GMG Classical Music Forum

As you might have noticed lately I've been on a Norwegian kick, and that was primarily because I was fascinated by romantic nationalism (Norway has its own page). I came to romantic nationalism through my consumption of Dvorak, especially his symphonic poems. This then led me to search for more symphonic poems (Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive list), and it is this which has led me to the topic of this thread.

I have a glaring omission when it comes to "classical music", in general, and symphonic poems, specifically, and that is English composers: Bax (who composed the most symphonic poems) and Delius, and I don't know why that is, so I will be rectifying this when I come to my next listening round, but I would love to hear about your glaring omissions. (I'll add more when I think of them, but nothing is as glaring as this for me.) :)

Great thread! Let me mull ....

My most glaring omissions are almost all vocal music (especially lieder) and almost everything from before 1700. Especially at the intersection of the two: Bach and earlier vocal works.

If I listed all the glaring omissions of mine, it would probably crash the forum.  :D

Italian opera. Although I'm hesitant to change that.

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 17, 2025, 10:47:51 AMIf I listed all the glaring omissions of mine, it would probably crash the forum.  :D

We should do a movie version. I've never seen It's a Wonderful Life.  ;D

My most glaring omission would be music for voices (choir and/or soloists) and large orchestra. To much cacophony, and to much straining of a single voice to be heard. I enjoy Bach vocal music, Mozart, some modern vocal music such as Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms. But music on the scale of Beethoven's Ode to Joy or larger puts me off.

Quote from: Brian on January 17, 2025, 10:56:53 AMWe should do a movie version. I've never seen It's a Wonderful Life.  ;D

I think the most famous movie I've not seen is probably Forest Gump. :)

Quote from: Brian on January 17, 2025, 10:56:53 AMWe should do a movie version. I've never seen It's a Wonderful Life.  ;D

Ha! Me neither.

Most of the 'core repertoire', I imagine. Not because I am being clever or obscure, but because I have followed my nose (ears) with stuff I like, and you can't be familiar with everything.

Oh, and pianos and vocal music.

Edit: And opera, generally. And the Second Viennese School.

I've noticed before how many forum members seem to actively dislike vocal/choral music.  Given that most instrumental music strives to emulate the voice I find that interesting.......

My own glaring ommission would be most music pre-baroque (except for Tudor choral music).  For pleasure I listen to almost no contemporary music at all - I used to play a lot of it professionally (follow the money....) and with the exception of Part and Reich and a couple of others never got beyond grudging admiration at best.  Having said I like music for voice I avoid counter-tenors and most lieder.....

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 17, 2025, 10:41:19 AMAs you might have noticed lately I've been on a Norwegian kick, and that was primarily because I was fascinated by romantic nationalism (Norway has its own page). I came to romantic nationalism through my consumption of Dvorak, especially his symphonic poems. This then led me to search for more symphonic poems (Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive list), and it is this which has led me to the topic of this thread.

I have a glaring omission when it comes to "classical music", in general, and symphonic poems, specifically, and that is English composers: Bax (who composed the most symphonic poems) and Delius, and I don't know why that is, so I will be rectifying this when I come to my next listening round, but I would love to hear about your glaring omissions. (I'll add more when I think of them, but nothing is as glaring as this for me.) :)

I'd put Rubbra, Bliss, and Arnold, as well as Bax, well ahead of Delius. (I'm assuming Britten, RVW, Walton, and Elgar are not part of your omission.) Delius has his moments, the others have their hours, so to speak.

As for me, the biggest lacuna is post WWII non-tonal music: what's evoked by the terms Darmstadt, serialism, etc. Boulez and Ligeti* are more than enough for me there, and I have little appetite to explore further.

ETA: Carter too

Stockhausen
Boulez

Not heard a single note of their music. I'm no rush to change that as of yet.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on January 17, 2025, 10:59:21 AMMy most glaring omission would be music for voices (choir and/or soloists) and large orchestra. To much cacophony, and to much straining of a single voice to be heard. I enjoy Bach vocal music, Mozart, some modern vocal music such as Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms. But music on the scale of Beethoven's Ode to Joy or larger puts me off.

If it's properly done, that single voice shouldn't need to strain. If the singer has to get shouty, then the conductor and/or engineers aren't getting the balance right. Very few composers wrote music in a way that intends the orchestra to overwhelm the singer. (The leading examples of composers doing so would be from opera: some moments in Wagner, and the entirety of Strauss' Salome and Elektra. Strauss did get better after those two.)

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 17, 2025, 11:22:52 AMStockhausen
Boulez

Not heard a single note of their music. I'm no rush to change that as of yet.

I'd be quite content to see Stockhausen slip into obscurity, but late Boulez is quite good.

Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2025, 11:19:45 AMI'd put Rubbra, Bliss, and Arnold, as well as Bax, well ahead of Delius. (I'm assuming Britten, RVW, Walton, and Elgar are not part of your omission.) Delius has his moments, the others have their hours, so to speak.

Oh, I only mentioned Delius become he composed a ton of symphonic poems (I think he was 4th most), but no I am pretty much a tablua rasa when it comes to English composers from the 19th Century until modernism "passes" (in the 1940s-1950s), so I have a lot to listen to when I get to that round. :)

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 17, 2025, 11:22:52 AMStockhausen
Boulez

Not heard a single note of their music. I'm no rush to change that as of yet.

I've not heard a note of Stockhausen. I quite like Boulez. I'd say it's like a fan of Beethoven exploring Debussy, you have to be prepared for music created from with a different result in mind. That said, I avoid music by Boulez which involves electronic manipulation.

Very nice to see that nobody mentioned the music of Henning in "glaring omissions ".

I happily omit many symphonic poems and lots of British composers but I don't find them glaring.  8)

My love/hate is opera. I don't dislike it at all and in former times even semi-regularly attended performances. But I am not too fond of it on audio only and cannot be bothered to get DVDs in addition and I also find watching on a screen not close to live on stage but nowadays I can even be less be bothered to travel to the opera house. So there are some ommissions here in that I barely know rather famous operas, e.g. Aida, despite liking other Verdi and having an Aida recording on my shelves for many years.
I probably should make an opera (re)listening project. It worked with other music I had neglected but I don't have that problem of strongly preferring the live event in the case of chamber, piano, even orchestral music.

Quote from: Jo498 on January 17, 2025, 12:04:41 PMI happily omit many symphonic poems and lots of British composers but I don't find them glaring.  8)

Lol, I suppose I meant glaring that it was sun-blazingly obvious what I was missing when I looked at the list. :P

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 17, 2025, 10:52:00 AMItalian opera. Although I'm hesitant to change that.

We can still be friends, Ray.  :laugh:

Thread duty:

Bruckner, Wagner.

Second Viennese School.

Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis and others ejusdem farinae.

Quote from: Florestan on January 17, 2025, 12:32:03 PMThread duty:

Bruckner

I'll trade you three Bruckner symphonies for one Verdi opera? 🤣

I can't think of any accidental "glaring" omissions.  After nearly 60 years of listening and actively discovering music, if I don't listen to something it is because previous efforts did not produce positive results. 

This would include most orchestral music except for a small number of works by composers I enjoy quite a lot.

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 17, 2025, 12:33:41 PMI'll trade you three Bruckner symphonies for one Verdi opera? 🤣

The only Bruckner symphony I like is his Fourth. And the Scherzo from the First. Also, whatever I heard from his sacred music. But don't ask me when was the last time I listened to Bruckner --- I can't remember.  :laugh:

Quote from: San Antone on January 17, 2025, 12:37:16 PMif I don't listen to something it is because previous efforts did not produce positive results. 

Same here, actually. I did try all the music I listed above and decided it's not to my taste. Pursuing it further in the vain hope that one day I might begin to like it would be a waste of my time.

Quote from: Brian on January 17, 2025, 10:56:53 AMWe should do a movie version. I've never seen It's a Wonderful Life.  ;D

Mrs. Cato had avoided the movie for her entire life, until this past Christmas!  Excerpts of it had convinced her that she would dislike the movie.

For some reason, this year she said out of the blue: "Let's watch It's a Wonderful Life."

And she liked it very much!

Concerning our topic...

...I am another person lax in listening to Italian operas.  Excerpts yes, many excerpts, but less than a handful of complete ones. 

French operas: Poulenc's Dialogues of the Carmelites, Bizet's The Pearl Fishers, and a French translation of Prokofiev's The Fiery Angel.

German and Russian operas are no problem!   ;D

Chamber Music used to be a huge deaf spot, but that has changed in the last 20 years or so.  Some exceptions: Beethoven's String Quartets and his Octet, Schoenberg's and Bartok's String Quartets.

Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2025, 11:28:16 AMIf it's properly done, that single voice shouldn't need to strain. If the singer has to get shouty, then the conductor and/or engineers aren't getting the balance right. Very few composers wrote music in a way that intends the orchestra to overwhelm the singer. (The leading examples of composers doing so would be from opera: some moments in Wagner, and the entirety of Strauss' Salome and Elektra. Strauss did get better after those two.)

There are a few bits of orchestral lieder (Mahler's Ruckert lieder, etc) that work for me. But generally, straining or not, the vocal technique used by performers who sing with full symphony orchestras is not attractive to me.

Schubert, Italian Opera and post-war composers.

Monteverdi... just really haven't gotten around to him yet. I don't think I have listened to Rossini in a long time.

Tried a little bit of Bax today.

I'm going to really need to be in the right mood to go down this English path.

I don't know what it is about them, but I find that group of composers so boring.

(Although, Jerusalem is a banger of an anthem. - Parry/Elgar)

There is such an abundance of music to listen to that I am quite occupied with the music I have actively chosen to listen to. Therefore the omissions are primarily due to limited listening time. However, I must confess that I have actively excluded opera and "Klavierlieder".

Quote from: Lisztianwagner on January 17, 2025, 02:03:42 PMSchubert, Italian Opera

I have to say that both of these come as somewhat of a surprise to me! Especially considering your musical passions and interests, I would have guessed that these were naturally a part of them.  :)

Compared to baroque music, I haven't explored that much renaissance music.

In general I think it is the wrong angle to ask about omissions, because there are so much music out there it is nearly impossible to explore everything. It is only natural to have preferences and areas of interest which leads to "omissions."

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 17, 2025, 02:16:07 PMTried a little bit of Bax today.

I'm going to really need to be in the right mood to go down this English path.

I don't know what it is about them, but I find that group of composers so boring.

(Although, Jerusalem is a banger of an anthem. - Parry/Elgar)

With Bax and Arnold in particular, the symphonies are the meat, the tone poems and overtures the side dishes (although with Arnold in particular the side dishes can be very tasty).

Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2025, 03:11:51 PMIn general I think it is the wrong angle to ask about omissions, because there are so much music out there it is nearly impossible to explore everything. It is only natural to have preferences and areas of interest which leads to "omissions."

Hence the use of the word "glaring." ;)

Quote from: Florestan on January 17, 2025, 12:32:03 PMBruckner, Wagner.

Oh, you mean you've not heard this?--



Or I may have read you excessively literally.

Music before 1550 (I start with Palestrina, who I adore). Apart from him, not much if anything until Bach/Vivaldi/Handel. A bit of Purcell or Dowland maybe - but don't push, it's not going to work.

Then music from 1950 onward that adheres to a system that rejects other musics. Boulez, Xenakis, Crumb among the notables. A basket of deplorables if you ask me. Put the Helicopter Quartet on and I pull my bazooka to shoot them (although I do like a few of Stockhausen's early works). Carter is a genius, if sometimes hard to follow. The ones I can't abide are those who have rejected the past.

Quote from: André on January 17, 2025, 05:48:30 PMMusic before 1550 (I start with Palestrina, who I adore). Apart from him, not much if anything until Bach/Vivaldi/Handel. A bit of Purcell or Dowland maybe - but don't push, it's not going to work.

Then music from 1950 onward that adheres to a system that rejects other musics. Boulez, Xenakis, Crumb among the notables. A basket of deplorables if you ask me. Put the Helicopter Quartet on and I pull my bazooka to shoot them (although I do like a few of Stockhausen's early works). Carter is a genius, if sometimes hard to follow. The ones I can't abide are those who have rejected the past.

 ;D

Quote from: André on January 17, 2025, 05:48:30 PMMusic before 1550 (I start with Palestrina, who I adore). Apart from him, not much if anything until Bach/Vivaldi/Handel. A bit of Purcell or Dowland maybe - but don't push, it's not going to work.

Then music from 1950 onward that adheres to a system that rejects other musics. Boulez, Xenakis, Crumb among the notables. A basket of deplorables if you ask me. Put the Helicopter Quartet on and I pull my bazooka to shoot them (although I do like a few of Stockhausen's early works). Carter is a genius, if sometimes hard to follow. The ones I can't abide are those who have rejected the past.

I think you would find late Boulez very palatable.
But I don't mind you blasting KHS into oblivion.

Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2025, 06:04:58 PMBut I don't mind you blasting KHS into oblivion.

There's little enough Stockhausen that I like, I could not reasonably protest.

Well, this thread surely explains why the threads dealing with music post-1950 are ghost towns.

(https://celebratestorytelling.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/last-picture-show.jpeg)

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 17, 2025, 07:09:50 PMWell, this thread surely explains why the threads dealing with music post-1950 are ghost towns.

(https://celebratestorytelling.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/last-picture-show.jpeg)

To be sure, I have a good deal of music from, say, 1990 to now, especially Vasks, Sierra, and Corigliano.  It's the decades before 1990 that are not well stocked.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 17, 2025, 07:09:50 PMWell, this thread surely explains why the threads dealing with music post-1950 are ghost towns.

(https://celebratestorytelling.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/last-picture-show.jpeg)

Now that, unlike Forrest Gump, is a great frikkin movie.

Quote from: Brian on January 17, 2025, 08:52:19 PMNow that, unlike Forrest Gump, is a great frikkin movie.

Easily, from my perspective, one of the best. :)

I mean, what counts as "glaring"? I certainly have a list of composers I mean to explore, and some of those are ones where I've pretty much yet to hear a note. But I don't generally have a sense of having failed to complete the course syllabus or something. It's tricky to find a list that one can feel is sufficiently "objective" (to the extent that's even possible) to check one's own library or listening history against.

I suppose I'm aware that my 'Classical' listening habits are very centred on Europe, but the reality is that's where most of the history of this kind of music was, it took a long time before it really spread out from there. I guess as I do more 20th and 21st century then there's the capacity to take in more music from the Americas, Asia, Australia (are there many African composers, I don't recall seeing them discussed).

I'm also conscious that there are very few female composers in my library, and there are several on my list to explore.

I start so many listening projects, which are composer based, so I'm likely to listen to whatever genres that composer worked in. But recently I've decided I need to not have too many of these on the go at once. I did think I would stick to 3 at a time, and after at least one current one finishes I would try to divide them between 3 different regions of Europe, but perhaps I should reserve a 4th slot for "non-Europe". Or for female. Or expand to 5 at a time? That gets awkward.

Following the idea that the more we learn, the more new things open up, I find endless chances for discovery in almost every style, genre, and era of music. My curiosity keeps me exploring — no boundaries, no taboos. The one exception might be Russian music, which I know pretty well anyway, having been force-fed it in a past life.

The most remarkable discoveries often happen close by, within arm's reach. No matter how much Beethoven I listen to, surprises still await. Just recently, I truly immersed myself in the Missa Solemnis and now can't get enough of it. Or the 8th Symphony — after years of indifference, it suddenly revealed its gorgeousness to me.

Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2025, 07:39:14 PMTo be sure, I have a good deal of music from, say, 1990 to now, especially Vasks, Sierra, and Corigliano.  It's the decades before 1990 that are not well stocked.

I share this, certainly from 1900 onwards- but for me, this moves from omissions to my choices. I guess I could fill my gaps before the 20th century, but feel no pressing need to do so yet. I don't feel judged for that here, despite my obvious inexperience and lack of knowledge. Not that it would trouble me, anyway 😀

Quote from: DavidW on January 17, 2025, 04:04:40 PMHence the use of the word "glaring." ;)

I'm not sure a "glaring omission" in this context is a thing. Maybe it is because I am not a native English speaker. I am not sure I understand the question if "glaring" is a key word. I omitted it (as badly or jokingly chosen), because it doesn't make much sense to me. So maybe the word "glaring" is MY glaring omission!  :D

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 01:04:05 AMI'm not sure a "glaring omission" in this context is a thing. Maybe it is because I am not a native English speaker. I am not sure I understand the question if "glaring" is a key word. I omitted it, because it doesn't make much sense to me. So maybe the word "glaring" is MY glaring omission!  :D

Glaring is used correctly here, but you are correct - it is idiomatic, sot it likely doesn't translate directly, but essentially what it means is that the thing "missed" is so (blatantly, patently, etc.) obvious that it (probably) shouldn't have been missed.

Example:
I love symphonic poems, well I like them ironically, but I like them, so it would make some sense that the person who composed the most of them (Bax) might be of some interest to me, but I still haven't listened to a single one (same with Delius, who I think composed the 4th most symphonic poems after Sibelius and [Richard] Strauss).

Kevin's English Journey (Elgar to Arnold)
Elgar
Delius
Williams
Holst
Brian
Bax
Walton
Arnold

Setting this up right now, but likely won't happen for a month or so. 8)

I have spent the last 4-5 years breaking down and correcting my major glaring omissions (British composers, French composers, JS Bach - particularly his cantatas, Other Renaissance & Baroque composers, Guitar music, Organ works, the core repertoire of Operas). I now couldn't live without most of those areas, particularly JSB, Schutz, Telemann, Buxtehude, Debussy, Bax, Arnold, Segovia guitar playing, Callas singing Madama Butterfly, Karajan's Parsifal, etc...

Remaining deaf spots :
- US composers (other than Barber, Ives, Copland. I started a US exploration thread for the rest some time ago but my interest drifted off quickly).
- Karajan opened the door to Berg/Schonberg/Webern for me. I need to walk in that room properly with items already in my collection.
- Modern composers in general. I however remain intrigued by Boulez and Schnittke and approach them regularly but only for short-ish times, e.g. listened to Répons this week after @ritter 's post. Enjoyed it...for half of it then I just switched off  :laugh:   

The rest is just a random bundle of maiden composers I sampled via streaming in the last 2 years but didn't click with.

I am actually quite near the point where, bar a handful of remaining purchases, I am about to close my collection for good, delete all those wishlists, baskets, playlists, streaming accounts, feeling satisfied with the breadth and depth of the collection I have gained in these last 5 years.. and just enjoy it  :)
   

Quote from: André on January 17, 2025, 05:48:30 PMMusic before 1550 (I start with Palestrina, who I adore). Apart from him, not much if anything until Bach/Vivaldi/Handel. A bit of Purcell or Dowland maybe - but don't push, it's not going to work.

I also kind of start with Palestrina (I have a few CDs of music older than that as curiosities), but to me "music became interesting" after the year 1600, but also long before Bach/Vivaldi/Handel who represent merely the culmination of the previous 100 years or so. I have more middle baroque than many other fan of classical music. Especially Northern Germany middle-baroque (the stuff between Schütz and Bach) is very close to my heart.

Quote from: André on January 17, 2025, 05:48:30 PMThen music from 1950 onward that adheres to a system that rejects other musics. Boulez, Xenakis, Crumb among the notables. A basket of deplorables if you ask me. Put the Helicopter Quartet on and I pull my bazooka to shoot them (although I do like a few of Stockhausen's early works). Carter is a genius, if sometimes hard to follow. The ones I can't abide are those who have rejected the past.

I also struggle a lot with composers like Boulez. I like late romantic music (Elgar!), but the music that came to "replace" it in the early 20th century oftentimes sounds glaring to me. For long I stayed away (glaring omissions?) from most post war classical music apart from some well-known composers such as Arvo Pärt and Philip Glass, but about a decade ago I discovered contemporary classical music in the wider sense after realizing a lot of it is interesting, pleasant and cool music. In fact, contemporary orchestral music makes older classical music sound "old" due to the differences in orchestration. Contemporary classical music sound fresh to my ears.

Rejecting the past is a great point. You always built on the past, but inject your own innovations/improvement on it. J.S.Bach didn't reject his past. He used the music of composers like Buxtehude, Bruhns and Kuhnau as the model for his own compositions, but applying his own genius. Rejecting the past makes the foundation weak and the result comes out as arrogant ("I don't need to stand on the shoulders of giants!")

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 18, 2025, 01:11:34 AMGlaring is used correctly here, but you are correct - it is idiomatic, sot it likely doesn't translate directly, but essentially what it means is that the thing "missed" is so (blatantly, patently, etc.) obvious that it (probably) shouldn't have been missed.

Example:
I love symphonic poems, well I like them ironically, but I like them, so it would make some sense that the person who composed the most of them (Bax) might be of some interest to me, but I still haven't listened to a single one (same with Delius, who I think composed the 4th most symphonic poems after Sibelius and [Richard] Strauss).

Thanks for your explanations!

So, this is about omissions we shouldn't have made based on our own preferences and tastes. I don't thing I have much "glaring omission" in this sense, because whenever I find out liking something, I tend to explore it fiercely until I have depleted it!

Maybe Weinberg's symphonies is one area I can mention. Weinberg has become one of my favorite composers, but I have explored his symphonies very slowly owning recordings only of 2, 12, 19, 20 & 21. I just feel like it is financially taxing to collect the symphonies. I also hate how the symphonies are scattered between labels instead of having consistent cycles, but it is what it is. Weinberg doesn't sell like Beethoven, I get it. I gravitate more toward Weinberg's chamber music which explains why I haven't spent my savings on his symphonies...

There's also J.S.Bach I know nothing about: Vocal Works BWV250-524. I don't know what music this is, because I don't see/hear it anywhere. Maybe it is just lesser Bach not worth performing?

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 02:29:47 AMThanks for your explanations!

So, this is about omissions we shouldn't have made based on our own preferences and tastes. I don't thing I have much "glaring omission" in this sense, because whenever I find out liking something, I tend to explore it fiercely until I have depleted it!

Maybe Weinberg's symphonies is one area I can mention. Weinberg has become one of my favorite composers, but I have explored his symphonies very slowly owning recordings only of 2, 12, 19, 20 & 21. I just feel like it is financially taxing to collect the symphonies. I also hate how the symphonies are scattered between labels instead of having consistent cycles, but it is what it is. Weinberg doesn't sell like Beethoven, I get it. I gravitate more toward Weinberg's chamber music which explains why I haven't spent my savings on his symphonies...

There's also J.S.Bach I know nothing about: Vocal Works BWV250-524. I don't know what music this is, because I don't see/hear it anywhere. Maybe it is just lesser Bach not worth performing?

Well, it isn't meant to be serious - it was meant tongue-in-cheek, sort of like laughing at ourselves because it is silly.

Love both of yours, and, yes, money I think is a major block, especially for composers who seem not to warrant a "collection" or "set". This is why I like Brilliant, as they have definitely invested in composers that other labels have overlooked.

Lol, at that Bach observation - it's funny, now that you've said that, I am instantly more interested in looking at it! ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 02:29:47 AMThere's also J.S.Bach I know nothing about: Vocal Works BWV250-524. I don't know what music this is, because I don't see/hear it anywhere. Maybe it is just lesser Bach not worth performing?

Most of this is Bach's harmonisations of chorale tunes. So probably not the most exciting thing in the world.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 02:29:47 AMThanks for your explanations!

So, this is about omissions we shouldn't have made based on our own preferences and tastes. I don't thing I have much "glaring omission" in this sense, because whenever I find out liking something, I tend to explore it fiercely until I have depleted it!

Maybe Weinberg's symphonies is one area I can mention. Weinberg has become one of my favorite composers, but I have explored his symphonies very slowly owning recordings only of 2, 12, 19, 20 & 21. I just feel like it is financially taxing to collect the symphonies. I also hate how the symphonies are scattered between labels instead of having consistent cycles, but it is what it is. Weinberg doesn't sell like Beethoven, I get it. I gravitate more toward Weinberg's chamber music which explains why I haven't spent my savings on his symphonies...

There's also J.S.Bach I know nothing about: Vocal Works BWV250-524. I don't know what music this is, because I don't see/hear it anywhere. Maybe it is just lesser Bach not worth performing?

It seems there are various recordings of these Bach works. For example, I immediately found an album by Masaaki Suzuki on Qobuz, which includes some pieces with numbers ranging between BWV250 and BWV524. Perhaps people who are more familiar with Bach's opus numbering than I am could provide more detailed information.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 18, 2025, 02:37:02 AMWell, it isn't meant to be serious - it was meant tongue-in-cheek, sort of like laughing at ourselves because it is silly.

Love both of yours, and, yes, money I think is a major block, especially for composers who seem not to warrant a "collection" or "set". This is why I like Brilliant, as they have definitely invested in composers that other labels have overlooked.

Lol, at that Bach observation - it's funny, now that you've said that, I am instantly more interested in looking at it! ;D

Before the Bach works mentioned above stands the Bach Magnificat BWV 243, which must never be omitted, glaringly or otherwise, from one's musical education!   ;)

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 17, 2025, 07:09:50 PMWell, this thread surely explains why the threads dealing with music post-1950 are ghost towns.

(https://celebratestorytelling.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/last-picture-show.jpeg)

:) :)
I no longer buy cds or try to build some kind of personal musical museum.
It is tantalisingly tempting to make a "cruel" list of personal dislikes (Wagner, Bruckner, minimal, repetitive, cross over, neo tonal..music, the endless repetition of the iron repertoire, Sibelius, Dvorak, Ravel, Beethoven snippets, symphonic Disney..) -, but every so often music I try to omit will seduce me in some way.
And i love almost anything the human voice can do (except "all-toocute" childrens voices >:D >:D ): from pathetric speakers/reciters/recitants/récitantes, screaming coloratura sopranos,, blazing Italian tenors, to the blackest bassoprofundo.

is it too simplistic to state that "dislikes" trigger "omissions"?

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 02:29:47 AMSo, this is about omissions we shouldn't have made based on our own preferences and tastes.

I wouldn't put it that way. Let me provide an example. If you never listened to Mozart, that would be a glaring omission. If you listened to Mozart, and he wasn't to your taste and you moved on... that is not an omission because you listened to him and made a judgment.

I think HopefullyTrusting's strange, confusing original post didn't help. In what universe are Bax and Delius so significant that not listening to them would be considered "glaring" in their omission? I like them, but seriously, he jumped straight to composers that would be regarded as esoteric outside this heavily anglicized forum.

Quote from: pjme on January 18, 2025, 05:13:21 AM:) :)
I no longer buy cds or try to build some kind of personal musical museum.
It is tantalisingly tempting to make a "cruel" list of personal dislikes (Wagner, Bruckner, minimal, repetitive, cross over, neo tonal..music, the endless repetition of the iron repertoire, Sibelius, Dvorak, Ravel, Beethoven snippets, symphonic Disney..) -, but every so often music I try to omit will seduce me in some way.

Mausoleum seems to be a more accurate word ;D.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 02:29:47 AMMaybe Weinberg's symphonies is one area I can mention. Weinberg has become one of my favorite composers, but I have explored his symphonies very slowly owning recordings only of 2, 12, 19, 20 & 21. I just feel like it is financially taxing to collect the symphonies. I also hate how the symphonies are scattered between labels instead of having consistent cycles, but it is what it is. Weinberg doesn't sell like Beethoven, I get it. I gravitate more toward Weinberg's chamber music which explains why I haven't spent my savings on his symphonies...

I agree that Weinberg's chamber music is more rewarding than his orchestral works. But I never agree with GMG posters' strange obsession with living an anachronistic life. You can pretend that the only way to listen to music is by a wax cylinder or whatever, but it is 2025. One can't say that listening to music is prohibitively expensive if you've chosen to ignore the far, far cheaper option of streaming. You can even rely on YouTube and Spotify free with ads and not pay anything if the $10 a month is too much.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 01:04:05 AMI'm not sure a "glaring omission" in this context is a thing.

Here are my most glaring omissions.  In my 77th year, I have never yet listened to Beethoven's 9th symphony in its entirety.  I like his other eight well enough.  Nor have I ever listened to any music with "Sheherazade" in the title.

Quote from: aukhawk on January 18, 2025, 05:51:47 AMHere are my most glaring omissions.  In my 77th year, I have never yet listened to Beethoven's 9th symphony in its entirety. 

Wow! I think there are more chances to meet a 77yo virgin than someone like you.  :laugh:

I mean, Beethoven 9 is a fairly serious pitch to win the thread.

It was exaggerated but maybe not implausible in the context of liking other "nationalist" late romantic composers and their symphonic poems. But clearly a contextual, relative omission, not a glaring one. Like Beethoven's 9th ;)

Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2025, 05:18:47 AMI wouldn't put it that way. Let me provide an example. If you never listened to Mozart, that would be a glaring omission. If you listened to Mozart, and he wasn't to your taste and you moved on... that is not an omission because you listened to him and made a judgment.

I think HopefullyTrusting's strange, confusing original post didn't help. In what universe are Bax and Delius so significant that not listening to them would be considered "glaring" in their omission? I like them, but seriously, he jumped straight to composers that would be regarded as esoteric outside this heavily anglicized forum.

Hey is for horses, my dear friend.

I added the context to why those two names were so glaring: list of symphonic poems, lover of symphonic poems, never listened to the #1 composer (Bax) of them.

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimages%2Fa4e6ad0b5ae987ce1542b6be7f31c4c4%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3D11318113&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=79f18ad5d14a40ce65027bd5728e68e4f32aa3fcf4857d52b8cdb6070592702f&ipo=images)

Quote from: aukhawk on January 18, 2025, 05:51:47 AMHere are my most glaring omissions.  In my 77th year, I have never yet listened to Beethoven's 9th symphony in its entirety.  I like his other eight well enough.  Nor have I ever listened to any music with "Sheherazade" in the title.

While I've not reached your age in maturity, yet (maybe never), the only version of the 9th I've gotten through is Bernstein's "Ode to Freedom."

I also haven't heard any work with "Sheherazade" in the title.

I feel in good company. :)

Quote from: aukhawk on January 18, 2025, 05:51:47 AMHere are my most glaring omissions.  In my 77th year, I have never yet listened to Beethoven's 9th symphony in its entirety.  I like his other eight well enough.  Nor have I ever listened to any music with "Sheherazade" in the title.

Well I certainly like Beethoven's 9th symphony*, but I have listened to his first two symphonies only once (that was enough for me). I have Rimsky-Korsakov's "Sheherazade" and it is nice. The only other music with "Sheherazade" in the title I can find is Sergei Prokofiev's Fantasia on Scheherazade for piano, but I don't know that work.

* Beethoven isn't one of my favourite symphonists and the 6th symphony is my favourite. I am much more into his chamber music.

If we're mentioning glaring omissions, l suppose this operatic baritone must name Verdi.

I only enjoy certain parts of Otello, namely the beginning and the duet which concludes Act 2. His other works ( and the remainder of Otello ) simply leave me uninterested.

More generally, l find most post- romantic music unengaging, with exceptions: Ligeti, Barber, Copland, Sibelius, Stravinsky and Prokofiev have my ear. The aforementioned KHS, Boulez, Penderecki, and other such stylists do not engage me. 

Are you saving Beethoven's Ninth for a special occasion, since you have enjoyed the other 8? Or simply did not enjoy it nearly as much as the rest?

@hopefullytrusting
@71 dB

Here's a simple way to fix that omission

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 06:53:58 AMWell I certainly like Beethoven's 9th symphony*, but I have listened to his first two symphonies only once (that was enough for me). I have Rimsky-Korsakov's "Sheherazade" and it is nice. The only other music with "Sheherazade" in the title I can find is Sergei Prokofiev's Fantasia on Scheherazade for piano, but I don't know that work.

* Beethoven isn't one of my favourite symphonists and the 6th symphony is my favourite. I am much more into his chamber music.

Besides Ravel's song cycle for Sheherazade, he has an overture:

Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2025, 05:28:42 AMI agree that Weinberg's chamber music is more rewarding than his orchestral works. But I never agree with GMG posters' strange obsession with living an anachronistic life. You can pretend that the only way to listen to music is by a wax cylinder or whatever, but it is 2025. One can't say that listening to music is prohibitively expensive if you've chosen to ignore the far, far cheaper option of streaming. You can even rely on YouTube and Spotify free with ads and not pay anything if the $10 a month is too much.

It is possible I have streamed some Weinberg symphonies, but how can I remember? I like to own CDs. If I have the CD on my shelf, it keeps reminding me I have most probably listened to the music.

Yesterday I streamed on Spotify non-classical music (F.R. David's album Reflections) because I was in the mood for 80's pop. The CD release is super-rare and people ask about $100 and up for it online. I don't pay that kind of money for any music, so I have to stream.

Streaming is part of my music listening, but I still LIKE to collect CDs. I have done that since 1990. Streaming takes part of the fun away, the feeling of actually OWNING something. In the world of streaming we own nothing. We just have access to almost everything. That can supplement owning, but not replace it for me.

Same with movies. I want to own my favorite movies on Blu-ray (DVD is not good enough and I don't need 4K quality).

In the past I was future-oriented person who naively thought future will be awesome, but the older I get the more disappointed I am with what we are getting. I see better the goodness of some old things. We might have had worse technology, but life was still good, even better than today. The last 15 or so years have been the most miserable time in my life. As an autistic person I am completely lost in the World of social media. I have no clue what my place in this dystopia is. I feel I am good for nothing. I was much happier in the past. Future has served me poorly and the little joy I have in life tends to come from these anachronistic things such as collecting physical media.

Maybe for you the World as it is today offers better and happier life and maybe streaming serves you 100 %, but it isn't like that for all of us. I am not against technological innovation as long as it makes our lives better, but nowadays the benefits seems to go merely to the ruling class, the billionaire oligarchs. Poor people suffer more and more everyday.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 07:19:51 AMIt is possible I have streamed some Weinberg symphonies, but how can I remember? I like to own CDs. If I have the CD on my shelf, it keeps reminding me I have most probably listened to the music.

Yesterday I streamed on Spotify non-classical music (F.R. David's album Reflections) because I was in the mood for 80's pop. The CD release is super-rare and people ask about $100 and up for it online. I don't pay that kind of money for any music, so I have to stream.

Streaming is part of my music listening, but I still LIKE to collect CDs. I have done that since 1990. Streaming takes part of the fun away, the feeling of actually OWNING something. In the world of streaming we own nothing. We just have access to almost everything. That can supplement owning, but not replace it for me.

Same with movies. I want to own my favorite movies on Blu-ray (DVD is not good enough and I don't need 4K quality).

In the past I was future-oriented person who naively thought future will be awesome, but the older I get the more disappointed I am with what we are getting. I see better the goodness of some old things. We might have had worse technology, but life was still good, even better than today. The last 15 or so years have been the most miserable time in my life. As an autistic person I am completely lost in the World of social media. I have no clue what my place in this dystopia is. I feel I am good for nothing. I was much happier in the past. Future has served me poorly and the little joy I have in life tends to come from these anachronistic things such as collecting physical media.

Maybe for you the World as it is today offers better and happier life and maybe streaming serves you 100 %, but it isn't like that for all of us. I am not against technological innovation as long as it makes our lives better, but nowadays the benefits seems to go merely to the ruling class, the billionaire oligarchs. Poor people suffer more and more everyday.

I feel every bit of sentiment in this post.

This is worded so well.

I think I agree with it all.

:)

Quote from: Madiel on January 18, 2025, 03:19:24 AMMost of this is Bach's harmonisations of chorale tunes. So probably not the most exciting thing in the world.

That's more or less what I have thought. Otherwise this music would be recorded and marketed like the Brandenburg Concertos!  :D

I am not familiar with Ravel's Sheherazade because song cycles in general aren't my thing.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 07:41:12 AMI am not familiar with Ravel's Sheherazade because song cycles in general aren't my thing.

Perhaps you would like this performance, rather than the one offered above?


Pierre Boulez conducting The Cleveland Orchestra and Anne Sophie Otter:

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 07:19:51 AMthe older I get the more disappointed I am with what we are getting. I see better the goodness of some old things. We might have had worse technology, but life was still good, even better than today.

The way of all flesh.  ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 07:19:51 AMMaybe for you the World as it is today offers better and happier life and maybe streaming serves you 100 %, but it isn't like that for all of us. I am not against technological innovation as long as it makes our lives better, but nowadays the benefits seems to go merely to the ruling class, the billionaire oligarchs.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 18, 2025, 07:25:42 AMI feel every bit of sentiment in this post.

Oh, dear! Oh, dear! Oh, dear!

Here we have two most respectable guys who are better educated, better clothed, better sheltered and better fed than most people 200 hundred years ago; also, they have better healthcare and are more secure in their life and property than most monarchs 200 years ago; also, they have virtually free access to more music than all the music-loving, music-sponsoring aristocrats, high clergy and high bourgeoisie 200 years ago combined  could not have even begin to hope having paid access to --- yet by listening to them an alien from Mars would think non-aristocratic, non-high-clergy and non-high-bourgeoisie people are today worse off than they were 200 years ago. Actually, make it 150, 100 or 50, the point still stands.

AFAIC and IMNSHO, the exact reverse is true: never in the whole recorded history have non-aristocratic, non-clergy and non-high-bourgeoisie people been better off than today.

Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2025, 08:30:41 AMOh, dear! Oh, dear! Oh, dear!

Here we have two most respectable guys who are better educated, better clothed, better sheltered and better fed than most people 200 hundred years ago; also, they have better healthcare and are more secure in their life and property than most monarchs 200 years ago; also, they have virtually free access to more music than all the music-loving, music-sponsoring aristocrats, high clergy and high bourgeoisie 200 years ago combined  could not have even begin to hope having paid access to --- yet by listening to them an alien from Mars would think non-aristocratic, non-high-clergy and non-high-bourgeoisie people are today worse off than they were 200 years ago. Actually, make it 150, 100 or 50, the point still stands.

AFAIC and IMNSHO, the exact reverse is true: never in the whole recorded history have non-aristocratic, non-clergy and non-high-bourgeoisie people been better off than today.

When I said life was better in the past, I meant my past, not 200 years ago! Just 20 years ago I felt like "belonging" in this World much more and I didn't suffer from the anxiety I suffer today. 20 years ago I didn't need to do depression prevention: Life was good enough to keep depression away.

The problem isn't so much the absolute quality of life, but what it is compared to what it could be and has been a decade or two before. Imagine what we could have if the right people were in power instead the lunatics we have in power in so many countries.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 09:51:59 AMImagine what we could have if the right people were in power instead the lunatics we have in power in so many countries.

AFAIC this is an exercise in futility. I very much prefer to actually enjoy what I can enjoy here and now than to imagine what I could enjoy in unattainable circumstances. A tolerable reality is always preferable to a utopia for two reasons: (1) the former is real, the latter is imaginary, and (2) trying to achieve the latter more often than not results in much worsening the former.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 09:51:59 AMWhen I said life was better in the past, I meant my past, not 200 years ago! Just 20 years ago I felt like "belonging" in this World much more and I didn't suffer from the anxiety I suffer today. 20 years ago I didn't need to do depression prevention: Life was good enough to keep depression away.

The problem isn't so much the absolute quality of life, but what it is compared to what it could be and has been a decade or two before. Imagine what we could have if the right people were in power instead the lunatics we have in power in so many countries.

Power is no place for the right people, only deranged lunatics fit the job description.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2025, 09:51:59 AMWhen I said life was better in the past, I meant my past, not 200 years ago! Just 20 years ago I felt like "belonging" in this World much more and I didn't suffer from the anxiety I suffer today. 20 years ago I didn't need to do depression prevention: Life was good enough to keep depression away.

The problem isn't so much the absolute quality of life, but what it is compared to what it could be and has been a decade or two before. Imagine what we could have if the right people were in power instead the lunatics we have in power in so many countries.

Completely understand.

I think that is one of the reasons I've gone back to physical media. I can't control everything, but I was happier, and appreciated more, when the object was in my hand. It felt like the completion of a project. Nothing with the digital domain gives me that feeling.

@71dB @hopefullytrusting

Music (at least in my book) is meant to be listened to. The medium through which the listening is achieved is completely immaterial (pun).

Suppose the only way to listen to your favorite music is by streaming. What would you do then?

Besides, for someone who condemns the acquisitiveness of greedy billionaires, such insistence on owning the physical CD is quite strange.  ;D

Quote from: LKB on January 18, 2025, 07:02:43 AMIf we're mentioning glaring omissions, l suppose this operatic baritone must name Verdi.

I'd never have been brave enough to admit to this, but now I know there's at least one other, I can say there are two of us.

I've quoted this story before, but long ago so it might be OK to repeat it. I was in conversation with a colleague, who asked, 'What are you listening to these days?'
'Wagner,' I said.
'Wagner?!' he exclaimed. 'But there are no decent tunes in Wagner!'
'What are you listening to then?' I replied.
'Verdi,' he said.
'Verdi?!, I exclaimed. 'But there are no decent tunes in Verdi!'

In a discussion with another musical friend, at another time, I mentioned that I always found the tunes in Verdi's operas disappointing. 'They seem so ordinary,' I said. 'Sort of commonplace. I just can't get past that ordinariness.'
My friend nodded sagely, and said, 'Well, remember what his name is, translated into English: Joe Green.'

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 18, 2025, 10:49:32 AMI'd never have been brave enough to admit to this, but now I know there's at least one other, I can say there are two of us.

I've quoted this story before, but long ago so it might be OK to repeat it. I was in conversation with a colleague, who asked, 'What are you listening to these days?'
'Wagner,' I said.
'Wagner?!' he exclaimed. 'But there are no decent tunes in Wagner!'
'What are you listening to then?' I replied.
'Verdi,' he said.
'Verdi?!, I exclaimed. 'But there are no decent tunes in Verdi!'

Depends on what one means by decent. ;D

QuoteIn a discussion with another musical friend, at another time, I mentioned that I always found the tunes in Verdi's operas disappointing. 'They seem so ordinary,' I said. 'Sort of commonplace. I just can't get past that ordinariness.'
My friend nodded sagely, and said, 'Well, remember what his name is, translated into English: Joe Green.'

To my ears, Joe Green sounds way better (surely more euphonious) than Dick Carter.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2025, 11:07:12 AMTo my ears, Joe Green sounds way better (surely more euphonious) than Dick Carter.  ;D

Maybe 'Joe Green' doesn't translate well into Romanian, Andrei? In English there's a sort of solid down-to-earthness to it. Or so it seemed to me and my friend at the time.

Meanwhile we should all use streaming services to at least check out some more of the work of John Brook.

Edit: It turns out those obscure things in the Brook Works Catalogue are each only about a minute long. I found a "volume one" on Idagio. I've heard 4 while typing this post.

Tangentially, it chanced that I came to really like Wagner's music before Verdi's. When I was a mere slip of a lad, the Prelude to Die Meistersinger was on an LP I had.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 18, 2025, 11:13:45 AMMaybe 'Joe Green' doesn't translate well into Romanian, Andrei? In English there's a sort of solid down-to-earthness to it. Or so it seemed to me and my friend at the time.

Well, Verdi would have never minded being called a down-to-earth person, that's what he was all his life.  :laugh:

Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2025, 11:47:49 AMWell, Verdi would have never minded being called a down-to-earth person, that's what he was all his life.  :laugh:

Yep, a bit of a cafone...  ::)

Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2025, 11:47:49 AMWell, Verdi would have never minded being called a down-to-earth person, that's what he was all his life.  :laugh:

Ah yes! Well that's exactly the point my friend was making, and indeed that knowledge (his, not mine) was the origin of his joke. So we have gone around the houses and all is neatly resolved. All are satisfied, and have enjoyed the ride.

It has probably struck everyone that, for most people on the planet, all of Classical Music is a "glaring omission" in their lives.  :o    ;)


And it is true that more people live in comfort than ever before: as a volunteer for the St. Vincent De Paul Society, I can attest that the poor people in America still have wide-screen televisions, cars, cell phones, etc. which a poor person in South America would not have.


I am quite happy to have so much music at my fingertips, with such wonderful quality, which was not possible in earlier eras.

To return: I have forgotten to add English composers as another "glaring omission" in much of my formation and since then.

Exceptions: R.V. Williams, Benjamin Britten, Robert Simpson, whom I discovered because of his excellent books on Bruckner, Harrison Birtwhistle,...

and Luke Ottevanger! 

I have not listened to the first four in a very long time, so perhaps this topic is a catalyst for returning to their works.

Quote from: Cato on January 18, 2025, 12:44:12 PMRobert Simpson, whom I discovered because of his excellent books on Bruckner, Harrison Birtwhistle,... and Luke Ottevanger! 

Robert Simpson wrote a book about Luke?! (Runs off and hides somewhere in the Grammar Grumble thread...)

Thread duty: the only Liszt piano music in my collection is his transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies.

Quote from: Cato on January 18, 2025, 12:44:12 PMIt has probably struck everyone that, for most people on the planet, all of Classical Music is a "glaring omission" in their lives.  :o    ;)


And it is true that more people live in comfort than ever before: as a volunteer for the St. Vincent De Paul Society, I can attest that the poor people in America still have wide-screen televisions, cars, cell phones, etc. which a poor person in South America would not have.


I am quite happy to have so much music at my fingertips, with such wonderful quality, which was not possible in earlier eras.

To return: I have forgotten to add English composers as another "glaring omission" in much of my formation and since then.

Exceptions: R.V. Williams, Benjamin Britten, Robert Simpson, whom I discovered because of his excellent books on Bruckner, Harrison Birtwhistle,...

and Luke Ottevanger! 

I have not listened to the first four in a very long time, so perhaps this topic is a catalyst for returning to their works.

I hope at some point you'll be able to add George Butterworth to that list. He wrote some wonderful vocal music, and a few orchestral miniatures which contain phrases as beautiful as can be found anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Butterworth

Quote from: DaveF on January 18, 2025, 01:22:58 PMRobert Simpson wrote a book about Luke?! (Runs off and hides somewhere in the Grammar Grumble thread...)

(* chortle *)

@Luke can use the smile!

Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2025, 10:33:49 AM@71dB @hopefullytrusting

Music (at least in my book) is meant to be listened to. The medium through which the listening is achieved is completely immaterial (pun).

Suppose the only way to listen to your favorite music is by streaming. What would you do then?

Besides, for someone who condemns the acquisitiveness of greedy billionaires, such insistence on owning the physical CD is quite strange.  ;D

I agree that music is meant to be listened to. In that sense it doesn't matter much if the music is streamed online or stored on a CD/vinyl/etc. However, I don't need to limit myself to music alone. Collecting music on physical media serves as a hobby. My dad collects stamps. I collect physical media.

It is not guaranteed music I want to listen to stays on streaming services forever. Music disappears all the time. There are a lot of music I can only listen to by streaming so I stream. For example, yesterday I listened to Jonny L's X3 on spotify, because that's the only way it is available. I also stream a lot of vaporwave on Bandcamp, because that kind of music is only sometimes released on physical media in extremely limited way if at all (say 50 copies on CD and 300 copies on C-cassette).

I also use streaming to explore music, to find out how much I like it. I do stream a lot, but once I have found something I like a lot, I want to own it on CD if possible. Is that really that surprising for someone who was born in 1971 witnessing the coming of CD in the early 80's and started buying CDs in 1990 when I was able to buy my first CD player? To me CD represents the good old days when I was happier. CDs help me to widthstand the coldness of today's World. Why do I even need to explain these things? If streaming gives you everything you want in life then good for you, but my past is part of me.

The problem with billionaires is that by using their vast wealth to influence society they cause a lot of suffering for those who can't fight back. They hoard wealth by exploiting other people and avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. They "hide" their money to places were the money passively gains profit instead of flowing back into the circulation (weak multiplying effect). So, a Russian oligarch buying a £10 million property in London is totally different from my hobby of buying some CDs every now and then (in 2024 I bought 23 CDs, about 2 CDs per month and the total cost was 156 euros). Billionaires simply should not exist. $999 million should be enough money for anyone. Even that is excessive. We should look at the flip side. All the wealth of billionaires is away from the rest. Do poor people matter at all?

Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2025, 10:03:36 AMAFAIC this is an exercise in futility. I very much prefer to actually enjoy what I can enjoy here and now than to imagine what I could enjoy in unattainable circumstances. A tolerable reality is always preferable to a utopia for two reasons: (1) the former is real, the latter is imaginary, and (2) trying to achieve the latter more often than not results in much worsening the former.

It certainly is an exercise in futility, but I'm an INTJ meaning introverted intuition is my dominant cognitive function. My brain generates alternative possibilities for what is. I can't turn off my brain imagining what could/should have been. I can only do things that take my mind off of these things as much as possible. That's what I am trying to do, but it isn't 100 % effective.

A few decades ago my mind came up with nightmare scenarios for the future as well as rosy scenarios. What the World is today is not that far from those nightmares. The details are different  of course because nobody can predict accurately the future decades ahead, but the "feel of anxiety" is similar.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 19, 2025, 02:13:20 AMalso use streaming to explore music, to find out how much I like it. I do stream a lot, but once I have found something I like a lot, I want to own it on CD if possible. Is that really that surprising for someone who was born in 1971 witnessing the coming of CD in the early 80's and started buying CDs in 1990 when I was able to buy my first CD player?

As someone of a similar vintage, no it's not all surprising.

I do feel like this whole conversation has been a bit at cross-purposes, though. We seem to have ended up blurring together what we've never listened to (like you, I use streaming for exploration of repertoire) with what we haven't made part of our personal library. Looking back, you said that COLLECTING music was expensive and @DavidW then reacted on the basis that you'd said LISTENING was expensive. Which isn't what you had said.

Quote from: DaveF on January 18, 2025, 01:22:58 PMRobert Simpson wrote a book about Luke?! (Runs off and hides somewhere in the Grammar Grumble thread...)

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 18, 2025, 03:21:22 PM(* chortle *)

@Luke can use the smile!

Heh-Heh!  Yes, I should have used parentheses!  ;D  I will let the curiosity stand, in case Luke shows up!

Quote from: 71 dB on January 19, 2025, 02:41:33 AMIt certainly is an exercise in futility, but I'm an INTJ meaning introverted intuition is my dominant cognitive function. My brain generates alternative possibilities for what is. I can't turn off my brain imagining what could/should have been. I can only do things that take my mind off of these things as much as possible. That's what I am trying to do, but it isn't 100 % effective.

A few decades ago my mind came up with nightmare scenarios for the future as well as rosy scenarios. What the World is today is not that far from those nightmares. The details are different  of course because nobody can predict accurately the future decades ahead, but the "feel of anxiety" is similar.

Dude!  You will love this group: they imagine various movies and television shows as made in the 1940's or 1950's by Fritz Lang and others!

The animation is fascinating!

https://www.facebook.com/abandonedmovies/videos/1360456008663142/?vh=e&extid=MSG-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C (https://www.facebook.com/abandonedmovies/videos/1360456008663142/?vh=e&extid=MSG-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C)

Quote from: 71 dB on January 19, 2025, 02:13:20 AMIs that really that surprising for someone who was born in 1971 witnessing the coming of CD in the early 80's and started buying CDs in 1990 when I was able to buy my first CD player? To me CD represents the good old days when I was happier. CDs help me to widthstand the coldness of today's World. Why do I even need to explain these things? If streaming gives you everything you want in life then good for you, but my past is part of me.

Well, I am of the same generation as you (b.1972). I too have a fair amount of LPs and CDs, but after going the download route when it became widely available I never looked back and my LPs and CDs gather dust in the attic. Instead of occupying a whole room worth of shelves raising from floor to ceiling, my whole musical library is stored on three external HDDs (I will soon need another one). As for streaming, I very rarely do it, I mentioned it just to make a point. Technological progress puts at our disposal a wide range of gadgets and possibilities which are tremendously space-saving and handy. I see no reason not to take full advantage of them.

That being said, I do have a soft spot similar to yours: books. I mean, I read lots of books online but I would never part with my physical ones. I guess we are both nostalgic each in our own way.  :)

Quote from: Brian on January 18, 2025, 07:03:54 AMAre you saving Beethoven's Ninth for a special occasion, since you have enjoyed the other 8? Or simply did not enjoy it nearly as much as the rest?

Having never listened to it, I couldn't possibly comment. I can say I have no plans to fix either of my glaring omissions.

Quote from: Florestan on January 19, 2025, 03:11:20 AMTechnological progress puts at our disposal a wide range of gadgets and possibilities which are tremendously space-saving and handy.

I suspect when it comes to music, the main driver of taking up the technology was not saving of space but saving of money.

Including of course that period of time where an awful lot of people decided that technology meant they didn't have to pay anything at all for music. The industry sort of had to claw back from that with download stores and then streaming services.

For me the CD technology pretty much continued to meet my needs and so I didn't stop using it. I did move to a bigger house... though I think my collection a lot smaller than many people here anyway. And the driver of that aspect of the move was the piano, not the CD collection. Honest.

Quote from: Madiel on January 19, 2025, 03:31:41 AMI suspect when it comes to music, the main driver of taking up the technology was not saving of space but saving of money.

That too, doubtless.  :laugh:

The thing that pushed me over the hump (finally) to be begin streaming (and drastically reduce purchasing of CDs) is @Harry making the switch. By golly, if he can make that switch, anybody can.  :laugh:

That, alongside the fact that CDs have become (prohibitively for me) much more expensive, combined with less availability. Especially, for local and Canadian sources. Thus, having to incur (on top of already high CD prices), duties and shipping charges.

Space is also a bit of concern. And having too large of a physical collection is another concern, in that I feel I cannot give each piece in the collection fair attention in a relatively reasonable time frame.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 19, 2025, 02:13:20 AMI agree that music is meant to be listened to. In that sense it doesn't matter much if the music is streamed online or stored on a CD/vinyl/etc. However, I don't need to limit myself to music alone. Collecting music on physical media serves as a hobby. My dad collects stamps. I collect physical media.

It is not guaranteed music I want to listen to stays on streaming services forever. Music disappears all the time. There are a lot of music I can only listen to by streaming so I stream. For example, yesterday I listened to Jonny L's X3 on spotify, because that's the only way it is available. I also stream a lot of vaporwave on Bandcamp, because that kind of music is only sometimes released on physical media in extremely limited way if at all (say 50 copies on CD and 300 copies on C-cassette).

I also use streaming to explore music, to find out how much I like it. I do stream a lot, but once I have found something I like a lot, I want to own it on CD if possible. Is that really that surprising for someone who was born in 1971 witnessing the coming of CD in the early 80's and started buying CDs in 1990 when I was able to buy my first CD player? To me CD represents the good old days when I was happier. CDs help me to widthstand the coldness of today's World. Why do I even need to explain these things? If streaming gives you everything you want in life then good for you, but my past is part of me.

The problem with billionaires is that by using their vast wealth to influence society they cause a lot of suffering for those who can't fight back. They hoard wealth by exploiting other people and avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. They "hide" their money to places were the money passively gains profit instead of flowing back into the circulation (weak multiplying effect). So, a Russian oligarch buying a £10 million property in London is totally different from my hobby of buying some CDs every now and then (in 2024 I bought 23 CDs, about 2 CDs per month and the total cost was 156 euros). Billionaires simply should not exist. $999 million should be enough money for anyone. Even that is excessive. We should look at the flip side. All the wealth of billionaires is away from the rest. Do poor people matter at all?

Generalizations are nearly always perilous, and this post is no exception. The fact is, not every wealthy individual is part of the " evil one percent ":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

Two of my friends are multi- millionaires, and are among the best people I've ever known ( l admit to some bias here, as they saved my life in 2018 ).

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 19, 2025, 05:11:55 AMThe thing that pushed me over the hump (finally) to be begin streaming (and drastically reduce purchasing of CDs) is @Harry making the switch. By golly, if he can make that switch, anybody can.  :laugh:

That, alongside the fact that CDs have become (prohibitively for me) much more expansive, combined with less availability. Especially, for local and Canadian sources. Thus, having to incur (on top of already high CD prices), duties and shipping charges.

Space is also a bit of concern. And having too large of a physical collection is another concern, in that I feel I cannot give each piece in the collection fair attention in a relatively reasonable time frame.

That last part interests me, because one of the supposed selling points of streaming is that you have access to vastly more music.

Which you can't possibly pay attention to. But it seems to me the psychology of renting millions of tracks is different to the psychology of buying thousands of tracks.

I'm like @71 dB in that I use streaming to do my browsing, but I still like the act of commitment. To the stuff that I'm going to try to pay decent attention to.

Quote from: Madiel on January 19, 2025, 05:18:34 AMThat last part interests me, because one of the supposed selling points of streaming is that you have access to vastly more music.

Which you can't possibly pay attention to. But it seems to me the psychology of renting millions of tracks is different to the psychology of buying thousands of tracks.

I'm like @71 dB in that I use streaming to do my browsing, but I still like the act of commitment. To the stuff that I'm going to try to pay decent attention to.

Yes I realize it is a contradictory statement.  ;D

Quote from: LKB on January 19, 2025, 05:12:22 AMGeneralizations are nearly always perilous, and this post is no exception. The fact is, not every wealthy individual is part of the " evil one percent ":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

Two of my friends are multi- millionaires, and are among the best people I've ever known ( l admit to some bias here, as they saved my life in 2018 ).

Someone with a wealth of a few million dollars isn't in the same position as someone with wealth of multiple billions of dollars. The wealth of the richest people in the World is absolutely ridiculous, thousands of times bigger than "normal" rich people with a few million dollars. Also, these mega-rich people often pay taxes at lower rate than normal people.

Of course there are rich people who are good, but that doesn't stop the evil ones doing the harm on others.

Quote from: Roasted Swan on January 17, 2025, 11:16:29 AMI've noticed before how many forum members seem to actively dislike vocal/choral music.  Given that most instrumental music strives to emulate the voice I find that interesting.......

Erm, are you sure about that? I find that hard to believe. That's coming from someone who has almost no interest in vocal music admittedly.

My omissions aren't glaring but rather deliberate... Vocal, solo piano, baroque and earlier...

In solo though there are some exceptions like Liszt who wrote gloriously for it and of course the Beethoven sonatas... 

I've spent a few months with chamber music cumulatively and there are a few pieces which I do like but it's hard for me to put it in the same level as orchestral music... 

Quote from: lordlance on January 20, 2025, 06:55:07 AMErm, are you sure about that? I find that hard to believe. That's coming from someone who has almost no interest in vocal music admittedly.

Don't know about "most instrumental music" but until well into 19th century, opera was the big thing, its prestige and popularity far exceeding that of instrumental music. And yes, many great composers were famed and lauded for the vocal-like quality of their instrumental music : Mozart, Schubert, Chopin immediately come to mind.

Quote from: Florestan on January 20, 2025, 08:52:42 AMDon't know about "most instrumental music" but until well into 19th century, opera was the big thing, its prestige and popularity far exceeding that of instrumental music. And yes, many great composers were famed and lauded for the vocal-like quality of their instrumental music : Mozart, Schubert, Chopin immediately come to mind.

Opera was big specifically in France and Italy, no? Their composers reflect as much with their dearth of proper orchestral music writers... (And even those that are... Well, not exactly the best in my view but I'm sure there'll be defenders...)

I would imagine in the 16 to 18th century religion would have an outsized influence and hence the focus on cantatas, oratorios, sacred operas/ vocal music, etc.

Quote from: lordlance on January 20, 2025, 02:14:36 PMOpera was big specifically in France and Italy, no?

No. In German lands, England and Russia as well.

QuoteTheir composers reflect as much with their dearth of proper orchestral music writers...

Actually, it's the Italians who invented orchestral music and produced some of the finest and most influential composers in this respect. And the French, while coming rather late to the party, are second to none in orchestral color and subtlety.

QuoteI would imagine in the 16 to 18th century religion would have an outsized influence and hence the focus on cantatas, oratorios, sacred operas/ vocal music, etc.

Not outsized at all, entirely commensurate with the political, cultural and social role religion played back then.

You made three ill-informed statements above, I humbly suggest you pick up a music history handbook.

It's still true that in the 19th century opera dominated in France and Italy so much that even some of the French composers suffered from it and tried to improve the status of instrumental music. It was almost impossible to have a career there without writing operas whereas this was possible for 19th century German, Austrian, Scandinavian etc. composers.
(It was a bit different in the first heyday of French and especially Italian music in the baroque with Frescobaldi, Corelli or Couperin being predominantly instrumental composers but it seems a significant difference in the 19th century)

And it's also true that compared to the 19th century sacred music was far more important in earlier times and it even had a special rôle in the aftermath of the reformation because it was used in the counterreformation (i.e. (early) 17th century) to "lure" people back to the catholic church. In any case, lots of composers had their jobs at churches and there is also a clear influence that music thrived in Lutheran and catholic eras but much less in Calvinist and puritan regions with their reduced church music. (At least Lutherans also promoted music at home as preferable Christian pastime to drinking and gambling...)

Apart from the general backwardness of Russia and other orthodox parts it was also very probably a factor that they came so late to Western style music (but then with a distinct voice because of their separate development) because there was only vocal music in orthodox services, no organs or other instruments.

One of the things I really, really like about Richard Goode's set of the Beethoven piano sonatas is that, for the early and middle works at least, he very much conveys a link to vocal music. Time and again it has the feel of an operatic duet or trio.

Now of course, instrumental melodies are never exactly the same as vocal ones. The technical capabilities are different.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81VYKYC+LvL._SX425_.jpg)

Quote from: Madiel on January 20, 2025, 11:48:17 PMOne of the things I really, really like about Richard Goode's set of the Beethoven piano sonatas is that, for the early and middle works at least, he very much conveys a link to vocal music. Time and again it has the feel of an operatic duet or trio.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81VYKYC+LvL._SX425_.jpg)

Looks like something I might greatly enjoy. Will investigate.

Quote from: Jo498 on January 20, 2025, 11:39:24 PMIt's still true that in the 19th century opera dominated in France and Italy so much that even some of the French composers suffered from it and tried to improve the status of instrumental music. It was almost impossible to have a career there without writing operas whereas this was possible for 19th century German, Austrian, Scandinavian etc. composers.

That's true. Yet it can be argued that at least in the first half of the 19th century the most popular composers everywhere, from New York to Cairo and from Buenos Aires to Sankt-Petersburg, including all major European capitals and cities, were Rossini and Meyerbeer. Back then symphonic works and symphonic concerts were far from being as universally acclaimed and popular as they are today.

The thing that really strikes me, which I've remarked on a few times, is that culturally we seem to have completely fallen out of love with choral music.

Many of the great composers of the 19th century and early 20th century wrote a lot of choral music. It crops up when I do my explorations of a composer's body of work. But recordings of this stuff are really thin on the ground in comparison to their orchestral music, which equally requires a whole group of people to come together to perform it. We just don't have a sort of collection of well-regarded choirs doing the repertoire in the same way that we have orchestras. The music does still exist and get performed, but the status of it seems to be much reduced.

It wouldn't apply to people here, but in general culture there is quite definitely a sense that classical music is instrumental. I still remember having a heated argument about this with multiple people in a particular context, they listened to a lot of music but they didn't normally listen to classical music and were fully on board with the notion that an upcoming classical "song cycle" by Tori Amos was not in fact going to involve any singing. I found this proposition mystifying but I couldn't argue them out of it. To them a classical "song" could be purely instrumental. They were totally wrong about the song cycle in question... but then Tori Amos also issued a purely instrumental version of the album because so many fans clamoured for it. Because it was a classical album they wanted an instrumental version of it, largely shorn of the actual melody line, and it wasn't because they wanted to do karaoke with it.

So in general culture, it's classical instrumental music that now has the status. I'm not sure how much of that is just that most people switched to more recent popular music for singing (where solo vocal is king), or how much is because sung music imposes language barriers that instrumental music doesn't.

Yes, anyway. In short, whether or not anyone here on the forum doesn't go for classical vocal music, the cultural zeitgeist and the market certainly don't seem to go for it.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 12:56:04 AMThe thing that really strikes me, which I've remarked on a few times, is that culturally we seem to have completely fallen out of love with choral music.

In the UK, based on my local experience, I would estimate that every town of medium-size and above has a choral society, who generally mount three or four concerts per year with orchestra, usually of fairly standard repertoire (Mozart masses, Fauré Requiems etc.) but in some cases (including one local to me) of often fairly neglected and challenging works.  Standards are amateur, but quite acceptable.  Concerts are generally sold out.  What is worrying is that the average age of members of these societies is quite high - if I'm ever called in myself to make up numbers, I'm the baby of the bass section at 65.  So the situation is fairly healthy at the moment, but "forward, tho' I cannot see, I guess an' fear!"

Worth mentioning too that the English cathedral choral tradition is alive and well - less so in Wales, sadly.

Quote from: DaveF on January 21, 2025, 01:14:21 AMIn the UK, based on my local experience, I would estimate that every town of medium-size and above has a choral society, who generally mount three or four concerts per year with orchestra, usually of fairly standard repertoire (Mozart masses, Fauré Requiems etc.) but in some cases (including one local to me) of often fairly neglected and challenging works.  Standards are amateur, but quite acceptable.  Concerts are generally sold out.  What is worrying is that the average age of members of these societies is quite high - if I'm ever called in myself to make up numbers, I'm the baby of the bass section at 65.  So the situation is fairly healthy at the moment, but "forward, tho' I cannot see, I guess an' fear!"

Worth mentioning too that the English cathedral choral tradition is alive and well - less so in Wales, sadly.

Agree in full here, and it helps that maybe the most famous classical person living - Anna Lapwood - is also a choral conductor (she also composes, and is an organ master).

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 12:56:04 AM..... that really strikes me, which I've remarked on a few times, is that culturally we seem to have completely fallen out of love with choral music.

In Belgium and the Netherlands amateur choral societies do survive, but -as in Great Britain - the average age of the members is often high. There are some younger groups  - they sing a different repertoire.

https://www.brusselschoralsociety.com/listen/
https://www.cathedralisbruxellensis.be/en/
https://www.kathedraalmechelen.be/muziek/kathedraalkoren/het-mechels-kathedraalkoor
https://dekathedraal.be/en/music-cathedral



I love Brahms' choral works , Rudolf Escher, Zoltan Kodaly, Poulenc, Lodewijk Devocht, Johan Duyck....

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 17, 2025, 10:41:19 AMI came to romantic nationalism through my consumption of Dvorak, especially his symphonic poems.

I have never been into Dvořák much myself for some reason. I have very little of his music*, but I do have a NAXOS CD of the Symphonic Poems Opp. 108-110. I don't remember much of the music and it has been probably 20 years since I have listened to the CD. It might be a good idea to revisit it in the near future...  :)

* I do like his Cello Concerto, Op. 104 and also the Slavonic Rhapsodies, Op. 45. However, his symphonies don't have much appeal to me for some reason... ...perhaps I find Dvořák to be too soft/poetic composer for symphonies?

I listen to hardly any choral music myself and if I do, it is Elgar's Part Songs.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2025, 02:03:02 AMI have never been into Dvořák much myself for some reason. I have very little of his music*, but I do have a NAXOS CD of the Symphonic Poems Opp. 108-110. I don't remember much of the music and it has been probably 20 years since I have listened to the CD. It might be a good idea to revisit it in the near future...  :)

Well, the reasons I love symphonic poems so much is that it already has a structural system pre-built into it which is understandable by me.

I also find that the composers tend to take certain forms more seriously than others, but they all seem to let loose and have fun in symphonic poems.

That's why I'm drawn to them. :)

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 12:56:04 AMIn short, whether or not anyone here on the forum doesn't go for classical vocal music, the cultural zeitgeist and the market certainly don't seem to go for it.

Indeed. And to go back to a point made earlier by @Jo498 , it was possible for a non-Italian/non-French composer to have an opera-free career but it was quite impossible to have a vocal-music-free career. Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Grieg wrote tons of Lieder and choral music, precisely because, as you aptly put it, the cultural zeitgeist and the market put a premium on such works. It was actually not uncommon to have a career based almost exclusively on vocal music, as witnessed by Carl Loewe, Robert Franz and Hugo Wolf. Paradoxically enough, it's precisely in Italy and France, where opera reigned supreme, that some composers, first and foremost Paganini, Chopin and Liszt, were able to achieve fame and popularity exclusively with instrumental compositions --- and still, the first two were heavily influenced by the belcanto style while the latter wrote tons of reminiscences, variations and pot-pourris on operatic themes.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 21, 2025, 02:14:58 AMthe reasons I love symphonic poems so much is that it already has a structural system pre-built into it which is understandable by me.

That's a strange assertion. I should have thought the above applies to symphonies much more than to symphonic poems. What pre-built structural commonalities do you find between, say, Les preludes and Till Eulenspiegels Lustige Streiche?

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 02:29:29 AMThat's a strange assertion. I should have thought the above applies to symphonies much more than to symphonic poems. What pre-built structural commonalities do you find between, say, Les preludes and Till Eulenspiegels Lustige Streiche?

My PhD is in rhetoric. One of my areas of specialty is literary structure, in fact, it is one of the things I teach.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 21, 2025, 02:32:31 AMMy PhD is in rhetoric. One of my areas of specialty is literary structure, in fact, it is one of the things I teach.

Congrats on your academic achievements, keep up the good work. You didn't answer my question, though.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 12:56:04 AMhow much is because sung music imposes language barriers that instrumental music doesn't.

I address this very topic here: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33840.0.html

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 04:28:18 AMI address this very topic here: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33840.0.html

Yeah, but I don't agree with you.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 04:29:44 AMYeah, but I don't agree with you.

No problem at all. I just want to open a discussion, not to impose my views on anyone.

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 04:45:39 AMNo problem at all. I just want to open a discussion, not to impose my views on anyone.

Oh yes I know, I'm not suggesting you're trying to impose your views here. But I've known for quite a while that we don't share the same views on this.

And while there are certainly people out there like you that don't worry about language, I'm also pretty confident that there are enough people who DO care about language that not being able to understand something is a barrier that has an impact on market share (including an impact on what classical music people are most likely to listen to). Most pop music is in English because that's the most common language in most of the market that's being aimed for. Eurovision abandoned it's rule that you had to use a national language because a lot of countries felt they were at a disadvantage.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 12:56:04 AMThe thing that really strikes me, which I've remarked on a few times, is that culturally we seem to have completely fallen out of love with choral music.

Many of the great composers of the 19th century and early 20th century wrote a lot of choral music. It crops up when I do my explorations of a composer's body of work. But recordings of this stuff are really thin on the ground in comparison to their orchestral music, which equally requires a whole group of people to come together to perform it. We just don't have a sort of collection of well-regarded choirs doing the repertoire in the same way that we have orchestras. The music does still exist and get performed, but the status of it seems to be much reduced.

It wouldn't apply to people here, but in general culture there is quite definitely a sense that classical music is instrumental. I still remember having a heated argument about this with multiple people in a particular context, they listened to a lot of music but they didn't normally listen to classical music and were fully on board with the notion that an upcoming classical "song cycle" by Tori Amos was not in fact going to involve any singing. I found this proposition mystifying but I couldn't argue them out of it. To them a classical "song" could be purely instrumental. They were totally wrong about the song cycle in question... but then Tori Amos also issued a purely instrumental version of the album because so many fans clamoured for it. Because it was a classical album they wanted an instrumental version of it, largely shorn of the actual melody line, and it wasn't because they wanted to do karaoke with it.

So in general culture, it's classical instrumental music that now has the status. I'm not sure how much of that is just that most people switched to more recent popular music for singing (where solo vocal is king), or how much is because sung music imposes language barriers that instrumental music doesn't.

Yes, anyway. In short, whether or not anyone here on the forum doesn't go for classical vocal music, the cultural zeitgeist and the market certainly don't seem to go for it.

In New England in the first half of the 20th c. you couldn't throw a packet of frozen cranberries without hitting an amateur choral society. Americans have forgotten how to sing together. It'll kill William Billings.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2025, 02:13:55 AMI listen to hardly any choral music myself and if I do, it is Elgar's Part Songs.

You'd perhaps enjoy Holst's, as well.

Quote from: Florestan on January 20, 2025, 11:13:06 PMNo. In German lands, England and Russia as well.

Actually, it's the Italians who invented orchestral music and produced some of the finest and most influential composers in this respect. And the French, while coming rather late to the party, are second to none in orchestral color and subtlety.

Not outsized at all, entirely commensurate with the political, cultural and social role religion played back then.

You made three ill-informed statements above, I humbly suggest you pick up a music history handbook.

1. Fair but still it wasn't all consuming. Quite clearly not. 
2. Which Italians are you referring to?
2b. Re:French like I wrote already. Not really. Not to me in any case. 
3. We'll I'm using outsized relative to my stance as an atheist but then people can disagree. Regardless, 'overwhelming' if you prefer. 

Quote from: foxandpeng on January 17, 2025, 11:01:08 AMMost of the 'core repertoire', I imagine. Not because I am being clever or obscure, but because I have followed my nose (ears) with stuff I like, and you can't be familiar with everything. 

Same here, having stumbled upon 20th century classical but not really enjoying earlier music. And like @Papy Oli wanting to enjoy my collection more rather than chase diminishing returns.

Quote from: lordlance on January 21, 2025, 01:08:47 PMWhich Italians are you referring to?

To name only the most influential: Arcangelo Corelli, Antonio Vivaldi, Giovanni Battista Sammartini, Muzio Clementi.

Now, Baroque and Classical might not be among your favorite periods but this is immaterial. The music you like did not appear out of thin air.

QuoteRe:French like I wrote already. Not really. Not to me in any case.

Not really what?

QuoteWe'll I'm using outsized relative to my stance as an atheist but then people can disagree. Regardless, 'overwhelming' if you prefer.

Applying contemporary standards and criteria to the past is a mistake which results in misleading or downright false conclusions. Atheism has got nothing to do with it.

Quote from: steve ridgway on January 22, 2025, 12:04:45 AMSame here, having stumbled upon 20th century classical but not really enjoying earlier music. And like @Papy Oli wanting to enjoy my collection more rather than chase diminishing returns.

This makes so much sense. The "dilemma" of access vs. curation arises, at least for me.

Just because I can doesn't mean I should.

Quote from: DaveF on January 21, 2025, 01:14:21 AMIn the UK, based on my local experience, I would estimate that every town of medium-size and above has a choral society, who generally mount three or four concerts per year with orchestra, usually of fairly standard repertoire (Mozart masses, Fauré Requiems etc.) but in some cases (including one local to me) of often fairly neglected and challenging works.  Standards are amateur, but quite acceptable.  Concerts are generally sold out. 

that's similar in Germany although the details are different with only a few traditional cathedral choirs in respective cities but the medium sized town (75k) where I went to school as a kid had two large church organized amateur choirs that would do decent performances of the Bach passions or similar works (with hired soloists). Admittedly the breadth of repertoire was not so great, partly probably because they would not often want to get a full orchestra for 19th century pieces like Mendelssohn's oratorios or the Brahms Requiem, so these were performed far less frequently than the Christmas oratorio or Mozart Requiem.

Additionally there are still quite a few choral associations that do a cappella or keyboard accompanied repertoire, there are also national and international competitions for them and young people participate. There's more choral/singing activity than one might imagine.

Quote from: Jo498 on January 22, 2025, 01:20:25 AMThere's more choral/singing activity than one might imagine.

But primarily as an amateur pursuit that doesn't make into the recorded music catalogue.

My original comment was in the context of what we listen to, and what has status. We seem to live in a world where professional orchestras are more noticeable than amateur ones, and amateur choirs are more noticeable than professional ones.

The heaps of choral music written by Schubert, Mendelssohn or Brahms were for similar choral societies that were huge in a time with far less options for pastimes, so it's not surprising that this or similar repertoire is today also mostly performed by amateurs. (Whereas 19th century orchestral and even a lot of instrumental chamber music was already for professionals)

I also don't see any professional neglect of large choral + orchestral works (like Bach or Mendelssohn oratorios) in performances or recordings and there are also a decent number of professional choirs and vocal ensembles that perform/record a cappella or smaller scale choral/vocal music.

I agree that to listen to stuff like Marenzio Madrigals or Liebesliederwalzer on recordings is more niche than to listen to Mahler's symphonies but that's also not surprising because such vocal music was mostly for Hausmusik or small private entertainments, i.e. as much or more for the pleasure of the performers than the audience's.

Quote from: Jo498 on January 22, 2025, 02:53:38 AMI agree that to listen to stuff like Marenzio Madrigals or Liebesliederwalzer on recordings is more niche than to listen to Mahler's symphonies but that's also not surprising because such vocal music was mostly for Hausmusik or small private entertainments, i.e. as much or more for the pleasure of the performers than the audience's.

Actually, in the case of such music separation between performers and audience was basically non-existent. Anyone in the (usually small) audience could have actually been a performer and vice-versa; changing the roles during the event was not uncommon.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 18, 2025, 10:20:40 AMCompletely understand.

I think that is one of the reasons I've gone back to physical media. I can't control everything, but I was happier, and appreciated more, when the object was in my hand. It felt like the completion of a project. Nothing with the digital domain gives me that feeling.

For those interested in reflections on the comparison between CDs or other physical media and streaming, I recommend Francisco Lopez's short essay Music Dematerialized?.

The opening passage -

The disappearance of the object seems to be a fait accompli in recorded commercial music. Leaving aside the rare nostalgic, the format fetishist/fundamentalist, the minor industry of retro replicas, and also the no-industry of so-called underground experimental music, nobody cares anymore about the traditional physical carriers of audio when it comes to actually listening to music (whatever that might mean today).

Full text here: https://www.franciscolopez.net/pdf/MD.pdf

And yet, sales of LPs have increased several-fold over the past decade. The essay is quite out of date, and indeed probably didn't engage with the data even at the time it was written.

https://luminatedata.com/blog/the-growth-of-vinyl-and-the-impact-of-independent-record-stores-on-vinyl-sales/

Quote from: steve ridgway on January 22, 2025, 12:04:45 AMSame here, having stumbled upon 20th century classical but not really enjoying earlier music. And like @Papy Oli wanting to enjoy my collection more rather than chase diminishing returns.

Works for me!

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 22, 2025, 12:38:20 AMThis makes so much sense. The "dilemma" of access vs. curation arises, at least for me.

Just because I can doesn't mean I should.

The literature is vast and rich. Great problem to have ;)

Quote from: DaveF on January 21, 2025, 01:14:21 AMIn the UK, based on my local experience, I would estimate that every town of medium-size and above has a choral society,

I live in the US and my small town has a choral society. It does not have an orchestra.

I suddenly realised that I had a weird Glaring Omission: 'The entire works of Rimsky-Korsakov except Scheherazade'.

I have maybe 20 different recordings of Scheherazade, it being one of the works that drew me into classical music 60 years ago, and I've loved it ever since, without diminishment. But try as I might, I cannot find any comparable attraction to any other works by R-K. It's a huge blank. The operas: oh no, no, no. Can't cope with them at all. The orchestral suites derived from them are a bit more attractive, but not much. So here I am, with Scheherazade still, 60 years on, scoring 5 stars, and nothing else getting onto the scale. Oh hang on, I'll give a couple of stars to the Easter Festival overture. But the rest is silence. Literally. I never listen to them now.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 24, 2025, 01:10:40 AMI suddenly realised that I had a weird Glaring Omission: 'The entire works of Rimsky-Korsakov except Scheherazade'.

I have many 20 different recordings of Scheherazade, it being one of the works that drew me into classical music 60 years ago, and I've loved it ever since, without diminishment. But try as I might, I cannot find any comparable attraction to any other works by R-K. It's a huge blank. The operas: oh no, no, no. Can't cope with them at all. The orchestral suites derived from them are a bit more attractive, but not much. So here I am, with Scheherazade still, 60 years on, scoring 5 stars, and nothing else getting onto the scale. Oh hang on, I'll give a couple of stars to the Easter Festival overture. But the rest is silence. Literally. I never listen to them now.

Looks like Rimsky-Korsakov is a true one hit wonder to you then!  ;)

I have only one CD of Rimsky-Korsakov's music: Scheherazade + The Tale of Tsar Saltan (NAXOS 8.550726). I don't even remember why I own the disc, but I assume I have paid next to nothing for it. Scheherazade is nice, but I could live without. At least I have something by R.-K.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 24, 2025, 03:27:20 AMLooks like Rimsky-Korsakov is a true one hit wonder to you then!  ;)

Exactly so. But the one hit has been huge.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 24, 2025, 01:10:40 AMI suddenly realised that I had a weird Glaring Omission: 'The entire works of Rimsky-Korsakov except Scheherazade'.

I have maybe 20 different recordings of Scheherazade, it being one of the works that drew me into classical music 60 years ago, and I've loved it ever since, without diminishment. But try as I might, I cannot find any comparable attraction to any other works by R-K. It's a huge blank. The operas: oh no, no, no. Can't cope with them at all. The orchestral suites derived from them are a bit more attractive, but not much. So here I am, with Scheherazade still, 60 years on, scoring 5 stars, and nothing else getting onto the scale. Oh hang on, I'll give a couple of stars to the Easter Festival overture. But the rest is silence. Literally. I never listen to them now.

If you haven't already, try his Russian Easter Overture.

There's an old recording of the RCO with Igor Markevitch conducting on Philips, and it is fire ( as the youngsters say ).

I admit that I find Sheherazade a bit lengthy and repetitive... ;D 
I prefer both "Antar", the Russian Easter ouverture and some of the suites from operas, especially "Christmas Eve".

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 24, 2025, 01:10:40 AMI suddenly realised that I had a weird Glaring Omission: 'The entire works of Rimsky-Korsakov except Scheherazade'.

I have maybe 20 different recordings of Scheherazade, it being one of the works that drew me into classical music 60 years ago, and I've loved it ever since, without diminishment. But try as I might, I cannot find any comparable attraction to any other works by R-K. It's a huge blank. The operas: oh no, no, no. Can't cope with them at all. The orchestral suites derived from them are a bit more attractive, but not much. So here I am, with Scheherazade still, 60 years on, scoring 5 stars, and nothing else getting onto the scale. Oh hang on, I'll give a couple of stars to the Easter Festival overture. But the rest is silence. Literally. I never listen to them now.

No Capriccio espagnole? Great clarinet licks. Yes, the Russian Easter Overture is a winner.

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 24, 2025, 07:34:49 AMNo Capriccio espagnole? Great clarinet licks. Yes, the Russian Easter Overture is a winner.

And not that it needs to be (re)stated, but there is also nothing wrong (whatsoever) at leaving your omission glaring, if you should so choose.

I own zero Rimsky music, and that shall, I feel, always remain the case (just as an example, and not my most glaring given the overall tenor of this board, lol).

The Capriccio espagnole is a riot! but should be taken in moderation...

Quote from: Jo498 on January 24, 2025, 07:46:06 AMThe Capriccio espagnole is a riot! but should be taken in moderation...

Oh, I don't propose playing it to destruction. I leave that to WCRB.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on January 24, 2025, 07:44:24 AMAnd not that it needs to be (re)stated, but there is also nothing wrong (whatsoever) at leaving your omission glaring, if you should so choose.

I own zero Rimsky music, and that shall, I feel, always remain the case (just as an example, and not my most glaring given the overall tenor of this board, lol).

Rimsky-Korsakov wrote a number of pieces that were so overplayed on classical radio I feel no need to hear them ever again. Although I do have recordings of them if ever I do want to hear them.
Possibly his biggest achievement was simply keeping Boris Godunov alive in the opera house.

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2025, 08:27:15 AMPossibly his biggest achievement was simply keeping Boris Godunov alive in the opera house.

Agreed, that was (and is) monumental. :)

Quote from: Jo498 on January 24, 2025, 07:29:39 AMI admit that I find Sheherazade a bit lengthy and repetitive... ;D 
I prefer both "Antar", the Russian Easter ouverture and some of the suites from operas, especially "Christmas Eve".

I can understand why the repetitive problem could arise, but ... well, if I'm eating chocolates (and Scheherazade is very like chocolates for me), I want a lot more than one chocolate, you see.

I remember listening to Scheherazade outdoors on the lawn in the summer of 1965, day after day. The sun shone, and there was nowhere else I wanted to be, and no musical adventure I could have preferred just then (I only had four classical LPs at the time). With a glorious memory like that, the music just seems part of who I am. I owe it a vast debt.

I did mention the Russian Festival Overture, but gave it the wrong name. I don't think about it much.

As a child, I often heard Rimsky-Korsakov's music on official radio or TV. He wasn't just one of the anointed composers approved for the tender ears of Soviet citizens — oh no, he was practically a foot soldier of Party propaganda. Classics with a mission, you might say. I remember one of my first "serious" LPs in the early '70s was Scheherazade, probably conducted by Fedoseyev. My record collection was so tiny then that I listened to each one endlessly, until I knew every detail inside out. And yet, I can't recall a single melody now. Not one. And the best part? I don't have the slightest desire to refresh my memory. Such a pleasant little omission.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on January 24, 2025, 10:41:05 AMAs a child, I often heard Rimsky-Korsakov's music on official radio or TV. He wasn't just one of the anointed composers approved for the tender ears of Soviet citizens — oh no, he was practically a foot soldier of Party propaganda. Classics with a mission, you might say.

The irony being that R-K, who died a decade before the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, was a liberal who'd have probably got into trouble with the new regime., just as he got into trouble with the Tsarist one. Actually, I can't think of a single great Russian composer who died before 1918 who would have been a supporter of the Bolsheviks, let alone an enthusiastic Party member.

There's a scene in The First Circle in which the inmates vent their feelings about the "trials" that put them into the gulags by imagining Rimsky-Korsakov in the dock, the prosecutor starting off with him being an aristocrat, as evidenced by the hyphenated name.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 24, 2025, 09:48:23 AMI can understand why the repetitive problem could arise, but ... well, if I'm eating chocolates (and Scheherazade is very like chocolates for me), I want a lot more than one chocolate, you see.

I remember listening to Scheherazade outdoors on the lawn in the summer of 1965, day after day. The sun shone, and there was nowhere else I wanted to be, and no musical adventure I could have preferred just then (I only had four classical LPs at the time). With a glorious memory like that, the music just seems part of who I am. I owe it a vast debt.

Very nice!

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2025, 08:27:15 AMRimsky-Korsakov wrote a number of pieces that were so overplayed on classical radio I feel no need to hear them ever again.

Ah, the wonder that is WCRB!

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 24, 2025, 12:24:25 PMAh, the wonder that is WCRB!

In my case it was WTMI in Miami Beach. When it went from on-air to online website based in Connecticut (under the URL Beethoven dot com*) I replaced it by buying CDs--at first a small collection of basics that included R-K's bonbons, but evolving rapidly from that.

*That was about 30 years ago. I have no idea if there's any connection to any current website.

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2025, 12:30:22 PMIn my case it was WTMI in Miami Beach. When it went from on-air to online website based in Connecticut (under the URL Beethoven dot com*) I replaced it by buying CDs--at first a small collection of basics that included R-K's bonbons, but evolving rapidly from that.

*That was about 30 years ago. I have no idea if there's any connection to any current website.

You know Beethoven Radio dot com?

That was an initial part of my discovery phase. They had a forum like this too and I was a member. Based out of Hartford Connecticut.

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 24, 2025, 12:33:36 PMYou know Beethoven Radio dot com?

That was an initial part of my discovery phase. They had a forum like this too and I was a member. Based out of Hartford Connecticut.

My initial phase was back in the 1980s with those super-cheap 60 minute compilation cassettes. I recall having four of them: Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart.

8)

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 24, 2025, 12:33:36 PMYou know Beethoven Radio dot com?

That was an initial part of my discovery phase. They had a forum like this too and I was a member. Based out of Hartford Connecticut.

That would have been them. WTMI's owner decided there was no future for classical radio, sold the FCC license, and used the station's library of recordings for his new internet venture.

In the meantime, I've taken the little group of CDs I got back then
and put them into the listening pile, so expect me to post some bonbons over the next few weeks.

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2025, 12:22:03 PMThere's a scene in The First Circle in which the inmates vent their feelings about the "trials" that put them into the gulags by imagining Rimsky-Korsakov in the dock, the prosecutor starting off with him being an aristocrat, as evidenced by the hyphenated name.

It's rather amusing how Solzhenitsyn transformed from a fiery critic of the Bolshevik regime into an impassioned champion of Russian statehood. One can hardly doubt that, had he lived long enough, he'd be firmly in Putin's corner, perhaps even offering a few choice quotes for the occasion.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on January 24, 2025, 06:19:48 PMIt's rather amusing how Solzhenitsyn transformed from a fiery critic of the Bolshevik regime into an impassioned champion of Russian statehood. One can hardly doubt that, had he lived long enough, he'd be firmly in Putin's corner, perhaps even offering a few choice quotes for the occasion.

I'm not sure transformed is the right word. He was hostile to Ukrainian independence from the start. And he chose to go back to Russia instead of remaining in the U.S. But his nationalism was already apparent in 1978, when he gave the commencement address at Harvard. I remember the reaction from Western moderates realizing he was not an Enlightenment-style liberal.  Apparently he thought of Communism as an aberration, a foreign intrusion into the soul.of Mother Russia.

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2025, 07:23:19 PMI'm not sure transformed is the right word. He was hostile to Ukrainian independence from the start. And he chose to go back to Russia instead of remaining in the U.S. But his nationalism was already apparent in 1978, when he gave the commencement address at Harvard. I remember the reaction from Western moderates realizing he was not an Enlightenment-style liberal.  Apparently he thought of Communism as an aberration, a foreign intrusion into the soul.of Mother Russia.

Perhaps you're right about the term "transformation." Solzhenitsyn, in opposing Bolshevism, likely viewed it as a manifestation of European Marxism, a foreign ideology imposed on Russia. Interestingly, Lenin himself saw Bolshevism as a natural evolution of Marxism. In this sense, Solzhenitsyn and Lenin, ironically, shared a similar perspective.

However, I see Bolshevism as something deeply rooted in Russia's own historical fabric, not an external import. Total power, the suppression of individual rights, terror, and violence have been constants in Russian reality — threads running unbroken from the past to the present. Bolshevism was not an aberration, but an organic continuation of this tradition.

Quote from: Brian on January 17, 2025, 10:56:53 AMWe should do a movie version. I've never seen It's a Wonderful Life.  ;D

We should, and you should see that one ( it's a marvelous film, and generates some great online reactions ).

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2025, 07:23:19 PMI remember the reaction from Western moderates realizing [Solzhenitsyn] was not an Enlightenment-style liberal

Well, Enlightenment-style liberalism is not the only type of liberalism. Burke, Chateaubriand and Tocqueville, though not subscribing to Enlightenment's rationalism, centralism and deism, were no less liberal than Voltaire, Kant and Adam Smith --- and it can be argued that the former's views on society and politics were more realistic than the latter's, their warnings and reservations being largely vindicated by history.

Beside, ideologically speaking, Communism itself is solidly rooted in the Enlightenment.  ;D 

Quote from: Jo498 on January 24, 2025, 07:29:39 AMI admit that I find Sheherazade a bit lengthy and repetitive... ;D 

I've been pondering this, so I was looking for something to listen to during lunch, and scrabbled about among my 563 different versions of Scheherazade. I picked out Reiner's 1960 recording with the Chicago SO, and put it in the player.

What a lunchtime it was. The music grabbed my attention from the very first moment, and I was bedazzled, uplifted, and moved, from beginning to end. 60 years of loving a piece of music, with this intensity, is a remarkable thing.

And that, I now see, explains my Glaring Omission of 'everything else he wrote'. Even if I nod smilingly at the Festival Overture, etc, there is simply nothing there that offers anything remotely comparable with this experience, for me. And I think that's OK, isn't it? There's no limit to how many times I can expect to enjoy a Cezanne Mont St Victoire, or a Rembrandt Self-portrait, even though my tastes may change and grow over the years.

But I still think it's a weird Glaring Omission, for all that.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 25, 2025, 06:53:17 AMI've been pondering this, so I was looking for something to listen to during lunch, and scrabbled about among my 563 different versions of Scheherazade. I picked out Reiner's 1960 recording with the Chicago SO, and put it in the player.

What a lunchtime it was. The music grabbed my attention from the very first moment, and I was bedazzled, uplifted, and moved, from beginning to end. 60 years of loving a piece of music, with this intensity, is a remarkable thing.

I went to Wooster meaning simply to major in clarinet performance, when I decided to diversify and double-major in composition, the first assignment Jack Gallagher gave me was to analyze Scheherazade, and by an accident (mostly my as-yet-undeveloped library skills, the score I checked out was the keyboard reduction, so that part of my introduction to the music was mentally filling in, as I read along in the score, the instrumentation. The long and the short of it is, I got to love the piece entirely, then, and I love it no less today.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 25, 2025, 06:53:17 AMI've been pondering this, so I was looking for something to listen to during lunch, and scrabbled about among my 563 different versions of Scheherazade. I picked out Reiner's 1960 recording with the Chicago SO, and put it in the player.

What a lunchtime it was. The music grabbed my attention from the very first moment, and I was bedazzled, uplifted, and moved, from beginning to end.

This was my reaction to my very first listening to Sheherazade as well. This is still my reaction to listening to it. I would recommend it to a newcomer to "classical" music without reservation, it has everything that defines the category at its best: glorious orchestration, memorable tunes, harmonic sophistication and instant appeal.

Tangentially, very amusing use of the piece in an early Tom Hanks movie: The Man With One Red Shoe.

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 25, 2025, 09:14:09 AMTangentially, very amusing use of the piece in an early Tom Hanks movie: The Man With One Red Shoe.

Never seen it, nor even heard of it. Is it worth seeking out?

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 25, 2025, 10:35:26 AMNever seen it, nor even heard of it. Is it worth seeking out?

Yes, good fun. Also has Dabney Coleman, Chas Durning, Carrie Fisher, Jim Belushi and Lori Singer.

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 25, 2025, 12:51:52 PMYes, good fun. Also has Dabney Coleman, Chas Durning, Carrie Fisher, Jim Belushi and Lori Singer.

Thanks Karl! I'll try and find a copy on DVD. (I recall failing to find a copy of Joe Versus the Volcano.)

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 25, 2025, 01:45:02 PMThanks Karl! I'll try and find a copy on DVD. (I recall failing to find a copy of Joe Versus the Volcano.)

Good hunting!

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 25, 2025, 09:14:09 AMTangentially, very amusing use of the piece in an early Tom Hanks movie: The Man With One Red Shoe.

I suppose it was a remake of the French film Le Grand Blond avec une chaussure noire with Pierre Richard? Richard was incredibly popular in the USSR, and many of his films were shown in theaters.

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 25, 2025, 02:01:08 PMGood hunting!

Hey I just had a thought! I was thinking we were drifting off topic, but then I realised that one of Tom Hanks's Red Shoes must have been a Glaring Omission!

Ta-Da!!

Quote from: AnotherSpin on January 24, 2025, 09:18:17 PMPerhaps you're right about the term "transformation." Solzhenitsyn, in opposing Bolshevism, likely viewed it as a manifestation of European Marxism, a foreign ideology imposed on Russia. Interestingly, Lenin himself saw Bolshevism as a natural evolution of Marxism. In this sense, Solzhenitsyn and Lenin, ironically, shared a similar perspective.

However, I see Bolshevism as something deeply rooted in Russia's own historical fabric, not an external import. Total power, the suppression of individual rights, terror, and violence have been constants in Russian reality — threads running unbroken from the past to the present. Bolshevism was not an aberration, but an organic continuation of this tradition.

There is a marvelously ironic scene in the movie version of Doctor Zhivago: during a mutiny the soldiers hear that Lenin is in Russia, and they are ecstatic, except for one confused old man, who asks:

"This Lenin, would he be the new czar then?"

To which a soldier responds: "No, Daddy, no more czars, no more masters!  Only free workers in a workers' state!"

As we know, the ecstasy disappears into a state deadlier than what the Russians had under the czars.

To return to the topic: a glaring omission outside of Russia is the lack of Rimsky-Korsakov's operas, e.g. The Metropolitan Opera last performed Sadko in 1932.  The only other opera by Rimsky which was performed is The Golden Cockerel in 1945. 

To be sure, they are not necessarily averse to Russian operas (Boris Godunov, Eugene Onegin), but the repertoire is heavily Italian and German.

So it would be nice to hear The Invisible City of Kitezh by Rimsky-Korsakov, and if you do not know that opera, consider it another glaring omission!   ;)   😇

This thread made me revisit my NAXOS disc of Dvořák's Symphonic Poems. I also listened to my NAXOS discs of his Slavonic Rhapsodies and Serenade for Strings in E Major. While Dvořák doesn't seem to be a top 10 or even top 20 composer for me, I do like his music in various degrees. I especially like the Serenade for Strings which was one of my early favorites almost 30 years ago when I was getting into classical music. In general I do like music for string orchestra. There is something "energizing" about them.

I have struggled to enjoy classical music for years, but now I seem to enjoy it more. The World has become VERY unintellectual and superficial (everything is made to entertain us to make money or to make us fear to control us politically) in less than 2 decades and classical music now suddenly feels like the sound of intellectualism. In the recent years I have been "rejecting" the modern times more and more while living in the past (the more intellectual pre social media times). I think this helps me to enjoy classical music better.

After those Dvořák discs I listened to another NAXOS disc of Piano Trio by Smetana, Suk and Novák. I was reminded of how much I enjoy Piano Trios, because that's music that is small and intimate and large/epic at the same time. In general I like chamber music for string instruments and piano from Violin Sonatas to Piano Quintets. There are many composers and works I haven't explored despite of this. I think I should concentrate on this kind of chamber music and also music for string orchestra and spent less time on larger orchestral works such as symphonies and concertos.

Quote from: Cato on January 26, 2025, 06:05:53 AMThere is a marvelously ironic scene in the movie version of Doctor Zhivago: during a mutiny the soldiers hear that Lenin is in Russia, and they are ecstatic, except for one confused old man, who asks:

"This Lenin, would he be the new czar then?"

To which a soldier responds: "No, Daddy, no more czars, no more masters!  Only free workers in a workers' state!"

As we know, the ecstasy disappears into a state deadlier than what the Russians had under the czars.

To return to the topic: a glaring omission outside of Russia is the lack of Rimsky-Korsakov's operas, e.g. The Metropolitan Opera last performed Sadko in 1932.  The only other opera by Rimsky which was performed is The Golden Cockerel in 1945. 

To be sure, they are not necessarily averse to Russian operas (Boris Godunov, Eugene Onegin), but the repertoire is heavily Italian and German.

So it would be nice to hear The Invisible City of Kitezh by Rimsky-Korsakov, and if you do not know that opera, consider it another glaring omission!   ;)   😇

I read Doctor Zhivago back in the late 1980s, during perestroika, but I barely remember anything about it. Still, that scene seems completely unrealistic. In April 1917, after spending 17 years in emigration, Lenin returned to Russia, and at that point, almost no one had heard of him, or the Bolsheviks, for that matter. They just happened to be the ones who made the best use of the chaos after the Tsar's abdication and the military disasters that led to mass desertion. In just six months, they managed to rally enough support to seize power in Petrograd, at a time when hardly anyone else was seriously vying for it.

Was the Bolshevik regime deadlier than the Tsarist one? That's a tough call. In this country, slave labor had always been the norm, human life was worth next to nothing, the elites owned everything, and ordinary people had virtually no say in anything.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on January 26, 2025, 08:51:50 AMI read Doctor Zhivago back in the late 1980s, during perestroika, but I barely remember anything about it. Still, that scene seems completely unrealistic. In April 1917, after spending 17 years in emigration, Lenin returned to Russia, and at that point, almost no one had heard of him, or the Bolsheviks, for that matter. They just happened to be the ones who made the best use of the chaos after the Tsar's abdication and the military disasters that led to mass desertion. In just six months, they managed to rally enough support to seize power in Petrograd, at a time when hardly anyone else was seriously vying for it.

Was the Bolshevik regime deadlier than the Tsarist one? That's a tough call. In this country, slave labor had always been the norm, human life was worth next to nothing, the elites owned everything, and ordinary people had virtually no say in anything.

In that scene in the movie, I believe the soldier explaining who Lenin was to the old man, was supposed to be a Bolshevik revolutionary.

Concerning "deadly" regimes, I recall an historian, who had analyzed evidence from the Ukraine and Soviet archives, writing that 12 million Ukrainians were murdered in just a few years in the 1930's by Stalin and Company.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2025, 08:00:33 AMThis thread made me revisit my NAXOS disc of Dvořák's Symphonic Poems. I also listened to my NAXOS discs of his Slavonic Rhapsodies and Serenade for Strings in E Major. While Dvořák doesn't seem to be a top 10 or even top 20 composer for me, I do like his music in various degrees. I especially like the Serenade for Strings which was one of my early favorites almost 30 years ago when I was getting into classical music. In general I do like music for string orchestra. There is something "energizing" about them.

I have struggled to enjoy classical music for years, but now I seem to enjoy it more. The World has become VERY unintellectual and superficial (everything is made to entertain us to make money or to make us fear to control us politically) in less than 2 decades and classical music now suddenly feels like the sound of intellectualism. In the recent years I have been "rejecting" the modern times more and more while living in the past (the more intellectual pre social media times). I think this helps me to enjoy classical music better.

After those Dvořák discs I listened to another NAXOS disc of Piano Trio by Smetana, Suk and Novák. I was reminded of how much I enjoy Piano Trios, because that's music that is small and intimate and large/epic at the same time. In general I like chamber music for string instruments and piano from Violin Sonatas to Piano Quintets. There are many composers and works I haven't explored despite of this. I think I should concentrate on this kind of chamber music and also music for string orchestra and spent less time on larger orchestral works such as symphonies and concertos.

Dvořák's Serenade for Strings is the essence of melancholy, wistfulness, surprise, and joy!

Dvořák has a good amount of wonderful chamber music:









 

Quote from: Cato on January 26, 2025, 09:53:23 AMIn that scene in the movie, I believe the soldier explaining who Lenin was to the old man, was supposed to be a Bolshevik revolutionary.

Concerning "deadly" regimes, I recall an historian, who had analyzed evidence from the Ukraine and Soviet archives, writing that 12 million Ukrainians were murdered in just a few years in the 1930's by Stalin and Company.

a) I see.

b) I know. My father's siblings died of starvation during famine. But it's not about numbers. It's about the core principles. Russia under the Tsars, the Bolsheviks, or Putin remains the same state.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 25, 2025, 01:45:02 PMThanks Karl! I'll try and find a copy on DVD. (I recall failing to find a copy of Joe Versus the Volcano.)

Many movies I like to watch are prohibitively expensive to purchase (and many impossible to stream), but, thankfully, Russia views IP a lot differently than the US, so I can watch those shows. Example: Season 3 of Once and Again or Season 6 of Judging Amy; Worth Winning (Mark Harmon), etc.

Quote from: Cato on January 26, 2025, 09:53:23 AMDvořák has a good amount of wonderful chamber music:

Thanks for these links! I finally had time to listen to these. Very nice music. Especially the Adagio is great (I am a sucker for adagio movements just like everyone else). This performance is perhaps top notch, but it is also an old recording and the sound quality is what it is.

I don't know why* Dvořák's chamber music has been so under my radar, but I need to explore it more. At least this Op. 65 is my cup of tea.  ;)

* Perhaps Dvořák is too well-known to feel exciting and interesting, but he isn't one of biggest giants either. His folk-music based music is easy to dismiss as something unserious, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable and skillfully written.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2025, 08:00:33 AMThe World has become VERY unintellectual and superficial (everything is made to entertain us to make money or to make us fear to control us politically) in less than 2 decades and classical music now suddenly feels like the sound of intellectualism. In the recent years I have been "rejecting" the modern times more and more while living in the past (the more intellectual pre social media times). I think this helps me to enjoy classical music better.

Truth, big man. Truth.

Quote from: foxandpeng on January 30, 2025, 02:44:04 AMTruth, big man. Truth.

I wish I was wrong...  ::)

Quote from: 71 dB on January 30, 2025, 07:56:55 AMI wish I was wrong...  ::)

Factually, thankfully, you are wrong.

The world was always largely unintellectual and superficial. It just didn't use to broadcast that fact so readily to a device in your possession.

Quote from: Madiel on January 30, 2025, 11:47:22 AMThe world was always largely unintellectual and superficial. It just didn't use to broadcast that fact so readily to a device in your possession.

Yep. A pre-social-media idiot's influence was limited. Nowadays it is widely spread. Witness the tons of fake news, lunacies and conspiracy theories which have millions of likes and followers. I sometimes long for the good old days when most people could not read. True, illiteracy prevented them from being informed but on the other hand protected them from being misinformed. ;D

Quote from: Florestan on January 30, 2025, 12:10:42 PMYep. A pre-social-media idiot's influence was limited. Nowadays it is widely spread. Witness the tons of fake news, lunacies and conspiracy theories which have millions of likes and followers. I sometimes long for the good old days when most people could not read. True, illiteracy prevented them from being informed but on the other hand protected them from being misinformed. ;D

Well it didn't entirely protect them. Or the victims of the misinformation. The Middle Ages had mobs that attacked Jews when Jews were blamed for some crime or misfortune which has depressing similarities to what happened in the UK when someone decided it was a recent Muslim immigrant that killed young girls at a Taylor Swift themed event.

People talk, and it's very easy for people to talk complete rubbish. Far easier than researching first before talking.

Quote from: Madiel on January 30, 2025, 11:47:22 AMThe world was always largely unintellectual and superficial. It just didn't use to broadcast that fact so readily to a device in your possession.

The "broadcast that fact so readily to a device in your possession" is the thing that makes the world unintellectual and superficial, because people watch social media influencers instead of (intellectual) people who have something important to say. You may listen to intellectuals online yourself, but you are in a small minority. In democracy your intellectualism doesn't count much. The stupidity and ignorance of masses does.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 31, 2025, 03:12:29 AMThe "broadcast that fact so readily to a device in your possession" is the thing that makes the world unintellectual and superficial, because people watch social media influencers instead of (intellectual) people who have something important to say. You may listen to intellectuals online yourself, but you are in a small minority. In democracy your intellectualism doesn't count much. The stupidity and ignorance of masses does.

My point is that people weren't really listening to intellectuals before. The most significant difference is that instead of listening to the idiot down the street, technology provides the means for lots of people all over the world to listen to the same idiot.

Quote from: Madiel on January 31, 2025, 03:27:22 AMMy point is that people weren't really listening to intellectuals before. The most significant difference is that instead of listening to the idiot down the street, technology provides the means for lots of people all over the world to listen to the same idiot.

People don't listen to any idiots. They listen to influencers paid by the billionaires to brainwash them to support political ideas that in the end benefit the billionaires. Those idiots aren't really idiots. They are immoral greedy people who don't care about causing a lot of harm to the society if it benefits themselves financially.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 31, 2025, 03:49:07 AMPeople don't listen to any idiots.

No. They listen to the best idiots available to them.

You seem to be arguing that modern technology has somehow created an appetite for idiocy that didn't previously exist. I disagree. What it's done is made feeding that appetite a lot more efficient.

As for your assertion that they're not "idiots" but clever immoral people... well, like always it's a bit of both. Ever since Yes, Minister was a show I've always remembered that if you have to choose between a conspiracy and a cock-up, the more likely option is a cock-up. I'm sure there are at least some people out there who are evil clever plotters, just as there's always been such people. But there are also plenty of people who are reckless, careless, stubborn and just plain stupid.

You seem to believe that somehow people used to listen to the "good" intellectuals but now for some reason they've switched to listening to evil clever people instead. Which raises all sorts of questions about how it was that modern life suddenly made the evil clever people so much more successful than the good clever people. I just don't really think that's the main thing that's happening. Technology itself is pretty neutral. You can go through historical lists of kings or presidents or what have you, and historians will tell you that there's always been lots of bad ones. We notice the here and now because that's where we live.

We have the charge that people rather listen to clever evil people than to truth and reason well documented and analyzed 2400 years ago in Plato's dialogues (e.g. "Gorgias"). And anecdotal evidence goes back another few hundred years to false prophets and advisors in some old testament stories or other ancient literature.

However, I think the flooding with ephemeral trivialities, sensations, scares etc. has become much worse today, even compared with a few decades ago, because of the internet and social media.
Sure, here was tabloid press and trashy TV although in my country this didn't start before the late '80s. I could barely follow Postman's arguments in "Amusing ourselves to death" because German TV was so "harmless" compared to how he described US media.

But this is ambiguous wrt the power of manipulation. On the one hand it has become easier to blow up nonsense, on the other the quasi-monopolies of established media are much weaker today because of alternative net-based media.
E.g. in Germany people following established media could be seriously surprised by Harris losing to Trump (and apparently lots of overpaid German journalists were or convincingly pretended to be) but everyone following international alternative sources should not have been surprised.

Quote from: 71 dB on January 31, 2025, 03:49:07 AMPeople don't listen to any idiots. They listen to influencers paid by the billionaires to brainwash them to support political ideas that in the end benefit the billionaires. Those idiots aren't really idiots. They are immoral greedy people who don't care about causing a lot of harm to the society if it benefits themselves financially.

You are on to something: the real idiots are actually the tens of millions of people who believe and disseminate all kinds of inanities and lunacies, people who supposedly are better educated and better informed than their ancestors 200, 300 or 500 years ago but whom reality proves as naive and gullible as those were, making one wonder whether public education has been any good at all. That an illiterate peasant could believe witches exist (because the abbot and two monks saw them copulating with Satan just last Friday) is less surprising than a high school graduate who believes viruses don't exist (because whoever saw them?) --- and the instances could be multiplied indefinitely.

Now that we've all cheered each other up IMMENSELY, it might be time to remember that the thread was about the music that you've neglected to listen to and/or collect.

Faure's Requiem for me of course, if I haven't said that already. Total Faure nut. All the major chamber music. Complete piano music. At least 8 or 9 discs of songs. No Requiem.

Quote from: Madiel on January 31, 2025, 05:22:20 AMFaure's Requiem for me of course, if I haven't said that already. Total Faure nut. All the major chamber music. Complete piano music. At least 8 or 9 discs of songs. No Requiem.

You win the thread. Hands down and by ten country miles.  :laugh:

Quote from: Florestan on January 31, 2025, 05:39:35 AMYou win the thread. Hands down and by ten country miles.  :laugh:

Against the person who has never listened to Beethoven's 9th?

I feel overwhelmed at my achievement.

Quote from: Madiel on January 31, 2025, 06:09:48 AMAgainst the person who has never listened to Beethoven's 9th?

Ah, yes, sorry, I forgot about that. Well, a close second place, then.  :)

Quote from: Madiel on January 31, 2025, 05:22:20 AMNow that we've all cheered each other up IMMENSELY, it might be time to remember that the thread was about the music that you've neglected to listen to and/or collect.

Faure's Requiem for me of course, if I haven't said that already. Total Faure nut. All the major chamber music. Complete piano music. At least 8 or 9 discs of songs. No Requiem.

Oh, that omission does glare!

Quote from: Karl Henning on January 31, 2025, 06:35:22 AMOh, that omission does glare!

It does, indeed. I read that and started laughing hard enough to scare the taxi driver taking me to work ( he's OK now ).

Quote from: Madiel on January 31, 2025, 05:22:20 AMFaure's Requiem for me of course, if I haven't said that already. Total Faure nut. All the major chamber music. Complete piano music. At least 8 or 9 discs of songs. No Requiem.

That's really crazy. Often the Requiem is the ONLY work by Fauré people are interested off (because it is insanely beautiful music) while totally ignoring his awesome chamber music.

Just shows how much can change in two months time:

Just reorganized my recordings today, and I now have three new composers dominating my top owned slots:

3. Reger  :o 
2. Mozart :o :o
1. Bach  :o :o :o   

A living composer is in 4th, and will likely surpass Reger, and that is, of course, Tine Surel Lange. ;D