Recommend me some Romantic Composers

is [Why Don't We Do It In The Road] actually a beatles song?

yes....You kids need to buy more records.

Why Don't We Do It in the Road? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romantic operas, folks!

Verdi and Puccini, ladies and gentlemen!

yes....You kids need to buy more records.

Why Don't We Do It in the Road? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just sounded way too suggestive and lulu like, thought i'd better check :D

Romantic operas, folks!

Verdi and Puccini, ladies and gentlemen!

*adds to list*

dled most of beethovens ninth, loving the scherzo.

right, got beethoven and brahms *refers back to list* beethoven string quartets op18 1, 2 and 3 on the download (totally legal, p2p)

I have a soft spot for Mendelssohn, especially his piano music and his orchestral overtures such as The Hebrides and A Midsummer Night's Dream (the whole thing). I haven't got a lot of "classical" music either so I might write down all of these recommendations as well. Good idea, Mark, starting this thread! :P

How 'bout Dvorak? Check out his symphonies....the last three (7-9) are my favorites so far. Also, he wrote various other orchestral works, and operas...I've only heard his Scherzo Capriccioso, though :(.

Edit: Crap, Nico already mentioned those...sorry, must've missed that :P. But yes, please check out his music :ermm:

John Adams - Harmonielehre. Trust me, you'll love it! :ermm:

Eh, he's a slight bit too minimalist for me (from what I've heard)...though I do enjoy other aspects of his music :(. I recommend Jay Reise, though...kind of Romantic, but either way he's a good composer :ermm:.

thanks for all the more suggestions guys, been building up a fair few mp3s to devour ;)

Dvorak is severely underrated.

I love you.;)

what about composers for solo guitar?

So far i have a fair bit of tarrega, carcassi, sor, the usuals

Anyone else i should be listening to?

Tedesco and Rodrigo come to mind first off. Also, check out some of Malcolm Arnold's guitar stuff, and Leo Brower (sp?).

thanks, I'll look into those ;)

this tedesco bloke is awesome ;)

Dvorak is severely underrated.

I totally agree. But I think I have stated that before.;)

ok, i need some Dvorak, what would you all recommend?

ok, i need some Dvorak, what would you all recommend?

Symphonies 1-9

Violin concerto in a minor.

Slavonic dances op.46(?)

And everything else.

Oh, you should also try some Lehar, he was a pupil of Dvorak.

You've probably listened to the wrong recordings, I'd recommend Michelangeli:

YouTube - Michelangeli plays Debussy

To enjoy Debussy to the max, you should try to envisage the scenes he paints with his music- Trust me, it works! - his music becomes infinitely more inspiring to me when I employ this method.

Try to search out some of the orchestral music as well, if you haven't already.

I am not actually that fond of all of his decisions when playing Debussy. I believe that several times I have been annoyed by his rather sluggish tempo choices. For instance, his recording of "Le Dans le Puck" is just horribly slow. So much to the point that I cannot stand to listen to it. Now, I do not know tons of musical terms that I probably should, but I will attempt to explain this next part as well as I can without knowing what to call it. I believe that with Debussy that you have a sort of rhythmical melody. What I mean is that with the tempo you choose and the emphasis on different parts of the rhythm that you choose you can bring big changes in the melody. My example is the Dans le Puck piece. I think that Michelangeli totally loses the emphasis on any melody because he plays it sooo slowly. I think that the rhythm that you get with the quick speed is the melody. I know that was explained horribly, but if someone else has ever thought of something like that than I hope that will help them pick up on what I am talking about. I also think that the second one is a little bit too slow but not too bad (it is tolerable). I also have some problems with the lightness with which he plays in the first and the second recording that you supplied. He could really afford to be playing with a little bit lighter of a touch and quiter as well on the second in certain areas. I did not really like his interpretation of "Le Cathedrale Engloutie". The beginning part needs to be soooo light and quiet that you can barely hear it and pretty slow too and all under pedal. It needs to be no emphasis on melody and all emphasis on creating a distant muddy sounding atmosphere that sets up for the melody. To me he just ripped through it. Then in the other part he was back to being a tad bit too slow and this time too mechanic. I thought that the one part when you are supposed to build up with the downward octaves to the new blocked chord melody that he just lost some of the direction and musicality. I thought it sounded like he was too worried about pounding out all of the octaves and chords so evenly that he lost the sense of melody and direction (and yes a tad bit slow like 5-10 ticks). Sorry, but I hated that one. I do not think that he does everything terribly. If I can remember correctly I think that I found his recording of "The Girl with the Flaxen Hair" to be excellent. I also think that the way he plays "Des Pas Sur la Neige" is the way it is supposed to be played. In other words that particular performace was brilliant. I really like his performance of "Hommage a Rameau" too - which just so happens to be one of my very favorite piano pieces ever written. If could play that one like he does then I would be contented for life. So, it is just hit or miss with me and Michelangeli. Anyways, I prefer Pascal Roge when playing Debussy.

Oh, and yes, I agree with the idea of listening to the pictures that Debussy trys to paint. I call that his soundscapes. I love the innovative sounds that Debussy came up with on the piano. You can just close your eyes and imagine a beautiful serene lake or pond somewhere with totally still water (so still that it looks like a mirror) and you can see it being peacefully interuppted by one single drop of water off of a branch that then ripples very subtly. Or any other number of things, but I always think of water or glimmering reflections of light when I listen to Debussy.

listened to the first one, found it quite horrible :happy:

Yeah, listen to Pascal Roge's recording of this one. You and I may be alike in that we find Michelangeli's recording of this particular piece to be just simply put , boring. I think that you will look at the piece totally differently when you hear Pascal Roge's interpretation.

are you trying to say that a lot of Debussys music is based on rythmic motifs? That seems to be what you're trying to say but I'm not too sure :happy:

I'll look for a recording by that pascal dude, and thanks very much for taking the time for such a long reply :sweat:

Symphonies 1-9

Violin concerto in a minor.

Slavonic dances op.46(?)

And everything else.

I'll check out some of those, thanks :happy:

Can anyone point me in the direction of some more of chopins orchestral stuff? I have his two piano concerti which i absolutely adore but I'm not too into the solo piano stuff.

Thanks again for all the advice and suggestions!

are you trying to say that a lot of Debussys music is based on rythmic motifs? That seems to be what you're trying to say but I'm not too sure :P

I'll look for a recording by that pascal dude, and thanks very much for taking the time for such a long reply :)

No I did not mean to say that. I may have said something halfway like that on accident because I was maybe a little confusing. I was just trying to say - in too many words - that Debussy sometimes does not have a melodic line. Sometimes his "motifs" are just merely patterns or real quick bursts of sound through arpeggios or trills or something. Sometimes he is just doing things to create an atmosphere. His motifs (if you actually want to call them that - I do not really think that you can use that term with Debussy in a traditional sense of the meaning of the word - it is different with Debussy) were very innovative and unique and they really still are as far as I am concerned. Now in many pieces by Debussy you can play it at such a slow tempo that you start to emphasize everything wrong. You can get to the point where you are bogged down in the details of the notes and can misinterpret the piece. Maybe another way to say it would be to say that you could have a part of a piece written by Debussy that had a line of single notes that could be played as a melody, but are not meant to be emphasized in that way. Rather you are to take the line of single notes are turn them into the background or to make them become part of the creation of the atmosphere that he wants to create. I think that sometimes if you chose the wrong tempo than you will try to hear something melodic that is not supposed to be there. For example, if you have an arpeggio written up and down two octaves that is supposed to be played really fast like a burst of sound rather than focusing on hearing every individual note crisply and you play it slowly then you may start to want to play some of those notes in a melodic way and then totally miss the idea of a burst of sound. When you play things at the correct tempo than you can see ideas as wholes and put emphasis on the idea rather than trying to disect the idea and miss the point of the musical idea. I think this is what Michelangeli did with his interpretation of "Le Dans de Puck". I think he got too slow and started to get lost in the piece and in some places not putting emphasis on anything in particular at all.

That probably made no more or less sense than my last post did. Sorry. I talk about things like this a lot better on the piano. If I can show examples with sounds than I think it makes tons more sense.