I like that recording except for the fact fucking Theo Adam sings Jesus
Isaiah Bennett
Romaticism is defined by three factors: --Rejection of traditional form --Evolution of melody --Technique above all else Here are what I consider the definitive romantic pieces youtu.be/KrITNrgQHuE youtu.be/0mnrHf7p0jM youtu.be/1O4h0AapdbQ Discuss
>But the romantics all wrote within the romantic era that was discussed earlier and I don't think it's true. Holst, Strauss, Reger and Pfitzner were romantics in their own way, too. A lot of movie scores are romantic. So, it's not helpful to arbitrarily reduce romantic music to a artificially defined 'romantic era'. It's much more interesting to look in the details of what are the differences between what we feel is classical and what is romantic.
>Trite and simplified melodies Retard. Romanticism aimed to make the melody as complex and satisfying as possibled, if there's any era to complain about "trite" and "simplified" melody it's the classical era >Sentimentality above all else Yes, yes, you're a bug man, we get it. But sentimentallity was not the aim of romanticism, it was more like an effect of what they did to melody. Unless your talking about hacks like the impressionists, which is a multi-era movement(goes from late romantic to early 20th century) and in no way defines the romantic movement
Nicholas Clark
>Rejection of traditional form Huh, romantic pieces still largely are in sonata form, just more devopled and nuanced >Trite and simplified melodies Yes bruh because a Chopin melody is a simple melody compared to a diatonic Baroque melody that is all in step movement and crotchets xD literally no one contests that Romanticism was the peak of melody >Sentimentality above all else Nothing wrong with this.
Austin Lee
they didn't reject traditional forms retard, they did expand on them and come up with new forms in addition to more traditional forms.
what does evolution of melody even mean?
no.
stop posting in this general
Joseph Hill
>Romanticism aimed to make the melody as satisfying as possible What do you even mean you pseud, how were Baroque and Classical melodies not "satisfactory" exactly? >But sentimentallity was not the aim of romanticism It mostly was yes > it was more like an effect of what they did to melody Lol absolutely not, it was much more an effect of what they did to orchestration and form, and what inspired/motivated them to write in the first place which was now drasticaly different from the previous eras >a diatonic Baroque melody that is all in step movement and crotchets Literally when are Baroque melodies mostly diatonic other than maybe in fugues (where the discussion of indiviual melodic virtues of each voice would be retarded)? What kind of Baroque music have you been hearing >>Sentimentality above all else >Nothing wrong with this I hate people like you so much you can't even begin to fucking understand. It is clear to me that evert point you try to make will come from a place where you already stand with the idea that there is nothing wrong with sentimentality being above all else in prority from a composer/writer's point of view, and for that I will not bother reading anything else you sentimal romantic mouth has to shit out at me
