Short, mostly one-movement pieces, utterly romantic. Usually for solo instrument, like piano or violin, and orchestra. I love it.
An example? The Romance for Violin and Orchestra in A minor op. 155 by Carl Reinecke. It touches your musical heart without detours.
Any other examples?
I'd like to toss Samuel Coleridge-Taylor's Romance in G for Violin and Orchestra into the mix. That might be my personal favourite "Romance for x and Orchestra". I think the natural feel of his orchestration in general was well-suited to this type of work anyway. Not to mention, when he was on form, Coleridge-Taylor sure could pen down a good tune, which he certainly did here.
It has to be Peterson-Burger's for violin and orchestra.
Though Saint-Saens wrote a six wonderful ones for various instruments (one of them's a trio), and I have a soft spot for good old Beethoven #2.
Dvorak in F minor.
Can I choose the Fauré Ballade Opus 19 for Pf/Orchestra and just call it a Romance? Just this once? It has always been my absolute favorite. So wondrously beautiful.
Steven in NYC
Johan Svendsen, Romance in G major for violin and orchestra, Op. 26.
Andreas Hallén: Romanze for Violin & Orchestra, Op. 16.
Exquisite music.
I'll vote for Svendsen too. Delicious and just that touch of bitter-sweetness.
There are two Romances in Thalberg's Op.70.
Beautiful, but so is the whole series to my ears.
Thal
Another very beautiful Romance I like to add to the list is Max Bruch's Romanze for Violin and Orchestra in A Minor, op. 42. Bruch surely knew how to write sensitive music. Christopher Fifield quotes in his booklet notes Bruch, saying that he loves the violin 'because it can sing a melody, and melody is the soul of music.' Who would argue with that?
There are indeed other kind of compositions called Romance, like the ones Thal mentions. And Antoni Stolpe wrote a Romance ("Duettino") for piano, violin and cello.
But going back to the Romance for solo instrument and orchestra, I wonder who was the first composer who wrote music in this genre? Was it Beethoven?
Well, I don't know about the very first, but the slow movement of Mozart's K. 466 PC is titled Romanze. As a matter of fact, to my knowledge, there is no other indication regarding tempo of any kind for that movement (i.e. Andante, Andantino, etc.) indicating that it was fairly well assumed that the tempo would be on the slowish side.
Mozart also wrote a romance in one of his horn concerti. So, as a music form, the romance existed for some time before Beethoven.
All right, I agree. But as a single musical piece, for solo instrument and orchestra, who composed the first? Beethoven with his opp. 40 & 50?
Don't forget that the term could also once have applied to a work for chamber ensemble, keyboard solo or orchestra without soloist before it applied to a work with solo and orchestra.
Chausson Poeme for violin and orchestra, op 25
Bruch Kol nidrei, op 47
Bloch Schelomo - Rhapsodie Hébraïque pour Violoncelle solo et Grand Orchestre
Paganini Romanze in A minor
Reinecke Romance for violin in A minor, op 155
Reinecke Romance for violin in E minor, op 93
Stenhammer Two Sentimental Romances for violin and orchestra, op 28
Uh, the first three may be in the spirit, but they aren't called that.
It'd be like calling La Mer a symphony.
I did a quicky search and I found 2 romances that may have predated Beethoven's opus 40 and 50"
Anton Stadler: Romanze for clarinet and orchestra.
Carl von Weber: Romanze appassionata for piano and orchestra.
I did not find dates of performance
Quote from: TerraEpon on Monday 04 January 2010, 06:52
Uh, the first three may be in the spirit, but they aren't called that.
It'd be like calling La Mer a symphony.
Ah. Good to know. A romance is not a romance unless the composer titles it a Romance. And a symphony is not a symphony unless the composer titles it a Symphony. Thanks for clarifying that rule. It was very impolite of Chausson to call his utterly romantic piece for violin and orchestra a "poeme" rather than a "romance." Those French. Such intractable renegades. Forever mucking up the works.
Quote from: Hofrat on Monday 04 January 2010, 09:29I did a quicky search and I found 2 romances that may have predated Beethoven's opus 40 and 50"
Anton Stadler: Romanze for clarinet and orchestra.
Carl von Weber: Romanze appassionata for piano and orchestra.
I did not find dates of performance
I doubt the Weber predates the Beethoven. Beethoven's Romances are relatively early works, believed to have been projected slow movements for a Violin Concerto in C that never materialized in its final form (I believe fragments of the first movement were completed by others). This concerto would have predated the sole extant VC in D by around two or three years, maybe even more. The Concerto in D dates from 1805-1806, so, unless the Weber works are from around his 18th year or so, I'm betting the Beethoven came first. The Stadler, on the other hand...
Quote from: Amphissa on Monday 04 January 2010, 17:09
Quote from: TerraEpon on Monday 04 January 2010, 06:52
Uh, the first three may be in the spirit, but they aren't called that.
It'd be like calling La Mer a symphony.
Ah. Good to know. A romance is not a romance unless the composer titles it a Romance. And a symphony is not a symphony unless the composer titles it a Symphony. Thanks for clarifying that rule. It was very impolite of Chausson to call his utterly romantic piece for violin and orchestra a "poeme" rather than a "romance." Those French. Such intractable renegades. Forever mucking up the works.
Well, I kinda see their point, Dave. The question is like the old "scherzo" question on the Raff Forum. The minuet from Beethoven's 1st Symphony is more "scherzo" than "minuet" (just try dancing a minuet to it!), but it isn't called a scherzo, so Beethoven doesn't get credit for putting a scherzo into a symphony until his 2nd Symphony (whose scherzo is actually more minuettish than its predecessor! Allright, so it's a peg-leg minuet. :) ) The point being that the question is really about who first called such a work a "Romance" or "Romanze", not about what kind of composition it is. So, in this case the title is everything. ;)
On the other hand, if I'm wrong then there's a whole lot of independent slow movements for solo and orchestra to chose from...
Come to think of it, did not Bruch compose a Romance in F for Viola and Orchestra?
For Beethoven and others of his generation the Romanze was above all an operatic genre. Adapting operatic genres to instrumental ends was a challenge Beethoven clearly liked -- the Tempest sonata and the opening of the finale to his 9th symphony being obvious examples. My guess is that he was aware of at least one other instrumental Romanze, but that the instrumental genre has a sustained history only because of Beethoven's opp. 40 and 50.
Personally, while I *love* Bloch and Schelomo, try as I might I cannot hear that meditation on Solomon as a romance.
Have to second you there, chill.
Quote from: Amphissa on Monday 04 January 2010, 17:09
Ah. Good to know. A romance is not a romance unless the composer titles it a Romance. And a symphony is not a symphony unless the composer titles it a Symphony. Thanks for clarifying that rule. It was very impolite of Chausson to call his utterly romantic piece for violin and orchestra a "poeme" rather than a "romance." Those French. Such intractable renegades. Forever mucking up the works.
Well is Lalo's Symphonie-Espagnole a concerto? How about Bernstein's Serenade?
On the flip side, is Alkan's symphony actually one?
Etc...
(And I agree about Schlomo, I can't see it being in the same genre as we're refering to, no matter what the name)
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet:)
Steve
Max Bruch's Romance for Viola and Orchestra in F major..... is surely one of the most bitter-sweet romances written.
Reger's Romances for violin and orchestra perhaps?