A different cut on beginners' classical music

[greg]

Oh, I have no complaint about this practice. I just think you misunderstood the nature of this forum and the type of people that populates it.

Look at it this way. Most (if not all) of the posters here use not only their bodies, feelings and emotional responses, but also their brains. They don't dismiss certain composers as "boring" just because the first hearing of a work did not result in an instant auricular or bodily pleasure. They spend a lot of time trying to figure out if there's something wrong with the music or with them. This implies listening, studying, thinking, comparing, analyzing and, of course, interacting with others, be they people here, knowledgeable musicologists or reviewers. They might or might not agree with "the musical establishment" but they don't dismiss its members off-hand as academic bores. For them, music is nost just a half-hour "feel-good" gratification, but a spiritual and intellectual experience as well. It involves an appreciation and curiosity not only for music per se but also for its history and connections with other fields of human spirituality. Most, if not all, posters here have had their struggle with this or that composer, but by perseverence and informed listening, a lot of them have come to like, nay, love!, what they initially disliked. Of course, all this implies a lot of time, effort and humility and is a far cry from the prevalent attitude among rock / pop fans. It may sound like "elitism" to you, but that's your bad.

So, I hope you now realize that your take on classical music could not be more misplaced on this forum. It's like a Romanian proverb: you're selling cucumbers to the gardener.

nice post, Florestan.

[theowne]

I'm a bit confused by some of the comments on the front page of this thread about the entries on her list being "light" selections and having no substance....being "second rate"......

Debussy Images?  Ravel's Daphnes and Chloe?  Liszt Concertos?  Mahler Symphony No.1?  Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring?

These pieces are considered "light" and "second rate"?

If this music is considered light and mainstream, than I think modern society is heading back in the right direction.....

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm a bit confused by some of the comments on the front page of this thread about the entries on her list being "light" selections and having no substance....being "second rate"......

Debussy Images?  Ravel's Daphnes and Chloe?  Liszt Concertos?  Mahler Symphony No.1?  Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring?

These pieces are considered "light" and "second rate"?

Not all the entries on the list, and none of those by any means. Reactions were generally more concentrated on the attitude that many highly regarded works are "torture" and "musical hell," as well as a sense that many of the selections on the list were chosen for their pounding rhythms, high decibel quotient, and/or potential to induce incredible orgasms. 

[Topaz]

I'm a bit confused by some of the comments on the front page of this thread about the entries on her list being "light" selections and having no substance....being "second rate"......

Debussy Images?  Ravel's Daphnes and Chloe?  Liszt Concertos?  Mahler Symphony No.1?  Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring?

These pieces are considered "light" and "second rate"?

If this music is considered light and mainstream, than I think modern society is heading back in the right direction.....

I think you might have missed out on a few pages since page 1. 

The generally adverse reaction to Teresa's recommendations is an expression of scepticism that there is a way of becoming a true fan of classical music while avoiding completely the likes of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Schumann, Handel, Chopin, and virtually ignoring Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Verdi, Mahler, these being various composers whom Teresa doesn't like. 

Apparently, according to Teresa, pieces like (i) Benjamin Arthur's Jamaican Rumba for Orchestra, (ii) Percy Faith's Brazilian Sleigh Bells, (iii)  Henri Rabaud's Cobbler of Cairo are perfectly good substitutes for the material that normally passes off as classical music. 

In other words, the concern is that a claim that "you too can be a fan of classical music and not listen to any boring old Mozart, Bach, Brahms and Schubert" etc is tantamount to misleading advertising, e.g. like health fraud ("dentistry without pain"), credit repair, get rich quick schemes, travel fraud.  It's pure quackery.

[greg]

Apparently, according to Teresa, pieces like (i) Benjamin Arthur's Jamaican Rumba for Orchestra, (ii) Percy Faith's Brazilian Sleigh Bells, (iii)  Henri Rabaud's Cobbler of Cairo are perfectly good substitutes for the material that normally passes off as classical music. 

who?.......
what? 

[Teresa]

Oh, I have no complaint about this practice. I just think you misunderstood the nature of this forum and the type of people that populates it.

Look at it this way. Most (if not all) of the posters here use not only their bodies, feelings and emotional responses, but also their brains. They don't dismiss certain composers as "boring" just because the first hearing of a work did not result in an instant auricular or bodily pleasure. 

I give new music to me at least four listens before I discard it, some of my most beloved works I loved on the very first listen and I have loved them for decades.  I have the right to like what I like and I extend to you also the right to like what you like.  After all I have been a Classical music listener, an amateur musician and Classical composer for over a quarter of century. 

Is this the same Teresa who limits her listening to audiophile Lps? 

I prefer audiophile LPs yes but I also buy commercial LPs at the thrift stores for 25 cents to $1.00 each.

But we have Teresa where we want her too, blustering and pouting and posturing, and not willing to budge one inch from her self-created musical prison. And when we decide no longer to participate in this fruitless discussion, she has her diet of musical junk food, and we have the musical nutrition.

I have already been where you are at decades ago delving in the so-called standard repertoire, I have moved past you into the area of highly emotionally moving and exciting Classical music.  It has taken me decades of research and listening to find all of these wonderful mostly neglected classical compositions!  So you think the Classical music I like is junk food?  I enjoy it deeply and immensely so I think I get as much or even more musical nutrition than your prescribed "good taste" diet.  To each their own I guess?

If people aren't going to learn how to appreciate the masters, then yes, i would rather not have them become classical music listeners. What's the point?

This is my point in order to enjoy for example ALBÉNIZ, ANTILL, MALCOLM ARNOLD, PAUL CHIHARA, LOUIS GOTTSCHALK, MORTON GOULD, VIRGIL THOMSON, or ARTHUR WILLS it is NOT required that one also like the music of MOZART, HAYDN or BACH.  This is where the Classical establishment is at their absolute worst behavior.  The lofty masters of yours are just Classical composers that got more publicity.  And many of them IMHO do not deserve the title!  There are thousands of fantastic little known composers totally neglected because of people trying to understand these lofty masters when instead they could be enjoying great Classical music.  Unlike you I want EVERYONE TO ENJOY CLASSICAL MUSIC! whither they like the composers I like or not!  This is what makes you an elitist is you would exclude those of us who do not like the classical compositions you like or the composers you like.

I think you might have missed out on a few pages since page 1. 

The generally adverse reaction to Teresa's recommendations is an expression of scepticism that there is a way of becoming a true fan of classical music while avoiding completely the likes of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Schumann, Handel, Chopin, and virtually ignoring Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Verdi, Mahler, these being various composers whom Teresa doesn't like. 

Apparently, according to Teresa, pieces like (i) Benjamin Arthur's Jamaican Rumba for Orchestra, (ii) Percy Faith's Brazilian Sleigh Bells, (iii)  Henri Rabaud's Cobbler of Cairo are perfectly good substitutes for the material that normally passes off as classical music. 

In other words, the concern is that a claim that "you too can be a fan of classical music and not listen to any boring old Mozart, Bach, Brahms and Schubert" etc is tantamount to misleading advertising, e.g. like health fraud ("dentistry without pain"), credit repair, get rich quick schemes, travel fraud.  It's pure quackery.

Wrong Classical music is for everyone and there is enough to go around, you don't have to listen to what you do not like and I will not listen to what I do not like, OK?  And yes there are other paths to Classical music than the one you took and they are just as legitimate as yours!  BTW I do like Mahler.

And finally thanks Topaz I added the Classical Music Mayhem to my favorites and will check it out tonight.

[theowne]

The generally adverse reaction to Teresa's recommendations is an expression of scepticism

I'm not sure there's much room for interpretation in phrases like "filled with second rate music" or "entries are too light for me".  I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was criticizing all the posters in the forum since I specifically directed my comments....

Apparently, according to Teresa, pieces like (i) Benjamin Arthur's Jamaican Rumba for Orchestra, (ii) Percy Faith's Brazilian Sleigh Bells, (iii)  Henri Rabaud's Cobbler of Cairo are perfectly good substitutes for the material that normally passes off as classical music.

What I find most interesting about this statement is that you chose titles with superficial non-western influence or connotation, I suppose that a "German Waltz for Orchestra" or "German Sleigh Bells" would not have been chosen for your list as they are automatically masterpieces.  As far as I recall, Debussy and Ravel "pass" off as classical music, coincidentally both show non-traditional influence.  So I'm not sure I understood the point.  Additionally, I can find many pieces of substance on this list in addition to less "traditional" music.  The Mahler, Debussy, or Holst are all recommendations I would make as well.  I suppose the concern is that a true classical music fan is not allowed to listen to anything not composed by an Austrian or a German.

The worst thing that can happen by this list is that some random person, who hasn't grown up with classical, will be curious by the idea that classical music is not boring and take a listen, and enjoy it, and perhaps open their mind to the idea that classical music can be enjoyable.  That's the first step.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I have already been where you are at decades ago delving in the so-called standard repertoire, I have moved past you into the area of highly emotionally moving and exciting Classical music.

Oh now I see! you've moved past me. You're into that highly emotionally moving and exciting Benjamin Arthur's Jamaican Rumba for Orchestra and Dances from Henri Rabaud's Cobbler of Cairo, while I'm stuck on that C# minor quartet by Beethoven and St. Matthew Passion of Bach. 

[Robert Dahm]

I'm stuck on that C# minor quartet by Beethoven

Such a breathtaking work. To borrow from Teresa what I certainly hope was an analogy, it's like having a full body-mind-and-soul orgasm.

I suppose the concern is that a true classical music fan is not allowed to listen to anything not composed by an Austrian or a German.

I don't think so. While there was a certain level of scepticism as to what was on the list, my own view is that the list represents what Teresa was setting out to represent. Let's not forget that this is 'Power Orchestral Classical', or somesuch. I reacted with what I assure you is uncharacteristic vitriol because if you create a kind of 'beginner's guide'-type list, you take on the responsibility of an expert in the field, which you may or may not be. Regardless, it is certainly inappropriate to, in the essay preceding your list, slam an enormous amount of music that people dearly love.
Contrary to Teresa's protestations, and irrespective of whether she meant something different than what she wrote in those essays, she described a great deal of incredible music as being the 'wrong type' while touting her own list as the 'good stuff'. I don't think anybody is claiming that Teresa doesn't have the right to love the music she loves, but if you're taking on the role of pedagogue then you also need to extend that right to the users of your resources.

Picking up on something a while back:
I don't think there is an issue here of 'absolute music' (are we even still using that term? is any music 'absolute'?) and programmatic music. I don't think there's some kind of "Schubert's Piano Sonatas are better than Musorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain because the Schubert are 'pure' and the Musorgsky has a programme". I think that many people just find Night on Bald Mountain a rather musically uninteresting piece. Unlike, say, R. Strauss' Ein Heldenleben, which is also programmatic, and really rather a good piece. Teresa'd probably like it, too.
But 'absolute' music can be beautiful and emotional, as well. Different periods of music have different paradigms for the way notes interact. I find the music of Mozart as deployed in Amadeus almost absurdly emotional. Similarly, I find the 25th Variation of Bach's Goldberg Variations deeply moving (also, it exhibits the kind of tortuous chromaticism that you don't find again until Wagner).

If I may finish with a question:
Teresa, are there any pieces of yours which express, for you, genuine sadness and melancholy? I realise that the only picture we have of your musical tastes are the lists, which tend towards the rambunctious. Is there any classical music you love that is more introspective?

[Topaz]

For those who may not have read the links provided by Teresa to relevant sections of her website, there is a very good set of counter-comments by a reader (Jim H) about half way down the page of THIS.  His comments are essentially much the same as those made by many of the members here.  As will be seen, Teresa gave short shrift to Jim's comments, just as she has done to most of ours.  Whilst it would seem that Teresa is "not for moving" (to coin a phrase from a bygone era) my final word on this topic is that I do hope Teresa will give Schubert another chance, especially his late piano sonatas and the String Quintet.  If this isn't powerfully emotional music of the highest quality I don't know what is. 

[Teresa]

I'm not sure there's much room for interpretation in phrases like "filled with second rate music" or "entries are too light for me".  I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was criticizing all the posters in the forum since I specifically directed my comments....

What I find most interesting about this statement is that you chose titles with superficial non-western influence or connotation, I suppose that a "German Waltz for Orchestra" or "German Sleigh Bells" would not have been chosen for your list as they are automatically masterpieces.  As far as I recall, Debussy and Ravel "pass" off as classical music, coincidentally both show non-traditional influence.  So I'm not sure I understood the point.  Additionally, I can find many pieces of substance on this list in addition to less "traditional" music.  The Mahler, Debussy, or Holst are all recommendations I would make as well.  I suppose the concern is that a true classical music fan is not allowed to listen to anything not composed by an Austrian or a German.

The worst thing that can happen by this list is that some random person, who hasn't grown up with classical, will be curious by the idea that classical music is not boring and take a listen, and enjoy it, and perhaps open their mind to the idea that classical music can be enjoyable.  That's the first step.

Thanks for the wonderful post and needed clarity.  You are correct most of the so-called standard repertoire is Austrian, German and Italian.  And my favorite composers are North Amercian, South American, Mexican, English, Russian, Spanish and French.  Could there be some covert racism involved in the traditional stardard repertoire lists?  I believe there is, I really do or Germany would not be so prominent and most of the rest of the world ignored except for a few token composers here and there.  At least my opening up Classical music borders to cover the entire world will hopefully set things right!  And just so you know I am not anti-German I love Gustav Mahler, Kurt Weill and Carl Orff.

I look to the future with great hope, these elitists will not kill off "Classical music for everyone" if I can help it!  I really believe with all my heart that with the right exposure every single human being alive can find Classical music they love dearly.  They just need to be exposed a larger variety of classical styles.  But these elitists want to keep everything hidden except what is on their precious "Great Masters" lists.  This is way to narrow a view of Classical Music and if we are to grow beyond 3%.

[Teresa]

R. Strauss' Ein Heldenleben, which is also programmatic, and really rather a good piece. Teresa'd probably like it, too. ...
If I may finish with a question:
Teresa, are there any pieces of yours which express, for you, genuine sadness and melancholy? I realise that the only picture we have of your musical tastes are the lists, which tend towards the rambunctious. Is there any classical music you love that is more introspective?

I do indeed like Richard Strauss' Ein Heldenleben.
Here are a few of my recordings that are so sadly beautiful they bring me to tears:

LALO, ÉDOUARD (1823-1892)
  Symphonie Espagnole for Violin and Orchestra (1875)
    Szeryng, Hendl, Chicago Symphony Orchestra [LP] RCA Living Stereo / Classic Records LSC-2456

RACHMANINOV, SERGEI (1873-1943)
Isle of The Dead: Symphonic Poem, Op. 29 (1909)
    Reiner, Chicago Symphony Orchestra [LP] RCA Living Stereo Classic Records LSC-2183

RAVEL, MAURICE (1875-1937)
Le Tombeau de Couperin (1919)
    Skrowaczewski, Minnesota Orchestra [24/96 DVD] Turnabout Vox / Classic Records DAD 1025

Plus during parts of any Mahler Symphony as they have a full range of emotion.

[Teresa]

But what you seem not to realize is that you truly intend your list to be only suggestions, there's no reason not to include the Brahms symphonies, Verdi operas, or Beethoven quartets you so despise and abhor. For after all (not that I think for one moment that your lists will really have much influence), if the goal is to help other listeners find what they like, it would follow logically that such a list ought not to be limited solely to the kinds of things you like.

There is every reason to not include Brahms Symphonies as the list is based on my listening and my discoveries and my recommendations.  To recommend something I do not like would be immoral and wrong in every meaning of the word.  These are my recommendations and I have been very careful over the decades perfecting this list!  And because I don't wish anyone to suffer the pain that I have at the hand of Opera I would only recommend Opera Suites with no singing such as Bizet's Carmen Suite.  There are other recommended lists for Opera and chamber works.  This I believe is the very first list for Power Orchestral Music.  The list was designed for people like me who disliked the traditional Classical music presented by the musical establishment.  That there is another path for us, there are works we can love dearly.   

It is too bad if you cannot accept other views, I feel sorry for you.  I truly do.

[Ephemerid]

But these elitists want to keep everything hidden except what is on their precious "Great Masters" lists.  This is way to narrow a view of Classical Music and if we are to grow beyond 3%.

Yeah, its an evil conspiracy. 

My girlfriend knows very little classical music and what I've exposed to her thus far she has enjoyed-- particularly Pachelbel (not just the Canon), Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (including the few string quartets I've given her), Debussy (especially his piano works), among other things.  And I can't tell you how many people over the years I have made copies of classical music for people with little or no exposure to it, mostly of those "precious Great Masters" and I've had an enormous response.  My landlady is now smitten by Bach because I gave her a copy of the Goldberg Variations and a few of the Brandenburgs a couple weeks ago. 

The last thing I'm interested in doing is "keeping everything hidden" from anyone-- if anything I encourage people that take the slightest interest in classical music or are curious.  I doubt anyone else here feels that way either.  Its one of the few things that gets me out of my general shyness with people.  And when people ask me about classical music, if I'm going to provide them a list of works that's representative of classical music as a whole, including composers I have a difficult time appreciating, such as Lizst and Mahler.  They might hear something I am simply unable to at the moment.  I'm not going to tell them, "Oh, don't bother with Mahler-- I abhor his music and Lizst is boring!" 

Whereas you seem bent on drawing people away from a huge chunk of classical music.  I have no beef against, say Mussorgsky's Night On Bald Mountain (its a wonderful piece certainly, but hardly a brilliant masterpiece) but its a bit disingenuous to try steering people away from whole swathes of classical music, opera or chamber music just because you don't *get* it.  Who's really trying to place limitations on new listeners? 

Classical music is certainly for everyone, but dumbing it down to only a a limited scope and limited breadth isn't doing classical music any service.  I have a bit more faith in people that they have the capacity to appreciate classical music and to embrace it more fully than what you seem to propose. 

BTW, Teresa, you also might want to modify "FOLK: Anything by Copland or Virgil Thomson"-- Copland wrote a lot more than Billy the Kid and Rodeo and people might be in for a shock if they picked up, say, his Connotations for orchestra and, well, it ain't Hoedown, that's for sure!  Its a bit of false advertising... LOL 

[Ephemerid]

And because I don't wish anyone to suffer the pain that I have at the hand of Opera I would only recommend Opera Suites with no singing such as Bizet's Carmen Suite. 

You assume that if YOUR experience with x, y or z was "painful" that everyone else will experience it that too?  That's an awfully big assumption to make.

[longears]

Teresa already knows it all so she should fit right in with a number of GMG denizens.  The rest of us still have a thing or two to learn--maybe even from Teresa, if we can manage not to be too put off by her unrepentant arrogance.  (Has anyone ever met a single soul whose arrogance was justified?  Seems to me that the most knowledgeable people I've known have all been pretty humble.  Of course, since humility=teachability, I guess it makes sense that humble folks are likely to learn way more than those who think they already know it all.  And while I'm playing Andy Rooney:  Why is it that so many folks with a thimbleful of information confuse that with an ocean of wisdom?  Human beings are perplexing creatures, indeed!)

[(poco) Sforzando]

You assume that if YOUR experience with x, y or z was "painful" that everyone else will experience it that too?  That's an awfully big assumption to make.

The problem, it seems to me, is that Teresa wants to hold two unreconciliable views:

a) "I have the right to like what I like and I extend to you also the right to like what you like."

but also (as an example):

b) "I don't wish anyone to suffer the pain that I have at the hand of Opera."

You can't have it both ways. (All together now, start writing the inevitable response: "I can have it any way I want. DON'T YOU DARE tell me what I can and cannot do." See, Teresa, I saved you a post.)

As for the statement, "To recommend something I do not like would be immoral and wrong in every meaning of the word," it's nothing of the kind. If I were to buy a CD for someone as a gift, I'd want it to be something they would enjoy, even if it's something I don't necessarily care for myself. Nothing immoral or wrong about doing that in the slightest.

[Teresa]

You guys still don't get it the alternative is in addition to, not instead of.  Also it is physically impossible to recommend something one does not like and of course it is very morally wrong as well.  There will be other people to recommend those works, not me I can only recommend what I love.  Plus how in the hell could I recommend any opera when I can't set more than a few minutes though one, if I recommend any opera it would mean nothing and would be wrong for me to do so.  Same thing I cannot recommend any chamber work I abhor.  For example lets say someone wanted to know what your favorite steak was but you don't eat beef it would be totally impossible for you to recommend anything.

I hope you now understand, I have really worked with you all long enough that there should be at least some comprehension!  How hard is it to understand The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music http://www.analoglovers.com/id11.html was written for people who do not like traditional Classical music??

If you go to the end of the list you will see what classical works I own.  You will notice 5 works by J.S. Bach, 5 works by Handel, 5 works by Haydn and 14 works by Vivaldi that  were good enough to keep.  Not really for serious listening but I do enjoy mellow music now and again.  But I would never be silly enough to recommend them to a newbie.  For them I pull out Prokofiev's Scythian Suite; Russo's: Three Pieces for Blues Band and Orchestra and Will's The Vikings and on from there.  I don't believe in scaring away people kind enough to visit me.

[Teresa]

Whereas you seem bent on drawing people away from a huge chunk of classical music.  I have no beef against, say Mussorgsky's Night On Bald Mountain (its a wonderful piece certainly, but hardly a brilliant masterpiece) but its a bit disingenuous to try steering people away from whole swathes of classical music, opera or chamber music just because you don't *get* it.  Who's really trying to place limitations on new listeners? 

Classical music is certainly for everyone, but dumbing it down to only a a limited scope and limited breadth isn't doing classical music any service.  I have a bit more faith in people that they have the capacity to appreciate classical music and to embrace it more fully than what you seem to propose. 

BTW, Teresa, you also might want to modify "FOLK: Anything by Copland or Virgil Thomson"-- Copland wrote a lot more than Billy the Kid and Rodeo and people might be in for a shock if they picked up, say, his Connotations for orchestra and, well, it ain't Hoedown, that's for sure!  Its a bit of false advertising... LOL 

I have NEVER steered anyone away from Opera or Chamber music I have only told the truth about my feelings in regard to these forms and I have PLAINLY said over and over not everyone likes the same music.  I have no problem at all with you liking Opera or Chamber music or anyone else for that matter, but I am not in a Position to recommend what I abhor, nor is anyone else on Planet Earth!  Wake up I will never "get" Chamber music or Opera, all of that is in my distant past.  Why would I try to understand a type of music that I find painful, I am not a masochist!  Music is to be enjoyed, plain and simple!

It is not about dumbing down but being included rather than excluded.  It is about freedom!  I also have faith that someday you will explore these lesser know composers and see what all the fuss and excitement is about.  Someday you may be ready to grow beyond the standard repertoire.   

I know what you are saying about Copland and I look into changing the blanket recommendation.  I have Statements for Orchestra and that may be a bit much for a beginner, maybe any Copland work with a colorful title?

My journey continues I just discovered another great new composer Charles Roland Berry.

[Florestan]

To recommend something I do not like would be immoral and wrong in every meaning of the word. 

So, what you don't like is not worth listening to. This pretty much sums up your musical philosophy and makes any further discussion futile. I'm off.