New fan...Narrowing on what I like

[locrian]

Yes. Everyone should make a list for newbies.   

[longears]

Blah de blah de blah.  And so the argument about lists goes.  You try making a list of this type, and then I'd like to hear your opinion about others.

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed, Brett?  You seem to have taken a page from another frequent poster's notebook today.  (Who'd've thunk suggesting Rothko Chapel isn't core repertoire would provoke such uncharacteristic ungraciousness from you?)

BTW, I did once begin a list of this sort on the old forum and quit when, like this one, it quickly grew so large as to be more daunting than helpful to most newbies.

[Catison]

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed, Brett?  You seem to have taken a page from another frequent poster's notebook today.  (Who'd've thunk suggesting Rothko Chapel isn't core repertoire would provoke such uncharacteristic ungraciousness from you?)

BTW, I did once begin a list of this sort on the old forum and quit when, like this one, it quickly grew so large as to be more daunting than helpful to most newbies.

Not wrong side of the bed, but maybe a little grumpy.  I've heard your argument before, and if not from you, from someone else.  After hearing it so often, these things start to sound like, "blah blah blah".

The list may not have been made in the way you would make yours.  Maybe his motive was not to make a list that has the all the best pieces written, but to give a wide ranging view of what is available in classical music.  Surely, there are things that will be left off, but your question should be, "if someone listened to this list, would they be pretty knowledgeable about classical music?"  "Would they have valuable insights into music?"  A list dominated by the greatest works of Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms would definitely be helpful, but it wouldn't prepare any listener for the greatest works of the 20th century.

But here I am making the same argument again about these lists.  That is why I suggest only people who undertaken the task should criticize them.  There are far too many compromises to be made while making one.

[Larry Rinkel]

The problem of course is that no one is going to actually use any of these lists, so they become more reflective of the list-maker's desire to prove his/her knowledge than of the newbie's actual need to find a list of pieces to learn. And the longer the list, the less likely it will be used. More likely, we all learn piecemeal, a little at a time, and then from time to time we ask advice on filling in "gaps" in our knowledge.

[Fëanor]

FWIW, here's Feanor's 'core repertoire' hitlist from another thread.

FWIW, indeed!  I can take only a little credit for the list.  In fact, it's a digest of the opinions from a number of sources.  It is one guide to my own learning.

I agree that there is no single "right" way to approach classical music except to listen to a lot of stuff.  Personally I think it's good advice not focus too heavily on the music or one era.  A lot of people begin with the Romantic or Baroque:  well and good, but also expose yourself to other eras.

In particular, I believe that the 20th century was the greatest for classical music.  For one thing there is huge variety, whether we speak of the the "Second Viennese School", (Schoenberg, Bert, Webern), "Modern", (e.g. Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok), or the "Contemporary", (e.g. Carter, Schnittke, Ligeti).

[Fëanor]

It's not a bad list as these things go. No list will satisfy anybody. But I hope the omission of the Beethoven quartets was an oversight and not intentional.

INDEED!  It was an oversight on my part.  Actually I see that the web list is an out of date version, (for which I appologize).  A later version includes exemplary Beethoven Quartets, viz. Op.59/1 "Rasumovsky", and Op.131.

Then again, no list of 250 could possibly make everyone happy;  (it doesn't make me especially happy either).  However I feel beginners, (including me), need to start some where.  As someone mentioned, too long a list is daunting, but a shorter one, (say 100), would be just too arbitrary and limiting.

Stay tuned for my revised list -- coming soon.

[longears]

Not wrong side of the bed, but maybe a little grumpy.  I've heard your argument before, and if not from you, from someone else.  After hearing it so often, these things start to sound like, "blah blah blah".

What argument?  (How strange!  That's two posters in one day addressing a non-existent argument.)  And I'm at a loss about what has offended you sufficiently to provoke a rude response from someone who's generally quite civil.  Was it the dismissal of Rothko Chapel as too obscure for core repertoire?  Or was it the statement that we apparently have different ideas about what constitutes core repertoire?

Are you guys going through midterm exams?

[Catison]

What argument?  (How strange!  That's two posters in one day addressing a non-existent argument.)  And I'm at a loss about what has offended you sufficiently to provoke a rude response from someone who's generally quite civil.  Was it the dismissal of Rothko Chapel as too obscure for core repertoire?  Or was it the statement that we apparently have different ideas about what constitutes core repertoire?

Are you guys going through midterm exams?

How am I not being civil?  The argument that sounds the same is the "this list has <blank> in it and it shouldn't" and "this list is missing <blank> in it.  It should have been there." argument.  <blank> changes, but the argument remains the same.  I happen to like Feldman and Rothko Chapel, sure.  But what I hate is seeing someone backhandedly dismiss a list, one I thought was very well rounded, without any argument.  "Give me a break",  you say, as if it's obvious, when it obviously isn't.  That's pretty rude, right?  You're basically saying, "Gee, why would anyone be so dumb as to put that piece in there..."  Perhaps, just perhaps, before calling someone rude, you should read over your own posts.

[longears]

I stand corrected.  I thought that--regardless of whether classical music fans agree on exactly which works belong in the 'core repertoire'--there is nevertheless a consensus as to what the notion of 'core repertoire' represents:  that is, those works which constitute the center, the essence, the core of the classical repertoire--works like the Brandenburgs, the da Ponte operas, the Beethoven 9, 32, & 16, The Rite of Spring, and so on--and that one of the principal criteria for inclusion in the core repertoire is that there be substantial agreement that a given work has so withstood the test of time that it rightfully belongs in the core repertoire.

Apparently I was wrong.

[Fëanor]

I stand corrected.  I thought that--regardless of whether classical music fans agree on exactly which works belong in the 'core repertoire'--there is nevertheless a consensus as to what the notion of 'core repertoire' represents:  that is, those works which constitute the center, the essence, the core of the classical repertoire
...
one of the principal criteria for inclusion in the core repertoire is that there be substantial agreement that a given work has so withstood the test of time that it rightfully belongs in the core repertoire.

Apparently I was wrong.

Or maybe you're right and I'm wrong.  But my modest "250 Core" goes beyond only those works that "have stood the test of time".  I felt I had to include a representation of contemporary works for which broad consensus hasn't necessarily emerged.  This is important because contemporary is a vital continuation of the classical tradition, in my opinion.

[Mark]

The problem of course is that no one is going to actually use any of these lists, so they become more reflective of the list-maker's desire to prove his/her knowledge than of the newbie's actual need to find a list of pieces to learn. And the longer the list, the less likely it will be used. More likely, we all learn piecemeal, a little at a time, and then from time to time we ask advice on filling in "gaps" in our knowledge.

While I agree with this in the main, I am finding Feanor's list interesting and intend, in time, to download some of the works on it.

[Bonehelm]

I have only one advice--and it will most likely prove to be the most helpful during your stay here: Avoid Sir Edward William Elgar by all costs.

[longears]

While I agree with this in the main, I am finding Feanor's list interesting and intend, in time, to download some of the works on it.

Wonderful.  I only suggested (and not very graciously) that the list is unsuitable as an introduction for newbies, regardless of its merits otherwise.  We went through something similar on the old forum as you may recall, when another poster offered a similarly unwieldy and idiosyncratic list as a newcomers guide.  Several others responded with more modest lists they thought more suitable to help newbies explore the core.  The link to that thread is here.

[Renfield]

I have only one advice--and it will most likely prove to be the most helpful during your stay here: Avoid Sir Edward William Elgar by all costs.

So who do we suppose wrote (at the very least) the Enigma Variations and the Cello Concerto, then? William Walton?

That someone is exaggerating in favour is no excuse for someone else to exaggerate against, is it?

[longears]

Elgar's Cello Concerto is core, IMO, and many would include the variations as well.  Boneheadhelm is just teasing the monkey, as you're obviously aware.  (I have it from a disreputable source that he likes to play Pomp & Circumstance with the volume control at 11 whilst prancing about in the nude, clad only in his bristling ersatz Elgar soup-strainer moustache!) 

[Renfield]

Elgar's Cello Concerto is core, IMO, and many would include the variations as well.  Boneheadhelm is just teasing the monkey, as you're obviously aware.  (I have it from a disreputable source that he likes to play Pomp & Circumstance with the volume control at 11 whilst prancing about in the nude, clad only in his bristling ersatz Elgar soup-strainer moustache!) 

If Bonehelm's Elgar goes to 11, I rest my case. Enough said.

(And not to mention the soup-strainer... )

[Haffner]

The best advise I have to give you are twofold.
Listen as much as you can to the Classical radio & go to your local library, and lend as much music as you can.
That is the only way to get to know what you like, and its inexpensive too.
Best of cd's are okay, but narrow your view.
You have allready Mendelssohn/Beethoven/Handel/Tchaikovsky, and from there on the future is infinite.
Going back in time pre Handel, will also bring in rewards, if you like Handel, you will love Haydn.

Most helpful post of the day, really well put, Harry.

[Fëanor]

Wonderful.  I only suggested (and not very graciously) that the list is unsuitable as an introduction for newbies, regardless of its merits otherwise.  We went through something similar on the old forum as you may recall, when another poster offered a similarly unwieldy and idiosyncratic list as a newcomers guide.  Several others responded with more modest lists they thought more suitable to help newbies explore the core.  The link to that thread is here.

The nice thing about RebLem's list is the mention of specific recordings.  In the regard I wonder:  if it's hard to agree on the compositions to include, how exponentially more so is it to agree on the versions?

As to whether it is more "wieldly" than my list, is it a little shorter?  One thing for sure, it scarcely acknowledge contemporary music all -- well, there is Zwilich.  (Zwilich?  Now there is a time-tested, non-idiosyncratic choice     I'm reprehensibly inclined to sarcasm.)

[Kullervo]

So who do we suppose wrote (at the very least) the Enigma Variations and the Cello Concerto, then? William Walton?

That someone is exaggerating in favour is no excuse for someone else to exaggerate against, is it?

It's a hopeless case, Renfield. 

[Bonehelm]

It's a hopeless case, Renfield. 

Exactly. Just don't even expect to talk about the composer without getting set on fire here.