Complete Works

[Gurn Blanston]

As I have aged I do this less & less. The last composer I did this with was Stockhausen .. it took me about 5 years, and was supplemented with much reading, discussion and video too .. but I have did this my whole life really, with a wide variety of musicians and cumulatively it has been rewarding, a deepening of appreciation. It offers tremendous insights into not only the artist specifically and what that path is like, but also, the art-form in general .. technical, historical, political, psychological etc., etc. I didn't necessarily go chronological every time, but tried to get my hands on everything that I could to do as complete a survey as possible, to get a more complete picture/understanding. Even going as far as consuming their musical influences too. It is hard to put into words exactly, but there is a benefit and a deepening of one's self and a widening of perspective, and how you come to view the world, it just rubs off on you after being immersed in something for so long. If the artist really speaks to you, I'd say go for it .. do the deep immersion, even if you don't like everything you discover - you'll come away learning quite a bit and most likely appreciating the artist & the art even more than before.

Other than your first sentence, I agree completely. For me, it is "as I have aged, I do this more and more...". 

[(poco) Sforzando]

I assume that Monsieur Florestan, the OP, is talking about an organized listening project to hear the entirety of a composer's output in chronological order. I can't say I've done just that, but I've gone through a couple of projects listening to all Bach's sacred cantatas in BWV order (obviously not chronological) and every Haydn symphony. I've also played through all the Beethoven piano sonatas, in varying degrees of incompetency, on my home piano; and I'm sure by now I've heard much of Chopin, Berg, Wagner, Schoenberg, and possibly some others. I remember when quite young buying the 4-LP Webern set under Robert Craft, not because I know anything about Webern at the time but largely because I thought it would be nice to hear everything written by a single composer. (Of course that "complete" set was not really "complete.")

I have however read the complete works of Shakespeare more or less at one go. Around 1990, I was commuting by train to a job in New York City, and rather than do what every other commuter did (i.e., read the paper, sleep, or talk - cell phones and laptops not being around then), I decided to pick up The Comedy of Errors and read all the way to The Two Noble Kinsmen, not forgetting the Sonnets and miscellaneous poems. It took eight months, but I did it.

I also read most of Herman Melville while in graduate school, as a special topic for my orals. But I didn't quite finish, since I failed to get through more than a few pages of his long poem "Clarel." I tried on several occasions, but the sheer turgidity defeated me each time. Fortunately the examiners never asked me about this one either, so I was safe.

[James]

Other than your first sentence, I agree completely. For me, it is "as I have aged, I do this more and more...". 

Reason being .. that after a certain point one becomes more knowledgeable & experienced, that less is required to get what an artist's thing is about I find. Overtime, you have that deeper and wider picture in place of music as a whole, you have more insight & clarity. Things don't seem as blurry or as daunting as when you're a novice. So one can size things up with a lot less in most cases, you have more of a reference for things because you've broken down those barriers in the process of exploring so many paths. One could go deeper and deeper - in fact, many truly 'great' musicians can become a life long study quite easily. And we have so many scholars who do this. But I've actually explored other art forms (e.g. painters, illustrators, film) a lot more in the last few years, and music has taken a back seat after going the distance with it for most of my life. But overall, the journey has certainly improved the quality of my life.

[Karl Henning]

I have did this my whole life

[Jay F]

I've done it a couple of times with Mahler, because, well, it's Mahler. So doable. I think Boulez' box set is the most complete (though if it is not, someone will let us know).

[Florestan]

I assume that Monsieur Florestan, the OP, is talking about an organized listening project to hear the entirety of a composer's output in chronological order.

Precisely.

Things are complicated, though, because if one really wants to explore not only the internal development of a composer´s style but also the relationship his music had with that of his contemporaries --- and if one is going to to the thing, then better do it exhaustively, right? --- one also needs ssome context. For instance, it is not enough to start with Beethoven´s op. 1; for a proper perspective and a fair assessment one must also listen to at least Haydn´s piano trios written at about the same time. The same goes for piano sonatas. And how is one going to appreciate the novelty and quirkiness of the Eroica without listening to at least a dozen symphonies from about the same period? A.s.o, a.s.o, a.s.o. So, what could have started as a relatively benign and doable project (Beethoven´s Complete Works) might soon develop into a monstrously full-blown, scaringly time-consuming one (A Comparative Survey of Western Music, 1790 - 1827).   

And in Beethoven´s case there are only (sic!) 130-somethings opus numbers plus a few dozens WoO´s. Imagine the mess when tackling Haydn, Mozart or Schubert. 

All in all, I think that of all my favorite composers the easiest such project would be Chopin. 

[James]

It's not that complicated, believe me. Being chronologically minded is enough if your trying to get a handle of the composer's evolution & context .. you don't necessarily have to go exactly chronological with your listening. And listening to a bunch of mediocre music of the same period isn't that necessary .. seeing what top flight contemporaries were doing is better.

[Florestan]

you don't necessarily have to go exactly chronological with your listening.

That´s why I said chronological opus number. I am fully aware that this is not the same as chronological time of composition.

And listening to a bunch of mediocre music of the same period isn't that necessary .. seeing what top flight contemporaries were doing is better.[/size][/font]

Yes, but who was the active top flight symphonist contemporary of Beethoven at the time he was composing Eroica?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes, but who was the active top flight symphonist contemporary of Beethoven at the time he was composing Eroica?

Haydn.

[Gurn Blanston]

Haydn.

As far as his works still being played, but Haydn wrote his last symphony in London in 1795. I would agree that Beethoven was still working at vanquishing the ghost of the former grandeur of Haydn by the time of the Eroica though...

[(poco) Sforzando]

As far as his works still being played, but Haydn wrote his last symphony in London in 1795. I would agree that Beethoven was still working at vanquishing the ghost of the former grandeur of Haydn by the time of the Eroica though...

True, but though he retired from composing in 1803, Haydn's later works such as the two oratorios (1798, 1801) still make use of the same symphonic language as the symphonies and quartets. All the same, no other candidate of comparable stature presents himself.

[James]

That´s why I said chronological opus number. I am fully aware that this is not the same as chronological time of composition.

What I'm saying is that you can pick and choose anywhere you'd like within a composer's complete output but just making note of chronology in your head .. you don't necessarily have to be anal retentive about it by following opus numbering, or a chronological order ... you can be chronologically minded as you are freely exploring.

[James]

Yes, but who was the active top flight symphonist contemporary of Beethoven at the time he was composing Eroica?

I was more referring to music in general not just symphonies. For the symphony aspect it's probably best to just check out the best of what largely came before him .. e.g. Mozart & Haydn.