Favourite subgenre of classical music?

[anacrusis]

I was curious which "subgenre" of classical music people here prefer or has as their favourite? With subgenre, I mean baroque, classical (Mozart/Haydn etc), early romantic, late romantic, impressionistic, whatever style Prokofiev wrote in, etc etc

For the longest time, I used to love Romantic music a la Chopin and Liszt, with memorable themes and fiery expression, most of all. But lately, I have found myself drawn to impressionistic music or more introverted romantic music like Fauré, that is not all about bombast and great gestures, but more quiet, transparent, less immediately memorable.

What do you like, and why?

[jimf12]

I like music from all eras, so it's hard to say which I like best.   If I were stranded on a desert island and could pick only one composer, it would be Mozart - so from that I guess I could say classical but it's not really accurate.   I listen to and play more from the early romantic period, and my favorite pieces of all are probably impressionists.   And the Bach fugues are just mind blowing to me in a very good way.     


I like baroque music because of it's richness and structure.    I like classical music because of it's clean and neat.   I like early romantic because of the expressiveness and the latitude to which much of it allows you to play.    I like impressionist because of how the sound just washes over you. 

Late romantic can be a little over the top for my taste.  A perfect example is Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet - I want to say just gross but I know that's just a subjective opinion I have and not shared by everyone or even most people.   But yeah, kind of gross, and alot of late romantic stuff is like that.   BUT - Rach's 2nd concerto, which is probably more over the top than that can bring tears to my eyes.   So, go figure.   

Atonal stuff - i.e. Schoenberg - I've tried and at times I've actually listened to it and thought I was getting it, but still not there yet.   The minimalist stuff (Glass), first listen is great, then I get sick of it after that.   I actually would rather listen to silence alot of time rather than Glass.   And as much as I don't always get Schoeberg, I can't say that about his music.   I will listen, and try, and sometimes I really enjoy it. 
 
I also like the American modern composers - Copland, Gershwin ...   Ragtime (Joplin) is just plain fun.

I'm just rambling, stream of consciousness, but that's about what I have.   

[j_tour]

It's not as simple for me as saying:  "Two words:  'precompositional strategy'."

But that's a common thread among music I find interesting.  So, the second Viennese school and some later composers who developed more or less systematic theories, like Messiaen, are important.  (Yes, I'm omitting some important "neo-serialists" from this group, but it's not an oversight:  just a kind of apathy).  Even some composers whose strategies are (as far as I can tell!) mostly opaque and inscrutable, like Scriabin, command a good deal of attention.

This includes some writing for keyboards susceptible to a strong formal analysis, such as in Bach, and other composers who inherited or continued to mine the various forms associated with Bach and his predecessors and contemporaries (dance movements, fugues, etc.)

However, I see a kind of formal .... not purity, by any means ... playfulness in, for example, Beethoven's writings, Haydn's, and Debussy's.  A sort of playing within the bounds of either established, inherited forms, or within some at times self-imposed constraints, as might be the case in some of Debussy, or Scarlatti, even.

But, there are lots of exceptions:  I can't say much about Mozart other than that he knew how to exploit the resources available to him in opera, for the keyboard, etc.  Similarly for Schumann and Brahms.  It turns out all three of these examples were more than capable of writing contrapuntal music, and did so, but the bulk of their work has something else I can't really describe.

That there is a lot of music that presents primarily mechanical novelties, which occasionally forms an intersection with pleasing music, is also something I accept, and attempt to stay on top of, although I think of this as more of a curiosity or something to play around with during idle moments.

And maybe another category of music could be described as having an intense political and social element which forms its own impulse, and could be analyzed, but which is, to me, extraordinarily effective above all as music in abstractō.  I'm thinking mostly of Shostakovich and Prokofiev, to some extent Boulez, by his strong extension of serialism into a would-be cultural program, and many others.  Messiaen, although mentioned above, belongs to this group as well.  Not that all composers aren't susceptible to this kind of analysis, but the depth of engagement measured in...metronome clicks, or something...seems to warrant its own category.

[brogers70]

Early Baroque, composers like Schutz, Monteverdi, and Ferrari; I love it for the emotional intensity and the great word painting.

[ranjit]

The only legit answer is the romantic era! Show me anyone whose favorite subgenre isn't romantic, and I'll show you a boring snob

[ivorycherry]

The only legit answer is the romantic era! Show me anyone whose favorite subgenre isn't romantic, and I'll show you a boring snob

What??? No! There’s nothing boring about liking other genres other than romantic(except impressionistic lol). Baroque music is so emotionally intense while still elegant and restrained. Classical is fine, even though the later classical into early romantic period is a lot better. I find every era and composer of romantic beautiful(except Schumann). I honestly like really late romantic the most, like the crazy bits of Scriabin but not the completely atonal and awful ones. I can’t stand Schoenberg and Sorabji though, and the really really modern music is disgusting.

[compline]

For the most I like baroque, renaissance , and romantic music.

I especially like Monteverdi,  Palestrina, Allegri  , Tallis,  Byrd,    Heinrich Biber,  Handel, Lully.

[anacrusis]

Nice to see such a spread of preferences. It seems like Baroque and Romantic comes up a lot, which was not entirely unexpected! But I guess not as many people are fans of the Classical era, Mozart, Haydn etc?

[ivorycherry]

Haydn sucks lol. Mozart’s good for fingers and for thinking IMO. He’s not that bad. Beethoven is awesome though.

[billym]

Is this question referring to piano music or orchestral/non-piano music? I'm just going to assume it's both because I have a different answer to each one.

If you're talking about piano, for me it's just the whole freakin romantic era. The different subgenres of the romantic era are all good in their own ways. Many days I'm in the Chopin/Liszt mood. The ballades and nocturnes of Chopin are my favorite solo literature for sure. However as of late I've really come to absolutely love Mendelssohn- sometimes I can't get enough of it. I don't like Schubert and Schumann as much but they both have a few collections I absolutely love (Impromptus and Kinderszenen respectively would have to be at the top).
 
Late romantic is also amazing. Brahms is sublime but I regard it as sometime-music for me because it's just so dense. It's not every day that you're supposed to eat a thick slice of devil's food cake right? I love Faure as well (for days when I don't want Brahms)- the barcarolles are favorites of mine. Rachmaninoff and early Scriabin are also pretty good sometimes. Rach concertos are probably the greatest pieces of all time. go figure. I don't like Rachmaninoff's overly bombast music like the etudes, it just gives me a headache tbh. Also late Scriabin is bleh.

Of course I like other Baroque, Classical, Impressionist, and Modern composers as well and strive to have a balanced diet, but they aren't what I regard as the lords of the piano.

An unequivocal exception: Beethoven. Probably my favorite composer. Although I guess he was sort of a romantic, being of the struggle-triumph school of music so to speak.

As for non-piano music, I have to say that late romantic and early modern is just the best. Mahler and Sibelius' symphonies are just superior. I also really like Richard Strauss and Holst. Good stuff. I derive a lot of joy as well from Johann Strauss, Brahms, Wagner and Grieg's orchestral music.

[anacrusis]

Brahms is sublime but I regard it as sometime-music for me because it's just so dense. It's not every day that you're supposed to eat a thick slice of devil's food cake right?

That's a great analogy, except I merely enjoy some of Brahms output but don't find his music sublime I went to a concert where three different ensembles played three different Brahms piano trios or quartets. It was indeed like eating too much cake, it just became too much after a while.

[billym]

That's a great analogy, except I merely enjoy some of Brahms output but don't find his music sublime I went to a concert where three different ensembles played three different Brahms piano trios or quartets. It was indeed like eating too much cake, it just became too much after a while.

I should clarify, I think only a part of his work is sublime as well. Certainly not all!
As for the concert, that sounds quite fun, honestly..at least if it's a one-time deal. However I haven't actually been to a concert performance in a long while and I don't think a Brahms chamber concert would the best way to get back into the groove...

[mjames]

Brahms being discovered and then later mentored by Robert Schumann is perhaps the second greatest tragedy in the history of classical music.

[jimf12]

I don't really consider Brahms late romantic - I realize these are just general labels but that's not where I put him.   Op 116-119, and his Hungarian dances are among my most favorite piano pieces.   I really like Brahms, and never really thought of the heavy meal analogy, but I see that.   What I love about Brahms was the incorporation of the classical period and traditional forms blended with romantic era expressiveness.   

As far as the no love for the classical period, that's  interesting to me because I think I might fall into that group.   BUT, as I mentioned earlier, Mozart would be my "stranded on a deserted island" composer, and he represents the pinnacle of the classical period. 

I'm sure the pianocentric nature of the members of this group might skew opinions toward the romantic era and it's iron harped piano more than other groups of people.   Chopin and beyond essentially had the same piano to work with that we play on today, where previous composers were playing on a much more fragile instrument not capable of the demands of the romantic era.   Of course, that didn't stop Beethoven, but he's a unique case.

[anacrusis]

Of course, that didn't stop Beethoven, but he's a unique case.

That's for sure, he was allegedly known for breaking his instruments every now and then  When piano makers started making sturdier instruments he either got himself one or was gifed one. I vaguely recall reading the "hammerklavier" sonata was written on a more "modern" piano.

[compline]

Haydn sucks lol. Mozart’s good for fingers and for thinking IMO. He’s not that bad. Beethoven is awesome though.

Ivory, 
 Beethoven was a pupil of Haydn for a while, but I'm not sure the pair got on that well. It is believed that Beethoven said that he didn't learn an awful lot from father Haydn. 

[jimf12]

Beethoven and Haydn did not get along very well.   Beethoven thought Haydn was a lazy teacher, Haydn would assign Beethoven counterpoint exercises and Beethoven realized that Haydn was only catching the most obvious errors.   Beethoven ended up taking them to another person to correct, Haydn found out about it, and became irritated that his student went behind his back.   Beethoven was irked that Haydn criticized op1/3, a Piano trio in C minor.   It turned out that the public loved it, and Beethoven took special joy in that.   Beethoven was known to say that he learned nothing from Haydn.

But then again, who did Beethoven get along well with?   Pretty short list.   Haydn is largely known as one of the truly nice guys of composers, so I kind of have an impression of how all that went down.   

[music.]

Beethoven and Haydn did not get along very well.   Beethoven thought Haydn was a lazy teacher, Haydn would assign Beethoven counterpoint exercises and Beethoven realized that Haydn was only catching the most obvious errors.   Beethoven ended up taking them to another person to correct, Haydn found out about it, and became irritated that his student went behind his back.   Beethoven was irked that Haydn criticized op1/3, a Piano trio in C minor.   It turned out that the public loved it, and Beethoven took special joy in that.   Beethoven was known to say that he learned nothing from Haydn.

But then again, who did Beethoven get along well with?   Pretty short list.   Haydn is largely known as one of the truly nice guys of composers, so I kind of have an impression of how all that went down.   

You're right. Gee, Haydn was even jealous of Beethoven at a point.

[getsiegs]

In terms of the major musical eras, I'm definitely a late Romantic/Impressionistic/20th century kinda guy. Maybe it's because I'm not looking in the right places or I have some maturing to do, but I just can't listen to anything Beethoven or before without feeling bored. It's not that I outright dislike Baroque/Classical music; it just doesn't really excite me the way later pieces do. Late Romantic music and beyond is, IMHO, more:

-technically exciting/virtuosic (i.e. Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev)
-harmonically exciting/interesting (i.e. Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin)
-emotionally intense/beautiful (i.e. Chopin, Rachmaninoff)

than what I've seen of Baroque/Classical music.

As for more specific "subgenres", I happen to be a sucker for virtuosity and love the adrenaline rush and intensity that I get from virtuosic music. I'm almost surprised I don't give myself headaches from what I subject my ears to so I guess that's why I can't be bothered to listen to Bach and Beethoven. BUT that's not to say I can't also appreciate simpler, prettier pieces; I'd just like for there to be a little more depth and excitement to it (again i.e. Chopin/Rach).

[jimf12]

@getsiegs based on your preferences for music I am a little surprised you put Beethoven in your range of eras that you don't prefer.   I think he checks all of the boxes you listed - virtuosic, harmonically exciting, and emotionally intense.    Beethoven broke away from his contemporaries, and subsequent composers of the romantic era spent a lot of blood sweat and tears trying to mimic him.

There is no crime in not liking a certain style of music, and it is no indication of a lack of refinement or anything else.   If you don't like it, you don't like it.   End of story.   So I'm not trying to imply anything other than I wonder if you have sampled enough of other eras, and I say that because of the mention of "simpler" pieces and Bach in the same sentence.   Simple is the exact opposite word I would use when to describe Bach and other baroque music.   It's incredibly complex, and it all lives on the surface.    The term baroque actually was slang for things that were considered bizarre or in bad taste due to it's overly extravagant design.   Architecturally, artistically, and musically the baroque is noted for it's complexity tied together with symmetry to control it.    And Bach, the father of the Baroque, was criticized by his contemporaries because his was too complex for an era defined by complexity.   Listen to the Brandenburg concertos, or perhaps BWV 1042, a concerto for violin, strings in E major.    Complex polyphonic surface with a rock steady basso continuo to hold it all together.    And his fugues are just mind blowing to me, how a simple tune can be merged together with 3 or 4 voices and massaged in a way where it all fits together.  It turns into a big mess of notes that somehow fits all together.   The italian style (see Vivaldi, the Four Seasons), are to my ears rich in emotional depth.   

The classical style was born out of the enlightenment, presumably to simplify music for the masses because Joe the Plumber has as much right to enjoy music as the king.   Of course the music is not simpler, it's just that the complexity of it is pushed down a little off the surface.  It does generally come across to me as lighter, a little easier to digest at times.   It is the era of music that I can most easily listen to while I work, it can sit in the background.  Always exceptions though - the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart and Mozart's piano concertos.   I have to listen, it's rich and requires my attention.   Mozart's G Minor symphony No 40 gives me chills.   

My issue with some of the late romantic stuff is much of it really requires that you have some context and background to have a chance of appreciating it.   All music benefits from having that context and background, but some of it just makes it a prerequisite.   Mahlers fifth for example, some of the word painting pieces based on stories and poems.   j_tour alluded to a type of music that fits that - the politically motivated pieces.   I'm not sure you can appreciate even half of some of Shostakovich's work if you don't know the back story.   

 

[getsiegs]

Simple is the exact opposite word I would use when to describe Bach and other baroque music.   It's incredibly complex, and it all lives on the surface.  Architecturally, artistically, and musically the baroque is noted for it's complexity tied together with symmetry to control it. Listen to the Brandenburg concertos, or perhaps BWV 1042, a concerto for violin, strings in E major.    Complex polyphonic surface with a rock steady basso continuo to hold it all together.    And his fugues are just mind blowing to me, how a simple tune can be merged together with 3 or 4 voices and massaged in a way where it all fits together. 

I guess I should've been more specific, and perhaps "simple" isn't the right word for what I meant. I think we should differentiate what about the music makes it "exciting" - you make a great case here for the extraordinary structure and counterpoint in Bach's music, and I agree fully. However, for me personally, structure and counterpoint aren't what make music "exciting"; there isn't much that I find engaging about fugues, for example. I take "simple" back - it's surely some extremely complex writing, but it doesn't fall under my idea of exciting/interesting.

I think he checks all of the boxes you listed - virtuosic, harmonically exciting, and emotionally intense.    Beethoven broke away from his contemporaries, and subsequent composers of the romantic era spent a lot of blood sweat and tears trying to mimic him.

I agree again, but to an extent. First of all, Beethoven definitely broke away from his contemporaries, but that's not such a high bar to jump over to my ears. I'm looking one step further, for the people who broke away from Beethoven. IMO, while Beethoven definitely has those late-romantic qualities (virtuosity, harmonic innovation, etc), his music feels just a little bit too tied to Classical structures/forms/harmony for my tastes.

The classical style was born out of the enlightenment, presumably to simplify music for the masses because Joe the Plumber has as much right to enjoy music as the king.   Of course the music is not simpler, it's just that the complexity of it is pushed down a little off the surface.  It does generally come across to me as lighter, a little easier to digest at times.   It is the era of music that I can most easily listen to while I work, it can sit in the background.  Always exceptions though - the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart and Mozart's piano concertos.   I have to listen, it's rich and requires my attention.   Mozart's G Minor symphony No 40 gives me chills.   

Once again, I agree. The departure from polyphony in Classical music makes it feel simpler and more straightforward. Some Mozart and Haydn definitely feels background music-y, and I wouldn't mind listening to it in that context. I'd never choose Mozart or Haydn if I wanted to feel actively engaged, moved, or excited by the music. Funnily enough, my choices of "background music" are just as heavy and intense as my active listening choices - I love me a good Rach concerto or Scriabin sonata even when I'm focused on something else (i.e. homework, a video game, etc.).

My issue with some of the late romantic stuff is much of it really requires that you have some context and background to have a chance of appreciating it.   All music benefits from having that context and background, but some of it just makes it a prerequisite.   Mahlers fifth for example, some of the word painting pieces based on stories and poems.   j_tour alluded to a type of music that fits that - the politically motivated pieces.   I'm not sure you can appreciate even half of some of Shostakovich's work if you don't know the back story.   

Agreed!! There are certain pieces/composers with historical context, (Shostakovich/Mahler as you mention, Prokofiev 7, etc.) without which would be difficult to appreciate or understand. I think that late Romantic music and beyond can also be difficult to appreciate purely in a musical sense, such as in structure, texture, harmony, etc. I saw Valentina Lisitsa describe classical music (in general, not the classical era) as fine wine, and I have to agree that it takes time and exposure to appreciate the music. I had been taking piano lessons for over 10 years before I found it in me to appreciate even just the Chopin Etudes, which are about as accessible as Romantic pieces get! Also, the first time I heard Prokofiev's Toccata Op. 11, I burst out laughing at the big, climactic sections because the percussive chromaticism was so jarring and hilarious to me that I could hardly handle it. Point is, I completely agree that late Romantic music and beyond is hard to appreciate at first glance and without musical training. What would a non-pianist, for example, find beautiful about the virtuosity of Liszt and Rachmaninoff? Also, some of my absolute favorite pieces of all time are works that I didn't like at all on first listen (Ravel La Valse, Rach 3, lots of Scriabin, etc). Some pieces take months for me to fully internalize and appreciate. But, at the end of it all, I've found the styles and composers that I love, and it doesn't matter to me if different people appreciate different things about different music.

Anyway this post was super long and a little disjointed but I hope it cleared some stuff up

[kc_gracie]

This is certainly hard to give an answer to. There are definitely eras I prefer or particular composers or even just particular pieces. However, if I think hard about it, I think I most enjoy early Romantic Beethoven (in particular sonatas like 21, 23, 26, 30-32) and many romantic works spanning most of the time period (Liszt's more romantic and less over the top virtuouso works, like the Harmonies Poetiques, Annees, Ballades, and so on), early Scriabin, early Szymanowski, everything Chopin, and so on. I also have been on a huge Bach kick lately and I find that I really like counterpoint done well and love fugues. As a side, I also really enjoy transcriptions of Bach's works by modern composers, Busoni, and Godowsky. Just truly amazing stuff.

Other than that, some of the works by Godowsky have been really interesting, like the Chopin waltzes and Schubert works (amongst others) where he adds wonderful layers of counterpoint to these already nice pieces. Beyond this, I have been really enjoying more impressionistic music from Debussy and late Scriabin. However, I seem to be picky on the pieces and composers.

I can't say there is any classical music that I don't like as background. I also have a problem intensely listening to everything I put on that has a piano in it. However, I haven't been able to get into modern and classical era works as much. For some absurd reason, I can't click with Mozart and Haydn, minus a few pieces and concertos. Same goes for more atonal works and the such. I'm trying to get more into these works, but it may take some time. I am starting to really enjoy Prokofiev though.

So...I guess romantic and baroque for me? I don't know, I just like what I like and always ready to hear more and expand my tastes.

-KC

[2hottohandel]

On piano, I like the Romantic (Chopin, Liszt, Debussy etc.) and Classical (Mozart, Beethoven - who is both romantic and classical).

For violin, I like Romantic (Tchaikovsky and Sibelius) and Baroque (Bach).

My favorite symphonic works are basically all of Beethoven, some Mozart, Schubert, and Dvorak

[j_tour]

On piano, I like the Romantic (Chopin, Liszt, Debussy etc.) and Classical (Mozart, Beethoven - who is both romantic and classical).

For violin, I like Romantic (Tchaikovsky and Sibelius) and Baroque (Bach).

My favorite symphonic works are basically all of Beethoven, some Mozart, Schubert, and Dvorak

But, to just needle you a bit, if you have to play the tune "Too Hard to Handle," do you play it in B or in C?

Couldn't resist!

[lelle]

There is no crime in not liking a certain style of music, and it is no indication of a lack of refinement or anything else.   If you don't like it, you don't like it.   End of story. 

Thank you for saying this! I think saying somebody not liking something because they "lack refinement" is just elitist and not true. Taste is taste and it's subjective!

[jimf12]

Thank you for saying this! I think saying somebody not liking something because they "lack refinement" is just elitist and not true. Taste is taste and it's subjective!

I stand by my statement 100%, and I say that because what I am about to say may seem like backpedaling.   

There is music (and art, literature, dance, and on and on) where an understanding of the context and meaning changes your opinion.   Off and on I have had a subscription to The Great Courses, and devoured many of the music lecture series that were offered.  Some music "came to life" for me after listening to lectures that educated me a bit.   Some music benefited more from having that understanding than others for me.   One of the courses offered was a 24 lecture series on the Beethoven sonatas - guess who became a giant fan of Beethoven sonatas after going through that course?   It's not that I didn't like them before, I most certainly did, but my level of enjoyment went up a noticeable amount after hearing an analysis, both technical and historical, of the music.   

I remember a long time ago learning how fugues were structured, and I went from "Meh" to "Holy Jeepers Batman" in an instant.

But, I know a fair amount about Opera as well, and I think I'm at best "meh" with that genre in general.   That has nothing to do with refinement, and everything to do with me just not digging it.       

[lelle]

I certainly agree. I think the wrong part of saying people "lack refinement" is - apart from it being somebody sitting on their high horse and choosing to look down on others over something completely arbitrary to feel better about themselves - is that while increased knowledge can help you appreciate something more, it does not inherently do so. I have done some programming in my days and know enough to have extra appreciation for how cool and advanced some things people program are. But I still do not particularly love neither programming nor looking through other people's code. Not sure if that's a good analogy or not. Maybe a better one is painting. I know a thing or two about painting but I still think going to art galleries gets boring pretty quick.

Speaking of appreciating the Beethoven sonatas... I have always loved them but my appreciation grew even more thanks to these Beethoven lectures by Schiff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ZWPJlNSXM&list=PLoNBbqXltyeKMjF_uRbSnXNsGO_h3MqZC

[brogers70]

Speaking of appreciating the Beethoven sonatas... I have always loved them but my appreciation grew even more thanks to these Beethoven lectures by Schiff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ZWPJlNSXM&list=PLoNBbqXltyeKMjF_uRbSnXNsGO_h3MqZC

Schiff's lectures are great. I also like Jonathan Biss' course (on Coursera) covering the Beethoven sonatas.

[jimf12]

I just watched the first Schiff lecture last night, I'm going to work through those.   Thanks for the reference.    If you ever get a chance to hear Robert Greenberg, he is just so engaging and presents things in a very unpretentious way without dumbing it down.   He has a ton of courses on The Great Courses (and btw, I don't work for them, just a happy customer).

[romanticperiod]

I love the romantic period  But I do think some romantic pieces are just a bit to much like some Chopin etudes are so fast you can't even hear the individual notes anymore which I dont really enjoy. Question though, what comosers do you guys think are part of the romantic period? I personally consider Beethoven part of the romantic period, but some people say that he was strickly part of the classical period.

[jimf12]

I view Beethoven as the bridge from classical to romantic.   It's hard to put one label on him.   Schubert, Chopin, Lizst, Mendelssohn were the early romantic.   Rach and Scriabin toward the tail end.   

[lelle]

Yeah, Beethoven is definitely a bridge. He starts out with his feet in the classical era, but already being the radical "punk rock" kid that he was. By the end of his output I'd view him as early romantic. (I would put Schubert in the same category). It's moving towards romanticism, but still more deeply rooted in classical structures and musical devices than composers such as Liszt and Chopin.

[j_tour]

Yeah, Beethoven is definitely a bridge. He starts out with his feet in the classical era, but already being the radical "punk rock" kid that he was. By the end of his output I'd view him as early romantic. (I would put Schubert in the same category). It's moving towards romanticism, but still more deeply rooted in classical structures and musical devices than composers such as Liszt and Chopin.

Yes, this is something I was wondering about for a long time.  Of course, Beethoven.

But specifically from n to Chopin.  I was looking for the link from n to Chopin, because it seemed so inouï.

There used to be some very eccentric, often wrong contributor to the forum, who suggested a very convincing link, both historically and musically.

Thankfully that opened my ears to a great many works by Hummel.

For me, that was exactly the link I sought.

[jimf12]

Wikipedia has a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Romantic_composers

Labels like Baroque and Classical ... are useful, they provide us with a convenient way to communicate certain broad but generally accurate traits in music and composers.   But they aren't anything more than that.