# Your list of the 15 Seminal Works of the Romantic



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

only list one piece per composer... the 15 works which you feel best sums up the romantic period as an entity.

This is my attempt at a list....probably a bad one tho...


Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 (1824)
Schubert - Wintereise (1828)
Berlioz - Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
Chopin - Ballade No. 4 (1842)
Schumann - Piano Concerto (1845)
Mendelssohn - Violin Concerto (1845)
Liszt - Piano Sonata in B Minor (1853)
Wagner - Tristan und Isolde (1859)
Verdi - Aida (1871)
Mussorgsky - Picture's At An Exhbition (1874)
Smetana - Ma Vlast (1879)
Brahms - Symphony No. 4 (1885)
Dvorak - Piano Quintet No. 2 (1887)
Tchaikovsky - Sleeping Beauty (1889)
Mahler - Symphony No. 2 (1895)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

This should be a poll.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Pretty good list. I would just change the Dvorak to his Symphony No. 9 and the Tchaikovsky to either his The Nutcracker or Symphony No. 6.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Mmmm... seminal...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm always saying that people forgot what "romantic" really means but I'm very consoled by seeing no Rachmaninoff mentioned so far.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Beethoven - Symphony No. 9
Schumann - Manfred Overture
Chopin - Ballade No. 2
Schubert - Wintereise
Mendelssohn - 'Scottish' Symphony
Tschaikowsky - Swan Lake
Dvorak - Symphony No. 9
Smetana - Ma Vlast
Wagner - Ring
Ummmm......


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> I'm always saying that people forgot what "romantic" really means but I'm very consoled by seeing no Rachmaninoff mentioned so far.


I'm pretty sure Rachmaninov wrote in a romantic/post-romantic style...


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

That would make an interesting thread, what does "Romantic" mean.

And when I say interesting, I mean predictably contentious and uninformative.:devil:

I do know that by at least one fairly well-informed (historically informed) account, 19th century romanticism was pretty much over with by mid-century. That's all of it, art, literature, music. For a long time, the next thing was called Realism, and that included Wagner (whose subject matter might seem at first blush to be anything but).

And what about "seminal"? That means something different from "sums up" or even "important," as I've also seen it used. (I predict that if we keep using "influential" in its place that "influential" will come to mean "sums up" or "important" as well!!)


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

violadude said:


> I'm pretty sure Rachmaninov wrote in a romantic/post-romantic style...


Feel free to take rigid and so often badly forged terms as certainty if you want to, I prefer to think about original ideas behind artistic movements and if you consider those then Rachmaninoff has VERY little to do with romanticism as it appeared at first place in literature and poetry of early XIXth century. What those music schools do to people? I recommend you to think a little bit outside of academic musical terms.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Feel free to take rigid and so often badly forged terms as certainty if you want to, I prefer to think about original ideas behind artistic movements and if you consider those then Rachmaninoff has VERY little to do with romanticism as it appeared at first place in literature and poetry of early XIXth century. What those music schools do to people? I recommend you to think a little bit outside of academic musical terms.


Well I was hoping you would explain to me why you don't consider Rachmaninov to be a Romantic.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Beethoven 9 is not a romantic work.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Beethoven's 9th is a transitional piece....I was hesitant about it, but it sorta is the open doorway into the Romantic. 

Regarding my pick for Dvorak...I actually think the Piano Quintet is his best work, but more importantly, I wanted to represent chamber music...

I was going to pick the 6th for Tchaikovsky, but I went with his most awesome ballet instead to represent that aspect of the period.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

violadude said:


> Well I was hoping you would explain to me why you don't consider Rachmaninov to be a Romantic.


I've just explained it to you - I'm not going to give you free lesson about original ideas of romanticism, especially when I'm afraid that your answer would be like "it doesn't sound to me as encyclopedical definition and I can understand only things like that". Try reading some romantic poetry (Byron?) and find out that when it comes to expression (yes, you can compare expression of peotry and music), major themes, approach and stuff Rachmaninoff is barely romantic when compared to likes of Schumann.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Basically, violadude, you have to be bipolar or incestuous to count as a _real_ Romantic.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Rachmaninov wrote in the romantic style. He modeled himself after Tchaikovsky and other great 19th Century Russian romantics....trained by Taneyev side by side with Scriabin. Rachmaninov took a more conventional route than Scriabin.

Rachmaninov is not as seminal a romantic to me because in a sense he wasn't forward looking...whereas even Brahms who is criticized for being conventional, was forward looking. Rachmaninov is a romantic in style, but not a romantic in spirit. But ultimately his music falls under the romantic umbrella.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> Basically, violadude, you have to be bipolar or incestuous to count as a real Romantic


`
.... check out the personal background history for Rach´s 2nd cto then.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I've just explained it to you - I'm not going to give you free lesson about original ideas of romanticism, especially when I'm afraid that your answer would be like "it doesn't sound to me as encyclopedical definition and I can understand only things like that". Try reading some romantic poetry (Byron?) and find out that when it comes to expression (yes, you can compare expression of peotry and music), major themes, approach and stuff Rachmaninoff is barely romantic when compared to likes of Schumann.


Interesting idea. But in that case how do you regard Mahler and Strauss, for example?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Webernite said:


> Interesting idea. But in that case how do you regard Mahler and Strauss, for example?


I regard Mahler 1st symphony to be solidly romantic, in some ways his later works seem expressionist to me. But why would we need any "magical" word for every composer? I hardly consider term "impressionist" to be meaningful in context of music but I never tried to replace it with other, more apt word to describe Ravel or/and Debussy. I simply think of Debussy as progressive composer of break of the centuries.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> I've just explained it to you - I'm not going to give you free lesson about original ideas of romanticism, especially when I'm afraid that your answer would be like "it doesn't sound to me as encyclopedical definition and I can understand only things like that". Try reading some romantic poetry (Byron?) and find out that when it comes to expression (yes, you can compare expression of peotry and music), major themes, approach and stuff Rachmaninoff is barely romantic when compared to likes of Schumann.


hmm I don't appreciate the condescending tone. But anyway I agree that the tone and style of the early romantic period and the late romantic period are very different. But I'm afraid to say that unless you're some kind of world renowned music historian you can't just go around redefining terms. A term is something that exists so that when someone uses that term, everyone understands what you're talking about, if everyone just went around redefining terms at random, no one would understand anything and terms would be useless. Now that we've got that out of the way, the Romantic Period, Early or Late, as a term, has been defined by various music historians and what not to be a style that included:

-A strong conveyance of emotion
-a looser treatment of form when compared with the classical period
-lush orchestration
-A strong focus on program music
-A certain harmonic styles

So I would say, by this definition, Rachmaninov is a Romantic.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

violadude said:


> hmm I don't appreciate the condescending tone. But anyway I agree that the tone and style of the early romantic period and the late romantic period are very different. But I'm afraid to say that unless you're some kind of world renowned music historian you can't just go around redefining terms. A term is something that exists so that when someone uses that term, everyone understands what you're talking about, if everyone just went around redefining terms at random, no one would understand anything and terms would be useless. Now that we've got that out of the way, the Romantic Period, Early or Late, as a term, has been defined by various music historians and what not to be a style that included


I have no ambition to redefine the terms especially because I find term "romantic" to be already spoiled to the root. I do accept musical terms such as "post-romantic" when used to identify musical style but I'm more responsive when it's about more than that. Like in this thread where OP is asking about works which "sum up the romantic period". Now, like I've said, claiming that Rachmaninoff sums up/defines/conveys the major spirit of romanticism is outrageous nonsense. The thread refers to the spirit of romanticism, obviously, because it can't refer to concrete musical language - you already admit that there is major difference between things labeled with terms including word "romantic" in the world of classical music. It's impossible to "sum up" numerous diverse styles connected almost solely with similiar, superficial label.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> I have no ambition to redefine the terms especially because I find term "romantic" to be already spoiled to the root. I do accept musical terms such as "post-romantic" when used to identify musical style but I'm more responsive when it's about more than that. Like in this thread where OP is asking about works which "sum up the romantic period". Now, like I've said, claiming that Rachmaninoff sums up/defines/conveys the major spirit of romanticism is outrageous nonsense. The thread refers to the spirit of romanticism, obviously, because it can't refer to concrete musical language - you already admit that there is major difference between things labeled with terms including word "romantic" in the world of classical music. It's impossible to "sum up" numerous diverse styles connected almost solely with such term.


Well, I'm not too savvy on what defines the "spirit" of Romanticism, or the spirit of anything perhaps. I'm defining Rachmaninov's music by what the music sounds like to me, and to me, his music has the same general "Romantic Period Traits" that people have agreed bind the music of Beriloz-Mahler together.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> Well, I'm not to savvy on what defines the "spirit" of Romanticism, or the spirit of anything perhaps. I'm defining Rachmaninov's music by what the music sounds like to me, and to me, his music has the same general "Romantic Period Traits" that people have agreed bind the music of Beriloz-Mahler together.


I think Aramis may be focusing a little too much on the more tangible tenets of _literary_ Romanticism. While some composers shared certain outlooks with their literary counterparts, these are things that are not fully realised in the music because of the usual issues of it being devoid of language. As such, I think the way we currently define certain styles (early, mid, late Romanticism) in music is reasonable.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Polednice said:


> As such, I think the way we currently define certain styles (early, mid, late Romanticism) in music is reasonable.


As reasonable as putting composers from Monteverdi to Haydn to the "baroque" label and splitting it to early, middle and late baroque.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I didn't have to think about it too hard to realize that 'Romantic' as a descriptive word for the classical music (differentiated from the literature) of the 19th Century sucks big-time. It's main contrast with prior periods is a relaxation of compositional 'rules', and a trait I seem forced to call an exploitation of the significance of Strong Feelings in music. Emotional does not equal Romantic.

Emotional does not equal Romantic in music
*
"Emotional" ain't "Romantic"*


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Wagner - Tristan und Isolde

I have no more interest in listing the "seminal works" of other composers than I would in listing Olympic silver medalists and Nobel Prize runner-ups.


----------

