GMG Classical Music Forum

I have been listening to classical music for about 23 years. Okay, not as impressive as some people here, but I am only 22 years old. It often feels like I ran out of standard rep to explore around the age of twelve—like there's no famous work, warhorse or otherwise, I've not managed to hear at least once. Sure, there are some composers I've never been all that interested in and thus missed out on (for instance, my exploration of Wagner began and ended with Tristan so it's not a surprise that I don't know the Good Friday music or "Ride of the Valkyries"), but with composers I actually know and like there's hardly any masterpiece left unlistened, and even composers I don't like have at times infiltrated popular culture or radio stations or whatever (so yes, I do know the bridal procession from Lohengrin).

One does miss things of course. I'd not heard the Mozart Piano Quartets until fairly recently, likewise the Dvořák Violin Concerto, though I recognised its third movement from somewhere (classical music radio possibly). But I didn't think it was possible for one of the basic repertoire staples, the 50 Essential Classical Tunes To Hear Before You Die, to be completely missing from my memory.

Until a few days ago, when I popped Disc 1 of Bach's St John Passion into my laptop (old fashioned laptops, back when they still had optical drives, doncha know) for what I thought was a first listen to Bach's "other" passion. Only it turned out I already knew the music, for I'd heard it at a concert years and years back which I had mentally categorised as being the St Matthew.

A quick check of my library confirmed what I'd already begun to suspect. I'd never actually heard the St Matthew Passion before. Don't know how any of its themes go. Often considered Bach's greatest masterpiece, one of the top 10 whatevers, whatever. I'd somehow managed to skip over it. Still haven't heard it, it's on the list once I get done with my Bruckner blind listening and Cage vol. 2

This is not the most egregious example—a few weeks ago Gurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all in the past 272 years. So I know this happens to other people with some frequency. What's on your list?

Kind of hard to say - I've been listening for 40 years and not everything I've heard is crystal clear in memory. Opera is obviously an area with holes, eg I've never heard La Traviata or Parsifal. But that is kind of easy way out as many listeners has holes in their opera listening, partly because these works are long.

A work I've never heard which is long, but not opera length, is Mahler 8th, despite having several Mahler cycles on CD. I tired of big-scale, late romanticism before I managed to get to that. My interest in that era was in the LP days, when buying an album was a major investment,

I have been listening for about 25-27 years (started around 15 yo), but there are still quite famous pieces I am not very familiar with (or not at all). As a teenager there was so much music and soon I had certain preferences along which I explored the field. Of course, before youtube, downloads and when CDs were quite expensive, it didn't go so easy. I taped stuff from the radio or from friends. And I still think that one should take time to get to know music. So until my mid-twenties I still had large amounts of music, even by favorite composers I had not heard or did not know well.
Later on I often bought a lot of music on disc without having the leisure to listen to all of it. I think of my collection also sometimes as an encyclopedia for later reference.

There are many operas I have never heard (Aida, Forza del Destino, Fanciulla del West etc.) and others I only heard once or twice (Tannhaeuser), still more I have heard several times, but do not know well. Mahler's 8th is another piece from the last category, also many of Strauss' symphonic poems and a lot of 20th century music. I am also not too familiar with medieval/renaissance music and with most music of the last 50-60 years (although I know some Shostakowitsch, Ligeti and have heard other stuff at least once or so).

But outside of opera I cannot think of a piece between 1600 and 1950 as important as the St Matthew I have never heard at all

Quote from: amw on August 12, 2014, 09:20:09 PM
I have been listening to classical music for about 23 years. Okay, not as impressive as some people here, but I am only 22 years old.

You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception.  ;D

I have 28 years of listening (started at 14) but I've never heard Wagner's Tetralogy, Bach's Goldberg Variations and Bruckner's Ninth, to name just a few.  :D

Quote from: Florestan on August 13, 2014, 12:43:30 AM
You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception.  ;D

Apparently when my mum was pregnant with me, I enjoyed listening to my dad playing the piano. Perhaps I was kicking in time with the music or something... who knows. I was also reportedly born to Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9 no. 1.

Quote from: Florestan on August 13, 2014, 12:43:30 AM
You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception.  ;D

I had guessed, as well, that he was something of a music fancier even in utero  :)

Quote from: amw on August 12, 2014, 09:20:09 PM
—a few weeks ago Gurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all in the past 272 years.

If so, I wish I knew how he managed to avoid it!

Quote from: Florestan on August 13, 2014, 12:43:30 AM
You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception.  ;D

I have 28 years of listening (started at 14) but I've never heard Wagner's Tetralogy, Bach's Goldberg Variations and Bruckner's Ninth, to name just a few.  :D

May I ask why? These are three rather different pieces, so I cannot think of a systematic reason to avoid all of them. And they are all famous enough to make it unlikely that you just happened to miss them during 28 years.
As for myself, I do not dislike opera, but I am not such a big fan, so there are quite a few works unexplored. And I prefer to see it in the theatre, which is unfortunately rather expensive and I have to drag myself there, often without company (I have taken dates to the opera, but one cannot count on that...)

Quote from: Jo498 on August 13, 2014, 02:16:29 AM
May I ask why? These are three rather different pieces, so I cannot think of a systematic reason to avoid all of them. And they are all famous enough to make it unlikely that you just happened to miss them during 28 years.

My attention span is way below what is required for listening to the Tetralogy, and what other Wagner I've heard did not make me eager to extend it any time soon.  ;D

Goldberg Variations, never overheard it on radio nor felt the urge to listen to it on purpose. I don't know why, honestly.

Bruckner is kind of like Wagner for me. Boring, boring, boring. Except #1, #4 and #6 (which I liked, all of them) I think I've never heard another complete symphony of his. Pressed the stop button after 10 minutes at most into each movement.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on August 13, 2014, 02:26:41 AM

Bruckner is kind of like Wagner for me. Boring, boring, boring. Except #1, #4 and #6 (which I liked, all of them) I think I've never heard another complete symphony of his. Pressed the stop button after 10 minutes at most into each movement.  ;D

But, but, but, the 9th isn't complete. It lacks a 4th movement.  ;) So you could listen to it without having istend to a complete symphony by him. 

Quote from: The new erato on August 13, 2014, 02:33:21 AM
But, but, but, the 9th isn't complete. It lacks a 4th movement.  ;) So you could listen to it without having istend to a complete symphony by him.

:D :D :D

Okay, this thread had to have been made for me.
-It was only last month that I heard Beethoven's 3rd symphony for the 1st time. I've yet to hear the entire ninth.
-Brahms 4 ??? :o
-I only started exploring most of Ravel's orchestral works about a year ago (I think the first time I heard the PCinG, D&C, and Rhapsodie Espagnole was almost exactly a year ago). Up until then, I was really only familiar with his music for solo piano, the SQ, the PT, Ma Mere L'Oye (played in orchestra), and Bolero.

Quote from: amw on August 12, 2014, 09:20:09 PM
This is not the most egregious example—a few weeks ago Gurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all in the past 272 years.

Well, it wasn't discovered until that fateful day in 1919. :D

There must be much more music you have managed to avoid.

Have you listened to the complete works of Stravinsky for example?

When is something a masterpiece? Is there really consensus about it?

Quote from: EigenUser on August 13, 2014, 03:14:20 AM
Okay, this thread had to have been made for me.
-It was only last month that I heard Beethoven's 3rd symphony for the 1st time. I've yet to hear the entire ninth.
-Brahms 4 ??? :o
-I only started exploring most of Ravel's orchestral works about a year ago (I think the first time I heard the PCinG, D&C, and Rhapsodie Espagnole was almost exactly a year ago). Up until then, I was really only familiar with his music for solo piano, the SQ, the PT, Ma Mere L'Oye (played in orchestra), and Bolero.
Well, it wasn't discovered until that fateful day in 1919. :D

Surely Gurn must be younger than that.

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 03:17:51 AM
There must be much more music you have managed to avoid.

Have you listened to the complete works of Stravinsky for example?

Well he said: "But I didn't think it was possible for one of the basic repertoire staples, the 50 Essential Classical Tunes To Hear Before You Die, to be completely missing from my memory." Even I as a Stravinsky admirer would not claim that every piece of his belong on that list. And yes, I've listened to (more or less) everything, though there may be some arrangement trifles I've overseen (or not managed to aquire).

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 03:17:51 AM
When is something a masterpiece? Is there really consensus about it?

Of course, there is.  When centuries' worth of consensus regards the LvB Op.55 as a masterpiece, you must admit that it would be mere fatuity to assert, "You know, it's not really such a good piece."

Consensus is, obviously, more reliable over the longer term, and the opinion of the musically savvy should have greater weight than . . . those of flightier opinion.  (For instance, does the fact of Glenn Gould's quirky dislike of Mozart mean that everyone else is wrong, that Mozart's music is not in fact very good?  Balderdash!)

Where the reliability of consensus is at best mixed, at worst flat-out worthless, is in its omissions or in its disdain.  One of the moving parts here is allied to the 50 Essential Classical Tunes To Hear Before You Die notion.  Was a time when the literature was a bit lighter on the ground, and we enjoyed the naïve pleasure of Here is the collection of artworks with which one need be familiar in order to be considered a cultivated person.  The body of great lit necessarily expands decade after decade, and the question becomes . . . rather more complicated.

Well some music leaves my quite cold, I don't have the urge to listen to all those masterpieces. It's not a quest.

The works of Brahms, Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt, Schumann. I have listened to some, but it's just music I don't like, so I'm not going to listen to it because I need to listen to all "masterpieces".

What consensus is rather a canon, a guideline for laymen. But I wouldn't even advise a layman to use that guideline.

I will check that music out, to know rather how bad it is, wondering why they are considered masterpieces.

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 03:17:51 AM
When is something a masterpiece? Is there really consensus about it?

There is a consensus about hundreds or even thousands of masterpieces. The St Matthew Passion or the Eroica are clearly among them. Of course there are also thousands of pieces where there is no consensus about there greatness (maybe Bruckner's zeroth or Schumann's violin concerto belong here). But fuzzy borders do not prove that there are no clear cases and that everything is fuzzy...

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 04:11:40 AM
Well some music leaves my quite cold, I don't have the urge to listen to all those masterpieces. It's not a quest.

That's all right.

It is equally all right for another listener to take that group of consensus as a list for exploration.

You see how that works?

BTW, I appreciate that you put it thus;  someone less keen would have taken the "If I don't like it, how can it be a masterpiece?" tack  8)

Quote from: Jo498 on August 13, 2014, 04:22:25 AM
There is a consensus about hundreds or even thousands of masterpieces. The St Matthew Passion or the Eroica are clearly among them. Of course there are also thousands of pieces where there is no consensus about there greatness (maybe Bruckner's zeroth or Schumann's violin concerto belong here). But fuzzy borders do not prove that there are no clear cases and that everything is fuzzy...

Well put.

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 04:11:40 AM
What consensus is rather a canon, a guideline for laymen. But I wouldn't even advise a layman to use that guideline.

Well, in fact, the canon has its uses.  I shall leave it at that, for the moment.

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 04:11:40 AM
I will check that music out, to know rather how bad it is, wondering why they are considered masterpieces.

Now, you have departed from the standard you set with the unimpeachable remark, Well some music leaves my quite cold, I don't have the urge to listen to all those masterpieces.

Just because a work of art doesn't push your buttons, does not make it bad art.  Get that right into your head.  Your likes and dislikes are not the measure of what is good in art.

It's alright to have, dislike, be left cold, etc by art. A sign of great art is that it is art that one responds to, however the response. But it doesn't work the other way,not every thing one responds to is great art.   

Quote from: The new erato on August 13, 2014, 04:36:14 AM
[...] But it doesn't work the other way,not every thing one responds to is great art.   

This, too, is true.

Well, there are composers whose work are not mainstream masterpieces, but I consider these works as masterpieces however. Am I not allowed to make this assertion?

Present the case!  Do not suppose that it is so, simply because you urge the assertion.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 04:25:33 AM
That's all right.

It is equally all right for another listener to take that group of consensus as a list for exploration.

You see how that works?

BTW, I appreciate that you put it thus;  someone less keen would have taken the "If I don't like it, how can it be a masterpiece?" tack  8)

I would not recommend a beginner in classical music to follow the canon. High change that he think "Am I supposed to like this?" when he doesn't like it. And then he isn't motivated anymore to explore classical music furter. Better would be to get personal recommendations based on what he likes, just like we do here...  0:)

My 25th birthday is in a week and a half. I've never heard:
- Bach's St Matthew Passion
- Bach's Mass in B minor
- Bach's cantatas (any)
- most of Bach's keyboard partitas and suites, or most of his organ works
- anything by Handel except Water Music, Fireworks Music, and some organ concertos
- Beethoven's Missa solemnis and string quartets Opp. 131-132 (Op. 130 only once; Op. 135 only once, live)
- Schubert's string quartets, except "Death and the Maiden" once
- the vast majority of Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, or Wolf lieder
- Mahler's Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, or Tenth
- four of the Bartok quartets
- Shostakovich's Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, or 12-15 (or about half his quartets)
- all but two Cage pieces

Now, much of this is on purpose, I should clarify. I really like knowing that years from now, it will still be possible for me to hear some universally beloved masterpiece for the first time ever. Sort of like a fellow on Reddit the other day who was a teenager in the 1960s and picked a Beatles song that he wouldn't listen to until he was 80, just so he'd have a new Beatles song to look forward to.

Quote from: amw on August 12, 2014, 09:20:09 PMGurn Blanston revealed that he'd never heard Pachelbel's Canon in D at all

What! Gurn!? Do you turn off the Jordi Savall "Ostinato" CD halfway through to avoid it?

I don't get the fuss, by the way. I stopped listening to classical radio long ago, preferring to control my own listening, and the result is that the once a year I do hear Pachelbel's Canon, played by HIP groups, it's still a very, very good piece.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 03:52:52 AM(For instance, does the fact of Glenn Gould's quirky dislike of Mozart mean that everyone else is wrong, that Mozart's music is not in fact very good?  Balderdash!)

Glenn Gould knew the truth about Mozart's genius...and its fabrication ;)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 04:57:40 AM
Present the case!  Do not suppose that it is so, simply because you urge the assertion.

I reward the music of Donatoni very highly. Of equal greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

Ok, indeed, this is a personal judgement.

Still haven't got into:

*Puccini
*Verdi (besides the Requiem and string quartet)

*Liszt (I've heard a few pieces, but nothing grabbed me)

Quote from: The new erato on August 13, 2014, 04:36:14 AM
It's alright to have, dislike, be left cold, etc by art. A sign of great art is that it is art that one responds to, however the response. But it doesn't work the other way,not every thing one responds to is great art.

So the response can also be negative? Then I don't agree. For example, noise, one responds to it, but isn't considered great art. Some music in the canon leaves me cold, no response. Great art is only when there's some consensus about it, and it's messed up by other factors for instance historical facts, also there's simply chance involved. Bach was rediscovered by Mendelssohn to give an example.

As a consequence beginners to classical music can thus also be spoiled in the beginning, if they like something because it's (supposed to be) great art and they can hear it. Because there's simply no autonomy in their listening in the beginning :). So I would recommend beginners to postpone their judgement, anyway.

Brian; you just listed a major part of my desert Island discs!

- Bach's St Matthew Passion
- Bach's Mass in B minor
- Bach's cantatas (nearly all)
- Bach's keyboard partitas and suites,
- almost everything by Handel
- Beethoven's string quartets Opp. 131-132 (Op. 130 only once; Op. 135 only once, live)
- Schubert's string quartets,
- the vast majority of Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, or Wolf lieder
- Mahler's Sixth, Ninth,
- the Bartok quartets
- the Shostakovich's quartets, particularly the , Third, Fourth, Eighth, or 12-15 (add most of the rest BTW)

Life is short, listen to the music you love, whatever it may be!  :)  I keep discovering new works, but also do not neglect the ones I have discovered that I love.

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 05:04:36 AM
I reward the music of Donatoni very highly. Of equal greatness of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

You haven't made the case;  you've specified your assertion.  Tell us why — musically, why.  Reasons which stand a chance of rebutting (for anyone who does not simply like listening to Donatani) the obvious, musical arguments which any of us can raise in Bach's, Mozart's or Beethoven's defense.

(And, lawd, Henk:  you can't be serious  8) )

Quote from: Brian on August 13, 2014, 05:02:57 AM
Glenn Gould knew the truth about Mozart's genius...and its fabrication ;)

:-)

I'm waiting for the "discovery" that Nannerl was, in fact, a man, and Mozart's brother . . . .

This raises the difficult question what makes some works a masterpiece. The ability to be still played and recognized as of importance after some hundred years is a certain indicator I guess (but no more than an indicator), so is the ability to exert influence on other composers and artists, but beside that I don't know. And if we cannot come up with more criteria, that precludes any still living composers from the honor of creating masterpieces.

Mastering the craft? Not enough!

Originality? What is originality? One can be original and banal at the same time (Satie comes to mind)

Touching people in some way or another; yes, but very subjective, we can recognize the effect but not always the cause.

I don'tt really know....

It's just a historical thing. A judgement by the mass, which has historically grown. Some authorities have a greater influence.

Not to say this is not a "valid" judgement. But there are always misjudgements however, is my viewpoint. :) As a individual you can be freed from mass judgement, from the canon. And my advice is "postpone your judgement".

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 05:41:16 AM
It's just a historical thing.

No, you're wrong.  There are musical reasons why the Sinfonia eroica is a masterpiece, and why Für Elise is not  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
No, you're wrong.  There are musical reasons why the Sinfonia eroica is a masterpiece, and why Für Elise is not  8)

Ok, you're right. Turn the score on it's head, have a look at it, and you know (as Mulisch said in the case of literature, but it also applies to scores I think).

But, there are at least five factors into play: historical reasons, mass judgement, authority judgment, chance and musical reasons.

Just realised I hardly missed anything of... well, what might be called "significance". Not that I am a completist, but exploration of the works themselves has always been first and foremost on my mind and, it is only lately that I have began to explore much of different "versions".

I still know just two of Janáček's operas well (Vixen & From the House of the Dead), and have heard Makropulos Case, Kata and Jenufa only once. I haven't heard Shostakovich's operas at all, and am not much better acquainted with the songs. I haven't yet heard any Mozart's operas completely, apart from Le Nozze, or Britten's Death in Venice, Billy Budd, Handel's operas / sacred works (apart from hearing Messiah once, I think), Schönberg's string quartets apart from No. 2, some late Stravinsky (Requiem Canticles, Mass), Boris Godunov, Tchaikovsky's operas, Strauss operas apart from one, no complete Verdi opera yet (although I have heard the SQ live). Fauré's music, apart from the violin sonatas, Requiem, and the Nocturnes. Most of Monteverdi's madrigals, all the operas, etc etc etc. But I'm probably missing some more obvious ones, like most of Haydn's symphonies, or the late masses.

Quote from: EigenUser on August 13, 2014, 03:14:20 AM
Okay, this thread had to have been made for me.
-It was only last month that I heard Beethoven's 3rd symphony for the 1st time. I've yet to hear the entire ninth.
-Brahms 4 ??? :o
-I only started exploring most of Ravel's orchestral works about a year ago (I think the first time I heard the PCinG, D&C, and Rhapsodie Espagnole was almost exactly a year ago). Up until then, I was really only familiar with his music for solo piano, the SQ, the PT, Ma Mere L'Oye (played in orchestra), and Bolero.

Have you heard L'enfant & les sortileges?
(btw, I think you should have put some of those shocked smileys next to that Beethoven line, too..)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 05:31:20 AM
You haven't made the case;  you've specified your assertion.  Tell us why — musically, why.  Reasons which stand a chance of rebutting (for anyone who does not simply like listening to Donatani) the obvious, musical arguments which any of us can raise in Bach's, Mozart's or Beethoven's defense.

(And, lawd, Henk:  you can't be serious  8) )

? I don't understand, I said it's a personal judgement.. But if you want a musical argument: simply look at the score!! :)

REPOST:

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
No, you're wrong.  There are musical reasons why the Sinfonia eroica is a masterpiece, and why Für Elise is not  8)

Ok, you're right. Turn the score on it's head, have a look at it, and you know (as Mulisch said in the case of literature, but it also applies to scores I think).

But, there are at least five factors into play: historical reasons, mass judgement, authority judgment, chance and musical reasons.

Quote from: North Star on August 13, 2014, 05:52:57 AM
I still know just two of Janáček's operas well (Vixen & From the House of the Dead), and have heard Makropulos Case, Kata and Jenufa only once. I haven't heard Shostakovich's operas at all, and am not much better acquainted with the songs. I haven't yet heard any Mozart's operas completely, apart from Le Nozze, or Britten's Death in Venice, Billy Budd, Handel's operas / sacred works (apart from hearing Messiah once, I think), Schönberg's string quartets apart from No. 2, some late Stravinsky (Requiem Canticles, Mass), Boris Godunov, Tchaikovsky's operas, Strauss operas apart from one, no complete Verdi opera yet (although I have heard the SQ live). Fauré's music, apart from the violin sonatas, Requiem, and the Nocturnes. Most of Monteverdi's madrigals, all the operas, etc etc etc. But I'm probably missing some more obvious ones, like most of Haydn's symphonies, or the late masses.
Have you heard L'enfant & les sortileges?
(btw, I think you should have put some of those shocked smileys next to that Beethoven line, too..)

I haven't yet heard L'enfant et les Sortileges in full, but I've heard parts and I know the plot. I'll get to it.

You haven't heard Faure's Pelleas et Melisande or the Pavane? I mean, coming from me that wouldn't be so shocking at all, but from you... ;)

Comparing Donatoni to Beethoven is like comparing apples to Wednesday.

Quote from: EigenUser on August 13, 2014, 06:04:35 AM

Comparing Donatoni to Beethoven is like comparing apples to Wednesday.

Everyone knows apples are weekend fruits.

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 05:56:32 AM
? I don't understand, I said it's a personal judgement.. But if you want a musical argument: simply look at the score!! :)

I am sorry (but perhaps not surprised) that you are withdrawing from the challenge of making the case.

"I like Donatoni, so in my opinion he's just as great as Bach" is not a remark to take at all seriously.  I should have thought you know this.

Verdi Simon Boccanegra...other than that, I've heard everything  8)

Sarge

Thread Duty:

I've managed quite successfully, though without realizing it for most of the time, to avoid Donatoni  8)

Quote from: Brian on August 13, 2014, 05:02:57 AM
My 25th birthday is in a week and a half. I've never heard:

When I was 25 I had listened to classical for about 10 years. So you are young and have a lot of time to explore the music.
I had heard Bach's St Matthew Passion, Mass in B minor and maybe a handful or two of cantatas [I still have not heard all of them 17 years later and do not know more than maybe two dozen reasonably well]
I was slowly getting to know Bach's keyboard works, but it took another two years or so until I became a fan. [I still only know the most famous organ works, but have most of them on my shelves)
Of Handel I had heard Water Music, Fireworks Music and probably a bunch of concertos and Messiah. Slowly I got into more (I think Israel in Egypt was one of my next buys around that time, but my real "Handel phase" didn't start until about 5-6 years later.)
Beethoven's Missa solemnis and string quartets Opp. 131-132 etc. I knew already quite well, also "Death and the Maiden" and the other two famous Schubert quartets and quintet.
I knew the two big Schubert lieder cycles, also Schumann's Dichterliebe and maybe op.39. Maybe one disc each of Brahms or Wolf lieder [and while I might have more of the latter on my shelves now, this is also somewhat of a blind spot]
I had heard Mahler's Sixth and Ninth (and 1-5), but probably not 7, 8 and 10. Also the Bartok quartets, but I wouldn't claim to know them well even now.
Of Shostakovich I had probably heard the Symphonies 5, 8-10, maybe 13 and a handful of quartets.

Great music ahead for you! Unless you dislike choral/church music you should really give those big Bach pieces, as well as Messiah and Beethoven's missa solemnis a try. And of course the late quartets of Beethoven and Schubert. This is among the most incredible and moving stuff ever.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 13, 2014, 06:14:10 AM
Verdi Simon Boccanegra...other than that, I've heard everything  8)

Sarge

OK, I admit I have not listened to Edgar!

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 06:13:27 AM
I am sorry (but perhaps not surprised) that you are withdrawing from the challenge of making the case.

"I like Donatoni, so in my opinion he's just as great as Bach" is not a remark to take at all seriously.  I should have thought you know this.

Ok, sorry I understand now and I agree. But looking at the score is, in a way, seriously, a good way to get an impression of the musical quality.

I understand now about "making the case". Sorry, my english is bad.

Making the case, Karl:

Donatoni:

- Balance between silent and loud, slow and fast passages, always being adventurous
- Never repeating himself, in a particular composition as well as among compositions.
- His compositions show development
- Unique way of composing, truely authentic, not even a trace of influence of other composers can be heared
- Subtleness absolutely taken to the highest level
- Wonderfully orchestration, seldomly experienced.
- A totally new form of harmony compared to pre-WWII. Unique. 
- An inspiration for other composers

Quote from: EigenUser on August 13, 2014, 06:04:35 AM
I haven't yet heard L'enfant et les Sortileges in full, but I've heard parts and I know the plot. I'll get to it.

You haven't heard Faure's Pelleas et Melisande or the Pavane? I mean, coming from me that wouldn't be so shocking at all, but from you... ;)

Pavane & some other Faure I know, but there is much I haven't yet managed to hear, even though I've been meaning to, for a long time.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 06:16:01 AM
Thread Duty:

I've managed quite successfully, though without realizing it for most of the time, to avoid Donatoni  8)

I can recommend him heartly, Karl. If you haven't tried, you can't say anthing about his work.

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 06:52:10 AM
Donatoni:

- Balance between silent and loud, slow and fast passages, always being adventurous
- Never repeating himself, in a particular composition as well as among compositions.
- His compositions show development
- Unique way of composing, truely authentic, not even an influence of other composers can be heared
- Subtleness absolutely taken to the highest level
- Wonderfully orchestration, seldomly experienced.
- A totally new form of harmony compared to pre-WWII. Unique. 

I appreciate your effort!  Now, I have some preliminary remarks (only preliminary, because I have not listened to the music, myself):

QuoteBalance between silent and loud, slow and fast passages, always being adventurous

Myriad composers, good, bad and indifferent, manage a balance between silent (soft) and loud, between fast and slow.  These points, in themselves, do not tell me anything about whether the music is great.

As to adventurous, this is rather subjective and contextual.  This is still reading more like "I dig this composer!" than like "Here is why this composer is as great as Bach."

QuoteNever repeating himself, in a particular composition as well as among compositions.

Repetition can be artful (is, in fact, one of the things which create coherence in music).  The avoidance of repetition can be artful . . . or it can be a tic.  Here again, the point itself does not mean one thing or the other, and needs more discussion.

QuoteHis compositions show development.

All composers breathe, too ;)  Seriously, something of a de minimus point, and not anything to shake Bach from his (well-earned) pedestal.

QuoteUnique way of composing, truly authentic, not even an influence of other composers can be heard

Appeal to The Anxienty of Influence is soooo 20^th century!   Many a great artist wears his influences well.  Another point which I consider ambiguous.

Quote- Subtleness absolutely taken to the highest level
- Wonderfully orchestration, seldomly experienced.
- A totally new form of harmony compared to pre-WWII. Unique.

Well, that last one can hardly be a point of comparison to Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, right?  :)

In a sense, no 20^th-c. composer can be "as great as" Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, each of whom had a far-reaching impact on later generations of composers.  It is simply a river we cannot step into again.

So I think you over-reached with that bit of hyperbole (perhaps that sentence is redundant).  And something I have to share about myself is:  I tend to resist hype, and my hype-o-meter is a finely tuned instrument.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 07:24:17 AM
In a sense, no 20^th-c. composer can be "as great as" Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, each of whom had a far-reaching impact on later generations of composers.  It is simply a river we cannot step into again.

How can an 18th-century composer be as great as Monteverdi, Josquin, Machaut, or Ockeghem?  8)

They're all pretenders! Bow to Leonin!

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 07:44:02 AM
They're all pretenders! Bow to Leonin!

Pfft, Kassia is the one true master.  8)

Quote from: Henk on August 13, 2014, 04:11:40 AM
Well some music leaves my quite cold, I don't have the urge to listen to all those masterpieces. It's not a quest.

The works of Brahms, Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt, Schumann. I have listened to some, but it's just music I don't like, so I'm not going to listen to it because I need to listen to all "masterpieces".

I've listened to just enough of all of these to know I don't want to listen to any more. I could give away my Brahms CDs and I wouldn't miss them. I've already given away most of the relatively few CDs I have by all the others (I have a set of Hungarian Rhapsodies I enjoy, on Capriccio).

I have been listening to classical music for almost 2 decades and avoiding most of it.  ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on August 13, 2014, 10:26:48 AM
I have been listening to classical music for almost 2 decades and avoiding most of it.  ;D

I have probably avoided most of it, too, after 28 years. Well, not avoided, exactly...

I'm gonna be honest: I don't think the argument over the semantics of "master" and "masterwork" is all that interesting.

I started listening to classical about 25 years ago but I took a several-year hiatus.

Some that come to mind:
Bach: most cantatas
Haydn: many string quartets
Schumann: Carnaval, maybe some other piano music, most chamber music
Chopin: 3rd sonata. I haven't heard the 1st sonata either, but nobody calls it a masterpiece. I have a disc with both on order.
Bruckner: Symphonies except 3 and 4. I might have heard one or two of the others but it would have been a long time ago and I don't remember much
R.Strauss: most
Sibelius: Symphonies except #2

And like several others, a lot of opera.

There's also a lot of things I have only heard once or twice, not enough to really know.

Baroque - most everything that ain't Bach, Scarlatti or Rameau
Classical - most everything that ain't Mozart or Beethoven
Romantic - most everything that ain't Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt, Wagner, Mahler or Reger

Quote from: 71 dB on August 13, 2014, 10:26:48 AM
I have been listening to classical music for almost 2 decades and avoiding most of it.  ;D

Braggart

8)

It seems to me, reading this thread, that the bar for 'masterpiece' has been set rather low.

The reason Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are so often mentioned in the same breath is that they each composed several masterpieces.  That's 'several' as in 'more than five or so'. 
I don't believe there are many other composers that fall into that category. 

Quote from: Jo498 on August 13, 2014, 04:22:25 AM
There is a consensus about hundreds or even thousands of masterpieces.

Thousands, I think not.

As thread duty - well in 50+ years of listening I'd never heard (or heard of) Ravel's Gaspard until Brian's lightning blind last year - I must have listened to it a dozen times since then, so thanks, Brian!

Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 07:24:17 AM
I appreciate your effort!  Now, I have some preliminary remarks (only preliminary, because I have not listened to the music, myself):

Myriad composers, good, bad and indifferent, manage a balance between silent (soft) and loud, between fast and slow.  These points, in themselves, do not tell me anything about whether the music is great.

As to adventurous, this is rather subjective and contextual.  This is still reading more like "I dig this composer!" than like "Here is why this composer is as great as Bach."

Repetition can be artful (is, in fact, one of the things which create coherence in music).  The avoidance of repetition can be artful . . . or it can be a tic.  Here again, the point itself does not mean one thing or the other, and needs more discussion.

All composers breathe, too ;)  Seriously, something of a de minimus point, and not anything to shake Bach from his (well-earned) pedestal.

Appeal to The Anxienty of Influence is soooo 20^th century!   Many a great artist wears his influences well.  Another point which I consider ambiguous.

Well, that last one can hardly be a point of comparison to Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, right?  :)

In a sense, no 20^th-c. composer can be "as great as" Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, each of whom had a far-reaching impact on later generations of composers.  It is simply a river we cannot step into again.

So I think you over-reached with that bit of hyperbole (perhaps that sentence is redundant).  And something I have to share about myself is:  I tend to resist hype, and my hype-o-meter is a finely tuned instrument.

Karl, I am well aware of my limitations in describing the quality of music. No need to stress that.

I apreciate your reply however.

I don't listen to Mahler. I'm not sure why. I listened to Kubelik conducting his third, and liked it, kinda-sorta, but decided not to listen to anymore until some as-yet-undetermined time in the distant future. Perhaps very distant.

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2014, 04:49:17 AM
Karl, I am well aware of my limitations in describing the quality of music. No need to stress that.

I apreciate your reply however.

While I did not mean to harp, it does underscore the challenge facing a layman who wishes to claim that [ unknown composer N. ] is "just as great as" Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven.

Quote from: Baklavaboy on August 14, 2014, 05:51:47 AM
I don't listen to Mahler. I'm not sure why. I listened to Kubelik conducting his third, and liked it, kinda-sorta, but decided not to listen to anymore until some as-yet-undetermined time in the distant future. Perhaps very distant.

I've come around to liking Mahler much better than I used to;  but I don't think he'll ever make my "first string."  No knock against him;  just a matter of this listener, and that body of work.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 05:53:16 AM
While I did not mean to harp, it does underscore the challenge facing a layman who wishes to claim that [ unknown composer N. ] is "just as great as" Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven.

OK, understood! :)

Quote from: Baklavaboy on August 14, 2014, 05:51:47 AM
I don't listen to Mahler.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 05:55:16 AM
I've come around to liking Mahler much better than I used to;  but I don't think he'll ever make my "first string."

If there had not been Mahler, I don't know how long my interest in classical music in general would have lasted. Certainly there are enough different bodies of work I've listened to nearly as obsessively (Beethoven's and Schubert's piano sonatas and string quartets; St. Matthew Passion; Mozart's piano concertos; Die Zauberflote), but there is no other single composer all of whose works I have liked as much as I like Mahler's.

Once again: there's more ways to the woods than one! :)

Quote from: Baklavaboy on August 14, 2014, 05:51:47 AM
I don't listen to Mahler. I'm not sure why. I listened to Kubelik conducting his third, and liked it, kinda-sorta, but decided not to listen to anymore until some as-yet-undetermined time in the distant future. Perhaps very distant.

Ditto

8)

It seems to me fairly evident that labelling something as a masterpiece is going to depend on its aesthetic goals matching your own aesthetic ideals.

It also would, I hope, depend on how well it achieves those goals. But it's fairly fundamental that you can't assess a piece of music's 'success' at doing something until you've decided what it's actually trying to do.  And I think it's just wrong-headed to make an assumption that all music has the same goals.

I've been known to rant about this in a pop music context, but I think it's equally true in a classical music context. One need only spend a bit of time reading the thoughts of various composers to find that they sometimes had VERY different ideas of what music was 'about'. Off the top of my head, there's a famous exchange between Mahler and Sibelius about what a symphony should be - and then one finds that Mahler's symphonies reflect Mahler's ideas about symphonies far better than Sibelius' ideas, and Sibelius' symphonies reflect Sibelius' ideas about symphonies far better than Mahler's ideas.  In the 19th century, philosophical battles raged between the Liszt/Wagner 'progressives' and the traditionalists who took Brahms as their figurehead.

You're far more likely to find masterpieces among the works of a composer whose aesthetics of music are close to your own.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 14, 2014, 06:16:00 AM
Ditto

8)

Well, the same goes for Haydn, buddy. ;)

The more I read this thread (and others, too), the more I am coming to realize that the word "masterpiece" is meaningless. We often say it when we hear something that we really like, but when you think about it, saying that something is a masterpiece really isn't too different than saying something is great. All it does is exaggerate the claim by making it appear that the work in question meets some sort of quantifiable criteria. What quality/qualities does Beethoven's Wellington's Victory (yes, I've heard it) lack that make(s) the his 5th a masterpiece? Does a person have lesser taste for preferring WV over the 5th?

It's a masterpiece if you think it's a masterpiece. There. I said it. 8)

And to use a more serious analogy, comparing composers like Donatoni and Beethoven is like comparing a plumber to an electrician. Is one greater? No. If pipes are leaking, even the best electrician is useless because I really need a plumber. Same vice-versa.

It is fun to discuss, though. :)

Quote from: EigenUser on August 14, 2014, 06:34:06 AM
The more I read this thread (and others, too), the more I am coming to realize that the word "masterpiece" is meaningless.

(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/thumbup.jpg)

Let's throw "genius" in the meaningless pile too  8)

Sarge

Quote from: Jay F on August 14, 2014, 06:19:58 AM
Well, the same goes for Haydn, buddy. ;)

I can't get in on this game because...I like Mahler and Haydn equally well  :(


Sarge

Re Mahler, I find it's far better to listen to live (or better still, to play) than listen to a recording. That's because it's not great "background" music and suffers unless you give it 100% attention.

100% attention is de rigueur, to be sure.

Quote from: EigenUser on August 14, 2014, 06:34:06 AM
The more I read this thread (and others, too), the more I am coming to realize that the word "masterpiece" is meaningless. We often say it when we hear something that we really like, but when you think about it, saying that something is a masterpiece really isn't too different than saying something is great.

The words do not matter. The point some of us wanted to make was, as I understand it, to distinguish between subjective preference and objective evaluation. Now many people want to make their lives easy and simply claim objective aesthetic evaluation is just impossible. There is only subjective preference or a sum/average of such preferences or subjective preferences of experts. But this is far too simple. Of course, aesthetic evaluation is not completely independent of anything (but probably nothing besides a little logic, maths and God is independent in such a way  ;D).
It is usually connected to an historical framework, like the history of western art music. (There may be ways to get more general aesthetic criteria, but let's leave this out for now.) This is not an external evaluative framework, but it is usually set not only by some "rules" that have been used when teaching people composition etc., but more importantly by influential pieces. Someone already mentioned how "rules" of sonata form were abstracted from actual works by Haydn and others when some theoreticians wrote treatises on musical composition in the late 18th century. Because of such complexities it is often short-sighted and sophomoric to evaluate pieces according to whether they "follow the rules" or whether they disobey the rules in a smart fashion.
As Walther in Wagner's Meistersinger asks "How do I begin according to the rules?" he gets the answer: "You put the rules yourself and then you follow them"
(Wie fang ich nach der Regel an? - Ihr stellt sie selbst und folgt ihr dann!) One could read this as a recommendation for internal consistency, for a kind of fitting parts into the whole that leads to the impression of an unevitable musical development. But these are internal "rules". And of course one could as well say that surprise is nice, so do not structure your piece according in such a fashion that its unfolding seems inevitable. It all depends ;) and music can work in different ways. But I find it plausible that there is a lot of great music where you will find a convincing balance between inevitability and surprise. E.g. Beethoven's 5th first movement is very densely structured, almost everything can be derived from a few motives/intervals/themes. Still, it's not really predictable and there is e.g. the famous passage in the recap with the little oboe solo that seems to "come out of nowhere" and is profoundly moving, because you get this little plaintive oboe passage within the restless storm of the movement without expecting it at all.

Quote
All it does is exaggerate the claim by making it appear that the work in question meets some sort of quantifiable criteria. What quality/qualities does Beethoven's Wellington's Victory (yes, I've heard it) lack that make(s) the his 5th a masterpiece? Does a person have lesser taste for preferring WV over the 5th?

I think Wellington's victory is better than its reputation.
But it would not be hard to show that the 5th symphony is a much better piece. First of all, Wellingtons Victory consists of rather short simple pieces that follow the order they have, because of the rather simplistic program: Each side gets its anthem/march, trumpet signal etc. The clash of the armies and the battle are well done, but there is not much of actual musical development. Compare the "battle" (I do not think it is literally meant to depict one) in the development section of the Eroica with the mourning new theme in the minor after screeching dissonances and disturbing of the beat (suddenly it feels like an even beat in half notes instead of quarters/dotted halfs). One of the best thing in WV is the retreat of the french with their march tune in the minor and also rhythmically "torn up", like the wounded staggering on crutches.

The second part, celebrating the victory, is a little more "symphonic", but also rather "flat" if you compare it to other celebrating pieces (like most of the finale of the 5th). I always found the exaggerated "echo" dynamics with "God save the King" somewhat ridiculous. It's still fun and not all that different of what Beethoven could have written as a coda of an ouverture or so. But in such a case there would have been a more complex musical development before the triumphal coda.

Quote from: Jo498 on August 14, 2014, 07:59:10 AM
I think Wellington's victory is better than its reputation.

I think that must be fair.  But, heck, I feel the same about the 1812 Overture!

Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 05:55:16 AM
I've come around to liking Mahler much better than I used to;  but I don't think he'll ever make my "first string."  No knock against him;  just a matter of this listener, and that body of work.

Or perhaps you just prefer your Mahler Slavified by Dmitri

Quote from: Jay F on August 14, 2014, 06:19:58 AM
Well, the same goes for Haydn, buddy. ;)

It's OK, the Mahler Myth will live on long after I am dust... and the Haydn Legacy even longer!  0:)

8)

And Haydn's reputation will wax ever greater  0:)

My major blind spots :

Opera
Piano Concerti
Bach Cantatas and his main Choral works
Some major SQ (Shosta, Mozart...)
some Ballet Music (Prokofiev)

and those composers :

Aho
Alkan
Alwyn
Arnold
Bantock
Bax
Berio
Bloch
Boulez
Braga Santos
Bridge
Butterworth
Buxtehude
Byrd (Keyboard music)
Canteloube
Carter
Casella
Corelli
CPE Bach
D'Indy
Dallapicolla
Dutilleux
Enescu
Faure (Chamber)
Frescobaldi
Froberger
Gabaidulina
Gade
Ginastera
Hartmann
Hindemith
Holmboe
Honegger
Hovhaness
Hummel
Ives
Kachaturian
Korngold
Liadov
Ligeti
Lindberg
Lutoslawski
Magnard
Malipiero
Massenet
Melartin
Milhaud
Moeran
Norgard
Novak
Peterson-Berger
Pfitzner
Pierné
Purcell
Rautavaraa
Reger
Reiff
Revueltas
Rihm
Rubbra
Sallinen
Schnittke
Schumann, Clara
Scriabin
Simpson
Soler
Sweelinck
Szymanovski
Telemann (harpsichord)
Tippett
Toch
Tubin
Vasks
Walton
Weinberg
Willaert
Wolf
Wuorinen
Xenakis
Zelenka

so plenty more to discover when the time and the mood are right  :)

Quote from: Papy Oli on August 14, 2014, 11:55:10 AM
My major blind spots :

Opera
Piano Concerti
Bach Cantatas and his main Choral works
Some major SQ (Shosta, Mozart...)
some Ballet Music (Prokofiev)

and those composers :

Aho
Alkan
Alwyn
Arnold
Bantock
Bax
...
Zelenka

so plenty more to discover when the time and the mood are right  :)

So you have listened to anything by Donatoni?

Quote from: Baklavaboy on August 14, 2014, 05:51:47 AM
I don't listen to Mahler. I'm not sure why. I listened to Kubelik conducting his third, and liked it, kinda-sorta, but decided not to listen to anymore until some as-yet-undetermined time in the distant future. Perhaps very distant.

The Third is certainly not the one I'd recommend to someone just tipping their toes in Mahler.

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2014, 12:13:12 PM
So you have listened to anything by Donatoni?

Henk,
No I haven't. I only saw his name yesterday for the first time through your mention of him in this thread.

Just to clarify, my list doesn't mean I have listened to everybody else who doesn't appear in it  ;) This list is basically my personal tracking of a 2nd or 3rd tier of composers that I need to explore further once I have spent enough time absorbing the "main" composers I have added in my collection in the last 2-3 years. The original full list was based on the main recognisable names from the composers index (again a personal choice...) through their "regular" mentions wherever in the forum... and I gradually worked my way through it, wherever my evolving taste, mood and mindframe took me over time.

Of course, your view on the importance of such or such composer may vary.

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2014, 12:13:12 PM
So you have listened to anything by Donatoni?

You seem to have Donatoni on the brain.  I think there's a pill for that. ;D

I know of a Donadoni.... he played for Milan in the 1990's, but not at the Scala  :P

Quote from: North Star on August 14, 2014, 12:14:38 PM
The Third is certainly not the one I'd recommend to someone just tipping their toes in Mahler.

As to toe-dipping - why not take it one movement at a time?  It's not as though they were conceived and written as entities.  (The 1st symphony originally had 5 movements, the last movt of the 4th was originally part of the 3rd, the outer movts of the 7th were composed a long time after the middle 3, etc).
I often listen to just movts 3,4,5 of the 3rd - and just 2,3,4 of the 7th - and the 1st movement of the 2nd works perfectly well as a standalone piece. The adagio of the 5th is famously often performed separately. Of course you can't often do this in the concert hall, but at home, why not.  Bleeding chunks? - not really.

Quote from: aukhawk on August 14, 2014, 02:39:53 PM
As to toe-dipping - why not take it one movement at a time?  It's not as though they were conceived and written as entities.  (The 1st symphony originally had 5 movements, the last movt of the 4th was originally part of the 3rd, the outer movts of the 7th were composed a long time after the middle 3, etc).
I often listen to just movts 3,4,5 of the 3rd - and just 2,3,4 of the 7th - and the 1st movement of the 2nd works perfectly well as a standalone piece. The adagio of the 5th is famously often performed separately. Of course you can't often do this in the concert hall, but at home, why not.  Bleeding chunks? - not really.

The adagietto is the only part of the 5th I listen to, and if you're really averse to Mahler's orchestral language, it's available in an achingly beautiful choral (!) transcription by the French choir Accentus.

The first movement of No. 3 could well be a standalone symphony.

You may just not like Mahler. It's not a requirement that everyone like every composer. Some I love. Some I like. Some are better than rap.

Quote from: Brian on August 13, 2014, 05:02:57 AM
My 25th birthday is in a week and a half. I've never heard:
- Bach's St Matthew Passion
- Bach's Mass in B minor
- Bach's cantatas (any)
- most of Bach's keyboard partitas and suites, or most of his organ works
- anything by Handel except Water Music, Fireworks Music, and some organ concertos
- Beethoven's Missa solemnis and string quartets Opp. 131-132 (Op. 130 only once; Op. 135 only once, live)
- Schubert's string quartets, except "Death and the Maiden" once
- the vast majority of Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, or Wolf lieder
- Mahler's Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, or Tenth
- four of the Bartok quartets
- Shostakovich's Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, or 12-15 (or about half his quartets)
- all but two Cage pieces

My dear fellow, I congratulate you on having avoided an extraordinarily distinguished body of work.

I don't know exactly what I've managed to avoid myself, but based on what I've heard of Joly Braga-Santos and Havergal Brian, I intend to continue avoiding their work as much as possible.

Quote from: Brian on August 14, 2014, 02:50:31 PM
The adagietto is the only part of the 5th I listen to, and if you're really averse to Mahler's orchestral language

Then you have no soul and I pity you ;D

The third movement of the first symphony (Frere Jacques evil twin) is another easy entry point with something that is uniquely Mahlerian

Quote from: bwv 1080 on August 14, 2014, 07:00:17 PM
The third movement of the first symphony (Frere Jacques evil twin) is another easy entry point with something that is uniquely Mahlerian

The Frere Jacques is insanely good. I'm in the entire-work-at-a-time crowd, but it's always tough not to put this movement on repeat.

The 1st is a good choice for those who are inclined to full works. (And if the finale seems too blaring, try again next week.)

Supposedly Klemperer refused to conduct Mahler's 5th, because he thought the adagietto was to close to kitsch...

Quote from: aukhawk on August 14, 2014, 02:39:53 PM
As to toe-dipping - why not take it one movement at a time?  It's not as though they were conceived and written as entities.  (The 1st symphony originally had 5 movements, the last movt of the 4th was originally part of the 3rd, the outer movts of the 7th were composed a long time after the middle 3, etc).
I often listen to just movts 3,4,5 of the 3rd - and just 2,3,4 of the 7th - and the 1st movement of the 2nd works perfectly well as a standalone piece. The adagio of the 5th is famously often performed separately. Of course you can't often do this in the concert hall, but at home, why not.  Bleeding chunks? - not really.

+1

Even though I have heard all except the 3rd, 8th, and 10th in full, I usually listen to single movements. Not always, but more often than not. Sometimes, like you said you do, I'll group a few together. For M9, the 3rd and 4th mvts go very well together and have blatantly obvious connections.

Quote from: Pat B on August 14, 2014, 10:40:59 PM
The Frere Jacques is insanely good. I'm in the entire-work-at-a-time crowd, but it's always tough not to put this movement on repeat.

The 1st is a good choice for those who are inclined to full works. (And if the finale seems too blaring, try again next week.)

I love the 1st symphony. One of my favorites. Although it is lighter than his others, it is not a "practice" like a lot of 1sts end up being. The first movement makes me think of springtime for some reason. Does anyone else hear a Jewish-sounding melody in the 3rd mvt? It's played by the woodwinds after the "Frere Jacques" canon and in the score it is marked "with parody". Would anyone here know if that is a traditional song or just an invention of his own?

The cymbal crash and dissonant chord that opens the 4th mvt of the 1st never ceases to startle me when it begins, especially after the quiet ending of the 3rd mvt.

For anyone who really likes 20th-century music like I do, I'd recommend starting with the 7th. It's the most abstract one, I think. Boulez's recording is excellent. That one sounds best when it is more emotionally detached. I wouldn't want to go near Boulez for something like the 9th, but his style is perfect for the 7th (aren't you guys so proud of me? I'm getting to recognize differences in recordings! ;D).

Quote from: Jo498 on August 14, 2014, 11:42:21 PM
Supposedly Klemperer refused to conduct Mahler's 5th, because he thought the adagietto was to close to kitsch...

Depends on how you conduct it. I think half the point of labelling it an adagietto was to tell conductors that it wasn't necessary for them to wallow in it.

Quote from: orfeo on August 15, 2014, 02:18:15 AM
Depends on how you conduct it. I think half the point of labelling it an adagietto was to tell conductors that it wasn't necessary for them to wallow in it.

Yes, and e.g. Walter conducted it in a much more flowing tempo than some later conductors who prefer to wallow...
Still, I think the isolated fame of this piece may have done Mahler a disservice. It's not so typical after all and listeners are bound to be disappointed if they think otherwise.

Quote from: orfeo on August 15, 2014, 02:18:15 AM
Depends on how you conduct it. I think half the point of labelling it an adagietto was to tell conductors that it wasn't necessary for them to wallow in it.

I think it right to point out here, that one of the first friends of mine whom I knew to be a Mahler fan sometimes used the phrase a good wallow.  FWIW . . . .

Quote from: EigenUser on August 15, 2014, 01:24:31 AM
The first movement makes me think of springtime for some reason.

Mahler's original program for the Symphony called the first movement "Frühling und kein Ende" (Spring and no end). So you get it  8)

Quote from: EigenUser on August 15, 2014, 01:24:31 AM
Does anyone else hear a Jewish-sounding melody in the 3rd mvt? It's played by the woodwinds after the "Frere Jacques" canon and in the score it is marked "with parody". Would anyone here know if that is a traditional song or just an invention of his own?

It's his own melody meant to remind one of a village band (and contrasting the tragic funeral music with the trivial). You can definitely hear the Klezmer influence. Some conductors bring out the Jewish element more than others. The lyrical episode just before the return of "Bruder Martin" ("Frere Jacques") is a direct quote from the fourth Wayfarer song, Die zwei blauen Augen von meinem Schätz.


Sarge

The overall conception (compositionally) of the intro to that first movement of the Mahler First is a creative re-appropriation of the intro to the first movement of the LvB Fourth.

The fact that the main theme of the fast section of Mahler 1,i is also self-borrowed from "Ging heut morgen übers Feld" (a song that describes spring or early summer time) is another hint that the spring association cannot be far off.
As for Frere Jacques the analogy with the last of the Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen goes even further: The first stanzas of the song are also to a slow marchtune in the minor (although a different melody from the one in the symphony) and the contrasting section has a very similar function in the song: A dream of home and the beloved he had to leave (in the song there is obviously also a Winterreise association, thematically, not necessarily musically), whereas the main sections are world weary and somewhat depressing.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 15, 2014, 04:59:54 AM
The overall conception (compositionally) of the intro to that first movement of the Mahler First is a creative re-appropriation of the intro to the first movement of the LvB Fourth.

Ah!...so that's why Beethoven's Fourth reminds me of spring  ;)

Sarge

Quote from: EigenUser on August 15, 2014, 01:24:31 AM
Does anyone else hear a Jewish-sounding melody in the 3rd mvt? It's played by the woodwinds after the "Frere Jacques" canon and in the score it is marked "with parody". Would anyone here know if that is a traditional song or just an invention of his own?

dont know if its an exact quote, but it is intended to be a Klezmer band, check this out, which is a full Klezmer version of the mvmt:

https://www.youtube.com/v/x3efe-G2mxo

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 15, 2014, 04:49:38 AM
It's his own melody meant to remind one of a village band (and contrasting the tragic funeral music with the trivial). You can definitely hear the Klezmer influence. Some conductors bring out the Jewish element more than others.

Could you name some that don't bring out the Jewish element? It's clear to me in every version I've heard, and I love it, but I'd be interested to hear a different approach.

As for the opening's similarity to Beethoven 4, I quibble with Karl's wording of "overall conception." The openings use the same tune with (I think) the same instrumentation, but they do go in their own directions soon enough. Mahler's reminds me specifically of sunrise. Beethoven's is absolute (non-program) music to me. Both are great.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 15, 2014, 04:49:38 AM
Mahler's original program for the Symphony called the first movement "Frühling und kein Ende" (Spring and no end). So you get it  8)

I love it when that happens with music! You know, when it reveals some sort of program that happens to be the same one that the composer was thinking of. One sign (out of many) of a great composer.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 15, 2014, 04:49:38 AM
It's his own melody meant to remind one of a village band (and contrasting the tragic funeral music with the trivial). You can definitely hear the Klezmer influence. Some conductors bring out the Jewish element more than others. The lyrical episode just before the return of "Bruder Martin" ("Frere Jacques") is a direct quote from the fourth Wayfarer song, Die zwei blauen Augen von meinem Schätz.


Sarge

Thanks for the information! Very interesting.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on August 15, 2014, 06:20:29 AM
dont know if its an exact quote, but it is intended to be a Klezmer band, check this out, which is a full Klezmer version of the mvmt:

https://www.youtube.com/v/x3efe-G2mxo

Neat!

While we're on the topic of dissecting M1, I'll say that the scherzos of M2 seems to quote that of M1 in a few spots. Or, at least parts sound similar.

Quote from: Pat B on August 16, 2014, 08:26:44 PM
Could you name some that don't bring out the Jewish element? It's clear to me in every version I've heard, and I love it, but I'd be interested to hear a different approach.

The Jewish element is always there but some conductors are more "tasteful" (and less fun): Norrington/Stuttgart and Ozawa/Boston spring to mind.

Sarge

I can't really say that I have managed to avoid any of the great works from any composers. I have even seen the whole Ring in Bayreuth (2002), heard all the operas of Puccini (even Edgar), listened to all Verdis operas, heard all Schubert's songs (the Hyperion series - played as they arrived one by one), heard all of Bruckner and Mahler many times etc...
The Leslie Howard Liszt box is waiting, and I even have the Sibelius series on BIS (I have played half of it so far)
Now I try to hear music from unknown composers (or unknown music from well known composers - hence the Liszt and Sibelius boxes). I buy big boxes, because it gives me the opportunity to hear the big names again - I try to go through all the CD's in the boxes (if time allows). Now I'm on the last CD in the Decca Kertesz box which means that I'm rehearing Bartok's 3rd piano concerto, Ravel's G-major piano concerto and Prokofievs 3rd piano concerto. Now the Abbado, Fricsay and Mengelberg boxes are waiting, together with songs by Fanny Mendelssohn, madrigals by Luzzaschi, Moscheles piano music, piano trios by Bériot, La Clemenza di Tito by Gluck and Händel's Tamerlano...

Actually - there is one: Bach's Matthäus Passion. I have not been actively avoiding it, but it has never been very high on my playing list. The 3 first CDs in the Mengelberg box contains this work, so ... Recorded on Palm Sunday, April 2nd 1939 in Concertgebouw.

Most of Camille-Saint-Saens with the exception of the Organ Symphony and the Introduction Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 17, 2014, 05:51:34 AM
The Jewish element is always there but some conductors are more "tasteful" (and less fun): Norrington/Stuttgart and Ozawa/Boston spring to mind.

Thanks. I haven't heard either of those. If I were conducting I think I'd emphasize it but I am curious to hear it downplayed. I'll keep my eyes open.

Quote from: -abe- on August 18, 2014, 08:06:16 PM
Most of Camille-Saint-Saens with the exception of the Organ Symphony and the Introduction Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso.

  Rush to hear the Saint-Saens piano concertos...especially 2 and 5. MAGNIFICENT!!

  marvin

 

Quote from: marvinbrown on October 30, 2015, 03:37:57 AM
  Rush to hear the Saint-Saens piano concertos...especially 2 and 5. MAGNIFICENT!!

  marvin

+1 I actually admire and love the entire cycle, though.

https://youtu.be/H1wN5RgI0ck

Concerto nr 4 . The sound is a bit boxy, but Mme. Darré has real finesse for this music.  Excellent quoi!
P.

I tend to avoid the Russians. I've yet to hear a Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev or Rachmaninoff work in its entirety and the only Stravinski I've sat through was the Rite (and didn't really care much for it).

There are exceptions, obviously: Schnittke, I adore, and Shostakovich's SQ's are ace.

I thought my reluctance to invest time in these composers might stem from some subconscious prejudice (given the history between my country and the Soviet Union) but I think it's simpler than that: many of those big names come from the Romantic period, my least favourite in the classical ouevre.

Also, Mahler's 9th. Don't ask. It's complicated.

Quote from: Rinaldo on October 30, 2015, 09:25:26 AM
I tend to avoid the Russians. I've yet to hear a Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev or Rachmaninoff work in its entirety and the only Stravinski I've sat through was the Rite (and didn't really care much for it).

http://www.youtube.com/v/OYMDHYYnptQ

http://www.youtube.com/v/nGfWVh98p2g

Highly convenient, thank you! :)

At your service!

If I've heard Beethoven's 2nd I don't recall it. Shame on me! Also, music of the early Romantic period doesn't do much for me. No Schubert in my collection.

The old saw that there is just not enough time for it all is more than true. I think it best to be selective and spend the time accordingly. You really can't "miss" something you've never experienced. Save for a nagging awareness of a piece you really think you want to hear, keep listening to and exploring the kind of music you like. Often enough that leads you to other music anyway, or triggers yet another area of curiosity.

I have heard, over a relatively long life, more music than I can ever fully recall or keep in memory, and the vast majority of it has been quite aggressively sought out. One simply can not make time for it all, even when it is your profession. I've read about a lot of repertoire I'm fairly certain I will never get to, including 'famous works by the most highly regarded composers.'

I'm sure I have not heard or read through all of the chamber works of Beethoven, Mozart, or many others. I'm not even sure I've heard all of the Mozart Piano concerti. Formerly, as a very regularly practicing pianist, I know I have read through all the Beethoven and Mozart sonatas, but that is not the entirety of their piano music.

That out of the way, since I have no hunger for a type of listener's method I've seen often enough on fora, I doubt if at any time even if the recordings were in my possession would I make an appointed schedule to listen to the nine Beethoven symphonies back to back, or make any similar "listening feeds." This mode of going at it is so truly alien to me that I just can not understand why anyone would go about any repertoire so methodically. Some of that approach I think has to do with some notion of 'acquisition,' and that is something else other than just loving music.

I had heard of, read about Rameau, "knew of him" since middle school, probably, but it wasn't until I was in my forties that I picked up a fine recording and that led me to seek out more. I had the same kind of experience with a number of Italian composers from the mid-twentieth century, first read about in childhood, the same names coming up again in the music school textbooks and again mentioned by teachers, always as "fine composers," where even in school, one did not look at their scores or listen to any of it, but you read and heard "They are fine composers," lol. I did not get around to the likes of Casella, Rieti, Dallapiccolo and many others from that era until but a few years ago, and then, they were a delightful surprise and kind of new find -- which happens less and less the more years of listening experience you have. There are likely as many more I might still be curious about whose works I just will not get to.

As great as some composers are or may be, over repeated assays of listening to their work I still find little appeal or interest enough for me to want to pursue more. For example, the complete Wagner Ring Cycle or all of Bruckner's symphonies; I know I've heard enough to know I won't pursue the rest. I've heard enough of Bach's St. Matthew Passion to know well enough I don't want to sit through the whole thing.

I think everyone has some music, somehow on that obligatory list given us through various books, tomes, and word of mouth, about which they too feel quite the same; other works await which hold greater interest.

Getting around to something one does have a great curiosity about I think is something anyone would prefer to realize, though. Not doing so, and having it on ones mind could lead to a nagging sense of an incomplete 'want to / should' that is better realized, even if the anticipated work less than satisfies.

Make your own map, then, and even then, readily accept the fact you might not 'go everywhere' on that map. I can virtually guarantee, even if what you know is nowhere near complete-ist, that if you live long enough and continue listening to works new to you, you will have experienced more repertoire than you can possibly remember, and that, before you pop your clogs, will have to be enough

This made me grin:

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 10, 2016, 10:28:24 PMI've heard enough of Bach's St. Matthew Passion to know well enough I don't want to sit through the whole thing.

I don't dare put the St. Matthew Passion on unless I know I have enough free time to listen to the whole thing. Once that opening phrase has played, I'm hooked. (I'm also a huge Bruckner fan, though there are some symphonies of his I never listen to any more.)

The principle is sound, though, if I may be permitted a wee pun.

Here's my take on the larger matter:
 

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 10, 2016, 10:28:24 PMThe old saw that there is just not enough time for it all is more than true.

I'd like to offer an alternative to this time thing. What I have found first of all is that "time" is a thing that's experienced. What clocks do is impose a strict measurement on that largely subjective experience, giving the illusion that time is a known quantity.

When I'm doing something engaging, I do not have any sense of time passing. Nor does looking at the clock give me any useful information about what I've done. Clocks and calendars are for coordinating encounters with other people, if you're into that kind of thing. Otherwise.... In short, while I have infrequently felt like there's not enough time to do everything I want to do, I have found that if I simply do things, then there I am, doing things. And time doesn't enter into it. So I don't have to be selective, thank God, because time is not something I spend. I'm alive. I do things. The end.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 10, 2016, 10:28:24 PMYou really can't "miss" something you've never experienced.

True. However, I would not use that observation to determine whether to explore or not. I often hear people say that life is too short for exploration, for drinking bad wine or listening to crappy music. This is a trap, however. Concealed in that innocent looking bromide is a poisonous sting--if you don't drink for yourself or listen for yourself, you don't really know if the wine is bad, for you, or if the music is crappy, for you. You are giving over your living to someone else. Well, it's your life; I guess you can do whatever you want with it. :o (I know that M. Croche already knows that I have just used "you" in its meaning of "one" and not to refer to the good monsieur himself. That is, I want to be sure that you know I'm talking to you :-*)

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 10, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
I have heard, over a relatively long life, more music than I can ever fully recall or keep in memory, and the vast majority of it has been quite aggressively sought out. One simply can not make time for it all, even when it is your profession.

When I first read this, I thought, "you and me both," and then I realized, "Hey, wait a minute, I have no idea how long my life has been, any more than I have any idea how old I am."* I know how to use clocks and calendars to make and meet appointments you know. I don't use them for any other purpose. I've got stuff to do!

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 10, 2016, 10:28:24 PMI just can not understand why anyone would go about any repertoire so methodically.

As someone who has done this, I would have to agree. Why would anyone do this?

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 10, 2016, 10:28:24 PMGetting around to something one does have a great curiosity about I think is something anyone would prefer to realize, though. Not doing so, and having it on ones mind could lead to a nagging sense of an incomplete 'want to / should' that is better realized, even if the anticipated work less than satisfies.

I've figured out a way around this one. Don't listen in order to be satisfied. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but really, especially for something you've never heard before, there's no guarantee it's going to please you right off. Maybe it will; maybe it won't. I think the first thing to do with a new piece is accept. Sounds passive, right? It's not. Think of how aggressively you dislike certain things. Now try to like them. Hard work, no? Well accepting is an active thing, actively putting aside your tastes, your desires, your needs in order to take in what's being presented to you.

Oh, it's fun!

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 10, 2016, 10:28:24 PMMake your own map, then, and even then, readily accept the fact you might not 'go everywhere' on that map. I can virtually guarantee, even if what you know is nowhere near complete-ist, that if you live long enough and continue listening to works new to you, you will have experienced more repertoire than you can possibly remember, and that, before you pop your clogs, will have to be enough.

I'm going to pop my clogs? What? I did not know that. Shit! There's not enough time!!! :o

*Yes, I do know when I was born (it was a couple of years after the person who posts as M. Croche was born), and I can do math. But once I have the number 63 to look at, I can't make it mean anything, that's all. Plus, in a couple of months, the number will change.

M. Croche, I won't be doing a thorough response to everything in your post, but I do admire the sentiment you have towards music which seems or be something along the lines of enjoying music for music's sake, without a hunger for possession, an addiction to purchase recordings and whatnot.

As for me, I think the whole idea of 'acquiring recordings' is something I've only ever learnt about when discovering classical music fora online and the people who collect music to listen to systematically. Seeing shiny new CDs of music has always appealed to my own hunger for music, and when I first saw all the kinds of recordings of classical music I at first leapt for it and tried to throw all my money into buying CDs whenever I could. After a while I began to realise that this is not what classical music is about to me, and there are many alternative ways I can enjoy music for myself and share it with others too.

I can't say I can really post much in this thread as to music I have 'somehow managed to avoid' because I have hardly managed to scrape the surface of knowing what there is to know about classical music. Even when it comes to buying a cd here and there, I do it if there's something I find that is very cheap, or something that I can buy more easily than listen to online. There's not enough time in the remaining decades that I have to build a comprehensive CD hoard!

Quote from: some guy on January 10, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
This made me grin: I don't dare put the St. Matthew Passion on unless I know I have enough free time to listen to the whole thing. Once that opening phrase has played, I'm hooked. (I'm also a huge Bruckner fan, though there are some symphonies of his I never listen to any more.)

It is different things for different folk. I think I feel the same about a number of Feldman pieces, once begun and I'm hooked, and I do want to experience the whole thing.

Quote from: some guy on January 10, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
The principle is sound, though, if I may be permitted a wee pun.

I'd like to offer an alternative to this time thing. What I have found first of all is that "time" is a thing that's experienced. What clocks do is impose a strict measurement on that largely subjective experience, giving the illusion that time is a known quantity.

When I'm doing something engaging, I do not have any sense of time passing. Nor does looking at the clock give me any useful information about what I've done. ...while I have infrequently felt like there's not enough time to do everything I want to do, I have found that if I simply do things, then there I am, doing things. And time doesn't enter into it. So I don't have to be selective, thank God, because time is not something I spend. I'm alive. I do things. The end.

That analog time, appointments, and something implicit about that analog time inherent in the OP is what had me addressing the feeling of obligation and pressure which quite seem to accompany it. If people don't give that up, then 'spending the time with music' will have them 'worried about that time,' feeling guilty, and not yielding to the music -- because somewhere in the back of their mind, the meter is running. 

Music is about the biggest 'blow analog time out of existence mind bender' of all the arts. I'm sure that is a good deal of its attraction once people have experienced it. If you are unconcerned and just listen, it will do its job, and as you've said, you will have the time a literal world apart from any analog time concerns, and something will have been done.

Quote from: some guy on January 10, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
True. However, I would not use that observation to determine whether to explore or not. Concealed in that innocent looking bromide is a poisonous sting--if you don't drink for yourself or listen for yourself, you don't really know if the wine is bad, for you, or if the music is crappy, for you.

But of course, while it is more than good you said that plain. The way I had put it, it could be mistaken. You've got to explore and make your own mistakes because what is gotten in that is something very crucial -- knowing more and more what you might not want to spend your time with or not doing makes what you do want to spend your time with that much clearer. It is to be hoped that a constant curiosity will have anyone forever trying 'new things,' the better to know if those are also, or aren't, for them. I'd say try those bad wines several times over [though three times is enough, lol.] The more yeses and nos you have to sort, the more 'answers' suited to you you will have. Try it all -- as long as it doesn't kill you, ha haaaa.

Quote from: some guy on January 10, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
"I have no idea how long my life has been, any more than I have any idea how old I am." I know how to use clocks and calendars to make and meet appointments. I don't use them for any other purpose. I've got stuff to do!

Amen to that. Appointments, yes, they must run by analog / clock time to get those appointment things done. Anything else engaging and not an appointment, for me those are reading a book, a score, sight-reading or practicing, composing, and when involved with those [or well-concentrated in any way on anything] is where no analog time exists, and any way anyone can find their way to that state, I think they are better off for it.

Quote from: some guy on January 10, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
Don't listen in order to be satisfied.

Doh, and yeah. Listen to hear what it is. The biggest 'labor' there is the letting go of one's expectations built upon past listening experiences. If more people approached any new piece that way, there would be no 'struggle' nor comments like 'it doesn't have a melody,' or 'no form' [hey, if it has any kind of shape at all, that is form... not symphonic, not common practice development, while more of that is in music which people think does not have those things than they will ever recognize if they don't let go and let the music do its stuff.] "I can't get into this because it is not developmental." So? There is another way of doing things, maybe successfully. It will never be successful if you are wanting and hunting for 'development' where there is none of the traditional sort.

Quote from: some guy on January 10, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
I'm going to pop my clogs? What? I did not know that. Shit! There's not enough time!!! :o

Yes, Virginia, we will all pop our clogs. No sense getting ready for it, or resigning oneself to it, because it will happen no matter what. In the meanwhile, things to do, or, as the line in Zorba the Greek has it, "Life is what you do while you're waiting to die." Hop to it, then.

Quote from: some guy on January 10, 2016, 11:29:23 PM
...once I have the number 63 to look at, I can't make it mean anything, that's all. Plus, in a couple of months, the number will change.

a-yep. The new number startles each time it rolls around, puzzles because it signifies something, while I have yet to get much 'meaning' out of it.

Mendelssohn. I've been looking at this boxed set in an attempt to remedy that.

[asin]B00005ONMP[/asin]

However with composers who are new to me I often find their chamber music is a good introduction.

Quote from: NikF on January 11, 2016, 01:43:01 AM
Mendelssohn. I've been looking at this boxed set in an attempt to remedy that.

However with composers who are new to me I often find their chamber music is a good introduction.

I don't know the Abbado set, but I can make some suggestions for starting points with Mendelssohn: the piano trios, string quartets (esp. no. 6), piano music (Songs Without Words, Preludes and Fugues, Op. 35), Overture and incidental music to A Midsummer Night's Dream, Symphony no. 3 'Scottish', and Hebrides Overture (aka Fingal's Cave).

Quote from: NikF on January 11, 2016, 01:43:01 AM
Mendelssohn. I've been looking at this boxed set in an attempt to remedy that.

[asin]B00005ONMP[/asin]

However with composers who are new to me I often find their chamber music is a good introduction.

I'm not really fond of that set, Abbado's versions of the symphonies seem a little off to me (although the overtures are good, especially the Meeresstille und glückliche Fahrt). If it has to be a set, I'd rather suggest this one: [asin]B000EQHV4S[/asin] ...and for just one more, I'd suggest: [asin]B008OGI5ZO[/asin]

Quote from: NikF on January 11, 2016, 01:43:01 AM
However with composers who are new to me I often find their chamber music is a good introduction.

With Mendelssohn, chamber music really could be the best introduction. The piano trios, string quartets, sextet, and octet are all first-rate stuff. Of course, there's some great orchestral music too, but I don't seem to listen to it as much as the other stuff these days.

Mendelssohn also wrote the occasional great work for piano, if you're into that. Top of my list: the six preludes and fugues, Op. 35.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 11, 2016, 12:03:32 AM
M. Croche, I won't be doing a thorough response to everything in your post, but I do admire the sentiment you have towards music which seems or be something along the lines of enjoying music for music's sake, without a hunger for possession, an addiction to purchase recordings and whatnot.

As for me, I think the whole idea of 'acquiring recordings' is something I've only ever learnt about when discovering classical music fora online and the people who collect music to listen to systematically. Seeing shiny new CDs of music has always appealed to my own hunger for music, and when I first saw all the kinds of recordings of classical music I at first leapt for it and tried to throw all my money into buying CDs whenever I could. After a while I began to realise that this is not what classical music is about to me, and there are many alternative ways I can enjoy music for myself and share it with others too.

If I won a lotto, big time, I would very soon thereafter hire a secretary whose sole job was to assist me in compiling an extensive list of recordings, and they would then be the one to place the orders and become the librarian /curator of that new collection until I knew my way around it. HOWEVER, for most musicians, this is not the top priority, and unless one has the means, the amount some others spend on their CD collection is better spent by the musician on instrumental supplies, manuscript paper, scores, reference books, and -- attending live performances. A nice CD collection can be bought up, over time, fairly easily, and with so many recordings, even those out of print relatively easy to obtain and most at a reasonable price, the younger musician really does not need to own a truckload of recordings any time soon. That you are off to college in but moments is yet another point of argument that you have near to no business acquiring any kind of mass of goods -- the lifestyle of the next four or six years just does not accommodate that, lol.

Instrumental supplies, manuscript paper, scores, reference books, and -- attending live performances. ...and sure, pick up CDs here and there. They're very nice to have  :)

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 11, 2016, 05:10:28 AM
If I won a lotto, big time, I would very soon thereafter hire a secretary whose sole job was to assist me in compiling an extensive list of recordings, and they would then be the one to place the orders and become the librarian /curator of that new collection until I knew my way around it. HOWEVER, for most musicians, this is not the top priority, and unless one has the means, so much money spent on CDs by other collectors is better spent by the musician on instrumental supplies, manuscript paper, scores, reference books, and -- attending live performances. A nice CD collection can be bought up, over time, fairly easily, and with so many recordings, even those out of print, relatively easy to obtain, most at a reasonable price, the younger musician really does not need to own a truckload of recordings any time soon. That you are off to college in but moments is yet another point of argument that you have near to no business acquiring any kind of mass of goods -- the lifestyle of the next four or six years just does not accommodate that, lol.

Instrumental supplies, manuscript paper, scores, reference books, and -- attending live performances. ...and sure, pick up CDs here and there. They're very nice to have  :)

Boy howdy.

All my life, I measured how much things cost by LPs, and then CDs, not by dollars. My last car, for example, could have been a thousand CDs or more. (I buy used when I can.)

Then, eleven years ago, I decided to start an online music magazine and attend concerts all over the world and write about them. That would have purchased many, many thousands of CDs. Instead, I bought airline tickets and hotel rooms and attended concerts, all while maintaining an apartment in the US. in 2009, I attended more concerts in a year than there are days in the same. Some days, I didn't go to any concerts, some days I went to three or four. Damn, that was fun. Plus, you meet more composers at concerts than you do in CD stores. I've only met one composer, very briefly, in a CD store. At concerts, though, you can meet a dozen composers in as many minutes.

That's my "extra-musical" drug of choice, meeting composers and other musicians. Yeah. Nice people on the whole. (I've actually never met a composer who was an any less than splendid person, but I've been assured that they do exist, one or two of them. :D)

Quote from: some guy on January 11, 2016, 07:10:21 AM
That's my "extra-musical" drug of choice, meeting composers and other musicians. Yeah. Nice people on the whole. (I've actually never met a composer who was an any less than splendid person, but I've been assured that they do exist, one or two of them. :D)

Starting a new thread in the Diner.

"That's my "extra-musical" drug of choice, meeting composers and other musicians. Yeah. Nice people on the whole. (I've actually never met a composer who was an any less than splendid person, but I've been assured that they do exist, one or two of them. :D)" ~ Some Guy

Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 07:24:12 AM
Starting a new thread in the Diner.

Oh, whatever your intent, please call it, "I have yet to meet a _____ I didn't like."  :laugh:

Quote from: some guy on January 11, 2016, 07:10:21 AMThat's my "extra-musical" drug of choice, meeting composers and other musicians. Yeah. Nice people on the whole. (I've actually never met a composer who was an any less than splendid person, but I've been assured that they do exist, one or two of them. :D)

I'm glad I managed not to prove exceptional, there  8)

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 11, 2016, 01:35:42 AMListen to hear what it is.

This is beautiful.

Quote from: North Star on January 11, 2016, 02:54:23 AM
I don't know the Abbado set, but I can make some suggestions for starting points with Mendelssohn: the piano trios, string quartets (esp. no. 6), piano music (Songs Without Words, Preludes and Fugues, Op. 35), Overture and incidental music to A Midsummer Night's Dream, Symphony no. 3 'Scottish', and Hebrides Overture (aka Fingal's Cave).

Quote from: Wanderer on January 11, 2016, 03:06:51 AM
I'm not really fond of that set, Abbado's versions of the symphonies seem a little off to me (although the overtures are good, especially the Meeresstille und glückliche Fahrt). If it has to be a set, I'd rather suggest this one: [asin]B000EQHV4S[/asin] ...and for just one more, I'd suggest: [asin]B008OGI5ZO[/asin]

Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 04:45:46 AM
With Mendelssohn, chamber music really could be the best introduction. The piano trios, string quartets, sextet, and octet are all first-rate stuff. Of course, there's some great orchestral music too, but I don't seem to listen to it as much as the other stuff these days.

Mendelssohn also wrote the occasional great work for piano, if you're into that. Top of my list: the six preludes and fugues, Op. 35.

Thank you all for your suggestions and insights, it's appreciated.
I've had a listen to some of the Masur/Gewandhaus and despite only being via YouTube it sounded fine, and so I'll go ahead and order that. As for the chamber music, I heard the Melos Quartet from the same source and will add that in my basket too.

PARSIFAL    The bits I've heard were very nice, but five hours worth? and I have two unheard recordings of it.

Quote from: listener on January 11, 2016, 12:35:17 PM
PARSIFAL    The bits I've heard were very nice, but five hours worth? and I have two unheard recordings of it.

It's only five hours when James Levine conducts it (though supposedly Toscanini was also very slow in this work). Get the Boulez and it's only three.

That said, Parsifal is my least favorite mature work by Wagner. I feel Wagner was very tired by the time he wrote it, and I hate the fake religiosity. I cannot be alone in this; I have been given free tickets by friends to hear Parsifal more than any other opera.

Quote from: some guy on January 11, 2016, 07:10:21 AM
Boy howdy.

All my life, I measured how much things cost by LPs, and then CDs, not by dollars. My last car, for example, could have been a thousand CDs or more. (I buy used when I can.)

Then, eleven years ago, I decided to start an online music magazine and attend concerts all over the world and write about them. That would have purchased many, many thousands of CDs. Instead, I bought airline tickets and hotel rooms and attended concerts, all while maintaining an apartment in the US. in 2009, I attended more concerts in a year than there are days in the same. Some days, I didn't go to any concerts, some days I went to three or four. Damn, that was fun. Plus, you meet more composers at concerts than you do in CD stores. I've only met one composer, very briefly, in a CD store. At concerts, though, you can meet a dozen composers in as many minutes.

That's my "extra-musical" drug of choice, meeting composers and other musicians. Yeah. Nice people on the whole. (I've actually never met a composer who was an any less than splendid person, but I've been assured that they do exist, one or two of them. :D)

Ha! I've only met one composer in a CD shop too, but that was because he works there. :laugh:

Quote from: karlhenning on January 11, 2016, 09:30:21 AM
I'm glad I managed not to prove exceptional, there  8)

Hah! You weren't even close to exceptional--not in that regard, anyway. In other regards, sure!!

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 12:47:25 PM
It's only five hours when James Levine conducts it ... Get the Boulez and it's only three..... I feel Wagner was very tired by the time he wrote it,...

Alas, that's one of the recordings I have, the other is in that 30-disc set we (almost all, I suspect) bought a while ago.
I get tired thinking about it, but maybe it will go with some medication while I get rid of this cold.

I've managed to avoid...Prokofiev's operas, Gluck's operas, Handel's operas and oratorios except Messiah, most of Mozart's chamber music (I think I did hear some quartets here and there, but can't remember),  most solo piano music by Rachmaninov, most cantatas by Bach (but who has heard most of them, really),everything by Babbit, Palestrina, Boccherini, Donizetti and Bellini...

Quote from: Chronochromie on January 11, 2016, 03:23:20 PM
I've managed to avoid...Prokofiev's operas, Gluck's operas, Handel's operas and oratorios except Messiah, most of Mozart's chamber music (I think I did hear some quartets here and there, but can't remember),  most solo piano music by Rachmaninov, most cantatas by Bach (but who has heard most of them, really),everything by Babbit, Palestrina, Boccherini, Donizetti and Bellini...

Funny, Prokofiev's Betrothal in a Monastery is one of the few opera videos I've enjoyed from beginning to end (I suppose it doesn't hurt that it features a very young and fetching Netrebko.). War and Peace has very good music, but there's no way it could ever be more than a gloss on such a huge book. 

Gluck arias are entertaining, but I've never heard a whole Gluck opera.  I don't listen to opera much at all, because I find following with a libretto tiresome, but I don't like ignoring the meaning, either.

I like some of Handel's theater works in English, e.g. Semele and Solomon.

I'm quite content with a smattering of Bach cantatas.  Never regret hearing one.

Babbitt is pretty easy to avoid, but who's to say I wouldn't love it.  Never trust the common opinion of music that got caught up in the culture wars. 

Palestrina...don't like a cappella choral music.

Boccherini I love, but I don't try to collect everything, there's too much that's merely pleasant.

Quote from: Rons_talking on October 30, 2015, 10:57:21 AM
If I've heard Beethoven's 2nd I don't recall it.

You'll love it!

Quote
No Schubert in my collection.

That's like saying you have no music in your music collection!

Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 04:45:46 AM
With Mendelssohn, chamber music really could be the best introduction. The piano trios, string quartets, sextet, and octet are all first-rate stuff. Of course, there's some great orchestral music too, but I don't seem to listen to it as much as the other stuff these days.

Mendelssohn also wrote the occasional great work for piano, if you're into that. Top of my list: the six preludes and fugues, Op. 35.

While in general I agree with this, not just for Mendelssohn but for many composers, my own introduction to Mendelssohn was a disk with the violin concerto (which genre I was infatuated with at the beginning) which also contained the 2 piano concertos. Serkin and Ormandy/Philly. Boy was I hooked, not only on Mendelssohn but on piano concertos too. IMO, Mendelssohn is one of those composers who repays your interest 100X over. Don't manage to avoid it forever!  :)

8)

I haven't listened very much to most of the British composers. I inherited a large CD collection over 20 years ago which included Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Delius, and others, but I ended up selling them or giving them away. The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers. I realized at some point I really wasn't able to distinguish one from another, and I had so many CDs all of a sudden, I figured I'd let them go to a more appreciative audience.

Quote from: Jay F on January 11, 2016, 06:01:39 PM
I haven't listened very much to most of the British composers. I inherited a large CD collection over 20 years ago which included Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Delius, and others, but I ended up selling them or giving them away. The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers. I realized at some point I really wasn't able to distinguish one from another, and I had so many CDs all of a sudden, I figured I'd let them go to a more appreciative audience.

This really should be in the 'Unpopular Opinion' thread, because the comment "The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers," really is discouraging to read and makes me question how much time you actually spent with any of these composers' music. If you think Elgar, Delius, Britten, or Vaughan Williams sound alike, then I also question your ability to distinguish any composer of any nationality apart from the other.

P.S. This post is not meant to spark a negative reaction and I apologize if you take this the wrong way. I'm just baffled by your post.

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 06:20:47 PM
This really should be in the 'Unpopular Opinion' thread, because the comment "The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers," really is discouraging to read and makes me question how much time you actually spent with any of these composers' music. If you think Elgar, Delius, Britten, or Vaughan Williams sound alike, then I also question your ability to distinguish any composer of any nationality apart from the other.

A friend of mine calls England "Das Land ohne Musik."

Quote from: Jay F on January 11, 2016, 06:01:39 PM
I haven't listened very much to most of the British composers. I inherited a large CD collection over 20 years ago which included Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Delius, and others, but I ended up selling them or giving them away. The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers. I realized at some point I really wasn't able to distinguish one from another, and I had so many CDs all of a sudden, I figured I'd let them go to a more appreciative audience.

I bet many of us did crazy things 20 years ago...

Quote from: Chronochromie on January 11, 2016, 03:23:20 PM
most cantatas by Bach (but who has heard most of them, really)

I beg your pardon. Some years ago I embarked on a project to hear all the cantatas, 60 CDs from Harnoncourt/Leonhardt box. A most enlightening experience. I admit I haven't tried to go through all the secular cantatas . . .

Quote from: Jay F on January 11, 2016, 06:01:39 PM
I haven't listened very much to most of the British composers. I inherited a large CD collection over 20 years ago which included Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Delius, and others, but I ended up selling them or giving them away. The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers. I realized at some point I really wasn't able to distinguish one from another, and I had so many CDs all of a sudden, I figured I'd let them go to a more appreciative audience.

I think Ferneyhough and Purcell sound rather different 8)

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 06:20:47 PM
This really should be in the 'Unpopular Opinion' thread, because the comment "The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers," really is discouraging to read and makes me question how much time you actually spent with any of these composers' music. If you think Elgar, Delius, Britten, or Vaughan Williams sound alike, then I also question your ability to distinguish any composer of any nationality apart from the other.

P.S. This post is not meant to spark a negative reaction and I apologize if you take this the wrong way. I'm just baffled by your post.

The topic is simply "music you're managed to avoid." This is my answer.

Thankfully, it was so long ago, I can't really answer any of your questions, ability questioner slash non-negative-reaction sparker. Stay baffled. You wear it well. I'm going to go listen to Mahler now. Bye.

Quote from: Daverz on January 11, 2016, 06:29:39 PM
A friend of mine calls England "Das Land ohne Musik."

That was first said some 100 years ago by a German critic, Oscar Adolf Hermann Schmitz, who felt that "nothing on earth is more terrible than English music, except English painting." You'd have to have a heart of stone not to find that extremely funny, but if there's any music I try to avoid, it's modern British. Bring down your howls of derision, but (exceptions here and there) I really can't abide most of Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, Delius, Tippett, or Britten. Now English literature is a whole different story . . . .

Quote from: Jay F on January 11, 2016, 07:05:34 PM
The topic is simply "music you're managed to avoid." This is my answer.

Thankfully, it was so long ago, I can't really answer any of your questions, ability questioner slash non-negative-reaction sparker. Stay baffled. You wear it well. I'm going to go listen to Mahler now. Bye.

(http://41.media.tumblr.com/2a344693628ea8f87fc3e6b137feee33/tumblr_inline_nwtqfcwctD1qav9fp_1280.jpg)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 06:35:41 PM
I beg your pardon. Some years ago I embarked on a project to hear all the cantatas, 60 CDs from Harnoncourt/Leonhardt box. A most enlightening experience. I admit I haven't tried to go through all the secular cantatas . . .

I knew there would be someone!  :laugh:

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:11:30 PM
I try to avoid, it's modern British. Bring down your howls of derision, but (exceptions here and there) I really can't abide most of Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, Delius, Tippett, or Britten. Now English literature is a whole different story . . . .

I'm sure those composers share much DNA, but to mix metaphors, that's a big sloppy brush you're painting with.

To clarify, the topic of this thread was not about music you heard and didn't like, or music you intentionally ignored because you didn't like the composer/style/whatever, or about whether "masterpieces" are a thing and whether one "should" listen to anything; it is specifically about famous pieces of music (or whatever) that you did not listen to, or even perhaps hear of, for a long time relative to the amount of time you have spent listening to classical music. So not "I never listened to Scheherazade because I can't stand Rimsky-Korsakov" (or even "I listened to the first 10 minutes of Scheherazade but got distracted/bored/whatever") more "I never listened to Scheherazade because I overlooked it, thought I'd heard it already, lost the CD, didn't know the piece existed until five minutes ago, or just never got around to it for whatever other reason".

Quote from: Jay F on January 11, 2016, 06:01:39 PM
I haven't listened very much to most of the British composers. I inherited a large CD collection over 20 years ago which included Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Delius, and others, but I ended up selling them or giving them away. The British composers sounded to me like all the other British composers. I realized at some point I really wasn't able to distinguish one from another, and I had so many CDs all of a sudden, I figured I'd let them go to a more appreciative audience.

Lol. This really does best suit the "Unpopular Opinions" thread....
"British composers sound like all other British Composers."

I can well distinguish between them, while there is that comment on "all those" you've mentioned, including especially the late romantic and early to mid-twentieth century British composers -- by another British composer, Elisabeth Lutyens.

She lumped that lot altogether and called the genre "Cowpat Music."

Now, there is a truly British-style all-inclusive dismissal  :)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 11, 2016, 04:48:35 PM
While in general I agree with this, not just for Mendelssohn but for many composers, my own introduction to Mendelssohn was a disk with the violin concerto (which genre I was infatuated with at the beginning) which also contained the 2 piano concertos. Serkin and Ormandy/Philly. Boy was I hooked, not only on Mendelssohn but on piano concertos too. IMO, Mendelssohn is one of those composers who repays your interest 100X over. Don't manage to avoid it forever!  :)

8)

Very Nearly Thread Duty:

In fact, I had somehow managed to avoid the Mendelssohn pf concerti for (say) four decades;  but once I heard 'em, I loved 'em.  (The vn cto, of course, was an immediate hit.)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:11:30 PM
That was first said some 100 years ago by a German critic, Oscar Adolf Hermann Schmitz, who felt that "nothing on earth is more terrible than English music, except English painting." You'd have to have a heart of stone not to find that extremely funny, but if there's any music I try to avoid, it's modern British. Bring down your howls of derision, but (exceptions here and there) I really can't abide most of Vaughan-Williams, Elgar, Delius, Tippett, or Britten. Now English literature is a whole different story . . . .

There may therefore be a Britten piece you can endure! I am curious . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 01:28:44 AM
Very Nearly Thread Duty:

In fact, I had somehow managed to avoid the Mendelssohn pf concerti for (say) four decades;  but once I heard 'em, I loved 'em.  (The vn cto, of course, was an immediate hit.)

I once heard a famous Romanian pianist, with an excellent technique but a rather limited repertoire and who has long since disappear from concert stage, declaring Mendelssohn´s piano concertos to be idiotic. I have never understood what he meant by that or why he felt the need to say that.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:11:30 PM
That was first said some 100 years ago by a German critic, Oscar Adolf Hermann Schmitz, who felt that "nothing on earth is more terrible than English music, except English painting."

I think Turner proved him wrong.

The ignorant comments about British music makes me want to avoid this thread.  ::)

Really, a lot of the time I spend on internet discussion boards I feel sick reading what people say.

I feel sick when religious people call atheists bad people without moral.
I feel sick when people call the Star Wars Prequels crap.
I feel sick when scientific things like climate change and evolution are denied.
I feel sick when Elgar's music is called bombastic.
I feel sick when People say they hate Kesha without realising who and how talented she really is.

This list goes on and on. The changes to avoid these comments is practically zero. Avoiding the interned means peace of mind.

Ignorance and hate everywhere. How did people express those feelings before the internet? Did the internet create all this hate?

I avoided Ives. Then about 2 weeks ago I decided to stop ignoring his music and I found out I actually dig it. Once again it was me who was stupid and ignorant. Now I am hopefully a bit wiser.

Quote from: The new erato on January 12, 2016, 02:01:50 AM
I think Turner proved him wrong.

Well, and since (if (poco) sfz's chronology be correct) he made the remark after Turner, ignorance can be his only excuse.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 01:28:44 AM
Very Nearly Thread Duty:

In fact, I had somehow managed to avoid the Mendelssohn pf concerti for (say) four decades;  but once I heard 'em, I loved 'em.  (The vn cto, of course, was an immediate hit.)

I don't think I have heard Mendelssohn's Piano Concertos. I like Mendelssohn, but there is no time (and money) for everything.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 02:10:03 AM
The ignorant comments about British music makes me want to avoid this thread.  ::)

Really, a lot of the time I spend on internet discussion boards I feel sick reading what people say.

I feel sick when religious people call atheists bad people without moral.
I feel sick when people call the Star Wars Prequels crap.
I feel sick when scientific things like climate change and evolution are denied.
I feel sick when Elgar's music is called bombastic.
I feel sick when People say they hate Kesha without realising who and how talented she really is.

This list goes on and on. The changes to avoid these comments is practically zero. Avoiding the interned means peace of mind.

Ignorance and hate everywhere. How did people express those feelings before the internet? Did the internet create all this hate?

I avoided Ives. Then about 2 weeks ago I decided to stop ignoring his music and I found out I actually dig it. Once again it was me who was stupid and ignorant. Now I am hopefully a bit wiser.

Ah, well: another rant.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 02:19:11 AM
I don't think I have heard Mendelssohn's Piano Concertos. I like Mendelssohn, but there is no time (and money) for everything.

Well, you're here rationalizing your avoidance. The pf cti fit on a single disc, so the cost (whether in time or treasure) is minimal; and you are already a fan of the composer.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 02:19:11 AM
I don't think I have heard Mendelssohn's Piano Concertos. I like Mendelssohn, but there is no time (and money) for everything.

Youtube has both of them for free, including the famous Serkin / Ormandy version and an (almost) equally stunning one from Yuja Wang and Kurt Masur.  :D

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 02:19:11 AM
I don't think I have heard Mendelssohn's Piano Concertos. I like Mendelssohn, but there is no time (and money) for everything.

Mendelssohn himself apparently did not think highly of those concertos, called them merely light fluff or so. But then he was very self-critical (did not allow publication of the 5th symphony during his lifetime) and they are brilliant and entertaining pieces although not as important as the 3rd and 4th symphonies, the violin concerto, the trios, octet or the a minor and f minor quartets.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 02:23:02 AM
Well, you're here rationalizing your avoidance. The pf cti fit on a single disc, so the cost (whether in time or treasure) is minimal; and you are already a fan of the composer.

Time is bigger problem. I can't listen to Mendelssohn NOW, because NOW I am listening to Ives!

Mendelssohn works I do have:
- Violin Sonatas
- Cello Sonatas
- String Quartets
- Paulus
- String Symphonies Nos. 10-13
- Octet
- Violin Concerto

Quote from: The new erato on January 12, 2016, 02:01:50 AM
I think Turner proved him wrong.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 02:18:52 AM
Well, and since (if (poco) sfz's chronology be correct) he made the remark after Turner, ignorance can be his only excuse.

And Constable, but before both of them Gainsborough. Afterwards, Pre-Raphaelites, Grimshaw & others. But the remark is quite probably pure cultural chauvinism, or a reaction to  something his aesthetic didn't agree with.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:11:30 PM
That was first said some 100 years ago by a German critic, Oscar Adolf Hermann Schmitz, who felt that "nothing on earth is more terrible than English music, except English painting."

From what I know about European culture of the (late) Victorian age, that critic was not totally off (re music, I don't really understand what should be lacking in 19th century Briish painting). And not only with respect to obviously "great composers" but the musical culture in general. German and Austrian culture, down the petit bourgeoise was really immersed in classical music (often including avantgarde of the day, like Wagner). Whereas in Britain "music lover" supposedly was a euphemism? for a gay man...

Tovey has scathing remarks in his essays about musical life in Britain in the early 1900s and a novel like Forster's "Howard's End" depicts most of the British upper class as fairly ignorant with respect to music/ "high culture" (maybe exaggerating to prove a point).

Quote from: North Star on January 12, 2016, 02:45:49 AM
And Constable, but before both of them Gainsborough. Afterwards, Pre-Raphaelites, Grimshaw & others. But the remark is quite probably pure cultural chauvinism, or a reaction to  something his aesthetic didn't agree with.

Yes, indeed.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 02:10:03 AM
I feel sick when religious people call atheists bad people without moral.
I feel sick when people call the Star Wars Prequels crap.
I feel sick when scientific things like climate change and evolution are denied.
I feel sick when Elgar's music is called bombastic.
I feel sick when People say they hate Kesha without realising who and how talented she really is.

Have you seen your doctor? Personally, I feel sick when I hear Elgar's bombastic music.

I declared The Phantom Menace to be crap just yesterday. This is not exactly a minority opinion.

I took the liberty to completely ignore all latter day Star Wars movies. I do not even care enough about that stuff to ever watch to be able to call it crap with a clean conscience ;)
It's unfortunate enough that with watching a little TV and surfing the internet one is inundated with current popular culture I'd rather ignore completely.
(FWIW I probably do not care enough about the "original trilogy" either to ever watch it again.)

Fauré gets a couple of mentions above, and I don't know anything either, apart from the Requiem and the Cantique de Jean Racine.  In fact, don't know anything about any of those late French romantics - Chausson, d'Indy, Chabrier, Gounod...  I tried to remedy this by ordering Brilliant's Fauré edition from Amazon last year at SDCB price, but 6 months on it's still out of stock.  Perhaps I'm not meant to know Fauré.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 02:10:03 AM

I feel sick when people call the Star Wars Prequels crap.

Ones priorities are one's own. Me: I wish I could have that prequel time back so I could listen to some more Mendelssohn. :-)

Fauré wrote some of the best chamber music of the time; actually any lover of chamber music should try it. I do not know the piano music well enough and found what I heard of the orchestral music comparably minor, but the piano quartets/quintets, violin + cello sonatas and the late string quartet are all remarkable pieces.

Chausson has a nice symphony, almost as good as Franck's (and not played to death) and some worthwhile chamber music as well, most famous maybe the haunting "concert" for piano, violin and string quartet.

(Gounod and Chabrier are mainly "opera", so I cannot comment on them.)

Because the "British bias" was mentioned elsewhere: It cannot be denied that British labels and musicians really care for their tradition.
Fauré, Chausson, even Magnard or Roussel are IMO usually superior to most late romantic British composers (I will not name names) but only a few of their pieces are as well known or as often recorded.

And there are Reger and Pfitzner, not even popular in Germany (except for Pfitzner's opera "Palestrina" and some organ and choral stuff by Reger). They can be tough nuts (and Pfitzner was a despicable person, an antisemite and conservative nationalist who was so contrarian and headstrong that despite his attitudes he fell out with the Nazis) but they also wrote some remarkable music.
Reger was highly regarded both by the Schönberg circle and also by the Busch brothers; Rudolf and Peter Serkin have been among the few champions of his music.

Quote from: DaveF on January 12, 2016, 03:24:21 AM
Perhaps I'm not meant to know Fauré.

No god would be so cruel as to deny you this knowledge.

I do occasionally find it bizarre and amusing that everyone always says "well, I know the Requiem"... and I own about 80% of Faure's output but not the Requiem.

Quote from: Jo498 on January 12, 2016, 03:14:57 AM
(FWIW I probably do not care enough about the "original trilogy" either to ever watch it again.)

We share that (potentially unpopular) opinion  8)

Quote from: Jo498 on January 12, 2016, 03:14:57 AM
(FWIW I probably do not care enough about the "original trilogy" either to ever watch it again.)

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:40:43 AM
We share that (potentially unpopular) opinion  8)

Huzzah for us!

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 03:40:22 AM
I do occasionally find it bizarre and amusing that everyone always says "well, I know the Requiem"... and I own about 80% of Faure's output but not the Requiem.

But you have heard it, yes?

When I first arrived at the College of Wooster for Freshman Orientation, one of the events was a performance of the Fauré Requiem by the Wooster Chorus.  It was on many levels a richly magical occasion:  I felt more excitement than uncertainty about being in this new and unusual environment of a liberal arts college;  I was already a bit of an outsider, as I was three years older than the great majority of my fellow freshmen;  the Woo Cho have always been a fine musical outfit, and that performance ranked very high among the best choral performances I had as yet experienced in person;  and the work itself is (of course) exquisite.  So if I have special emotional attachment to the Requiem, I refuse to consider that anything of an embarrassment.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 03:40:22 AM
No god would be so cruel as to deny you this knowledge.

I do occasionally find it bizarre and amusing that everyone always says "well, I know the Requiem"... and I own about 80% of Faure's output but not the Requiem.

I also heard the Requiem much later than all of his chamber music (and some other stuff) and don't much care for the piece. But the piano quartets and quintets are among the best pieces for that combination. Anyone who likes chamber music by Brahms, Franck, Ravel, Debussy should try them.

Also overlooked except for a handful of pieces (3rd violin concerto, Organ symphony, 2nd piano concerto etc.) is Saint-Saens who is usually deemed a slick classicist. To some extent he is but there is very worthwhile chamber music by him as well.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:46:24 AM
But you have heard it, yes?

When I first arrived at the College of Wooster for Freshman Orientation, one of the events was a performance of the Fauré Requiem by the Wooster Chorus.  It was on many levels a richly magical occasion:  I felt more excitement than uncertainty about being in this new and unusual environment of a liberal arts college;  I was already a bit of an outsider, as I was three years older than the great majority of my fellow freshmen;  the Woo Cho have always been a fine musical outfit, and that performance ranked very high among the best choral performances I had as yet experienced in person;  and the work itself is (of course) exquisite.  So if I have special emotional attachment to the Requiem, I refuse to consider that anything of an embarrassment.

Wait a minute, are you telling us that extramusical associations made you enjoy it all the more and are the reason for a special emotional attachment to it?  :D :D :D

Except for In Paradisum, I have never heard it in ist entirety. Go figure...  ???

Fauré's chamber works, solo piano works and songs all contain exquisite music, and the Requiem is a beauty as well, despite of its popularity...

Saint-Saëns lived long enough to become old-fashioned, but e.g. the Bacchanale from Samson et Dalila is hardly that.

Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 03:52:00 AM
Wait a minute, are you telling us that extramusical associations made you enjoy it all the more and are the reason for a special emotional attachment to it?  :D :D :D

The extramusical associations do vie with the apparent intent of the composer:  it does not at all feel like a Requiem to me.  Of course, there is an aspect of Fauré's writing it as "an anti-Requiem";  but my associations make it a concert piece, rather than any religious consolation.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:55:50 AM
The extramusical associations do vie with the apparent intent of the composer:  it does not at all feel like a Requiem to me. 

i have the same feeling about Victoria´s Officium Defunctorum. It is so serene, so delicate and so ecstatic as to openly defy the mere idea of death. Or maybe that was exactly what Victoria meant? And is it a mere coincidence that both Victoria and Faure omit Dies Irae?

Perhaps a coincidence.  In the case of de Victoria, he may not have composed a choral setting, on the understanding that the plainchant of the Dies irae sequence would be sung.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 04:03:18 AM
Perhaps a coincidence.  In the case of de Victoria, he may not have composed a choral setting, on the understanding that the plainchant of the Dies irae sequence would be sung.

Perhaps. But if I hadn´t known it was a Requiem, and if I hadn´t understood Latin, I would have hardly guessed it was indeed a Requiem. Actually, exactly because I was expecting a Requiem I was surprised big time --- and pleasantly, for that matter.

Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 04:06:21 AM
Perhaps. But if I hadn´t known it was a Requiem, and if I hadn´t understood Latin, I would have hardly guessed it was indeed a Requiem. Actually, exactly because I was expecting a Requiem I was surprised big time --- and pleasantly, for that matter.

Indeed. Exquisite!

Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 04:00:59 AM
i have the same feeling about Victoria´s Officium Defunctorum. It is so serene, so delicate and so ecstatic as to openly defy the mere idea of death. Or maybe that was exactly what Victoria meant? And is it a mere coincidence that both Victoria and Faure omit Dies Irae?

The Dies irae wasn't traditionally included in the requiem masses back in Victoria's time. Juvenis (1490) and Brumel (1516) were the first settings including it, and it became gradually more common, so Victoria's omitting it is not at all remarkable.

Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 04:06:21 AM
Perhaps. But if I hadn´t known it was a Requiem, and if I hadn´t understood Latin, I would have hardly guessed it was indeed a Requiem. Actually, exactly because I was expecting a Requiem I was surprised big time --- and pleasantly, for that matter.

Yes, the Fauré is certainly very different from e.g. the Verdi andMozart Requiems, an altogether more jovial account.

Quote from: Jo498 on January 12, 2016, 03:38:32 AM
Fauré wrote some of the best chamber music of the time; actually any lover of chamber music should try it. I do not know the piano music well enough and found what I heard of the orchestral music comparably minor, but the piano quartets/quintets, violin + cello sonatas and the late string quartet are all remarkable pieces.

Yes, yes, so everyone says, which was why I ordered the Fauré edition box - in August.  Every few months Amazon e-mail me inviting me to cancel my order (I think they want me to go away and stop bothering them, especially as I got it for £14), but I'm hangin' on in there.  Visiting a friend recently, I mentioned this situation, and he said, "Oh, I've got that box, you can have it, it's mostly discs of Gérard Souzay singing flat" - but it had mysteriously vanished from his shelves.  Who says no conspiracy?

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 03:03:15 AM
I declared The Phantom Menace to be crap just yesterday. This is not exactly a minority opinion.

You not enjoying movies I do is not away from me. If anything, it's away from you.

There's tons of movies I consider crap. Why bother mentioning them? I gain nothing doing so.

Quote from: North Star on January 12, 2016, 04:11:40 AM
The Dies irae wasn't traditionally included in the requiem masses back in Victoria's time. Juvenis (1490) and Brumel (1516) were the first settings including it, and it became gradually more common, so Victoria's omitting it is not at all remarkable.

AFAIK, the Requiem was standardized by the Council of Trent (ended 1563), 40 years before Victoria´s composing his own. It´s obvious though that Dies Irae was not mandatory even after that date, as Victoria composed the Requiem for a very official funeral and the Spanish court´s strict ceremonial rules would not have had anything irregular for that.

Quote from: North Star on January 12, 2016, 04:11:40 AM
The Dies irae wasn't traditionally included in the requiem masses back in Victoria's time. Juvenis (1490) and Brumel (1516) were the first settings including it, and it became gradually more common, so Victoria's omitting it is not at all remarkable.

Thank you.

Quote from: amw on January 11, 2016, 08:25:52 PM
To clarify, the topic of this thread was not about music you heard and didn't like, or music you intentionally ignored because you didn't like the composer/style/whatever, or about whether "masterpieces" are a thing and whether one "should" listen to anything; it is specifically about famous pieces of music (or whatever) that you did not listen to, or even perhaps hear of, for a long time relative to the amount of time you have spent listening to classical music. So not "I never listened to Scheherazade because I can't stand Rimsky-Korsakov" (or even "I listened to the first 10 minutes of Scheherazade but got distracted/bored/whatever") more "I never listened to Scheherazade because I overlooked it, thought I'd heard it already, lost the CD, didn't know the piece existed until five minutes ago, or just never got around to it for whatever other reason".

Then you should have titled the thread "Music you've somehow missed." Avoidance is a conscious act.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 04:37:44 AM
Avoidance is a conscious act.

I thought about that myself when it  was started but I am not a native speaker of English so I concluded I might have missed some nuance.

Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 04:42:59 AM
I thought about that myself when it  was started but I am not a native speaker of English so I concluded I might have missed some nuance.

Nuances you've somehow managed to avoid.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 04:42:59 AM
I thought about that myself when it  was started but I am not a native speaker of English so I concluded I might have missed some nuance.

"Somehow managed to avoid" does shade the deliberation. It is perhaps a bit of a colloquial oxymoron.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:46:24 AM
But you have heard it, yes?

I can't swear to having heard more than a snippet.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 04:13:43 AM
You not enjoying movies I do is not away from me. If anything, it's away from you.

There's tons of movies I consider crap. Why bother mentioning them? I gain nothing doing so.

Really?

The person you tell may well gain a couple of hours of time to do something more enjoyable. Declaring the Phantom Menace crap was in the context of a conversation with a colleague who had never seen it, and whose husband had advised her to start with Episode II. We were basically assuring her that she hadn't missed anything.

People want to know other people's opinions. People sometimes explicitly ask for them. And people like expressing them. There's another thread running at the moment about whether critics are of any use. To me, they're only of use if they're able to give both good and bad opinions, and any world where only good opinions are permitted to be expressed ends up turning into fakery where no-one is allowed to point out anything that is genuinely bad or wrong.

You are perfectly free to watch The Phantom Menace to your heart's content, but there's no rational reason why the rest of the world should thereby be censored from saying that they found it to be disappointing and from advising other people that they're statistically unlikely to enjoy it. Because most people don't.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AM
any world where only good opinions are permitted to be expressed ends up turning into fakery where no-one is allowed to point out anything that is genuinely bad or wrong.

Amen, brother!

Like out-of-tune winds, and lousy brass tone! YES!

I've listened to only minimal amounts of Philip Glass, Terry Riley, and Steve Reich. 

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 04:47:47 AM
"Somehow managed to avoid" does shade the deliberation. It is perhaps a bit of a colloquial oxymoron.

I would say I've somehow missed the music of Tubin, who sounds potentially interesting. A few years back, I would say I'd somehow missed the music of Braga-Santos. Now that I've actually heard some of Braga-Santos, I would say he is a composer I intend to avoid.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 05:30:56 AM
Like out-of-tune winds, and lousy brass tone! YES!

Except, of course, if they were specifically called for in the score.

Pop music has its share of happy accidents that happen in the recording process, I was just reading about one of them a few minutes ago. And I can think of at least 2 instances of thinking something was an intended feature and being disappointed that it was actually a glitch in my copy. But classical music tends rather more to the idea that one must get the music "right".

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AMReally?

Yes, really!

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AMThe person you tell may well gain a couple of hours of time to do something more enjoyable.

Or the person may miss a movie he/she would have enjoyed. We never know. Pure speculation. Whenever I see a movie I think is crap I try to forget about it and move on with my life instead of moaning about how bad the movie is for years. People are still moaning about Jar Jar 16 years later! Come on! Jar Jar must be one of greatest movie characters ever judging from how much people love to hate him.  0:)

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AMDeclaring the Phantom Menace crap was in the context of a conversation with a colleague who had never seen it, and whose husband had advised her to start with Episode II. We were basically assuring her that she hadn't missed anything.

It's not my business where she starts. I don't care.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AMPeople want to know other people's opinions.

Well, my opinion is most people don't understand Lucas' art. If you find Jar Jar an annoying character instead of a funny one, you watch the movie with a wrong attitude/mindset. It's not Lucas' fault you are watching something outside your taste. Better watch movies your taste/mindset is better suited for. There you have my opinion.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AMPeople sometimes explicitly ask for them. And people like expressing them. There's another thread running at the moment about whether critics are of any use. To me, they're only of use if they're able to give both good and bad opinions, and any world where only good opinions are permitted to be expressed ends up turning into fakery where no-one is allowed to point out anything that is genuinely bad or wrong.

To me (movie) critics are completely useless.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AMYou are perfectly free to watch The Phantom Menace to your heart's content,

Damn right I am and I do. Last time I watched it on Blu-ray was about 3 weeks ago.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:13:41 AMbut there's no rational reason why the rest of the world should thereby be censored from saying that they found it to be disappointing and from advising other people that they're statistically unlikely to enjoy it. Because most people don't.

I don't mean anyone should be sensored and believe or not many enjoy the Prequels a lot or at least find them ok.

http://swprequelframes.tumblr.com/ (http://swprequelframes.tumblr.com/)

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 08:17:32 AM
To me (movie) critics are completely useless.

Read comments on David Hurwitz Ass thread.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 08:17:32 AM
Or the person may miss a movie he/she would have enjoyed. We never know. Pure speculation. Whenever I see a movie I think is crap I try to forget about it and move on with my life instead of moaning about how bad the movie is for years. People are still moaning about Jar Jar 16 years later! Come on! Jar Jar must be one of greatest movie characters ever judging from how much people love to hate him.  0:)

Why are you assuming I last saw the movie 16 years ago? It was 3 months ago.

Quote
It's not my business where she starts. I don't care.

Well she's my colleague and friend, not yours, and she asked a question, so what is she going to think if I just say "it's not my business, I don't care". A declaration from the other side of the globe that you don't care is pointless and a little petulant. This is not all about you, though you're trying very hard to make it so.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 12:48:05 PM
Why are you assuming I last saw the movie 16 years ago? It was 3 months ago.

I was talking about people who have been moaning about Jar Jar for 16 years.
Why did you watch it 3 months ago if you have known for 16 years you don't like it?

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 12:48:05 PMWell she's my colleague and friend, not yours, and she asked a question, so what is she going to think if I just say "it's not my business, I don't care". A declaration from the other side of the globe that you don't care is pointless and a little petulant. This is not all about you, though you're trying very hard to make it so.

You did what you saw was the right thing to do, off course. Not sure what you tried to say with the story...

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 01:11:26 PM
I was talking about people who have been moaning about Jar Jar for 16 years.

I've only been moaning about JJ for 15 years. Does that exonerate me?

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
I've only been moaning about JJ for 15 years. Does that exonerate me?

The moaning becomes tiresome waste of time after the first week of so. 15 years is just as bad as 16 or 150 years.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 01:11:26 PM
Why did you watch it 3 months ago if you have known for 16 years you don't like it?

I watched it 3 months ago because all 6 existing episodes were on television over 6 weekends, in sequence.

As for knowing for 16 years I don't like it... see, you are projecting this notion that everybody else thinks constantly about the Stars Wars movies. I saw it... well, I think it was shortly after it came out because of the circumstances that I can recall. I didn't like it. That doesn't mean that I've burned the memory into my brain or that I remembered the whole movie or that I wasn't willing to give it another go.

You apparently believe that I must hate the movie with a burning passion and zealotry and with a closed mind and have been stewing about it all these years. I've no idea where you got any of these notions from. I rewatched it perfectly willing to enjoy myself, but the fact is I didn't. Just because I don't buy into your apparent Lucas hagiography doesn't mean that I spend my time writing screeds about it. The last few months is probably the first time I've thought much about Star Wars in a decade.

As for the notion that I had "better watch movies [my] taste/mindset is better suited for"... well, how am I supposed to know which ones those are if no-one ever tells me their opinion of a movie they've seen? And movie critics are valueless?

See? You've just told me that I should find out about movies before seeing them, so that they align with my tastes, after spending all this time arguing how bad it is for anyone to express their opinion about a movie they've seen unless it's a good opinion. Which means all anyone hears is good opinions, which means there's no way to distinguish between films.

You can't have it both ways - either people must form their own opinion about each movie (only achievable by watching it), in which case it makes no sense to tell me to pick and choose before watching, or there is validity to letting other people know what you thought of a movie and thereby helping to guide their choices about what to watch.

Also, apparently my taste/mindset is fairly well suited for some movies that a bloke named George Lucas made. There's one called The Empire Strikes Back that I particular enjoyed, but a few of the others were also pretty good.

The problem with your original red-inked complaint is that you confuse several different kinds of negative opinion. You confuse unfair generalisations with specific dislikes, and you confuse subjective opinions with denial of facts. You also confuse negative opinion stemming from actual experience with avoidance. All of these are lumped together in your post.

I have enjoyed the first Star Wars episodes big time when I was a child. It´s been years decades since I have not cared for, nor thought about, them.

Nowadays, a good friend of mine insists that we go see the latest installment --- and the sole reason I will eventually and surely acquiesce is to experience it in 3-D. I couldn´t care less for the action.  ;D ;D ;D

To me, all Star Wars is equally enjoyable. I love them all the same, and that's about as much as the majority of opinions of episode I. 8)

Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2016, 01:11:26 PM
I was talking about people who have been moaning about Jar Jar for 16 years.

Well, your position is that Lucas is a supernal genius. And Jar Jar is a steaming turd of an artistic misstep.

Jar Jar Binks?

http://youtu.be/8yy3q9f84EA

Just sayin'

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 12, 2016, 08:16:25 PM
Jar Jar Binks?

http://youtu.be/8yy3q9f84EA

Just sayin'

A-yep, aka 'Hey, Mon,' to his friends.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:32:59 PM
I watched it 3 months ago because all 6 existing episodes were on television over 6 weekends, in sequence.

Do you watch movies you know you don't like just because they are on television? Talk about being enslaved by the magic box!

Or maybe you do enjoy the movies more than you are willing to admit yourself? Even that happens sometimes.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:32:59 PMAs for knowing for 16 years I don't like it... see, you are projecting this notion that everybody else thinks constantly about the Stars Wars movies. I saw it... well, I think it was shortly after it came out because of the circumstances that I can recall. I didn't like it. That doesn't mean that I've burned the memory into my brain or that I remembered the whole movie or that I wasn't willing to give it another go.

So now you have seen it twice? I don't know how many times I have seen The Phantom Menace. I saw it 4 times in the movie theatre in 1999 + once the 3D conversion in 2012. I have watched it several time also on DVD and Blu-ray. A dozen times perhaps?

I get that YOU didn't constantly think about the movie all these years, but there seems to be people who do moan about it constantly.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:32:59 PMYou apparently believe that I must hate the movie with a burning passion and zealotry and with a closed mind and have been stewing about it all these years.

Actually I don't believe that. You don't seem fanatic about it.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:32:59 PMI've no idea where you got any of these notions from. I rewatched it perfectly willing to enjoy myself, but the fact is I didn't. Just because I don't buy into your apparent Lucas hagiography doesn't mean that I spend my time writing screeds about it. The last few months is probably the first time I've thought much about Star Wars in a decade.

Okay.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:43:19 PM
As for the notion that I had "better watch movies [my] taste/mindset is better suited for"... well, how am I supposed to know which ones those are if no-one ever tells me their opinion of a movie they've seen? And movie critics are valueless?

Well, you have to see a movie to really know. Just as you need to taste food to know whether you like it or not. Watching a movie (for the first time) is a calculated risk to me. I love all Spielberg movies, so the statistical probability for liking the next one is about 100 %. I don't enjoy much the movies of Tarantino (except 'Jackie Brown', which I consider a good movie + parts of 'Pulp Fiction' work for me), so watching a new Tarantino movie is risky for me. The opinions of other people or movie critics are pretty valueless to me because the absolute value of the correlation to my own opinions is so small. Sometimes critics hate the movies I love, sometimes I share their opinion.

One of my friends once said movie critics have the most miserable profession: They must watch tons of movies they hate.  :-\

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:43:19 PMSee? You've just told me that I should find out about movies before seeing them, so that they align with my tastes, after spending all this time arguing how bad it is for anyone to express their opinion about a movie they've seen unless it's a good opinion. Which means all anyone hears is good opinions, which means there's no way to distinguish between films.

I try to figure out whether a movie is worth watching. Sometimes I watch a bad movie on purpose (on television). People are entitled to express negative opinions, but I wonder why they bother. I rather talk about movies I like. Some movies are perhaps bad for real, but most of the time we don't enjoy a particular movie because:

- Our taste in movies is too limited.
- Our attitude is wrong.
- Our expectations are wrong.
- We misunderstand the movie.
- Wrong focus group.

So, what's the point in calling movie X crap online (because I misunderstood the movie or my expectations were wrong etc.) making the fans of that movie angry? In a way a movie is "good enough" if there's at least one person enjoying it.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:43:19 PMYou can't have it both ways - either people must form their own opinion about each movie (only achievable by watching it), in which case it makes no sense to tell me to pick and choose before watching, or there is validity to letting other people know what you thought of a movie and thereby helping to guide their choices about what to watch.

Well, I have found my way and it seems to work. I may sample 10 minutes a movie on television and if it looks "promising", I may watch it next time it's on tv. I have favorite directors, whose movies work for me. I don't need help from others and often the help is only confusing, because people have so different tastes. I can't understand why some people hate Jar Jar. Well, actually I can understand how a really narrow-minded person could hate Jar Jar, but if you are an open-minded person, seeing the funny aspect of the character shouldn't be hard. For me it's like watching Laurel and Hardy. Who hates Laurel and Hardy?

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:43:19 PMAlso, apparently my taste/mindset is fairly well suited for some movies that a bloke named George Lucas made. There's one called The Empire Strikes Back that I particular enjoyed, but a few of the others were also pretty good.

Your taste/mindset is partially suited while my taste/mindset is perfectly suited. It's that simple.

Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:43:19 PMThe problem with your original red-inked complaint is that you confuse several different kinds of negative opinion. You confuse unfair generalisations with specific dislikes, and you confuse subjective opinions with denial of facts. You also confuse negative opinion stemming from actual experience with avoidance. All of these are lumped together in your post.

You can't deny that I feel sick when I read what people write online. It doesn't matter if I confuse things.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 06:33:14 PM

Well, your position is that Lucas is a supernal genius. And Jar Jar is a steaming turd of an artistic misstep.

Quote from: WikipediaJar Jar appears as a LEGO mini-figure in the Lego Star Wars video games. He also appears as an Angry Bird with a hook move in Angry Birds Star Wars II.[citation needed]

Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2016, 09:04:43 AM
Do you watch movies you know you don't like just because they are on television? Talk about being enslaved by the magic box!

Or maybe you do enjoy the movies more than you are willing to admit yourself? Even that happens sometimes.

Oh God. I give up. If I said I vowed never to watch it again, you'd say "you haven't given it a proper chance".

I've seen the movie twice. I didn't enjoy it either time, my problem isn't particularly with Jar Jar Binks despite the stereotyping of why people don't like the movie, it's because the entire human cast looks bored out of their wits and delivers their dialogue with about as much as enthusiasm as a recitation of local stock prices for miscellaneous vegetables.  And that's the last thing I'll say on the matter.

Vegetable stock pricing would be exciting compared to that script! Nay, it would be very genius!

"Senator! The rebels have raised the price of asparagus by 3 credits!"

"Dammit, they must be stopped!"

"These are not the broccoli crowns you're looking for."

"I find your lack of carrots disturbing."

I have a bad feeling about this thread.......

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 13, 2016, 06:32:24 PM
I have a bad feeling about this thread.......

Yes, I see a sign in the future:

(http://rentfitnessequipment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/out-of-order.png)

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 13, 2016, 06:56:22 PM
Yes, I see a sign in the future:

(http://rentfitnessequipment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/out-of-order.png)

Was that, or a variation of it ever spoken in Star Wars, Mirror Image? :P

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 13, 2016, 07:01:52 PM
Was that, or a variation of it ever spoken in Star Wars, Mirror Image? :P

For these intergalactic matters, you'll have to summon Yoda using The Force. ;) ;D

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 13, 2016, 07:14:12 PM
For these intergalactic matters, you'll have to summon Yoda using The Force. ;) ;D

Or as Yoda might say, "The Force you must use, Yoda to summon."

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 13, 2016, 06:32:24 PM
I have a bad feeling about this thread.......

The moment an OP is somehow written that it is or can be read as a negative... that is where it often goes.

Changing the heading of the OP to
"Music you know of but have not got around to listening to, yet..."
or some such is, I'm sure, more directly what was intended anyway.

If the thread title could be altered, I bet any further responses would re-rail what is now a relative derailment... just sayin'

We could have a thread on "opening posts you've avoided".

I do find the whole idea of "avoiding" music a bit odd, because most of what I listen to is something I've had to actively seek out. It's not as if I've sighted a piece of Phillip Glass marching down the street towards my door and I've had to pretend no one is home. I just don't go looking for opportunities to listen to it.

Quote from: Florestan on August 13, 2014, 12:43:30 AM
You must have started when you were in the womb, or even at the time of your conception.  ;D

I have 28 years of listening (started at 14) but I've never heard Wagner's Tetralogy, Bach's Goldberg Variations and Bruckner's Ninth, to name just a few.  :D

Nice one with the womb. I loved it.

"I'd rather stew a parsnip."

--"That can be arranged."

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 13, 2016, 07:27:22 PM
If the thread title could be altered, I bet any further responses would re-rail what is now a relative derailment... just sayin'

Thread should have been dead two years ago by rights and I honestly don't care to read it these days, but I'll take that under advisement.

Music [I've] somehow managed to avoid?  Up until five years ago, I might have replied "Bruckner";  but I have since taken care of that.

I am definitely avoiding the newest Star Wars movie.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 13, 2016, 07:22:41 PM
Or as Yoda might say, "The Force you must use, Yoda to summon."

:P

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 14, 2016, 03:00:59 AM
I am definitely avoiding the newest Star Wars movie.

It's very entertaining, but lacks the vision and creativity of George Lucas.

For a long time I overlooked Beethoven's Piano Sonatas.

I have never listened to Gurrelieder and Pelleas and Melisande, though from what I have heard / read about them they might be the only Schoenberg´s compositions right up my alley.  :D :D :D

Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2016, 04:20:15 AM
It's very entertaining, but lacks the vision and creativity of George Lucas.

My problem is that George Lucas's Star Wars movies also lack the vision and creativity of George Lucas.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 11, 2016, 08:51:47 PM
Lol. This really does best suit the "Unpopular Opinions" thread....
"British composers sound like all other British Composers."

I can well distinguish between them, while there is that comment on "all those" you've mentioned, including especially the late romantic and early to mid-twentieth century British composers -- by another British composer, Elisabeth Lutyens.

She lumped that lot altogether and called the genre "Cowpat Music."

Now, there is a truly British-style all-inclusive dismissal  :)

I can hardly disagree, though I wouldn't necessarily express my opinion in green. My problem, however, is that the one CD I have of Lutyens's music seems to me extremely dull, an accusation I wouldn't make even towards the symphonies of Elgar.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 14, 2016, 04:58:10 AM
My problem is that George Lucas's Star Wars movies also lack the vision and creativity of George Lucas.

It would suck to be you if that's true.  ::)

Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2016, 09:02:18 AM
It would suck to be you if that's true.  ::)

My dear fellow, you have found me out.

Blind to Lucas's supernal genius, it is as if the sun cannot shine for you (poco) sfz!

Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2016, 09:02:18 AM
It would suck to be you if that's true.  ::)

The loss of 6 films from the canon of several hundred thousand is indeed a mortal blow.

Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2016, 04:48:49 AM
I have never listened to Gurrelieder and Pelleas and Melisande, though from what I have heard / read about them they might be the only Schoenberg´s compositions right up my alley.  :D :D :D

The Piano and Violin Concertos might be too, if you're interested in his über-Romantic aesthetic. :)

Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2016, 04:39:07 AM
For a long time I overlooked Beethoven's Piano Sonatas.

I did not overlook them. I just didn't find any I liked that much, starting in 1987. Then I found Andras Schiff and Paul Lewis in 2005. Et voila...

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 14, 2016, 12:56:09 PM
The Piano and Violin Concertos might be too, if you're interested in his über-Romantic aesthetic. :)

I am! Thanks for the tip! Will investigate asap and report back.

Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2016, 01:08:38 PM
I am! Thanks for the tip! Will investigate asap and report back.

Those are both 12-tone works, and I think what Florestan is looking for is something more tonal. I would suggest Verklärte Nacht instead . . . .

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 14, 2016, 01:12:34 PM
Those are both 12-tone works, and I think what Florestan is looking for is something more tonal. I would suggest Verklärte Nacht instead . . . .

Agreed. And the song of the Wood-Dove from Gurrelieder. After that, the 5 Pieces for Orchestra Op. 16.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 14, 2016, 01:12:34 PM
Those are both 12-tone works, and I think what Florestan is looking for is something more tonal. I would suggest Verklärte Nacht instead . . . .

I have already listened to Verklarte Nacht. It´s not bad for a once-a-year-a-listening...  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2016, 01:27:45 PM
I have already listened to Verklarte Nacht. It´s not bad for a once-a-year-a-listening...  ;D

You might like the first Chamber Symphony, op. 9. It's with op. 11 that Schoenberg turns decidedly atonal.

Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2016, 01:27:45 PM
I have already listened to Verklarte Nacht. It´s not bad for a once-a-year-a-listening...  ;D

Once-a-year-listening. Sounds like how I consider Gliere's Third Symphony.  ;D

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 14, 2016, 01:39:55 PM
You might like the first Chamber Symphony, op. 9.

Will give it a try asap.

Quote from: Brian on January 14, 2016, 01:41:13 PM
Once-a-year-listening. Sounds like how I consider Gliere's Third Symphony.  ;D

Is it Ilya Muromets? I have heard it (IM symphony) live but hang me by the neck if I remember anything worth remebering...  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2016, 01:45:09 PM
Is it Ilya Muromets? I have heard it (IM symphony) live but hang me by the neck if I remember anything worth remebering...  ;D

Don't feel bad. Glière probably felt the same way.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 14, 2016, 02:24:02 PM
Don't feel bad. Glière probably felt the same way.

Naughty,naughty, mr.Sforz!...  :laugh:

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 14, 2016, 01:12:34 PM
Those are both 12-tone works, and I think what Florestan is looking for is something more tonal. I would suggest Verklärte Nacht instead . . . .

Oh? They sound very similar in style to all his other music to me. Perhaps his suite in G for strings then? Even the key is in the title.  :-\

Oh and his Bach and Brahms orchestrations. And the Concerto for String Quartet. And all of his choral music!

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 15, 2016, 02:17:03 AM
Oh? They sound very similar in style to all his other music to me. Perhaps his suite in G for strings then? Even the key is in the title.  :-\

Are you saying you hear no stylistic difference between the Gurrelieder and the Violin Concerto? The Gurrelieder could have been written by Richard Strauss. The Violin and Piano Concertos speak a very different language.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 15, 2016, 04:51:34 AM
Are you saying you hear no stylistic difference between the Gurrelieder and the Violin Concerto? The Gurrelieder could have been written by Richard Strauss. The Violin and Piano Concertos speak a very different language.

Well Schoenberg always just sounds like Schoenberg to me....the way every note works in relation to the other notes, the rhythms, the orchestrations and so on, that I can't really say any of his compositions could sound like they were written by anyone else. I can certainly understand why you would compare him to Strauss though, I find that all Schoenberg's music is written with a fiercely German Late Romantic sentiment.

All apart from the D major quartet which makes me think of Dvorak whenever I hear the opening! :laugh:

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 15, 2016, 05:58:54 AM
Well Schoenberg always just sounds like Schoenberg to me....

And always good.

Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 04:45:46 AM

Mendelssohn also wrote the occasional great work for piano, if you're into that. Top of my list: the six preludes and fugues, Op. 35.

Could you tell me, please, if there's a recommended recording of this?

I think I have a decent recording of op.35 on Naxos (Frith), but the most famous one in e minor has been recorded on several Mendelssohn recitals. The other famous (and very worthwhile) piece are the Variations serieuses (done by many famous pianists).

Oh yeah, I haven't heard any of Britten's and Janacek's operas.

Quote from: NikF on February 03, 2016, 11:00:16 PM
Could you tell me, please, if there's a recommended recording of this?

I have high hopes for Howard Shelley's brand-new Hyperion CD, but until then, yeah, Frith is good. I heard half the cycle performed live by Benjamin Grosvenor last summer, which was the first I'd ever heard them at all. Bowled over - hope he decides to record them.

Quote from: Brian on February 04, 2016, 09:09:52 AM
I have high hopes for Howard Shelley's brand-new Hyperion CD, but until then, yeah, Frith is good. I heard half the cycle performed live by Benjamin Grosvenor last summer, which was the first I'd ever heard them at all. Bowled over - hope he decides to record them.

I'm going to fetch in the Frith, I really like his CD of four-hands Stravinsky with Peter Hill.

Quote from: Chronochromie on February 04, 2016, 08:30:11 AM
Oh yeah, I haven't heard any of Britten's and Janacek's operas.

ALBERT HERRING

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 04, 2016, 11:18:27 AM
THE CUNNING LITTLE VIXEN

An excellent suggestion!  8) >:D

Quote from: Jo498 on February 03, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
I think I have a decent recording of op.35 on Naxos (Frith), but the most famous one in e minor has been recorded on several Mendelssohn recitals. The other famous (and very worthwhile) piece are the Variations serieuses (done by many famous pianists).

Quote from: Brian on February 04, 2016, 09:09:52 AM
I have high hopes for Howard Shelley's brand-new Hyperion CD, but until then, yeah, Frith is good. I heard half the cycle performed live by Benjamin Grosvenor last summer, which was the first I'd ever heard them at all. Bowled over - hope he decides to record them.

Jo498 and Brian, thank you.

Quote from: Chronochromie on February 04, 2016, 08:30:11 AM
Oh yeah, I haven't heard any of Britten's and Janacek's operas.

Same here.

Quote from: Chronochromie on February 04, 2016, 08:30:11 AM
Oh yeah, I haven't heard any of Britten's and Janacek's operas.

Peter Grimes is a wonder; though the story involves child-abuse so it's probably not receiving its due attention in recent decades. I grew up on the John Vickers recording...

Quote from: Rons_talking on February 05, 2016, 05:05:19 AM
Peter Grimes is a wonder; though the story involves child-abuse so it's probably not receiving its due attention in recent decades. I grew up on the John Vickers recording...

I thought the child abuse was alleged, ambiguous at best, and the tension is the townspeople's belief that child abuse was going on while that was not the case... rather the point of the libretto. Still, an uneasy subject in any time.

I'd add Billy Budd, an all-male cast [crew aboard a ship], originally composed as a radio opera, and Midsummer's Night Dream.

His amazing Curlew River, is a Japanese Noh play cast as an early era Christian Parable/Morality play, and well-worth a listener's time; it also runs a little over one hour, so is brief compared to a standard full-length opera.

Midsummer Night's Dream is a wonderful opera! I admit I'm not too familiar with Peter Grimes, but I've been curious to get to know it for a while. I have all the libretti for his operas compiled into a lovely large hardback book.......I could get into more of his operas sooner or later.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 14, 2016, 09:14:11 AM
Blind to Lucas's supernal genius, it is as if the sun cannot shine for you (poco) sfz!

Especially the blind part as then you have to pay attention to the dialog.

For years, I ignored Debussy's Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune because I had continued to read it was a warhorse in which I usually avoided these kinds of works like the plague, but to my great surprise when I did finally listen to Faune, I just couldn't believe my ears. I was completely transfixed whenever I heard this work and I still am to this day.

Delius. Saw "Song of Summer" a few months ago. Wow! That was the launching pad for my hearing his nature inspired suites and the violin concerto. Wow!

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on February 07, 2016, 05:23:57 AM
Delius. Saw "Song of Summer" a few months ago. Wow! That was the launching pad for my hearing his nature inspired suites and the violin concerto. Wow!

I'd love to hear that work in concert! I'm jealous. :) Who was the conductor/orchestra? Anyway, yes, to those who resonate with Delius it usually is on first-hearing. I remember the first time I heard any of his music, it was In a Summer Garden and I'd never heard anything like it. Such a unique musical persona and one of my absolute favorite composers.

I haven't yet listened to much music by Berio and nothing at all by Nono.....which is unusual for me because they are giant composers of the 20th century. The few Berio pieces I've heard I've been amazed by....why haven't I ever bothered to listen to more???

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on February 07, 2016, 12:32:18 PM
I haven't yet listened to much music by Berio and nothing at all by Nono.....which is unusual for me because they are giant composers of the 20th century. The few Berio pieces I've heard I've been amazed by....why haven't I ever bothered to listen to more???

I need to hear more Berio. I love the Sinfonia and I remember liking a few of the Sequenzas that I heard a while ago. Other than that, I don't know him at all.

Quote from: EigenUser on February 07, 2016, 01:12:54 PM
I need to hear more Berio. I love the Sinfonia and I remember liking a few of the Sequenzas that I heard a while ago. Other than that, I don't know him at all.

Yup that's me too

Guys! Please do explore Berio further. A fascinating, poliedric figure with some wonderful compositions. Coro, Canticum Novissmi Testamenti, the wacky Recital 1 for Cathy, Calmo, Requies...and throw Maderna into the mix while you're at it...I think it's an embarassement that these two giants are so neglected these days...but, ihre Zeit wird kommen  ;)

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 07, 2016, 05:31:39 AM
I'd love to hear that work in concert! I'm jealous. :) Who was the conductor/orchestra?

I think he might be referring to the film Ken Russell made for television, in which he told the story of how Eric Fenby helped him in his final years. A very serious and heartfelt story that belies Ken's wacky reputation.

Quote from: Abuelo Igor on February 08, 2016, 01:36:42 AM
I think he might be referring to the film Ken Russell made for television, in which he told the story of how Eric Fenby helped him in his final years. A very serious and heartfelt story that belies Ken's wacky reputation.

Oh, okay. Silly me. I had forgotten that film. I haven't even seen the film but I've read Fenby's book Delius As I Knew Him, which is great.