Why do you like your favorite composers?

[Jo498]

What I really want a piece of music to do is present its set of... let's say "rules"... and then follow them. Explore them, play with them, see what can be done in that musical space.

[...]

What I don't want is something in the middle where I go "hang on, where did that come from? it doesn't make sense in this context".

This is why I love stories like Beethoven cutting the middle movement out of the 'Waldstein' piano sonata. It's not about it being a poor piece of music, it's about it not following the right rules. As Tovey puts it, the Andante "was quite out of touch with the harmonic style of the rest".

I think I favor some mix of "internal logic" and "surprise effects". Music that is too symmetrical or predictable can appear shallow or get boring (this is only one factor because music evolves in time even literal repeats work differently than e.g. spatial symmetries in architecture or painting). The greatest music, like e.g. Beethoven's Eroica evokes both the feeling of one thing following exactly as it must but also being not quite predictable. A piece like the Eroica first movement would be "unruly" if one goes by average or textbook rules. (There is a great talk by Bernstein, probably findable on youtube about the Eroica, especially the first movement but also the funeral march. In the latter the listener might expect a fairly simple ABA... pattern but Beethoven is much more interesting despite the main march theme re-occurring in a rondo fashion.

I do not know enough about harmonic style (and I knew a guy who perversely preferred the andante favori to the introduzione) but I think with the andante favori the sonata would have become a little too long and far less original. The andante is not strong enough a contrast for the brilliant virtuoso outer movements whereas the dark and harmonically adventurous introduction provides that contrast strikingly in 5 minutes or less music

It took me longer to appreciate more "fantastic" music, e.g. some of Schumann's piano music or CPE Bach's shifts of mood. These are not as tightly integrated in the whole as most of e.g. Beethoven's liberties and oddities are.

And there is also music where I am basically enchanted by the "mood of the moment" and do not really pay that much attention to the larger scale.

[NorthNYMark]

Sorry to keep wittering on, but there was something I wanted to say about pieces of music generally, not necessarily favourite composers but it's one of the reasons why my favourites are my favourites.

What I really want a piece of music to do is present its set of... let's say "rules"... and then follow them. Explore them, play with them, see what can be done in that musical space.

I'm not very concerned with what those rules are. Different pieces of music can have a different set of rules, and certainly when it comes to popular music my favourite artists are ones who aren't trying to make the same album each time.

What I don't want is something in the middle where I go "hang on, where did that come from? it doesn't make sense in this context".

This is why I love stories like Beethoven cutting the middle movement out of the 'Waldstein' piano sonata. It's not about it being a poor piece of music, it's about it not following the right rules. As Tovey puts it, the Andante "was quite out of touch with the harmonic style of the rest".

As someone who doesn't read music and therefore doesn't understand any of the "rules," I've always wondered how much of an affect said rules have or do not have on me as a listener.  I'm sure that I am affected by certain harmonic devices that produce tension and release--yet, when people describe a lot of music as being "dissonant," I almost never hear it as such except in the most extreme cases.  I am sometimes baffled by posters who will say that they don't "understand" a work, perhaps because such understanding is not something within my grasp--to me, the sounds either provoke interest and/or some kind of enjoyment, or they don't.  I do at least unconsciously expect certain "rules"-- for example, I was very surprised, upon first listening to symphonies, at how rarely themes from earlier movements will be revisited in concluding movements--I guess I expected symphonies as a whole to have something like "sonata form," rather than just individual movements.  I was also shocked at how often the first movement of a symphony or concerto will be considerably longer than subsequent movements, which struck me as bizarrely unbalanced.  But in general, when I listen to a musical work, I go in with an open mind, wanting to see where the music takes me--in that sense, at least in theory, I do not require any implicit rules in order to enjoy the music.

[Jo498]

While I think I get the gist of Orfeo's remarks, I find "rules" a little unfortunate wording because to me this sounds stricter and more stiff than the rest of what he describes. For instance, there were certainly no explicit rules for the characteristics of the middle movement of the Waldstein sonata. From an 1805 perspective both the andante and the introduzione are not unruly (although the latter might be far more daring in some details), both fit there. If Tovey (and most of us) find that the introduzione "fits better" or that the whole sonata is superior in this way, this is more vague than following or disobeying rules.

I also think that most listeners use "understand" in a rather loose sense. I am able to follow a score but not like a real musician or composer could, so there is a LOT about pieces I know very well from listening that I do not understand "in theory" because I only know the rudiments of harmonic theory, nothing about counterpoint rules and it would in any case take me ages to discover those details in the score and relate them to what I hear. Still, I think that from listening one can grasp structures partially without knowing the theory and experience a musical piece's coherence (or lack thereof).

What you describe is mainly unfamiliarity with some conventions (regarding most symphonies) and "false" expectations.

[Mirror Image]

Let's see why do I like love Sibelius' music....let's see....(in a nutshell):

I think the first thing that's immediately attractive about Sibelius' music is the use of silence. He's not a composer that likes to fill up space just for the sake of it. I admire that quality. He also seemed to have been chasing a purer sound-world that is far removed from what other composers seemed to have been doing around the same time. He got to the essential in his music in an honest way. When I listen to his music, I feel like I'm not listening to someone who is preaching to me or hitting me over the head with declamatory statements. The narrative in every work I've heard in Sibelius has been a personal one. Again, I admire his individuality for saying what he had to but not with an endless flurry of notes that don't seem to be a part of the grander picture. There is no smoke or mirrors to his music. Some of the most beautiful music is music that is understated and not quite audible on first-hearing, I think Sibelius allows his music to be heard on all audible levels and that takes a tremendous gift. His orchestration is never over-the-top, it was perfect for what he's trying to achieve. There's almost a chamber-like delicacy that happens in many of his works. Also, even when the music is still and calm, there's always a sense of purpose and a drive to what is being performed. There's always a reason why. I'm not confused by anything I've heard from Sibelius --- it's as if I know, and sympathize, to where he's going and what he could be trying to convey. People always talk of icy forests, frozen lakes, etc. in his music, but there's much more than that I think --- much, much more. Like, for example, an endearing human spirit that creates a 'warmth' in the music. The sun is never far off even when we're on a journey to darker landscapes. I could talk about individual works all day long, but this isn't the place for it, so I'll just say I've been moved to tears by this man's music, which is no easy feat since I don't really cry too often whenever I listen to music. I admire, and love, everything about Sibelius.

Now onto our regularly scheduled programming....

[NorthNYMark]

While I think I get the gist of Orfeo's remarks, I find "rules" a little unfortunate wording because to me this sounds stricter and more stiff than the rest of what he describes. For instance, there were certainly no explicit rules for the characteristics of the middle movement of the Waldstein sonata. From an 1805 perspective both the andante and the introduzione are not unruly (although the latter might be far more daring in some details), both fit there. If Tovey (and most of us) find that the introduzione "fits better" or that the whole sonata is superior in this way, this is more vague than following or disobeying rules.

I also think that most listeners use "understand" in a rather loose sense. I am able to follow a score but not like a real musician or composer could, so there is a LOT about pieces I know very well from listening that I do not understand "in theory" because I only know the rudiments of harmonic theory, nothing about counterpoint rules and it would in any case take me ages to discover those details in the score and relate them to what I hear. Still, I think that from listening one can grasp structures partially without knowing the theory and experience a musical piece's coherence (or lack thereof).

What you describe is mainly unfamiliarity with some conventions (regarding most symphonies) and "false" expectations.

Pretty much everything you say here makes sense to me, and I probably oversimplified my own understanding quite a bit.  I probably do have some anxiety over what people mean by "understanding" a musical work, especially in cases where the writer implies that such understanding is a requirement for the enjoyment of said work.  I realize that what it means probably varies quite a bit from person to person, from a thorough understanding of contrapuntal and harmonic complexities to some more vague sense of overarching structure.  Part of what I was trying to convey is that I'm actually not sure whether or not I actually have even that most vague understanding of music--does the fourth movement of a typical symphony have anything to do with the first or second?  I can possibly claim an intuitive sense that it does, but it may be nothing more than having heard said fourth movement at the end of that particular symphony enough times that it seems related in some way.  I honestly have no idea if they are in the same key, or have other similar traits, however. 

I suspect that before I pass away, I will teach myself some of these fundamentals. At this point though, I am curious--how much does my lack of knowledge impede my listening experience?  Philosophically, I could make the argument that it should not in the slightest--after all, harmonic and other forms were not developed for their own sake, but to produce certain sensual effects that should require no knowledge of them in order to be effective. On the other hand, I know well from the visual arts that artists who are schooled in certain tradition are constantly making references to those traditions, breaking certain rules in subtle ways, for example, that someone without such knowledge would completely miss.  In that sense, I understand where Orfeo is coming from with the term "rules," even if they may have been more conventions than actual "rules" (and I also realize that he is not only refering to actual historical conventions, but perhaps even rules implicitly and arbitrarily created by the composer for that particular work alone). Still, I wonder if my own appreciation of contemporary art isn't in some way "tainted" by my knowledge of the various conventions and traditions to which artists respond--perhaps "innocent eyes" would make a better (or at least a fundamentally different) evaluation of said works. Does understanding how sausage is made make one more or less of a sausage connoisseur?  I'm not entirely sure.

[NorthNYMark]

Let's see why do I like love Sibelius' music....let's see....(in a nutshell):

I think the first thing that's immediately attractive about Sibelius' music is the use of silence. He's not a composer that likes to fill up space just for the sake of it. I admire that quality. He also seemed to have been chasing a purer sound-world that is far removed from what other composers seemed to have been doing around the same time. He got to the essential in his music in an honest way. When I listen to his music, I feel like I'm not listening to someone who is preaching to me or hitting me over the head with declamatory statements. The narrative in every work I've heard in Sibelius has been a personal one. Again, I admire his individuality for saying what he had to but not with an endless flurry of notes that don't seem to be a part of the grander picture. There is no smoke or mirrors to his music. Some of the most beautiful music is music that is understated and not quite audible on first-hearing, I think Sibelius allows his music to be heard on all audible levels and that takes a tremendous gift. His orchestration is never over-the-top, it was perfect for what he's trying to achieve. There's almost a chamber-like delicacy that happens in many of his works. Also, even when the music is still and calm, there's always a sense of purpose and a drive to what is being performed. There's always a reason why. I'm not confused by anything I've heard from Sibelius --- it's as if I know, and sympathize, to where he's going and what he could be trying to convey. People always talk of icy forests, frozen lakes, etc. in his music, but there's much more than that I think --- much, much more. Like, for example, an endearing human spirit that creates a 'warmth' in the music. The sun is never far off even when we're on a journey to darker landscapes. I could talk about individual works all day long, but this isn't the place for it, so I'll just say I've been moved to tears by this man's music, which is no easy feat since I don't really cry too often whenever I listen to music. I admire, and love, everything about Sibelius.

Now onto our regularly scheduled programming....

Interesting thoughts! I enjoy your thoughts about his use of silence, and will be looking for that in future listens. I still haven't listened to Sibelius enough to have a good grasp of his overall style.  I'm not sure I've even heard the 2nd or 3rd symphonies yet.  One thing I've noticed with his work is that I almost never experience it as I would have expected based on descriptions by others.  For one, it rarely sounds icy, arctic, or cold to me.  I also don't hear it as particularly austere or reserved--rather, it sounds very colorful (in a French Impressionist sense) and almost effervescent to me.  The only "arctic" associations I can imagine making with it are possibly with the aurora borealis (colorful, mirage-like).  My favorite by far is his Fourth symphony, which feels the most abstract and non-narrative, and my least favorite is the Fifth, which feels more conventionally "heroic" and romantic-nationalist (that is, I can too easily imagine the soaring themes being used in tourism commercials). Perhaps in keeping with the boreal theme I mentioned above, I see a strength of his being the use of what feel like translucent "layers" of tonal color, rather than elaborate thematic lines.

[NorthNYMark]

One of my own favorite composers is Brahms, and I've always had a hard time figuring out what it was I enjoyed so much about his works.  Part of it likely has to do with a certain undercurrent of melancholy that runs through his works (right down to the somewhat dark sonorities he tends to favor), as well as an interesting balance between rigor/tension and sensuous melodicism.  Much to my delight, I recently bought an LP reissue of the Starker/Sebok Cello Concertos, whose liner notes (by Frederic V. Grunfeld) came as close as I could imagine to describing what I so often enjoy about his music, emphasizing both the inner contrasts and taste for rich, dark sonorities I mentioned above:

"In both sonatas the form is studiously classical, the content glowingly romantic. It is the architect who formulates the plans, but the poet who calls the tune. [...] He works instinctively within the established order because the tightest forms provide the richest harmonic contrasts: Brahms is interested in sounding new depths where Wagner's main ambition is to reach new heights. One of Brahms' youthful notebooks contains a significant reference to the 'inner sound' of music and a reminder that 'the real musician should reverberate with music within himself.' This inward resonance was to become the hallmark and desideratum of Brahms' style, and its realization involves the use of a rich, sombre palette of instruments in the middle range. Cello, French horn, and clarinet are cornerstones of his orchestral sound as well as his chamber music. And in his vocal works, whenever he comes closest to giving a confessional account of his own alienation from the world...Brahms gravitates to low voices and dark chest tones."

[North Star]

Interesting thoughts! I enjoy your thoughts about his use of silence, and will be looking for that in future listens. I still haven't listened to Sibelius enough to have a good grasp of his overall style.  I'm not sure I've even heard the 2nd or 3rd symphonies yet.  One thing I've noticed with his work is that I almost never experience it as I would have expected based on descriptions by others.  For one, it rarely sounds icy, arctic, or cold to me.  I also don't here it as particularly austere or reserved--rather, it sounds very colorful (in a French Impressionist sense) and almost effervescent to me.  The only "arctic" associations I can imagine making with it are possibly with the aurora borealis (colorful, mirage-like).  My favorite by far is his Fourth symphony, which feels the most abstract and non-narrative, and my least favorite is the Fifth, which feels more conventionally "heroic" and romantic-nationalist (that is, I can too easily imagine the soaring themes being used in tourism commercials). Perhaps in keeping with the boreal theme I mentioned above, I see a strength of his being the use of what feel like translucent "layers" of tonal color, rather than elaborate thematic lines.

Rather strange this conventionally heroic national romanticism that lends itself to use in tourism commercials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tuPnVzuWP8&feature=player_detailpage#t=159

[NorthNYMark]

Rather strange this conventionally heroic national romanticism that lends itself to use in tourism commercials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tuPnVzuWP8&feature=player_detailpage#t=159

You think?  I can see finding it strange until the "soaring" theme kicks in at about 6:30 in that video.  Then to me, it sounds precisely like conventionally heroic, nationalist romanticism. Certainly Bernstein's emoting during this section is consistent with heroic romanticist stereotypes. I can totally see the tourist commercial, with the dramatic sunset over the lake, the aerial camera sweeping in as a gaggle of geese suddenly begins flying away in formation.  Or perhaps the sun is emerging from behind a castle spire. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's certainly a well-done example of that type of thing--but do you really hear it as not fitting any of those descriptors?  How would you describe it differently?

[Mirror Image]

Interesting thoughts! I enjoy your thoughts about his use of silence, and will be looking for that in future listens. I still haven't listened to Sibelius enough to have a good grasp of his overall style.  I'm not sure I've even heard the 2nd or 3rd symphonies yet.  One thing I've noticed with his work is that I almost never experience it as I would have expected based on descriptions by others.  For one, it rarely sounds icy, arctic, or cold to me.  I also don't here it as particularly austere or reserved--rather, it sounds very colorful (in a French Impressionist sense) and almost effervescent to me.  The only "arctic" associations I can imagine making with it are possibly with the aurora borealis (colorful, mirage-like).  My favorite by far is his Fourth symphony, which feels the most abstract and non-narrative, and my least favorite is the Fifth, which feels more conventionally "heroic" and romantic-nationalist (that is, I can too easily imagine the soaring themes being used in tourism commercials). Perhaps in keeping with the boreal theme I mentioned above, I see a strength of his being the use of what feel like translucent "layers" of tonal color, rather than elaborate thematic lines.

It's amazing what we hear differently. I don't hear a French influence at all. Perhaps a work like The Oceanides has this kind of sound, but even in this work the impressionism subsides for that great sparse soundscape from which I know and love. I still feel the icy chill in Sibelius' music, but, again, not without the sun being in the distance. I also disagree that Symphony No. 4 doesn't contain a narrative, there's definitely something deeply personal behind the framework. A feeling of loneliness and anguish permeate much of the music, which only the last movement providing that much needed sunlight. Symphony No. 5 doesn't really sound 'heroic' to me nor do I think it's kitschy in any kind of way. I think it's a heartfelt musical statement that only he could have mustered. Popularity aside, I still think it's one of great 20th Century symphonies along with his 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th. I also hear plenty of melodies and thematic material in Sibelius' music. Also, his sense of compositional structure is clearly some of the most remarkable of the 20th Century.

[Mirror Image]

You think?  I can see finding it strange until the "soaring" theme kicks in at about 6:30 in that video.  Then to me, it sounds precisely like conventionally heroic, nationalist romanticism. Certainly Bernstein's emoting during this section is consistent with heroic romanticist stereotypes. I can totally see the tourist commercial, with the dramatic sunset over the lake, the aerial camera sweeping in as a gaggle of geese suddenly begins flying away in formation.  Or perhaps the sun is emerging from behind a castle spire. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's certainly a well-done example of that type of thing--but do you really hear it as not fitting any of those descriptors?  How would you describe it differently?

Here's some of my own impressions of the 5th cross-posted from the Sibelius composer thread:

FWIW, I don't find Sibelius' 5th 'artificial' at all, in fact, I find it to be passionate and heartfelt. It's a 'heart-on-sleeve' testimonial IMHO. I think the final movement is like a final parting between lovers while one person is waving goodbye from the docks while the other is sailing off into the sunset.

[NorthNYMark]

It's amazing what we hear differently. I don't hear a French influence at all. Perhaps a work like The Oceanides has this kind of sound, but even in this work the impressionism subsides for that great sparse soundscape from which I know and love. I still feel the icy chill in Sibelius' music, but, again, not without the sun being in the distance. I also disagree that Symphony No. 4 doesn't contain a narrative, there's definitely something deeply personal behind the framework. A feeling of loneliness and anguish permeate much of the music, which only the last movement providing that much needed sunlight. Symphony No. 5 doesn't really sound 'heroic' to me nor do I think it's kitschy in any kind of way. I think it's a heartfelt musical statement that only he could have mustered. Popularity aside, I still think it's one of great 20th Century symphonies along with his 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th. I also hear plenty of melodies and thematic material in Sibelius' music. Also, his sense of compositional structure is clearly some of the most remarkable of the 20th Century.

Good points!  We do hear differently indeed, though I sometimes seem to describe things in ways that may sound more absolute to people than what I intend, which is usually meant to be relative (i.e., I certainly didn't mean to imply that there are no melodies, themes, or narratives in Sibelius's music--I was just trying to put my finger on where I see unique qualities in his approach, which sometimes strike me as less linear than others of his era). In any event, you are definitely far more familiar with his music than I am, so I welcome your insight.

[NorthNYMark]

Here's some of my own impressions of the 5th cross-posted from the Sibelius composer thread:

I definitely can imagine that music being used in a climactic cinematic romantic scene, as you suggest.

[Mirror Image]

Good points!  We do hear differently indeed, though I sometimes seem to describe things in ways that may sound more absolute to people than what I intend, which is usually meant to be relative (i.e., I certainly didn't mean to imply that there are no melodies, themes, or narratives in Sibelius's music--I was just trying to put my finger on where I see unique qualities in his approach, which sometimes strike me as less linear than others of his era). In any event, you are definitely far more familiar with his music than I am, so I welcome your insight.

Thanks a lot, Mark. You know what I do realize now? I agree that Symphony No. 5 is a Romantic work, but it's not a Romantic work in the tradition that we normally associate with. As I mentioned above, I believe in some sense that it's a parting of something, in my own case, I said the final movement was like two lovers parting ways, but perhaps in a sense it's also a parting of Sibelius' former self, which the 4th demonstrated as being inward, troubled, almost ready to give up on life. So this is a rejuvenated Sibelius and perhaps some of the themes are Romantic to the point of banality, but the melody in the final movement is so moving and so touching that we should forget what kind of associations we're tagging along with it. This is purely a heart laying bare and this is also something Sibelius doesn't do very often in his music, but perhaps I'm just being a bit sentimental or whatever you want to call it, but I really think he had to get this music out of his system before he could move on and I'm certainly glad he did. The 2nd and the 5th are the most popular of Sibelius' symphonies, but don't let the popularity cloud your judgment of the music. It doesn't get much better than this in music IMHO.

[NorthNYMark]

Thanks a lot, Mark. You know what I do realize now? I agree that Symphony No. 5 is a Romantic work, but it's not a Romantic work in the tradition that we normally associate with. As I mentioned above, I believe in some sense that it's a parting of something, in my own case, I said the final movement was like two lovers parting ways, but perhaps in a sense it's also a parting of Sibelius' former self, which the 4th demonstrated as being inward, troubled, almost ready to give up on life. So this is a rejuvenated Sibelius and perhaps some of the themes are Romantic to the point of banality, but the melody in the final movement is so moving and so touching that we should forget what kind of associations we're tagging along with it. This is purely a heart laying bare and this is also something Sibelius doesn't do very often in his music, but perhaps I'm just being a bit sentimental or whatever you want to call it, but I really think he had to get this music out of his system before he could move on and I'm certainly glad he did. The 2nd and the 5th are the most popular of Sibelius' symphonies, but don't let the popularity cloud your judgment of the music. It doesn't get much better than this in music IMHO.

Great points! I'll definitely keep them in mind for my next listen(s).

[Mirror Image]

Great points! I'll definitely keep them in mind for my next listen(s).

Mark, I urge you to visit Sibelius' own composer thread here on GMG and also this fantastic site: http://www.sibelius.fi

There is a lot of information here about his life and the history of his music. Perhaps more familiarity with the man himself will enable you to understand the music better. Happy listening!

[Ken B]

One of my own favorite composers is Brahms, and I've always had a hard time figuring out what it was I enjoyed so much about his works.  Part of it likely has to do with a certain undercurrent of melancholy that runs through his works (right down to the somewhat dark sonorities he tends to favor), as well as an interesting balance between rigor/tension and sensuous melodicism.  Much to my delight, I recently bought an LP reissue of the Starker/Cebok Cello Concertos, whose liner notes (by Frederic V. Grunfeld) came as close as I could imagine to describing what I so often enjoy about his music, emphasizing both the inner contrasts and taste for rich, dark sonorities I mentioned above:

"In both sonatas the form is studiously classical, the content glowingly romantic. It is the architect who formulates the plans, but the poet who calls the tune. [...] He works instinctively within the established order because the tightest forms provide the richest harmonic contrasts: Brahms is interested in sounding new depths where Wagner's main ambition is to reach new heights. One of Brahms' youthful notebooks contains a significant reference to the 'inner sound' of music and a reminder that 'the real musician should reverberate with music within himself.' This inward resonance was to become the hallmark and desideratum of Brahms' style, and its realization involves the use of a rich, sombre palette of instruments in the middle range. Cello, French horn, and clarinet are cornerstones of his orchestral sound as well as his chamber music. And in his vocal works, whenever he comes closest to giving a confessional account of his own alienation from the world...Brahms gravitates to low voices and dark chest tones."

Especially when I was younger he was a big favorite, and I am generally drawn to the structure and logic guys. What I find remarkable is the way he blends relentless variation -- of everything -- with a strong central thread. I was much impressed by a talk I heard on record of a conductor, maybe Previn, analysing the opening of the Fourth. The vary everything idea in its apogee.
And the lachrymae rerum feel you note too. Also in Miaskovsky.

[NorthNYMark]

Especially when I was younger he was a big favorite, and I am generally drawn to the structure and logic guys. What I find remarkable is the way he blends relentless variation -- of everything -- with a strong central thread. I was much impressed by a talk I heard on record of a conductor, maybe Previn, analysing the opening of the Fourth. The vary everything idea in its apogee.
And the lachrymae rerum feel you note too. Also in Miaskovsky.

Yes, the opening of the Fourth is one of my favorites--I'll seek out that explanation by Previn.  Sounds like I should also explore Miaskovsky.  I've already become quite taken with Weinberg and Shostakovich (more the chamber music than the symphonies, a preference I believe you share, if I recall correctly).  Is there a particular place you would recommend beginning with that composer?

[Ken B]

Yes, the opening of the Fourth is one of my favorites--I'll seek out that explanation by Previn.  Sounds like I should also explore Miaskovsky.  I've already become quite taken with Weinberg and Shostakovich (more the chamber music than the symphonies, a preference I believe you share, if I recall correctly).  Is there a particular place you would recommend beginning with that composer?

The cello concerto is popular as is the sonata but I'd say go straight for the symphonies.

[NorthNYMark]

The cello concerto is popular as is the sonata but I'd say go straight for the symphonies.

Thanks!