Where can I learn about 'bests'?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Oh, come now: surely you're not taking me to task for going off topic. I may not be a veteran here, but I've read enough threads to know that digression is the rule, not the exception. 

If you want to digress, be my guest. But at least recognize that your second question is not just digressive, but almost antithetical to your primary question.

[Gurn Blanston]

Again, I think we're veering off from what the OP originally asked, which was not an in-depth survey of clarinet chamber music but rather to find out "the composers and works that are generally agreed upon as most important." Nobody is going to "generally agree" that the clarinet music of Saint-Saens, Poulenc, Bruch, Zemlinsky, or Walter Rabl is core repertoire for someone looking to answer this question. I don't know most of those particular works myself, and I've been involved with classical music for 55 years. The OP declares his surprise that S-S's woodwind chamber works are considered major works; I would share that surprise myself. I know I played the S-S sonata with a clarinetist once, and I found it instantly forgettable (I seem to be the third person here who has had this same reaction). If I had to nominate the clarinet chamber works "that are generally agreed upon as most important," they would be two: the Mozart and the Brahms Quintets.

The Mozart trio with clarinet, viola and keyboard and the Brahms Trios are nearly of that caliber, but that's about it. For clarinet, I think concerto. That said, I enjoy the Poulenc sonata from time to time, but indispensable masterwork, no.

I previewed that Goulding book on Amazon and I didn't like its tone; Goulding's system of rankings, with his Starter Kits, Top Tens, etc., seems heavy-handed and extremely pompous. I gave the OP a recommendation for a book I consider informative, judicious, and unpretentious. (Greatest limitations: the lack of information on early and modern music. Libbey pretty much starts with Bach and ends with early Stravinsky and Ravel, though Alban Berg gets a mention.) If I would supplement that book, I would add a good survey of music history. When I was young, I found Carter Harman's "Popular History of Music" very helpful. Paul Griffiths's "Concise History of Western Music" is also very good, as is "A History of Art and Music" by Kerman and Janson.

I found Goulding to be a pompous ass and the money I spent on his book to be essentially wasted, beyond telling me as a beginner that certain works existed. I liked the NPR book, found it useful and essentially accurate, I used to listen to his radio program and learned a lot there, too.

I haven't chimed in on this thread because, as is well known, I don't subscribe to the concept of 'best', nor would I ever recommend that people only listen to music which is in the Canon of Western Music. I think one learns more by listening to everything that comes along and making his/her own judgments about it. But hey, that's just me...

[Karl Henning]

. . . I don't subscribe to the concept of 'best', nor would I ever recommend that people only listen to music which is in the Canon of Western Music. I think one learns more by listening to everything that comes along and making his/her own judgments about it.

That is one of the best ideas . . . .

[Jo498]

I do not know the book in question but many of them tend to be pompous, patronizing (or the opposite, flippant and frivolous e.g, "Idiot's/bluffer's guide to..." or "Who is afraid of...).
What about a traditional guide, simply describing the more famous works, without explicitly addressing "best of" "newbie" etc.? Or, maybe even better, guides on music history (some mentioned above).

[(poco) Sforzando]

The Mozart trio with clarinet, viola and keyboard and the Brahms Trios are nearly of that caliber, but that's about it. For clarinet, I think concerto. That said, I enjoy the Poulenc sonata from time to time, but indispensable masterwork, no.

I found Goulding to be a pompous ass and the money I spent on his book to be essentially wasted, beyond telling me as a beginner that certain works existed. I liked the NPR book, found it useful and essentially accurate, I used to listen to his radio program and learned a lot there, too.

I haven't chimed in on this thread because, as is well known, I don't subscribe to the concept of 'best', nor would I ever recommend that people only listen to music which is in the Canon of Western Music. I think one learns more by listening to everything that comes along and making his/her own judgments about it. But hey, that's just me...

Yes, and you are our recognized Haydnista who also listens to the Beethoven Ninth each Sunday. I would not recommend "that people only listen to music which is in the Canon of Western Music" either. But the OP was asking for a starting point for what is "generally agreed." By all means listen to whatever you want, by all means experiment and explore, but bear in mind that "what comes along" has already been filtered: by the publisher that chooses to preserve the score, by the performer who chooses to learn the work and present it publicly, by the record company that chooses to release the recording, by the reviewer who gives a thumbs up or down, by the public that chooses to buy the recording thus keeping copies in print. For all anyone may like to say about making our own judgments, our judgments are already highly circumscribed before we even take the shrink wrap off the disc.

(Case in point: Charles Rosen, probably on examining a score in the Bibliothéque Nationale, has concluded that Méhul's Ariodante is a major early 19th-century opera. But such information is of no use to me since there is no recording and no easily available score. Conversely, Joseph Rumshinsky's The Golden Bride, a Yiddish operetta from the 1920s that was once highly popular, has been rediscovered, a score assembled, highly acclaimed performances in NJ and NY (yes, I was there and it was delightful), the possibility of a CD and/or DVD, and now a forgotten work has the opportunity of joining the ranks of repertory pieces.)

[Brahmsian]

I found Goulding to be a pompous ass and the money I spent on his book to be essentially wasted, beyond telling me as a beginner that certain works existed. I liked the NPR book, found it useful and essentially accurate, I used to listen to his radio program and learned a lot there, too.

Sorry you the Goulding book disappointing, Gurn.  It was of great value to me when I first started exploring classical music, because it was a reference book that was not riddled with musical technical jargon and music theory.  I found the book interesting, and an entertaining read too. 

[ShineyMcShineShine]

If you want to digress, be my guest. But at least recognize that your second question is not just digressive, but almost antithetical to your primary question.

Since my first question was actually "Is there a reliable source (preferably on the web) that I can consult about such matters?", I don't think my second question was particularly digressive. Karl seems a reliable source to consult on matters of the clarinet repertoire, and no less reliable at this point than Theodore Libbey or Phil G. Goulding, since I'm not well informed about any of their credentials. And even if Karl turns out to be a thoroughly disreputable source, I imagine you and others will correct his shortcomings directly. 

As for Libbey, I've requested the book from my local library so I should have it some time next week.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Since my first question was actually "Is there a reliable source (preferably on the web) that I can consult about such matters?", I don't think my second question was particularly digressive. Karl seems a reliable source to consult on matters of the clarinet repertoire, and no less reliable at this point than Theodore Libbey or Phil G. Goulding, since I'm not well informed about any of their credentials. And even if Karl turns out to be a thoroughly disreputable source, I imagine you and others will correct his shortcomings directly. 

As for Libbey, I've requested the book from my local library so I should have it some time next week.

I go back to your original question: "I'm talking about the composers and works that are generally agreed upon as most important." Yes, there is a clarinet repertoire, but I think Karl, who is a thoroughly educated and well-credentialed composer, will agree that most of the "generally agreed upon most important" composers have not written most of their most "generally agreed upon as most important" chamber works for clarinet or other woodwinds. The core repertory of chamber music has largely been for stringed instruments, either alone or in combination with the piano. Why this should be so would take more time to discuss than I can muster now, but it would explain why I found your question about clarinet repertoire almost antithetical to your first, more general query.

[ShineyMcShineShine]

I don't subscribe to the concept of 'best', nor would I ever recommend that people only listen to music which is in the Canon of Western Music. I think one learns more by listening to everything that comes along and making his/her own judgments about it. But hey, that's just me...

I like to think that I make my own judgements as well, but personally I don't find listening to everything that comes along to be particularly productive or enjoyable. It can also be a big waste of time if you spend your time listening to crap. Furthermore, I like to know something about what I'm listening to, and I admit that if you tell me I'm hearing a masterpiece, I'm likely to listen more closely--or perhaps give it a second listen if the first one didn't impress me. As a relative neophyte, I think this is a wise policy, since I don't yet entirely trust my own judgment when it comes to classical music. I know what I like, but I also know that my tastes change over time, and today I like things that in the past I did not, and oftentimes that change was the result of wondering what I was missing that everyone else saw. On the other hand, I'm not going to like or even listen to something just because you tell me it's a masterpiece. I don't care how many lists of top ten best operas you show me, I ain't going to listen to a single one! (At least not anytime soon. In 10 years maybe my tastes will have changed.)

[Brahmsian]

I like to think that I make my own judgements as well, but personally I don't find listening to everything that comes along to be particularly productive or enjoyable.  Furthermore, I like to know something about what I'm listening to, and I admit that if you tell me I'm hearing a masterpiece, I'm likely to listen more closely--or perhaps give it a second listen if the first one didn't impress me. As a relative neophyte, I think this is a wise policy, since I don't yet entirely trust my own judgment when it comes to classical music.

In my opinion, I think this is a very sensible approach as a relative neophyte (I still consider myself one too). 

[ShineyMcShineShine]

I go back to your original question: "I'm talking about the composers and works that are generally agreed upon as most important." Yes, there is a clarinet repertoire, but I think Karl, who is a thoroughly educated and well-credentialed composer, will agree that most of the "generally agreed upon most important" composers have not written most of their most "generally agreed upon as most important" chamber works for clarinet or other woodwinds. The core repertory of chamber music has largely been for stringed instruments, either alone or in combination with the piano. Why this should be so would take more time to discuss than I can muster now, but it would explain why I found your question about clarinet repertoire almost antithetical to your first, more general query.

Yes, I see what you mean. I suppose I put too much emphasis on "best". That is basically what I meant, but when I wrote "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" I also intended a means of assessing works relative to their composers, i.e., is this work generally agreed upon as one of its composer's most important? The Saint-Saens woodwind sonatas I mentioned above are a good example of my motivation: I was curious to learn how important (if at all) they were, although I didn't expect they would appear on any top 10 list of all-time best chamber works.

So you are right: I could have been clearer in my mind about what I want--or at least clearer in expressing it.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, and you are our recognized Haydnista who also listens to the Beethoven Ninth each Sunday. I would not recommend "that people only listen to music which is in the Canon of Western Music" either. But the OP was asking for a starting point for what is "generally agreed." By all means listen to whatever you want, by all means experiment and explore, but bear in mind that "what comes along" has already been filtered: by the publisher that chooses to preserve the score, by the performer who chooses to learn the work and present it publicly, by the record company that chooses to release the recording, by the reviewer who gives a thumbs up or down, by the public that chooses to buy the recording thus keeping copies in print. For all anyone may like to say about making our own judgments, our judgments are already highly circumscribed before we even take the shrink wrap off the disc.

True, that's what I am now, but the first 10 or more years I listened to every composer, time period and genre I got my hands on, or that was played on the radio. This is why I have a narrow focus now, because I started out with a very broad focus and then narrowed down as I discovered things I found most appealing. I certainly didn't start out solely in the Classical Era! 

You must admit, though, that as you read along various threads here and there, people do tend to lean heavily on Canonic works, and I have seen many people write that they can't be bothered to waste their time on lesser composers. I think that is especially bad for tyros. How can you appreciate "great" if you have nothing to compare it to?

[Jo498]

I think there is nothing wrong going with the most popular and historically "canonic" things as a beginner.
Preferences will form themselves fairly soon (I still have never listened to a complete "Aida" after almost 30 years listening to classical...) but I think the "canon" (especially when grounded in music history) can help to become aware of music one would very probably have ignored otherwise.

It's difficult to miss Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner etc. (it takes some effort to ignore Aida, though... ) But who will come to Schumann's Lieder, Monteverdi's Madrigals or Ockheghem Masses by way of "100 most popular classics"?

[(poco) Sforzando]

You must admit, though, that as you read along various threads here and there, people do tend to lean heavily on Canonic works, and I have seen many people write that they can't be bothered to waste their time on lesser composers. I think that is especially bad for tyros. How can you appreciate "great" if you have nothing to compare it to?

And another strand of listener who thinks the canonic works "overplayed" and "overrated," and whose primary interest is the "undeservedly neglected" or "unsung" . . . . (I name no names.)

[Gurn Blanston]

And another strand of listener who thinks the canonic works "overplayed" and "overrated," and whose primary interest is the "undeservedly neglected" or "unsung" . . . . (I name no names.)

That's not what I said and you know it. There is life after Beethoven (and Mozart & Haydn). You have your own particular ax to grind vis-a-vis that topic and you are welcome to it. Don't try to suck me in there though. I neither agree nor disagree with you on that subject. I wish I could be more clear, but... 

[(poco) Sforzando]

That's not what I said and you know it. There is life after Beethoven (and Mozart & Haydn). You have your own particular ax to grind vis-a-vis that topic and you are welcome to it. Don't try to suck me in there though. I neither agree nor disagree with you on that subject. I wish I could be more clear, but... 

An axe to grind? Qui, moi? I merely point out another side of the equation.

[Gurn Blanston]

An axe to grind? Qui, moi? I merely point out another side of the equation.

Which I would have believed, if I had read that post stare in sua. I was taking history into account.    0:)

[(poco) Sforzando]

Which I would have believed, if I had read that post stare in sua. I was taking history into account.    0:)

The point is no less valid for that.

[Jo498]

I think a lot of this is actually moot in practice for a newbie.
It's unlikely that someone will accidentally listen to "crap" because classical pieces that are somewhat frequently recorded and likely to be encountered by the beginner are almost never "crap". They are not as good as the best but they are usually "solid" and often charming pieces.

I do not see any problem if someone who really likes the sound of the clarinet listens to Saint-Saens' sonata or Weber's quintet or Spohrs concerti etc. before tackling Brahms 4th symphony or the Art of Fugue or other more important works.

But even restricting oneself to the standard repertoire from baroque (almost everything pre-1600 is probably too obscure to count as standard repertoire) to early 20th century there are hundreds of pieces one can listen to without straying from what's considered among "the best". So exploring lesser known stuff does not really become an issue for a few years.

Most beginner will also have spontaneous preferences and whole genres they do not much care for. As I never played the piano and tended to find most solo piano boring as a beginning listener with 17-20 it took me almost 10 years of listening to classical before I really explored the solo piano music of Bach, Chopin, Schumann etc. I also never cared too much for 19th century italian opera so there are standard pieces like Aida I have never heard completely, even less seen on stage.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think a lot of this is actually moot in practice for a newbie.
It's unlikely that someone will accidentally listen to "crap" because classical pieces that are somewhat frequently recorded and likely to be encountered by the beginner are almost never "crap". They are not as good as the best but they are usually "solid" and often charming pieces.

I do not see any problem if someone who really likes the sound of the clarinet listens to Saint-Saens' sonata or Weber's quintet or Spohrs concerti etc. before tackling Brahms 4th symphony or the Art of Fugue or other more important works.

But even restricting oneself to the standard repertoire from baroque (almost everything pre-1600 is probably too obscure to count as standard repertoire) to early 20th century there are hundreds of pieces one can listen to without straying from what's considered among "the best". So exploring lesser known stuff does not really become an issue for a few years.

Most beginner will also have spontaneous preferences and whole genres they do not much care for. As I never played the piano and tended to find most solo piano boring as a beginning listener with 17-20 it took me almost 10 years of listening to classical before I really explored the solo piano music of Bach, Chopin, Schumann etc. I also never cared too much for 19th century italian opera so there are standard pieces like Aida I have never heard completely, even less seen on stage.

I can't disagree with any of this, really. We all have our own way of getting into this music, and there's no one formula that works for all. I think the OP simply wanted some starting point for what are the most-recognized pieces, but that doesn't mean he has to or will start working through anybody's list in a mechanical fashion. Sooner or later he'll find what he feels is worth seeking out, and eventually he will like all the rest of us form his own listening personality.