Standard repertoire

[val]

My standard repertoire begins with Dufay and, until now, ends with Dufour.

So, a large, very large number of great composers.

As for more obscure composers, I admit that I am not very interested in knowing their opus omnia. I accept that if I had ten or twenty CD with works of Sammartini, instead of the only one I have, I would discover one or two remarkable works.
But if I spent my time listening to that music I would be forced to stop listening to the great masterpieces of Dufay, Monteverdi,Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Debussy, Mussorgski, Stravinsky, Schönberg or Bartok. And those masterpieces cannot be heard only two or three times. Most of them are with me year after year, for decades, and each time I listen to them, like yesterday Mozart's piano Concerto 18, I feel as impressed and touched as in the first time.

[71 dB]

I agree with Harry, there are so much interesting music to explore outside the "canon". Today I listened to Pisendel's violin sonatas and all I can say is I truly enjoyed the music.  0:)

And there were the ritual posts of "You cannot be serious that the symphonies of Nielsen are as worthy of our attention os those of Beethoven" . . . . 

I value Carl Nielsen's symphonies higher than those of Beethoven.

[paulb]

I agree with Harry, there are so much interesting music to explore outside the "canon".

I value Carl Nielsen's symphonies higher than those of Beethoven.

Can we make some sort of defining limits to the idea of The Canon, as music from Bach to late romantics.
Mahler is on that borderline (no man's land), Debussy falls into the beginnings of the modern era and so *outside the canon*.  I think this is the idea that Harry is suggesting.

The simple fact that you feel Nielsen offers more personal satisfaction that the syms of the canonical composer, Ludwig Beethoven, shows that you have broken *established  dogma of belief*. You have stepped outside *the canon*, congradulations You are now a  heretic.

[Grazioso]

Is it just me, or is it really so that most people go for standard fare in classical music?
I see a lot of postings of the three B's and Mahler/Sibelius/Pettersson thank God/ Stravinsky, etc, etc, etc as Yul Bryner said in the the King of Siam.
But there is so much more quality to be found, yet the bulk of posters are keeping on the surface of things in their choice of composers.
That is not to say that this is a negative thing, but still there is more beyond as some people think, me thinks.
What you you have to say, my classical friends.

A major part of my enjoyment of classical music is exploring off the beaten path (my current focus is on collecting relatively obscure complete symphony cycles) because a) it's exciting and often rewarding to try new things (I've found lots of music outside the big-name canonical composers that I absolutely love) and b) I have no burning desire to hear, say, the LvB symphonies a hundred times, let alone spend my hard-earned money on yet another recording of them--awesome music, to be sure, but I similarly don't spend all my reading/viewing time on Shakespeare, despite my love and admiration for his work and his undeniable status as one of the very greatest writers.

Thank goodness the record companies are adventurous these days, even if the concert halls aren't.

Debussy falls into the beginnings of the modern era and so *outside the canon*

Debussy is about as canonical and mainstream as you can get: frequently recorded and programmed, widely liked, found in every Classical Music 101 textbook or class.

[71 dB]

Can we make some sort of defining limits to the idea of The Canon, as music from Bach to late romantics.
Mahler is on that borderline (no man's land), Debussy falls into the beginnings of the modern era and so *outside the canon*.  I think this is the idea that Harry is suggesting.

The simple fact that you feel Nielsen offers more personal satisfaction that the syms of the canonical composer, Ludwig Beethoven, shows that you have broken *established  dogma of belief*. You have stepped outside *the canon*, congradulations You are now a  heretic.

This is how I define things:

Works that are supposed to be kept in high esteem are inside the canon.
Works that are not supposed to be kept in high esteem are outside the canon.

What comes to the stepping outside the canon I think I have always been outside more than inside.

[longears]

I first came to this forum almost three years ago hoping to learn about extra-canonical composers whose music would satisfy me as much as that of some better-known masters.  Thanks to a few kind souls here I've been introduced to Rautavaara, have learned to enjoy Bruckner, and have grown in appreciation for Janáček, Berlioz, Vaughn Williams, and Bax.  I've bought dozens of recordings of works by other composers recommended here, mostly 20th Century, but haven't yet had lightening strike—not even once—in the way it has consistently struck over years and decades when listening to Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, Mahler, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Adams, Pärt, Brahms, Debussy, Dvořák, or Beethoven (to name the heart of my personal canon). 

Although I disagree vehemently with an erstwhile contributor's oft-repeated assertion that listening to anything other than Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms (along with some Schumann & Schubert) is a waste of time, I do agree with the underlying sentiment that some composers better repay the time invested in exploring their work than others.  A banquet is more nourishing than a candy bar.  But even candy bars have their place.  This is not to suggest that, say, Dutilleux is a composer of the stature of Beethoven, but only that snacks have merit, too, and at times may be more satisfying than a feast.

Do I agree with the generally established canon reflected in the programming of most orchestras?  Not entirely.  I would much rather hear something new by a contemporary unknown than almost anything by certain fixtures in the repertoire.  But for the most part those fixtures are there for a reason.  They've earned their places through the test of time.  It's not prejudice that keeps contemporary composers off the A list, they just haven't been around long enough to earn their places yet—that is, those who prove to have the sticking power to speak to the depths of the human soul a hundred or more years hence.

[MN Dave]

Although I disagree vehemently with an erstwhile contributor's oft-repeated assertion that listening to anything other than Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms (along with some Schumann & Schubert) is a waste of time...

Phew. That ain't me. No Chopin.

[longears]

Phew. That ain't me. No Chopin.

Too Polish for that poor soul...he only likes native German speakers.

[paulb]

This is how I define things:

Works that are supposed to be kept in high esteem are inside the canon.
Works that are not supposed to be kept in high esteem are outside the canon.

Bingo.
well then i'm not as *black sheep* as i thought.

[paulb]

Phew. That ain't me. No Chopin.

I have nothing by Chopin in my collection. But i do have some Grieg(its OK) , and 2 spanish favs Granados and Albeniz.

[some guy]

I would much rather hear something new by a contemporary unknown than almost anything by certain fixtures in the repertoire.

Agreed.

But for the most part those fixtures are there for a reason.

"A" reason? Probably several reasons. Where IS "there," anyway? (I haven't contributed to this thread yet because the phrase "standard repertoire" makes me break out in hives. The idea that fellow listeners view the concept without question--the mavericks are so defined according to their position vis a vis the "canon"--makes my hives burn. Fortunately, the silly backchat that has characterized this thread has been as a balm in Gilead. So, whew!)

They've earned their places through the test of time. It's not prejudice that keeps contemporary composers off the A list, they just haven't been around long enough to earn their places yet—that is, those who prove to have the sticking power to speak to the depths of the human soul a hundred or more years hence.

At the risk of giving any other esteemed member hives, I want to be serious here for a second. This notion of the test of time is all my grandmother's eye. How long is long enough? For the right listener, maybe two seconds. There's a little difference between recognizing Beethoven's ninth as superb and recognizing Stockhausen's Hymnen as same, if the listener in question hasn't listened to much twentieth century music. But for someone conversant with new musics, it doesn't take any hundred years. (I'm only fifty-five. I'm not old!) Plus, what about all those live electronics concerts I go to? I have to "get it" instantly, once and for all, 'cause that's the only chance I'll get.

But I cannot develop this as I would like, as "speak to the depths of the human soul" is making me itch. More balm!! But before I head off to the liniment chest, I leave you all with this clarion call from Mr. Morton Feldman: "Down with Masterpieces; up with art!"

[MN Dave]

I have nothing by Chopin in my collection.

Are you insane?!

[(poco) Sforzando]

I leave you all with this clarion call from Mr. Morton Feldman: "Down with Masterpieces; up with art!"

You can leave us all with whatever you like, but that's a false dichotomy if ever I heard one.

[Keemun]

Canon, shmanon. . . I listen to what I like and don't listen to what I don't like.    I'm always looking for new composers and works, for as with my taste in food, my taste in music continually evolves. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Canon, shmanon. . . I listen to what I like and don't listen to what I don't like.    I'm always looking for new composers and works, for as with my taste in food, my taste in music continually evolves. 

Right. And then one looks at your posts to see what you are actually listening to, and 95% of it are works by canonical composers. QED.

[longears]

"A" reason? Probably several reasons.

No, a reason.  They reflect the tastes of those who get to decide by virtue of willingness to vote with their dollars.

Where IS "there," anyway?

"There" is in the concert halls, record catalogs, and radio playlists.

(I haven't contributed to this thread yet because the phrase "standard repertoire" makes me break out in hives. The idea that fellow listeners view the concept without question--the mavericks are so defined according to their position vis a vis the "canon"--makes my hives burn. Fortunately, the silly backchat that has characterized this thread has been as a balm in Gilead. So, whew!)

Wow--chill, bro!  You seem to be conflating recognition of the existence of a "standard repertoire" with blind allegiance to it.  If the idea that mainstream values differ from yours "makes your hives burn," then the past 40-odd years must have been very trying for you--or do your values coincide with the mainstream in all other respects?  And since a "maverick" is a cow that strays from the herd, what else could a "musical maverick" be?

At the risk of giving any other esteemed member hives, I want to be serious here for a second.

Whew!  Thank goodness!  I hadn't realized the foregoing was all facetious.  What a relief!

This notion of the test of time is all my grandmother's eye. How long is long enough? For the right listener, maybe two seconds. There's a little difference between recognizing Beethoven's ninth as superb and recognizing Stockhausen's Hymnen as same, if the listener in question hasn't listened to much twentieth century music. But for someone conversant with new musics, it doesn't take any hundred years. (I'm only fifty-five. I'm not old!) Plus, what about all those live electronics concerts I go to? I have to "get it" instantly, once and for all, 'cause that's the only chance I'll get.

You may not like the notion of "time-tested," but to deny it is to stray off the reality map, dude.  And again you're conflating your (or any individual's) tastes with the collective judgment over time of those who vote with their pocketbooks.  If you want to hear Hymnen live, time and again, you are perfectly free to do so.  No one is preventing you.  All you have to do is the same as anyone else who wants to hear Beethoven's 9th or Snoop Doggy Dog--pay for the privilege.  That your personal tastes are so superior and rarified that you have to pay a lot, because few others are willing to share the expense, is just the cross you bear for being so much better than everyone else.

But I cannot develop this as I would like, as "speak to the depths of the human soul" is making me itch. More balm!! But before I head off to the liniment chest, I leave you all with this clarion call from Mr. Morton Feldman: "Down with Masterpieces; up with art!"

Well, okay, maybe your soul isn't that deep...or at least your awareness of it.  But again, whether you like it or not, the fact is that great art endures because of its power to speak to some essential aspect of the human condition, despite the trivialities of time and place.  As for seeming dichotomies from Mr. Feldman, I suggest the one you quote merits deeper consideration, as does: "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservative.  The people who you think are conservatives might really be radical."

[(poco) Sforzando]

Debussy is about as canonical and mainstream as you can get: frequently recorded and programmed, widely liked, found in every Classical Music 101 textbook or class.

So is Mahler at this point in time. Fifty years ago that might not have been the case. If you look at Olin Downes's "Symphonic Masterpieces" from 1940, a set of program notes he wrote for concerts, you'll find no Mahler (and only the 7th of Bruckner) listed. But the "standard repertoire" or "canon," however you want to call it, is not fixed and inviolate for all time. Today all the Mahler and Bruckner symphonies are discussed in Michael Steinberg's book of program notes, "The Symphony." There are works that become included as standard over time, other works get forgotten. One hundred years ago the Meyerbeer operas might have been thought of as canonical; today they're rarely heard. Mahler has risen to the surface in a great many music lovers' minds as an important composer; at the time of his death his music was largely considered insignificant, but Mengelberg and Walter were early advocates, and Bernstein pushed hard for Mahler in the 1960s and 70s. Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra could not have been considered "canonical" when it was written in the early 1940s, but conductors like Koussevitsky (who first performed it) believed in the work and championed it, so that now it has become a mainstream piece as audiences have come to know it intimately. It's not just the "test of time," but the passion that performers and audience bring to the work that matters.

[longears]

It's not just the "test of time," but the passion that performers and audience bring to the work that matters.

If a work doesn't inspire that passion--and continue to do so--then it fails the test.

[(poco) Sforzando]

If a work doesn't inspire that passion--and continue to do so--then it fails the test.

Of course. And there are different strata among audiences. To be somewhat caricatural: there are the "tried and true" crowd who want their Beethoven, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, what have you and rarely venture beyond that. Then there are those who are primarily passionate about more esoteric fare; maybe they want to explore Josquin and Ockeghem, Berio and Carter, or names that nobody has heard of. Personally I find both such kinds of listener somewhat limited, but that's their choice to make. I only object when the esoteric crowd - and believe me there are plenty of such folks on this on other music forums -  starts making accusations about "brainwashing" and that sort of thing, and acting as if any composer received within the canon is overrated, while any composers who have been neglected are undeservedly so. That's an exaggeration, of course, but not a huge one. As a friend of mine wrote to me:

But this phenomenon isn't all that unusual.  You see it in other areas as well.  People who want to believe they are among the "elite" who see better than the common man will always rebel against the received wisdom.  So Bach and Beethoven are obviously over-rated since we are told that they are so great.  And people who are into Klami and Raff are very rare, so naturally that means that those people are privy to some deeper understanding of what makes great Art.  It's just another form of elitism.

[some guy]

You can leave us all with whatever you like, but that's a false dichotomy if ever I heard one.

Hmmmm. Don't know about whether you've seen false dichotomies or not. But the Feldman is not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. (Just because there are two things being contrasted doesn't mean that what we're seeing is a dichotomy.)

You seem to be conflating recognition of the existence of a "standard repertoire" with blind allegiance to it.

Not at all. Where'd you get that idea? To say that "maverick" presupposes "herd," which was my point, is not at all the same as saying, "the herd is good; long live the herd."

If the idea that mainstream values differ from yours "makes your hives burn," then the past 40-odd years must have been very trying for you--or do your values coincide with the mainstream in all other respects?

Again, where are you getting these things? "Mainstream values differ from mine" is not at all equivalent to "fellow listeners view the concept without question." I said the latter. Except in this sentence that you're reading now, I don't even acknowledge "mainstream values" as a valid concept. Is that so wrong? (For viewers at home, the answer is "No." That's "No.")

you're conflating your (or any individual's) tastes with the collective judgment over time

How dare you accuse me of conflating!! Why, I oughta...!! But seriously, I'm doing no such thing. (I would recommend that you go back and reread my post, carefully, but that might encourage you to accuse me of writing badly. "No I didn't." "Yes you did." "No I didn't." "Yes you did." You know....) What I am saying (and I'd much prefer being criticized for what I do say than for what I don't) is that an intelligent, knowledgeable, sensitive, sympathetic listener can recognize the goodness of a piece of music pretty quickly, and without the benefit of the passage of hundreds of years or the concurrence of millions of other listeners. At that point, to talk about a canon seems impertinent, no? Collective judgement, like any other collective thing, is much slower than individual judgement, and not necessarily any more valid or accurate or whatever other adjective you'd like to pitch in there.

whether you like it or not, the fact is that great art endures because of its power to speak to some essential aspect of the human condition, despite the trivialities of time and place.

Well, aside from time and place not being trivial, I don't know how we got off on what I like or dislike. Or on why great art endures. Of course it does. My point was about whether great art can be recognized fairly quickly or not. Not whether it can be accepted by lots of people right away or canonized right away, but whether a listener can or cannot recognize and appreciate it right away.

That's all I had to say about "test of time." Not that time is a bad test, just that it's not the only test. Though I would take "test of intelligent listening" over "test of time" any old day.