# Anyone Else Find the Romantic Era one of the Least Enjoyable Eras?



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

For whatever reason, I haven't been able to warm up to the Romantic Era. Composers like Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, and Bruckner just don't interest me. I really like Baroque/Classical and some of the 20th Century. Anyways interested in others opinions. Hopefully I'm not alone.  Btw I don't dislike all Romantic. Faure, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, and Chopin are a few I like. I guess it is mainly the German Romantics.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Its fine as long as you like Beethoven&Sibelius.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Sibelius is borderline 20th Century but I guess still considered Romantic Era by many. Same with Faure.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

No .


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

As you say, I think it may just be the Germanic flavour of Romanticism that you don't find enjoyable. Faure was dubbed the French Brahms by some, and Dvorak was heavily influenced by Brahms as a kind of mentor, but they each brought their own national flavour to their writing style. Similarly, Tchaikovsky and Sibelius are very much tied to national influences while Chopin simply wrote like no one else.

Personally, the Romantic era has always been my favourite, and it is most over-represented in my recordings. After that, I enjoy classical and 20th century music about equally, and baroque not at all.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Mephistopheles said:


> Faure was dubbed the French Brahms by some


He's been called the French "Schubert".

I love the romantic era a lot. It's my favorite era together with classicism.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mephistopheles said:


> As you say, I think it may just be the Germanic flavour of Romanticism that you don't find enjoyable. Faure was dubbed the French Brahms by some, and Dvorak was heavily influenced by Brahms as a kind of mentor, but they each brought their own national flavour to their writing style. Similarly, Tchaikovsky and Sibelius are very much tied to national influences while Chopin simply wrote like no one else.
> 
> Personally, the Romantic era has always been my favourite, and it is most over-represented in my recordings. After that, I enjoy classical and 20th century music about equally, and baroque not at all.


Baroque is beautiful. I don't understand how anyone can't enjoy Baroque. Romanticism tends to go like this. Soft/loud/soft/loud. Reallly long movements. Not so memorable melodies. Brass getting really loud. At least that is how the Symphonies of German Romanticism tends to be.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> He's been called the French "Schubert".


Not by Aaron Copland (look it up). :tiphat:



neoshredder said:


> Baroque is beautiful. I don't understand how anyone can't enjoy Baroque. Romanticism tends to go like this. Soft/loud/soft/loud. Reallly long movements. Not so memorable melodies. Brass getting really loud. At least that is how the Symphonies of German Romanticism tends to be.


To me, Romantic melodies are the most memorable of all, although I would agree with you that long-windedness is a no-no. That's actually why I _prefer_ early and middle German Romanticism because it generally features tight structures rather than anything loose and rhapsodic (I still can't get into Mahler because of that).

To me, Baroque music has few memorable melodies, and whatever melodies it does have sound to me like a springboard for romanticised nostalgia about a period drama. Romantic music dives straight into my heart; Baroque music provides an ambient backdrop for a cheap, interactive history tour. I also find that it all pretty much sounds like this:

Starting melody, sweet, sweet melody, and then... messypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonycan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingmessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphony


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Starting melody, sweet, sweet melody, and then... messypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypol yphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonyme ssypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonycan'theara nythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thear anythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'thea ranythingcan'thearanythingcan'thearanythingcan'the aranythingcan'thearanythingmessypolyphonymessypoly phonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymes sypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyphonymessypolyph onymessypolyphony

happens to be one of the more interesting forms of music to me


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Romantic music was engaging as a young listener. I still have my favorites. But I'm mainly interested in 20th century music.

If I had the time, I would seek out more chamber and solo music from the romantic era.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Romantic is certainly not my favorite era, although I prefer Romantic era before than the Classical era all my life. BTW, my favorite is XX century.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Romantic music speaks to my sensibilities very much :3 The colors are just amazing <3


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

I like Romantic Era mostly for chamber music and some concertos.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Because hearing about people's dislikes (especially when they agree with yours) is far more interesting than hearing about what they like.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I've had different phases. When I was young, I liked the big stuff like Wagner. Later, I liked classical and Baroque. Then I got into Early Music - Renaissance, Gothic, etc. I never liked the Romantic era until recently, and now I'm into a late Romantic/20th Century phase. 

So to answer your question, as of today, no. But next year, maybe.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I adore music from the 20th Century for the same reason (or simply because imaginative things interest me), same with certain music of the Baroque and Classical and Renaissance, and same with jazz, rock, and electronic music. I like music of imagination and color (which is hard to describe, tbh). By color I mean something like a combination of harmony and timbre and texture.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Romantic music doesn't lend itself as well to being background music, if that's what you're looking for in baroque.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Romantic music doesn't lend itself as well to being background music, if that's what you're looking for in baroque.


That's not it. Keep on trying.


----------



## Dimboukas (Oct 12, 2011)

I don't like baroque music very much because I think of many baroque composers as subjects to royal courts where they were "forced" to compose lighthearted music for the pleasure of their master. It sounds to me like most baroque pieces of the less known composers were written in a few hours using the same formulas for the next day to be presented at the dinner of the master.


----------



## Jord (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm constantly alternating between favourite eras every week! I find the Romantic Era fairly similar, but all i've really listened to is Chopin and Liszt :lol: i've recently started to love Baroque and going off classical


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Baroque is beautiful. I don't understand how anyone can't enjoy Baroque. Romanticism tends to go like this. Soft/loud/soft/loud. Reallly long movements. Not so memorable melodies. Brass getting really loud. At least that is how the Symphonies of German Romanticism tends to be.


You mean like a Brahms symphony or Bruckner symphony - long, pretends to be very serious music but really just sounds bombastic. i agree.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Tchaikovsky and Mahler are the only Romantic composers I really like (so far). Others are ok sometimes, I am coming round to liking some I hated more (Brahms and Wagner), but not really on the same page as my favourites mostly. The Classical Era is my favourite, followed by the Renaissance at the moment.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Mephistopheles said:


> Not by Aaron Copland (look it up). :tiphat:


I actually didn't know about that. I always knew that he was called a French "Schubert" because of his vocal works.

Also, Faure is very underrated, he wrote lovely music and it's always a joy listening to him.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

For me, Romantic era is only really good for *Wieniawski (!!!!!!!!!!),* Mahler, Wagner, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mussorgsky, Puccini, Rimsky-Korsakov, Strauss (Richard not the other ones), Berlioz, Chopin, Legnani, Coste, Farrenc and Mendelssohn. My least favourite period is Classical period. But really, I enjoy what's come out of all eras of classical music.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> For whatever reason, I haven't been able to warm up to the Romantic Era. Composers like Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, and Bruckner just don't interest me. I really like Baroque/Classical and some of the 20th Century. Anyways interested in others opinions. Hopefully I'm not alone.  Btw I don't dislike all Romantic. Faure, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, and Chopin are a few I like. I guess it is mainly the German Romantics.


I mostly agree with neoshredder.

In my case, romantics like Liszt, Chopin, Shuman, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, etc., are not in my list of most enjoyable music.

The entire Baroque era, in my opinion, is wonderful. I love how much we can find in a Trio Sonata or how much can we abide in a Fugue.

Also, the polyphony era, the Ars Antiqua and the Ars Nova are just outstanding musical adventures.

Not to mention Viennese Classicism with Mozart, Boccherini & Hayden.

The transition period with Telemann and the Bach Gang & 'friends' as one of the most interesting eras of experimentation from where the Sonata Form was developed.

About Beethoven, all his musical output is enjoyable.

But after that, I haven't found with the 'romantics' such beautiful moments.

Maybe, the one which I consider peaks of chamber music are Dvorak and Brahms.

I like Nielsen, Sibelius and Sostakovich's string quartets and most of the avant grade and contemporary authors are good for me.

I have started exploring Ligeti's and it seem like I am understanding him.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

@neoshredder, do you also not like Mahler, Richard Strauss, and Schoenberg?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> For me, Romantic era is only really good for Mahler, Wagner, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Strauss (Richard not the other ones), Berlioz, Chopin, Legnani, Coste, Farrenc and Mendelssohn. My least favourite period is Classical period. But really, I enjoy what's come out of all eras of classical music.


_Only_? I'd call that a pretty nice amount of artists. Wait... no Beethoven? Neither Schumann? No Debussy or Satie (I know classification of them as "Romantic" is debatable, but they certainly were composers in the Romantic era)? No Saint-Saens? No Borodin? No Puccini? No Verdi? No Leoncavallo? No Adam? No Delibes? And I know he's not particularly _highly_ regarded, especially among snobby modernists, but what is wrong with Johann Strauss II? I think he wrote some pretty awesome music.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> _Only_? I'd call that a pretty nice amount of artists. Wait... no Beethoven? Neither Schumann? No Debussy or Satie (I know classification of them as "Romantic" is debatable, but they certainly were composers in the Romantic era)? No Saint-Saens? No Borodin? No Puccini? No Verdi? No Leoncavallo? No Adam? No Delibes? And I know he's not particularly _highly_ regarded, especially among snobby modernists, but what is wrong with Johann Strauss II? I think he wrote some pretty awesome music.


Don't forget: NO WIENIAWSKI??? 

:lol:


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> @neoshredder, do you also not like Mahler, Richard Strauss, and Schoenberg?


Tbh I haven't heard enough Mahler. Heard Symphony 1 of his. It was alright. But if he is too much like Bruckner, I probably won't like it. But the order goes like this for me. And I guess I do like Mendelssohn and Paganini as well. 
1. Baroque
2. Classical (CPE Bach, Boccherini, Stamitz, Haydn, Mozart, Clementi, Hummel, Beethoven, Schubert)
3. 20th Century 
4. Romanticism
5. Early Music though I probably didn't give it much of a chance.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

To me, romanticism is IT, the core, the heart of all classical music - especially and above all German romanticism, all the way from early to late. I like all the other eras as well, but they can't stand a comparision. It's like the music of this era bypasses the limits of language (and music!) and talks directly to my brain. So I'm pretty much the opposite of you, neoshredder


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Tbh I haven't heard enough Mahler. Heard Symphony 1 of his. It was alright. But if he is too much like Bruckner, I probably won't like it. But the order goes like this for me. And I guess I do like Mendelssohn and Paganini as well.
> 1. Baroque
> 2. Classical (CPE Bach, Boccherini, Stamitz, Haydn, Mozart, Clementi, Hummel, Beethoven, Schubert)
> 3. 20th Century
> ...


1. 20th Century & Romantic, also Rock, Jazz, Electronic music, Folk music
2. The better parts of Baroque (Bach, Vivaldi, Biber, Rameau)
3. Medieval, Antiquity, Renaissance, early Baroque
4. The better parts of Classical (Haydn, some Mozart)

4.5. Silence <3

5. The more bland parts of Baroque (Handel)
6. Most Classical

*also, Beethoven and Schubert are Romantic


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Lists now? Ok: 

1. Baroque 
2. Romantic 
3. Classical 
4. 20th Century 

But Baroque and Romantic can be switched around at any time, depends how I feel.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> To me, romanticism is IT, the core, the heart of all classical music - especially and above all German romanticism, all the way from early to late. I like all the other eras as well, but they can't stand a comparision. It's like the music of this era bypasses the limits of language (and music!) and talks directly to my brain. So I'm pretty much the opposite of you, neoshredder


Different opinions are welcomed.  That kind of music bores me to death though. I probably don't get into Classical Music if it was only Romantic Era I heard. It was Baroque that got me into Classical Music. I will always be true to it. Though I've stretched out to 20th Century as well.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

1. ALL Twentieth century (not including romantic composers that kinda spilled over from the late 1800s, Sibelius, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Elgar, Strauss etc. )
2. Early baroque (about 1600-1650)
3. The rest of Baroque
4. The awesome romantic composers (Wagner, Mahler, R. Strauss, Bruckner, Liszt, Berlioz, etc.)
5. Late Beethoven
6. The almost awesome romantic composers (Mendelssohn, Puccini, Verdi, Late Schubert, Rachmaninov, Farrenc, Szopen, Sarasate, Wieniawski, Legnani, Coste, Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini etc.)
7. Sturm und Drang (Especially CPE Bach and Haydn symphonies)
8. Renaissance
9. The rest of classical (Hummel, Giuliani, Stamitz, Soler, Mozart, early and mid Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Bocherrini etc.)
10. The not so awesome romantic composers (Brahms, Sibelius, Schumann, Albeniz, Granados etc.)
11. Medieval secular
12. Medieval sacred
13. The unlistenable romantic composers (Elgar, Delibes, Meyerbeer etc.)


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> 1. ALL Twentieth century (not including romantic composers that kinda spilled over from the late 1800s, Sibelius, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Elgar, Strauss etc. )
> 2. Early baroque (about 1600-1650)
> 3. The rest of Baroque
> 4. The awesome romantic composers (Wagner, Mahler, R. Strauss, Bruckner, Liszt, Berlioz, etc.)
> ...


Delibes unlistenable? I am disappoint.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> 1. ALL Twentieth century (not including romantic composers that kinda spilled over from the late 1800s, Sibelius, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Elgar, Strauss etc. )
> 2. Early baroque (about 1600-1650)
> 3. The rest of Baroque
> 4. The awesome romantic composers (Wagner, Mahler, R. Strauss, Bruckner, Liszt, Berlioz, etc.)
> ...


Oh well, at least you sort of mentioned Wieniawski, it's a start anyway.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Oh well, at least you sort of mentioned Wieniawski, it's a start anyway.


I don't see _you_ mentioning composers like Giuliani, Sor, Aguado, Coste, Legnani, Carulli, Tarrega and Brouwer!


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't see _you_ mentioning composers like Giuliani, Sor, Aguado, Coste, Legnani, Carulli, Tarrega and Brouwer!


Sor who? Aguado? Coste? Carulli? Tarrega? Brouwer?

I'm afraid I've only heard two of that lot. If I haven't heard of them, how can I mention them?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Sor who? Aguado? Coste? Carulli? Tarrega? Brouwer?
> 
> I'm afraid I've only heard two of that lot. If I haven't heard of them, how can I mention them?


Which two?


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Which two?


Legnani and Giuliani.

Can't remember where I heard Legnani but for some reason I have... Giuliani wrote fantastic music by the way! Lol..


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Legnani and Giuliani.
> 
> Can't remember where I heard Legnani but for some reason I have... Giuliani wrote fantastic music by the way! Lol..


Favourite Legnani Caprice? Favourite Giuliani Concerto?


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Favourite Legnani Caprice? Favourite Giuliani Concerto?


I've only heard _of_ Legnani, don't know whether I've actually heard anything by him.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

1. Beethoven
2. Sibelius
3. Rest of the romantics
4. Classical era
5. Baroque& modern


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> That kind of music bores me to death though.


When you say music bores you, you're saying more about yourself and your ability to appreciate than you are the music.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> When you say music bores you, you're saying more about yourself and your ability to appreciate than you are the music.


When you are making judgements about other music-lovers, you are saying more about yourself than you are about them.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> _Only_? I'd call that a pretty nice amount of artists. Wait... no Beethoven? Neither Schumann? No Debussy or Satie (I know classification of them as "Romantic" is debatable, but they certainly were composers in the Romantic era)? No Saint-Saens? No Borodin? No Puccini? No Verdi? No Leoncavallo? No Adam? No Delibes? And I know he's not particularly _highly_ regarded, especially among snobby modernists, but what is wrong with Johann Strauss II? I think he wrote some pretty awesome music.


I would consider Debussy and Satie as neo-classicism. But if you consider them Romantic, that Era gets a heck of a lot more diverse. Even Faure is close to neo-classicism imo. Or in one word they don't like, Impressionism. And I do like Johann Strauss II in small doses. He is like Romantic Pop.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> I would consider Debussy and Satie as neo-classicism. But if you consider them Romantic, that Era gets a heck of a lot more diverse. Even Faure is close to neo-classicism imo. Or in one word they don't like, Impressionism. And I do like Johann Strauss II in small doses. He is like Romantic Pop.


How are Satie and Debussy neo-classical? o3o Most of their music deviates considerably from classical forms (Debussy even accused Satie's music of being formless), let alone the differences from classical harmonic progressions. I think their music fits with the Romantics, where form was being stretched and experimented with in many ways, and complex, increasingly more chromatic or ambiguous or dissonant harmonies were being used. They also fit into Modernism in their experiments in inventing new forms, and working outside of the standard progressions. If anybody is "neo-classical", you could make that claim for Brahms, and at times Tchaikovsky (though he was really too cosmopolitan to put into any narrow camp of romantics).


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Debussy isn't Romantic nor neo-classical. The only word that explains it is Impressionism but he didn't like that term. Oh well. Romanticism was about emotions. Impressionism was more about art and visualizing your music. Using unusual scales as well. Just a way more interesting sound imo than what Romanticism was about. Satie belongs in that group as well though much weaker than Debussy's works imo. But still enjoyable imo. So Debussy has more in common with 20th Century Composers than Romanticism imo. Like Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, and etc.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> How are Satie and Debussy neo-classical? o3o Most of their music deviates considerably from classical forms (Debussy even accused Satie's music of being formless), let alone the differences from classical harmonic progressions. I think their music fits with the Romantics, where form was being stretched and experimented with in many ways, and complex, increasingly more chromatic or ambiguous or dissonant harmonies were being used. They also fit into Modernism in their experiments in inventing new forms, and working outside of the standard progressions. If anybody is "neo-classical", you could make that claim for Brahms, and at times Tchaikovsky (though he was really too cosmopolitan to put into any narrow camp of romantics).


I consider Debussy etc. to be early modernists of the 20th century, just like the Second Viennese School going at the same time.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Debussy isn't Romantic nor neo-classical. The only word that explains it is Impressionism but he didn't like that term. Oh well. Romanticism was about emotions. Impressionism was more about art and visualizing your music. Using unusual scales as well. Just a way more interesting sound imo than what Romanticism was about. Satie belongs in that group as well though much weaker than Debussy's works imo. But still enjoyable imo. So Debussy has more in common with 20th Century Composers than Romanticism imo. Like Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, and etc.


Romanticism isn't just about emotion. Use of "unusual scales" is far from a Debussy invention (he was heavily influenced by the Russian Romantics, who made heavy use of pentatonic, whole-tone, and octatonic scales). I also find it silly to suggest the music is all about visuals (I think that is a connection made more by listeners than by the composer himself, I think he was more interested in poetry, something else in common with many of the Romantics). Even if we're limiting it to such things, plenty of "Romantic" music is EXTREMELY visual in nature, and Debussy (and many of the Modernists, like Ravel and Ives and Bartok) wrote music that is pretty emotional sounding to me. I think people also stereotype Romantic music as having extreme bombast, and so they think if a composer eschews bombast (as Debussy did in many pieces, and Satie did in most pieces) they must be "objective" or "classical" or "disspassionate" or "detached" and I find that somewhat nonsensical. Its unfair to Romantic music in implying that it lacks subtlety, or brevity, or restraint, and it ignores the very quiet and restrained Romantic writing of composers like Chopin. It assumes that if something is quiet, or unusual then it must be unemotional music, and I find that silly. I hear considerable emotion in La Mer, and the Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, and in the Gymnopedies and Nocturnes of Satie. Personally I think it is a bit vague, that composers can fit into several schools for various reasons.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Debussy isn't Romantic nor neo-classical. The only word that explains it is Impressionism but he didn't like that term. Oh well. Romanticism was about emotions. Impressionism was more about art and visualizing your music. Using unusual scales as well. Just a way more interesting sound imo than what Romanticism was about. Satie belongs in that group as well though much weaker than Debussy's works imo. But still enjoyable imo. So Debussy has more in common with 20th Century Composers than Romanticism imo. Like Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, and etc.


Almost everything in life is about emotions, including almost all styles of music. To say that Romanticism was _the_ movement _about_ emotions is incorrect. You might be a little more specific and suggest that Romanticism was about _melodrama_, but I think even that is wrong. I think this is an anachronistic view people hold in the same way that people look at music of the Classical period as being generally quaint, twee, and bright. We only see it that way because of how it is stereotypically contextualised time and again when we are first exposed to it in youth, and because of how it compares to the many different styles of music we hear at the same time. To contemporary audiences, it would have sounded perhaps unimaginably different. I believe the same is true of Romanticism - it sounds like melodrama only because it has since been appropriated for melodramatic purposes in 20th century media. Obviously, there is a greater extent of emotionally heavy artists' biographies seeping into the music of the 19th century, but even cases like Robert Schumann are over-read and over-analysed. If people listen to Romantic music only because it's a legal alternative to ecstasy, they are missing out on a great deal. As I think I said elsewhere, the reason I particularly enjoy German Romanticism of the early and middle periods is that it is all about the _forms_ of classical music, but stretched to a greater variety and intensity of complexity.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I consider Debussy etc. to be early modernists of the 20th century, just like the Second Viennese School going at the same time.


I'd consider Debussy to be something of a modernist, but honestly I think he was also a Romantic (as I would also consider Schoenberg and Ives).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> When you are making judgements about other music-lovers, you are saying more about yourself than you are about them.


It's not a judgement. It's self evident. If you are bored with music, your mind isn't involved. That doesn't mean the music is devoid of stimulating content, it just means your mind isn't involved. Boredom is the brain's equivalent of a test pattern. The world is full of stimulation. If you find yourself bored a lot, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> It's not a judgement. It's self evident. If you are bored with music, your mind isn't involved. That doesn't mean the music is devoid of stimulating content, it just means your mind isn't involved. Boredom is the brain's equivalent of a test pattern. The world is full of stimulation. If you find yourself bored a lot, you're doing it wrong.


It was obvious what you were trying to do. Trying to explain it makes it only worse.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

bigshot said:


> It's not a judgement. It's self evident. If you are bored with music, your mind isn't involved. That doesn't mean the music is devoid of stimulating content, it just means your mind isn't involved. Boredom is the brain's equivalent of a test pattern. The world is full of stimulation. If you find yourself bored a lot, you're doing it wrong.


Have you ever made a post in which you don't come across as a smug jackass?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Have you ever made a post in which you don't come across as a smug jackass?


I love you Crudblud <3


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I love you Crudblud <3


CoAG the Psychic Match Maker says: what is your star sign?


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

No seeing how most of my favorites are from that era


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Manok said:


> No seeing how most of my favorites are from that era


Glad you appreciate the Baroque Era.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I love Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, etc., but much of the later romanticism does not appeal to me. I was never hugely into Wagner, Dvorak, or Mahler, for example—I sometimes find it a bit distasteful.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

A note to the mods: I'm not insulted. No need to take any action on my account. Thanks!


----------

