Hello, this seems like an interesting forum. I have always enjoyed classical music, although did not truly appreciate it until recently, and now would like to start a collection.
It is incredibly daunting, as I do not know where to begin. I was wondering if anyone here could help me. (I apologize if this has been asked before). I know much of this is subjective, but firstly I should mention that I love music that is intense, dramatic, melodic, and complex, especially in the minor key.
I have a bit of a "pet peeve" about "Best Of" lists as I would rather enjoy the full works of an artist than be conditioned into a bias for a certain type or types of sound displayed in certain pieces. Although with classical music, it's difficult doing so because the task of finding the aspects I like becomes overwhelming. Especially since I am on a budget.
I am the sort of person who prefers to understand a subject thoroughly, knowing all intricacies, if possible. Eventually I would like to have a vast collection of classical music (not for the sake of boastfulness, but because I deeply love music). Though I am having difficulty filtering through the plethora and breaking the pursuit into smaller segments.
I haven't heard much of it (obviously) but of what I have heard of Beethoven I've enjoyed. I don't always condone it but I do have a "Best of" Beethoven CD I found on discount several years ago that I thoroughly enjoy (especially Piano Sonata No. 17 in D minor. Op. 31, No 2 "Tempest".. I think it's absolutely wonderful.) Similarly, when I heard some Mendelssohn chamber music at a local event, I decided to obtain some of his music (again, another 'best of', but it did give me a taste); I adore The Hebrides, overture in B minor for orchestra 'Fingal's Cave'. I purchased similar compilation albums featuring Tchaikovsky (at a dollar store actually...Even if there was something wrong with the way it was put together, it gives me an idea of it) that I also very much enjoy. A friend loaned me Handel's Water Music which never fails to rejuvenate me and bring immediate jubilance. I have always loved the texture of the strings with the harpsichord. (I do not yet know the details, but I realize Tchaikovsky was later, is it the Romantic period, whereas Handel was Baroque and Beethoven was sort of between the Classical and Romantic periods, and Mendelssohn..somewhere in the Romantic period? But I think I read something about Mendelssohn disapproving of many of his contemporaries. I only have a vague understanding of the music periods, though, I don't nearly have an idea of composers, I just recall those brief bits of information and they may be incorrect).
If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to
read my post.
The best advise I have to give you are twofold.
Listen as much as you can to the Classical radio & go to your local library, and lend as much music as you can.
That is the only way to get to know what you like, and its inexpensive too.
Best of cd's are okay, but narrow your view.
You have allready Mendelssohn/Beethoven/Handel/Tchaikovsky, and from there on the future is infinite.
Going back in time pre Handel, will also bring in rewards, if you like Handel, you will love Haydn.
Another vote for "hit the library"...just start in the CD racks w/ the composers you know.
I'm not ashamed to say about 1/3 of my iPod is full of stuff I got from the library, from staples of the canon through some really, really obscure stuff.
A couple more good ways for exploring:
www.naxos.com
They're one of the biggest and most adventurous classical labels, in terms of wide-ranging repertoire. For free, you can listen online to a substantial portion of every single track on their thousands of discs (and those of their distributed sister labels). For a small fee, you can listen to the complete tracks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/audioarchive.shtml
BBC's Discovering Music Archive. That, in addition to their current programming, will expose you to--and guide you through--many exciting works.
You couldn't have picked a better time to start building a collection. A number of labels devote much energy to exploring the byways of classical music history, brining us exciting music we'd otherwise never hear. Many labels reissue their slightly older (yet often stellar) recordings dirt cheap as box sets or 2-for-1 doubles. For example, I recently bought a 22-CD set of Stravinsky conducting his own works for about $30. You can buy the complete Mozart (160 CD's) for around $90. The list goes on.
Welcome aboard. Discovering classical music is like opening a door to a brand new field of unpicked flowers. Have fun, and ask for help here anytime. There are lots of friendly people here that will help you.
You can also stream a classical radio station from your computer at home for free. Our area station is located at:
www.wdav.org
The brief general timeline for classical music can be found here:
http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/musical_history.html
If your approach is only to listen to the radio, or to raid your local library's offerings, you may well discover many things you like, but you will also approach music in an historical and cultural vacuum. And music has cultural significance beyond just what a particular record label is offering. I see nothing wrong with borrowing from the library, but I would also advise you to read some basic books about the musical tradition, so you know can guide your listening based on which composers and works have formed the established canon (and start to recognize the limitations of a strictly canon-based approach). The best concise guide to established major composers I know remains Carter Harman's "A Popular History of Music." The best and most provocative brief guide to the cultural significance of music is probably Nicholas Cook's "Music," in the Oxford Very Short Introduction series.
Fine suggestions above, and I think the BBC recommendation by Grazioso is a marvelous resource.
Reading your post, I thought you would really like one of my favorites in the entire repertoire: Mozart's Piano Concerto #20, in d minor.
Mendelssohn was certainly a very conservative early romantic. Judging from your liking of both him and Beethoven, I would recommend investigating Schubert - especially his late symphonies and string quartets :)
Thank you, very much, for your replies, you have been greatly helpful. I will take your advice.
I forgot to mention that I really enjoy slavic-sounding music as well, especially with piano. Are there any composers in that style that you might reccommend? (I apologize if I haven't termed things correctly).
My advice is that there is really no right way to explore music. Just listen to what you want to, however you get interested in the music. Eventually, you'll find you know a lot music. Also, going to concerts really helps to grasp what the recordings are all about.
Quote from: perelandrian_sea on November 06, 2007, 09:13:21 AM
Thank you, very much, for your replies, you have been greatly helpful. I will take your advice.
I forgot to mention that I really enjoy slavic-sounding music as well, especially with piano. Are there any composers in that style that you might reccommend? (I apologize if I haven't termed things correctly).
Zelenka, Smetana and Dvorak were Bohemian, and Janáček Moravian. You might also like Bartók and Kodály, Dohnányi and Enescu and most of the Russian composers. There's a magnificent Dohnányi piano trio that you'd probably love, and Bartók wrote three magnificent piano concertos.
P.S. Love the C.S. Lewis allusion in your handle! :D
Quote from: Catison on November 06, 2007, 11:25:56 AM
My advice is that there is really no right way to explore music. Just listen to what you want to, however you get interested in the music. Eventually, you'll find you know a lot music. Also, going to concerts really helps to grasp what the recordings are all about.
Seconded.
Quote from: perelandrian_sea on November 06, 2007, 09:13:21 AM
Thank you, very much, for your replies, you have been greatly helpful. I will take your advice.
I forgot to mention that I really enjoy slavic-sounding music as well, especially with piano. Are there any composers in that style that you might reccommend? (I apologize if I haven't termed things correctly).
Well just about anything by Dvorak will work. For starters try his Slavonic Dances for piano duet. Also Symphonies 6, 7, 8, and 9 as well as his Cello Concerto.
Either pay more attention to Radio stations or turn on your TV and watch one of those "Classic art showcase" channels. Once in a while, a piece of music is going to strike you, and you'll know where to start.
Quote from: hornteacher on November 06, 2007, 03:08:47 PM
Well just about anything by Dvorak will work. For starters try his Slavonic Dances for piano duet. Also Symphonies 6, 7, 8, and 9 as well as his Cello Concerto.
Given the description of the OP's tastes, I'd actually point him/her towards something like the (Dvorak) Dumky Trio first....
Quote from: lukeottevanger on November 06, 2007, 03:51:22 PM
Given the description of the OP's tastes, I'd actually point him/her towards something like the (Dvorak) Dumky Trio first....
Yep, I agree. THEN do the symphonies. ;D
There is a lot of good advice here. It is a rather daunting task, but even on a budget it is possible to encounter a lot of music.
One often-overlooked source is that venerable old round black thing - the LP. With few exceptions, classical LPs can be found for practically nothing in used record stores and thrift stores. When I was in college and had little money, I bought hundreds of classical LPs and didn't go broke. Of course, the sound quality is often somewhat lacking and they aren't as convenient as CDs, but the price is right. The record stores and thrift stores don't have quite the selection that they once did, but I still find interesting records on occasion.
At that time, when I was still somewhat new to classical music, I would go to the thrift stores or search the dollar bins at the used record stores and just buy whatever was there or whatever looked interesting. That way, I accumulated a very broad collection. After a while, I found some favorite composers and styles and would buy more of them when I encountered them. This method is rather random, but it is a good way to get a broad exposure to the music. If you don't decide to jump into the world of the LP, this method should work fine if you check out CDs from the library or listen to the radio.
If you want to find a lot of classical radio stations on-line, check out this link:
http://www.publicradiofan.com
Another good way to explore this is to take a music appreciation class. If you are in college or if you live near one that lets you audit classes for a lot less than normal tuition, it might work out. When I was in college, I took such a class and it introduced me to a lot of music. If a class doesn't work out, you can get much of the same information out of books. Also, if you are near a college or university that has an active music program, you might find that they have a lot of free or low-cost concerts. There is nothing quite like hearing the music live. I often go to concerts at the University of Utah, and I have bought CDs as a result of hearing music there.
Good luck.
Heather
I hate to tell someone to buy something but Dvorak's 9th aka "New World Symphony"
I have never met anyone who dislikes that work.
Quote from: c#minor on November 07, 2007, 09:33:59 AM
I hate to tell someone to buy something but Dvorak's 9th aka "New World Symphony"
I have never met anyone who dislikes that work.
Same here. I must have heard it ten thousand times and I still enjoy it.
FWIW, here's Feanor's 'core repertoire' hitlist from another thread.
Quote from: Mark on November 07, 2007, 02:38:17 PM
FWIW, here's Feanor's 'core repertoire' hitlist from another thread.
This is rather a good list. Where did it come from?
Quote from: perelandrian_sea on November 05, 2007, 01:15:29 AM
when I heard some Mendelssohn chamber music at a local event, I decided to obtain some of his music
If you liked that chamber music, I would suggest Mendelsson's piano trios (2 of them) and the Octet.
Also, here's a very nice disc of overtures by various composers:
http://www.amazon.com/Overtures-Rossini/dp/B00000DO52
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/cd/a5/6a99b220dca021eedb989010._AA240_.L.jpg)
One advice; listen widely. You don't know what you like until you've heard it. Fortunately there is lot of inexpensive stuff available. Check quality (don't compromise on the artistic end, or your CDs end up being cheap as opposed to inexpensive) on sites like this, or subscribe to some magazine.
Quote from: Mark on November 07, 2007, 02:38:17 PM
FWIW, here's Feanor's 'core repertoire' hitlist from another thread.
Pretty good list for what it is.
And if you go the Naxos route, just take every recommendation and try it out. That's why i am doing and it has led me to some good CD's and away from ones that don't quite suit me.
Quote from: c#minor on November 08, 2007, 10:54:16 AM
And if you go the Naxos route, just take every recommendation and try it out. That's why i am doing and it has led me to some good CD's and away from ones that don't quite suit me.
I would like to point out that Naxos isn't particularly cheap anymore and in most core repertoire you often can do better. They are chiefly to be lauded for their adventurous repertoire. Quality is good as well.
Quote from: Mark on November 07, 2007, 02:38:17 PM
FWIW, here's Feanor's 'core repertoire' hitlist from another thread.
Much too broad to be 'core,' in my book. Let's not overwhelm a newbie with C.P.E. Bach, Boccherini, Donizetti, and the like.
Rothko Chapel, "core repertoire?" Give me a break!
Quote from: erato on November 08, 2007, 10:59:11 AM
I would like to point out that Naxos isn't particularly cheap anymore and in most core repertoire you often can do better. They are chiefly to be lauded for their adventurous repertoire. Quality is good as well.
In fact, reissues of "classic" recordings from EMI, Universal, and Sony are often less costly these days!
One of the neat things about downloads is that you don't have to buy a whole album. You can choose inidividual works. Costs less and you get what you really want.
Quote from: sound sponge on November 08, 2007, 11:17:27 AM
One of the neat things about downloads is that you don't have to buy a whole album. You can choose inidividual works. Costs less and you get what you really want.
And one of the sad things about downloads is that you usually couldn't get the whole album even if you wanted to. If I figure that on average redbook CD with lossless compression runs around 700kbps, then when I buy a 128kbps track I'm getting only 18% of the data on CD.
If I could buy downloads of the complete digital file at a substantial discount (no disc production costs, no packaging, less marketing, no middlemen) -- say $5 per album -- I would probably do it. Or if I could get the crappy downloads they peddle these days for a couple of bucks to "try before you buy," I'd do that, too. But to pay more for less--uh-uh! That just doesn't add up to me.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 11:32:19 AM
And one of the sad things about downloads is that you usually couldn't get the whole album even if you wanted to. If I figure that on average redbook CD with lossless compression runs around 700kbps, then when I buy a 128kbps track I'm getting only 18% of the data on CD.
Oh, you didn't need all that extra data anyway.
;D
You know, they really should come up with some clever, catchy doublespeak term for those pathetically crippled download files, something equivalent to home video where they have the audacity to call a disc that shows only half of the movie "Full Screen."
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 11:37:11 AM
;D
Downloads are like Schnabel: You don't get all the data, but you get what you need. ;)
Quote from: hornteacher on November 07, 2007, 06:03:24 PM
This is rather a good list. Where did it come from?
A member called Feanor posted it elsewhere on GMG. I grabbed it to see how my collection stacked up against someone else's idea of 'core repertoire'.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 11:05:13 AM
Much too broad to be 'core,' in my book. Let's not overwhelm a newbie with C.P.E. Bach, Boccherini, Donizetti, and the like. Rothko Chapel, "core repertoire?" Give me a break!
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. ;)
JC, this guy is a beginner and he knows more composers than I do.
Quote from: perelandrian_sea on November 05, 2007, 01:15:29 AM
(especially Piano Sonata No. 17 in D minor. Op. 31, No 2 "Tempest".. I think it's absolutely wonderful.)
Damn! You have good taste ! ....... 0:)
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 11:05:13 AM
Much too broad to be 'core,' in my book. Let's not overwhelm a newbie with C.P.E. Bach, Boccherini, Donizetti, and the like. Rothko Chapel, "core repertoire?" Give me a break!
Yeah,
Rothko is part of the core rep, I'd say. Feldman is one of the most important composers in the 20th Century, and this piece is his most accessible. Everyone should listen to it.
Quote from: Catison on November 08, 2007, 08:22:04 PM
Yeah, Rothko is part of the core rep, I'd say. Feldman is one of the most important composers in the 20th Century, and this piece is his most accessible. Everyone should listen to it.
It's not a bad list as these things go. No list will satisfy anybody. But I hope the omission of the Beethoven quartets was an oversight and not intentional.
Quote from: Catison on November 08, 2007, 08:22:04 PM
Yeah, Rothko is part of the core rep, I'd say. Feldman is one of the most important composers in the 20th Century, and this piece is his most accessible. Everyone should listen to it.
I guess we have differing ideas about what constitutes "core repertoire" (as well as about the importance of Feldman). I would say the same about Pärt's
Fratres, but wouldn't think to regard it as core repertoire.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 09, 2007, 05:40:22 AM
It's not a bad list as these things go. No list will satisfy anybody. But I hope the omission of the Beethoven quartets was an oversight and not intentional.
Now that
is core repertoire! There are numerous other notable exclusions and peculiar inclusions that make it difficult to consider this as a list of anything other than one man's favorite pieces.
Quote from: longears on November 09, 2007, 06:16:09 AM
Now that is core repertoire! There are numerous other notable exclusions and peculiar inclusions that make it difficult to consider this as a list of anything other than one man's favorite pieces.
Blah de blah de blah. And so the argument about lists goes. You try making a list of this type, and then I'd like to hear your opinion about others.
No list is perfect, and neither is this one, but it is much better than many I have seen.
Yes. Everyone should make a list for newbies. :)
Quote from: Catison on November 09, 2007, 06:27:37 AM
Blah de blah de blah. And so the argument about lists goes. You try making a list of this type, and then I'd like to hear your opinion about others.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed, Brett? You seem to have taken a page from another frequent poster's notebook today. (Who'd've thunk suggesting Rothko Chapel isn't
core repertoire would provoke such uncharacteristic ungraciousness from you?)
BTW, I did once begin a list of this sort on the old forum and quit when, like this one, it quickly grew so large as to be more daunting than helpful to most newbies.
Quote from: longears on November 09, 2007, 07:11:06 AM
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed, Brett? You seem to have taken a page from another frequent poster's notebook today. (Who'd've thunk suggesting Rothko Chapel isn't core repertoire would provoke such uncharacteristic ungraciousness from you?)
BTW, I did once begin a list of this sort on the old forum and quit when, like this one, it quickly grew so large as to be more daunting than helpful to most newbies.
Not wrong side of the bed, but maybe a little grumpy. I've heard your argument before, and if not from you, from someone else. After hearing it so often, these things start to sound like, "blah blah blah".
The list may not have been made in the way you would make yours. Maybe his motive was not to make a list that has the all the best pieces written, but to give a wide ranging view of what is available in classical music. Surely, there are things that will be left off, but your question should be, "if someone listened to this list, would they be pretty knowledgeable about classical music?" "Would they have valuable insights into music?" A list dominated by the greatest works of Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms would definitely be helpful, but it wouldn't prepare any listener for the greatest works of the 20th century.
But here I am making the same argument again about these lists. That is why I suggest only people who undertaken the task should criticize them. There are far too many compromises to be made while making one.
The problem of course is that no one is going to actually use any of these lists, so they become more reflective of the list-maker's desire to prove his/her knowledge than of the newbie's actual need to find a list of pieces to learn. And the longer the list, the less likely it will be used. More likely, we all learn piecemeal, a little at a time, and then from time to time we ask advice on filling in "gaps" in our knowledge.
Quote from: Mark on November 07, 2007, 02:38:17 PM
FWIW, here's Feanor's 'core repertoire' hitlist from another thread.
FWIW, indeed! I can take only a little credit for the list. In fact, it's a digest of the opinions from a number of sources. It is one guide to my own learning.
I agree that there is no single "right" way to approach classical music except to listen to a lot of stuff. Personally I think it's good advice not focus too heavily on the music or one era. A lot of people begin with the Romantic or Baroque: well and good, but also expose yourself to other eras.
In particular, I believe that the 20th century was the greatest for classical music. For one thing there is huge variety, whether we speak of the the "Second Viennese School", (Schoenberg, Bert, Webern), "Modern", (
e.g. Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok), or the "Contemporary", (
e.g. Carter, Schnittke, Ligeti).
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 09, 2007, 05:40:22 AM
It's not a bad list as these things go. No list will satisfy anybody. But I hope the omission of the Beethoven quartets was an oversight and not intentional.
INDEED! It was an oversight on my part. Actually I see that the web list is an out of date version, (for which I appologize). A later version includes exemplary Beethoven Quartets,
viz. Op.59/1 "Rasumovsky", and Op.131.
Then again, no list of 250 could possibly make everyone happy; (it doesn't make me especially happy either). However I feel beginners, (including me), need to start some where. As someone mentioned, too long a list is daunting, but a shorter one, (say 100), would be just too arbitrary and limiting.
Stay tuned for my revised list -- coming soon.
Quote from: Catison on November 09, 2007, 08:08:00 AM
Not wrong side of the bed, but maybe a little grumpy. I've heard your argument before, and if not from you, from someone else. After hearing it so often, these things start to sound like, "blah blah blah".
What argument? (How strange! That's two posters in one day addressing a non-existent argument.) And I'm at a loss about what has offended you sufficiently to provoke a rude response from someone who's generally quite civil. Was it the dismissal of
Rothko Chapel as too obscure for core repertoire? Or was it the statement that we apparently have different ideas about what constitutes core repertoire?
Are you guys going through midterm exams?
Quote from: longears on November 09, 2007, 04:10:33 PM
What argument? (How strange! That's two posters in one day addressing a non-existent argument.) And I'm at a loss about what has offended you sufficiently to provoke a rude response from someone who's generally quite civil. Was it the dismissal of Rothko Chapel as too obscure for core repertoire? Or was it the statement that we apparently have different ideas about what constitutes core repertoire?
Are you guys going through midterm exams?
How am I not being civil? The argument that sounds the same is the "this list has <blank> in it and it shouldn't" and "this list is missing <blank> in it. It should have been there." argument. <blank> changes, but the argument remains the same. I happen to like Feldman and
Rothko Chapel, sure. But what I hate is seeing someone backhandedly dismiss a list, one I thought was very well rounded, without
any argument. "Give me a break", you say, as if it's obvious, when it obviously isn't. That's pretty rude, right? You're basically saying, "Gee, why would anyone be so dumb as to put that piece in there..." Perhaps, just perhaps, before calling someone rude, you should read over your own posts.
I stand corrected. I thought that--regardless of whether classical music fans agree on exactly which works belong in the 'core repertoire'--there is nevertheless a consensus as to what the notion of 'core repertoire' represents: that is, those works which constitute the center, the essence, the core of the classical repertoire--works like the Brandenburgs, the da Ponte operas, the Beethoven 9, 32, & 16, The Rite of Spring, and so on--and that one of the principal criteria for inclusion in the core repertoire is that there be substantial agreement that a given work has so withstood the test of time that it rightfully belongs in the core repertoire.
Apparently I was wrong.
Quote from: longears on November 09, 2007, 06:18:34 PM
I stand corrected. I thought that--regardless of whether classical music fans agree on exactly which works belong in the 'core repertoire'--there is nevertheless a consensus as to what the notion of 'core repertoire' represents: that is, those works which constitute the center, the essence, the core of the classical repertoire
...
one of the principal criteria for inclusion in the core repertoire is that there be substantial agreement that a given work has so withstood the test of time that it rightfully belongs in the core repertoire.
Apparently I was wrong.
Or maybe you're right and I'm wrong. But my modest "250 Core" goes beyond only those works that "have stood the test of time". I felt I had to include a representation of contemporary works for which broad consensus hasn't necessarily emerged. This is important because contemporary is a vital continuation of the classical tradition, in my opinion.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 09, 2007, 08:42:38 AM
The problem of course is that no one is going to actually use any of these lists, so they become more reflective of the list-maker's desire to prove his/her knowledge than of the newbie's actual need to find a list of pieces to learn. And the longer the list, the less likely it will be used. More likely, we all learn piecemeal, a little at a time, and then from time to time we ask advice on filling in "gaps" in our knowledge.
While I agree with this in the main, I am finding Feanor's list interesting and intend, in time, to download some of the works on it.
I have only one advice--and it will most likely prove to be the most helpful during your stay here: Avoid Sir Edward William Elgar by all costs.
Quote from: Mark on November 10, 2007, 01:32:24 AM
While I agree with this in the main, I am finding Feanor's list interesting and intend, in time, to download some of the works on it.
Wonderful. I only suggested (and not very graciously) that the list is unsuitable as an introduction for newbies, regardless of its merits otherwise. We went through something similar on the old forum as you may recall, when another poster offered a similarly unwieldy and idiosyncratic list as a newcomers guide. Several others responded with more modest lists they thought more suitable to help newbies explore the core. The link to that thread is here. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,7292.0.html)
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 10, 2007, 08:43:10 PM
I have only one advice--and it will most likely prove to be the most helpful during your stay here: Avoid Sir Edward William Elgar by all costs.
So who do we suppose wrote (at the very least) the Enigma Variations and the Cello Concerto, then? William Walton? :P
That someone is exaggerating
in favour is no excuse for someone else to exaggerate
against, is it?
Elgar's Cello Concerto is core, IMO, and many would include the variations as well. Boneheadhelm is just teasing the monkey, as you're obviously aware. (I have it from a disreputable source that he likes to play Pomp & Circumstance with the volume control at 11 whilst prancing about in the nude, clad only in his bristling ersatz Elgar soup-strainer moustache!)
Quote from: longears on November 11, 2007, 04:56:47 AM
Elgar's Cello Concerto is core, IMO, and many would include the variations as well. Boneheadhelm is just teasing the monkey, as you're obviously aware. (I have it from a disreputable source that he likes to play Pomp & Circumstance with the volume control at 11 whilst prancing about in the nude, clad only in his bristling ersatz Elgar soup-strainer moustache!)
If Bonehelm's Elgar goes to
11, I rest my case. Enough said.
(And not to mention the soup-strainer... :o)
Quote from: Harry on November 05, 2007, 01:26:11 AM
The best advise I have to give you are twofold.
Listen as much as you can to the Classical radio & go to your local library, and lend as much music as you can.
That is the only way to get to know what you like, and its inexpensive too.
Best of cd's are okay, but narrow your view.
You have allready Mendelssohn/Beethoven/Handel/Tchaikovsky, and from there on the future is infinite.
Going back in time pre Handel, will also bring in rewards, if you like Handel, you will love Haydn.
Most helpful post of the day, really well put,
Harry.
Quote from: longears on November 11, 2007, 04:32:45 AM
Wonderful. I only suggested (and not very graciously) that the list is unsuitable as an introduction for newbies, regardless of its merits otherwise. We went through something similar on the old forum as you may recall, when another poster offered a similarly unwieldy and idiosyncratic list as a newcomers guide. Several others responded with more modest lists they thought more suitable to help newbies explore the core. The link to that thread is here. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,7292.0.html)
The nice thing about RebLem's list is the mention of specific recordings. In the regard I wonder: if it's hard to agree on the compositions to include, how exponentially more so is it to agree on the versions?
As to whether it is more "wieldly" than my list, is it a little shorter? One thing for sure, it scarcely acknowledge contemporary music all -- well, there
is Zwilich. (Zwilich? Now there is a time-tested, non-idiosyncratic choice ;D
I'm reprehensibly inclined to sarcasm.)
Quote from: Renfield on November 11, 2007, 04:40:39 AM
So who do we suppose wrote (at the very least) the Enigma Variations and the Cello Concerto, then? William Walton? :P
That someone is exaggerating in favour is no excuse for someone else to exaggerate against, is it?
It's a hopeless case, Renfield. ::)
Quote from: Corey on November 11, 2007, 02:06:46 PM
It's a hopeless case, Renfield. ::)
Exactly. Just don't even expect to talk about the composer without getting set on fire here.
What I would say is dont think about it too much. See what happens and you'll find your "niche" and get to know your tastes in time. Same thing happened to me...at first I was just awe-struck at the scope of music out there. There are set works I think would appear on everyone's list of must-hears but dont be restricted.
One of the first composers I got into was William Alwyn. This is before Id explored Beethoven, Mozart, Bach or any such notables in any depth. I heard his music on a tribute show on the radio and adored it so went out and bought some of the excellent Naxos recordings of his work.
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 10, 2007, 08:43:10 PM
I have only one advice--and it will most likely prove to be the most helpful during your stay here: Avoid Sir Edward William Elgar by all costs.
I advice to ignore the posts of
Bonehelm by all costs. :P
Throw on the third movement of Beethoven's op.132 (as performed by the Borodin String Quartet), and set on a repeat of one. The rest of your day will have been blessedly Overwhelmed by the Affirmation.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 18, 2007, 09:55:05 AM
I advice to ignore the posts of Bonehelm by all costs. :P
71 dB, do you really think it's appropriate to single-out one particular member, and subject him to heightened criticism?
Quote from: 71 dB on November 18, 2007, 09:55:05 AM
I advice to ignore the posts of Bonehelm by all costs. :P
We should learn to love one another,
Poju .........
Quote from: D Minor on November 19, 2007, 05:18:21 PM
71 dB, do you really think it's appropriate to single-out one particular member, and subject him to heightened criticism?
When his posts is patently stupid, why not?
Quote from: D Minor on November 19, 2007, 05:18:21 PM
71 dB, do you really think it's appropriate to single-out one particular member, and subject him to heightened criticism?
No, I don't think so but do you,
D Minor, think it's appropriate to single-out one particular composer, and subject him to heightened criticism?
Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2007, 12:30:05 AM
No, I don't think so but do you, D Minor, think it's appropriate to single-out one particular composer, and subject him to heightened criticism?
GMG's mission is to promote discussions about music and composers. As such, diversity of opinions and perspectives regarding composers should be encouraged. To single-out a
composer (for purposes of discussion) is far different than singling-out a
member (for purposes of ostrasization).
Quote from: D Minor on November 20, 2007, 03:18:17 AM
GMG's mission is to promote discussions about music and composers. As such, diversity of opinions and perspectives regarding composers should be encouraged. To single-out a composer (for purposes of discussion) is far different than singling-out a member (for purposes of ostrasization).
I totally agree but I must also point out that I have never been encouraged here to tell my opinion about many composers. On the contrary, my opinions are often found shocking. In that sense I feel entitled to find the opinions of certain members shocking too, in that case the opinions of
Bonehelm about Elgar.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2007, 03:28:24 AM
I totally agree but I must also point out that I have never been encouraged here to tell my opinion about many composers. On the contrary, my opinions are often found shocking. In that sense I feel entitled to find the opinions of certain members shocking too, in that case the opinions of Bonehelm about Elgar.
OK ........ as long as you realize and accept the important distinction between
slamming a composer versus
slamming an individual member based on his/her criticism of a composer's music .......
It's almost always acceptable to slam a
composer ........
Quote from: D Minor on November 20, 2007, 03:38:00 AM
OK ........ as long as you realize and accept the important distinction between slamming a composer versus slamming an individual member based on his/her criticism of a composer's music .......
Naturally!
Quote from: D Minor on November 20, 2007, 03:38:00 AMIt's almost always acceptable to slam a composer ........
This
almost always is the problem. Who says when?
Quote from: D Minor on November 20, 2007, 03:38:00 AM
It's almost always acceptable to slam a composer ........
Well, we can lose the qualifier
almost in the case of at least
two composers.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2007, 03:43:04 AM
Who says when?
As long as the criticizer has a good faith, rational and supportable basis for continuing the criticism, then it should be encouraged.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 20, 2007, 03:47:06 AM
Well, we can lose the qualifier almost in the case of at least two composers.
:D
Quote from: D Minor on November 20, 2007, 03:49:34 AM
As long as the criticizer has a good faith, rational and supportable basis for continuing the criticism, then it should be encouraged.
Doesn't work like that. My admiration of Dittersdorf is supported by Harry but "laughed at" by many others. I guess the music of
Michael Haydn is easier to like for many because he doesn't have a funny name, he is a Haydn! ;D
(I like Michael Haydn too but I rank Dittersdorf higher)
Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2007, 04:18:19 AM
Doesn't work like that. My admiration of Dittersdorf is supported by Harry but "laughed at" by many others. I guess the music of Michael Haydn is easier to like for many because he doesn't have a funny name, he is a Haydn! ;D
(I like Michael Haydn too but I rank Dittersdorf higher)
For people to poke fun of Dittersdorf
solely because of his name would be irrational and insupportable.
But if people have a good faith, rational, and supportable basis for continuing the criticism (such as D's music being unduly repetitive and/or monotonous), then the criticism should be encouraged.
In this sense, criticism is at least as important as praise ........
Quote from: D Minor on November 20, 2007, 04:29:14 AM
For people to poke fun of Dittersdorf solely because of his name would be irrational and insupportable.
But if people have a good faith, rational, and supportable basis for continuing the criticism (such as D's music being unduly repetitive and/or monotonous), then the criticism should be encouraged.
In this sense, criticism is at least as important as praise ........
Well, am I encouraged to say I find Mahler much more repetitive and monotonous than Dittersdorf?
Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2007, 04:50:42 AM
Well, am I encouraged to say I find Mahler much more repetitive and monotonous than Dittersdorf?
If that is your opinion, and you can back it up, why not? :)
Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2007, 04:50:42 AM
Well, am I encouraged to say I find Mahler much more repetitive and monotonous than Dittersdorf?
I always enjoy movies where the lone hero takes on the world; though I usuallt prefer a happy ending for the hero for the movie to be REALLY enjoyable!
Quote from: erato on November 20, 2007, 06:18:39 AM
I always enjoy movies where the lone hero takes on the world; though I usuallt prefer a happy ending for the hero for the movie to be REALLY enjoyable!
Try destruction movies: quoting a popular Dungeon Master (D&D) mantra, "Rocks fall, everyone dies." Now, let's get back on topic. :P
Although I enjoy making lists, I have to admit that they constitute a useless exercise. But wasting time is one of my favorite activities.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2007, 04:18:19 AM
My admiration of Dittersdorf is supported by Harry but "laughed at" by many others.
Well, I'm not laughing. I confess I used to think that, with 120 symphonies and many other pieces in his output, he just churned them out like Model T's--until I actually heard one. ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on November 24, 2007, 01:07:13 PM
Well, I'm not laughing. I confess I used to think that, with 120 symphonies and many other pieces in his output, he just churned them out like Model T's--until I actually heard one. ;D
So Haydn would be laughed at too if people had not heard his 104 symphonies and many other pieces? :P
Franz Joseph Haydn von Haydnesdorf. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on November 25, 2007, 01:38:39 AM
So Haydn would be laughed at too if people had not heard his 104 symphonies and many other pieces? :P
No. Once Mozart and the rest of Vienna heard op.20, Joseph Haydn was confirmed a Master (in fact, I imagine that most connosieurs saw him at the time as both having usurped J.C. Bach's at-the-time predominance, and rivalled much of J.S.'s overall output). There was no turning back after such a devastatingly advanced work.
Quote from: Haffner on November 25, 2007, 06:25:15 AM
No. Once Mozart and the rest of Vienna heard op.20, Joseph Haydn was confirmed a Master (in fact, I imagine that most connosieurs saw him at the time as both having usurped J.C. Bach's at-the-time predominance, and rivalled much of J.S.'s overall output). There was no turning back after such a devastatingly advanced work.
Op. 64 is the only String Quartets by Haydn I have heard (and have on CD). What is so devastatingly advanced about op. 20?
Quote from: 71 dB on November 25, 2007, 08:10:14 AM
Op. 64 is the only String Quartets by Haydn I have heard (and have on CD). What is so devastatingly advanced about op. 20?
Poju, you
have to be kidding. Op.20 spawned the decidely lesser String Quartets of Mozart and LvB's op. 18 to such a degree...Haydn's mastery was completely evident throughout this set; right down to the multiple, seeming effortlessly written fugues dotted all over the work. That you don't have this kind of amazes me.
Quote from: Haffner on November 25, 2007, 09:18:36 AM
Poju, you have to be kidding. Op.20 spawned the decidely lesser String Quartets of Mozart and LvB's op. 18 to such a degree...Haydn's mastery was completely evident throughout this set; right down to the multiple, seeming effortlessly written fugues dotted all over the work. That you don't have this kind of amazes me.
I haven't studied much timelines about who wrote what and when. People always say Op. 76 rules. I like Beethoven's string quartets more than Mozart's and Mozart's more that Haydn's Op. 64.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 25, 2007, 10:07:14 AM
I haven't studied much timelines about who wrote what and when. People always say Op. 76 rules. I like Beethoven's string quartets more than Mozart's and Mozart's more that Haydn's Op. 64.
op. 76 might very well be Papa's masterpiece. But again, Poju, I would feel like less of a friend if I didn't strongly reccomend both the Quatuor Mosaiques rendition of op.20 and op.76. Mozart never wrote a better string quartet, and Beethoven only started doing so with op. 59 in my opinion.
Quote from: Haffner on November 25, 2007, 10:10:25 AM
op. 76 might very well be Papa's masterpiece. But again, Poju, I would feel like less of a friend if I didn't strongly reccomend both the Quatuor Mosaiques rendition of op.20 and op.76. Mozart never wrote a better string quartet, and Beethoven only started doing so with op. 59 in my opinion.
Thanks Haffner! I'll add those to my wishlist.
Yes, Beethoven's Op. 18 is just the beginning but already nice. "Harp" Op. 74 is the first really good one imo. I just love how well Beethoven's musical language suites for string quartet. Something bothers me in Haydn's Op. 64 and that's why I haven't explored his other string quartets yet.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 25, 2007, 10:34:36 AM
Thanks Haffner! I'll add those to my wishlist.
Yes, Beethoven's Op. 18 is just the beginning but already nice. "Harp" Op. 74 is the first really good one imo. I just love how well Beethoven's musical language suites for string quartet. Something bothers me in Haydn's Op. 64 and that's why I haven't explored his other string quartets yet.
Op. 64 takes several listens, it definitely grows on you in a big way. But opps.20 and 76 are startlingly great, I don't think you'll regret the purchase, Poju.
The "Harp" is a masterpiece, of course for LvB. I really love the Vegh rendition.
Quote from: Haffner on November 25, 2007, 12:40:50 PM
Op. 64 takes several listens, it definitely grows on you in a big way. But opps.20 and 76 are startlingly great, I don't think you'll regret the purchase, Poju.
The "Harp" is a masterpiece, of course for LvB. I really love the Vegh rendition.
I have had Op. 64 for many many years. It has not grown much on me. I am little annoyed by it's non-serious nature. Difficult to explain but sometimes Haydn
"disrespects fundamental principles of art". Don't get me wrong, it's good chamber music but I prefer Beethoven's mature seriousness and Mozart's prodigal concentration on beauty. Anyway, I am interested to try Opp. 20 & 76.
I have Kodály Quartet's Beehoven (9 Naxos discs). I am very satisfied with them. The sound quality and stereo images on these discs are very enjoyable and using DTS:Neo 6 multichannel re-matrixation gives heavenly sound! :)
Quote from: 71 dB on November 26, 2007, 01:33:21 AM
I have Kodály Quartet's Beehoven (9 Naxos discs). I am very satisfied with them. The sound quality and stereo images on these discs are very enjoyable and using DTS:Neo 6 multichannel re-matrixation gives heavenly sound! :)
I'm interested in that set now, as the Kodaly Haydn SQs are perhaps the best non-HiP performance of those works.
As to the idea of taking Haydn seriously, Haydn (like Mozart, though preceeding him) was a stunning master of subtlety. Even in what might to be his most "lighthearted" works, he often includes many more "grave" emotions. It's involves listening to the non-obvious (non-leading) instruments. You'll hear it. It can certainly take patience at times, but op.64 is absolutely not bereft of what you term "serious emotions". It's the mark of the high magnitude of Haydn's SQs that he can be so subtle, and obviously Mozart and Beethoven learned alot from that approach.
Haydn's SQs are often splendid for "backround music", but upon closer inspection the profound compositional aspects show through quite well. I started listening to them in a very uninvolved way. When I took to wearing headphones ("innocently" and without forehand intentions to hear serious variables in the music) I was so stunned I ended up preferring the SQs with headphones as a rule.
From Haydn's op. 20, be sure to check out no. 5 in F minor, which is particularly intense in expression. The fugal finale is noteworthy.