Well-known music you've somehow overlooked (or never got round to hearing)

[amw]

I have been listening to classical music for about 23 years. Okay, not as impressive as some people here, but I am only 22 years old. It often feels like I ran out of standard rep to explore around the age of twelve—like there's no famous work, warhorse or otherwise, I've not managed to hear at least once. Sure, there are some composers I've never been all that interested in and thus missed out on (for instance, my exploration of Wagner began and ended with Tristan so it's not a surprise that I don't know the Good Friday music or "Ride of the Valkyries"), but with composers I actually know and like there's hardly any masterpiece left unlistened, and even composers I don't like have at times infiltrated popular culture or radio stations or whatever (so yes, I do know the bridal procession from Lohengrin).

One does miss things of course. I'd not heard the Mozart Piano Quartets until fairly recently, likewise the Dvořák Violin Concerto, though I recognised its third movement from somewhere (classical music radio possibly). But I didn't think it was possible for one of the basic repertoire staples, the 50 Essential Classical Tunes To Hear Before You Die, to be completely missing from my memory.

Until a few days ago, when I popped Disc 1 of Bach's St John Passion into my laptop (old fashioned laptops, back when they still had optical drives, doncha know) for what I thought was a first listen to Bach's "other" passion. Only it turned out I already knew the music, for I'd heard it at a concert years and years back which I had mentally categorised as being the St Matthew.

A quick check of my library confirmed what I'd already begun to suspect. I'd never actually heard the St Matthew Passion before. Don't know how any of its themes go. Often considered Bach's greatest masterpiece, one of the top 10 whatevers, whatever. I'd somehow managed to skip over it. Still haven't heard it, it's on the list once I get done with my Bruckner blind listening and Cage vol. 2

This is not the most egregious example—a few weeks ago Gurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all in the past 272 years. So I know this happens to other people with some frequency. What's on your list?

[The new erato]

Kind of hard to say - I've been listening for 40 years and not everything I've heard is crystal clear in memory. Opera is obviously an area with holes, eg I've never heard La Traviata or Parsifal. But that is kind of easy way out as many listeners has holes in their opera listening, partly because these works are long.

A work I've never heard which is long, but not opera length, is Mahler 8th, despite having several Mahler cycles on CD. I tired of big-scale, late romanticism before I managed to get to that. My interest in that era was in the LP days, when buying an album was a major investment,

[Jo498]

I have been listening for about 25-27 years (started around 15 yo), but there are still quite famous pieces I am not very familiar with (or not at all). As a teenager there was so much music and soon I had certain preferences along which I explored the field. Of course, before youtube, downloads and when CDs were quite expensive, it didn't go so easy. I taped stuff from the radio or from friends. And I still think that one should take time to get to know music. So until my mid-twenties I still had large amounts of music, even by favorite composers I had not heard or did not know well.
Later on I often bought a lot of music on disc without having the leisure to listen to all of it. I think of my collection also sometimes as an encyclopedia for later reference.

There are many operas I have never heard (Aida, Forza del Destino, Fanciulla del West etc.) and others I only heard once or twice (Tannhaeuser), still more I have heard several times, but do not know well. Mahler's 8th is another piece from the last category, also many of Strauss' symphonic poems and a lot of 20th century music. I am also not too familiar with medieval/renaissance music and with most music of the last 50-60 years (although I know some Shostakowitsch, Ligeti and have heard other stuff at least once or so).

But outside of opera I cannot think of a piece between 1600 and 1950 as important as the St Matthew I have never heard at all

[Florestan]

I have been listening to classical music for about 23 years. Okay, not as impressive as some people here, but I am only 22 years old.

You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception. 

I have 28 years of listening (started at 14) but I've never heard Wagner's Tetralogy, Bach's Goldberg Variations and Bruckner's Ninth, to name just a few. 

[amw]

You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception. 

Apparently when my mum was pregnant with me, I enjoyed listening to my dad playing the piano. Perhaps I was kicking in time with the music or something... who knows. I was also reportedly born to Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9 no. 1.

[Karl Henning]

You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception. 

I had guessed, as well, that he was something of a music fancier even in utero 

[Karl Henning]

—a few weeks ago Gurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all in the past 272 years.

If so, I wish I knew how he managed to avoid it!

[Jo498]

You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception. 

I have 28 years of listening (started at 14) but I've never heard Wagner's Tetralogy, Bach's Goldberg Variations and Bruckner's Ninth, to name just a few. 

May I ask why? These are three rather different pieces, so I cannot think of a systematic reason to avoid all of them. And they are all famous enough to make it unlikely that you just happened to miss them during 28 years.
As for myself, I do not dislike opera, but I am not such a big fan, so there are quite a few works unexplored. And I prefer to see it in the theatre, which is unfortunately rather expensive and I have to drag myself there, often without company (I have taken dates to the opera, but one cannot count on that...)

[Florestan]

May I ask why? These are three rather different pieces, so I cannot think of a systematic reason to avoid all of them. And they are all famous enough to make it unlikely that you just happened to miss them during 28 years.

My attention span is way below what is required for listening to the Tetralogy, and what other Wagner I've heard did not make me eager to extend it any time soon. 

Goldberg Variations, never overheard it on radio nor felt the urge to listen to it on purpose. I don't know why, honestly.

Bruckner is kind of like Wagner for me. Boring, boring, boring. Except #1, #4 and #6 (which I liked, all of them) I think I've never heard another complete symphony of his. Pressed the stop button after 10 minutes at most into each movement. 

[The new erato]

Bruckner is kind of like Wagner for me. Boring, boring, boring. Except #1, #4 and #6 (which I liked, all of them) I think I've never heard another complete symphony of his. Pressed the stop button after 10 minutes at most into each movement. 

But, but, but, the 9th isn't complete. It lacks a 4th movement.  So you could listen to it without having istend to a complete symphony by him. 

[Florestan]

But, but, but, the 9th isn't complete. It lacks a 4th movement.  So you could listen to it without having istend to a complete symphony by him.

[EigenUser]

Okay, this thread had to have been made for me.
-It was only last month that I heard Beethoven's 3rd symphony for the 1st time. I've yet to hear the entire ninth.
-Brahms 4
-I only started exploring most of Ravel's orchestral works about a year ago (I think the first time I heard the PCinG, D&C, and Rhapsodie Espagnole was almost exactly a year ago). Up until then, I was really only familiar with his music for solo piano, the SQ, the PT, Ma Mere L'Oye (played in orchestra), and Bolero.

This is not the most egregious example—a few weeks ago Gurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all in the past 272 years.

Well, it wasn't discovered until that fateful day in 1919.

[Henk]

There must be much more music you have managed to avoid.

Have you listened to the complete works of Stravinsky for example?

When is something a masterpiece? Is there really consensus about it?

[The new erato]

Okay, this thread had to have been made for me.
-It was only last month that I heard Beethoven's 3rd symphony for the 1st time. I've yet to hear the entire ninth.
-Brahms 4
-I only started exploring most of Ravel's orchestral works about a year ago (I think the first time I heard the PCinG, D&C, and Rhapsodie Espagnole was almost exactly a year ago). Up until then, I was really only familiar with his music for solo piano, the SQ, the PT, Ma Mere L'Oye (played in orchestra), and Bolero.
Well, it wasn't discovered until that fateful day in 1919.

Surely Gurn must be younger than that.

[The new erato]

There must be much more music you have managed to avoid.

Have you listened to the complete works of Stravinsky for example?

Well he said: "But I didn't think it was possible for one of the basic repertoire staples, the 50 Essential Classical Tunes To Hear Before You Die, to be completely missing from my memory." Even I as a Stravinsky admirer would not claim that every piece of his belong on that list. And yes, I've listened to (more or less) everything, though there may be some arrangement trifles I've overseen (or not managed to aquire).

[Karl Henning]

When is something a masterpiece? Is there really consensus about it?

Of course, there is.  When centuries' worth of consensus regards the LvB Op.55 as a masterpiece, you must admit that it would be mere fatuity to assert, "You know, it's not really such a good piece."

Consensus is, obviously, more reliable over the longer term, and the opinion of the musically savvy should have greater weight than . . . those of flightier opinion.  (For instance, does the fact of Glenn Gould's quirky dislike of Mozart mean that everyone else is wrong, that Mozart's music is not in fact very good?  Balderdash!)

Where the reliability of consensus is at best mixed, at worst flat-out worthless, is in its omissions or in its disdain.  One of the moving parts here is allied to the 50 Essential Classical Tunes To Hear Before You Die notion.  Was a time when the literature was a bit lighter on the ground, and we enjoyed the naïve pleasure of Here is the collection of artworks with which one need be familiar in order to be considered a cultivated person.  The body of great lit necessarily expands decade after decade, and the question becomes . . . rather more complicated.

[Henk]

Well some music leaves my quite cold, I don't have the urge to listen to all those masterpieces. It's not a quest.

The works of Brahms, Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt, Schumann. I have listened to some, but it's just music I don't like, so I'm not going to listen to it because I need to listen to all "masterpieces".

What consensus is rather a canon, a guideline for laymen. But I wouldn't even advise a layman to use that guideline.

I will check that music out, to know rather how bad it is, wondering why they are considered masterpieces.

[Jo498]

When is something a masterpiece? Is there really consensus about it?

There is a consensus about hundreds or even thousands of masterpieces. The St Matthew Passion or the Eroica are clearly among them. Of course there are also thousands of pieces where there is no consensus about there greatness (maybe Bruckner's zeroth or Schumann's violin concerto belong here). But fuzzy borders do not prove that there are no clear cases and that everything is fuzzy...

[Karl Henning]

Well some music leaves my quite cold, I don't have the urge to listen to all those masterpieces. It's not a quest.

That's all right.

It is equally all right for another listener to take that group of consensus as a list for exploration.

You see how that works?

BTW, I appreciate that you put it thus;  someone less keen would have taken the "If I don't like it, how can it be a masterpiece?" tack 

[Karl Henning]

There is a consensus about hundreds or even thousands of masterpieces. The St Matthew Passion or the Eroica are clearly among them. Of course there are also thousands of pieces where there is no consensus about there greatness (maybe Bruckner's zeroth or Schumann's violin concerto belong here). But fuzzy borders do not prove that there are no clear cases and that everything is fuzzy...

Well put.