Where can I learn about 'bests'?

[ShineyMcShineShine]

As a beginner, I often wish to know what the 'bests' are, e.g. who are the best composers, what are the best string quartets, which are Mozart's best works, which of Haydn's string quartets are the best, is this piano trio a major or minor work, etc. Of course I know that "best" is a subjective term, but I'm talking about the composers and works that are generally agreed upon as most important. Googling usually produces disappointing results, and Wikipedia tends to avoid judgements on the value of particular works. Is there a reliable source (preferably on the web) that I can consult about such matters?

[Jo498]

This is a very fallible rule of thumb but pieces that are performed and recorded very frequently are usually considered among "the best". It fails in some cases like Haydn symphonies or quartets because they are too many, so the frequently performed dozen is a somewhat skewed sample.

But if you cast the net a little wider, e.g. in the case of Beethoven sonatas not only listen to "Moonlight" and "Appassionata" but also to e.g. "Waldstein", "Les Adieux", op.2/3 and op.111 you will get a fairly good impression of the range of those 32 sonatas (you will still miss my favorite, op.109, but this does not matter). In the end, almost all of them are today core repertoire, so will probably listen to all 32 if you are interested in piano music.

[ShineyMcShineShine]

This is a very fallible rule of thumb but pieces that are performed and recorded very frequently are usually considered among "the best".

Yes, I sometimes go to www.arkivmusic.com for this purpose, but this method doesn't tell me anything about the work itself, and it doesn't work at all in the case of e.g., best string quartets by all composers.

[mc ukrneal]

You could use some lists for this purpose to get exposed to the repertoire. I wouldn't use it for anything else. I mean, for example: http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-symp.html. From there, you can just browse through the different types of works (chamber here: http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-chamber.html). It is as least a place to start. if you want to know more about the pieces/composers, you can then use Wikipedia for that.

[Jo498]

Aren't there lots of polls on all kinds of "bests" in this forum?

The best string quartets ever are Beethoven's 5 late ones (opp. 127,130/133, 131, 132, 135) and Schubert's G major D 887. And maybe Berg's Lyric Suite and Bartok's 4th or 5th quartet. However, some of these works are considered rather thorny and not very accessible (I disagree with respect to e.g. Beethoven's a minor op.132 I found more accessible than some of his earlier pieces as a newbie).

The most popular string quartets are probably Dvorak's so called "American" F major and Schubert's d minor "Death and Maiden". They are also very good (but the best of Dvorak's are the last two). Very colorful and popular are also the quartets by Debussy and Ravel.
All the other Beethoven quartets are also among the best. As are about 10 by Mozart and two or three dozen at least by Haydn. There is probably nothing wrong to start with the best known ones, e.g. the nicknamed ones by Haydn (Bird, Rider, Lark, Emperor, Sunrise etc.) and Mozart (Hunt, Dissonances) although they are not really better than their sibling works.

Mendelssohn's best are the last (f minor op.80) and the two early op.12 and 13. Schumann's used to be considered not as highly but they are worthwhile and only three of them (op.41). Same for Brahms.

In the 20th century the most-recorded cycle are Bartok's 6 quartets, for some reason 4-6 seem more accessible than the earlier ones; I'd leave the 4 by Schoenberg for later despite the haunting soprano addition in the 2nd one (if you want to try 2nd Viennese school, I'd rather try the Lyric Suite by Berg or the short pieces by Webern). The other big corpus for quartet are Shostakovich's 15 quartets. The best known (and quite accessible) is probably #8. Janacek's two quartets would probably be my other recommendation for more accessible 20th century works.
There are plenty more great late romantic/early modern or avantgarde quartets but most of them I'd not recommend for beginners.

[ShineyMcShineShine]

Aren't there lots of polls on all kinds of "bests" in this forum?

Sure, but they're not always easy to find and the threads can become tediously long. I'm looking for more of a reference work written in one voice, for the sake of convenience more than anything.

Also, I find polls here tend not to be particularly useful for beginners. I get the feeling that some people make deliberately recherché choices, eschewing familiar names in favor of lesser known composers and some I've never even heard of. Furthermore, they often generate much more smoke than heat; witness, for example, http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1656.msg43230.html#msg43230 in which the OP condemned his own thread as a mistake.

[ShineyMcShineShine]

You could use some lists for this purpose to get exposed to the repertoire. I wouldn't use it for anything else. I mean, for example: http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-symp.html. From there, you can just browse through the different types of works (chamber here: http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-chamber.html). It is as least a place to start. if you want to know more about the pieces/composers, you can then use Wikipedia for that.

This is what I had in mind, thanks. Although this will be useful, as I look over these lists I realize how absurd such listmaking is: maybe Beethoven really is the best composer, but is Don Carlo Gesualdo really the 100th best?

[(poco) Sforzando]

The problem is that there is such a thing as "standard repertoire," which includes many of the best-known works of classical music, but not all listeners will agree that the standard repertoire necessarily represents what they consider the "best" works or vice versa. Presumably many of us here have been engaged with this music for many years and have formed our own opinions, and the only thing clear is that we don't always agree.

But what you are looking for is a starting point. I think a rather good one is Theodore Libbey's "The NPR Guide to Building a Classical CD Collection." No, it's not the last word. No, not everyone will agree with everything he says. No, it's not the only book you might want to consult. But you will learn a lot from it as a starting point, and for that reason I've held onto the book for many years myself.

[Que]

[...] but is Don Carlo Gesualdo really the 100th best?

You're right!  Such a unique, original and innovative composer should be ranked higher than that.....

Don't  worry about these lists. They seem an easy shortcut, but that's not going to happen....
You'll find that you have your own individual taste that will only cover a modest part of these lists, and might cover composers thay are not included.

Site with a good introduction for beginners: Classical Net

Particularly helpful on that site:

- Basic Repertoire List
- Classical CD Buying Guide (read it!)
- Recommended Classical CD's

Q

[Karl Henning]

Sure, but they're not always easy to find and the threads can become tediously long. I'm looking for more of a reference work written in one voice, for the sake of convenience more than anything.

Also, I find polls here tend not to be particularly useful for beginners.

Particularly as there is a sort of immutable law which plays out (as an example) in a What Is Beethoven's Best Symphony? poll, that before long, all nine symphonies will be nominated.  No earthly use to a beginner.

[North Star]

Particularly as there is a sort of immutable law which plays out (as an example) in a What Is Beethoven's Best Symphony? poll, that before long, all nine symphonies will be nominated.  No earthly use to a beginner.

Well, I don't know. It might be useful to know they're all very much worth listening to, as it's not that large a group of works. The distribution of votes is usually a decent indicator of popularity, which often enough correlates with approachability too.

[ShineyMcShineShine]

Well, I don't know. It might be useful to know they're all very much worth listening to, as it's not that large a group of works. The distribution of votes is usually a decent indicator of popularity, which often enough correlates with approachability too.

Beethoven is a special case in that virtually everything he wrote is a masterpiece, but I agree with Karl: advising a beginner to listen to everything is not only useless but discouraging. Sure, I'd love to listen to all of it, but there is simply too much music and too little time. I'd rather start with the essentials and get to the rest as time and taste permit.

[North Star]

Beethoven is a special case in that virtually everything he wrote is a masterpiece, but I agree with Karl: advising a beginner to listen to everything is not only useless but discouraging.

I agree that it can be daunting, but somehow people manage to buy clothes, food and other things even though they have an enormous variety of choices available. Saying that starting with any of the nine will be fine is not the same thing as saying that you must listen to all of them at once.

[Jo498]

I think the most important thing is to take your time.
Sure, it's great today that one can listen to almost everything for free on youtube and buy big CD boxes cheaply. But it can be overwhelming. When I started listening to classical music almost 30 years ago I started with about two dozen LPs or less and later on would buy stuff like Bruckner symphonies on CD one by one over a period of several years because I could only afford so few discs as a teenager (and Bruckner was not the only thing I was interested in). But the good thing was that I had enough time to thoroughly listen to these pieces.

You do not have to work through a list of "bests" (although such lists and guidebooks can be helpful). If you have pieces you love, just followup with others by the same composer (or composers historically close or influenced by him) etc.

[DaveF]

You do not have to work through a list of "bests" (although such lists and guidebooks can be helpful). If you have pieces you love, just followup with others by the same composer (or composers historically close or influenced by him) etc.

Yes, that's sound advice, I'd say.  As has been mentioned above, no earthly use asking GMG members, as you'll be told that practically every note ever written is the best.  (I, for example, believe quite beyond any doubt that the two greatest English composers are Dunstable and Byrd.)  Indeed, there's an argument for not trying always to find the best (a) for fear that you'll be disappointed by the considerably larger quantity of the second-best, and (b) because also hearing the second-best makes you realise just how good the best is.  You might, for example, only listen to the "best" Haydn quartets - which, in my judgement once again, which we already know is suspect, means the two Op.77s - but also listening to the youthful Op.9s and 17s will make you appreciate the enormous distance Haydn covered in his compositional lifetime.

Anyway, happy listening - I'm really quite envious; sometimes I would like all my past 45 years' listening to be taken away, so I could have the joy of discovering it all again.  (Just for the record; if I could forget one symphony for the pleasure of hearing it for the first time again, it would be Bruckner's 5th.)  And don't forget, as someone once said: "You are all individuals!  You've got to work things out for yourselves!"

[ShineyMcShineShine]

Saying that starting with any of the nine will be fine is not the same thing as saying that you must listen to all of them at once.

Yes, I concede that point. If you said the same about Haydn's symphonies, however, I'd have to disagree again. : )

[ShineyMcShineShine]

You do not have to work through a list of "bests" (although such lists and guidebooks can be helpful). If you have pieces you love, just followup with others by the same composer (or composers historically close or influenced by him) etc.

This is in fact the approach I've followed for the past several years. Early on I decided that I prefer chamber music, specifically piano with strings chamber music, so I've focused on collecting all the major (and some minor) works of that type, while my boxed sets of symphonies by Haydn and Beethoven and piano concertos by Mozart remain largely untouched. So I don't intend to work through a list of bests, but it's useful information to have when exploring new works.

[Mirror Image]

I could never give anyone a list of 'bests,' I can, however, give you list of personal favorites. Whether something is 'the best' has never factored into my listening habits at all.

[Jay F]

Beethoven is a special case in that virtually everything he wrote is a masterpiece, but I agree with Karl: advising a beginner to listen to everything is not only useless but discouraging. Sure, I'd love to listen to all of it, but there is simply too much music and too little time. I'd rather start with the essentials and get to the rest as time and taste permit.

My favorite Beethoven:

Symphonies 3, 5, 6, 7, 9

Rasumovsky String Quartets, Late String Quartets

an entire set of Piano Sonatas

[(poco) Sforzando]

Beethoven is a special case in that virtually everything he wrote is a masterpiece. . . .

Not necessarily, and I love Beethoven more than almost any other composer. He had his lapses too.

I think you've already been given a lot of good advice so far, and I wouldn't discount the guidebook I mentioned. It will take time to build up a core body of knowledge. As you get to know more music, you'll start to see for yourself what seems most promising to tackle next.