I haven't seen anybody mention Berlioz, so I'm gonna throw "Vallon Sonore" out there, from Les Troyens.

When he isn't doing first-rate Romantic film scores, Morricone is one of them modernist-nihilist cacophanists as Linz would call 'em (and I'd call 'em on many a day myself). His collection of both film and non-film music on 4 discs, titled io, Ennio Morricone, was just added to the Napster and Rhapsody catalogs. (The film music disc is primo stuff -- it's sold separately as a release simply titled Film Music as well as disc 1 of the 2-disc release Itinerary of a Genius which is the first two discs of this 4-disc set.) The last 2 discs of this set are exclusively his non-film work. I'm listening to "Concerto No. 1 Per Orchestra" right now, and for modernist-nihilist cacophany, it's pretty fuckin' good! The guy's mastered all styles.

You can get 25 free track plays at Rhapsody.com (probably at Napster, too). A few personal faves (you'll need to click on the "play" button after following the links):

Morricone, "The Legend of the Pianist" (you know? how the strings soar and sustain like that?)

Delius, "Idyll Printemps"

Vaughan Williams, Symphony No. 2 -- track 2, Lento.

Durufle's Requiem, Op. 9 -- track 5 ("Pie Jesu") is a good one

Say, is 1900's Theme (Morricone; also Legend of 1900 soundtrack) the same kind of sense-of-life as Halley's Fifth?

I of course continue to concede that Linz is the final judge on all matters of Romantic taste -- only that this doesn't make him right. I realize that listen #16,001 of Sib 2 won't change things for Linz, but if he hasn't heard Hanson's 2nd yet (aptly titled the "Romantic" symphony), I'd anticipate that he'd find it more to his liking. Just ignore the parts that come off as too . . . clashy, should I say? I dunno, for me, they're kind of part and parcel to the whole, the storm to the calm if you will. Here's my top-20 list of favorite symphonies after getting over my thankfully-short-lived "it's gotta sound like Beethoven for me to like it" complex, though there's some considerable drop-off after about #15 or so:

1-3. Bruckner 7
Sibelius 2
Vaughan Williams 3 "Pastoral"
4. Beethoven 6 "Pastoral"
5. Beethoven 5
6. Hanson 2 "Romantic"
7. Brahms 3
8. Brahms 1
9. Beethoven 7
10. Dvorak 7
11. Dvorak 9
12. Tchaikovsky 5
13. Tchaikovsky 6
14. Beethoven 4
15. Chausson (lone symphony)
16. Schmidt 4
17. Beethoven 9
18. Saint-Saens 3 "Organ"
19. Walton 1
20. Hanson 3

There's also of course the very Romantic "Adaghietto" in Mahler 5 that may be too messy and all over the place for the Final Arbiters of Romanticism amongst us....

Anyone heard Delius's "Idylle Printemps"? Or, or, or . . . .

(I could literally go on, if anyone wants. [voice shouting from over there: "Morricone!"] Ah, heck with it, I might as well just link to my own list of favorites again. )

In reference to JR's Mozart-diminishing below (in the very post referencing Bach's Partita #2 I hopped onto the site today to locate), I'll throw another article out there in the same spirit:
Too much Mozart makes you sick
Ouch.

[P.S. Tchaikovsky regarded Mozart as a great inspiration. Sorry, Linz . . . ]

Kelly, I started out with movie soundtracks. I'm a novice with classical but it seems to me that the composers of soundtracks have the high ground.

I have about fifty soundtracks ranging from Maurice Jarre's Lawrence of Arabia to Ennio Morricone's Untouchables. Soundtracks are, above all, thematic.

Rand's definiton of literature applies to serious music. It has a theme. It has a plot, and it has characters, manifested as instruments. It also has a style. A delivery, if you like. Movie music is very accessible. Jump into it

The 3rd Symphony is a beautiful work, no doubt about it. If you like it, you will definitely also like the 5th. Don't bother with the 4th, a noisy and cacophanous work of Tonal Modernism. But definitely check out the 2nd, the "London" Symphony," perhaps the greatest symphonic work of the Impressionist movement.

As to Vaughan Williams's other symphonies, the 1st isn't a symphony at all, really. It's a choral work, a setting of several Walt Whitman poems on the sea. Mahler used to waste his time on this sort of thing, too -- witness Das Lied von der Erde and the Kindertotenlieder. Huge orchestras with huge choruses and not much of either melody or interesting development (to say nothing of orchestral color). Only one of Mahler's symphonies, the 8th, belongs in this category. Only one of Vaughan Williams's, the 1st, belongs there too.

The Vaughan Williams 6th is a mixed bag. It has its moments, but I think it runs afoul of Linz's criticism that too much 20th Century orchestral music is too formless in an overall sense. The 6th could be characterized as four movements wandering aimlessly around in search of something that could unite them in a symphony. The 7th, put together from his soundtrack to a documentary film about Antartica, also has its moments, and much orchestral color, but no overall form. The 8th and 9th return to the composer's previous high standards where form is concerned, but are rather arid and passionless -- typical Tonal Modernism.

Also, BTW, don't miss his The Lark Ascending: A Romance for Violin and Orchestra. This
is a very fine recorded performance of this work and the Symphony #2 "London."

JR

Proceeding from this discussion just commenced on a music site.

Ralph ("Don't call me Raife") Vaughan Williams Symphony #3 ("Pastoral")
Olivier Messiaen, Quartet for the End of Time

Gettin' all up and mystical here. Speaking of mystical, Morricone did indeed reportedly infuse mystical elements of personal significance into his The Mission soundtrack. It's actually the title soundtrack that I've come to like at least as much as "Gabriel's Oboe." It has a remarkable turn of phrasing in there that is echoed -- actually, even bettered -- in the title theme on the original soundtrack to Casualties of War, which I haven't been able to obtain any recording of (it's not the "Elegy for Brown" cue that gets fine treatment from Yo-Yo Ma on his Plays Morricone CD), aside from a performance on DVD (Morricone Conducts Morricone) recorded at Munich. The original soundtrack is out-of-print and this title theme hasn't popped up on any compilations I'm aware of.

The Mission isn't the only one to get you blousey; there are the Once Upon a Time themes, Lolita, Cinema Paradiso, maybe even Love Affair . . .

I can't believe the length of this thread! Look, I'm no classical expert but here's my two cent's worth... I love "Ode to Joy" because it fills me with such a wonderful spirit - so Beet's gets my vote. Morricone's soundtrack for "The Mission" can make me weep when I'm feeling blousey. And I agree with all of you who've noted the music in Ridley Scott's films - especially "Kingdom of Heaven", which my lover and I saw again in the weekend. It was the director's cut, 194 minutes of epic heroism carried by the music of Harry Gregson-Williams - brilliant!

I agree with Linz about this piece, but I will also admit that I loved it as a kid -- along with the 1812 Overture, Beethoven's Wellington's Victory, much Johann Strauss and Franz von Suppe, and all sorts of other things I can no longer listen to without wincing. For a young enough listener -- or perhaps for one inexperienced enough with symphonic music -- such stuff can be perfectly legitimate training wheels.

JR

This is a great thread. As much as I enjoy Wagner I wouldn't recommend The Ring Cycle for a newbie to classical music. Personally, I think Kelly should just get hold of any classical greatest hits album and go from there. Those CDs are full of 3-minute wonders which will be perfect for someone fed on a diet of rock, hip-hop, etc. Plus Kelly you will recognise half of them which will make it all that more accessible to you. I started that way and found that the music that caught my attention all happened to be by Tchaikovsky, Rach and Puccini. Funnily enough, Ride of the Valkyries was the very first classical song that I fell in love with.

I was a part of an operation (accidentally?!) into Cambodia in 1966 that was even more impressive than that bit of film, except we didn't have any music. We had hovercraft and air assault and airboats; killed 56 vrs 1 WIA. No civilian casualties. Surreal.

--Brant

Linz should like Ride of the Valkyries.

Music to bomb Iran to

Buh buh-buh bo-ring
Buh buh-buh bo-ring
Buh buh-buh booo-ring
Buh buh-buh BOOORRRRR!!

Boring? BORING? BORING??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

It's just bloody boring!

Gawd, ROTV must be the Wagnerian equivalent of headbanging caterwauling to you, Linz...

... about my Irish friend O'Cresswell & his late-life Wagner fetish. He decided to educate himself a few years back, knowing next to no music except Lou Reed at that time. Just went a bit funny with it, that's all. As Irish contrarians do. He'll grow out of it. Meantime there'd be no harm in Wagner's Greatest Hits. Apart from the Ride of the Fucking Valkyries! Gawd!!

I always wonder about why attention span is such an issue in music. People sit through 2 hour movies, read books for hours, etc., why is a full length recording such a chore? Even in rock music, a 20 minute piece is said to be indulgent. Never understood that...(though Wagner was certainly pushing it with the Ring...)

Especially "Ring" highlights. What quicker, better way to drive away a newbie?

Checking the history of things (via my reliable reporting to HPO at the time), it turns out that I bought a Wagner "essentials" CD at the same time that I bought the Rach and Beethoven. There must be a good reason I didn't recall that purchase along with the other two. Whatever the reasons, I'd say to leave the Wagner to later listening. I don't see how the newbie could really be ready for it -- to like it, hate it, or draw whatever judgment about it.

If you must, though, I'd say to start with overtures, not the damn Ring highlights (I couldn't get past the fucking screaming Germans [fucking Nazis -- c'mon they were threatening castration, are we going to split hairs here?]). Why needlessly subject a newbie to opera? There's only one essential piece of opera for the newbie, and it's the Nessun Dorma from Puccini's Turandot. Talk about an attention-span-overload, otherwise. Baby steps here!

The essential Wagner overtures for starting-out are the "Ride of the Valkyries" which anyone who has emerged from a cave should already know, and the Liebstod from "Tristan und Isolde" for the height-of-Romanticism thing.

Otherwise, I wouldn't think of urging Wagner on a newbie. All in due course. Get acquanted with some others first.

Opera's a whole other thing unto itself. I've barely even gotten around to putting a small dent in the tip of the iceberg in that whole arena myself. I really don't see how it's for beginners.

Anyway, how can you really understand Wagner without some context, i.e., the composers that came before him, in the German (namely, Beethoven) as well as Romantic traditions? You'd want some straightforward Romanticism first, before you begin to dabble in the way Wagner blew it wide open and spawned the later Romanticism everyone here's been going on about.

Don't forget to include Oistrakh on the Sibelius violin concerto in that report!

Lose your doubt, Linz. Repeated listenings will reveal the overall form you're missing now from too infrequent exposure to the piece. (I well remember listening time after time to Mahler's symphonies, after I first discovered them more than thirty years ago, struggling to grasp the overall structure underlying these immense creations. Eventually I succeeded.) Sibelius's 1st doesn't wear its structure on its sleeve the way Beethoven and Brahms and Tchaikovsky do; but that doesn't mean it isn't there. More important than developing an informed ear for the 1st, however, is that you listen several times through to Sibelius's 2nd and 5th symphonies.

I'll give these things a decent chance, then. Obviously I won't be reporting back immediately. Stay tuned.

Well, you asked:

If you want to try music that is at the very height of Romanticism, I'd suggest you get hold of Solti's 2-CD set of Wagner's Ring Highlights, turn it up to eleven, press play, and then repeat for twelve hours. By the end of the day, if you're not overjoyed at what you've heard - if you can't hear Siegfried's Funeral Music for instance and feel the hairs on your spine all a-tingle -- I'll give you your money back myself. And you can stick to rap.

Oh, and I'd recommend another piece as an antidote just in case you need to wash all that Germanism right out of your hair: apply extended doses of Duke Ellington's ebullient 'Far East Suite' as a laughter-filled antidote. As late-Romanticism goes, this is about as lyrical as it gets.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Linz writes of the way in which "[d]isintegration & rambling, unresolved dissonance crept in" to Western music during the late Romantic period as it edged toward modernism. "Shape went out the window," he writes, "in an excessive rebellion against the discipline of form. I've just listened to the Sibelius Symphony #1 that Jeff recommended. I think it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There are wondrous moments, especially the soaring theme of the 4th movement. But they're nuggets in a noisy, blobby dross. Maybe I'm missing secrets that repeated listenings will yield up, but I doubt it."

Lose your doubt, Linz. Repeated listenings will reveal the overall form you're missing now from too infrequent exposure to the piece. (I well remember listening time after time to Mahler's symphonies, after I first discovered them more than thirty years ago, struggling to grasp the overall structure underlying these immense creations. Eventually I succeeded.) Sibelius's 1st doesn't wear its structure on its sleeve the way Beethoven and Brahms and Tchaikovsky do; but that doesn't mean it isn't there. More important than developing an informed ear for the 1st, however, is that you listen several times through to Sibelius's 2nd and 5th symphonies. Every single one of Sibelius's seven symphonies is outstanding, but the 2nd and the 5th are particularly notable. When Roy Childs introduced me to the 5th in the early 1970s, he told me that "some people" (he never said who) considered it the natural theme music for Atlas Shrugged. I agree. In the first movement, you can hear the straining, the murderous effort Dagny exerts in her efforts to build the John Galt Line. At the end of the movement you hear the Taggart train's triumphant approach to and crossing of the bridge of Rearden Metal and its arrival at Wyatt Junction. In the second movement, you're at Dagny and Franciso's tennis game. In the finale you're returning with Galt and his strikers to reclaim the world.

Performance means a lot in listening to the music of the early 20th Century. I'm not sure whose rendition of the Sibelius 1st you're listening to, but allow me to suggest the recordings made by Bernstein with the New York Philharmonic in the '60s. They remain the best performances ever recorded of all the Sibelius symphonies. (Caveat: I last worked in classical radio about twelve years ago and haven't really kept up with what's come out since then; perhaps there are some newer recordings of the Sibelius symphonies which I'd consider comparable to -- or even better than -- the Bernstein.)

This is a prize well worth the price being asked.

Boaz commented earlier that certain of the 20th Century composers I mentioned in my post on Late Romanticism weren't really Romantics. This is true. Stravinsky, for example, experimented with many musical styles over the course of his career, including neo-Classicism and even (gag!) serialism. There's scarcely anything in his catalog other than the Firebird that you could reasonably speak of as Romantic. But the Firebird is extravagantly Romantic -- Rimsky Korsakoff at his best.

Again, Shostakovich wasn't really a Late Romantic, but he wrote a few key works (not surprisingly among his most popular) that fit that category -- notably the two I named: the Fifth Symphony (his most Mahleresque symphony) and the slow movement of the 2nd Piano Concerto.

More important, there were plenty of full-throated Late Romantics among the 20th Century's best known composers. In fact, the Late Romantic style dominated 20th Century "classical" music until shortly after World War II. Outside academia, serialism was never a potent force in 20th Century "classical" music. It was seldom performed, seldom recorded, and made no impact at all on classical audiences. In a hundred years it will be completely forgotten except as an interesting historical footnote. To typify the music of the 20th Century as the music of the later Schoenberg and his followers is absurd. From the point of view of the music that actually reached a public (which is the way we talk about the music of the 19th Century), the 20th Century was dominated by Late Romanticism, and, to a lesser extent, by such thoroughly tonal movements as impressionism, neo-classicism, symphonic jazz, neo-primitivism, and minimalism. Has anyone but me heard Philip Glass's music for the film The Hours?

In that same earlier post, Boaz remarked that "[i]n very general terms, what I think differentiates a lot of the early 20th century from, say, Brahms or Tchaikovsky, is a lack of emotional commitment. There's less harmonic tension (in terms of harmonic goals, if any), less dramatic conflict. [. . .] The eros and pathos and epic-reach are all gone. Even Shostakovich at his best -- and I consider him a god -- is marred by ambivalence and detachment." This is an excellent description of what, by the end of World War II, had become the dominant style of 20th Century "classical" music -- what we might call, for lack of a better term, "Tonal Modernism." This is the style you hear in works like Stravinsky's two symphonies. Much of this music is listenable enough. Some is even better than that. But no, it's not really Late Romanticism.

JR

I see the term as denoting the period when music achieved its best reason/passion synthesis. Music had been harnessed, properly, by the diatonic scale, but composers had been too mesmerised (wisdom of hindsight, of course) by the maths/harmonies thereof. In the 19th century, composers said, in effect, "Fuck this!" & used the technology in the service of the expression of emotion. There's never been music like it. It's Maria's form & discipline plus the screaming.

Now, I would also argue that composers like Wagner went too far with the "Fuck this!" Disintegration & rambling, unresolved dissonance crept in. Shape went out the window in an excessive rebellion against the discipline of form. I've just listened to the Sibelius Symphony #1 that Jeff recommended. I think it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There are wondrous moments, especially the soaring theme of the 4th movement. But they're nuggets in a noisy, blobby dross. Maybe I'm missing secrets that repeated listenings will yield up, but I doubt it. The thing is a mess. Music for empiricists, in the same way that classicism was music for rationalists!!

Yes, I suspect it's true that the authentic 20th century wearers of the mantle were/are the movie (& operetta/show) composers. Many of the "serious" composers Jeff mentions had already begun the process of destruction. (Thank god we're back to disagreeing! )

Linz

Defining the period isn't hard, as it relates to a self-conscious artistic movement (separate from painting, though). Qua movement, it's middle-Beethoven to Mahler (c.1810-1910). But I think Joe was looking for an aesthetic definition.

As for philosophy, there's some connection -- much of the focus is on emotion and inner "experience," or innerlichkeit. Goethe was a huge influence on the movement. But none of that is part of an essential definition. The question is: what does this music do that other music doesn't, and why? It's probably impossible to understand the "why" without some music theory, but I think I've given what amounts to a hint of a definition in my last post.

Oh, did I mention that Radiohead's "Fake Plastic Trees" sounds like Romantic music to my ears? Probably my favorite Radiohead song (if not "Paranoid Android" or "Morning Bell" Kid A version).

Not all rock/pop is shit . . .

Great video for "Paranoid Android", BTW.

Joe, why not just wiki it? The period is not so easy to draw as it says there, but before going to it, I had personally figured it to run for about a hundred-year period from sometime in the early decades of the 19th to sometime in the early decades of the 20th.
I note that the article mentions recent film scoring as a place where romanticism has continued -- and so much the better for film scoring, which seems to be the only great melodic orchestral music done in recent decades. Morricone and Barry I consider the leaders of the style. (A couple more YouTube Morricone clips - Cinema Paradiso and The Mission.) That's another nice thing about Movie Adagios -- these two composers made it into the collection (with 2 pieces each, no less) along with the other classical composers.

Rach more than anyone amongst these "other" traditional classical composers epitomizes the Romantic style for me, moreso than Chopin. That's part of the reason I mention him in my post to Kelly below; if you want to know the kind of Romantic sensibility that lots of music-lovers (Objectivist and non-Objectivist alike) share, what better intro than Rach 2 (and after that, variation 18 from the Rhapsody)?

Will is the implicit focus. Purpose (development), drive (harmonic tension), conflict (thematic and harmonic contrast). Things have a trajectory that resemble the human -- victory and loss, love and death. (read: values)

Joe:

According to Strunk & White
You got that apostrophe right.

As for your question on Romanticism in music, my semi-educated answer is that it's (ugh) both. Music and composers are a heavily shaken mixed bag.

Good one, that. And good on you, that you like that piece.

Get the Oistrakh anyway.

Already have it. Luv it. Anne-Sophie Mutter.

Thanks for reminding me of that Sibelius comment. (Actually, goddamnit, I now recall reading that "20th Century output" comment....grr...)

And yes, you do have to listen to them (the Sibelius symphonies) again. That Beethoven septet repaid another listen, did it not?

But do yourself a favor and start with the violin concerto. David Oistrakh is electric with Eugene Ormandy's Philadelphians.

First, Craig, I love Sibelius's (?) 5th Symphony. It's another piece I was turned onto because of Yes.

I have a question that's been on my mind, and have been meaning to research, but maybe someone here already knows, but how does one define the "Romantic" period of classical music, and does it have any relation to Rand's definition of Romanticism in art (her meaning as opposed to Naturalism). Or, does it have a relation to Romanticism in phil that she said had no relation to the so-called Romantic philosophies? How can music be considered "romantic" in Rand's volitional sense of the word? This may require another thread, but I'd love to hear some insight on that. Thanks.

Jeff did:

Sibelius’s very Tchaikovskyan First Symphony (I think of it as Tchaikovsky improved) was published and first performed in the 1890s, but all the rest of his output is of the 20th Century.

The comment stuck with me 'cos I groaned when I read it. I've got all those symphonies salted away. They're salted away 'cos they did nothing for me. I groaned at the thought that I'd have to dig them out & listen again.

In all the 20th century comments, no one has mentioned Sibelius. Harrumph.

As much as I love the early 20th century -- oh, how I LOVE that Walton symphony -- I don't see how most of the composers you mention qualify as Romantic. Mahler is quintessentially late-Romantic, and there's a great deal in common between early Shostakovich and Mahler, but there are crucial aesthetic features that Shostakovich (along with Ravel, Stravinsky et al) consciously left behind. That's why I asked about your criteria re the "high point". But I suppose that presupposes a definition of Romanticism, which isn't easy.

In very general terms, what I think differentiates a lot of the early 20th century from, say, Brahms or Tchaikovsky, is a lack of emotional commitment. There's less harmonic tension (in terms of harmonic goals, if any), less dramatic conflict. There are exceptions, like Rachmaninov and early Scriabin, but aren't these (and similar cases) the exception that prove the rule? The eros and pathos and epic-reach are all gone. Even Shostakovich at his best -- and I consider him a god -- is marred by ambivalence and detachment.

Thanks for the recommendations; I'll give them some attention. So happens that Napster carries that very Ludwig/Karajan you recommend.

never mind

that Movie Adagios collection does have the Mahler, which coincidentally happens to be the one Mahler movement I can listen to -- and I love it.

Chris, I really recommend that you listen to Mahler's Rukertlieder, especially "Iche Bin de Welt Abhanden Gekommen" (preferably w/Karajan and Christa Ludwig). And what about the 3rd movement of the 4th? Both of these, by the way, are Mahler at his best. The purity of love, of the air of life. And what's funny is that he does it best when he shuts the fuck up and lets the notes whisper rather than blast. Mahler wasn't a happy man, there's no question about it, but he wrote like someone who had an infinite capacity to enjoy it.

... the Szidon/Scriabin CD as recommended by Jeff. I note that the Amazon reviewers were not that thrilled about the pianist!

I've also dug out my complete collection of Rach's piano recordings, which, unfortunately, BMG made no effort whatsoever to clean up—he plays some Scriabin, as does Horowitz on a couple of CDs I have. Just played a thunderous etude from a concert in Moscow. Well, it's certainly KASS, & the crowd certainly think so.

Linz

That Movie Adagios collection does have the Mahler, which coincidentally happens to be the one Mahler movement I can listen to -- and I love it. BTW, I don't know what exactly motivated me to start out with the "Best of Rach" CD (I think it was my first official foray into classical buying along with the Essential Beethoven), though it followed shortly after I saw some affable Objectivism-critic on HPO ask tongue-in-cheek to Fred Weiss, "You . . . do like Rachmaninoff, don't you?" I don't think that this guy was aware, either, that Rand was a fan.

Kelly, I'll also mention that if you do buy (or buy used, or go to the library, etc etc....), it makes little sense to start out with one of these single-CD things that usually go for under $10. Especially with someone like Beethoven or Mozart, it's simply un-doable to fit even a minimally modest sampling of their best stuff on one disc. I somehow knew back then to stear clear of those single-CD things. As it happens, all the things I recommend come in double-CD packages. Based on a search at Amazon, the only "Best of Rach" collections with the whole Concerto #2 are the one by Phillips that I posted, and Decca's Essential Rachmaninov (that spelling). Both are double-disc. Short of that, the only adequate thing would be a single-disc of the entire concerto #2 which would probably package other things along with it, like his "Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini," his concerto #3, or something like Tchaikovsky's Concerto #1 (as a disc by famed pianist Van Cliburn does -- which wouldn't be a bad idea if you want to get both of the musical references in the Monadnock scene that opens the last part of The Fountainhead).

A little ramble . . .
As I moved on in building my basic collection, I purchased a number of double-disc intros to various composers from Deutsche Grammaphon's Panorama collection. The intro sets for the likes of Debussy, Mendelssohn and Grieg are especially nice as one-stop overviews; the Debussy contains all the works you'd ever see listed in any number of "guides to essentials" out there (excepting "Claire de lune," which you'll find a number of other places anyway, including the Movie Adagios set). I've also got nice overviews of Prokofiev, Dvorak, Liszt, and Haydn in my collection this way as well. The Handel and Vivaldi look good as well, but I've already got their basics elsewhere. The Schubert's good, but your best intro to Schubert is the adagio from his string quintet which is used in Movie Adagios, and any version of the "Ave Maria" you can find. (I remember hearing the "Ave Maria" way back as it was used in the movie Alive, and recall remarking back then how beautiful it was and how I wish I had heard more music that good.) The Brahms one wasn't too great a selection on its own; with him, like the Big Three, there's a lot more than could be captured in an intro set, and much the same could be said for Schubert. I couldn't really tell you where to begin for Chopin; there are so many different selections out there all of which are about as good as the other. I'm a fan of a Nocturne here, a Mazurka there.... And you may or may not like an overview of overtures and preludes from Wagner's operas, but he's an obligatory mention amongst the big-name composers. I think I've pretty well covered all the really big names here . . . I've found the various classical music lists at http://digitaldreamdoor.com/ quite helpful in the whole collecting/listening process. There's plenty from the top 8 on the composers list to keep anyone busy for quite some time. In terms of widespread popularity, it's got to be the big three, along with Chopin, Tchai, and Rach.

I was going to jot down some pieces you might start out with, but I can see that Chris already gave you WONDERFUL advice (Chris: I can tell how you became such an avid fan, with that start). So for the moment I'm left with one recommendation: Mahler symphony #5, 4th movement ONLY. You can get it here (with samples), on an "Adagio" collection:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001GMK?v=glance

I bought this CD for a friend two years ago, and he's been collecting this stuff on his own ever since.

Chris writes:

"My trusty guidebook says that Scriabin 4 is the Poeme d'Extase."

Your trusty guidebook is correct. The only expression of musical exaltation and ecstasy I've ever heard that might equal it is the finale to William Walton's Symphony #1 (1935). The recording of the Scriabin 4 to which I've been listening very happily for nearly twenty years now is by Claudio Abbado and the Boston Symphony on DGG, CD number 415 370-2. It appears to be no longer available.

"I've done a little Scriabin-listening but need to get back to into it. I've only heard the piano music, I think -- he seems masterful enough to belong amongst the great "romantic" piano composers (Debussy, Chopin...)."

He definitely belongs in the company of such as Chopin and Liszt and Rachmaninoff, if not Debussy. Roy Childs, who originally turned me on to Scriabin back in about 1973, used to describe his piano works as like those of a "neurotic Chopin." The neurosis grows with time, of course, as Scriabin headed toward the madness that killed him at 43. Anything past the Fifth Sonata is pretty weird. Anything orchestral past the Fourth Symphony is pretty weird. Those on this list who like Chopin might find Scriabin's only piano concerto, an early work and very Chopin-esque, enjoyable. I myself don't regard it as one of his best works.

As for pianists/recordings, back in the '70s, Roy introduced me to a then-new recording of Scriabin's complete piano sonatas, plus a few other short piano works -- a two-or-three-LP set on DGG, by a then-and-still virtually unknown pianist named Roberto Szidon. It contains an absolutely stunning short (9:32) piano work by Scriabin, the Fantasy in B Minor, Opus 28, which must be heard to be believed. Anyone who likes Chopin or Rachmaninoff will, I think, love it. Roy did. I do. It's my favorite of all Scriabin's piano music. The Szidon set is still available (now on CD, of course) here.

JR

watching Looney tunes...

Library is a good suggestion, if you don't mind the smell. (Same with used bookstores, why are they always run by communists, and have cats and cat hair all over, and with all those damn books, why do the owners not know the meaning of the word "clean?".) But if you look for the books with cd, the cd's most likely missing.

[I edited this part into my earlier post while your post showed up]

There are alternatives, of course, to buying new: buying used, checking at the public library, subscribing to Napster or Rhapsody . . .

Chris, it's not ideal, butit's better than going into a store and buying it without hearing it at all, sound unheard.

But you have a point, and I have a better suggestion: find a Borders or a Tower Records (before it goes bankrupt for good) with a listening station option. Many of these stores now have scanners that will let you hear samples of the cds. Some samples are longer than others. It's STILL not perfect, and actually, I prefer iTunes nowadays for convenience. But being in a Borders, anyway, will put you in proximity to the classical music books. There are a few different beginner guides that come with cds, and for as little as 25 dollars you can get a guide with a variety of music to test the waters.

have been an absolutely awful way for me to sample music and get any idea about the artist or the work. Especially with classical, I would have to imagine. How can one even begin to get an idea of much of the greatest classical music out there from a 30 second slice ripped from its context?

There are alternatives, of course, to buying new: buying used, checking at the public library, subscribing to Napster or Rhapsody . . .

Kelly, before you go spending said Sixty dollars, you could try iTunes first. 30 seconds clips satisfy the short attention span (!), but it will give you an impression of the piece before you buy it at least. And there are probably some reviews you'll find helpful geared towards those new to large scale pieces. (And they'll be less demeaning, since they actually want you to BUY the stuff! Linz is not a salesman, ya know

And who knows? If you watched LOONEY TUNES, you might have heard more than you think.

I believe everyone started with some real basics at one point. It was only a year and a half ago that I even started an interest in classical music. It coincided closely with my having become enthused by certain epic, melodically-rich, and impressively-arranged works by Pink Floyd, "Sheep" in particular. I kind of knew right then that the hunger for more of the like would most likely be satisfied with classical music, and I haven't been disappointed. If it's the beautiful that you seek in music, I don't know what better genre in which to find it than classical.

I can tell you where I started, and it was probably as good a place to start as any: (1) a "Greatest Hits/Essential/Best of Rachmaninoff" CD. (This is the one I happened to pick up in the store that day.) Anything of the sort worth buying simply must have the entirety of Piano Concerto #2. And you've just got to be in the loop with this one to understand the reference in The Fountainhead. (Actually, I was unaware at the time that Rand was a big fan.) It might well be the closest approximation to the sense of life of Halley's Fifth. Around that same time, I also got (2) the soundtrack to Amadeus, which has to be the best intro to Mozart. And (3) I got Essential Beethoven from the Decca label, and it should serve better as an overall introduction than the Immortal Beloved soundtrack (which has a smaller, lesser-on-the-whole selection of movements, and truncates many of them to excerpts at that). Beethoven and Mozart (and Bach, for those who "get" him) are the essential starting points for classical music; they're pretty much the standard against which all these other composers get compared, and it only makes sense to know them first.

From the sounds of it, you're best off starting out with single movements before thinking of working your way up to hearing full works, and these kinds of starting-out CDs fit the bill. These are where I started, anyhow. It was hearing the slow movement from Beethoven's fifth ("Emperor") piano concerto, the first track on the second disc of Essential Beethoven, that really got me going on classical music. I had thought I had been given direct contact with the form of beauty upon hearing it. Fortunately, I've found plenty more works just as beautiful as this one, from plenty of different composers. And in time, I came to recognize how beautiful so much of the other works on that starter collection are, that I didn't so recognize right off. And it's only a small portion of so much that's great and beautiful in Beethoven. My 8-minute attention span that appreciated the "Emperor"'s slow movement was crying out for the concerto's full 40 minutes soon enough.

Another good place for starters (this wasn't one of my CDs starting out, but I'm sure it would have been most suitable) that includes well-known but seldom trite pieces by other composers besides the Big Three is Movie Adagios, also put out by the Decca label. (Among other things, it has the one piece by Bach that I've personally come to love, the intriguingly-titled "Air on a G String.")

So this kind of starting-point will run you about $60. Not too large an investment considering how it might pay off.

Kelly— Don't even think about trying. Short attention spans & classical music are utterly irreconcilable. Which means that most people under 25, & all women, should stick with rap-crap, hip-hop & the like.

As Linz well knows, my taste in music is rather limited (he would say crappy as well). I've never been a fan of classical music, but I've not had so much exposure either. You people are so excited about it that it makes me want to give it another go. What are the very best intros for someone who doesn't have a long attention span for music and hasn't liked classical music in the past?

Kelly

Thanks

Get the #2 again. And the #3. Also, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Symphonies #1 & #2, for starters. The stuff I play over & over right now is for cello & piano, on a black box CD of that name, available from amazon.

Pianists? Shelley, Janis, Horowitz, Weissenberg ... avoid Ashkenazy—dull.

Right now listening to my CD of Addinsell movie music, not just the Warsaw Concerto, again inspired by yesterday's discussion. It's glorious!!

Linzio and Co.,

I'm going to buy some Rachmaninoff. Any recommendations for performances? I know only a little of his stuff. One of his (the #2?) wipes me out and now I've misplaced that disc. What should I get?

Brant proposed to me. Never in a million years. Neville Gaede, flip-flopper, fence-sitter, appeaser extraordinaire?! Please! Next thing you'll have me marrying Coates or Heaps-Nelson!

You're the one for me. Why can't you accept that?

Tsk tsk tsk. Who can even keep track of your marriage proposals anymore? I thought it was you and Brant for sure.

Marry me & you'll find out.

Oh, & you're a blouse because it amuses me to say so.

Fine! just tell me what the hell it means, so we can share in the amusement.

Just How dull can thy blade be....
....O Linz my flailing wisdom tree?
Surely you can answer this....
...how much ass can your kass kiss?

My trusty guidebook says that Scriabin 4 is the Poeme d'Extase.

I've done a little Scriabin-listening but need to get back to into it. I've only heard the piano music, I think -- he seems masterful enough to belong amongst the great "romantic" piano composers (Debussy, Chopin...).

Scriabin a Wagnerian? That why he went mad?

I'll definitely check those out, anyway. Thanks for the suggestions.

I'm excited too to discover JR's musical proclivities & erudition. It's a worry, really. But I'm eager to learn. Having just re-listened to the Manfred (for the first time in yonks) after commending it so highly I felt more than vaguely dissatisfied. I'm ready for new adventures.

Oh, & you're a blouse because it amuses me to say so.

Linz

Linz, look up the Etudes and Preludes with Horowitz and then the "Poeme De L'Extase" -- 20 minutes of symphonic ecstasy, so you can't go wrong. Go with a Russian recording, btw, (Pletnev did a wonderful recording in the 90's, but Mravinsky is always the standard)

But be warned: Scriabin was an unrepentant Wagnerian. If you like those, you'll probably like the symphonies.

I'm frankly astounded by JR's musical literacy (and doubly astonished that our tastes are that similar), but I'll have more to say about Romanticism in the next couple of days.

Oh, and Linz has yet to explain why he thinks I'm a shirt.

Again following my own recommendation & listening to the Manfred—I think I was confused yesterday in saying part of the Pathetique accompanied the train scene in The Music Lovers. It was the last part of the 1st movement of Manfred, that I've just listened to. At least, I kept getting flashbacks to the movie while hearing it. Jeff, can you confirm?

Would you mind putting up your all-time faves in different categories? Maybe as an article? I'm sure there'd be lots of great new stuff there for me to work through. I've rarely listened properly to Scriabin, for instance.

Most musicologists recognize a style they call “Late Romantic.” Essentially, this is the familiar Romantic style with a new, looser, more adventurous concept of harmony, based on the experiments of Richard Wagner and his followers.

In my judgment, these “Late Romantics,” the composers who came of age in the harmonic shadow of Wagner but otherwise (like Wagner himself) continued to compose in the dominant style of their day, are the greatest of all the Romantic composers. Though a few of their important works were published during the last years of the 19th Century, most of their work was published in the 20th Century. And some of the most important Late Romantics were born too late to publish anything before the dawn of the 20th Century.

Thus, although Rachmaninoff’s perhaps somewhat overrated Prelude in C-Sharp Minor was published in the 1890s, all his most celebrated works – the 2nd and 3rd piano concertos, the Symphony #2, the exquisite 18th Variation from the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini – were composed and published in the 20th Century. (The last named work, which may fairly be said to typify the Romantic style in music, was published in the 1940s!) Similarly, though Mahler’s first three symphonies were published and first performed in the last years of the 19th Century, most of his symphonies first saw the light of day in the 20th Century. Sibelius’s very Tchaikovskyan First Symphony (I think of it as Tchaikovsky improved) was published and first performed in the 1890s, but all the rest of his output is of the 20th Century.

The later Russians tend to be better than the earlier ones. To my ear, the third (1905) and fourth (1908) symphonies of Alexander Scriabin leave the symphonies of Tchaikovsky in the dust. Similarly, the genius for orchestral color heard in Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakoff reaches its apogee in the later Russians Igor Stravinsky (especially in The Firebird [1910]) and Rheinhold Gliere (especially in his Symphony #3 [1911]).

Chris asked about Frederick Delius. Certainly I include his mostly 20th Century music in my conception of the apogee of Romanticism, but I also include a number of other English composers – Ralph Vaughan Williams and Arnold Bax chief among them.

So far I’ve said nothing about Claude Debussy, whose most important orchestral work, La Mer, was published in 1905, or about Maurice Ravel, or about Denmark’s Carl Nielsen, or about Sergei Prokofiev or Dmitri Shostakovich (think the Fifth Symphony and the slow movement from the second piano concerto), or about Erich Wolfgang Korngold or Samuel Barber or Aram Khachaturian or Joaquin Rodrigo.

The years between 1900 and sometime in the 1960s were the most richly productive in the history of “classical” music. And they represented the ultimate triumph of the Romantic style in symphonic composition.

JR

First off, I AM NOT A SHIRT. Just thought I'd get that all nice and straightened out, as Linz' horrible slur on my chemical makeup may have led to some confusion. Some of us (read: you) have a problem with confusion. It happens far too often.

(Moreover, anyone who disagrees with me re Mozart, Brahms etc is, ipso facto, unqualified to weigh in on any of these matters.)

Composers have to be judged by their best work. At the very least, if you don't know the later piano concertos (17, 20, 23 especially IMO), the last three symphonies (39-41), the six quartets dedicated to Haydn (which were nothing short of revolutionary) and one or two of the great operas, then you're missing out on hearing the real thing -- not the "effete but oh-so-charming and a little silly but kinda cute so we forgive him" stereotype. Back in the day when I could only listen to Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Shostakovich etc., I couldn't stand Mozart. Not serious or passionate enough, I thought --too frivolous and infantile. But what Herr Riggenba'ath conveniently left out of his historical evaluation of the "classical" era was that it was MOZART himself who burst out of it by reintegrating the best of the baroque into his music. It's no coincidence that his best work comes after 1782, when he began his first serious study of Bach. When did he die? 1791! If you want to blow away your silly notions of Mozart's silliness, listen to his Dissonance Quartet.

Hint: without this more sophisticated, proto-romantic Mozart, you could easily kiss the best of LVB goodbye.

I could spend all day writing on this. Anyway, I'd like to know how Jeff defines the high point of the Romantic Era and which pieces he thinks represent its "full fruition" in the 20th century.

Is Delius one of the early-20th guys you had in mind?

(Currently listening: Brigg Fair.)

This is not for Randroids (or Brandoids)!

"I love the Emperor Concerto and the Allegretto second movement from the 7th Symphony (which was used to such brilliant effect in the virtually forgotten science fiction film "Zardoz," starring Sean Connery)."

"Zardoz" is that film whereby Connery (Zed) is shown a film clip by a "sex-starved" woman of two hot lesbians getting it on in order to arouse him. I am not joking.

"Zed finds as much hope as disgust with the Eternals; their advancements have also robbed them of physical passion, turning their existence into a living death." (From Amazon)

P.S. It was not easy growing up in NZ in the 80's when they only played films from the 70's on two TV stations

had his own form of perfection that he reached at times in his compositions, and it was a perfection suited to the style of his era - square and proper, if you will. For what it is, you don't get any better than, say, the 3rd movement of piano concerto #22 featured in the movie. But he had other perfect things that broke out of that mold, like parts of the Requiem. Had he lived another 20 years, he'd have revolutionized before or alongside LVB. LVB didn't get around to composing the 9th and the late quartets until what, his mid-50s? Mozart's best was yet to come.

Mozart was a blouse like you, darling. I never thought I'd say this, but the greatest one-liner ever on SOLO was this, just now, from Mr. Riggenbach:

Mozart's is the most absurdly inflated reputation in all of musical history.

That wins the award. This month, this year!!!!

Couldn't resist leaping in to defend Mozart. (Can't you guys hold off on this wonderful thread for a few days?)

You fucking ingrates! Have you listened to what music was even like back then? Let's have it, shall we? A "who's who" of c. 1750-1790 musical history.

(i).....

(ii).....

(iii)...... (he's my favorite.)

All of them "wankers." Saccharine served over heaps of dung. ScheisseMusik.

Bach wasn't even studied yet; Mozart finally got a good look at some of the old master's fugues when he was in his twenties. And that's when the real fire started, the same fire that the Romantics saw in him when they dubbed him the first of their kind.

Just listen to the trio at the end of Act I of Don Giovanni, for christ's sake! (Right before the Finale).

[end of rant]

Most of Mozart is pleasant background music, nothing more. The film "Amadeus" makes the best possible case for his music, based on the operas and symphonies. My own listening experience is that it is in his chamber works -- trios, quartets, quintets, etc. -- that one finds his best music. Even this music, however, is not profound. It is, at most, merely pleasant, enjoyable. Mozart's is the most absurdly inflated reputation in all of musical history. The fact is that the entire Classical era, the era of Mozart and Haydn, is nothing but a brief and relatively trivial interlude between the genius of the Baroque period -- Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi, principally -- and the genius of the Romantic period.

An argument can be made (I myself have been known to make it) that the Romantic impulse found its true fruition, not in the 19th, but in the 20th Century. The first Romantics -- the late Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn -- were too enslaved to the overly "square" style of composition traditional in Germany at that time. Though some good music was created during the 19th Century, most of it was created during t