# Classical Era Symphonies vs. Romantic Era Symphonies



## neoshredder

Which style do you prefer? I know modern is an option as well. But I just wanted to compare these 2 solo.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I've been listening a lot recently to Mozart's last 5 symphonies, so... for now, classical it is!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Romantic for me. I admire the conciseness of 18th c. classical symphonies but the Romantic era ones are usually more expansive and have extra depth, specific gravity - call it what you will (some may call it stodge, of course).


----------



## neoshredder

I guess it depends on which Composers of each era. I guess compare the best of each era. I would say the late classicalist are pretty expansive. Especially Beethoven. Though I guess you can consider Beethoven a bit of both Eras. I will consider it a tie. It depends on my mood.


----------



## afterpostjack

Aside from those of Haydn, I don't listen much to classical symphonies. So for me, the Romantics win by a landslide.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'm a color fanatic, so I choose Romantic for all those amazing instrumental sounds.


----------



## brotagonist

My collecting, hence listening, is far more diversified in the Romantic era, but I listen to a lot of Classical era symphonies, too, albeit by not much more than a handful of composers.


----------



## Fagotterdammerung

Romantic, BUT ... I almost see them as different forms. I like the classical brevity - I don't think a symphony needs to last an hour to be a "real" symphony. A symphony that can speak for itself well in the span of ten minutes is a great thing, but I don't think it's the same _type _of expression as Mahler and Bruckner were delivering.


----------



## Blake

I shift according to my mood. Sometimes it's neither.


----------



## tdc

Romantic for me. The only Symphonies from the Classical era I really enjoy are the late Mozart works.


----------



## Weston

As a generalization I suppose it's romantic era, but with reservations. If the dynamics get too wide, I can't hear the quiet parts very well. Those 19th century folks may not have had a refrigerator and central air in every household. The classic period employs a more manageable dynamic range. 

And then if too much rah-rah nationalism or martial bluster is evoked in a romantic piece, I lose interest. Sadly, many romantic era works are all et up with that stuff.

I'm still voting for romantic. It seems to have the wider variety, its composers having access to wider resources and freer reign. That could just be an illusion due to their closer proximity in time.


----------



## mtmailey

ROMANTIC ERA always for me because the music is not always the same 4 movement works therefore it is much freer you know.


----------



## GreenMamba

Whichever side Beethoven falls on, which I assume is Classical. Otherwise, it is pretty close.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I pretty much only listen to the symphonies of Beethoven and Mendelssohn, so that would be more in the romantic era?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

GreenMamba said:


> Whichever side Beethoven falls on, which I assume is Classical. Otherwise, it is pretty close.


That was part of my criteria, too.  The 6th, 7th, and 9th symphonies straddle the classical-romantic line. The 6th being the first programmatic symphony, the 7th's "Allegretto" which Jan Swafford describes as commencing, "as much as any single piece, the history of Romantic orchestral music".

Either way, I voted for Romantic. It's more my cup of tea, even though Beethoven belongs much more to Classical than Romantic.


----------



## Itullian

Schumann and Brahms are my favs.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

It changes a lot, but romantic at the moment.


----------



## PetrB

You know, that fight ran for _twenty rounds._ In the final round, both fighters were severely beaten, punch-happy, and though pretty damned bloody, each was bloodied but unbowed. The fight was called a draw, no winners, no losers.

The crowd was not even angry as you thought they might be, feeling they'd gotten their money's worth watching both fighters beat themselves near senseless.


----------



## Celloman

I like 'em both! I used to prefer Romantic, but that has changed.


----------



## Haydn man

I decided to vote classical after a little consideration.
I agree with most other folk, that I love both. However when I thought about which one I would not want to live without then the answer arrived


----------



## Art Rock

Romantic, and by a very wide margin.


----------



## Heliogabo

Fortunately, we can choose to hear both of them.


----------



## PetrB

Heliogabo said:


> Fortunately, we can choose to hear both of them.


Exactly. This is yet another "composer X wins the fight in round three" kind of useless personal opinion poll.

The notion one might choose Mozart's later Symphony in G minor over Mahler's 3rd, for example, is completely anti-music and anti-musical.


----------



## Heliogabo

I mean, I don't want my Brahms without my Haydn, for example.


----------



## Skilmarilion

PetrB said:


> The notion one might choose Mozart's later Symphony in G minor over Mahler's 3rd, for example, is completely anti-music and anti-musical.


Not entirely.


----------



## Bridgetower

I love both pretty equally. Mozart and Haydn are a must have when it comes to the Classical era, and composers such as Schumann, Schubert, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens and so many others offer so much more. Beethoven, my favorite symphonist and composer, is someone that I see as both a part of the Classical and Romantic era because of his Symphony No. 3 (though he is most likely grouped with the Romantics). It's just too hard to choose when there are so many great composers and symphonies from those composers in both eras, or all eras for that matter.


----------



## csacks

For me romantics, by far. Classical symphonies are very good music, but the variety and the finesse of romantic symphonies are over them. Not by chance one is the evolution of the other.


----------



## hpowders

I always favor strict structure over rambling emotion so it's classical for me with Haydn in particular as the supreme symphonist, IMO.


----------



## Polyphemus

Personal choice for me would be Mahler Bruckner Bartok Rachmaninov through Ligeti Penderecki etc. But let no one tell me there is anything wrong with Uncle Joe (Haydn) Mozart or Beethoven simply put if its good its good so why label it.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Classical - Haydn's symphonies alone provide so much variety, imo. Mozart's, Beethoven's and Schubert's early symphonies are awesome as well. I think Romantic symphonies are just as great, just that my taste swings towards classical.


----------



## FrankF

I could never choose one or the other exclusively so it's both for me.

I just realized that when I listen to the final movement of Mozart's symphony No. 41, I feel like I'm hearing both classical and romantic at the same time.


----------



## padraic

FrankF said:


> I could never choose one or the other exclusively so it's both for me.
> 
> I just realized that when I listen to the final movement of Mozart's symphony No. 41, *I feel like I'm hearing both classical and romantic at the same time.*


That's because you probably are


----------



## FrankF

padraic said:


> That's because you probably are


Yes pedraic, I type to fast without thinking  What I should have said is I had never thought of it in that way before.


----------



## Revel

Generally Romantic, but I listen to both. I play Haydn's 59th and 31st more often than his London & Paris symphonies.


----------



## Handel

The most interesting period in my opinion is the late classical/pre-romantic (1800-1830). The classical style is in its full glory but with the passion of romantics. That's the best of both era.


----------



## KenOC

Handel said:


> The most interesting period in my opinion is the late classical/pre-romantic (1800-1830). The classical style is in its full glory but with the passion of romantics. That's the best of both era.


1800 to 1830? A period when a composer was quite unfortunate not to be named "Beethoven." Well, maybe unless he was named "Rossini." Even being named "Schubert" wouldn't save you!


----------



## ArtMusic

neoshredder said:


> Which style do you prefer? I know modern is an option as well. But I just wanted to compare these 2 solo.


Classical. They sound more elegant, concise and much less Romantic style bombastic.


----------



## bigshot

I didn't even have to think twice about this poll. Classical era symphonies are much more cookie cutter than Romantic era. There are exceptions, but when I hear a Haydn symphony (other than the usual suspects) I say, "Oh, that's a Haydn symphony." I don't instantly recognize WHICH symphony it is like I do for Romantic era ones.


----------



## PeterF

It is wonderful that we can listen to both Classical and Romantic symphonies. Sometimes a symphony of Haydn or Mozart is just what I want to enjoy. Other times it may be Brahms, late Beethoven, Dvorak or Schubert.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

bigshot said:


> I didn't even have to think twice about this poll. Classical era symphonies are much more cookie cutter than Romantic era. There are exceptions, but when I hear a Haydn symphony (other than the usual suspects) I say, "Oh, that's a Haydn symphony." I don't instantly recognize WHICH symphony it is like I do for Romantic era ones.


Well yes, but how many symphonies did Romantic composers write? Out of Haydn's 104 symphonies, at least 40 are stellar and contain excellent music, imo. It's all relative. Romantic symphonies, are, I agree, generally more innovative and emotionally charged, but in terms of craftsmanship, Haydn's post-40 number symphonies are way up there, imo.


----------



## QuietGuy

Classical for me. I like the brevity. Romantic symphonies are too long winded for me.


----------



## pianolearnerstride

Classical for me also. I generally like classical music far more than romantic.


----------



## hpowders

Romantic bores me. I prefer the razor sharp classical symphonies and concertos.


----------



## padraic

Porque no los dos?


----------



## Nope

I voted for romantic symphonies. Classical is great as it is, but I looked at both eras in the perspective of orchstration. Romantic symphonies tend to call for larger orchestras and also longer length, which leaves the space for music to develop more. I know its not quite fair since composers did not choose what era to live in, but if you imagine beethoven in the romantic era, writing symphonies with large scale orchestras like Mahler did, not to mention the advance in harmonic language, how would Beethoven sound like?


----------

