Complete Works

[Florestan]

Sometimes I feel like listening to the complete works of Beethoven in chronological opus number order, but the thought is somehow daunting.

So my questions are: have you ever listened to, or do you plan listening to, the complete works of any composer? If you have, have you done it in chronological order? In any case, do you feel it was a rewarding experience?

TIA for your answer.

[Turner]

It´s the sort of plan that tends to be given up on the way, I think - at least in my case. Quite possible of course, relatively, in the case of composers with a very small output (and very much so the musical works of Tolstoy & Nabokov, plus Julian Scriabin, Decaux and Ruggles).

But if I had to use relevant references to the composer for a scholarly or professional use, in an article, I´d do it, for sure.

However, in a lot of cases it´s perhaps not even really worth it, if one doesn´t have that motive - only if one is very focused on a few listening subjects in depth, "niche listening".

[Gurn Blanston]

Sometimes I feel like listening to the complete works of Beethoven in chronological opus number order, but the thought is somehow daunting.

So my questions are: have you ever listened to, or do you plan listening to, the complete works of any composer? If you have, have you done it in chronological order? In any case, do you feel it was a rewarding experience?

TIA for your answer.

Just as an aside, the opus number order of Beethoven works is far from chronological. I can fix you up on that if you ask nice.

On to the question: sure, I have done it several times, with Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn (of course), and then, more surprisingly, with Schubert, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Brahms and damn near all of Vivaldi. It's what I do. The few things I haven't listened to in any of those composers are because they have not been recorded, which one can't help that. Do I feel it was rewarding? Yes, it was very satisfactory and an interesting journey through the artistic lifetime of that person. I don't recommend it to everyone, especially those who think their favorite composer only wrote masterpieces. There was a certain amount of schlock in there, even by my schlock-tolerant standards. 

[mc ukrneal]

So my questions are: have you ever listened to, or do you plan listening to, the complete works of any composer?

Nope. Never had the slightest interest to do this. it's not that it wouldn't be interesting (it could be), but I would not want to constrain myself to one composer in the weeks it would take to listen to everything.

[Karl Henning]

Would just take a day (or two, if you wanted to digest a bit more) in the case of Webern.

(Just saying.) 

[Florestan]

It´s the sort of plan that tends to be given up on the way, I think

That's what I'm afraid too, given my lack of discipline and perseverance in pretty much anything I do. 

Just as an aside, the opus number order of Beethoven works is far from chronological. I can fix you up on that if you ask nice.

If I ever embarked on such a project I would certainly (and as nicely as I can) ask for your guidance.

On to the question: sure, I have done it several times, with Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn (of course), and then, more surprisingly, with Schubert, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Brahms and damn near all of Vivaldi.

Wow! Given the huge amount of works in certain cases, how many years did it take you to do it several times? Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Vivaldi... why not JS Bach too?  And one more question: have you done it one composer at a time only? I mean, was it only Haydn from Hob I:1 to Hob XXXI:the very last, or did you throw in somebody else just for measure?

[Jo498]

Never done it, would not do it. Could not do it, because I don't think I have any composer's oeuvre complete. Beethoven may be close, but I am sure I lack a bunch of early or minor works.
(Of Haydn, I lack most of the songs, all but three operas, probably some early/smaller church pieces, probably about half of the early mixed divertimenti, most string trios, most baryton trios.)

With Dukas, WeberN, Varese, Ruggles and a few others it would not be too hard, I guess, but I am not sufficiently invested in those composers.

I also failed miserably when once trying to listen to all Bach cantatas WITHIN one church year (so that's only about 3-4 cantatas a week), so I would not even try anything more daunting (and probably less interesting).

[some guy]

have you ever listened to, or do you plan listening to, the complete works of any composer?

Yes.

If you have, have you done it in chronological order?

Yes.

In any case, do you feel it was a rewarding experience?

Yes.

[Wanderer]

So my questions are: have you ever listened to, or do you plan listening to, the complete works of any composer? If you have, have you done it in chronological order? In any case, do you feel it was a rewarding experience?

In the manner described, so far I've listened to the complete works of Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Rachmaninov and Chopin (as far as their respective complete editions are indeed complete). Schubert's Lieder, too, as well as almost all of Liszt's solo piano music (I have a few inconsequential issues missing). Not in strict chronological order (that would feel too compulsive obsessive to me, not to mention needing much forensic work). I like the layout of most boxes and stick with it: categorization by genre and then each genre being presented in more or less chronological/opus number order (I prefer exploring genres separately). It's a nice project to do, mainly for discovering and appreciating the fringes of a composer's oeuvre in contrast and/or relation to his more celebrated work.

[Wanderer]

And one more question: have you done it one composer at a time only?

Never. It's supposed to be a pleasurable project, not a chore (and it certainly was a project among several as far as I'm concerned) so whenever I felt like it I listened to something else.

[prémont]

So my questions are: have you ever listened to, or do you plan listening to, the complete works of any composer? If you have, have you done it in chronological order? In any case, do you feel it was a rewarding experience?

Never. I have sometimes listened to Beethovens piano sonatas or string quartets (particularly when I had acquired a new recording) in chronological order - more for practical reasons, but there is no rational reason for doing in in that way.

[some guy]

...there is no rational reason for doing in in that way.

It's the irrational reasons that snag me, every time.

[ptr]

Sure, binge listening is a part of this game, it can even be fun. I often do it when I encounter a first work by a "new" composer that I instantly like, I try to get every available recorded work for a evaluation listening session.

/ptr

[Jo498]

Now that I think about it, I am not sure if I listened to the Lieder disc but I might have listened to all works by Chopin but not as a planned project.
Same for Mahler (although I never heard "Blumine" and might be missing a few other fragments or very early pieces).

[Gurn Blanston]

That's what I'm afraid too, given my lack of discipline and perseverance in pretty much anything I do. 
If I ever embarked on such a project I would certainly (and as nicely as I can) ask for your guidance.


Wow! Given the huge amount of works in certain cases, how many years did it take you to do it several times? Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Vivaldi... why not JS Bach too?  And one more question: have you done it one composer at a time only? I mean, was it only Haydn from Hob I:1 to Hob XXXI:the very last, or did you throw in somebody else just for measure?

It isn't like it was a special project, it is just the way I do things. It was no chore at all, just an interesting experience. No, chronologically, one would simply ignore Hob. numbers with Haydn. Instead, one would take all the works written in 1765, then 1766, &c. Yes? That is the way my FLAC collection is ordered. In the "Album" tag, I put "1765", and then put all those works in a folder named '1765'. Within that folder, they automatically sort themselves by symphony, divertimento, string quartet &c, but that is only if there were any of that genre that year. With Beethoven, I use Biamonti numbers, which are chronological. On Mozart, I fell down a little, I used KV6 numbers, which are as close to correct as are generally available, but this is only because I haven't learned the NMA numbers yet. My bad. Researching this stuff isn't difficult, it is part of the enjoyment of collecting.

...but there is no rational reason for doing in in that way.

Perhaps your definition of rational differs from my own. In fact, I'm sure it does, since I would consider (if I considered it at all) it to be irrational to NOT want to listen this way.

[Todd]

Would just take a day (or two, if you wanted to digest a bit more) in the case of Webern.

It takes only about twenty minutes or so for Decaux.  I've listened to complete works by both Decaux and Webern.  I have no interest in doing so with any other composer's works.

[kishnevi]

Not many
Boulez
Bach
Bach
Mahler
Mahler
Tallis
Ligeti
Diepenbrock (sp?)

Recently bought but not yet listened to:  Stravinsky, Locatelli.  If the Brilliant Rodrigo Edition is a complete set then Rodrigo belongs with them.

I don't think I have any others.

Bach and Mahler twice each because I have two complete sets of each:  Hanssler and Teldec for Bach,  the EMI and DG sets for Mahler.

The Diepenbrock, however you spell his name, was a true chore:  I bought it on speculation, and did not like it near as much as I thought I would.

Boulez and Bach were especially rewarding, since I found in each music I knew nothing about but enjoyed rather much.

I usually listened in the order of the box set.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I've done Webern in chronological order which was amazing, and Mahler which was amazing in a very different way. I did listen to all of Boulez's compositions but not in chronological order.....its kind of difficult with Boulez because he came back to expand and change works at different times in his life. I suppose it's still possible to do a chronological listing of Boulez if you take the dates as the last time the pieces where altered.....

[Madiel]

I've done it a heap of times.  Not all in one go by any means. I don't force myself to just listen to one composer like that (and in fact, I think the danger with that is that the pieces blur together and you don't really hear them). It may take me a year or a couple of years.

I used to do it just with the works I have, but now with streaming I'm sometimes including works I don't own. Or even just trying the body of work of a composer I have almost no recordings of. That's happened with Medtner and Scriabin, I'm part way through with Szymanowski. I'm also doing it at the moment with Debussy and Shostakovich, weaving in my new purchases. Similarly with Sibelius, in fits and starts.

And I'm doing it with my Chopin collection. And Beethoven as I now have most opuses. And Holmboe again. I've done it with Faure. And my Mozart collection such as it is, and the Bridge orchestral works, and my Barber collection. And Rachmaninov.

And I do it with particular categories, eg for Brahms and Dvorak I've done just the chamber music.

And I do it with pop music as well.

As for whether it's rewarding... well, I must find it rewarding or I wouldn't keep repeating it. I find being able to perceive the development of a body of work truly fascinating. It can really focus your attention on the more subtle elements of a composer's style, the way it changed over time, and can make you understand why certain pieces are considered landmarks. With my Holmboe obsession, I now recognise several distinct periods of his work because I'm conscious of what goes where. And for me with Beethoven, the 3rd symphony and the 'Waldstein' piano sonata become truly revelatory when you reach them.

[jochanaan]

We have some champion listeners here!  The only composer whose complete works I've heard is Varese--not a big project since they fit onto two CDs, but very rewarding to my progressive ears.