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

[Karl Henning]

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

Well, in fact, the canon has its uses.  I shall leave it at that, for the moment.

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

Now, you have departed from the standard you set with the unimpeachable remark, Well some music leaves my quite cold, I don't have the urge to listen to all those masterpieces.

Just because a work of art doesn't push your buttons, does not make it bad art.  Get that right into your head.  Your likes and dislikes are not the measure of what is good in art.

[The new erato]

It's alright to have, dislike, be left cold, etc by art. A sign of great art is that it is art that one responds to, however the response. But it doesn't work the other way,not every thing one responds to is great art.   

[Karl Henning]

[...] But it doesn't work the other way,not every thing one responds to is great art.   

This, too, is true.

[Henk]

Well, there are composers whose work are not mainstream masterpieces, but I consider these works as masterpieces however. Am I not allowed to make this assertion?

[Karl Henning]

Present the case!  Do not suppose that it is so, simply because you urge the assertion.

[Henk]

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 

I would not recommend a beginner in classical music to follow the canon. High change that he think "Am I supposed to like this?" when he doesn't like it. And then he isn't motivated anymore to explore classical music furter. Better would be to get personal recommendations based on what he likes, just like we do here...  0:)

[Brian]

My 25th birthday is in a week and a half. I've never heard:
- Bach's St Matthew Passion
- Bach's Mass in B minor
- Bach's cantatas (any)
- most of Bach's keyboard partitas and suites, or most of his organ works
- anything by Handel except Water Music, Fireworks Music, and some organ concertos
- Beethoven's Missa solemnis and string quartets Opp. 131-132 (Op. 130 only once; Op. 135 only once, live)
- Schubert's string quartets, except "Death and the Maiden" once
- the vast majority of Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, or Wolf lieder
- Mahler's Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, or Tenth
- four of the Bartok quartets
- Shostakovich's Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, or 12-15 (or about half his quartets)
- all but two Cage pieces

Now, much of this is on purpose, I should clarify. I really like knowing that years from now, it will still be possible for me to hear some universally beloved masterpiece for the first time ever. Sort of like a fellow on Reddit the other day who was a teenager in the 1960s and picked a Beatles song that he wouldn't listen to until he was 80, just so he'd have a new Beatles song to look forward to.

Gurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all

What! Gurn!? Do you turn off the Jordi Savall "Ostinato" CD halfway through to avoid it?

I don't get the fuss, by the way. I stopped listening to classical radio long ago, preferring to control my own listening, and the result is that the once a year I do hear Pachelbel's Canon, played by HIP groups, it's still a very, very good piece.

(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!)

Glenn Gould knew the truth about Mozart's genius...and its fabrication

[Henk]

Present the case!  Do not suppose that it is so, simply because you urge the assertion.

I reward the music of Donatoni very highly. Of equal greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

Ok, indeed, this is a personal judgement.

[Brahmsian]

Still haven't got into:

*Puccini
*Verdi (besides the Requiem and string quartet)

*Liszt (I've heard a few pieces, but nothing grabbed me)

[Henk]

It's alright to have, dislike, be left cold, etc by art. A sign of great art is that it is art that one responds to, however the response. But it doesn't work the other way,not every thing one responds to is great art.

So the response can also be negative? Then I don't agree. For example, noise, one responds to it, but isn't considered great art. Some music in the canon leaves me cold, no response. Great art is only when there's some consensus about it, and it's messed up by other factors for instance historical facts, also there's simply chance involved. Bach was rediscovered by Mendelssohn to give an example.

As a consequence beginners to classical music can thus also be spoiled in the beginning, if they like something because it's (supposed to be) great art and they can hear it. Because there's simply no autonomy in their listening in the beginning . So I would recommend beginners to postpone their judgement, anyway.

[The new erato]

Brian; you just listed a major part of my desert Island discs!

- Bach's St Matthew Passion
- Bach's Mass in B minor
- Bach's cantatas (nearly all)
- Bach's keyboard partitas and suites,
- almost everything by Handel
- Beethoven's string quartets Opp. 131-132 (Op. 130 only once; Op. 135 only once, live)
- Schubert's string quartets,
- the vast majority of Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, or Wolf lieder
- Mahler's Sixth, Ninth,
- the Bartok quartets
- the Shostakovich's quartets, particularly the , Third, Fourth, Eighth, or 12-15 (add most of the rest BTW)

[Brahmsian]

Life is short, listen to the music you love, whatever it may be!    I keep discovering new works, but also do not neglect the ones I have discovered that I love.

[Karl Henning]

I reward the music of Donatoni very highly. Of equal greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

You haven't made the case;  you've specified your assertion.  Tell us why — musically, why.  Reasons which stand a chance of rebutting (for anyone who does not simply like listening to Donatani) the obvious, musical arguments which any of us can raise in Bach's, Mozart's or Beethoven's defense.

(And, lawd, Henk:  you can't be serious  )

[Karl Henning]

Glenn Gould knew the truth about Mozart's genius...and its fabrication

:-)

I'm waiting for the "discovery" that Nannerl was, in fact, a man, and Mozart's brother . . . .

[The new erato]

This raises the difficult question what makes some works a masterpiece. The ability to be still played and recognized as of importance after some hundred years is a certain indicator I guess (but no more than an indicator), so is the ability to exert influence on other composers and artists, but beside that I don't know. And if we cannot come up with more criteria, that precludes any still living composers from the honor of creating masterpieces.

Mastering the craft? Not enough!

Originality? What is originality? One can be original and banal at the same time (Satie comes to mind)

Touching people in some way or another; yes, but very subjective, we can recognize the effect but not always the cause.

I don'tt really know....

[Henk]

It's just a historical thing. A judgement by the mass, which has historically grown. Some authorities have a greater influence.

Not to say this is not a "valid" judgement. But there are always misjudgements however, is my viewpoint. As a individual you can be freed from mass judgement, from the canon. And my advice is "postpone your judgement".

[Karl Henning]

It's just a historical thing.

No, you're wrong.  There are musical reasons why the Sinfonia eroica is a masterpiece, and why Für Elise is not 

[Henk]

No, you're wrong.  There are musical reasons why the Sinfonia eroica is a masterpiece, and why Für Elise is not 

Ok, you're right. Turn the score on it's head, have a look at it, and you know (as Mulisch said in the case of literature, but it also applies to scores I think).

But, there are at least five factors into play: historical reasons, mass judgement, authority judgment, chance and musical reasons.

[springrite]

Just realised I hardly missed anything of... well, what might be called "significance". Not that I am a completist, but exploration of the works themselves has always been first and foremost on my mind and, it is only lately that I have began to explore much of different "versions".

[North Star]

I still know just two of Janáček's operas well (Vixen & From the House of the Dead), and have heard Makropulos Case, Kata and Jenufa only once. I haven't heard Shostakovich's operas at all, and am not much better acquainted with the songs. I haven't yet heard any Mozart's operas completely, apart from Le Nozze, or Britten's Death in Venice, Billy Budd, Handel's operas / sacred works (apart from hearing Messiah once, I think), Schönberg's string quartets apart from No. 2, some late Stravinsky (Requiem Canticles, Mass), Boris Godunov, Tchaikovsky's operas, Strauss operas apart from one, no complete Verdi opera yet (although I have heard the SQ live). Fauré's music, apart from the violin sonatas, Requiem, and the Nocturnes. Most of Monteverdi's madrigals, all the operas, etc etc etc. But I'm probably missing some more obvious ones, like most of Haydn's symphonies, or the late masses.

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.

Have you heard L'enfant & les sortileges?
(btw, I think you should have put some of those shocked smileys next to that Beethoven line, too..)