Greetings!

[NorthNYMark]

The Bartok quartets are not a great place to start at all, and they're more than a bit overrated at times; you're certainly right about the Third and Fourth being the most significant though. But you seem to have missed his greatest works, the first two piano concertos.

Hi, Sean!  (I just wrote a longish reply to one of your earlier posts, but hit the wrong button, and it seems to have been lost to the aether).  Actually, I may have been unclear in my post about Bartok--I've heard and loved all three of the piano concertos, especially those first two.  Unlike many on the thread about them, I prefer (at this point) the more intense and muscular Kovacevich/Davis versions to the more detailed and refined Kocsis/Fischer and Schiff/Fischer performances (though I'm glad to have all of them).  I first heard the first concerto (the Kovacevich/Davis version)  on a used LP, and even though it had more surface noise than I normally find acceptable, the performance just seemed to leap right from my speakers and grab me by the lapels, demanding my complete and undivided attention from beginning to end.  I hadn't experienced anything quite that intense since the first time I heard Brahms's first piano concerto.

[Sean]

Yes sure, I agree with all that. The Kocsis has had some good reviews but it misses the essential bite and vibrancy of the music and I see it as a failure really- I bought it on CD years ago, but first got to know 1&2 from the superb Anda recording; I think I've also heard the Kovacevich. We're on the same wavelength anyway.

And yes don't trust computers- as you know, copy and save a longer post to the clipboard before you hit anything.

Hi, Sean!  (I just wrote a longish reply to one of your earlier posts, but hit the wrong button, and it seems to have been lost to the aether).  Actually, I may have been unclear in my post about Bartok--I've heard and loved all three of the piano concertos, especially those first two.  Unlike many on the thread about them, I prefer (at this point) the more intense and muscular Kovacevich/Davis versions to the more detailed and refined Kocsis/Fischer and Schiff/Fischer performances (though I'm glad to have all of them).  I first heard the first concerto (the Kovacevich/Davis version)  on a used LP, and even though it had more surface noise than I normally find acceptable, the performance just seemed to leap right from my speakers and grab me by the lapels, demanding my complete and undivided attention from beginning to end.  I hadn't experienced anything quite that intense since the first time I heard Brahms's first piano concerto.

[North Star]

Thanks!  I've heard at least something by every composer you've mentioned except for the latter two.  I've been meaning to try Pärt for some time, and I actually bought an old record with an Adams composition ("Shaker Loops") along with something by Reich (with Edo de Waart and the San Francisco Symphony) a while ago, but haven't had the chance to listen yet.  I wonder if listening to minimalism might not require similar approach (from me) to that required by listening to Mozart and Haydn--trying to see the repetitive framework as a means of highlighting the sonorities of the instruments themselves rather than the movement of the composition.  I imagine that minimalism is meant to be experienced in a Zen-like state where you become hyper-sensitive to the qualities of sound itself--is that the general consensus, or am I "off" in my assumptions?

As to those other three Bs, I haven't had particularly strong reactions to them one way or another--I get the sense that I need to hear more from them, though.  Interestingly, the first time I heard Symphony Fantastique, it was the Paray version from the Mercury set, and I enjoyed it a lot, as I recall.  Later I heard the more well-known (from what I can tell) version by Colin Davis on the Philips set, and it sounded a lot less adventurous than I had remembered.  Again, it will be interesting to compare them directly sometime.  People describe this work in ways that make me want to revisit it, because there must be something going on in it that I didn't notice when I listened to the Davis version. From Britten, I've only heard the War Requiem (the overall darkness of which I enjoyed, though I suspect that I would have gotten more out of it if I knew more about the conventions of the requiem format and if I were following along with the text), the Violin Concerto (Janssons and Järvi), and the Simple Symphony (only heard on the radio in the car).  They were all different enough that I don't yet have a feel for his overall style.  Berg is someone I expect to learn more about, though for some reason his somewhat thick sonic palette has not yet appealed to me as much as those of his contemporaries Schoenberg and (especially) Webern.  I'm going mainly on the basis of the Dorati set on Mercury, so I expect my initial responses to change with more exposure.

I definitely have had positive impressions (no pun intended) of both Ravel and Janacek, though, again, my exposure has been relatively limited.  With Ravel, I've enjoyed everything I've heard expect for Daphnis et Chloe, which seemed pretty but got tedious (to me) after a while (again, more listens may change that, but perhaps people have suggestions on approaching that particular work).  From Janacek, I've only heard the Sinfonietta (the main theme of which was already familiar due to Emerson, Lake, and Palmer's "appropriation" of it in "Knife-Edge") and part of Taras Bulba conducted by Mackerras on the Decca set.  It made me curious to hear more!

Well, first of all, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that post, having the idea that you were a 'Sibelius fan'  Good to meet, even considering that.. 

The sonorities are certainly important to minimalists - John Tavener's Protecting Veil is another great example (but apparently his other work isn't on the same level).
As for the earlier composers you mention, you should definitely try some HIP & PI (historically informed performance practice, period instruments) recordings of 19th and 18th century music - the music works often much better, and especially the timbres are more interesting and well-balanced in the ensembles.

Berlioz of course is much older than the others, and Britten and Berg had at least foot in the tradition.

You could try Britten's Violin Concerto and the orchestral song series (Les Illuminations, Serenade, Nocturne, and Ballad of Heroes)

For Berlioz, check Romeo & Juliette (particularly the Scene d'amour and Queen Mab). Much of his greatest music is in the song cycle Les nuits d'été and the operas, too (the last ½ hour or so of La damnation de Faust, for example).

Taras Bulba and Daphnis are not among my favourites from Janacek and Ravel, and they wouldn't be something I'd suggest to someone looking for more modern aesthetics.
For Janacek, try his Wind Sextet Mladi (Youth), Violin Concerto, the Violin Sonata and the String Quartets, especially no. 2 (though you didn't like Bartók's, so I'm not sure if you will like these, not that they are too similar). And the operas, if you like opera (and perhaps even if you don't, at least the overtures and other orchestral music)

As for Ravel, try some of these: Piano Concertos (particularly the one for Left hand), solo piano: Miroirs and Gaspard de la nuit, chamber music: the Piano Trio, Sonata for Violin & Cello, songs: Chansons madecasses Trois Poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé,

About Bartók: I don't think you can go wrong with Solti or Boulez recordings, with Solti providing more muscle probably.

[Karl Henning]

What a funny remark, Sean. All the composers I know, not one of them would apply the word overrated to any of the Bartók quartets.

I think this is yet another instance of trusting those who know the craft....

[Sean]

Some of the Bartok quartets may indeed be understood better in terms of a composer's manufactured construction.

That's overstating things a bit, I do admire the cycle but the First, Second and Sixth have a dryness you can't shrug off.

[NorthNYMark]

Well, first of all, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that post, having the idea that you were a 'Sibelius fan'  Good to meet, even considering that.. 

The sonorities are certainly important to minimalists - John Tavener's Protecting Veil is another great example (but apparently his other work isn't on the same level).
As for the earlier composers you mention, you should definitely try some HIP & PI (historically informed performance practice, period instruments) recordings of 19th and 18th century music - the music works often much better, and especially the timbres are more interesting and well-balanced in the ensembles.

Berlioz of course is much older than the others, and Britten and Berg had at least foot in the tradition.

You could try Britten's Violin Concerto and the orchestral song series (Les Illuminations, Serenade, Nocturne, and Ballad of Heroes)

For Berlioz, check Romeo & Juliette (particularly the Scene d'amour and Queen Mab). Much of his greatest music is in the song cycle Les nuits d'été and the operas, too (the last ½ hour or so of La damnation de Faust, for example).

Taras Bulba and Daphnis are not among my favourites from Janacek and Ravel, and they wouldn't be something I'd suggest to someone looking for more modern aesthetics.
For Janacek, try his Wind Sextet Mladi (Youth), Violin Concerto, the Violin Sonata and the String Quartets, especially no. 2 (though you didn't like Bartók's, so I'm not sure if you will like these, not that they are too similar). And the operas, if you like opera (and perhaps even if you don't, at least the overtures and other orchestral music)

As for Ravel, try some of these: Piano Concertos (particularly the one for Left hand), solo piano: Miroirs and Gaspard de la nuit, chamber music: the Piano Trio, Sonata for Violin & Cello, songs: Chansons madecasses Trois Poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé,

About Bartók: I don't think you can go wrong with Solti or Boulez recordings, with Solti providing more muscle probably.

Wow--thanks so much for the great suggestions--I have quite a bit of exploring to do!  By the way, though I would not yet call myself a "Sibelius fan," I see myself as at least a potential one.  I think I just need to listen to more--aside from the first symphony, the works of his I have heard so far (symphonies 5, 6, and 7) struck me as being somewhat sprawling and diffuse (like more impressionistic versions of Mahler, perhaps).  I don't think they are the sorts of works that reveal themselves on an initial listen.  Perhaps it's the performances (by Berglund with the Helsinki Symphony), but they also struck me as very different from what I expected from descriptions of Sibelius's style (not at all "glacial," for example, but almost effervescent and pastel-like); I need to listen to them with no expectations, I suspect.

Also, I didn't mean to suggest that I disliked the Bartók string quartets--more that the string quartet format probably wasn't the most accessible introduction to classical music for me.  I admired them even at the time--especially the two middle ones--but just didn't have a particularly strong emotional reaction to them.  I suspect I may respond differently to them now; sometimes the works that take longer to digest are the ones that provide the most long-term enjoyment, and the string quartets are definitely works I intend to keep revisiting.

Your other suggestions are really intriguing--I will be looking into several of those.  Thanks! 

[NorthNYMark]

Yes sure, I agree with all that. The Kocsis has had some good reviews but it misses the essential bite and vibrancy of the music and I see it as a failure really- I bought it on CD years ago, but first got to know 1&2 from the superb Anda recording; I think I've also heard the Kovacevich. We're on the same wavelength anyway.

And yes don't trust computers- as you know, copy and save a longer post to the clipboard before you hit anything.

Sounds like I need to check out the Anda as well. 

[Karl Henning]

... but the First, Second and Sixth have a dryness you can't shrug off.

Oh, I think no such matter, of any of those three.

[dyn]

In general, I'm a somewhat unusual "newbie" in that I find avant-garde modernism (at least some of it) relatively accessible,

This is not actually all that unusual, except among the "classical audience" (i.e. the people you'd meet at your average NY Phil subscription concert, for whom Scriabin is pushing it). There's significant overlap at this point between today's avant-garde modernism and various popular musics, which are increasingly presented in the same venues to similar audiences, but i suppose this isn't really the place to discuss this.

In general this forum is a great resource for music between roughly 1850-1950... generously 1700-1950, there are a few baroque/classical people here, but as a rule the people here are most well informed about and care the most for late Romanticism & its 20th century followers. I'll add a few—for instance, if you like Brahms, you might also enjoy Schubert and Schumann, two composers he held in quite high esteem (esp. the songs and chamber music). If you like Ligeti, you're already pretty close to minimalism (although that depends on which Ligeti we're talking about, pre- or post-1980?); some other more "interesting" minimal-ish composers include Feldman, Kondo and Grisey.

If you are interested in modern music there are other places to start (e.g. here's one of the first music blogs i started following, although it's very UK-centric at times—given your location, this may or may not be of interest)

[NorthNYMark]

This is not actually all that unusual, except among the "classical audience" (i.e. the people you'd meet at your average NY Phil subscription concert, for whom Scriabin is pushing it). There's significant overlap at this point between today's avant-garde modernism and various popular musics, which are increasingly presented in the same venues to similar audiences, but i suppose this isn't really the place to discuss this.

In general this forum is a great resource for music between roughly 1850-1950... generously 1700-1950, there are a few baroque/classical people here, but as a rule the people here are most well informed about and care the most for late Romanticism & its 20th century followers. I'll add a few—for instance, if you like Brahms, you might also enjoy Schubert and Schumann, two composers he held in quite high esteem (esp. the songs and chamber music). If you like Ligeti, you're already pretty close to minimalism (although that depends on which Ligeti we're talking about, pre- or post-1980?); some other more "interesting" minimal-ish composers include Feldman, Kondo and Grisey.

If you are interested in modern music there are other places to start (e.g. here's one of the first music blogs i started following, although it's very UK-centric at times—given your location, this may or may not be of interest)

Thanks for the suggestions and link!  Interesting point about Ligeti being close to minimalism, which I wouldn't have expected, and just goes to show how much learning I have to do.  I actually know less about Ligeti's work than I do any of the other composers I mentioned as favorites: while I've heard and been impressed by various of his works over the years (without remembering exactly what they were), the work that completely blew me away recently and prompted me to list him among my favorites is his horn trio, composed in the early 1980s.  I came across it while exploring Amazon's selection of Brahms Horn Trio recordings, and ordered it on a whim. While the Brahms trio is quite wonderful as well, I was even more impressed with that of Ligeti--I find it almost breathtakingly beautiful, and am looking forward to exploring more of his work.  It doesn't strike me as particularly minimalistic, but my understanding of (musical) minimalism is currently based on Reich's Drumming and various works by Glass, which may not be sufficiently representative of the movement.  In any event, I'll be sure to check out your recommendations of Kondo, Feldman, and Grisey!

[dyn]

Thanks for the suggestions and link!  Interesting point about Ligeti being close to minimalism, which I wouldn't have expected, and just goes to show how much learning I have to do.  I actually know less about Ligeti's work than I do any of the other composers I mentioned as favorites: while I've heard and been impressed by various of his works over the years (without remembering exactly what they were), the work that completely blew me away recently and prompted me to list him among my favorites is his horn trio, composed in the early 1980s.  I came across it while exploring Amazon's selection of Brahms Horn Trio recordings, and ordered it on a whim. While the Brahms trio is quite wonderful as well, I was even more impressed with that of Ligeti--I find it almost breathtakingly beautiful, and am looking forward to exploring more of his work.  It doesn't strike me as particularly minimalistic, but my understanding of (musical) minimalism is currently based on Reich's Drumming and various works by Glass, which may not be sufficiently representative of the movement.  In any event, I'll be sure to check out your recommendations of Kondo, Feldman, and Grisey!

so late Ligeti then? Yes, the Horn Trio is probably the most Bartókian & least overtly minimalist of his works, which tend to be "about" taking a mechanism of some kind and running it until it breaks, to put it rather simplistically. The acknowledged masterpieces of his post-1980 work are the violin and piano concertos as well as the piano Etudes*, but you'd probably enjoy the Hamburg Concerto (his last major work) as well.

* well i'm a pianist so i tend to go after composers' piano music but w/e

[Sean]

Ligeti is Lux aeterna and the Requiem, and maybe Atmospheres. Much of the rest of his output is, well, drivel.

[mc ukrneal]

Thanks for the suggestions.  I have heard some Ives--I recently got the Leonard Bernstein "Original Jackets Collection" (I don't understand why anything is ever reissued in anything other than original jackets), and one of Ives's symphonies (I think it was #2) is part of it.  I enjoyed it quite a bit, although, being somewhat of a Europhile, it was an interesting challenge to get past some of my not especially positive associations with traditional American music (though I liked where he took it toward the end, with the nearly clashing/crashing simultaneity of "songs" acting almost like an unrecognizable form of contrapuntal compostion).  Do most of Ives's compositions refer so explicitly to American vernacular styles?  It struck me as an intriguing, almost "postmodern" approach, which is especially surprising given how old the work actually is!

This is the first time I've ever heard of Medtner, however--I'll be looking him up!  Out of curiosity, what is it about his work that particularly appeals to you?

By the way, I have enjoyed some works from the classical period--it just requires me to really move out of my comfort zone and get beyond stereotypical associations with bewigged Rococo aristocrats in ostentatiously elegant drawing rooms.  I have some versions of Mozart's clarinet, bassoon, and horn concertos--one by Böhm from the DG 111 (2) boxed set, and another by Maag as a Speakers Corner vinyl reissue.  What I enjoy most about them is mainly the sororities of the lead instruments, which often have a glowing quality that really pulls me in.  The short, "curlicued" melodies and regularly chugging backing ostinati (is that the right term?) are the elements with which I struggle somewhat; at those times, I try to think of them as frameworks to bring the glowing, ever so slightly melancholy sonorities of the wind instruments into more vivid relief. I've also heard a few Mozart piano concertos, one set with Curzon/Britten and one with Pires/Abbado: I enjoyed the former much more than I had expected to, and the latter perhaps a bit less (I'm not sure why, though, at this point--I'll have to return to them at some point for a direct comparison).

Thanks again for the encouragement!

Ives was very much a composer who used Americana, folk songs, traditional songs, etc. And he was really way ahead of time in many ways. His biography is an interesting one as he was mostly ignored in his own time, but came to have quite an influence on those that followed. He was very much experimental.

Medtner is also an interesting character. There are surely more famous than him, that is true. But here was another composer very much amired by some famous people, namley Rachmaninov comes to mind. His music is like Rachmaninov in many ways, but with its own character and intricacies. I mentioned him because you seem to find what many others consider less accessible composers to be quite in your sweet spot. Both Ives and Medtner fit that, though their music is totally different. Medtner is more of a bridge to the romantic period than Ives, but his style are also very much unique (and he is often passed over, mistakenly in my opinion).

[Que]

Welcome to GMG!

Q

[Octave]

Welcome to you, Secret of NNYM

There are some (for me at least) extremely helpful "list" type threads, in addition to the composer/topic/work threads.  Some of these are older and/or buried and/or in the "Beginner's" subforum, even if/when they might be of interest to a seasoned classical listener.  In case you've not seen them, I thought these were interesting (and you can do a little searching and find more in-depth argument and discussion, of course); just some examples, almost at random, that might otherwise evade your glance:

Personal Essentials: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17174.0.html
[I've gotten a lot of nourishment from these member lists, even if/when I gravitate to alternatives.  I hope GMG members won't relentlessly revise their lists...adding on to them is better!  Like a a dendrochronology of taste and affect.]

Desert Island Disc [one record]: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16836.0.html

Solo/Concerto Piano That Makes You Go 'Wow': http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7156.0.html
(Okay, maybe a reach...but most prog fans have had recorded/concert experiences like this, at some point.)

Top 10 Symphonies of 20c: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,20538.0.html

And maybe even:
One Rec. Everyone Should Own: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,809.0.html

Also a thread resulting in a Frankenstein's monster single monster essentials list cobbled together willy-nilly, called something like "Desert Island Briefcase-full", also iirc in the Beginner's subforum.  I remember there being quite a few less-than-obvious suggestions included, and it led/directed me to many excellent listening experiences.

Of course, the ongoing discussion of individual composers, movements, and single works, and/or genres, will be more substantial than outdated lists; but A.) I love those lists, and B.) it can narrow your searching, perhaps.

[NorthNYMark]

so late Ligeti then? Yes, the Horn Trio is probably the most Bartókian & least overtly minimalist of his works, which tend to be "about" taking a mechanism of some kind and running it until it breaks, to put it rather simplistically. The acknowledged masterpieces of his post-1980 work are the violin and piano concertos as well as the piano Etudes*, but you'd probably enjoy the Hamburg Concerto (his last major work) as well.

* well i'm a pianist so i tend to go after composers' piano music but w/e

Thanks so much--yes, I've sampled all the works you mentioned, and find them fantastic!   I will be ordering one of the multi-disc Ligeti collections as soon as finances permit.  The piano concerto sounds particularly amazing (and given my particular enjoyment of the French horn, the Hamburg Concerto is right up my alley as well).

[NorthNYMark]

Ligeti is Lux aeterna and the Requiem, and maybe Atmospheres. Much of the rest of his output is, well, drivel.

I find those works intriguing as well, but so far they haven't struck me as the most engaging of his works--at least at this point, I must have a higher tolerance for drivel than you do.   As I've said before, though, the works that appeal most immediately may not be the ones to which I'll be returning in the years to come.

[NorthNYMark]

Ives was very much a composer who used Americana, folk songs, traditional songs, etc. And he was really way ahead of time in many ways. His biography is an interesting one as he was mostly ignored in his own time, but came to have quite an influence on those that followed. He was very much experimental.

Medtner is also an interesting character. There are surely more famous than him, that is true. But here was another composer very much amired by some famous people, namley Rachmaninov comes to mind. His music is like Rachmaninov in many ways, but with its own character and intricacies. I mentioned him because you seem to find what many others consider less accessible composers to be quite in your sweet spot. Both Ives and Medtner fit that, though their music is totally different. Medtner is more of a bridge to the romantic period than Ives, but his style are also very much unique (and he is often passed over, mistakenly in my opinion).

I just sampled some Medtner, and it was very interesting indeed.  He seems to be mainly piano-focused, from the available samples.  I listened to part of a sonata performed by Gilels that was quite exquisite, and then part of a concerto with Medtner himself as the soloist: while some of the orchestral parts seemed a bit over-the-top, the piano parts were impressive.  He is definitely a unique voice, and I am surprised that he doesn't get more recognition, even from the little I've heard so far.  Thanks for the recommendation! 

[NorthNYMark]

Welcome to you, Secret of NNYM

There are some (for me at least) extremely helpful "list" type threads, in addition to the composer/topic/work threads.  Some of these are older and/or buried and/or in the "Beginner's" subforum, even if/when they might be of interest to a seasoned classical listener.  In case you've not seen them, I thought these were interesting (and you can do a little searching and find more in-depth argument and discussion, of course); just some examples, almost at random, that might otherwise evade your glance:

Personal Essentials: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17174.0.html
[I've gotten a lot of nourishment from these member lists, even if/when I gravitate to alternatives.  I hope GMG members won't relentlessly revise their lists...adding on to them is better!  Like a a dendrochronology of taste and affect.]

Desert Island Disc [one record]: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16836.0.html

Solo/Concerto Piano That Makes You Go 'Wow': http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7156.0.html
(Okay, maybe a reach...but most prog fans have had recorded/concert experiences like this, at some point.)

Top 10 Symphonies of 20c: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,20538.0.html

And maybe even:
One Rec. Everyone Should Own: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,809.0.html

Also a thread resulting in a Frankenstein's monster single monster essentials list cobbled together willy-nilly, called something like "Desert Island Briefcase-full", also iirc in the Beginner's subforum.  I remember there being quite a few less-than-obvious suggestions included, and it led/directed me to many excellent listening experiences.

Of course, the ongoing discussion of individual composers, movements, and single works, and/or genres, will be more substantial than outdated lists; but A.) I love those lists, and B.) it can narrow your searching, perhaps.

Many thanks!  I've been spending quite a bit of time today going through those threads, and they are great!