Seems like there is modest amount of clearly expressionist classical music. Most of composers that are considered as representatives of this movement are never entirely expressionist, they just hooked at it for a while.

Is expressionism minor movement, not so important as others, well represented movements like impressionism?

Anyone counts it as one of his favourites?

From what I know Scriabin was expressionist, but I can hardly find anything in his music that would stand out from late romantic/impressionist ways. Other personas that are often considered expressionists are early Webern, Schoenberg and Berg, sometimes early Bartók. That's quite short list.

From what I've heard so far I assume that most of expressionist music is one huge AGITATO based on romantic spirit and modern technics and atonality.

I don't know that Expressionism has been clearly defined in music... perhaps even less than it has in art and literature... and even there things are hazy. Van Gogh clearly shows Expressionist elements... but he also falls within the Post-Impressionist grouping. E.L. Kirchner and Franz Marc were both German Expressionists (members of Die Brucke and the Blue Rider groups) in spite of very different agendas... while Max Beckmann who rejected the term is generally seen as the greatest of the German Expressionists. And then we have Abstract Expressionism and Neo-Expressionism.

I have commonly seen Richard Strauss' early operas (Elecktra, Salome) referred to as Expressionist... along with other decadent Viennese operas of the period: Korngold's Die tote Stadt, Das Wunder der Heliane, Franz Shreker's Die Gezeichneten, Der Schatzgräber, Kurt Weill and Bertolt Brecht's Beggar's Opera, etc... I have also seen the composers of the Second Viennese School referred to as expressionists: Shoenberg, Berg and Webern. Certainly there are Expressionist elements at play in Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, in much of Bartok's music, even in Penderecki.

Sounds like junk to me. But I don't know what expressionist music really is.

Scriabin basically just took the late romantic style to its extreme more than anything. I don't think there's any clear line between "extended" tonality, like Tristan und Isolde for example, and "free atonality", like Scriabin's late style or non-serialist but atonal works of Schoenberg.

I imagine Bartoks Miraculous Mandarin being a completely expressionistic work its direct visceral physicality being a complete contrast to either romantic emotion, or impressionistic subtle colour and atmospherics - thas my understanding of it - in many ways a whole load of music since that has tried to emulate and usually failed such works by bartok and stravinsky (the rite) and prokofiev (symphony 3..) in its electric shocking directness - though original and great examples of the movement are thin on the ground, inluence and imitations that misunderstand the contemporary origins and ideas behind it all abond to this day - then again I may not understand the true meaning of expressionism as its not often talked about musically

Maybe the fanciful words you used are precisely why many (like me) have no clue what expressionistic works are. "Impressionistic subtle colour and atmospherics" ... are we talking about visual arts or music? There comes a point when the simple criteria of good art; being uplifting, is plainly not met, so we don't need to pretend we don't understand it and apply fanciful adjectives to it.

To problem is that, like I said before, you first read about expressionism and you find out that Webern or Schoenberg were expressionists, then you read about them hoping that you will find out more, but what you finally find is some single note that "Weberns early works are often considered expressionist". What is early Webern? This guy wrote so little amount of music that it is hard to share it for periods. And Schoenberg? If he was expressionist, then how did he invent serialism?

All composers that are mentioned in articles as representants of expressionism are like "when Webern was young, stupid and uneducated he sticked to expressionism for couple of minutes and wrote one of most important examples of expressnionist music - one movement for string quartet, which performance takes approximately 17 seconds".

Who is pretending? Terms like "colours" are not beyond common understanding, some music can be described like visual thing.

you may not experience music like & dont think for a minute im being pretentious in my exlanations -

however I clearly didnt know what expressinism meant at my post as I didt even care to google it - I did after though and am none the wiser

I think expressionism had been clearly defined and this is why it was such a small movement.

Famous quote by some conductor (forgot who :P):

"Schoenbergs music is not for the heart or head but music for the nerves."