what I found :




 (listen to 5:22)

I was wrong. That is all.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Herlock Sholmes, since its so fun to try to crack your prejudices against romantic composers, tell me why Bruckner is on your **** list.

And that isn't to imply that it is our work, you being new to classical music certainly are very eager to learn about new music and it is refreshing for us.

Also, I have a new little piece to recommend, a favorite of mine, Chabrier


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And another by Chabrier


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Herlock Sholmes, since its so fun to try to crack your prejudices against romantic composers, tell me why Bruckner is on your **** list.
> 
> Also, I have a new little piece to recommend, a favorite of mine, Chabrier


Great! By the way, was Chabrier a prolific fugue writer?

As for Bruckner, I heard this movement from one of his symphonies and I hated it. As a result, the collection of prejudices I've been accumulating in my brain regarding the Romantic period was finally confirmed with this very piece. This is what I'm talking about:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Great! By the way, was Chabrier a prolific fugue writer?
> 
> As for Bruckner, I heard this movement from one of his symphonies and I hated it. As a result, the collection of prejudices I've been accumulating in my brain regarding the Romantic period was finally confirmed with this very piece. This is what I'm talking about:


Unfortunately there is nothing prolific about Chabrier, he didn't write very much.

Bruckner...he can take a while for some to warm up to you may *like parts of him and hate others*, he's a great composer but many perceive his tendency to over-repeat sequences as a flaw. The ninth symphony is his strangest, I recommend his 1st, 4th, 6th, and 7th for the start, he also wrote a really cool string quintet. You may just not be a Bruckner fan for now, but you did pick perhaps the strangest movement in all of Bruckner to categorize him by, though I personally love it.

For the start, I'd recommend the scherzo's to his 4th and 7th symphonies, as well as the openings to his 1st and 6th.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Scherzo to the fourth


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Opening to his 6th


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Opening to his 1st


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Opening to his 1st


I think I still dislike Bruckner. But thanks for taking the time to suggest those pieces


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

No problem about Bruckner, he's just not for some people. Have you heard Taneyev? I can't find any good recordings of his string quartets on youtube, but I recommend those works above all else. Also his 4th symphony, which is far different than his string quartets, some of which sound classical. Taneyev is sometimes known as the Russian bach for his excellent contrapuntal skills. As you will see, this symphony is ripe with canons.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Also, have you seen the name Charles Valentine Alkan floating around in the forum? You might like him as well.
Le festin D'Esope





Concerto for Solo Piano


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> No problem about Bruckner, he's just not for some people. Have you heard Taneyev? I can't find any good recordings of his string quartets on youtube, but I recommend those works above all else. Also his 4th symphony, which is far different than his string quartets, some of which sound classical. Taneyev is sometimes known as the Russian bach for his excellent contrapuntal skills. As you will see, this symphony is ripe with canons.


I like the counterpoint, but I dislike the loudness.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Also, have you seen the name Charles Valentine Alkan floating around in the forum? You might like him as well.
> Le festin D'Esope
> 
> 
> ...


I might need some more time to judge this composer, but can you please assure me that he's not the same as Liszt? (Whom I despise [no offense if you like Liszt] ).


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> I might need some more time to judge this composer, but can you please assure me that he's not the same as Liszt? (Whom I despise [no offense if you like Liszt] ).


Taking more time is a good strategy with any of these composers. Why miss out on something you might enjoy because of a hasty judgment?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I think he means 'emotionally overblown.' Pretentious in that the composers are overstating their emotion, making them seem like they think they're so important. What's odd is that you like the most overblown/emotional works by Mozart. So if you're looking for romantic music thats not so gushy try:

Brahms: Clarinet Sonatas 
Schumann: Carnaval 
Beethoven: Diabelli Variations
Mendelssohn: Octet

I promise they're all really really good pieces if you give them the time.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Maybe you can add this to your Mozart list; perhaps, my favorite solo Mozart keyboard work.









Of course, if you hear anyone else play this...it won't sound the same or even close.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Nix said:


> I think he means 'emotionally overblown.' Pretentious in that the composers are overstating their emotion, making them seem like they think they're so important. What's odd is that you like the most overblown/emotional works by Mozart.


I think that's a perfect description. That's exactly what I meant.
By the way, the Requiem doesn't sound overblown at all when it's played on period instruments.

And thanks for the suggestions. I'm currently listening to them.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

kv466 said:


> Maybe you can add this to your Mozart list; perhaps, my favorite solo Mozart keyboard work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks! Everything by Gould is a must-have.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> I might need some more time to judge this composer, but can you please assure me that he's not the same as Liszt? (Whom I despise [no offense if you like Liszt] ).


He's virtuosic like Liszt, even harder in fact, but he's not emotionally exuberant in the Lisztian way at all. Alkan is not pretentious, but comical, sometimes witty, and always a little insane. I believe he wrote a few goofy fugue type pieces, he's pretty wacky.

But now that I know more of your tastes, I'm guessing Alkan isn't for you.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

If you disslike Romantic composers then don't force yourself to like them. It seems that you have a taste for Baroque composers. Why not try others besides Bach like Handel or Vivaldi.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

TrazomGangflow said:


> If you disslike Romantic composers then don't force yourself to like them. It seems that you have a taste for Baroque composers. Why not try others besides Bach like Handel or Vivaldi.


I listen to Baroque all the time actually. I just wanted to see whether or not I could start liking any of the Romantics.


----------



## nosmelc (Aug 22, 2011)

do Beethoven's other 17 string quartet's sound pretentious? If so, how so? Please give his 6th symphony another go. it is both easy to listen to and high art. Almost every motif in the entire first movement can be drawn from the first 4 bar phrase. Your list is quite German, perhaps you might try listening to romantic composers from Italy, France, England or Russia. Also give Mendelssohn a try before you totally give up on German romantics.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

mmm...People don't think about him that much, he's one of my favoutites romantics. Is he Russian?..Yes, he is. LOL

My very good "friend" Anton. Anton who? Anton Rubinstein, bien sûr.






















and the wonderful second symphony, Ocean in 7 movements.














Just some samples

Enjoy!

Martin


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Given your love for fugues maybe you should try this. The counterpoint in the fugue isn't exactly mind-blowing but the harmony is great:






The one-beat canon later on also creates a kinda cool effect when the arpeggiated figures finish in the 'wrong' bar.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> This is great!
> Anything else like it?





jalex said:


> Oh of all the Romantic composers it's* Saint-Saens *who finally cracks him. Who would have thought it?


Since you liked his _Piano Concerto #2_, you may wish to check out Saint-Saens' late chamber and piano works in which he returned to a type of classicism, or classical restraint, moving away from what you call pretentious (or bombastic). Wikipedia says -



> ...Saint-Saëns' concertos and many of his chamber music works are both technically difficult and transparent, requiring the skills of a virtuoso. The later chamber music pieces, such as the *second violin sonata*, the* second cello sonata*, and the *second piano trio*, are less accessible to a listener than earlier pieces in the same form. They were composed and performed when Saint-Saëns was already slipping out of popularity and, as a result, they are little known. They show a willingness to experiment with more progressive musical language and to abandon lyricism and charm for more profound expression.
> 
> The *piano music*, while not as deep or as challenging as that of some of his contemporaries, occupies the stylistic ground between Liszt and Ravel. At times brilliant, transparent and idiomatic, the *music for two pianos includes the Variations on a Theme by Beethoven, the Scherzo*, a palindromic piece that uses a blend of modern tonalities and conventional gestures, and the *Caprice arabe*, a rhythmically inventive fantasy that pays homage to the music of northern Africa. Although Saint-Saëns was considered old-fashioned in later life, he explored many new forms and reinvigorated some older ones. His compositional approach was inspired by French classicism, which makes him an important forerunner of the neoclassicism of Ravel and others...


Full article on the composer HERE...


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> mmm...People don't think about him that much, he's one of my favoutites romantics. Is he Russian?..Yes, he is. LOL
> 
> My very good "friend" Anton. Anton who? Anton Rubinstein, bien sûr.
> 
> ...


I'm definitely going to start to listen to more music from this composer. His music seems great already. Thanks, Martin!


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

jalex said:


> Given your love for fugues maybe you should try this. The counterpoint in the fugue isn't exactly mind-blowing but the harmony is great:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've always had an irrational hatred of Berlioz. But this one's pretty good. Thanks!


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

I've noticed that Brahms was mentioned here but not his beautiful Piano Trios.











Just the first two movements. They might not be as subtle and "grim" as his Clarinet trios , as they are really emotional and "flashy" at times (what an ugly word to describe music) , but they are beautiful nonetheless.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Chrythes said:


> I've noticed that Brahms was mentioned here but not his beautiful Piano Trios.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And don't forget:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well, since HerlockSholmes is gone apparently, theres not much point to this thread unless someone else wants recommendations.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Well he commented yesterday, so he still might be around.
In any case, this thread was quite helpful, at least for me. 
I've found out about many composers i haven't head before, which is great, since i've started my classical journey not so long ago, and any new information i accept joyfully.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Chrythes said:


> Well he commented yesterday, so he still might be around.


He _left_ yesterday.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Never mind, apparently he's back now.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

violadude said:


> Never mind, apparently he's back now.


Indeed. And I'm not very proud about it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Indeed. And I'm not very proud about it.


Not very proud about leaving? or coming back?


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

violadude said:


> Not very proud about leaving? or coming back?


Coming back.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Coming back.


Ok, _now_ he's definitely gone...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some works of the c19th or Romantic era that I'd recommend that have a kind of restraint & classical elegance (eg. not bombast) are *Bizet's* _Symphony in C_ & also *Gounod's* _Petite Symphonie for Wind Instruments_. They can be looked at as hangovers of the Classical Era but composed well into the Romantic Era, or as precursors to neo-classical works to come in early c20th (eg. Prokofiev's _Symphony #1 "Classical"_). I love these works more than these guy's operas, I am not really an opera buff, my strong preference is for instrumental music. Both these works are on youtube...


----------

