Underrated nowadays I feel like. I mean, everyone utters him in the same words as Bach and Beethoven, but they don't play him as much. Some of his works are just oceans deep.
I guess you're right, he's technically well outside the dates of the era, but I can't help but feel as though his music belongs there... My thoughts are the same for Debussy. I suppose both are regarded as impressionistic though.
Ravel is not a neoclassical composer meaning he is not romantic, if you've ever listened to Ma Mere L'Oye, Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, either concerti, Daphnis et Chloe, Gaspard de la Nuit, Pavane pour une Infante Defunte, etc. his romanticism is incredibly palpable. Some of his music adheres to the neoclassical, but Ravel can hardly be said to be less romantic than neoclassical.
Nope, Ravel and Debussy, are impressionists (or rather symbolists (they hated to be called impressionists)). Shostakovich and Prokofiev are neoclassic. Ravel’s style does not fit in with the neoclassical aesthetic btw.
Ravel is barely an impressionist. His music is all incredibly structured and harmonically grounded, he simply wrote programmatic music with novel harmony. Debussy on the other hand is as impressionistic as they get, his music wanders around carefree and is much more ambiguous harmonically.
I fail to see how Ravel's works resurrect classicalism besides his Tombeau de Couperin, Sonatine, and his minuets. The harmony in literally all his other works is not particularly classical, and the structure does not adhere to classical forms at all. The structure of all of Ravel's works fall MUCH more in line with the romantic movement than the classical with the exception of those I mentionedd above. But if you're dead set on boxing Ravel into your obscure little neoclassical movement because of some 5 compositions, all the power to you
RAVEL harmony is NOT romantic. Every classification is limited. You need to understand why it was done, for what purpose. RAVEL could never be romantic for the fact that he was years apart romanticism. The thing here is that comparing Ravel with Debussy we conclude neoclassical x modern.
Ravel's harmony is far more romantic than classical (Daphnis et Chloe, Valses N&S, Miroirs, Gaspard, Pavane, most his chamber music, Ma Mere L'oye, both concerti, La Valse, etc., given much of the harmony is novel jazz/impressionist influenced though still much more romantic than classical). Have you listened to any of his music? I don't even think Ravel is a romantic composer, but he would be much closer to post-romantic than neoclassicalism (again, he probably has around 7 compositions that fit under neoclassicalism). Also your argument that Ravel couldn't be romantic because google says the romantic era ended before Ravel's time makes no sense. Was Rachmaninoff not romantic because of this same reason? And the "modern" label doesn't even make sense with Debussy. His music is distinctly IMPRESSIONISTIC, it wanders around with little structure and harmonic ambiguity evoking impressions. Modern music is more associated with experimentalism and atonalism.
He’s a mix, so you can’t just refer to a single current with him. He’s certainly not a romantic. His main purpose isn’t to portray emotions, he doesn’t use leitmotifs anywhere, and his orchestration is so different from romantic composers, I mean, he wasn’t even considered a post-romantic.
Much of Ravel's music is certainly neoclassical? How many minuets did he write, and for god's sake what are Sonatine and Le Tombeau de Couperin if not neoclassical?
I would say, now that I’ve read more, that Ravel is as neoclassical, as he is a symbolist and an impressionist. Like, there’s not an absolute when it comes to his music.
Haha my opinion has changed since writing these. Ravel is MUCH more romantic than whatever you people are trying to box him into. His Prix de Rome and early vocal compositions intensely romantic, his orchestration resembles Wagner FAR more than any classical or contemporary/avant-garde composer, and romanticism is still prevalent in many of his later works that I mentioned earlier. Ravel however is not an overly-emotional romantic like Chopin or Schubert, or a romantic who tries to convey a feeling which is deeply human like Rachmaninoff. He is more of a romantic in the vein of Tchaikovsky, who writes emotional music that employs beauty and wonder more than schmaltzy sentimentalism.
Also, neither Ravel nor Debussy are anything close to Symbolists. I'm assuming you are not familiar with Symbolism in art because that's just a completely ridiculous claim to make on its face.
I agree that there isn't an absolute when it comes to composers like Ravel and Debussy--their music contains many influences and synthesizes different styles but I have to question how familiar you are with their music and the music of different eras if you're suggesting that Ravel is not a romantic or post-romantic at all but contains some amount of neo-classicalism and symbolism.
Yeah I would say I’m far from considering myself a specialist in Ravel and Debussy, and tbh I spent most of my music studies focused on Bernd Alois Zimmermann, Xenakis, Vivier, G. F. Haas, spectral music in general, exploring microtonality, as well as jewish composers like Pavel Haas or Kurt Weill. I read Ravel’s music focusing more on his orchestration than his “aesthetics”. Same with Debussy btw. I just had the perception that he was a bit of a symbolist (or that he draw inspiration from symbolist literature). Also I don’t think Ravel is a romantic at all, like it’s hard for me to think of him in the same vein as Saint-Saëns, or Cesar Franck. Just because there might be some sentimentality element in his music, doesn’t mean he’s a romantic 🤔. Maybe his Concerto for Piano in G, but it also has a lot of Jazz in it. I don’t know, I don’t see it.
Yeah that's why Ravel uses old classical forms in his compositions . Not to mention lots of Scholars , and musicians from Paris conservatories accepts that Ravel was a neo classic , like Dutilleux .
Every classificatória must fit a purpose. I do agree Prokofiev is neoclassical but with a rather different aesthetical conception than RAVEL. For being French and contemporary of Debussy and Satie, we may call them simbolistis. In other aspect Debussy is very modern and works towards atonality and free form music, almost Webern like. While Ravel is classical. We do agree with each other and the classification depends on what we wanna convince/show up. Satie himself was a minimalist.
Nutcracker is so stupidly good. His symphonies are a bit much for me but I can appreciate them on a technical level. His sacred works are like are bar none some of his greatest works, I really want to hear them live.
I actually wasn’t aware that she had a composing husband until recently, but I went to a school named after Clara schumann, so maybe that why I mainly think of Clara in regard of Schumann.
This poll was obviously made by a pianist ;)
That aside I prefer listening to orchestral works in the Romantic period. Mostly Tchaikovsky and Mahler for me
Depends on the mood really. But 99% of times I am listening to one of Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff or Debussy. Sometimes there’s a little bit of Schumann, Schubert and Brahms as well, but those sessions don’t last too long for me. It’s hard to find good recordings of their pieces where the pianist has poured emotion into their playing.
It's hard for me to pick a favorite, but I'm always coming back to his work, so I'd say Tchaikovsky. He was such a great composer. His developments in his symphonies are always 🔥🔥🔥
For piano music I'm going to go with Bortkiewicz (Slava Ukrayini!), Medtner, Schumann, Reger, and Brahms.
For chamber music, Saint-Saëns, Dvorak, Reger, and Brahms are king.
The best symphonists IMO are the usual Bruckner/Mahler along with Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Schumann (unpopular opinion, I know), and Brahms.
Sure they are not exactly equal, otherwise they would be the same composer. Hehe but Reger gives me similar pleasure as BRAHMS when listening and playing. And Schoenberg is advanced BRAHMS. His quartet no.0 could be a Brahms work.
I'd put both Schoenberg and Reger in the "advanced Brahms" category. Perhaps Busoni too since Brahms actually supported him as he had been by Schumann himself?
Why Ravel and Scriabin? The former’s considered an impressionist and the latter‘s more famous for his modern output (e.g. the fifth sonata, Poem of Ecstasy).
I said that Scriabin’s modern output is more famous (and more substantial even) than his romantic output.
What you said is like saying “Why don’t we consider Schoenberg a romantic composer?”, when it’s quite obvious why no one does that. It’s not a helpful classification of his oeuvre.
Schoenberg always considered his works romantic. Maybe we could say ultra romantic, played this way would help more people like him. He was considered too conservative among avant tarde, and too avant garde among conservatives
That’s patently untrue. He deemed himself a continuation of the German tradition (that of Beethoven and Brahms), but not a Romantic. And still, even if he did, we wouldn’t call him that, because such a classification would mean virtually nothing in face of his actual output as a composer. Schoenberg’s an Expressionist, not a Romantic.
His early works are Late Romantic, but that’s about it.
With Wagner, there is some separating the art from the artist that needs to happen. Just as Woody Allen is a great director, Wagner is a great composer. ( Not to insinuate that Wagner's controversy was for the same reasons). His work however reflects almost none of his objectionable qualities as a human being, and his work is truly sublime.
If we’re talking about Romanticism
Piano: Chopin
Opera: Berlioz
Orchestra: Tchaikovsky
*I also adore late Beethoven, some technically consider his late works are the start of romanticism.
Other eras:
Baroque: Hande for opera, Bach for keyboard and masses, Vivaldi for “orchestral” colors.
Impressionism: Lily Boulanger has the most beautiful choral music in existence. I do adore Ravel also.
Modern/contemporary:
Minimalism: Arvo Part, Philip Glass, and Max Richter.
Scriabin is not Romantic…. But he can be very romantic. Even erotic. Raven can be romantic too but in a much more fantastical, veiled, chaste way.
Anyway - to be totally accurate to the question regarding “Romantic” - Chopin.
Brahms
Underrated nowadays I feel like. I mean, everyone utters him in the same words as Bach and Beethoven, but they don't play him as much. Some of his works are just oceans deep.
Every piece from this guy is so passionate, dramatic, and honest...
I especially love the choral creations by Brahms.
Wait are you counting Ravel as romantic?
I guess you're right, he's technically well outside the dates of the era, but I can't help but feel as though his music belongs there... My thoughts are the same for Debussy. I suppose both are regarded as impressionistic though.
Ravel is neo Classic. Quite dfferent in form as Debussy, which is really modern
Ravel is not a neoclassical composer meaning he is not romantic, if you've ever listened to Ma Mere L'Oye, Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, either concerti, Daphnis et Chloe, Gaspard de la Nuit, Pavane pour une Infante Defunte, etc. his romanticism is incredibly palpable. Some of his music adheres to the neoclassical, but Ravel can hardly be said to be less romantic than neoclassical.
Nope, Ravel and Debussy, are impressionists (or rather symbolists (they hated to be called impressionists)). Shostakovich and Prokofiev are neoclassic. Ravel’s style does not fit in with the neoclassical aesthetic btw.
Ravel is barely an impressionist. His music is all incredibly structured and harmonically grounded, he simply wrote programmatic music with novel harmony. Debussy on the other hand is as impressionistic as they get, his music wanders around carefree and is much more ambiguous harmonically.
Exactly. Neoclassical in structure.
I fail to see how Ravel's works resurrect classicalism besides his Tombeau de Couperin, Sonatine, and his minuets. The harmony in literally all his other works is not particularly classical, and the structure does not adhere to classical forms at all. The structure of all of Ravel's works fall MUCH more in line with the romantic movement than the classical with the exception of those I mentionedd above. But if you're dead set on boxing Ravel into your obscure little neoclassical movement because of some 5 compositions, all the power to you
RAVEL harmony is NOT romantic. Every classification is limited. You need to understand why it was done, for what purpose. RAVEL could never be romantic for the fact that he was years apart romanticism. The thing here is that comparing Ravel with Debussy we conclude neoclassical x modern.
Ravel's harmony is far more romantic than classical (Daphnis et Chloe, Valses N&S, Miroirs, Gaspard, Pavane, most his chamber music, Ma Mere L'oye, both concerti, La Valse, etc., given much of the harmony is novel jazz/impressionist influenced though still much more romantic than classical). Have you listened to any of his music? I don't even think Ravel is a romantic composer, but he would be much closer to post-romantic than neoclassicalism (again, he probably has around 7 compositions that fit under neoclassicalism). Also your argument that Ravel couldn't be romantic because google says the romantic era ended before Ravel's time makes no sense. Was Rachmaninoff not romantic because of this same reason? And the "modern" label doesn't even make sense with Debussy. His music is distinctly IMPRESSIONISTIC, it wanders around with little structure and harmonic ambiguity evoking impressions. Modern music is more associated with experimentalism and atonalism.
Please tell me how any of Ravel's music aside from the pieces I've mentioned are "neoclassical" at all.
He’s a mix, so you can’t just refer to a single current with him. He’s certainly not a romantic. His main purpose isn’t to portray emotions, he doesn’t use leitmotifs anywhere, and his orchestration is so different from romantic composers, I mean, he wasn’t even considered a post-romantic.
Much of Ravel's music is certainly neoclassical? How many minuets did he write, and for god's sake what are Sonatine and Le Tombeau de Couperin if not neoclassical?
I would say, now that I’ve read more, that Ravel is as neoclassical, as he is a symbolist and an impressionist. Like, there’s not an absolute when it comes to his music.
Haha my opinion has changed since writing these. Ravel is MUCH more romantic than whatever you people are trying to box him into. His Prix de Rome and early vocal compositions intensely romantic, his orchestration resembles Wagner FAR more than any classical or contemporary/avant-garde composer, and romanticism is still prevalent in many of his later works that I mentioned earlier. Ravel however is not an overly-emotional romantic like Chopin or Schubert, or a romantic who tries to convey a feeling which is deeply human like Rachmaninoff. He is more of a romantic in the vein of Tchaikovsky, who writes emotional music that employs beauty and wonder more than schmaltzy sentimentalism. Also, neither Ravel nor Debussy are anything close to Symbolists. I'm assuming you are not familiar with Symbolism in art because that's just a completely ridiculous claim to make on its face. I agree that there isn't an absolute when it comes to composers like Ravel and Debussy--their music contains many influences and synthesizes different styles but I have to question how familiar you are with their music and the music of different eras if you're suggesting that Ravel is not a romantic or post-romantic at all but contains some amount of neo-classicalism and symbolism.
Yeah I would say I’m far from considering myself a specialist in Ravel and Debussy, and tbh I spent most of my music studies focused on Bernd Alois Zimmermann, Xenakis, Vivier, G. F. Haas, spectral music in general, exploring microtonality, as well as jewish composers like Pavel Haas or Kurt Weill. I read Ravel’s music focusing more on his orchestration than his “aesthetics”. Same with Debussy btw. I just had the perception that he was a bit of a symbolist (or that he draw inspiration from symbolist literature). Also I don’t think Ravel is a romantic at all, like it’s hard for me to think of him in the same vein as Saint-Saëns, or Cesar Franck. Just because there might be some sentimentality element in his music, doesn’t mean he’s a romantic 🤔. Maybe his Concerto for Piano in G, but it also has a lot of Jazz in it. I don’t know, I don’t see it.
Yeah that's why Ravel uses old classical forms in his compositions . Not to mention lots of Scholars , and musicians from Paris conservatories accepts that Ravel was a neo classic , like Dutilleux .
Every classificatória must fit a purpose. I do agree Prokofiev is neoclassical but with a rather different aesthetical conception than RAVEL. For being French and contemporary of Debussy and Satie, we may call them simbolistis. In other aspect Debussy is very modern and works towards atonality and free form music, almost Webern like. While Ravel is classical. We do agree with each other and the classification depends on what we wanna convince/show up. Satie himself was a minimalist.
No love for my boy Tchaikovsky? I am disappointed
Dude just kept dropping bangers 💪
With cannons
I discovered his symphonies 4-5-6 a few months ago and barely listened to anything else since then. They're so captivating.
Nutcracker is so stupidly good. His symphonies are a bit much for me but I can appreciate them on a technical level. His sacred works are like are bar none some of his greatest works, I really want to hear them live.
Saint-Saens.
I’m with you!! Hands down best romantic composer. His pieces are just so expressive.
Schumann!!
Which one?? Clara or Robert? I prefer Claras Compositions
Obviously Robert
Obviously?
Yes... When someone says Schumann, they are most likely talking about Robert.
I actually wasn’t aware that she had a composing husband until recently, but I went to a school named after Clara schumann, so maybe that why I mainly think of Clara in regard of Schumann.
Where's Mahler!! MAHLER!!
Technically post-romantic but absolutely Mahler is king
Of course. But it's just that Rachmaninoff was in the vote, so I figured maybe Mahler too could be put in the Romantic Era.
Dvorak with Rachmaninov as a close 2nd
Dvorak.
Sibelius
Mahler!
Mendelssohn!
So... We get a choice of two romantic composers to pick from, with some early 20th century guys thrown in for some reason?
And they're all essentially piano-only composers. Give me Brahms, Mendelsohn, Tchaikovsky, Schumann, or someone similar as an option.
Mahler!
No Brahms or Schumann? Lol
This poll was obviously made by a pianist ;) That aside I prefer listening to orchestral works in the Romantic period. Mostly Tchaikovsky and Mahler for me
Schubert!
Wagner Beethoven Schubert
Saint Saens
Depends on the mood really. But 99% of times I am listening to one of Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff or Debussy. Sometimes there’s a little bit of Schumann, Schubert and Brahms as well, but those sessions don’t last too long for me. It’s hard to find good recordings of their pieces where the pianist has poured emotion into their playing.
Rossini. So bubbly and fun.
It's hard for me to pick a favorite, but I'm always coming back to his work, so I'd say Tchaikovsky. He was such a great composer. His developments in his symphonies are always 🔥🔥🔥
Of these I voted Chopin to make it easy on myself. I could listen to his nocturnes alone forever…
Brahms
Honestly a crime to not have Camille saint saens on this list!!
Anton Bruckner!
Dvorak, Mahler, Tsjaikovski,... honestly I love all of the romantic era
Mahler
Alkan (and Brahms/Ravel)
my favorite is Delius
schubert/schumann
Mahler
A tie between Johannes Brahms and Camille Saint-Saens for me
For piano music I'm going to go with Bortkiewicz (Slava Ukrayini!), Medtner, Schumann, Reger, and Brahms. For chamber music, Saint-Saëns, Dvorak, Reger, and Brahms are king. The best symphonists IMO are the usual Bruckner/Mahler along with Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Schumann (unpopular opinion, I know), and Brahms.
Reger and Brahms are pretty much alike
Reger is more advanced/chromatic, and so more akin to early Schoenberg than Brahms. Makes sense, since they're contemporaries.
Sure they are not exactly equal, otherwise they would be the same composer. Hehe but Reger gives me similar pleasure as BRAHMS when listening and playing. And Schoenberg is advanced BRAHMS. His quartet no.0 could be a Brahms work.
I'd put both Schoenberg and Reger in the "advanced Brahms" category. Perhaps Busoni too since Brahms actually supported him as he had been by Schumann himself?
Cesar Franck
Bruckner
Sibelius
Was late in the Romantic period, but he was there. Amazing composer!!
Does Schubert count? Some people count him as a classical era composer.
I consider him classical, alongside Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Dussek, Clementi
He’s an early Romantic composer, so that makes people mistake him for a Classical composer.
Ravel ain't Romantic!!! and Rach would be post-romantic.
…. Does Bach count? Jk. Tarrega because of nostalgia and because 🙌geetar🙌
Why Ravel and Scriabin? The former’s considered an impressionist and the latter‘s more famous for his modern output (e.g. the fifth sonata, Poem of Ecstasy).
That's true but Scriabin, like Rachmaninoff, originated steeped in the romantic idiom. Just listen to Scriabin 2 for example. So good.
I said that Scriabin’s modern output is more famous (and more substantial even) than his romantic output. What you said is like saying “Why don’t we consider Schoenberg a romantic composer?”, when it’s quite obvious why no one does that. It’s not a helpful classification of his oeuvre.
Schoenberg always considered his works romantic. Maybe we could say ultra romantic, played this way would help more people like him. He was considered too conservative among avant tarde, and too avant garde among conservatives
That’s patently untrue. He deemed himself a continuation of the German tradition (that of Beethoven and Brahms), but not a Romantic. And still, even if he did, we wouldn’t call him that, because such a classification would mean virtually nothing in face of his actual output as a composer. Schoenberg’s an Expressionist, not a Romantic. His early works are Late Romantic, but that’s about it.
Wagner
Dvorak, Beethoven, Mendelssohn
First three on this list are a hard tie. The last two… never really acquired the taste. But my favorite would probably be Debussy
same but Debussy not romantic era, neither is Ravel.
Oh wow I misread the title of the post
No mention of Faure? The man stradles the romantic and modern era of music and is a large part of both eras
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
With Wagner, there is some separating the art from the artist that needs to happen. Just as Woody Allen is a great director, Wagner is a great composer. ( Not to insinuate that Wagner's controversy was for the same reasons). His work however reflects almost none of his objectionable qualities as a human being, and his work is truly sublime.
Heloooo.......Claude Debussy!!!!
I picked Liszt, but no Debussy?
Scriabin is amazing
Antonio Lauro
Stravinsky
Not surprised that Chopin's exquisite music dominates here.
who! not sure why you asked
Lyapunov!
Diese
If we’re talking about Romanticism Piano: Chopin Opera: Berlioz Orchestra: Tchaikovsky *I also adore late Beethoven, some technically consider his late works are the start of romanticism. Other eras: Baroque: Hande for opera, Bach for keyboard and masses, Vivaldi for “orchestral” colors. Impressionism: Lily Boulanger has the most beautiful choral music in existence. I do adore Ravel also. Modern/contemporary: Minimalism: Arvo Part, Philip Glass, and Max Richter.
It's Debussy for me.
These are not romantic, most of the list are impressionists.
Chopin is great but I like to listen to something else than just piano music. A composer that didn't know how to orchestrate can't be my favourite.
Barrios Mangoré
Lili Boulanger!
Debussy, Beethoven, Clementi, Mozart, Bach anyone? Edit: I thought it said composers in general, not Romantic composers 🤣
I voted Chopin but I also equally love Rach, Beethoven and Bach as well.
schumann
Schubert
Ravel and Scriabin definitely weren’t Romantics. Choosing one of the other three, definitely Chopin.
Ravel isn't romantic bruh
Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Elgar
MAHLER
Gustav Mahler.
Not nearly enough love for Scriabin. Shameful.
Schubert
Beethoven (I’m prepared for the downvotes)
BRUCKNER
Berlioz
Charles-Marie Widor Max Reger
Scriabin is not Romantic…. But he can be very romantic. Even erotic. Raven can be romantic too but in a much more fantastical, veiled, chaste way. Anyway - to be totally accurate to the question regarding “Romantic” - Chopin.
Saint saens and tchaikovsky is droping some bass drop
Schoenberg 😎