# Should I move on to the Romantic Era?



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Hello community, I am a high-schooler classical lover. I am very interested in Mozart, and I feel like his music takes up more than 50-60% of the classical music I listen to. I also listen to earlier music, such as Haydn symphonies, Bach, and Handel. That will take up around another 10-20%. The rest I listen to are later music, such as those by Brahms, Mendelssohn, Sibelius and a little bit of Beethoven. I am curious whether you recommend me move on to listen to more Romantic Era music, as I a super fan of Mozart and I am not sure whether I will only mainly be passionate in Classical Era. Also, I am wondering, if I can cultivate my interest in Romantic Era, will I move on to like modern classical and even pop music?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Just listen widely and randomly, (like to classical radio) and if a piece piques your interest, explore it and things like it. There are no rules, and you wind up liking what you like.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I always go with my inner feeling and natural curiosity. If I'm really into a certain composer or genre I'll just stick with it until I become disinterested and then move on to something else. There's certainly plenty of wonderful music to discover when you feel that desire to branch out. Beethoven, Schubert, and Mendelssohn seem like a natural progression from the classical era.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Haha, I am never tired of listening to Mozart, but I surely can't stick on to this guy for my whole life.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

We all have our own preferences, and it is up to you to find out yours. They might be in any of the other time frames and genres - there is no blueprint you can follow. Just explore, and explore deeper where you find something you like.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

If you like Mozart and are curious about more intemperate (AKA romantic) music try some of Wolfgang's music that borders on romantic -- the opera Don Giovanni (especially the final scene with the Commendatore where the Don is cast into Hell), C Minor mass, Requiem, the minor key piano concertos Nos. 20 and 24. 

If this music stirs your blood try some Beethoven -- the Symphony No. 5, Piano Concerto No. 3 or Violin Concerto. These are all early romantic works in constructs you'll identify from Mozart. If you like them you probably can safely move forward to later Beethoven, Brahms and other romantics.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I don`t know how much acquainted you are with Brahms but he is one of the "heaviest" (no pun intended) Romantic composers. If you know enough of Brahms you wouldn`t feel like a fish out of water with the rest of the Romantics.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KevinW said:


> Hello community, I am a high-schooler classical lover. I am very interested in Mozart, and I feel like his music takes up more than 50-60% of the classical music I listen to. I also listen to earlier music, such as Haydn symphonies, Bach, and Handel. That will take up around another 10-20%. The rest I listen to are later music, such as those by Brahms, Mendelssohn, Sibelius and a little bit of Beethoven. I am curious whether you recommend me move on to listen to more Romantic Era music, as I a super fan of Mozart and I am not sure whether I will only mainly be passionate in Classical Era. Also, I am wondering, if I can cultivate my interest in Romantic Era, will I move on to like modern classical and even pop music?


No, avoid romantic music, it is not very good - all tunes and very little counterpoint. Instead move straight to late 20th and 21st century. Have you heard Roger Reynolds's solo violin music? Or Nicolas Brass's music for solo violin and duos with cello? Or, going back a bit in time, Luciano Berio's Sequenza VIII? Or the extraordinary Bach inspired Bartok solo violin sonata? Or the Scelsi Divertimenti or . . .


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Personally, I think it's fun to follow the evolution of music chronologically. Move on to Haydn and Beethoven, then Schubert and Mendelssohn... etc. etc.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Explore by all means, but be warned: it's very easy for your ears to become sybaritic listening to too much music of the 19th & early 20th centuries. When I was 14/15, Mozart and Beethoven were my favorite composers. I have to admit, I may have lost the ability to appreciate their restrained aesthetic as I began to enjoy more indulgent & hedonistic music (Mahler and Strauss for instance). It's taken a while to come full circle and appreciate Mozart again as much as I had when I first got into CM.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> No, avoid romantic music, it is not very good - all tunes and very little counterpoint. Instead move straight to late 20th and 21st century. Have you heard Roger Reynolds's solo violin music? Or Nicolas Brass's music for solo violin and duos with cello? Or, going back a bit in time, Luciano Berio's Sequenza VIII? Or the extraordinary Bach inspired Bartok solo violin sonata? Or the Scelsi Divertimenti or . . .


As great as this music is, I think there's something to be said about approaching it chronologically to get at least a little bit of historical context (everything exists in context, even so-called "radical" pieces) and to get your ears more accustomed to these kinds of sounds.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> As great as this music is, I think there's something to be said about approaching it chronologically to get at least a little bit of historical context (everything exists in context, even so-called "radical" pieces) and to get your ears more accustomed to these kinds of sounds.


Ah, I knew I'd rattle someone's cage! But if that's right then the OP should start at the beginning with this


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KevinW said:


> Hello community, I am a high-schooler classical lover. I am very interested in Mozart, and I feel like his music takes up more than 50-60% of the classical music I listen to. I also listen to earlier music, such as Haydn symphonies, Bach, and Handel. That will take up around another 10-20%. The rest I listen to are later music, such as those by Brahms, Mendelssohn, Sibelius and a little bit of Beethoven. I am curious whether you recommend me move on to listen to more Romantic Era music, as I a super fan of Mozart and I am not sure whether I will only mainly be passionate in Classical Era. Also, I am wondering, if I can cultivate my interest in Romantic Era, will I move on to like modern classical and even pop music?


Ignore any advice to ignore music of the Romantic period (sometimes someone's little joke has the danger of being taken seriously). It is a treasure trove of some of the greatest classical music ever composed. Having said that, since you are such a fan of Mozart, continue enjoying it and other music of that period. Take your time when it comes to moving from the classical period to the romantic era.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> *No, avoid romantic music, it is not very good* - all tunes and very little counterpoint. Instead move straight to late 20th and 21st century. Have you heard Roger Reynolds's solo violin music? Or Nicolas Brass's music for solo violin and duos with cello? Or, going back a bit in time, Luciano Berio's Sequenza VIII? Or the extraordinary Bach inspired Bartok solo violin sonata? Or the Scelsi Divertimenti or . . .





Mandryka said:


> Ah, I knew I'd rattle someone's cage!..


Do you really think that this is the place for 'rattling peoples' cages'? A new member is not likely to be aware of the past history behind it.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Do you really think that this is the place for 'rattling peoples' cages'? A new member is not likely to be aware of the past history behind it.


A new member should know Internet`s first rule _i.e._ "Thou shalt not trust anyone!".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Do you really think that this is the place for 'rattling peoples' cages'? A new member is not likely to be aware of the past history behind it.


I don't agree with the premise that it is important to approach music chronologically. Neither do you since I am sure you have never heard the music on that Dietmar Berger CD, nor the music I mentioned by Nicolas Brass. And I believe that romantic violin music is not as good as the music which came before or the music which came after. All those dreadful concertos and sonatas aren't as good as, for example, Bieber's sonatas or, at the other end, Feldman's For John Cage. You probably haven't heard those either!

The important thing is to try everything - except maybe all that romantic effusion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Ignore any advice to ignore music of the Romantic period (sometimes someone's little joke has the danger of being taken seriously). It is a treasure trove of some of the greatest classical music ever composed. Having said that, since you are such a fan of Mozart, continue enjoying it and other music of that period. Take your time when it comes to moving from the classical period to the romantic era.


Ignore this advice which is prejudiced, subjective.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Some good advice here already.

I'll add only that I started into "classical" music (as a teen) via the Romantic era composers Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn ... and branched out from there, both backwards chronologically (to Beethoven, Mozart, J.S. Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Monteverdi, Palestrina...) and forward, into the modern voices of the 20th century (Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, Schoenberg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Boulez, Penderecki, Xenakis, Cage ...) and am now immersed in 21st century music.

I sought out music, one piece leading to other pieces, way leads to way, and have never stopped. There's no reason why you cannot be successful doing much the same.

Again, there is much good advice given on this thread prior to my comments. Proceed, and have fun.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Ah, I knew I'd rattle someone's cage! But if that's right then the OP should start at the beginning with this


We are surrounded by the language of Mozart's music from an early age, eliminating the 'need' for many listeners to acquire a sense of familiarity through contextualization.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> I don't agree with the premise that it is important to approach music chronologically.


Just to clarify: I don't think it is fundamentally _important_, but I do think it can help many listeners to appreciate music that would otherwise be inaccessible to them.

Especially in approaching 20th c. music through the use of expanded tonal palettes in late Romanticism. Even if it can be misleading, at times.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Ignore this advice which is prejudiced, subjective.


An unusual response given that the advice appears to be in line with the OP, the poster already having enjoyed Brahms and Sibelius.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> An unusual response given that the advice appears to be in line with the OP, the poster already having enjoyed Brahms and Sibelius.


Sibelius is not a romantic composer!


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Sibelius isn't a romantic composer? Are you sure?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KevinW said:


> Sibelius isn't a romantic composer? Are you sure?


Not this






or this






Or even this


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Not this]


You can cherry-pick works all you want, but the facts are that he was born in 1865 and started his main composing in the 1890s, so he was influenced by Romantic composers and started composing in the late Romantic era which, btw, didn't end exactly in 1900. In any event, he is described as a late-romantic, early modern composer. That's just a fact.

Romantic works by any definition and two of his most well-known:


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

DaveM said:


> You can cherry-pick works all you want, but the facts are that he was born in 1865 and started his main composing in the 1890s, so he was influenced by Romantic composers and started composing in the late Romantic era which, btw, didn't end exactly in 1900.
> 
> Romantic works by any definition and two of his most well-known:


I agree with you!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Whatever you do, never listen to Richard Wagner. You have been warned.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I don't agree with the premise that it is important to approach music chronologically. Neither do you since I am sure you have never heard the music on that Dietmar Berger CD, nor the music I mentioned by Nicolas Brass. And I believe that romantic violin music is not as good as the music which came before or the music which came after. *All those dreadful concertos and sonatas aren't as good as*, for example, Bieber's sonatas or, at the other end, *Feldman's For John Cage*. You probably haven't heard those either!
> 
> The important thing is to try everything - except maybe all that romantic effusion.


Care to give some insight into this, or is this just posturing?


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Explain why. I have listened to him.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> Care to give some insight into this, or is this just posturing?


I like the Romantic concertos. Maybe that is his personal preference.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Welcome to TalkClassical, Kevin. I think you have to assume some comments are joking or are a personal view that many others would disgaree with.



KevinW said:


> Explain why. I have listened to him.


Wagner wrote the most glorious, beautiful, exhiliarating operas ever imagined by humans. And Couchie would view that as a gross understatement.



KevinW said:


> I like the Romantic concertos. Maybe that is his personal preference.


Most here like or love Romantic concertos. If you want to see a representative selection of what TC members view as great music you could look at our TC Top Recommended Lists. You could pick and choose among the suggestions and decide which you enjoy.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> Welcome to TalkClassical, Kevin. I think you have to assume some comments are joking or are a personal view that many others would disgaree with.
> 
> Wagner wrote the most glorious, beautiful, exhiliarating operas ever imagined by humans. And Couchie would view that as a gross understatement.
> 
> Most here like or love Romantic concertos. If you want to see a representative selection of what TC members view as great music you could look at our TC Top Recommended Lists. You could pick and choose among the suggestions and decide which you enjoy.


Thank you for the list. It is definitely splendid.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Ah, I knew I'd rattle someone's cage!


with Cage!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Care to give some insight into this, or is this just posturing?


Romantic violin music = too many notes, too much empty virtuosity, too much bombast and bluster, too much maudlin sentimentality.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

We have very little in common in terms of musical taste as I don't listen to hardly any classical music before Beethoven (and I don't really listen to Beethoven all that much now that I'm talking about him, although I do love his symphonies and the late SQs). I never could get into Classical Era composers and the same goes for Baroque and Renaissance composers. I guess the harmonic and melodic language just doesn't do anything for me even though I hold someone like J. S. Bach in high regard considering his influence, but that's about it. I'm in no position to tell you what you're missing or what you should listen to, because all of our tastes are different even though many of us gravitate towards the same composers --- it's just that the journey to get to these composers is a personal one. If you have any interest in the Romantic Era, then all I can say is let your ears be your guide. Look up composers from this era and dive right in. There's really no easy way around it. You simply have to put in the effort to listen and do the research on your own.

Anyway, let us know what composers you like and what works you like from this era.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> Romantic violin music = too many notes, too much empty virtuosity, too much bombast and bluster, too much maudlin sentimentality.


Maybe you are not that sentimental as people who love Romantic. Also, before I got into contact with Romantic Violin Concertos, I thought the exactly same way with you. However, when you gradually listen to them, you will also find them full of emotions and useful virtuosity. I still like Mozart and his VCs the most, I have to admit, and probably won't change, for they sound impressive, but I would suggest you really put some time to appreciate Romantic VCs. They are warm, mature, full of fun as well as depth.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

KevinW said:


> Maybe you are not that sentimental as people who love Romantic. Also, before I got into contact with Romantic Violin Concertos, I thought the exactly same way with you. However, when you gradually listen to them, you will also find them full of emotions and useful virtuosity. *I still like Mozart and his VCs the most, I have to admit, and probably won't change*, for they sound impressive, but I would suggest you really put some time to appreciate Romantic VCs. They are warm, mature, full of fun as well as depth.


To the bolded text, famous last words.  You're young and your opinion will change gradually.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> To the bolded text, famous last words.  You're young and your opinion will change gradually.


I think I will keep loving it! Mozart VCs the music that brought me into classical, so they are the most meaningful and memorable music, even though being relatively simple and even childish. I also want to introduce classical music to other people in my life, such as my parents, friends, colleagues, and even my potential future family:lol:!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

KevinW said:


> I think I will keep loving it! Mozart VCs the music that brought me into classical, so they are the most meaningful and memorable music, even though being relatively simple and even childish. I also want to introduce classical music to other people in my life, such as my parents, friends, colleagues, and even my potential future family:lol:!


As you grow older, tastes do change and they will continue to evolve. I don't doubt your love for Mozart (I never cared anything about his music personally but that's another story), but I'm sure you'll always have a personal relationship with his music even if you don't listen to his music that much as you mature as a listener.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Regarding romantic violin concertos: This is for all those with a beating heart and a love for melody (I could have added the Brahms Violin Concerto, but that would have been too easy ):


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

It is important for you to listen to composers other than Mozart, because if not you'll likely get bored of your favorite Mozart works because of overexposure. However, there is no need to "move on" to Romantic music if you do not care as much for it.

I reccommend listening to Joseph Haydn-- he has a large oeuvre. 

Recommdations:
Symphonies: 22, 26, 31, 44, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 60, 82, 83, 88, 93-104
String Quartets: Opuses 20, 33, 64, 76, 77

Sacred: The Creation, Nelson Mass, Seven Last Words

Piano Sonatas: 50, 62

Concertos: Cello Concertos 1 and 2, Trumpet Concerto

Also, try Michael Haydn's Requiem.

Almost all of these works were written while Mozart was composing, or after Mozart's death.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KevinW,

You're lucky you found me, that's what. I'm the guy who knows what you need to do.



science said:


> Rule number one of the rules is you do not talk about the rules.
> 
> Rule number two of the rules is *YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE RULES*.
> 
> ...


You're very, very welcome.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

KevinW said:


> Also, I am wondering, if I can cultivate my interest in Romantic Era, will I move on to like modern classical and even pop music?


Yes, sure as eggs is eggs, you'll be on a slippery slope.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Forster said:


> Yes, sure as eggs is eggs, you'll be on a slippery slope.


Why? I'd like to hear the explanation because I feel like Baroque and 20th century are two distinct genres of music and how could I love the both?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KevinW said:


> Maybe you are not that sentimental as people who love Romantic. Also, before I got into contact with Romantic Violin Concertos, I thought the exactly same way with you. However, when you gradually listen to them, you will also find them full of emotions and useful virtuosity. I still like Mozart and his VCs the most, I have to admit, and probably won't change, for they sound impressive, but I would suggest you really put some time to appreciate Romantic VCs. They are warm, mature, full of fun as well as depth.


I'm going to make a serious point, about me. There's something about the concerto tradition in western music which really turns me off. It's that it revolves around a star system, there's a star soloist, promoted by a PR machine, who's there to display his virtuosity and emotional depth, and who attracts an audience of groupies or near groupies. The same for 19th century solo music in fact.

This star system is strongest in the performers of 19th century romantic music, because for a number of complex reasons, the recording and concert business milks that music to make money.

This is without doubt for me one of the reasons why romantic classical music makes my skin creep. And it is also one of the reasons why I find myself feeling more comfortable about early and recent musical performance. I personally feel more comfortable with the tradition in those areas - there are fewer stars, the performers are often academic researchers.

So yes, there are intrinsic reasons why I think you should resist the temptation to let yourself be diverted by romantic music, but there are also extrinsic reasons - to do with the way it is commodified and marketed.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

KevinW said:


> I feel like Baroque and 20th century are two distinct genres of music and how could I love the both?


I think you'll find that lots of people here (probably most) love music from many different eras. How? Just try.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> I think you'll find that lots of people here (probably most) love music from many different eras. How? Just try.


I second this , I started out listening to classical and early romantic era ... now I am someone who gives about anything a try. But if I don't like it after a listen or two , I must admit I "shelve it" ...

Thanks to fellow TC members , I have gotten to know composers whom I wouldn't have discovered otherwise I have to admit.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

KevinW said:


> Haha, I am never tired of listening to Mozart, but I surely can't stick on to this guy for my whole life.


Not Mozart alone, no, but his music should absolutely continue to form a substantial part of your listening and playing.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I'm going to make a serious point, about me. There's something about the concerto tradition in western music which really turns me off. It's that it revolves around a star system, there's a star soloist, promoted by a PR machine, who's there to display his virtuosity and emotional depth, and who attracts an audience of groupies or near groupies. The same for 19th century solo music in fact.
> 
> This star system is strongest in the performers of 19th century romantic music, because for a number of complex reasons, the recording and concert business milks that music to make money.
> 
> ...


So an entire chunk of the CPT era, including 19th century solo music, is thrown out because '_ the recording and concert business milks that music to make money. _This ignores the music that is at the heart of the concertos and emphasizes, as if a defect, the fact that a relatively few artists have the pianistic skill and other gifts to perform and record concertos and maybe become famous and make money in the process. Not to mention the many erstwhile soloists who often make up an orchestra, a number of which have probably performed concertos at one time, even if only performing with a piano substituting for the orchestra and making little or no money for the performance.

The other surprising thing is that the above post creates the picture of a 'star system' money-making machine behind all 19th century solo or concerto music performances and recordings. This simply isn't true. For example, the Hyperion classical music label has recorded countless concertos from the 19th century. The company hires smaller, less known, orchestras and has artists under contract. The company operates on a small profit margin. The artists aren't part of any 'star system' and don't, by any stretch, make enormous amounts of money.

I would suggest that the fact that if romantic music gives one the creeps, it emanates from something within the individual and has nothing to do with the quality of the music or the way it is performed, recorded or funded. And it is unfortunate that something that is very much a personal persuasion results in a recommendation to a relatively new listener to avoid the music in question.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Move on to all periods of Classical. Don’t get stuck.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I'm going to make a serious point, about me. There's something about the concerto tradition in western music which really turns me off. It's that it revolves around a star system, there's a star soloist, promoted by a PR machine, who's there to display his virtuosity and emotional depth, and who attracts an audience of groupies or near groupies. The same for 19th century solo music in fact.
> 
> This star system is strongest in the performers of 19th century romantic music, because for a number of complex reasons, the recording and concert business milks that music to make money.
> 
> ...


Mandryka, this is by far the worst post I've seen under your name. Hogwash, all of it. Except for the first sentence.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Yeah... Why is romantic music that hateful...


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

KevinW said:


> Why? I'd like to hear the explanation because I feel like Baroque and 20th century are two distinct genres of music and how could I love the both?


You noticed the emoji, I assume? I'm poking gentle fun at the idea that genres are so hermetically sealed that to cross from one to another is heresy...and to go from classical to pop means we're all going to hell in a handcart. :devil:

You should need neither permission nor advice from anyone here about what you listen to.

Just suck it and see.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Just try lots of different stuff. If you like it you like it. Genres / subgenres are unnecessary.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Have you tried Prokofiev's Classical Symphony yet? He's a 20th century composer but this symphony could have been written in the 18th century.


----------



## Dimboukas (Oct 12, 2011)

No, you will end up listening to lil uzi if you move on. (Your chances however to have sex will be better.)


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

From Mozart I would suggest moving on to Schubert then Beethoven then Mendelssohn. If that goes OK move on to Brahms and if that goes well try Wagner and Bruckner. Then you may be ready for Mahler.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Radames said:


> From Mozart I would suggest moving on to Schubert then Beethoven then Mendelssohn. If that goes OK move on to Brahms and if that goes well try Wagner and Bruckner. Then you may be ready for Mahler.


The shortest distance between two points is a straight line (geometry). Go to Mahler. Go directly to Mahler. Do not pass Wagner. Do not collect Bruckner (Monopoly)


----------

