GMG Classical Music Forum

I thought I would share with you another person's opinion on what a new classical listener, or one who hasn't acquired a taste for classical music, ought to listen to for an entrée to the genre.  The lady whose thoughts I'm referring to is very obviously a person with long, extensive, and varied appreciation of music, including classic.  She is clearly entitled to her opinions.  Nevertheless I think many hardcore classical lovers will take some exception to her comments:  have a look and see if you agree.

In any case they are fascinating comments and lists:

Teresa's Classical Music for Folks who Don't Like Classical Music ...
http://www.analoglovers.com/page34.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/page34.html)
(new) http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm)

Teresa's Classical Music for Everyone ...
http://www.analoglovers.com/page20.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/page20.html)
(new) http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm)

I read the two links.  All I can say is that the entries are much too light for my tastes and her overall views do not reveal a person who loves classical music.  For example, she puts down any music that is not immediately enjoyable.

And not one Bach recommendation.    :o

Quote from: Norbeone on January 27, 2008, 12:47:39 PM
And not one Bach recommendation.    :o

If I remember right, no baroque at all.  I suppose it could be an okay list for those who much prefer light music, bu it's alien to me.

Quote from: Don on January 27, 2008, 12:15:13 PM
I read the two links.  All I can say is that the entries are much too light for my tastes and her overall views do not reveal a person who loves classical music.  For example, she puts down any music that is not immediately enjoyable.

I think that's the crux of the matter:  although she enjoys certain individual pieces, she really doesn't like classical music in general.

What a batshit insane list :) I don't understand why people make these lists, this one in particular is very strange. Loads of second rate music at the expense of entire genres - niche to the point of not being useful. It is a list of what the person behind AnalogLovers.com likes rather than a useful introduction to a general listener. I actually shudder that someone may see this list as the product of a balanced mind, and also ignore everything other than orchestral music (not that their choices in the orchestral arena made much sense either - WTF is going on with the RVW choices?).

2 questions:

1 - What the hell is Power Orchestra Classical  ???
2 - How can she say that these "extend(s) the boundries of what is possible in the classical form" when few if any of them are IN Classical Form?   ::)

----------------
Now playing:
Grigory Sokolov - Bia 136 Op 7 Sonata #4 in Eb for Piano 2nd mvmt - Largo, con gran espressione

Quote from: Lethe on January 27, 2008, 06:02:13 PM
What a batshit insane list :) I don't understand why people make these lists, this one in particular is very strange. Loads of second rate music at the expense of entire genres - niche to the point of not being useful. It is a list of what the person behind AnalogLovers.com likes rather than a useful introduction to a general listener. I actually shudder that someone may see this list as the product of a balanced mind, and also ignore everything other than orchestral music (not that their choices in the orchestral arena made much sense either - WTF is going on with the RVW choices?).

Hehehe  ;D  Well, I think it's clear the Teresa doesn't like classical music.  She has stated explicitly (at these links and elsewhere) that she can't relate to anything before Beethoven and doesn't understand why anyone would listen to chamber music.

As to why people publish lists, I guess they just like to share their opinions.  For our part we are at liberty to ignore them or use them to the extent we want.  My list, (see my signature), was compiled to aid my own personal investigation of classical music and it has been helpful in that objective.

Well what can I say, I read with astonishment the Teresa story of how to map out your classical route.
She has a strange way of thinking and compiling lists.

I was only looking for 2 works to see if they were on the list.  If they were on the list, I immediately closed the link.

Gershwin - Cuban Overture :P

Ravel - Bolero. :P


In addition, Beethoven's 5th Symphony wasn't even on the list.  :o

What the **** is this ***** talking about!?

QuoteIt's not me but the press that proclaimed Amadeus Wolfgang Mozart as the greatest composer of all time, it's me that disagrees with this lofty status given to Mozart.

It is indeed "absolute music" that turns people off of Classical Music (myself included). [...]  I really hope that new convert who has just discovered the wonderfully exciting "Night on Bald Mountain" NEVER leads to a love affair with the Schubert string quintet!  Not too much more dry or boring as Schubert chamber music, except for maybe Brahms chamber music.

Oh yes, the great distinction between POWER ORCHESTRAL MUSIC and the bland "absolute music"...

Quote from: ChamberNut on January 28, 2008, 04:14:24 AM
...
In addition, Beethoven's 5th Symphony wasn't even on the list.  :o

That's amazing -- even in context.

I have since realised a use for the list, although not for beginners. An experienced listener who has a perverse interest in Romantic/tonal orchestral suites and poems will no doubt find much to investigate :) Perhaps the list should be renamed...

QuoteMany listeners think all Classical Music is like what they heard in the movie "Amadeus"  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In reality Classical music can be more thrilling, more exciting and with as much rhythmic drive as any other type of music.  At least 90% of the best Classic orchestral music is totally unknown to most music lovers, thus the reason for this much needed list.

The biggest problem with these series is they were rather weak in the bass depriving Power orchestral music of much of it's impact and excitement.   Deep and powerful low frequency energy is very important to the maximum enjoyment Power orchestral music.

>:( This is ridiculous! Moreover, I've always thought the movie Amadeus was a great display of Mozart's most powerful music...

While I think this list is worthless to those who love music, it's not without merit. For instance, I could see my girlfriend, or anyone else who likes music but wants something catchy and appealing, liking a lot of the pieces on her list. In fact, I'd say that someone listening to these works is more likely to be turned on to classical music than someone who's start is with Mozart's 41 symphony or Beethoven's 5th piano concerto, even though they are "better" works than 99% of this list.

Hey, it could be a good way to get more people interested in classical... you gotta start somewhere.

I just read this on the second link:

Quote
What if Mussorgsky was considered the greatest classical composer rather than Mozart? What if instead every music listener's first introduction to classical music was "Night on Bald Mountain"? I believe the number of listeners liking classical music would easily increase 10 fold!

I don't think it would increase by that much, but I definitely think classical would find more listeners if people thought of classical as like "Night on Bald Mountain" and not Bach or Mozart. The attitude towards classical would be so different. Honestly, Bach's music is boring to someone who's grown up listening to rock and pop music... but heart-on-your-sleeve/action-packed tone poems aren't boring one bit.

Beyond stupid.

Quote from: andy on January 28, 2008, 06:32:03 PM
Honestly, Bach's music is boring to someone who's grown up listening to rock and pop music... but heart-on-your-sleeve/action-packed tone poems aren't boring one bit.

Not sure about that.  I grew up on rock music and never found Bach boring; Mozart was a different story.

From the site:

QuoteFor listeners new to Classical Music or afraid of Classic Music, if you love the music of Star Wars, Indiana Jones and other sci-fi and adventure films you should love the music from this list.

CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE  :'( 

"Power music"??   ??? (I'm surprised not to see Orff's Carmina Burana on this list-- not that its not a good piece, but you know its such a common cliche...)

And:

QuoteIt is indeed "absolute music" that turns people off of Classical Music (myself included).

What planet is she from?  My first real exposure to classical music was Beethoven's 6th symphony, but the old cassette I had when I was a kid had no liner notes or anything.  I fell in love with it.  And then I discovered Bach and from then on I was deeply in love with classical music.  There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, I don't think about extramusical things listening to music (I love Scheherezade, but I couldn't tell you the name of any of the four movements-- I could care less). 

David Byrne in True Stories: "Do you like music?  Oh, I know-- everybody says they do..."

Quote from: andy on January 28, 2008, 06:21:04 PM
While I think this list is worthless to those who love music, it's not without merit. For instance, I could see my girlfriend, or anyone else who likes music but wants something catchy and appealing, liking a lot of the pieces on her list. In fact, I'd say that someone listening to these works is more likely to be turned on to classical music than someone who's start is with Mozart's 41 symphony or Beethoven's 5th piano concerto, even though they are "better" works than 99% of this list.

Hey, it could be a good way to get more people interested in classical... you gotta start somewhere.

Yes, I agree there is something to be said for Teresa's choices as enticement for new listeners.  It would have be OK of she had left it at that, but no ...  For those of us who long ago transcended Disney Fantasia music, her disparagement of so much great music and composers is both offensive and ridiculous.

Quote from: Feanor on January 28, 2008, 11:24:42 PM
Yes, I agree there is something to be said for Teresa's choices as enticement for new listeners.  It would have be OK of she had left it at that, but no ...  For those of us who long ago transcended Disney Fantasia music, her disparagement of so much great music and composers is both offensive and ridiculous.

But even Fantasia (the original version, that is) included the Bach-Stokowski Toccata and Fugue, the Beethoven Pastoral, and the Rite of Spring in addition to the hippos dancing to Ponchielli's Dance of the Hours. (The last two of these were cut, and the Stravinsky one might say was massacred, but at least they were there.) Fantasia was on the whole an honest and highly successful attempt to unite good, solid standards from the typical 1940 music-appreciation class with the delightful qualities of Disney animation. Yet "Teresa," who won't include the Beethoven 5th, Mozart Jupiter, or Tchaikovsky 5th symphony in her "Power" list (though somehow Mahler 1 and the New World make the cut), lists the Bartok Music for Strings, Lutoslawski's Concerto for Orchestra, and Ives's Three Place [sic] in New England among her choices. Is she serious? Has she actually heard any of this music?

Quote from: Sforzando on January 29, 2008, 04:03:11 AM
But even Fantasia (the original version, that is) included the Bach-Stokowski Toccata and Fugue, the Beethoven Pastoral, and the Rite of Spring in addition to the hippos dancing to Ponchielli's Dance of the Hours. (The last two of these were cut, and the Stravinsky one might say was massacred, but at least they were there.) Fantasia was on the whole an honest and highly successful attempt to unite good, solid standards from the typical 1940 music-appreciation class with the delightful qualities of Disney animation. ...

Conceded regarding Fantasia  :D

I agree her list is ridiculous, misguided and ignorant. I suppose she is entitled to her opinion, however ludicrous it may be.

I do feel, however, that changing people's perception of classical from Bach/Mozart to Rite of Spring, even more modern pieces like Ligeti's Atmospheres would attract new fans. And we might get some more exciting programming in concert halls!

And "power orchestra"?? WTF? Is this like when they amp the violins and hook 'em up to a wa-wa pedal?

The key thing is attracting people towards classical music.

I was attracted towards classical music by the music in Stanley Kubrick films.  Specifically, the music used in A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Eyes Wide Shut.

Wendy/Walter Carlos electronica music used in A Clockwork Orange, piqued my curiosity about Beethoven, and the 9th Symphony.  I started off by getting the soundtrack to the movie, a CD of the 9th symphony, a 1 disk "best of" Beethoven, and finally the complete symphonies.  From that point on, there has never been any turning back.  I became a passionate fan of classical music for life.

disgusting

QuoteNot too much more dry or boring as Schubert chamber music

methinks someones ears are in the closed position

This is what happens when you let women get in charge of thing. Erm, wait.

Quote from: ChamberNut on January 29, 2008, 06:18:10 AM
The key thing is attracting people towards classical music.

The key thing is not to give people the wrong impression about classical music.

Now, now, remember this admonition from another Disney animated classic:  "If ya can't say somethin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." ;)

I forgave Teresa everything when I saw she had included Varèse's Ionisation. ;D

Quote from: jochanaan on February 04, 2008, 11:35:56 AM
Now, now, remember this admonition from another Disney animated classic:  "If ya can't say somethin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." ;)

I forgave Teresa everything when I saw she had included Varèse's Ionisation. ;D

Although Ionisation did seem a little out of character for Teresa who has said that much avante garde music makes her want to "hide under the couch".   :o

Read some of Teresa's comments in response to another post of mine here ...
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=music&n=156943&highlight=Twenty+Boring+Pieces&r=&session= (http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=music&n=156943&highlight=Twenty+Boring+Pieces&r=&session=)

I find that most orchestral classical music written prior to 1800 is too academic and boring

Not too much more dry or boring as Schubert chamber music, except for maybe Brahms chamber music

The person who utters such nonsense is not worth our time, ladies and gentlemen.  ;D

My articles "Classical Music for music lovers who don't think they like Classical Music"   http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html (http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html) and " The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music"   http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm) have caused quite a controversy here that I would like make some clarifications and answer some questions posted.  Also due to a recent web site redesign I need to provide the current links.

First off these lists are for listeners who have rejected traditional Classical music and not listeners who already love Classical music.  Classical music is large enough to included everyone!  There are millions of Classical compositions and not everyone has to like the same pieces.

When I ask people who claim to not like or hate Classical music why they don't like it, the number one answer is it's boring.    I tell them not all Classical music is boring, I play for them something really exciting and watch the shock on their face and the wonder of discovery in their eyes.   Ever since the 1970's I seen reviews dismiss the Classical music I love as banal that I knew I had to take action or the Classical music I love would disappear and no longer be composed.  This began with my print newsletter "The Audio Iconoclast" from 1995 and continues thru this very day on my website. 

Were it not for Art Rock's adaptation's of some of the most exciting music to be found in Classical music I would have NEVER discovered Classical music at all as I do not like the type of Classical music played on the FM radio stations in any of the cities I have ever lived.   I did not like the type Classical music I was exposed to in high school in my music classes.  Emerson, Lake and Palmer introduced me to Prokofiev"s "Dance of the Evil God and the Pagan Monsters" from the Scythian Suite, Mussorgsky's "Pictures At An Exhibition", Copland's "Hoedown" from Rodeo, and dozens of other works.  After purchasing Herbert von Karajan's version of "Pictures At An Exhibition" on LP back in the 1970's I was on the way to discovering a whole world of Classical music that was totally hidden from me!

On the way I discovered thousands of Classical compositions I absolutely abhor and most are on these so-called Basic Repertoire lists.   With the invention of the Internet no one need waste thousands of dollars on unliked compositions we can now hear a work before we purchase it. 

Now to answer some questions:

1) Don "Baroque" is not Power Orchestral Music and I do own and listen to some baroque music. I would never recommend it to someone who thinks all Classical music is boring.   The genre of Classical Music is big enough for everyone to love, just because I like different composers and different pieces does not in one bit diminish my love of Classical music. 

2) Norbeone: Bach wrote absolute music not Power Orchestral Music.  Here is the Bach from my collection: 
BACH, JOHANN SEBASTIAN (1685-1750)
  Brandenburg Concertos (6)
    Gustav Leonhardt Ensemble [2 LPs] abc Classics AB-67020/2
  Choral Prelude: Wir glauben all' an einen Got "Giant Fugue" (Trans. Stokowski)
  Prelude in E-Flat Minor for Orchestra (Trans. Stokowski)
    Stokowski, Czech Philharmonic [Cassette] London Phase 4 Stereo C 224497
  Sonatas Nos. 1-3 for Viola de Gamba and Harpsichord
    Cyr, Grew [LP] McGill University Records 78007
    Meints, Doris Ornstein [LP] Gasparo GS-212
  Toccata and Fugue in D Minor for Organ, BWV 565
    Morris [LP] Crystal Clear Records CCS 7010

3) Feamor how can you say I don't like Classical music in general?   Classical music is my favorite music of all and there are enough different variations on the art form to make everyone happy.   This is the point of my articles Classical music does not belong to a select few but to every music lover who can derive pleasure from it!   

4) Lethe how dare you call the Classical music I love "second rate"!  I agree a lot of it is unjustly obscure but I am trying my best to help these wonderful works become better know!   Did not read the title of the list "Power Orchestral Music"?  You sound like some of the arrogant establishment I'm trying to overcome!   So you have a problem with Ralph Vaughan Williams very enjoyable Folk Song Suite; Toccata Marziale and The Wasps?

5) Gurn Blanston Power Orchestral Music is thrilling, exciting Classical music with lots of drive, energy, rhythm and beat and is seasoned with colorful percussion effects.  It has an organismic quality that often sends goosebumps throughout ones body.   In short a joy ride for not only the ears but the entire body.

All of the composers of these works are Classical composers writing Classical works.  Just because you do not like them does not mean they are not Classical.

6) ChamberNut I am sorry that you do not like Gershwin's Cuban Overture or Ravel's Bolero.   Have you every listened to Bolero with the lights out and let the music flow over your body building gradually into a giant climax.  This work gives me a full body orgasm when listened to that way.  It is one giant powerful crescendo.  BTW I did consider Beethoven's 6th " the Pastorale" with the excellent thunderstorm movement. I used to own all 9 of Beethoven's Symphonies but the 6th was the only one that stood up for me on repeated listening.  I do like the opening of the 5th, and the beginning of the second movement of the 9th but not enough to keep the whole discs.

7) Mr. Online I came from "Planet Rock" and I am not alone, you can no longer keep Classical music all to yourselves.  We want it and we want the good stuff!  We don't want music with good taste, we want music that tastes good!

I like Orff's Carmina Burana but even though it's exciting it doesn't really follow under the guidelines of Power Orchestra Music but it is my very favorite choral work.   

Hey I like the "impressionistic" Beethoven's 6th Symphony, I couldn't list everything.  The list is just a starting point for exploration.

8) Sforzando watch "Fantasia" again and you will see Leopold Stokowski describe Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor as "absolute music"  BTW I own the original organ version and do enjoy it, but even you would have to admit this is not powerful Orchestral music although it is powerful in it's own right.  Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony almost made the list but his symphonic poems are more powerful and exciting.  Yes I have heard all of this music and their are more unjustly obscure music as you can see as I have added my Classical music collection at the end of the list. 

9) Andy before you call my list "ridiculous, misguided and ignorant" have you even heard a tenth of the musical works on my lists?

10) Stonemason I reserve the right to abhor the chamber works of Brahms and Schubert, these are the very definitions of musical hell for me! 

11) And finally to Florestan evidently the lists are not for you.  As I have always said NO ONE likes the same things and should never held in ridicule for not liking them.  And that is my beef with the Classical music establishment.  Classical can indeed be for everyone, please do not scare them away!

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM

First off these lists are for listeners who have rejected traditional Classical music and not listeners who already love Classical music.  Classical music is large enough to included everyone!  There are millions of Classical compositions and not everyone has to like the same pieces.

i guess a list like that is better than nothing, for people who already say no to classical......
but yeah, for us it wouldn't work since it wasn't intended for us.

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
When I ask people who claim to not like or hate Classical music why they don't like it, the number one answer is it's boring.    I tell them not all Classical music is boring, I play for them something really exciting and watch the shock on their face and the wonder of discovery in their eyes.   

i really wonder why they say that!? Maybe all they've ever heard was Baroque music and Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker?
i've always felt seperated from everyone else since I'm the only one I've ever known who thinks classical is exciting and 90% of popular music boring...


Teresa, here's a couple I'd recommend, for Goths:  >:D

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51U8bQBSC0L._AA240_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41HF0X7FKBL._AA240_.jpg)


and for Emos:  0:)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5173EVG2HJL._AA240_.jpg)

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
When I ask people who claim to not like or hate Classical music why they don't like it, the number one answer is it's boring.    I tell them not all Classical music is boring.

"I don't like Bach, his music is boring! Well ok then, let's play something really exciting now"

Brilliant.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 23, 2008, 05:10:26 PM
"I don't like Bach, his music is boring! Well ok then, let's play something really exciting now"

Brilliant.

let's play Schoenberg!  8)

(and then later let's warm up to Bach  0:))

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on February 23, 2008, 05:17:58 PM
let's play Schoenberg!  8)

(and then later let's warm up to Bach  0:))

Schoenberg's Bach orchestrations, maybe? ;D

Everyone's journey is different and no matter how someone would guide a listener, they will go off and explore things for themselves.

And that is just as well.

There is a good smattering there of things I don't know. The main issue for anyone coming fresh to music and deciding to try the list, is that a lot of the pieces are short. To obtain a specific piece would also entail getting music that is not on the list. So, at once people are exploring for themselves.

I like the sound of this piece; the conjunction of the two names especially. I might try to find it.

JACK END
  Blues for a Killed Kat

Mike

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
My articles "Classical Music for Everyone" http://www.analoglovers.com/page12.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/page12.html) and " The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" http://www.analoglovers.com/page13.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/page13.html) have caused quite a controversy here that I would like make some clarifications and answer some questions posted.  Also due to a recent web site redesign I need to provide the current links.

First off these lists are for listeners who have rejected traditional Classical music and not listeners who already love Classical music.  Classical music is large enough to included everyone!  There are millions of Classical compositions and not everyone has to like the same pieces.
...
On the way I discovered thousands of Classical compositions I absolutely abhor and most are on these so-called Basic Repertoire lists.   With the invention of the Internet no one need waste thousands of dollars on unliked compositions we can now hear a work before we purchase it. 
...
3) Feamor how can you say I don't like Classical music in general?   Classical music is my favorite music of all and there are enough different variations on the art form to make everyone happy.   This is the point of my articles Classical music does not belong to a select few but to every music lover who can derive pleasure from it!   
...

Teresa, thanks for joining us and providing you comments.  As I said earlier, you are obviously an accomplished listener to many musical genres.

Classical music is certainly diverse and I'll defend anyone's right to like one subgenre better than another.  (I'm making efforts to appreciate Bruckner, for example, but so far not much luck.)  What is disturbing, however, is your exclusive focus on "power orchestral" music, while mostly dismissing Baroque, "abhoring" chamber music, and wanting to "hide under the couch" in case of avant garde music.

Well OK, there are quite a few classical lovers who aren't strong on atonal or avante garde, but your narrow and exclusive "power" recommendations contradict your assertion above, "This is the point of my articles Classical music does not belong to a select few but to every music lover who can derive pleasure from it!".  I have never hard a basic repertoire item that I "abhored" (though, like I say, I like enjoy some a lot more than others).  Were a person to take your advice, they would never be exposed to the following for example:

   BACH, Johann Sebastian: Keyboard Goldberg Variations for Harpsichord BWV 988
   BEETHOVEN, Ludwig van: String Quartet No.14 Op.131
   BOULEZ, Pierre: Pli selon pli, for soprano & orchestra
   BRAHMS, Johannes: Trio for Piano & Strings No.2 C maj Op.87
   CARTER, Elliot: String Quartets, No. 1, 2
   HAYDN, Franz Joseph: Quartet Op.76 (3 "Emperor", 4, 6)
   HILDEGARD von Bingen: Selected works
   JANÁCEK, Leos: Quartes No.1, 2
   PALESTRINA, Giovanni: Missa Papae Marcelli
   PÄRT, Arvo: Fratres, for string quartet
   SCHNITTKE, Alfred: Concerti Grossi
   SCHUBERT, Franz: Quintet for Strings D.956
   SHOSTAKOVICH, Dmitri: String Quartet No. 8 Op.110
   WEBERN, Anton: Pieces (5) for orchestra, Op.10

Actually I dare say all of us genuine classical lovers find at least a few of these pieces quite exciting, and I would be a shame if you well-intentioned but misguided advice were to discouraged music beginners from exploring these subgenre.

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
1) Don "Baroque" is not Power Orchestral Music and I do own and listen to some baroque music. I would never recommend it to someone who thinks all Classical music is boring.   

Which is, frankly, bizarre. More than a few people have fallen in love with Classical via The Four Seasons, the Brandenburg Concerti, and other Baroque favorites. More to the point, much Baroque instrumental music is short, fast, and hard-driving with very pronounced, easy-to-follow rhythms--in many ways, it's classical music's closest analogue to rock. It's no coincidence that most of the classical influence on heavy metal musicians comes from the Baroque era. A metal fan with a trained ear who thinks he doesn't like classical music should be able to notice the many parallels between metal and instrumental baroque music, like all those 16th-note scalar sequences and certain modes and harmonic progressions so prominent in "neo-classical", "Euro", and of course "power" metal (presumably where you draw your term "power classical" from).

Quote
5) Gurn Blanston Power Orchestral Music is thrilling, exciting Classical music with lots of drive, energy, rhythm and beat and is seasoned with colorful percussion effects.  It has an organismic quality that often sends goosebumps throughout ones body.   In short a joy ride for not only the ears but the entire body.

See above.

Quote
11) And finally to Florestan evidently the lists are not for you.  As I have always said NO ONE likes the same things and should never held in ridicule for not liking them.  And that is my beef with the Classical music establishment.  Classical can indeed be for everyone, please do not scare them away!

True, but you should probably try to steer newcomers to the best the genre has to offer and not worry that they might be scared away by something challenging or something you dislike. If I were introducing someone to the greatest American novels, I would direct them towards Moby-Dick, for example, even though it won't be to everyone's immediate taste or even comprehensible to them. But if they seriously want to explore and enjoy the genre on its own terms and not just pick and choose what's easy and immediately appealing, it's something they should grapple with--and will likely be rewarded by.

From your website:

QuoteTraditional recommended Classical music lists are filled with boring, prodding Symphonies and Concertos and lots of tedious chamber works.  I find the most enjoyable classical works are Symphonic Poems, Dances, Overtures and Ballet Music.  Although Symphonies and Concertos written in a programatic style on a colorful orchestral canvas can be quite enjoyable as well.

Yet for many who are new to classical music, these things you abhor could well be the things they enjoy the most. I know when I was growing weary of rock and was introduced to classical music, some of the things that appealed the most were the dramatic, monumental symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner and Beethoven, the unforgettable melodies of chamber works by Schubert and piano pieces by Schumann, and so forth.

QuoteWith Power orchestral music the experience of classical music becomes a purely emotional one, one that transports one to another realm. This is the music that will get new converts to classical music because nothing has to be learned, it is not academic exercises in writing or playing technique.  It is music that is extremely easy to fall in love with on the very first listen, as easy to experience as Movie orchestral music.

QuoteAlso there is nothing here you have to "learn" to like.  The true path to musical enlightenment and enjoyment is becoming one with the music or to put it another way becoming lost in the music.  Where the music envelopes you and you leave the physical world and are transported to the musical world created by the composer and performers.  Power orchestral music does this better for me than any other music have I ever discovered!

This is treading on dangerous ground. Classical music, whether you like it or not, is complex and sophisticated, and to be fully appreciated it requires active intellectual engagement along with one's natural emotional response. Someone who is just listening for a quick physical/emotional kick is missing much of the point. That would be like watching Hamlet just for the sword fights.

Feanor and especially Grazioso have answered Teresa quite well, in my opinion. Teresa, basically, is bored by any classical music that does not aspire to the condition of rock or film music. This notion of "Power Orchestral" music essentially entails poundingly rhythmic music that is bold, bombastic, and brassy; and eliminates any music that is introspective, subtle, lyrical, witty, delicate, or in any way more modestly scaled. Nothing wrong with some of the titles in her list (I could even add a few myself), though a number of them turn me off. Certainly this kind of music has its place. In fact, to counter Teresa, who seems to have a considerable chip on her shoulder towards music-appreciation courses, it was quite common in such courses to use a lot of music like this as a way of getting people started, as well as a representative selection of the more emotionally and intellectually demanding music that Teresa so clearly disdains. (Another point is that she appears to have no use for opera, yet few areas of classical music are seeing more popular interest these days than the operatic repertory.) My point is that to restrict one's self only to Power Orchestral Rock is to miss out on a great deal of what makes classical music a very precious experience to those who truly do love it, and I fear Teresa, with her Instant Gratification approach and refusal to go beyond it, has taken a very limited corner of the musical universe and made it her whole.

Quote from: Grazioso on February 24, 2008, 05:23:26 AMThat would be like watching Hamlet just for the sword fights.

Perfect.

Mike here is a kinda slow version of Jack End's Blues for a Killed Kat from You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDaapfJKQY4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDaapfJKQY4&feature=related)

A faster musically superior version is from Reference Recordings "Beachcomber" - Frederick Fennell and the Dallas Wind Symphony.

Grazioso I find that medieval and early renaissance dance music to be closer to Pop/Rock than Baroque.  But even that is not under discussion because as much as I love medieval and early renaissance dance music it is not orchestral music. 

Here are some of my favorite medieval and early renaissance dance albums:

DANSES ANCIENNES DE HONGRIE ET DE TRANSYLVANIE
Rene Clemencic, Clemencic Consort
harmonia mundi FRANCE HM 1003 LP

LA FÊTE DE LÂNE
Rene Clemencic, Clemencic Consort
harmonia mundi / Speakers Corner HM 1036LP

LA FOLIA DE LA SPAGNA
Gregorio Paniagua, Atrium Musicae de Madrid
harmonia mundi / Speakers Corner HM 1050 LP

PRAETORIUS: Terpichore: Dances WIDMANN: Dances and Galliards SCHEIN: Banchetto Musicale Three Suites
Collegium Terpsichore
Archive Production / Ampex ARC 3153
4 Track 7 1/2 IPS Open Reel

TARENTULE-TARENTELLE
Gregorio Paniagua, Atrium Musicae de Madrid
harmonia mundi / Speakers Corner HM 379 LP

VILLANCICOS: Spanish Folksongs from the 15th and 16th Centuries
Gregorio Paniagua, Atrium Musicae de Madrid
harmonia mundi / Speakers Corner HM 1025 LP

So as you can see I like early Classical Music up until about 1650, and skip 150 years and then Classical Music after 1800 with the exception of modern advent garde.  Most of the modern Classical Music I like is Neo-Classical, Neo-Romantic and Neo-Modern.   It's just the Baroque and Classical eras I don't care for, plus of course most chamber music without percussion.  Here a couple of Chamber Works I like:  http://music.download.com/twostarsymphony/3600-8281_32-100790363.html?tag=MDL_listing_song_artist,

Sforzando I love folk singing, bluegrass singing, some rock singing, some jazz singing, Mexican singing, Irish singing, just about any singing except Opera singing.

To me Opera singers sound like they are being skinned alive and are in terrible pain. And high sopranos actually cause my head to throb with their painful shrieks. I just don't get it, such godawful noise! I don't like to listen to recorded torture. Although I do like a lot of the instrumental music used in Opera's, such as orchestral suites of excerpts with NO singing!

Quote from: Teresa on February 24, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
Grazioso I find that medieval and early renaissance dance music to be closer to Pop/Rock than Baroque.  But even that is not under discussion because as much as I love medieval and early renaissance dance music it is not orchestral music. 

So what?

Quote from: Teresa on February 24, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
It's just the Baroque and Classical eras I don't care for, plus of course most chamber music without percussion.

Most chamber music does not have percussion. However, do you know the Bartok sonata for two pianos and percussion?

Quote from: Teresa on February 24, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
Grazioso I find that medieval and early renaissance dance music to be closer to Pop/Rock than Baroque.  But even that is not under discussion because as much as I love medieval and early renaissance dance music it is not orchestral music. 

It is under discussion because this isn't merely a question of your individual tastes but, as you say, "Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music". As soon as you try to guide others and not merely describe your personal opinions, you shoulder a responsibility. You falsely assume that others new to classical music will share your biases and limitations and adopt an equally blinkered approach. Any sophisticated listener or musician with genuine curiosity will want to explore the Baroque and Classical eras, chamber music, and opera.

If someone is new to rock, will you steer them away from The Beatles and Led Zeppelin and towards Britney Spears because the latter is simpler and more danceable? If someone is new to jazz, will you steer them to Kenny G and tell them that the Hot 5 sides and Ascension and E.S.P. are too complex and boring?

Quote from: Grazioso on February 25, 2008, 03:56:31 AM
It is under discussion because this isn't merely a question of your individual tastes but, as you say, "Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music". As soon as you try to guide others and not merely describe your personal opinions, you shoulder a responsibility. You falsely assume that others new to classical music will share your biases and limitations and adopt an equally blinkered approach.

Bingo. That is very well put, and cuts to the heart of why some of us here are disturbed by Teresa's Technicolor approach to musical marketing. I'm sure I'm only one of many people whose early interest in classical music was shaped by exposure to the Beethoven symphonies, and I have known numerous people who have fallen passionately for opera after having attended a few performances. Had I only experienced Power Orchestral Rock, I would have missed out on a great deal of the music that matters most to me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Teresa, however, clearly despises a great deal of the very repertoire that many people devoted to this kind of music love most passionately - opera ("torture"), chamber music ("musical hell"), the central symphonic literature - and the list of works she produces seems motivated not just by enjoyment of the works she likes, but by contempt and resentment towards a lot of the standard repertoire. That's the crucial difference between Teresa and the old-fashioned music appreciation teacher who would introduce Sheherazade and the Nutcracker Suite as a way of getting young listeners started with classical music. These people cared deeply about classical music and would go out of their way to encourage interested young listeners to pursue more challenging fare. But I sense that by producing her list of Power Orchestral Rock, Teresa's trying in part to take revenge on the whatever music appreciation teachers apparently committed the unforgivable sin of having her listen to a Brahms quintet one day or a Verdi opera, and those guys better watch out.

Quote from: Grazioso on February 25, 2008, 03:56:31 AM
You falsely assume that others new to classical music will share your biases and limitations and adopt an equally blinkered approach.

Right.  I'm teaching my girlfriend classical music-- having our own sort of "Music Appreciation 101" course & its quite thorough (its roughly in chronological order, starting with plainchant. Now we're on Bach). 

She already knows I have certain preferences & I've pointed out to her I have certain prejudices.  I'm aware of these limitations and always make sure to remind her of this because I don't want my prejudices to colour her own view of things-- not that she can't think for herself, but I want to expose her to music that even I am not really into because maybe she will like it.  And I want to treat even composers I can't really click with (like Mahler, for example) in a positive light-- my own subjective limitations shouldn't limit her own discoveries.

It wouldn't be fair to her to put MY blinkers on HER and it wouldn't be fair to all the wonderful music out there.  And who knows, I might learn something new in the process as well. 

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
ChamberNut I am sorry that you do not like Gershwin's Cuban Overture or Ravel's Bolero.   Have you every listened to Bolero with the lights out and let the music flow over your body building gradually into a giant climax.  This work gives me a full body orgasm when listened to that way. 

Why don't you go for the real thing instead?  ;D

My problem with your theory is not the theory as such; you are entitled to your own opinion. It's that you present it as a valid approach for newcomers thus misleading them into believing classical music is all about instant gratification.

Quote from: Grazioso on February 25, 2008, 03:56:31 AM
You falsely assume that others new to classical music will share your biases and limitations and adopt an equally blinkered approach.

Teresa,

This is really it in a nutshell. 

I'm only 3 years into my interest in classical music, and I do not share the same biases and limitations you do.  Many (or most) of the works and masterpieces you shun as being dull or boring are the same works that drew me into classical music and made me a fan for life. 

Quote from: Teresa on February 24, 2008, 02:47:37 AM
Have you every listened to Bolero with the lights out and let the music flow over your body building gradually into a giant climax.  This work gives me a full body orgasm when listened to that way.


Really? :o
Cool 8)
Like to compare notes on this Teresa.
Just PM me.

The list looks like one of those boxes you can get for $5 with 10 or 20 cds at your local Circuit City. You can't have Wellington's Victory  Op. 91 (1813) on the list and ask to be taken seriously. BTW where is Bruckner  on the list?

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on February 25, 2008, 06:03:07 AM
BTW where is Bruckner  on the list?

I think Ubloobideega ate him off.

Quote from: just josh on February 25, 2008, 05:31:34 AM
Right.  I'm teaching my girlfriend classical music-- having our own sort of "Music Appreciation 101" course & its quite thorough (its roughly in chronological order, starting with plainchant. Now we're on Bach). 

She already knows I have certain preferences & I've pointed out to her I have certain prejudices.  I'm aware of these limitations and always make sure to remind her of this because I don't want my prejudices to colour her own view of things-- not that she can't think for herself, but I want to expose her to music that even I am not really into because maybe she will like it.  And I want to treat even composers I can't really click with (like Mahler, for example) in a positive light-- my own subjective limitations shouldn't limit her own discoveries.

It wouldn't be fair to her to put MY blinkers on HER and it wouldn't be fair to all the wonderful music out there.  And who knows, I might learn something new in the process as well. 

A far cry from Teresa, and a most welcome one.

Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2008, 05:35:43 AM
Teresa (thinking we'll be impressed if she plays the Porn Card): Have you every listened to Bolero with the lights out and let the music flow over your body building gradually into a giant climax.  This work gives me a full body orgasm when listened to that way. 

Florestan: Why don't you go for the real thing instead?  ;D

Well, apparently she is, but this is old hat. Bo Derek had the same idea 30 years ago when she starred alongside Dudley Moore in 10. No doubt if Teresa had her way, we'd see an audience of old guys sitting through Bolero at its next performance by the Chicago Symphony, all with handkerchiefs covering their crotches. C'mon Teresa, if you're going to treat classical music as porn, at least be more original.

Quote from: Harry on February 25, 2008, 05:45:48 AM
Quote from: Teresa on February 24, 2008, 02:47:37 AM
Have you every listened to Bolero with the lights out and let the music flow over your body building gradually into a giant climax.  This work gives me a full body orgasm when listened to that way.


Really? :o
Cool 8)
Like to compare notes on this Teresa.
Just PM me.

Oh, why not do it publicly, Harry? If Teresa can let it all hang out on the board, why not you too?

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM

... ChamberNut I am sorry that you do not like Gershwin's Cuban Overture or Ravel's Bolero.   Have you every listened to Bolero with the lights out and let the music flow over your body building gradually into a giant climax.  This work gives me a full body orgasm when listened to that way.  It is one giant powerful crescendo. 

Well, have you Chambernut?  Come on, let's have the truth.

Quote from: Topaz on February 25, 2008, 07:57:25 AM
Well, have you Chambernut?  Come on, let's have the truth.

:D

I think Teresa faked it.

Quote from: ChamberNut on February 25, 2008, 08:53:17 AM
:D

I think Teresa faked it.

Oh yes, Ohh yesss, OH YESSSS

or, as Saul might say:  Oh G-D, Ohh G-D-D, Oooha  G-O-Odddddddddddd

Quote from: Topaz on February 25, 2008, 10:00:54 AM
Oh yes, Ohh yesss, OH YESSSS

or, as Saul might say:  Oh G-D, Ohh G-D-D, Oooha  G-O-Odddddddddddd

I think you mean, Oooha G-G-G---dddddddddddddddddd!!!

Quote from: Sforzando on February 25, 2008, 10:06:50 AM
I think you mean, Oooha G-G-G---dddddddddddddddddd!!!

or Ohhhhhhh G------------------ddddddd!

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on February 25, 2008, 10:08:40 AM
or Ohhhhhhh G------------------ddddddd!

No doubt someone here speaks from experience.

Sforzando I had the Bartok sonata for two pianos and percussion back in 1973 and yes I will admit it is exciting, there is also a version for 2 Pianos, percussion and orchestra which I hope someday to try.  Also as I have said before there are enough classical works and styles out there to make everyone happy.  Why does it bother you that there are people who do not like chamber music or opera?

Grazioso The list under discussion is "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" and I had to leave out orchestral music and non-orchestral music that is in my article "Classical Music for Everyone" as the pieces did not fit the criteria I set down.    If a piece is not Power Orchestral music it does not belong on the list.   This list for people hate the "normal" classical music they are exposed to, you still are not understanding that?  This list is not for you as you already like Classical music.

Ii is quite possible for someone to love rock and not like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin.  I love rock and hate the early Beatles, I also dislike most Led Zeppelin and all Britney Spears.  So what?  In Jazz I love Duke Ellington and dislike John Coltrane.  So what?  I am still allowed to love Rock and I am still allowed to love Jazz.  And dammit I reserve the right to love Classical music as well.

Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2008, 05:35:43 AM
Why don't you go for the real thing instead?  ;D

My problem with your theory is not the theory as such; you are entitled to your own opinion. It's that you present it as a valid approach for newcomers thus misleading them into believing classical music is all about instant gratification.

The list is for people who think they hate classical music plus we live in the computer age so they can listen to the streaming audio themselves to check the music out.  Quote from the list "Unlike other lists there are no "must haves" here as not everyone likes the same music.  These are recommendations for listening and thanks to the Internet you can listen to streaming audio before deciding to add music to your collection. "

ChamberNut I have been listening to Classical Music for 26 years and it has had a lot of ups and downs.  We like different things in Classical Music.  This does not bother me why it bothers you I do not know.   "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" is a tool to reach out to listeners who have rejected traditional Classical music because they hate it.  This list is not for you.  Classical music is still a small minority in the United States and I believe it could be almost as popular as rap with the right exposure because there is something for everyone. 

PerfectWagner have you every heard a great performance of "Wellington's Victory" such as Dorati's on Mercury Living Presence or Kunzel's on Telarc?  BTW Wellington's Victory was the most popular of Beethoven's works when he was alive and the one that made him the most money, his Symphony No. 7 was his second biggest money maker.

GGGGRRREEG Bruckner's Symphony No. 9 was mentioned in "Classical Music for Everyone" The "Scherzo" from Bruckner's 9th Symphony can get the bodies juices flowing every bit as "Whole Lotta Love" by Led Zeppelin, both works induce "goose-bumps" to the max!

Lastly The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music is an alternative to the standard Repertoire with suggestions of works that one may like if they dislike the standard repertoire.  Why this is so hard for some of you to understand I do not know?  But remember this if it was not for Emerson, Lake and Palmer's versions Pictures At An Exhibition, Hoedown from Rodeo, etc.  I would have NEVER discovered classical music on my own.  And there are no new Art Rock groups promoting exciting Classical music that people without classical training can enjoy so thus the need for my list.

It is OK to like what I do not like and I reserve the right to like what you do not.  If we all adopt this attitude Classical music would be the most popular type of music or maybe you all want to keep it elitist?

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 02:51:17 PM


PerfectWagner have you every heard a great performance of "Wellington's Victory" such as Dorati's on Mercury Living Presence or Kunzel's on Telarc?  BTW Wellington's Victory was the most popular of Beethoven's works when he was alive and the one that made him the most money, his Symphony No. 7 was his second biggest money maker.

Not the Dorati or Kunzel but I have Maazel and frankly it is dreadful. Sorry you will not find any musicologist who thinks this is anything but a very poor quality work.

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on February 25, 2008, 02:54:18 PM
Not the Dorati or Kunzel but I have Maazel and frankly it is dreadful. Sorry you will not find any musicologist who thinks this is anything but a very poor quality work.

And that is the REAL problem isn't?  The musical establishment dismissing works that the public likes.  If it is not lofty and hard to understand forget it keep it elitist.  This is what I am fighting against!

In the grim future of Teresa's world, the lowest common denominator will be the standard from which to judge all art. I cannot wait.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 03:23:08 PM
And that is the REAL problem isn't?  The musical establishment dismissing works that the public likes.  If it is not lofty and hard to understand forget it keep it elitist.  This is what I am fighting against!

The public likes??? Nobody I know LIKES Wellington's Victory. If you ask Beethoven himself he would probably admit it is a complete hackjob. As a society we lionize Beethoven. If Wellington's Victory is even halfway decent it would be viewed as a quality work already.

BTW, you still haven't told me why there is no Bruckner? Anything by Bruckner is more worthwhile than 99% of the stuff on your list. You have to understand music, especially great music, is often not easy to listen to. Look at Beethoven, works like the Op. 106 or Op. 111 will leave the most beginners scratching their heads but once you spend the time to know them will give them a lifetime of listening pleasure, which is far more fruitful than some of instant gratification pieces that are so prevalent on your list.

And for Brahms, the Hungaria Dances are probably his least interesting work. Give them the 1st or 2nd piano concerto please.

Teresa,

You obviously have a different taste in 'classical' music to many of the posters on this forum. And that's fine. I think Wellington's Victory is an atrocity, but you clearly like it. So go for it. That's wonderful. I also think that Night on Bald Mountain is rubbish, but I remember as a child finding it incredibly exciting, so maybe the list you have provided may well be of some value.

But I suspect that the allergic reaction a number of posters here have had to your articles boils down to a couple of issues, none of which are anything but tangentially related to the pieces on the list themselves:

1. In the body of your articles you dismiss the repertoire you dislike as being 'academic and boring'. In the compilation of a list that you assert is aimed at interesting people in this body of repertoire, it seems to me that excoriating vast tracts of the repertoire is inappropriate. Feeling the way you do about that repertoire is fine, but spouting it from a pseudo-pedagogical soapbox is both fraudulent and offensive.  

2. You equate your personal taste with 'what the public likes'. I defy you to find ten people on the street who prefer Wellington's Victory to the contemporaneous Eroica. Again, it's wonderful that you have an engagement with this music, and that you love W's V, but it's a minority view, among both enthusiasts and dabblers. Similarly, I think that there is a real use for your list (or something like it), for a particular sort of user, but your belief that all people that dislike classical music want the same things you do, along with the manner you inflict your tastes (see point 1.) makes the manner of presentation somewhat distasteful.

3. You assert that the real problem is

Quote from: TeresaThe musical establishment dismissing works that the public likes.

as if there were some kind of mechanism through which academics somehow tell lovers of 'classical' music which pieces to like and why they should like them. This is patently absurd. The Brahms chamber works (for example) have the place they do in the repertoire because, for nearly 150 years, the generosity of spirit with which these works are imbued has affected countless millions in a way that isn't describle with mere words (especially not words that could/should be applied to the enjoyment of good rock). Not because we're told that Brahms is good.

What we're essentially dealing with here is the difference betweeen function and art. You are seeing the Western classical tradition through a lens that requires music to 'get the bodies [sic] juices flowing'. That's all very well, and to an extent this explains the choices you have made. But most music of the Western classical tradition is intended not as something to get a crowd screaming and waving their hands up in air (oh yeah, like they just don't care... ;)) but rather to articulate or engage with the sublime. It is this aspect of music that speaks most strongly to the vast majority of 'classical' music enthusiasts. I think that the members of this Board have reacted (predictably) negatively to the fact that, by asserting a kind of compulsory reduction of 'classical' music to something with pounding rhythms, percussion, a good beat, good bass, etc, etc, etc, you implicitly deride the validity of this music as art.

Welcome on board, Mr. Dahm. Fine debut. But will Teresa listen?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 25, 2008, 03:39:20 PM
In the grim future of Teresa's world, the lower common denominator will be the standard from which to judge all art. I cannot wait.

Wrong in my world Classic Music is opened to EVERYONE not just elitists.

Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on February 25, 2008, 04:16:47 PM
The public likes??? Nobody I know LIKES Wellington's Victory. If you ask Beethoven himself he would probably admit it is a complete hackjob. As a society we lionize Beethoven. If Wellington's Victory is even halfway decent it would be viewed as a quality work already.

BTW, you still haven't told me why there is no Bruckner? Anything by Bruckner is more worthwhile than 99% of the stuff on your list. You have to understand music, especially great music, is often not easy to listen to. Look at Beethoven, works like the Op. 106 or Op. 111 will leave the most beginners scratching their heads but once you spend the time to know them will give them a lifetime of listening pleasure, which is far more fruitful than some of instant gratification pieces that are so prevalent on your list.

And for Brahms, the Hungaria Dances are probably his least interesting work. Give them the 1st or 2nd piano concerto please.

Funny I don't know anyone who doesn't like Wellington's Victory!   

Bruckner's Symphony No. 9 was mentioned in "Classical Music for Everyone" The "Scherzo" from Bruckner's 9th Symphony can get the bodies juices flowing every bit as "Whole Lotta Love" by Led Zeppelin, both works induce "goose-bumps" to the max!  The reason for no Bruckner is simple I have tried Bruckner's Symphony Nos. 0, 1, 2, 4 "Romantic" and 9 and I only like the Scherzo movement from No. 9.  But I really love the Scherzo, it's raw driving powerful energy leaves me exhausted.  But in the end I didn't fill it fit for a newbie who has already rejected traditional Classical music.

I only included Brahms Hungarian Dances as that is the only work of his I really love.  I do like the Violin Concerto a little, not enough to actually keep, the Piano Concertos are OK but nothing to get excited about, I prefer the Piano Concertos of Liszt and Rachmaninov.  I abhor all 4 of Brahms Symphonies and his chamber works. 

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 25, 2008, 04:30:26 PM
Teresa,

I think that the members of this Board have reacted (predictably) negatively to the fact that, by asserting a kind of compulsory reduction of 'classical' music to something with pounding rhythms, percussion, a good beat, good bass, etc, etc, etc, you implicitly deride the validity of this music as art.

Nothing compulsory it's just we will not be shut out by elitists.  Classical music can be enjoyed by everyone, there is enough variety for sure!  You can have your hard to understand works and we can have our instant gratification works.  It's not one or the other!!!!!  Quote from my list: "Unlike other lists there are no "must haves" here as not everyone likes the same music.  These are recommendations for listening and thanks to the Internet you can listen to streaming audio before deciding to add music to your collection."

BTW every single person I have played "Wellington's Victory" for loved it, some even more than Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture". 

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 05:14:51 PM
Funny I don't know anyone who doesn't like Wellington's Victory!  

It's the only work so far by Beethoven that I don't particularly care for.  But, to each their own.  :)

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 05:14:51 PM
...in my world Classic Music is opened to EVERYONE not just elitists.

I wholeheartedly agree, Teresa, classical music doesn't belong to any elite.  But when you castigate huge swathes of classical music (90% I'd say) for being "boring" or whatever, isn't this just another form of elitism?  All classical music should be up for grabs, otherwise you present a false image of what classical music is and all its possibilities.  Beethoven, Bach & Vivaldi were my first real exposures to classical music as a teenager & I fell in love with it-- perhaps it is not your own music of preference but I would hardly call it "boring."  And it hardly stemmed from any notions of elitism (I was quite oblivious to even those silly stereotypes back then!).

Teresa, I'm not sure where you are from, but let's pretend that you are not from the United States and you are a tourist.  I'm your tour guide.  You are a foreigner with little knowledge and no experience of the US and what life is like in such a vast and varied culture and landscape.  So we begin our tour of the United States.  We go to Portland, Maine.  I drive you around town, show you various buildings, homes, we walk around & I introduce you to a few residents, we eat out at a couple fast food joints.  The next couple days I drive you out around the outlying country 50 miles outside of Portland.  As I show you around I tell you about other places in the US-- New York City sucks, its too crowded, the south is full of religious loonies, San Francisco is full of liberal loonies, there's just a lot of dirt out west, and Texas is cowboy country.  Then I take you back to the airport and you get back onto your plane to return home. 

Did I give you a fair tour of the United States?  You hardly got to see even one state! 

Its OK to have certain preferences (who doesn't?) but when you claim to be showing people, "Yeah! This is what classical music is all about!" you are giving a very limited and very unrepresentative tour of what classical music is about.  And by tagging chamber music as "boring" or stating you "abhor" Brahms' symphonies, you are already trying to limit what a prospective new listener to classical music "ought" to listen to, based on a personal preference.  Historically, people have found great value in Brahms' symphonies or Beethoven's string quartets.  Don't you think you owe it as a tour guide to point out that there MIGHT be something good to be found in that, even if *you* don't?  Isn't your so-called "anti-elitism" a form of elitism as well?  The problem is quite simple: You're not being a very good tour guide. 

Quote from: Sforzando on February 25, 2008, 04:35:11 PM
But will Teresa listen?

Guess not.

Quote from: just josh on February 25, 2008, 06:54:12 PM
Its OK to have certain preferences (who doesn't?) but when you claim to be showing people, "Yeah! This is what classical music is all about!" you are giving a very limited and very unrepresentative tour of what classical music is about.  And by tagging chamber music as "boring" or stating you "abhor" Brahms' symphonies, you are already trying to limit what a prospective new listener to classical music "ought" to listen to, based on a personal preference.  Historically, people have found great value in Brahms' symphonies or Beethoven's string quartets.  Don't you think you owe it as a tour guide to point out that there MIGHT be something good to be found in that, even if *you* don't?  Isn't your so-called "anti-elitism" a form of elitism as well?  The problem is quite simple: You're not being a very good tour guide. 

The other side of this coin is that with someone as evidently stubborn and rigid as Teresa, the suggestion one might give many other listeners - such as, "a lot of people find the Brahms symphonies and Beethoven quartets among their favorite works, so why don't you (Teresa, that is), keep trying them off and on, and maybe one day they'll click with you" - would almost certainly fall on deaf ears. "I've decided what I like and what others are going to like, and damn it, nobody is ever going to open my closed mind!!!" says Teresa to herself and us. It's just another example of what we see in Paulb; only the list of works is different. But of course, if ever Teresa were to open up her soul and mind to (say) the melancholy beauty of the Mozart D minor quartet, or the graceful charm of the Allegretto to Brahms's 2nd symphony, or the wit and humor of Beethoven's 8th, or the zest of the finale to Brahms's G mnor quartet - then this whole charade of Power Orchestral Rock would crumble like the house of cards it is, and Teresa might have to join the great majority of classical music lovers who really do get what this music is all about. And then where would she be?

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 05:14:51 PM
Wrong in my world Classic Music is opened to EVERYONE not just elitists.

Actually, it seems to me in your world Classical Music is opened to everyone BUT the elitist, whoever might they be. One might want to inquire why the search for excellence and artistic truth has to step aside and give leeway to base mediocrity on account of pleasing the multitudes? What virtue is there?

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 05:14:51 PM
Funny I don't know anyone who doesn't like Wellington's Victory!

You might want to start with Beethoven, who intentionally wrote the piece as dross in scorn for the audience he needed to appease, the very demographic which according to you should hold monopoly on art.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 25, 2008, 07:19:46 PM
And then where would she be?

Trapped into this fabled establishment she seems to find so disagreeable, and that just isn't free-thinking enough.

None of you still get it! "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" is for listeners WHO DO NOT LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC!!!!!  I was one of those who didn't like classical music and my suggestions are based on my 26 year journey with the Classics, good and bad. 

I am not reverse elitist either. Once again from my article: "Unlike other lists there are no "must haves" here as not everyone likes the same music.  These are recommendations for listening and thanks to the Internet you can listen to streaming audio before deciding to add music to your collection."   

Do you understand NOW I am only making suggestions based on my long journey down a very difficult road full of boring and ugly music and I have scooped out 300 recommendations for those who find that traditional Classical music is not for them.  DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND NOW??????

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 07:49:28 PM
None of you still get it! "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" is for listeners WHO DO NOT LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC!!!!!  I was one of those who didn't like classical music and my suggestions are based on my 26 year journey with the Classics, good and bad. 

It is you who doesn't get it. Creating a program for people who do not like classical music by positively making sure they keep not liking it is an exercise in futility.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 07:49:28 PM
Do you understand NOW I am only making suggestions based on my long journey down a very difficult road full of boring and ugly music and I have scooped out 300 recommendations for those who find that traditional Classical music is not for them.  DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND NOW??????

I understand that whomever finds classical music boring and ugly might have steered herself in a different direction 26 years ago.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 25, 2008, 07:41:20 PM
Actually, it seems to me in your world Classical Music is opened to everyone BUT the elitist, whoever might they be. One might want to inquire why the search for excellence and artistic truth has to step aside and give leeway to base mediocrity on account of pleasing the multitudes? What virtue is there?

You might want to start with Beethoven, who intentionally wrote the piece as dross in scorn for the audience he needed to appease, the very demographic which according to you should hold monopoly on art.

There is room in Classical music for both the Classical populists and the Classical elitist.  It is arrogant to assume that just because a work is exciting, likable and enjoyable it must also be lower art than absolute music.  This is wrong, very, very wrong.

Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory to celebrate Wellington's victory over the French and to introduce Maelzel's Panharmonicon.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 07:49:28 PM
None of you still get it! "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" is for listeners WHO DO NOT LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC!!!!!  I was one of those who didn't like classical music and my suggestions are based on my 26 year journey with the Classics, good and bad. 

I am not reverse elitist either. Once again from my article: "Unlike other lists there are no "must haves" here as not everyone likes the same music.  These are recommendations for listening and thanks to the Internet you can listen to streaming audio before deciding to add music to your collection."   

Do you understand NOW I am only making suggestions based on my long journey down a very difficult road full of boring and ugly music and I have scooped out 300 recommendations for those who find that traditional Classical music is not for them.  DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND NOW??????

We understand all too well. Don't you think that after - what, 26 years? - it might be time to you to open your mind a little and hear what other people are trying to tell you? Did it ever occur to your arrogant little mind that if you find some of the most beloved music in the world "boring and ugly," the problem just might be you?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 25, 2008, 07:56:52 PM
It is you who doesn't get it. Creating a program for people who do not like classical music by positively making sure they keep not liking it is an exercise in futility.

I understand that whomever finds classical music boring and ugly might have steered herself in a different direction 26 years ago.

Wrong it is an alternative to traditional Classical music they rejected.  If they find something they like in the 300 works listed then we have a new Classical listener.  How can that be bad?

I like Classical music, Jazz, Rock, Bluegrass with percussion, Folk, World and many other types of music but I like Classical Orchestral music the best.  And I know there are millions of other listeners who would like Classical music if only the good stuff was not hidden from them!

Don't be so elitists, live a little!  

Quote from: Sforzando on February 25, 2008, 08:04:13 PM
We understand all too well. Don't you think that after - what, 26 years? - it might be time to you to open your mind a little and hear what other people are trying to tell you? Did it ever occur to your arrogant little mind that if you find some of the most beloved music in the world "boring and ugly," the problem just might be you?

I would never and I mean never suggest you listen to music you consider boring or ugly by the same token DO NOT DARE to suggest I listen to music I find boring or ugly.  26 Years was long enough to find all the good stuff I love and some of it is still being written today but now thanks to the Internet I can listen before I buy!

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 07:59:29 PM
It is arrogant to assume that just because a work is exciting, likable and enjoyable it must also be lower art than absolute music.

It is also arrogant to assume that just because a work is exciting, likable and enjoyable to you, it deserves to be on equal terms with real art. Your personal enjoyment and scant understanding (apparently) of the music which you do not enjoy (possibly correlated) has no bearing to any form of objective assessment of what is essentially a narrowing of the human capability for transcendence and creativity to it's absolute peak through out the span of a single civilization. You don't seem to understand the enormity of what's at stake here, and the very notion any individual can simply discard all this on account of personal preference and then encourage others to do the same is an extremely dangerous proposition in an age which is already on the verge of throwing such a monumental heritage to the confines of history.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 08:04:58 PM
And I know there are millions of other listeners who would like Classical music if only the good stuff was not hidden from them!

That's been our point all along.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 25, 2008, 08:10:31 PM
It is also arrogant to assume that just because a work is exciting, likable and enjoyable to you, it deserves to be on equal terms with real art.

Who the hell are you to define art.  BTW I want music that tastes good not that has good taste.  There is a big gigantic difference between these two polarities.  I'm beginning to believe you are an elitist of the worst sort that does not want regular people listening to your prized Classical music.  Well we are here and you cannot scare us away, but we only want the stuff we like not the stuff we are supposed to like. 

In the beginning I tried to follow the establishments dictates on what is must have Classical music, after 26 years I now totally reject that.  There are NO classical works that are must haves as we all like different things and that is what you do not understand.  This is the reason that the works on my list are "suggestions".  Would you rather have listeners not explore these and never become a Classical music listener?  I don't understand your complaint.

We aren't being elitists. The tone seems a little miffed because you so militantly refuse accept that there might be 'good' music other than that which you like. Yes the internet allows streaming and yes everybody has different tastes, but, let's say for a moment that someone that didn't like classical music were to read your articles: immediately they would come away with the idea that 90% of the repertoire absent from your list is 'boring and academic'. Far from being elitist, and far from trying to force our own musical tastes (which, if you care to scan some other threads on this forum, diverge wildly and often violently) down anybody's throats, we are trying to remain inclusive of great music.

While some of the things on your list are undeniably in the category of 'great art', many are not. Thus, your wanton declaration that this is 'the good stuff' is more than slightly worrying.

But perhaps we are misunderstanding your fundamental aim with this list. We all thought that your aim was to increase potential listenership for 'classical' music by providing people an entry-point to the repertoire. A kind of leg-up for beginners in developing a rewarding library of 'classical' music that can form the basis of further exploration. But I'm thinking increaasingly that what you were aiming for is to make a list of pieces that might make a sensible addition to one's rock/pop library, with no further interest/development/exploration required. In which case, might I humbly suggest a small alteration, in the interest of clarity, of the title list to The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire, or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music (and never want to learn, for damned sure). But in this case, what's the point of giving the listener you're talking about 'classical' music at all? Wouldn't they just prefer to stick to what they know? Surely everybody else can have similar Teresa-esque revelations of their own?

On a slightly broader issue, it's worth noting that creating a new 'classical listener' is no kind of end in itself. If somebody picks up, say, The Ride of the Valkyries and loves it, then good for them. But, ultimately, who cares? 'Classical music' is not just a recording industry, or a dusty, calcified historical type of sound. 'Classical music' is a tradition spanning some nine centuries through which dozens of cultures have articulated themselves, and (perhaps just as importantly) continue to articulate themselves. Being a 'classical listener' is about more than just ticking a box on an HMV marketing survey, it's about an engagement with history, culture and the human experience. In my opinion, contributing to a culture that engenders this kind of listener IS something that's worth making a list for.

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 25, 2008, 08:57:20 PM
We aren't being elitists. The tone seems a little miffed because you so militantly refuse accept that there might be 'good' music other than that which you like. 

On the contrary I have said at least five times in this thread that "not everyone likes the same things" and I will not be dictated to in what I must listen to as a Classical music listener.  I and everyone should only listen to what they like.  My list is for people who have tried the traditional lists and don't like the music on them, my list is an alternative to the traditional recommended lists.  And unlike the elitists I recommend nothing only suggest and I leave the final decision up to the listener.

So yes there is good music I do not like, I have never ever said different!!!!!

I think Teresa has been rather unfairly jumped upon here. She is suggesting music for people who for whatever reason don't have the mindset to sit through Milhaud or whoever. That's not exactly going to lay waste to Western culture, now, is it? My only quibble would be with her assertion that casual listeners would prefer programmatic music - programmatic music often seems, to me, weakened by its reliance on extra-musical materials.

Quote from: Lethe on January 28, 2008, 01:37:29 PM
I have since realised a use for the list

I have realised a use for the list, too. But one would have to print it first (if at all possible on a very, very soft paper....)

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 05:14:51 PM
I only included Brahms Hungarian Dances as that is the only work of his I really love.  I do like the Violin Concerto a little, not enough to actually keep, the Piano Concertos are OK but nothing to get excited about, I prefer the Piano Concertos of Liszt and Rachmaninov.  I abhor all 4 of Brahms Symphonies and his chamber works. 

Teresa, you must be astonishingly beautiful.  Am I right?


OK. Now that I got the silly jokes out of my chest, I'd like to add a couple of things in a more serious note...

... But I've just seen Robert Dahm great post above which says everything I wanted to say much better than I would have said it (the bright side is that you saved me a lot of typing. Thanks, Robert! :))

Only one more thing, then: I think... OMG! Now it's eyeresist's "I think Teresa has been rather unfairly jumped upon here"!!! OK... Is anybody going to say "Welcome to the forum, Teresa" before I hit the post button? Hmm?

Welcome to the forum, Teresa! :)

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 08:20:09 PM
I want music that tastes good not that has good taste...

...and that keeps your body juices flowing! We know that all right. Things are now crystal clear: what you want is not to have a true appreciation of classical music but an appendix with some kind of respectability to your rock / pop collection, so that you can say: "Hey, don't trash rock for screaming like hell or titillating you, even Beethoven and Ravel did that!". So, please, don't say "I love classical music" anymore, because you don't. What you love is your own idea of what classical music should be and sound.

My hat off and a warm welcome to you, Mr. Robert Dahm!

Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2008, 11:28:16 PM
...and that keeps your body juices flowing! We know that all right. Things are now crystal clear: what you want is not to have a true appreciation of classical music but an appendix with some kind of respectability to your rock / pop collection, so that you can say: "Hey, don't trash rock for screaming like hell or titillating you, even Beethoven and Ravel did that!". So, please, don't say "I love classical music" anymore, because you don't. What you love is your own idea of what classical music should be and sound.

Well excuse me for wanting to actually enjoy the music I listen to.  I own more Classical music than all other forms combined, so go pick on someone else.  I do appreciation the Classical music I love very much, do you?  And I will go on loving Classical music and you cannot stop me!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Sforzando on February 25, 2008, 06:36:24 AM
Oh, why not do it publicly, Harry? If Teresa can let it all hang out on the board, why not you too?

I am game my friend if Teresa is. 8)

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 11:43:08 PM
Well excuse me for wanting to actually enjoy the music I listen to.

That's very nice. I enjoy my Brahms and Schubert a lot. But if "enjoying classical music" boils down for you to "keeping the body juices flowing", "tasting good" and "having orgasms" then you're completely missing the point.

Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2008, 11:48:55 PM
That's very nice. I enjoy my Brahms and Schubert a lot. But if "enjoying classical music" boils down for you to "keeping the body juices flowing", "tasting good" and "having orgasms" then you're completely missing the point.

The point being?  If you enjoy Brahms and Schubert that is fine with me and I'm sure everyone here.  Wake up not everyone has to love the music you love once you realize that you will grow as a human being.  I only demand one thing of the music I listen to and that is that I like it.  That is not an awful lot to ask!

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 11:43:08 PM
Well excuse me for wanting to actually enjoy the music I listen to.  I own more Classical music than all other forms combined, so go pick on someone else.  I do appreciation the Classical music I love very much, do you?  And I will go on loving Classical music and you cannot stop me!!!!!!!!

Teresa, we are only teasing you. We always behave with extreme politeness to women with spirit. Let the guys do what they are best at, and show them how well balanced a woman can be, as I fully expect you to be, reading your eloquent writing and your passion in expression.
I for one send you a polite invitation to deepen our friendship on PM basis, but so far you declined it, and never answered it, which is sad actually, but being a big boy, I can stomach that.
What I wanted to say to you, that you are very welcome to GMG, and I hope you will stay, because in essence most of us are friendly people.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 11:58:26 PM
The point being?  Wake up not everyone has to love the music you love once you realize that you will grow as a human being.  I only demand one thing of the music I listen to and that is that I like it.  That is not an awful lot to ask!

Hold your horses Teresa, we do not demand, nor dictate, nor making lists of what one should listen, no, everyone should do as he or she likes. You ask not too much, and it will be given.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 09:21:48 PM
On the contrary I have said at least five times in this thread that "not everyone likes the same things" and I will not be dictated to in what I must listen to as a Classical music listener.  I and everyone should only listen to what they like.  My list is for people who have tried the traditional lists and don't like the music on them, my list is an alternative to the traditional recommended lists.  And unlike the elitists I recommend nothing only suggest and I leave the final decision up to the listener.

So yes there is good music I do not like, I have never ever said different!!!!!

And I for one see your point, Teresa. :)

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 11:58:26 PM
I only demand one thing of the music I listen to and that is that I like it. 

I have nothing against you disliking Schubert or Brahms or whoever. But I have everything against you ranting about them being "dull" or "boring". What credentials do you have to make such statements? Have you listened to their music extensively, studied the scores, compared performances and spent hours trying to figure it out?

Speaking of which, just how do you know that such or such music "tastes good"? Do you lick the scores or the CDs?  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2008, 12:05:04 AM
I have nothing against you disliking Schubert or Brahms or whoever. But I have everything against you ranting about them being "dull" or "boring". What credentials do you have to make such statements? Have you listened to their music extensively, studied the scores, compared performances and spent hours trying to figure it out?

Speaking of which, just how do you know that such or such music "tastes good"? Do you lick the scores or the CDs?  ;D

I think Andrei that Teresa is strictly speaking for her self, what she likes and dislikes, and tells everyone. Her approach is purely emotional and bodily. And a dash of passion behind it. Allthough I disagree with her, this passion is very much to my liking. :)

Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2008, 11:48:55 PM
That's very nice. I enjoy my Brahms and Schubert a lot. But if "enjoying classical music" boils down for you to "keeping the body juices flowing", "tasting good" and "having orgasms" then you're completely missing the point.

I couldn't agree more with the above comment.

Let me ask Teresa how many converts she has had, i.e. how many people she is aware of who profess not to like classical music but who have changed their mind after sampling the kind of material she likes.

As for (LIEUTENANT-COLONEL) Harry's abysmally failing amorous advances, it made me wonder whether Teresa might get a more a sympathetic hearing for her opinions from the well-known, broad-minded classical music proprietor of the MAYHEM site (http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/index.php).  That should be good for a few laughs.  I'll keep tuned in specially to watch developments.  Go on, Teresa, I dare you, give it a try.  You'll meet some other interesting folk too.

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 12:16:30 AM
I couldn't agree more with the above comment.

Let me ask Teresa how many converts she has had, i.e. how many people she is aware of who profess not to like classical music but who have changed their mind after sampling the kind of material she likes.

As for (LIEUTENANT-COLONEL) Harry's abysmally failing amorous advances, it made me wonder whether Teresa might get a more a sympathetic hearing for her opinions from the well-known, broad-minded classical music proprietor of the MAYHEM site (http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/index.php).  That should be good for a few laughs.  I'll keep tuned in specially to watch developments.  Go on, Teresa, I dare you, give it a try.  You'll meet some other interesting folk too.

Topaz, my friend, you are completely missing the points of my postings, and you should try to read behind the words, and not read over them.

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 12:16:30 AM

As for (LIEUTENANT-COLONEL) Harry's abysmally failing amorous advances, it made me wonder whether Teresa might get a more a sympathetic hearing for her opinions from the well-known, broad-minded classical music proprietor of the MAYHEM site (http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/index.php).  That should be good for a few laughs.  I'll keep tuned in specially to watch developments.  Go on, Teresa, I dare you, give it a try.  You'll meet some other interesting folk too.

You make me laugh out loud Private Topaz.!

Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2008, 12:05:04 AM
I have nothing against you disliking Schubert or Brahms or whoever. But I have everything against you ranting about them being "dull" or "boring". What credentials do you have to make such statements? Have you listened to their music extensively, studied the scores, compared performances and spent hours trying to figure it out?

Speaking of which, just how do you know that such or such music "tastes good"? Do you lick the scores or the CDs?  ;D

What is boring to me may be beautiful and soulful to someone else. And that is why I say music is a very personal thing.  Dull and boring are "personal" feelings and no credentials are needed by anyone, not me and not you!  It would not bother me if you think the music I like is boring.  So where is the problem?

I have a solution to music I find boring, I take it off sell it and play something I like.  After all I listen to music for the enjoyment of music. 

I am referring to "good taste" as in what is considered "The Greats" in Classical music by the Classical establishment.  Instead I want what "tastes good" to my ears, my heart and my soul and only my ears, my heart and my soul.  I don't follow reviewers or any authority on what I must have, I buy and play what I like.  It's really that simple.  And that is another reason I go to great pains to emphasize my list is "suggestions" not "must haves" as other lists do.  I believe listeners can choose what they like if they can find it, I am only helping them to find it.

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 12:16:30 AM
I couldn't agree more with the above comment.

Let me ask Teresa how many converts she has had, i.e. how many people she is aware of who profess not to like classical music but who have changed their mind after sampling the kind of material she likes.

As for (LIEUTENANT-COLONEL) Harry's abysmally failing amorous advances, it made me wonder whether Teresa might get a more a sympathetic hearing for her opinions from the well-known, broad-minded classical music proprietor of the MAYHEM site (http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/index.php).  That should be good for a few laughs.  I'll keep tuned in specially to watch developments.  Go on, Teresa, I dare you, give it a try.  You'll meet some other interesting folk too.

And for you its Lieutenant-Colonel, SIR. ;D

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 12:31:54 AM
I have a solution to music I find boring, I take it off sell it and play something I like.  After all I listen to music for the enjoyment of music.

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

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

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

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 12:31:54 AM
What is boring to me may be beautiful and soulful to someone else. And that is why I say music is a very personal thing.  Dull and boring are "personal" feelings and no credentials are needed by anyone, not me and not you!  It would not bother me if you think the music I like is boring.  So where is the problem?

One problem is that you are writing stuff like this in your website:

Quote from: Teresa...  I firmly believe that radio stations are playing the WRONG classical music, reviewers are reviewing the WRONG classical music, so people new to classical music are being exposed to classical music they could never like.

There's nothing wrong with the kind of classical music played by the better radio stations, as it's this which audiences want.  I'm an avid listener of the BBC's Radio 3 music station in the UK, and I have no problems with their choice of music.  Radio stations aren't going to focus on classical music from the fringes of mainstream interests merely on the off-chance that a few listeners who don't like classical music may suddenly see the light.

What is so illogical about your argument is the notion that classical music generally would gain a wider audience if more resources were devoted to promoting those branches which the current majority of listeners do not care for.  All such resources are scarce, and to deflect their current focus away from the established canon to the marginal has little chance of expanding the total.  On the contrary, it could have a deleterious effect on the future of maintaining support and interest in the established canon of classical music.

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

Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2008, 01:02:57 AM
... I just think you misunderstood the nature of this forum and the type of people that populates it.

.... Most, if not all, posters here have had their struggle with this or that composer, but by perseverence and informed listening, a lot of them have come to like, nay, love!, what they initially disliked. Of course, all this implies a lot of time, effort and humility and is a far cry from the prevalent attitude among rock / pop fans. It may sound like "elitism" to you, but that's your bad.

Well-said, Florestan

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 12:16:30 AM
I couldn't agree more with the above comment.

Let me ask Teresa how many converts she has had, i.e. how many people she is aware of who profess not to like classical music but who have changed their mind after sampling the kind of material she likes.

As for (LIEUTENANT-COLONEL) Harry's abysmally failing amorous advances, it made me wonder whether Teresa might get a more a sympathetic hearing for her opinions from the well-known, broad-minded classical music proprietor of the MAYHEM site (http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org).  That should be good for a few laughs.  I'll keep tuned in specially to watch developments.  Go on, Teresa, I dare you, give it a try.  You'll meet some other interesting folk too.

Thanks for promoting ClassicalMusicMayhem!! Topaz, which happens to be a bloody good site if I do say so myself. Yes Teresa will be welcome at CMM, you should join up yourself as non-members can view only one forum within the site - imagine how much more watching with interest you could do!? (or have you secretly joined up already??)

Quote from: Harry on February 25, 2008, 11:59:57 PM
Teresa, we are only teasing you.

I'm not.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 26, 2008, 03:30:12 AM
I'm not.

Yes you are..... ;D
Teresa has you where she wanted you, so blinded are you by her rantings, that you reacted exactly as she wanted and expected, and so gave her a platform on which to perform...
And if you were not teasing her, well, there is always the odd one out, and just maybe I am that person... ;D

Quote from: Harry on February 26, 2008, 03:34:25 AM
Yes you are..... ;D
Teresa has you where she wanted you, so blinded are you by her rantings, that you reacted exactly as she wanted and expected, and so gave her a platform on which to perform...
And if you were not teasing her, well, there is always the odd one out, and just maybe I am that person... ;D

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

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 12:31:54 AM
I am referring to "good taste" as in what is considered "The Greats" in Classical music by the Classical establishment.  Instead I want what "tastes good" to my ears, my heart and my soul and only my ears, my heart and my soul.  I don't follow reviewers or any authority on what I must have, I buy and play what I like.  It's really that simple.  And that is another reason I go to great pains to emphasize my list is "suggestions" not "must haves" as other lists do.   I believe listeners can choose what they like if they can find it, I am only helping them to find it.

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

Quote from: Sforzando on February 26, 2008, 03:56:23 AM
Before I give up on this discussion completely, I don't know of any such lists that are other than suggestions, and would be surprised if you can find one. But what you seem not to realize is that you truly intend your list to be only suggestions, there's no reason not to include the Brahms symphonies, Verdi operas, or Beethoven quartets you so despise and abhor. For after all (not that I think for one moment that your lists will really have much influence), if the goal is to help other listeners find what they like, it would follow logically that such a list ought not to be limited solely to the kinds of things you like.

Absolutely right. It seems highly perverse to focus on any one individual's preferred list, especially if that person has a declared disliking for all absolute music, which is the bedrock of the standard repertoire.  Instead, any such list is probably best based on what countless generations of classical music lovers have found valuable and rewarding material.  There are some very good lists of the best/greatest classical music by genre and by composer, based on such criteria, on the DDD website.   

Quote from: Sforzando on February 26, 2008, 03:56:23 AM
...if the goal is to help other listeners find what they like, it would follow logically that such a list ought not to be limited solely to the kinds of things you like.

Exactly.

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 01:43:50 AM
What is so illogical about your argument is the notion that classical music generally would gain a wider audience if more resources were devoted to promoting those branches which the current majority of listeners do not care for.  All such resources are scarce, and to deflect their current focus away from the established canon to the marginal has little chance of expanding the total.  On the contrary, it could have a deleterious effect on the future of maintaining support and interest in the established canon of classical music.

Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2008, 01:02:57 AM
Most, if not all, posters here have had their struggle with this or that composer, but by perseverence and informed listening, a lot of them have come to like, nay, love!, what they initially disliked. Of course, all this implies a lot of time, effort and humility and is a far cry from the prevalent attitude among rock / pop fans. It may sound like "elitism" to you, but that's your bad.

Good posts, Sforzando, Topaz and Florestan.

Also, Sforzando and Don both made some good points in a different thread (on Bach) thread which seem applicable here, in their own special way (particularly in bold)

Quote from: Sforzando on February 22, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
This is yet another example of what, in literary circles, Harold Bloom calls "the School of Resentment": i.e., the attitude that somehow, for reasons of "conspiracy" or "brainwashing" or such, the culture of the West as generally understood is a direct affront to one's personal pride. In literary circles this often takes the form of denigrating Shakespeare and Dante in favor of the latest "relevant" black, or female, or gay writers. But we see it everywhere in classical music too, and from a number of posters on this forum - whether they feel the accepted canon has ipso facto slighted Pettersson, or Elgar, or Joachim Raff, or women composers, or Polish masters, or the composer of Messiah. Take your pick, every Resenter has his favorite candidates. And as for the rest of us: in the Resenters' minds all we like sheep have gone astray; whereas in truth it is the Resenters who have turnéd every one to his own way.  :D

Quote from: Don on February 22, 2008, 08:51:50 AM
I guess my problem is that I don't understand why these folks can't love the accepted canon/composers along with those other composers and works that they have a strong liking for.  I have a warm feeling for quite a few Russian composers such as Taneyev, Miaskovsky, Scriabin and Weinberg, but that doesn't diminish my love for the accepted Russian masters like Tchaikvosky, Prokofiev and Rachmaninov.  However, members here such as Corkin feel it necessary to elevate their favorites by diminishing the competition.  That's sad.

Originally from here: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,6093.msg147334.html#msg147334

Imagine someone claiming to be a big fan of Emerson Lake and Palmer"

ELP is a really cool band!  I think you'd like them too.  Oh, I know you might be thinking "Aren't those the guys that did those dreadfully long  'art rock' songs that don't fit any pop song format?  Boring!  But ELP didn't just do long bombastic numbers like "Karn Evil 9," and "Tarkus."  They did GOOD songs too!  Songs like "Lucky Man," "In the Beginning," "Still, You Turn Me On" and "C'est La Vie" and maybe a few other shorter ELP songs.  THAT'S where the good ELP stuff is at, not all that other boring rubbish which I abhor!  No, don't even bother listening to any of their other stuff, I'll show you the good stuff...

Or how about this:

I love metal music.  Oh, I know you might be thinking really loud pounding guitars and such-- you might not like that-- well, I don't either.  REAL metal music, the best stuff are songs like "Silent Lucidity" by Queensryche, "Different Strings" by Rush, etc.  Don't bother listening to that loud stuff-- I'll show you what the best metal music sounds like... etc etc.

In both cases, the hypothetical "ELP fan" and "metal fan" aren't really fans at all because they've limited the scope to things that aren't even highly representational of what that music is about.  I'm sure there are people who would object to those people calling themselves an "ELP fan" or "metal" fan when their scope is so limited to things that aren't even typical of this or that music.  But those people wouldn't be "elitists" for pointing that out-- they're simply saying its misleading (and you could easily mislead others) by claiming the greatest song by ELP is "In the Beginning" (a song much less typical of their music). 

One could say "I like three or four ELP songs" but one would be hard pressed to call themselves an actual fan of their music.  One could say "I like a few ballads by metal bands" but one could hardly call themselves "metal fans."  That would be quite laughable.

~ josh (a self-confessed former ELP fan)

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 01:43:50 AM
What is so illogical about your argument is the notion that classical music generally would gain a wider audience if more resources were devoted to promoting those branches which the current majority of listeners do not care for. 

Or rather, if more resources were devoted to promoting those branches which Teresa favors the most...

Quote from: just josh on February 26, 2008, 04:43:05 AM
Imagine someone claiming to be a big fan of Emerson Lake and Palmer"
....

~ josh (a self-confessed former ELP fan)

Yeah, I have 10-12 rock albums, DSOTHM, ELP, The Band, Blood, Sweat & Tears Beatles, (that old stuff), but this does not make me a rock fan.  Nor would I justfiy rock nor recommend it to a beginnner based on the minisculely few things I like.

Quote from: Harry on February 26, 2008, 03:34:25 AM
Yes you are{,sforzando}..... ;D
Teresa has you where she wanted you, so blinded are you by her rantings, that you reacted exactly as she wanted and expected, and so gave her a platform on which to perform...
And if you were not teasing her, well, there is always the odd one out, and just maybe I am that person... ;D

I certainly began this thread to tease Teresa with the hope that she would get wind of it and response as she has -- Tehehehe  ;D

But also of course to confirm that people here generally feel as I do about classical music and the way it ought to be explored and enjoyed.  This has also happened.

Quote from: Feanor on February 26, 2008, 06:23:34 AM
But also of course to confirm that people here generally feel as I do about classical music and the way it ought to be explored and enjoyed.  This has also happened.

Yes, us elite listeners.  ;D

Quote from: ChamberNut on February 26, 2008, 06:25:12 AM
Yes, us elite listeners.  ;D

Dang!! I'm an elitist  ???  :o

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 08:20:09 PM
I'm beginning to believe you are an elitist of the worst sort that does not want regular people listening to your prized Classical music.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Indeed, it is my greatest desire to share the years of pleasure and joy i derived from the music which you seem to hate so much with others, and it is precisely because of this that i find your attitude to be so insufferable in that i am firmly convinced that the reason why regular people are so "seemingly" inimical to classical music (and believe me, they are not) is because of people like you who would presume to know what's best for others and make sure anything that is even remotely challenging or self edifying is kept out of public view. I know this from personal experience in that i had to wait until my early 20s before i had enough self determination to seek out classical music on my own, and it's not because i previously found the so called "establishment" to be difficoult or hard to connect with, even as a teenager, i simply had no proper exposure to it, or any exposure for that matter.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 08:20:09 PM
Well we are here and you cannot scare us away, but we only want the stuff we like not the stuff we are supposed to like. 

You seem to be under the erroneous impression the stuff you like is also what everybody else is supposed to like, or does like.

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 08:20:09 PM
Would you rather have listeners not explore these and never become a Classical music listener?

I'm not sure i get your point here. You denigrate everything classical music stands for, but you still think it's important to convert people to this music. It makes absolutely no sense.

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

Quote from: Feanor on February 26, 2008, 06:33:48 AM
Dang!! I'm an elitist  ???  :o

From Wikipedia:

QuoteElitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals ... with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern...

The term elitism is also sometimes misused to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others.

(Emphasis mine)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 26, 2008, 06:49:00 AM
Teresa (seething):
I'm beginning to believe you are an elitist of the worst sort that does not want regular people listening to your prized Classical music.

Josquin:
That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Exactly so. A century ago few of us would have had the opportunity or resources to experience great classical music except on infrequent occasions. We would have to play an instrument ourselves, or have access to major urban centers for live performances, and of course would have needed the means to attend such performances.

By comparison: twenty years ago, a PBS Met Opera broadcast of Boheme with Pavarotti had 3 million TV viewers; and starting just last year, the Met's innovative HDTV broadcasts are filling movie houses nation- and worldwide. Thanks to technology, the opportunity to experience "our prized Classical music" is available to more "regular people" than ever. And most of us who do experience it are "regular people" as well. If I had lived in 1804 as a peasant in Vienna, I would have had not the slightest chance to hear the Eroica, which was first performed in an aristocrat's palace to an audience of maybe 50. Today I and anyone else who wants to can easily hear any number of fine recordings, and it's not hard to find live performances as well.

Classical music - the real stuff, that is - may not be for everybody, but everybody who wants to find it is more than welcome to join.

Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2008, 01:02:57 AM
Oh, I have no complaint about this practice. I just think you misunderstood the nature of this forum and the type of people that populates it.

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

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

nice post, Florestan.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: theowne on February 26, 2008, 08:27:53 AM
I'm a bit confused by some of the comments on the front page of this thread about the entries on her list being "light" selections and having no substance....being "second rate"......

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

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

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

Quote from: theowne on February 26, 2008, 08:27:53 AM
I'm a bit confused by some of the comments on the front page of this thread about the entries on her list being "light" selections and having no substance....being "second rate"......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 10:33:49 AM
Apparently, according to Teresa, pieces like (i) Benjamin Arthur's Jamaican Rumba for Orchestra, (ii) Percy Faith's Brazilian Sleigh Bells, (iii)  Henri Rabaud's Cobbler of Cairo are perfectly good substitutes for the material that normally passes off as classical music. 

who?.......
what?  ???

Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2008, 01:02:57 AM
Oh, I have no complaint about this practice. I just think you misunderstood the nature of this forum and the type of people that populates it.

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

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

Quote from: Daverz on February 26, 2008, 02:03:35 AM
Is this the same Teresa who limits her listening to audiophile Lps? 

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

Quote from: Sforzando on February 26, 2008, 03:42:15 AM
But we have Teresa where we want her too, blustering and pouting and posturing, and not willing to budge one inch from her self-created musical prison. And when we decide no longer to participate in this fruitless discussion, she has her diet of musical junk food, and we have the musical nutrition.

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

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 26, 2008, 06:49:00 AM

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

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

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 10:33:49 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Topaz on February 26, 2008, 10:33:49 AM
The generally adverse reaction to Teresa's recommendations is an expression of scepticism

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 11:59:29 AM
I have already been where you are at decades ago delving in the so-called standard repertoire, I have moved past you into the area of highly emotionally moving and exciting Classical music.

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

Quote from: Sforzando on February 26, 2008, 12:15:39 PM
I'm stuck on that C# minor quartet by Beethoven

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

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

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

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

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

For those who may not have read the links provided by Teresa to relevant sections of her website, there is a very good set of counter-comments by a reader (Jim H) about half way down the page of THIS (http://www.analoglovers.com/page12.html).  His comments are essentially much the same as those made by many of the members here.  As will be seen, Teresa gave short shrift to Jim's comments, just as she has done to most of ours.  Whilst it would seem that Teresa is "not for moving" (to coin a phrase from a bygone era) my final word on this topic is that I do hope Teresa will give Schubert another chance, especially his late piano sonatas and the String Quintet.  If this isn't powerfully emotional music of the highest quality I don't know what is. 

Quote from: theowne on February 26, 2008, 12:05:02 PM
I'm not sure there's much room for interpretation in phrases like "filled with second rate music" or "entries are too light for me".  I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was criticizing all the posters in the forum since I specifically directed my comments....

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 26, 2008, 01:43:32 PM
R. Strauss' Ein Heldenleben, which is also programmatic, and really rather a good piece. Teresa'd probably like it, too. ...
If I may finish with a question:
Teresa, are there any pieces of yours which express, for you, genuine sadness and melancholy? I realise that the only picture we have of your musical tastes are the lists, which tend towards the rambunctious. Is there any classical music you love that is more introspective?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Sforzando on February 26, 2008, 03:56:23 AM
But what you seem not to realize is that you truly intend your list to be only suggestions, there's no reason not to include the Brahms symphonies, Verdi operas, or Beethoven quartets you so despise and abhor. For after all (not that I think for one moment that your lists will really have much influence), if the goal is to help other listeners find what they like, it would follow logically that such a list ought not to be limited solely to the kinds of things you like.

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

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

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 06:13:35 PMBut these elitists want to keep everything hidden except what is on their precious "Great Masters" lists.  This is way to narrow a view of Classical Music and if we are to grow beyond 3%.

Yeah, its an evil conspiracy. 

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 07:17:14 PM
And because I don't wish anyone to suffer the pain that I have at the hand of Opera I would only recommend Opera Suites with no singing such as Bizet's Carmen Suite. 

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

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

Quote from: just josh on February 26, 2008, 07:33:45 PM
You assume that if YOUR experience with x, y or z was "painful" that everyone else will experience it that too?  That's an awfully big assumption to make.

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

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

but also (as an example):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: just josh on February 26, 2008, 07:26:27 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 07:17:14 PM
To recommend something I do not like would be immoral and wrong in every meaning of the word. 

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

Quote from: Florestan on February 26, 2008, 11:41:51 PM
So, what you don't like is not worth listening to. This pretty much sums up your musical philosophy and makes any further discussion futile. I'm off.

Wrong again, simple English.  It is wrong for anyone anywhere on the planet to recommend something they do not like, this is really a tough one for you to comprehend isn't it?

If you enjoy listening to something I do not like it is worth listening to for you, it is not worth listening to for me.  No one should listen to what they do not like and no one should tell anyone else what they must like.  Understand?

Well after all those pages, it is clear to me, what is actually going on here.
Teresa has a certain view of how to approach Classical music, and she clearly states that it is her opinion, and she will not force it on others. Her choices! And that is allright, isn't it. Everyone is entitled to have a opinion, or explanation how to listen to classical music. I do not agree with her, but I respect her opinion, and understand her passion.
I think there should be room for her also on GMG, for we harbour many posters that have also some extreme opinions, but are respected anyway.
Lets be friendly open and welcoming, instead of biting each others heads off.
And that is my opinion.

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 08:25:28 PM
I hope you now understand, I have really worked with you all long enough that there should be at least some comprehension!  How hard is it to understand The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music http://www.analoglovers.com/page13.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/page13.html) was written for people who do not like traditional Classical music??

This is just disingenuous. On that page, you write, "This is a list of some of the most beautiful, colorful and exciting orchestral music ever written.  Unlike other recommended lists there is no "stuffed-shirt" academic boring music here!  This is classical orchestral music written to be enjoyed from the very first note to the last.  Music that is always fresh and alive no matter how often it is played.  This is the good stuff."

You are clearly implying that excluded music is the "bad stuff" and not always fresh and alive and not meant to be enjoyed from first to last. Quite frankly, you have limited tastes and are confusing those opinions with facts.

Again, you falsely assume that "folks who don't like Classical music" fall into your same pattern. I once assumed (out of ignorance based on terribly limited exposure, coupled with youthful arrogance) that I didn't like classical music. Then I actually took the time to expose myself to it with an open mind, and now I love it. And after years of listening to it, my taste in and understanding of classical music have only broadened, not remained fixed on one narrow cross section of it. I understand that we're dealing with serious art, too, and not mere light entertainment. Because I don't understand or like a piece doesn't make me assume that others will or should react the same way.

You need to give others more credit. Despite their initial prejudices and assumptions about classical music, they may approach it with more sensitivity and openness than you. Their tastes may simply differ. They may dislike "Power Orchestral" but immediately fall in love with Classical-era chamber music or opera.

It's one thing to say, "This is the type of classical music I like" and another entirely to pretend you can speak for or guide other skeptics into the genre.

Teresa has made some claims here about what she thinks is "morally wrong."  Personally, I think it "morally wrong" to set herself up as an expert and tastemaker when she is unqualified.  I think it morally wrong to be unwilling to accept guidance or to acknowledge error.  And it's morally wrong to blame others for her shortcomings (i.e. she describes her failure to understand or appreciate chamber music, opera, or the core of the orchestral repertory as if the music were to blame rather than Teresa herself--her limitations, inexperience, prejudices, and lack of training).

She likes to defend her right to her opinions.  Of course she has a right to her opinions.  But in setting herself up as a guide, she has a moral obligation to express only informed opinions (her opinion about opera, for instance, is ignorant in the extreme and therefore worthless).

Of course, the foregoing is only my opinion.

Excellent post, Longears.

Quote from: Harry on February 27, 2008, 12:02:07 AM
Well after all those pages, it is clear to me, what is actually going on here.
Teresa has a certain view of how to approach Classical music, and she clearly states that it is her opinion, and she will not force it on others. Her choices! And that is allright, isn't it. Everyone is entitled to have a opinion, or explanation how to listen to classical music. I do not agree with her, but I respect her opinion, and understand her passion.
I think there should be room for her also on GMG, for we harbour many posters that have also some extreme opinions, but are respected anyway.
Lets be friendly open and welcoming, instead of biting each others heads off.
And that is my opinion.

This is a forum, where people share ideas and engage in give-and-take. If someone expresses an extreme opinion, they can expect to be challenged, and if anyone can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. Teresa, whatever one may think of her opinions, certainly gives as good as she gets.

But I cannot agree with your analysis either: "she clearly states that it is her opinion, and she will not force it on others." As I stated above, Teresa wants to hold two incompatible views. If one says to her that she is forcing her opinion on others (as Grazioso does above, with unmistakable documentation), her response is that no, anyone can like what they like. If one points out to her that if that's the case, her lists and ideas are too restrictive, then her response is that no, she's coming up with exactly the kind of music that those who hate the "academic, boring stuff" will want to hear. And round and round.

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 07:17:14 PM
...  To recommend something I do not like would be immoral and wrong in every meaning of the word.  ...   

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

Teresa, I can accept your views, but that doesn't preclude that I disagree with them.

I feel free to recommend what I don't like (or haven't yet learned to like).   My "Core Classical" list ... http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/CoreClassical.html (http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/CoreClassical.html) ... wasn't development for other people in the first place, but for my own education.  It is a mainly compilation of recommendations from quite a few different sources which don't recommend the same thing, but from which a certain consensus emerged.  That is, the items there represent most commonly recommended pieces.  The only exceptions are some contemporary pieces that don't have quite the same consensus but which I felt ought to be included to present this as yet under-appreciated subgenre.

There are a certainly pieces on my list that I don't personally care for, (though none I "abhor").  Nevertheless I recommend them without reservation because of the recognition they have earned from critics and listeners far more experienced than I.

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 10:53:17 PMIt is not about dumbing down but being included rather than excluded.  It is about freedom! 

Again, I wholeheartedly agree.  But you are the one talking about how "absolute music," chamber music and opera are all boring.  Not a good selling point!  LOL  Who's really doing the excluding here?

As far as "lesser known composers" go, I am familiar with a good deal of it and then some (its nice to see Sessions' Black Maskers Suite on there-- its an old favourite of mine, sadly underrated IMO).  You'll find there's plenty of people here who do lament that concert performances tend to focus on more standard repertoire and want a bit of music past 1899 for example -- but not at the expense of denigrating the standard repertoire!  Its not because Mozart is boring, but because there *is* so much more out there.  

One of the reasons I came to this forum was precisely because people here do listen to more than just the standard repertoire.  I love Bach, but I love Steve Reich too-- and a whole lot in between.

Its not "wrong" to have certain preferences, or even to hate certain composers, but to present a small sliver of classical music to others, claiming everything else is boring is awfully misleading.  As I've said before, its like taking someone on a tour of a large country, but staying within certain confines and just stereotyping the rest of the country.  It doesn't give the tourist a good idea of what the country is like (various people, sub-cultures, landscapes, climates, food, etc.).  

Quote from: Feanor on February 27, 2008, 05:17:02 AM
Teresa, I can accept your views, but that doesn't preclude that I disagree with them.

I feel free to recommend what I don't like (or haven't let earned to like).   My "Core Classical" list ... http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/CoreClassical.html (http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/CoreClassical.html) ... wasn't development for other people in the first place, but for my own education.  It is a mainly compilation of recommendations from quite a few different sources which don't recommend the same thing, but from which a certain consensus emerged.  That is, the items there represent most commonly recommended pieces.  The only exceptions are some contemporary pieces that don't have quite the same consensus but which I felt ought to be included to present this as yet under-appreciated subgenre.

There are a certainly pieces on my list that I don't personally care for, (though none I "abhor").  Nevertheless I recommend them without reservation because of the recognition they have earned from critics and listeners far more experienced than I.

i'd say this is a pretty good list, Feanor.

I'm not sure the introduction through classical by means of comparison to a popular music genre works, since classical is so different. What I'd do, instead of using Teresa's list, is to just get someone to sample different works from different eras- for example, maybe (from Feanor's list) the Xenakis, Sibelius,  Brahms, Bach, and Adams <- (i think he should be on the list). Often, people on here have a preference for certain eras/periods/genres whatever, but it's best to just listen to them all to find out what you really like, and often you're surprised!  :)

Still, even if you don't like something, 4 times of listening isn't quite enough..... at least meaning, listening 4 times to something and then dismissing all music that is similar. If I did that, I'd be missing out on a lot of music I like!  :o That would be musical hell.


For example, I don't care much for opera- my least favorite genre. But I still try to listen to operas every now and then, and enjoy them sometimes. And for composers, I don't like Beethoven much.... but every now and then, I'll go back to, say, the Eroica symphony which I completely hated the first time I heard it. The second time I get the score and follow along. After that, I understood it a bit more, although I still don't like it. Same with much of Beethoven, but I still try to understand his music even if I don't like it.


Teresa's list could be useful for someone out there, but there's much better ways of introducing people to classical (and getting them to love a variety of different styles in classical).

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 11:50:07 PM
Wrong again, simple English.  It is wrong for anyone anywhere on the planet to recommend something they do not like, this is really a tough one for you to comprehend isn't it?

If you enjoy listening to something I do not like it is worth listening to for you, it is not worth listening to for me.  No one should listen to what they do not like and no one should tell anyone else what they must like.  Understand?

What I understand is that you are a poor guide for those new to classical music.  Your recommendations are much too restrictive.

Quote from: Don on February 27, 2008, 08:05:48 AM
What I understand is that you are a poor guide for those new to classical music.  Your recommendations are much too restrictive.

exactly my point. How do people know they won't like something unless they try it?

Quote from: Harry on February 27, 2008, 12:02:07 AM
...
I think there should be room for her also on GMG, for we harbour many posters that have also some extreme opinions, but are respected anyway.
Lets be friendly open and welcoming, instead of biting each others heads off.
And that is my opinion.

Absolutely, Harry   :D

There is no doubt that Teresa has a very extensive listening experience.  No doubt there are many topics where her insights will enlighten discussion.

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on February 27, 2008, 07:56:57 AM
...
I'm not sure the introduction through classical by means of comparison to a popular music genre works, since classical is so different. What I'd do, instead of using Teresa's list, is to just get someone to sample different works from different eras- for example, maybe (from Feanor's list) the Xenakis, Sibelius,  Brahms, Bach, and Adams <- (i think he should be on the list).
...

Greg, there is a good case for including John Adams as a prominent minimalist example.  For my part, everything of his that I've heard has sounded, (to use Teresa's adjective), "boring".

Quote from: Feanor on February 27, 2008, 10:46:09 AM
Greg, there is a good case for including John Adams as a prominent minimalist example.  For my part, everything of his that I've heard has sounded, (to use Teresa's adjective), "boring".

have you listened to Harmonielehre?

Quote from: Feanor on February 27, 2008, 10:46:09 AM
Greg, there is a good case for including John Adams as a prominent minimalist example.  For my part, everything of his that I've heard has sounded, (to use Teresa's adjective), "boring".

What was he once described as?  A "mininimalist bored with minimalism"?  LOL  But Adams isn't a strict minimalist-- even in his more earlier works, certainly not when you compare him to the extremely rigourous music of Reich or Glass of the 70s. 

Harmonielehre is certainly a great introductory piece, but I'd say he incorporates elements of minimalism from time to time, but more for colouristic effects and textures than for building entire structures of a piece.  There are times when Adams sounds more like Copland than anything "minimalist" per se (the orchestration & the way he spaces out chords I guess?  I can't quite put my finger on it).

I bet Teresa would like Harmonielehre too-- particularly the final movement-- sublime and powerful music.  8)  I've got Simon Rattle's recording and I'm impressed by it (not to mention that it also has an excellent recording of Short Ride in a Fast Machine on it). 

Quote from: just josh on February 27, 2008, 11:22:38 AM
What was he once described as?  A "mininimalist bored with minimalism"?  LOL  But Adams isn't a strict minimalist-- even in his more earlier works, certainly not when you compare him to the extremely rigourous music of Reich or Glass of the 70s. 

Harmonielehre is certainly a great introductory piece, but I'd say he incorporates elements of minimalism from time to time, but more for colouristic effects and textures than for building entire structures of a piece.
 ...

I'll give it a try at the first opportunity.  0:)

Quote from: Feanor on February 27, 2008, 10:36:11 AM
Absolutely, Harry   :D

There is no doubt that Teresa has a very extensive listening experience.  No doubt there are many topics where her insights will enlighten discussion.

That's a magnanimous attitude.  Personally, I have the feeling that she has much less listening experience than it might appear.

Teresa's list is nothing more than a list of personal preferences; it's not a guide at all.

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 06:13:35 PM
Could there be some covert racism involved in the traditional stardard repertoire lists?  I believe there is, I really do or Germany would not be so prominent and most of the rest of the world ignored except for a few token composers here and there. 

That's like saying there must be covert racism because so many Canadians are in the NHL Hall of Fame. Even a cursory knowledge of music history would provide some clues about Germany's prominence. Of course, if you dismiss entire eras of music development as boring ...

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 06:13:35 PM
At least my opening up Classical music borders to cover the entire world will hopefully set things right! 

Phew! Thank you so much! I knew there had to be a reason why music from all over the world is championed and discussed on this board.

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 06:13:35 PM

I look to the future with great hope, these elitists will not kill off "Classical music for everyone" if I can help it! 

I think the elitist angle you're trying for is unfounded (you've mentioned the word in several posts.) Overall, I find this board to be very non-elitist. While there are many here who only listen to classical, there are few who display an elitist attitude about it. A read-through of the Non-Classical Listening thread and other threads in the Diner reveals most of us here have a wide variety of musical interests beyond classical. You are not unique in having diverse musical interests.

IMPORTANT NOTE: It is 36 years not 26 years I have been listening to Classical Music. 2008 (-) 1972 (=) 36.  Sorry about my poor math skills, my god I'm getting old!

Quote from: Grazioso on February 27, 2008, 03:56:34 AM
This is just disingenuous. On that page, you write, "This is a list of some of the most beautiful, colorful and exciting orchestral music ever written.  Unlike other recommended lists there is no "stuffed-shirt" academic boring music here!  This is classical orchestral music written to be enjoyed from the very first note to the last.  Music that is always fresh and alive no matter how often it is played.  This is the good stuff."

You are clearly implying that excluded music is the "bad stuff" and not always fresh and alive and not meant to be enjoyed from first to last. Quite frankly, you have limited tastes and are confusing those opinions with facts.

Again, you falsely assume that "folks who don't like Classical music" fall into your same pattern. I once assumed (out of ignorance based on terribly limited exposure, coupled with youthful arrogance) that I didn't like classical music. Then I actually took the time to expose myself to it with an open mind, and now I love it. And after years of listening to it, my taste in and understanding of classical music have only broadened, not remained fixed on one narrow cross section of it. I understand that we're dealing with serious art, too, and not mere light entertainment. Because I don't understand or like a piece doesn't make me assume that others will or should react the same way.

You need to give others more credit. Despite their initial prejudices and assumptions about classical music, they may approach it with more sensitivity and openness than you. Their tastes may simply differ. They may dislike "Power Orchestral" but immediately fall in love with Classical-era chamber music or opera.

It's one thing to say, "This is the type of classical music I like" and another entirely to pretend you can speak for or guide other skeptics into the genre.

Still no understanding of the audience I am talking to I see, once again these are listeners who "think" they dislike Classical music because it is boring and hard to relate to.  This is what is clearly meant by no "stuffed-shirt" academic boring music here.  There is no music listed that demonstrates technique and shows off the players skills without also being entertaining to the average non-classical listener.  The 97% of the population who do not like Classical music know exactly what I mean.  And for the majority of the world listeners music is easily boring which has no spices and is not sprinkled with at least some percussion.  After listening to Classical music for 36 years for me percussion is the most important component in all music.  Just listen to the vast improvement in Mussorgsky's original piano only version of Pictures At An Exhibition versus Ravel's wonderful orchestration with all the wonderful percussive effects, the result is one of the greatest masterpieces of all time. 

This is the "good stuff" for anyone who finds "stuffed-shirt" academic music boring.  Not everyone finds "stuffed-shirt" academic music boring some find enlightenment in this type of music.  I even own some "stuffed-shirt" academic music and listen to it occasionally.   I am clearly stating there is NONE of this music in the list, after all they have already rejected this traditional core classical base.  That in no way means the opposite is "the bad stuff". 

And to be perfectly honest I am embarrassed that Chamber music and Opera even exist in Classical music, or that most music written between 1650-1800 lost most of it's excitement due to these overly strict new rules of composition.   I reserved listeners right to listen to these types music and if I live to be 1,000 years old I will never understand.  So I do not delve in these areas at all, as I have nothing constructive to say on these three items.  But on early medieval and early renaissance dance music, and from the Romantic period on I do have a lot of experience and a lot to say, especially in terms of Orchestral music.  But the main reason I didn't even mention Chamber music or Opera in "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" because chamber music and opera are not orchestral compositions. 

No matter what you say Classical music will not be elitist, thank god for the Internet as listeners can find the "good stuff" for themselves.

Quote from: longears on February 27, 2008, 04:41:24 AM
Teresa has made some claims here about what she thinks is "morally wrong."  Personally, I think it "morally wrong" to set herself up as an expert and tastemaker when she is unqualified.  I think it morally wrong to be unwilling to accept guidance or to acknowledge error.  And it's morally wrong to blame others for her shortcomings (i.e. she describes her failure to understand or appreciate chamber music, opera, or the core of the orchestral repertory as if the music were to blame rather than Teresa herself--her limitations, inexperience, prejudices, and lack of training).

She likes to defend her right to her opinions.  Of course she has a right to her opinions.  But in setting herself up as a guide, she has a moral obligation to express only informed opinions (her opinion about opera, for instance, is ignorant in the extreme and therefore worthless).

Of course, the foregoing is only my opinion.

I do not set myself up as an expert but a guidepost who has traveled the difficult and often uneasy waters of the vast expense of thousands of classical compositions written over more than 400 years to find that which is beautiful, exciting and very rewarding to me.  I am clearly sharing them with others who have rejected what is know as the core classical repertoire.  I really believe Classical music can easily be 50 times more popular if only listeners knew these other works exist, I intend to see they do.

I also agree my opinion about Opera is worthless, why because I hate Opera.  But it is not "ignorant in the extreme" to dislike something that is so utterly distasteful to me that I cannot tolerate it even in small doses!   Have you ever seen me make any Opera suggestions at all ever, this is the most absurd thing I have ever read.   There are experts on Opera who can recommend Opera.  All I can tell is the truth about how bad opera sounds to my me and the physical pain the singers poor vocal cords produce in my ears, I really because Opera can cause hearing damage if listened to at realistic levels. I reserve the right of other people to listen to music I do not like but on the other hand I cannot recommend music I do not like, THAT IS MORALLY VERY, VERY, VERY WRONG!! One can only recommends what one likes and cannot recommend what one does not like.

What limitations?  I am only honest in what I like and do not like.

What inexperience or lack of training? I am a guitarist and both a pop and amateur classical composer. I have studied composition and can transpose for the all instruments of the orchestra.  In short I can write and read an orchestral score.  I studied composition and orchestration in school and it was at that time 1972 I decided to write better compositions than the masters I learned from (Mozart, Bach, etc.) I have mostly failed but I have found so many wonderful modern classical works that I would have had a privilege to put my name on.   Thank goodness I found Classic music I could love and I only to share it with the world. 

Everyone in the entire world had prejudices in what they like or they are lying!

I do accept guidance and acknowledge errors when they are found.  For example I am rewording the Copland entry in "Classical Music for Everyone" under suggestions to folk music listeners as Copland did write some atonal music.  But the right to approach Classical music from other than the core repertoire is what has you upset.  For this I am sorry, but you cannot keep Classical music for yourself.  Not everyone likes what you like and believe it or not there are millions (maybe billions) of people who hate Opera and Chamber music, but don't let that bother you if you like it enjoy.  Music is meant to be enjoy in any way you can!

Quote from: just josh on February 27, 2008, 05:22:04 AM

As far as "lesser known composers" go, I am familiar with a good deal of it and then some (its nice to see Sessions' Black Maskers Suite on there-- its an old favourite of mine, sadly underrated IMO).  You'll find there's plenty of people here who do lament that concert performances tend to focus on more standard repertoire and want a bit of music past 1899 for example -- but not at the expense of denigrating the standard repertoire!  Its not because Mozart is boring, but because there *is* so much more out there.  

One of the reasons I came to this forum was precisely because people here do listen to more than just the standard repertoire...

Great news I should have a fun time and maybe discover some new modern composers if this sub-tread ever ends.

I am glad to hear you liked Sessions' Black Maskers Suite , it is one of my favorites as well.  There really is so much Classical music out there that I could live a 1,000 years and not hear it all even excluding the 1650's-1800's, chamber and opera. 

I am still waiting for release in any format (I can play them all) of William Russo's Symphony No. 2 "The Titans", I have been waiting for this since 1974, there have been a few performances but no recordings.  In 1966 Seiji Ozawa was in "Big John's" bar in Chicago listening to the Siegel-Schwall Blues Band and decided he wanted to commission a orchestral work that incorporated them.  Next summer in 1967 Ozawa conducted Russo's Symphony No. 2 at Ravinia and was so impressed and thought that he would be the perfect composer to commission his "Blues Band and Orchestra work" and Russo agreed.   The resulting work "Three Pieces for Blues Band and Symphony Orchestra, Op. 50" written in 1968.  Seiji Ozawa didn't get the go ahead to record it until 1973.  He never was able to record the 2nd Symphony though.  But in 1977 a second work Street Music A Blues Concerto for Harmonica, Piano and Orchestra, Op. 65 with Corky Siegel, Ozawa, San Francisco Symphony Orchestra was released by Deutsche Grammophon.  So for 35 years I have been waiting for Russo's Symphony No. 2 I hope it recorded or at least performed in Nevada before I die.

Quote from: Don on February 27, 2008, 08:05:48 AM
What I understand is that you are a poor guide for those new to classical music.  Your recommendations are much too restrictive.

Too restrictive?  It is just the opposite.  "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" There is classical music from all corners of the earth: American, Russian, English, German, Mexican, Spanish, French, Oriental, Jewish, etc.  As well as folk influenced, jazz influenced, blues influenced.  You will not find such variety from any Classical list every published anywhere on the planet.  And then when you combine it with Classical Music for Everyone there are over 400 classical compositions listed.  I could add more but I didn't want to overwhelm!  It's the standard repertoire lists that are overly restrictive thus the critical need for my list and articles.

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on February 27, 2008, 08:09:10 AM
exactly my point. How do people know they won't like something unless they try it?

That is exactly my POINT the standard repertoire excludes entire genres and nationalities of Classical music.  If you don't like the standard repertoire my alternate list is the one to go to.  I hope in the future there will be more.  I recommend using streaming audio to try new music.

But I wonder, does anyone besides us actually read these lists?  ???

Quote from: Teresa on February 27, 2008, 01:16:21 PM
Too restrictive?  It is just the opposite. 

Given that you leave out entire genres of classical music as well as time periods, your objection to the "restrictive" tag is puzzling.

Quote from: Don on February 27, 2008, 01:37:13 PM
Given that you leave out entire genres of classical music as well as time periods, your objection to the "restrictive" tag is puzzling.

Duh, those are already covered in the standard repertoire list!  Which is restricted in other ways.  No list covers everything it would be way, way, way too long.  That is why my list is only for Power Orchestral Music for folks who don't like Classical music.  Perhaps at a later date I will have Power Orchestral Music for folks who do like Classical music as I had to leave out some great orchestral works that might be a little difficult for a beginner.   

As I have stated many, many times before Chamber music and Opera are not Power Orchestral Music.  I tried to find the very, very, best and most colorful and exciting examples of Power Orchestral Music that could be enjoyed one the very first listen. 

Quote from: Teresa on February 27, 2008, 01:16:21 PM
Still no understanding of the audience I am talking to I see, once again these are listeners who "think" they dislike Classical music because it is boring and hard to relate to.  This is what is clearly meant by no "stuffed-shirt" academic boring music here. 

Your position is too simplistic. You're saying if A) Johnny doesn't like Classical, then B) Johnny will like this. Maybe, but probably not. Considering how this thread has gone, is it possible what you clearly mean is not so clear?

Quote from: Teresa on February 27, 2008, 01:51:43 PM
As I have stated many, many times before Chamber music and Opera are not Power Orchestral Music.  I tried to find the very, very, best and most colorful and exciting examples of Power Orchestral Music that could be enjoyed one the very first listen. 

You seem to be a very immature music listener.  With percussion such a big deal in your assessment, you don't appear to have made the transition from rock to classical music. Also, this enjoyment on first hearings thing of yours smacks of impatience.  Aren't you aware that music that sounds great at first listening usually doesn't hold up well over time?

Quote from: Don on February 27, 2008, 02:08:27 PM
You seem to be a very immature music listener.  With percussion such a big deal in your assessment, you don't appear to have made the transition from rock to classical music. Also, this enjoyment on first hearings thing of yours smacks of impatience.  Aren't you aware that music that sounds great at first listening usually doesn't hold up well over time?

The Power Classical term and your observation, Don, remind me of a time in my younger days when I was putting together a rock band. A guitarist auditioned who was convinced he had discovered the key to all good rock music -- Power Chords! They sound great when used in moderation, but when that's all you hear all night, they really don't hold up either.

Quote from: Szykniej on February 27, 2008, 01:58:59 PM
Your position is too simplistic. You're saying if A) Johnny doesn't like Classical, then B) Johnny will like this. Maybe, but probably not. Considering how this thread has gone, is it possible what you clearly mean is not so clear?

It's might like!  Remember I offered these only as suggestions and to find streaming audio to see they they suit the listeners taste.  That was clearly stated in the list.  Nothing at all unclear!

Quote from: Don on February 27, 2008, 02:08:27 PM
You seem to be a very immature music listener.  With percussion such a big deal in your assessment, you don't appear to have made the transition from rock to classical music. Also, this enjoyment on first hearings thing of yours smacks of impatience.  Aren't you aware that music that sounds great at first listening usually doesn't hold up well over time?

After over 45 years of listening to all types of music, percussion is MANDATORY for me even in other types of music.  I do not like solo piano or piano and bass Jazz, it must be at least piano, bass and drums and preferably Big Band.  I only like Bluegrass with percussion.

Percussion to me is a necessary ingredient in making music, it is the primary thing that adds it's color and spice.  Without percussion to me music is very bland and boring.  I don't care if I live to be 10,000 years old percussion will still be the most important ingredient in making music, period! 

Also my very favorite compositions over decades I loved on the very first hearing!  The first hearing of a great new composition is often so thrilling that it takes my breath away, and if the composition is really great it gets even better over time.  If a composition is OK the first listening, it often is downright terrible by the third of fourth, but on extremely rare occasions it is better on later playings.  But if a composition is downright bad on the first playing it is still downright bad on the fifth.  I usually know on first hearing, and on that first hearing I turn the lights out and close my eyes and set in the sweet spot with no distractions.

Quote from: Teresa on February 27, 2008, 01:16:21 PM
I studied composition and orchestration in school and it was at that time 1972 I decided to write better compositions than the masters I learned from (Mozart, Bach, etc.) I have mostly failed . . .

Good heavens, Teresa, why? If such masters are so bad, how could you have not surpassed them?

You know what, maybe you could take one of those Beethoven string quartets, arrange it for orchestra, throw in a bass drum, tambourine, snare, and cymbals pounding away, and you'd have some really cool Power Orchestra Orgasmic Rock without having to write your own. You wouldn't even have to pay Beethoven royalties for using his old-hat stuff.

But geez, we've gone through nine pages of this and at least 15 people have already pointed out the same things to you, with nothing apparently sinking in. As the old Jewish proverb says, if one man tells you you look like a horse, ignore him. If two people say it, think about it. If three people say it, get yourself fitted for a saddle.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 27, 2008, 03:22:58 PM
As the old Jewish proverb says, if one man tells you you look like a horse, ignore him. If two people say it, think about it. If three people say it, get yourself fitted for a saddle.

(http://www.gypsydrumhorses.com/images/DHP_Lancers2_Lg.jpg)

Teresa, are you familiar with Xenakis' Metastasis (from Feanor's list). That piece is totally killer. It's rather intensely emotional, and has percussion ;). If you haven't heard it, I highly recommend the Hans Rosbaud (can't remember the orchestra right now) recording (recently reissued mega-cheap as part of the 'Xenakis Orchestral and Chamber music' disc from Col Legno, but I'm aware of your predilection for vinyl, so perhaps you'd prefer to find it in that format?)

Back to your list:
Nobody has a problem with your musical taste (although we might disagree). It seems that we all misunderstood your apparently disparaging remarks about music in the prefatory material to your lists ('stuffed shirt', 'boring', 'academic', etc).
However, as (by your own admission) your list represents your own tastes (and how it do otherwise, really?), and your tastes are rather... er... 'idiosyncratic':

Quote from: TeresaPercussion to me is a necessary ingredient in making music, it is the primary thing that adds it's color and spice. Without percussion to me music is very bland and boring.

Given that your aware of the limitations of your taste (and I don't mean 'limitations' in a qualitative sense - merely that there are boundaries over which your taste won't cross), then perhaps it would be more appropriate to flag this to your potential user-base through neutral terms such as "I love music with percussion in it", rather than the pejorative manner in which you have done so. Clearly, the way you've approached it can (and has) lead to a great deal of misinterpretation of your intent (9 pages of it, and counting...)

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 03:30:30 PM
It seems that we all misunderstood your apparently disparaging remarks about music in the prefatory material to your lists ('stuffed shirt', 'boring', 'academic', etc)... Clearly, the way you've approached it can (and has) lead to a great deal of misinterpretation of your intent (9 pages of it, and counting...)

What exactly has been misunderstood, and why the reason for this apparent volta face, Robert? I take Teresa's apparently disparaging remarks, such as:

- "And to be perfectly honest I am embarrassed that Chamber music and Opera even exist in Classical music,"
- "I hate Opera,"
- "I abhor the Brahms symphonies,"
- "I reserve the right to abhor the chamber works of Brahms and Schubert, these are the very definitions of musical hell for me!"

to be disparaging remarks, no more and no less.

Hmmmm, this is starting to look like a trolling thread if there ever was one.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 27, 2008, 03:22:58 PM
Good heavens, Teresa, why? If such masters are so bad, how could you have not surpassed them?

You know what, maybe you could take one of those Beethoven string quartets, arrange it for orchestra, throw in a bass drum, tambourine, snare, and cymbals pounding away, and you'd have some really cool Power Orchestra Orgasmic Rock without having to write your own. You wouldn't even have to pay Beethoven royalties for using his old-hat stuff.

But geez, we've gone through nine pages of this and at least 15 people have already pointed out the same things to you, with nothing apparently sinking in. As the old Jewish proverb says, if one man tells you you look like a horse, ignore him. If two people say it, think about it. If three people say it, get yourself fitted for a saddle.

I have thought about orchestral arrangements with percussion of chamber and solo piano works.  I really love Stokowski's arrangements and Vanilla Fudge's arrangement of Beethoven's "Fur Elise" for piano and orchestra with percussion. 

What has sunk in for 9 pages of this nonsense is the close mindedness of this thread as if you welcome no one who does not come to Classical by the traditional method.  Some would have me include "Chamber music" and "Opera" in my "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music"  http://www.analoglovers.com/id11.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/id11.html) that will not happen!  Ever!

I will be blunt I recognise everyone's God given right to enjoy what is to me boring chamber music or painful high sopranos as it may not be boring to them or they may enjoy boredom?  I have no problem with that.  They have the problem with me telling the truth.  I WILL CONTINUE TO TELL THE TRUTH AS I SEE IT, PERIOD!

I only came into this lions den as I can visit pages that visit my website, so far I do not like what I see here with the exception of Harry and a few others.  Mostly closed mind bigots that cannot welcome diverse opinions especially ones that dare to question their reverend musical idols.

There is more than one part to Classical music and really it is big enough for all of us.

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 03:30:30 PM
Teresa, are you familiar with Xenakis' Metastasis (from Feanor's list). That piece is totally killer. It's rather intensely emotional, and has percussion ;). If you haven't heard it, I highly recommend the Hans Rosbaud (can't remember the orchestra right now) recording (recently reissued mega-cheap as part of the 'Xenakis Orchestral and Chamber music' disc from Col Legno, but I'm aware of your predilection for vinyl, so perhaps you'd prefer to find it in that format?)

Back to your list:
Nobody has a problem with your musical taste (although we might disagree). It seems that we all misunderstood your apparently disparaging remarks about music in the prefatory material to your lists ('stuffed shirt', 'boring', 'academic', etc).
However, as (by your own admission) your list represents your own tastes (and how it do otherwise, really?), and your tastes are rather... er... 'idiosyncratic':Given that your aware of the limitations of your taste (and I don't mean 'limitations' in a qualitative sense - merely that there are boundaries over which your taste won't cross), then perhaps it would be more appropriate to flag this to your potential user-base through neutral terms such as "I love music with percussion in it", rather than the pejorative manner in which you have done so. Clearly, the way you've approached it can (and has) lead to a great deal of misinterpretation of your intent (9 pages of it, and counting...)

Thanks I will check out the Xenakis.  I do own many works of Edgar Varese which didn't make it into my list as they would be too difficult for beginners.

Hey, I own some of that "stuffed shirt academic boring music" I listen to it when I need something calming that doesn't demand my attention to listen to.  It does serve a purpose, I just would not recommend it to another listener.  I stated from the beginning this is an alternate way to Classical music, that if you don't like the standard repertoire here is another way.  And to reinforce that this list was vastly different than the standard repertoire I had to compare it in terms my readers who DON'T LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC would understand.   Face it the world loves percussion, and after 45 years of music listening I know why.  The fact that some people can listen to music without percussion has always amazed me, totally amazed.  It's like eating food without spices.  Bizarre!

Quote from: Sforzando on February 27, 2008, 03:54:39 PM
What exactly has been misunderstood, and why the reason for this apparent volta face, Robert? I take Teresa's apparently disparaging remarks, such as:

- "And to be perfectly honest I am embarrassed that Chamber music and Opera even exist in Classical music,"
- "I hate Opera,"
- "I abhor the Brahms symphonies,"
- "I reserve the right to abhor the chamber works of Brahms and Schubert, these are the very definitions of musical hell for me!"

to be disparaging remarks, no more and no less.

These are not disparaging remarks but the truth.  Many of you hate the music I love and I don't consider it disparaging to say so in print, you are being truthful.  I never want you or anyone to lie about what you love or hate.  Did you know most of the world hates Opera, are they disparaging?  Maybe you should look up the word:

disparage |diˈsparij|
verb [ trans. ]
regard or represent as being of little worth : he never missed an opportunity to disparage his competitors | [as adj. ] ( disparaging) disparaging remarks.

My remarks are not to belittle but for understanding, and there is a giant difference.  And I have always said music is personal and not everyone likes the same things.  This is the prime thing you have trouble understanding.  With listening comes comprehension and understanding.

Quote from: Teresa on February 27, 2008, 04:52:10 PM
This is the prime thing you have trouble understanding.  With listening comes comprehension and understanding.

Works both ways, Teresa.

But allow me just one last question, since you've harped on this point over and over. Since you're so adamant in insisting that it would be very, very morally wrong to recommend to someone a work that you yourself don't like, let me turn the tables and ask this: if I knew of any music that I might not be crazy about myself but which I'm certain meets all your favorite criteria (and I am thinking of a piece that I'm 110% positive you'd like but is not on any of your lists), would it be very, very morally wrong for me to tell you about it? Just curious. 'Cause if it would be very morally wrong to say anything, I'll keep it to myself and you may never know about it.

And, btw, I know perfectly well what the word "disparaging" means, and I used it correctly.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 27, 2008, 05:09:09 PM
Works both ways, Teresa.

But allow me just one last question, since you've harped on this point over and over. Since you're so adamant in insisting that it would be very, very morally wrong to recommend to someone a work that you yourself don't like, let me turn the tables and ask this: if I knew of any music that I might not be crazy about myself but which I'm certain meets all your favorite criteria (and I am thinking of a piece that I'm 110% positive you'd like but is not on any of your lists), would it be very, very morally wrong for me to tell you about it? Just curious. 'Cause if it would be very morally wrong to say anything, I'll keep it to myself and you may never know about it.

And, btw, I know perfectly well what the word "disparaging" means, and I used it correctly.

You could suggest it but never put it in a recommend list, that would be up to someone who can honestly recommend it based on personal listening.  I highly recommend everything on my recommended list.  And this is they way it should be.

I might suggest to someone there is something is don't like but you may like, do you want to give it a try.  I personally have no way to know as I don't like it, but this is honest.

And stating how one feels about music is not disparaging in any stretch of the imagination.  And as I have said over and over and over and over and over NO ONE LIKES THE SAME MUSIC!!!!  It's called personal taste, after all this I am really hoping some comprehension starts to sink in.

So you used disparaging not only incorrectly but inappropriately.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 27, 2008, 03:54:39 PM
What exactly has been misunderstood, and why the reason for this apparent volta face, Robert?

No volta face, just a change in approach to see if it elicited a more generous (read: comprehensible) response. I keep telling myself I'm done with this thread, but 'just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in.'

To a certain degree I feel a little sympathetic for Teresa. I believe she was genuinely well-intentioned in the making of those lists. It must be somewhat discomforting to be a new member of a forum simply to have the membership leap down your throat. Similarly, she has told us that she listens to music with the lights off, reclining in the sweet-spot with her eyes closed. I think I'd be right in assuming that her experience of music is quite an immersive and, more importantly, physical one, and I can understand how a string quartet doesn't quite have the immersion factor of a full orchestra with a percussion battery blaring away. On the other hand, the number of people who experience music solely in this manner are statistically insignificant, and there are now 9 pages of quite well-constructed arguments to which the only responses have boiled down to:

1. It's not meant to include everything, there are no 'must-have', unlike the elitist musical establishment
2. The musical establishment is trying to hide good music from the masses, on account of their elitism
3. It's morally wrong to recommend things that you yourself don't like
4. After 25, wait, 35, hang-on, 45 years of listening to music I know what I like
5. Don't you dare tell me what music to like, but at the same time, let me tell you that only 19th and 20th century orchestral music with percussion has real human emotion.
6. The list is for people who DON'T LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC

Simultaneously, Teresa has refused to engage in any discussion, despite numerous attempts from various members, on:
1. The roles/responsibilities shouldered by those offering guidance to others
2. The mechanism by which her list forms a basis (if, indeed, it does) of the Western classical tradition
3. How (if indeed we are meant to) we are to interpret repertoire other than 'Power Orchestral' as anything but 'the bad stuff'.
4. Who is this 'musical establishment' that's forcing hack composers (like Brahms) down our throats?

All in all, Teresa has done nothing but spout conspiracy theories and cries of elitism and persecution when, in fact, she is the only one here that is rubbishing anybody's views on music.

Despite numerous advances, Teresa refuses to argue (or, apparently, even understand) the points being made by other members, and simply repeatedly pulls out her 'go-to' phrases (see list above).

If I wanted to argue with a four-year-old, there's a rather better-informed one living next door.

Let me be clear about this:
The prefatory material to Teresa's list (not so much the list itself), and her continuing attitude offends me in just about every way possible: aesthetically, morally, intellectually and spiritually. Her writing betrays a gross ignorance and a stubborn refusal to even accept the possibility that some might find her writing distasteful.

I'll cease ranting here, as I suspect I'm flying remarkably close to board rules about insulting other members. Suffice it to say that words like 'asinine' were about to be deployed.

That's it. I'm out. Any further contribution I make to this thread will be strictly removed from the ongoing argument.

Quote from: Harry on February 25, 2008, 11:59:57 PM
We always behave with extreme politeness to women with spirit.

LOL - try rereading this thread, if you can bear it.

However, this thread seems to have spurred your thoughtful contributions to the forum, Robert.  Welcome to GMG!  And Teresa will fit right in, too.  I look forward to her exchanges with Poju, Sean, Rod, ACD/DZalman, and Saul. 

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 06:10:03 PM
To a certain degree I feel a little sympathetic for Teresa. I believe she was genuinely well-intentioned in the making of those lists. It must be somewhat discomforting to be a new member of a forum simply to have the membership leap down your throat.

Frankly, I know music forums that by comparison make ours look like we're offering Teresa kids'-glove treatment. No one is forcing her to stay or not, and she gives as good as she gets.

But no doubt to everyone's surprise, I feel more than a little sympathetic to Teresa's aims as well. It is a genuine problem: how to introduce beginners to this music, how to deal with a culture in which classical music is so often disparaged (note correct use of this word), how to reach out to people who assume classical music is not for them without overwhelming or alienating them. And some of the works on Teresa's recommended list are just fine for this purpose. I remember at age 13 or so writing on our family's copy of Britten's Young Person's Guide, "my favorite piece." (I still enjoy it, though it's no longer my "favorite.") And I loved the Procession of the Sardar from Ippolitov-Ivanov's Caucasian Sketches.

Part of my problem, however, is that (apparently) due to her extreme dislike of absolute music, chamber music, piano music, opera, etc., Teresa IMO draws the line too tightly in favor of this notion of power orchestral music with percussion. And I say this precisely because I've seen too many new listeners enjoy much of the very music Teresa vehemently dislikes - so long as they're willing to give it a fair chance. I've brought beginning listeners to operas like La Boheme and Aida, played the Appassionata to them on my home piano, brought them to symphony concerts where Beethoven and Brahms were on the menu, and many have loved the experience.

Just a few weeks ago, for instance, I attended a New York Philharmonic concert which included the Brahms 4th Symphony. It was an unusual time - Friday 11 AM - but the reason became clear when I saw all the high school groups being ushered in. Of course I don't know anything about these kids and their backgrounds, but I would presume their experience of classical music was fairly limited. I didn't speak to any of them, but you can tell a lot about a person's reactions from their body language. Some of the kids gave the impression that they'd rather be anywhere else than Avery Fisher Hall. Quite a few, however, listened very intently as Brahms worked his magic. One young fellow in particular was a lot of fun to watch. We were seated quite close to the stage and during intermission he bounded up to the apron to speak to the Phil's very attractive (and very female) principal violists. During the Brahms you could see the music registering with him, and at one moment (during the peroration to the passacaglia) his eyes just lit up in a huge smile at one of Brahms's particularly surprising harmonic shifts. Surely this is what a lot of us here hope for when thinking how the classical tradition can and should be transmitted to future generations.

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 06:10:03 PM
All in all, Teresa has done nothing but spout conspiracy theories and cries of elitism and persecution when, in fact, she is the only one here that is rubbishing anybody's views on music

Rubbishing perhaps, but not disparaging.  :D

And with that, I really really must try to stay off this thread.

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 06:10:03 PM
I'll cease ranting here, as I suspect I'm flying remarkably close to board rules about insulting other members. Suffice it to say that words like 'asinine' were about to be deployed.

LOL   How sweet!!!  ;D

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 06:10:03 PM
No volta face, just a change in approach to see if it elicited a more generous (read: comprehensible) response. I keep telling myself I'm done with this thread, but 'just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in.'

To a certain degree I feel a little sympathetic for Teresa. I believe she was genuinely well-intentioned in the making of those lists. It must be somewhat discomforting to be a new member of a forum simply to have the membership leap down your throat. Similarly, she has told us that she listens to music with the lights off, reclining in the sweet-spot with her eyes closed. I think I'd be right in assuming that her experience of music is quite an immersive and, more importantly, physical one, and I can understand how a string quartet doesn't quite have the immersion factor of a full orchestra with a percussion battery blaring away. On the other hand, the number of people who experience music solely in this manner are statistically insignificant, and there are now 9 pages of quite well-constructed arguments to which the only responses have boiled down to:

1. It's not meant to include everything, there are no 'must-have', unlike the elitist musical establishment
2. The musical establishment is trying to hide good music from the masses, on account of their elitism
3. It's morally wrong to recommend things that you yourself don't like
4. After 25, wait, 35, hang-on, 45 years of listening to music I know what I like
5. Don't you dare tell me what music to like, but at the same time, let me tell you that only 19th and 20th century orchestral music with percussion has real human emotion.
6. The list is for people who DON'T LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC

Simultaneously, Teresa has refused to engage in any discussion, despite numerous attempts from various members, on:
1. The roles/responsibilities shouldered by those offering guidance to others
2. The mechanism by which her list forms a basis (if, indeed, it does) of the Western classical tradition
3. How (if indeed we are meant to) we are to interpret repertoire other than 'Power Orchestral' as anything but 'the bad stuff'.
4. Who is this 'musical establishment' that's forcing hack composers (like Brahms) down our throats?

All in all, Teresa has done nothing but spout conspiracy theories and cries of elitism and persecution when, in fact, she is the only one here that is rubbishing anybody's views on music.

Despite numerous advances, Teresa refuses to argue (or, apparently, even understand) the points being made by other members, and simply repeatedly pulls out her 'go-to' phrases (see list above).

If I wanted to argue with a four-year-old, there's a rather better-informed one living next door.

Let me be clear about this:
The prefatory material to Teresa's list (not so much the list itself), and her continuing attitude offends me in just about every way possible: aesthetically, morally, intellectually and spiritually. Her writing betrays a gross ignorance and a stubborn refusal to even accept the possibility that some might find her writing distasteful.

I'll cease ranting here, as I suspect I'm flying remarkably close to board rules about insulting other members. Suffice it to say that words like 'asinine' were about to be deployed.

That's it. I'm out. Any further contribution I make to this thread will be strictly removed from the ongoing argument.

Thanks very much for the understanding!  Those of us whom still actually listen to music without performing other activities especially with lights out is getting rare.  Time is a big factor I usually only have an hour or two to listen this way daily.

And I would like to make Some clarifications. It was 1972 when I first discovered Classical music that I liked so that is 35 years, but the 10 years before that were rock so it's 45 years total.  If we hadn't changed centuries I wouldn't have made the subtraction error.

I have engaged in discussion totally:
1. No one has a better perspective on developing a list of alternate musical choices for listeners who do not like traditional classical music than someone (me) who does not like traditional classical but has discovered 1000's of non-traditional classical compositions that are so approachable that they can be enjoyed on the very first listen. Plus they don't have to give up the percussion, rhythm, beat and power they have in the music they now like.  

2. The classic music I recommend is mostly not in the Western classical tradition but is non-traditional classical music.

3. There are 300 compositions on my Power Orchestra list and I own over 1,000 compositions and I don't consider my other 700 works the "the bad stuff' so that impression is totally wrong.

4. It's the Standard repertoire, the music reviews, the print magazines, movies, TV shows etc.  Most of the great stuff is well hidden but it is worth searching out.

Peace?

Quote from: Sforzando on February 27, 2008, 07:02:01 PM

But no doubt to everyone's surprise, I feel more than a little sympathetic to Teresa's aims as well. It is a genuine problem: how to introduce beginners to this music, how to deal with a culture in which classical music is so often disparaged (note correct use of this word), how to reach out to people who assume classical music is not for them without overwhelming or alienating them. And some of the works on Teresa's recommended list are just fine for this purpose. I remember at age 13 or so writing on our family's copy of Britten's Young Person's Guide, "my favorite piece." (I still enjoy it, though it's no longer my "favorite.") And I loved the Procession of the Sardar from Ippolitov-Ivanov's Caucasian Sketches.

Part of my problem, however, is that (apparently) due to her extreme dislike of absolute music, chamber music, piano music, opera, etc., Teresa IMO draws the line too tightly in favor of this notion of power orchestral music with percussion. And I say this precisely because I've seen too many new listeners enjoy much of the very music Teresa vehemently dislikes - so long as they're willing to give it a fair chance. I've brought beginning listeners to operas like La Boheme and Aida, played the Appassionata to them on my home piano, brought them to symphony concerts where Beethoven and Brahms were on the menu, and many have loved the experience.

Just a few weeks ago, for instance, I attended a New York Philharmonic concert which included the Brahms 4th Symphony. It was an unusual time - Friday 11 AM - but the reason became clear when I saw all the high school groups being ushered in. Of course I don't know anything about these kids and their backgrounds, but I would presume their experience of classical music was fairly limited. I didn't speak to any of them, but you can tell a lot about a person's reactions from their body language. Some of the kids gave the impression that they'd rather be anywhere else than Avery Fisher Hall. Quite a few, however, listened very intently as Brahms worked his magic. One young fellow in particular was a lot of fun to watch. We were seated quite close to the stage and during intermission he bounded up to the apron to speak to the Phil's very attractive (and very female) principal violists. During the Brahms you could see the music registering with him, and at one moment (during the peroration to the passacaglia) his eyes just lit up in a huge smile at one of Brahms's particularly surprising harmonic shifts. Surely this is what a lot of us here hope for when thinking how the classical tradition can and should be transmitted to future generations.

Rubbishing perhaps, but not disparaging.  :D

And with that, I really really must try to stay off this thread.

Thanks for your understanding.   "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" was not written for those new listeners who enjoyed the very music I dislike (the Standard Repertoire) but for those who didn't like the Standard Repertoire, there is classical music for them as well.  In fact I am sure there is classical music somewhere for every living human being on Planet Earth if they could but find it.  That is where my list helps. 

I am confused by one thing what could be on a Power Orchestra List besides Power Orchestra music?  I am also thinking of making an Advanced Power Orchestra list for more complicated orchestral works I had to leave off the beginner list.

Anyone is free of course to make a list of "Chamber Music Repertoire, Piano Repertoire or Opera Repertoire for folks who don't like Classical music"  I would not be qualified to do so, perhaps you may want to?  Also feel free to include the statement there is no "banal" and "bombastic" music here just the good stuff.  It won't hurt me I have thicker skin I developed over 35 years of defending the Classical music I love.  I don't care if others thank it is trash, as to me it is the very musical nourishment I crave!

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 06:10:03 PM
2. The musical establishment is trying to hide good music from the masses, on account of their elitism

Brahms is opium for the masses.  :D

Quote from: Sforzando on February 27, 2008, 07:02:01 PM
Just a few weeks ago, for instance, I attended a New York Philharmonic concert which included the Brahms 4th Symphony. It was an unusual time - Friday 11 AM - but the reason became clear when I saw all the high school groups being ushered in. Of course I don't know anything about these kids and their backgrounds, but I would presume their experience of classical music was fairly limited. I didn't speak to any of them, but you can tell a lot about a person's reactions from their body language. Some of the kids gave the impression that they'd rather be anywhere else than Avery Fisher Hall. Quite a few, however, listened very intently as Brahms worked his magic. One young fellow in particular was a lot of fun to watch. We were seated quite close to the stage and during intermission he bounded up to the apron to speak to the Phil's very attractive (and very female) principal violists. During the Brahms you could see the music registering with him, and at one moment (during the peroration to the passacaglia) his eyes just lit up in a huge smile at one of Brahms's particularly surprising harmonic shifts. Surely this is what a lot of us here hope for when thinking how the classical tradition can and should be transmitted to future generations.

Thanks for this heart-warming anecdote. I think Brahms 4 is a great choice for new listeners. It's Brahms' best symphony but also his most accessible. It's not over-long or obscure, but it's still musically serious. It has beauty and tender emotions, but without being soppy or twee. It's exciting without being bombastic. Its tunefulness and drama are easily understood by modern lay-audiences. I could go on (and on).

BTW, what else was on the program?

Quote from: eyeresist on February 27, 2008, 06:24:32 PM
LOL - try rereading this thread, if you can bear it.

Well I did, and it was rather hurting for my eyes and soul to read.
But Teresa is a strong woman well equipped to defend herself, thank God!
She is outnumbered by more than 15 posters, with enough ammunition to shoot a elephant, and still she is standing.
For this I admire her.
And I am glad she is on the board, and sincerely hope she will stay. :)

Quote from: Harry on February 27, 2008, 10:42:34 PM

Well I did, and it was rather hurting for my eyes and soul to read.
But Teresa is a strong woman well equipped to defend herself, thank God!
She is outnumbered by more than 15 posters, with enough ammunition to shoot a elephant, and still she is standing.
For this I admire her.
And I am glad she is on the board, and sincerely hope she will stay. :)

Right. Fifteen reactionary elitists, trying to silence a tribune of the people and to keep the masses ignorant of the beauties of percussion.

C'm'on, Harry...  ;D

WOW! I have kept seeing this thread on the unread post but have not looked till now. I can say that this is a "slightly" heated debate......  I did read the lists as well and they were ....... well...... um........... ???? ....... different. I am down with whatever when it comes to peoples preferences but the way you wrote the articles above the lists could pull people away from great music that you might just not happen to like Teresa. Brahms chamber music dry and boring...... that's never came to my mind. Maybe you should say things like "in my opinion" quite a bit more often.
And I do know that it must be disheartening to see a list that you wrote being torn to pieces by strangers and then when you come to defend it you get attacked, BUT what did you expect? You are actively telling people to ignore 200 years of music. And even when you do defend yourself you put up a sub-par argument.
Just MY opinion on these things, I don't want to impose MY opinion on anyone else.

c#

Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2008, 10:58:17 PM
Right. Fifteen reactionary elitists, trying to silence a tribune of the people and to keep the masses ignorant of the beauties of percussion.

C'm'on, Harry...  ;D

Awwww, I did not quite say that, now did I? ::) ;D

Quote from: Harry on February 27, 2008, 11:44:57 PM
Awwww, I did not quite say that, now did I? ::) ;D

;D :D

Although I totally disagree with Teresa's opinions, I could see early on in this thread that nothing any of us might say to defend the status quo would make the slightest difference to her views.  No-one has said anything of substance that hasn't already been said by the critic whose views are set out in her website, and she rubbished that.  These reactions, however, needed saying and many of them are very eloquent.

To me, Teresa's arguments lead to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Her rejection of  absolute music, opera, and most chamber music has produced a highly skewed suggested list of classical music which most of us would say is a gross caricature of "classical music", it being little more than a curious mix of largely second rate rock-inspired, jazzed-up, pop-culture with the odd genuine article thrown just to give it a semblance of authenticity. 

I have known many people who dislike classical music, in fact the vast majority of my friends, relations, neighbours, work colleagues.  Whenever I've tried to discuss the reasons for this I've invariably found a major reluctance among these people to enter into any kind of serious discussion.  Mostly, people decline to say any more than the minimum they can get away with.  The best I've had by way of explanation is that too much of classical music is too complex and generally has a saddening effect on them, whereas they're looking for something more uplifting and light and the best way of achieving that is by pop culture type of music, so their attitude is why complicate things by introducing a pseudo-classical dimension.  Occasionally, someone might show a bit of interest, and out of courtesy might listen to some recommendations, but on the whole I don't kid myself that my efforts achieve anything lasting in the majority of cases.  I'm happy to accept the fact that classical music is a very small minority interest, always has been and probably always will be. 

Nor could I see that we would ever get an answer to the underlying question concerning what actual evidence she has that her list of suggested works is any more likely to stimulate interest in classical music among the 97% (or whatever) of the population who say they have no interest in this genre.  I think I asked this question previously but I have not seen any attempted answer.  I know why.  I don't think Teresa has any evidence at all that this so-called "power orchestral" stuff (Ugh!)  - with emphasis on percussive instruments - is the magic ingredient that will turn on the classical music sceptic.  It's merely what she likes, and the rest is pure wishful thinking.  I think that all we have in Teresa's "classical music" list, and her other musings and responses here, is nothing more than an expression of her own musical prejudices.  I can't see why she thinks it is more likely than a more conventional list to be of value to a professed classical music sceptic. 

So I remain completely unconvinced that Teresa has presented any evidence that her views on classical music for the sceptic either (i) actually have any wider applicability, or (ii) may have wider applicability if she can get the message over to a wide public, or (iii) should have wider applicability given their intrinsic merits. 

Quote from: ChamberNut on February 25, 2008, 08:53:17 AM
:D

I think Teresa faked it.

Oh God I cant stop laughing!  ;D

Quote from: E..L..I..A..S.. =) on February 28, 2008, 01:37:14 AM
Oh God I cant stop laughing!  ;D

So did Meg Ryan, but it was pretty impressive anyway. 8)

Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2008, 11:48:55 PM
That's very nice. I enjoy my Brahms and Schubert a lot. But if "enjoying classical music" boils down for you to "keeping the body juices flowing", "tasting good" and "having orgasms" then you're completely missing the point.

These ones sure get the body juices flowing ;) I know when I think about Beethoven, I'm usually on the verge of orgasm  :D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NIHLm0K1L._SS500_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51b84weNwLL._SS500_.jpg)



This is seriously the most entertaining thread I've seen in a long time!

Quote from: Harry on February 27, 2008, 10:42:34 PM
Well I did, and it was rather hurting for my eyes and soul to read.

My very reaction to every each one of Teresa's posts.

Quote from: Topaz on February 28, 2008, 12:06:26 AM

To me, Teresa's arguments lead to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Her rejection of  absolute music, opera, and most chamber music has produced a highly skewed suggested list of classical music which most of us would say is a gross caricature of "classical music", it being little more than a curious mix of largely second rate rock-inspired, jazzed-up, pop-culture with the odd genuine article thrown just to give it a semblance of authenticity. 

So I am an illegitimate classical listener and very few of my 1,000 classical compositions I own or the 300 I recommended for listeners who do not like classical music are "real" classical music?  This is what you all seem to be telling me, and all the time I thought I liked classical music.  These composers thought they were composing classical works. Why does our music not past your test?  This is something no one explains, they just make fun of the classical music I love.  And this is nothing new I have heard some of my very favorite compositions called "banal" and "bombastic" over the decades of my classical journey.  Why do you believe you path is the only way? And those of us prefer non-traditional classical music are illegitimate?

You feel so little for the classical composers and classical compositions I love.  My guess would me you have not even heard 10% of the works on my lists.  So you just saying this to be mean.  Thank goodness most modern classical music is written in the dramatic style with lots of percussion that l love, do you also hate modern classical music?  Nearly 80% of my list was written in the last 100 years!  

In the last two decades I have found that my list is needed less and less as my style of classical music is becoming the predominately written and your absolute music is buried in the past just as Richard Wagner predicted it would be.

You may not like my classical music and I'm sure I don't like yours but the world is surly big enough for both camps, the dramatic and the absolute don't you think?

Quote from: Teresa on February 26, 2008, 12:31:54 AM

I listen to music for the enjoyment of music. 

I hope there's nobody here trying to make this seem like a "bad" thing. Music is such a marvelous thing, and is for everyone. I personally chose to demand more from music, and myself. If someone choose music for different reasons, more power to them. I'm just grateful that it's genuinely for everyone.

Quote from: Teresa on February 27, 2008, 07:58:35 PM

1. No one has a better perspective on developing a list of alternate musical choices for listeners who do not like traditional classical music than someone (me) who does not like traditional classical but has discovered 1000's of non-traditional classical compositions that are so approachable that they can be enjoyed on the very first listen. Plus they don't have to give up the percussion, rhythm, beat and power they have in the music they now like.  

No one?

Quote from: Harry on February 28, 2008, 01:45:33 AM
So did Meg Ryan, but it was pretty impressive anyway. 8)

"I'll have what she's having..."

Quote from: Teresa on February 28, 2008, 02:57:54 AM

You feel so little for the classical composers and classical compositions I love.  My guess would me you have not even heard 10% of the works on my lists.  So you just saying this to be mean. 

Teresa, what niggles me (and a few others here) is your claim that, arising out of your hatred of great swathes of the standard classical repertoire, you have made an important discovery that other types of music, which you label "power orchestral music", will also appeal to many people who profess a lack of interest in classical music.  Further, you state that this is the type of music that radio stations and other presenters should be promoting rather than the kind of classical music that appeals to the current majority.

Quote from: Teresa' website

... I firmly believe that radio stations are playing the WRONG classical music, reviewers are reviewing the WRONG classical music, so people new to classical music are being exposed to classical music they could never like. ...

What I'm querying is your evidence to support these claims.  For instance, I have asked why you believe that classical music with an emphasis on the use of percussive instruments (bells, triangles, tam-tam, bongos, marimbas and such like) should be any more appealing to a non-classical fan, than strings, woodwind and brass.  Is there some physiological reason that underpins your belief?  Importantly, where's the empirical evidence to support your view that this kind of music is what non-classical music lovers will like?  And aren't you concerned about the consequences of radio stations ceasing to present classical music which already has a proven market?

As I've said, while I'm always happy to listen to new classical music, in general I'm perfectly happy to go with the flow of public opinion on what's best in classical music, and if the non-classical hoy-palloy don't like it, well tough.  In particular, I don't want classical music radio stations pumping out relentlessly the type of music that happens merely to please you or other minority groups.   You are in effect leading the classically uneducated astray into a false belief that your system of likes and dislikes has some general applicability, which I don't think it has.  It's rather like "alternative medicine". 

In truth, your general tastes in classical music reflect largely a minority market which you are trying to talk up by making unnecessarily silly and ignorant comments about the established classical canon.

Quote from: Teresa on February 28, 2008, 02:57:54 AM
You feel so little for the classical composers and classical compositions I love.  My guess would me you have not even heard 10% of the works on my lists.  So you just saying this to be mean.  Thank goodness most modern classical music is written in the dramatic style with lots of percussion that l love, do you also hate modern classical music?  Nearly 80% of my list was written in the last 100 years!

Of course, as percussion was not widely used in orchestral music until about the time of early Stravinsky. Think of the Bruckner 7th - one cymbal crash and triangle roll, and even these may be spurious!

But do try Christopher Rouse's "Gorgon," Teresa. Closest thing to rock I know from a classical composer. I'll suggest it to you and maybe even recommend it.

Quote from: Teresa on February 28, 2008, 02:57:54 AM
In the last two decades I have found that my list is needed less and less as my style of classical music is becoming the predominately written and your absolute music is buried in the past just as Richard Wagner predicted it would be.

Is this the same Richard Wagner who revered Beethoven and was renowned for his conducting of the Ninth Symphony?

Quote from: Topaz on February 28, 2008, 12:06:26 AM
Although I totally disagree with Teresa's opinions, I could see early on in this thread that nothing any of us might say to defend the status quo would make the slightest difference to her views.  No-one has said anything of substance that hasn't already been said by the critic whose views are set out in her website, and she rubbished that.  These reactions, however, needed saying and many of them are very eloquent....

A gem of a post, Topaz.

Quote from: eyeresist on February 27, 2008, 10:26:42 PM
Thanks for this heart-warming anecdote. I think Brahms 4 is a great choice for new listeners. It's Brahms' best symphony but also his most accessible. It's not over-long or obscure, but it's still musically serious. It has beauty and tender emotions, but without being soppy or twee. It's exciting without being bombastic. Its tunefulness and drama are easily understood by modern lay-audiences. I could go on (and on).

BTW, what else was on the program?

The Berio Sinfonia.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 28, 2008, 04:09:53 AM


Is this the same Richard Wagner who revered Beethoven and was renowned for his conducting of the Ninth Symphony?

"I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven."-Richard Wagner

Quote from: Haffner on February 28, 2008, 04:41:11 AM
"I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven."-Richard Wagner

Elitist!

Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2008, 04:46:33 AM
Elitist!

choking on coffee

Quote from: Teresa on February 27, 2008, 07:58:35 PM
Those of us that still actually listen to music

Hi, Teresa.  Since you care enough about such things to attempt correcting others' diction, I presume you welcome such correction yourself.  As a preposition, "that" properly refers to things; "who" (or, in the objective case, "whom") is used to refer to persons.

Quote from: longears on February 28, 2008, 05:13:19 AM
Hi, Teresa.  Since you care enough about such things to attempt correcting others' diction (even when others were correct to start with), I presume you welcome such correction yourself.  As a preposition, "that" properly refers to things; "who" (or, in the objective case, "whom") is used to refer to persons.

"That" and "who" or "whom" are relative pronouns, not prepositions, but I presume you welcome such correction yourself.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 28, 2008, 05:23:14 AM
"That" and "who" or "whom" are relative pronouns, not prepositions, but I presume you welcome such correction yourself.

Oh my goodness!  What a silly error.  Of course I meant "pronoun" and do, indeed, welcome the correction.  ;D  8)

Quote from: Teresa on February 28, 2008, 02:57:54 AM
do you also hate modern classical music?  Nearly 80% of my list was written in the last 100 years!  

I think you'll find a great deal of the people on this forum are into 20th & 21st century music here, Teresa.  

There's nothing wrong with the pieces you like, but as an intro for newcomers, it is a rather limited list.  Perhaps that is fine for *you* (more power to you, no pun intended!) but its a very narrow way of introducing others to classical music.  Most people have only heard snippets of classical music at most (commercials, bits in TV shows).  They've never had full exposure to it & maybe THAT would be just as good ALONG WITH Mussorgsky, and others.  Its not an EITHER/OR situation, but a BOTH/AND.  

Let's look at how each requirement narrows the field of music drastically:

1) Must be romantic period and modern period music
2) Cannot be chamber music
3) Cannot be opera (and by extension, I suppose any singing whatsoever?)
4) Must have percussion

With each requirement, the list gets smaller and smaller.  That's great for *you* but that's not going to be very helpful to people who have had little exposure to classical music and they want to see what its all about.  

No one's trying to say you are "illigitamate" or whatever.  Its just your method for introducing people to classical music gives a very narrow picture of what classical music is about.

It would be like saying introducing someone to rock music but ONLY under these conditions:

1) Must be music post-1980
2) Must have a backing string section or brass
3) Cannot have any singing
4) Must have a saxophone in it

You might find rock music that fits under those narrow requirements, but would it provide even close to an accurate picture to the wide range of moods, styles and modes of expression in rock music.  And then write off anything that doesn't fit into those parameters as "musical hell" or what-not... It just seems like a very odd and narrow way to introduce people to something new.  People would be missing out on an awful lot.

That's a lot of restrictions on music that is supposedly all about freedom, don't you think?  :)

Nobody is saying its an EITHER/OR situation, Teresa-- there's quite a lot of good stuff you have on your list.  It can easily be a BOTH/AND sitation-- plently of people here (like myself) can enjoy Mozart AND Holst, Bach AND Mussorgsky, Brahms AND Bernstein, Mendelssohn AND Gershwin, Handel AND Stravinsky.  And I know from my own experience that newcomers are interested in a little bit of everything, not JUST thrilling percussion.  

By all means, there is much more to classical music that Mozart, Bach, Brahms, etc.  I agree, Teresa, I really do! -- there's a LOT more out there that needs exposure, but not AT THE EXPENSE of Moazrt, Bach, Brahms, etc.  Newcomers often come to classical wanting to try out different things because there's so much to include.  There's plenty room for Brahms AND Gershwin.   8)

I know I won't persuade you, or others here (what are we on, page 11 now? LOL) but I think looking at it as a BOTH/AND situation rather than an EITHER/OR situation is something for you to just think about, that's all.

Quote from: Szykniej on February 27, 2008, 02:24:48 PM
The Power Classical term and your observation, Don, remind me of a time in my younger days when I was putting together a rock band. A guitarist auditioned who was convinced he had discovered the key to all good rock music -- Power Chords! They sound great when used in moderation, but when that's all you hear all night, they really don't hold up either.

LOL!
When I first started playing, I remember asking my dad if there was something more than just power chords, since that was starting to get boring. Also, blues stuff got really old after awhile...... i still don't get how people can find the same blues licks exciting after so many years.

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 27, 2008, 03:30:30 PM
Teresa, are you familiar with Xenakis' Metastasis (from Feanor's list). That piece is totally killer. It's rather intensely emotional, and has percussion ;). If you haven't heard it, I highly recommend the Hans Rosbaud (can't remember the orchestra right now) recording (recently reissued mega-cheap as part of the 'Xenakis Orchestral and Chamber music' disc from Col Legno, but I'm aware of your predilection for vinyl, so perhaps you'd prefer to find it in that format?)

not to mention pieces like Jonchaies (which has pounding drum rhythms most of the way through), or Ata, where it seems like the whole orchestra is a dissonant percussion instrument!  :o

Quote from: just josh on February 28, 2008, 06:29:04 AM

...  By all means, there is much more to classical music that Mozart, Bach, Brahms, etc.  I agree, Teresa, I really do! -- there's a LOT more out there that needs exposure, but not AT THE EXPENSE of Moazrt, Bach, Brahms, etc.  Newcomers often come to classical wanting to try out different things because there's so much to include.  There's plenty room for Brahms AND Gershwin.   

Just to underline this point, which several of us have made, I have had a quick look at ARKIVMUSIC's (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/NameList?role_wanted=1&featured=1) listings of recordings by the main composers.  I fully accept all the weaknesses of this as a measure of popularity, but it's interesting to note that if one takes 14 of the main composers who are not listed among Teresa's favourites (see her introduction thread) the number of recordings totals over 39,000!  I've included here: Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Handel, Vivaldi, Verdi, Puccini, Haydn, Bruckner. 

This 39,000 is a staggeringly high figure both absolutely and relatively, when compared against the figures in the table.  Any list of recommended works which excludes such a vast selection of material seems pretty scatty to me, to say the very least.

It's been some 20 years since I've first read it, but I've just started re-reading Aaron Copland's excellent little book What to Listen for in Music.  Its one of the books my girlfriend (who is new to classical music) is reading right now as well.

Just an FYI: I highly recommend this book not only to be read, but to be re-read over the years-- its not just a book for newcomers, serves as a great refresher course for long-time listeners and its a way of recalibrating the ear so to speak.  Copland's clear way of writing is refreshing and it addresses many of the issues that have been discussed in this thread.

(goes back to reading...)

Quote from: just josh on February 28, 2008, 03:43:32 PM
It's been some 20 years since I've first read it, but I've just started re-reading Aaron Copland's excellent little book What to Listen for in Music.  Its one of the books my girlfriend (who is new to classical music) is reading right now as well.

Just an FYI: I highly recommend this book not only to be read, but to be re-read over the years-- its not just a book for newcomers, serves as a great refresher course for long-time listeners and its a way of recalibrating the ear so to speak.  Copland's clear way of writing is refreshing and it addresses many of the issues that have been discussed in this thread.

(goes back to reading...)

That is a really fantastic book, I borrowed it from the library and actually went out and bought the thing two days later. It was too good to borrow!

Quote from: longears on February 28, 2008, 05:13:19 AM
Hi, Teresa.  Since you care enough about such things to attempt correcting others' diction, I presume you welcome such correction yourself.  As a preposition, "that" properly refers to things; "who" (or, in the objective case, "whom") is used to refer to persons.

Thank you the correction was made!

Quote from: Topaz on February 28, 2008, 04:09:14 AM
Teresa, what niggles me (and a few others here) is your claim that, arising out of your hatred of great swathes of the standard classical repertoire, you have made an important discovery that other types of music, which you label "power orchestral music", will also appeal to many people who profess a lack of interest in classical music.  Further, you state that this is the type of music that radio stations and other presenters should be promoting rather than the kind of classical music that appeals to the current majority.

What I'm querying is your evidence to support these claims.  For instance, I have asked why you believe that classical music with an emphasis on the use of percussive instruments (bells, triangles, tam-tam, bongos, marimbas and such like) should be any more appealing to a non-classical fan, than strings, woodwind and brass.  Is there some physiological reason that underpins your belief?  Importantly, where's the empirical evidence to support your view that this kind of music is what non-classical music lovers will like?  And aren't you concerned about the consequences of radio stations ceasing to present classical music which already has a proven market?

As I've said, while I'm always happy to listen to new classical music, in general I'm perfectly happy to go with the flow of public opinion on what's best in classical music, and if the non-classical hoy-palloy don't like it, well tough.  In particular, I don't want classical music radio stations pumping out relentlessly the type of music that happens merely to please you or other minority groups.   You are in effect leading the classically uneducated astray into a false belief that your system of likes and dislikes has some general applicability, which I don't think it has.  It's rather like "alternative medicine". 

In truth, your general tastes in classical music reflect largely a minority market which you are trying to talk up by making unnecessarily silly and ignorant comments about the established classical canon.

Power Orchestral Music is indeed an extremely important discovery, over decades I have perfected the last and I am sure it will greatly appeal to listeners who don't like traditional classical music.  That is why I called the list "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music".  I would not expect this list to please people who actually like traditional Classical music.  This is Classical music for the rest of us, listeners who have rejected the Standard "Core" Repertoire including chamber music, rejected Mozart, Bach and other so-called "Greats".  This list was not made for you guys.  Why you take offense to your music being boring and academic when to us it is.  For 35 years I gotten used to my Classical music being called "banal" and "bombastic".  Which to many Classical listeners I guess my music is, but to me it is the finest Power Orchestral Music on Planet Earth.  YMMV

Maybe we both traditional Classical music stations and non-traditional Classical music stations, this is missing from FM.

Why percussion? Why indeed only because it is the basic foundation of the majority of the world's music.  :D

Quote from: Sforzando on February 28, 2008, 04:09:53 AM
Of course, as percussion was not widely used in orchestral music until about the time of early Stravinsky. Think of the Bruckner 7th - one cymbal crash and triangle roll, and even these may be spurious!

But do try Christopher Rouse's "Gorgon," Teresa. Closest thing to rock I know from a classical composer. I'll suggest it to you and maybe even recommend it.

Is this the same Richard Wagner who revered Beethoven and was renowned for his conducting of the Ninth Symphony?

Thanks I will try Christopher Rouse's "Gorgon"

One and the same, Wagner was a very prolific writer, but he did know the days of absolute music was pretty much over.  Beethoven was a romantic composer and his Symphony No. 6 "Pastorale" was an example of early Impressionism.

Quote from: just josh on February 28, 2008, 06:29:04 AM
I think you'll find a great deal of the people on this forum are into 20th & 21st century music here, Teresa. 

There's nothing wrong with the pieces you like, but as an intro for newcomers, it is a rather limited list.  Perhaps that is fine for *you* (more power to you, no pun intended!) but its a very narrow way of introducing others to classical music.  Most people have only heard snippets of classical music at most (commercials, bits in TV shows).  They've never had full exposure to it & maybe THAT would be just as good ALONG WITH Mussorgsky, and others.  Its not an EITHER/OR situation, but a BOTH/AND. 

By all means, there is much more to classical music that Mozart, Bach, Brahms, etc.  I agree, Teresa, I really do! -- there's a LOT more out there that needs exposure, but not AT THE EXPENSE of Moazrt, Bach, Brahms, etc.  Newcomers often come to classical wanting to try out different things because there's so much to include.  There's plenty room for Brahms AND Gershwin.   8)

I know I won't persuade you, or others here (what are we on, page 11 now? LOL) but I think looking at it as a BOTH/AND situation rather than an EITHER/OR situation is something for you to just think about, that's all.

"The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm) is for listeners who have already rejected the standard repertoire, consider the "major" composers and chamber music boring.  These are alternatives for them that they have not tried that will be different from what turned them off of Classical Music.  This is not a list for those new to Classical Music but those who have rejected it.  In the other article   "Classical Music for music lovers who don't think they like Classical Music" http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html (http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html) you will notice there are non-orchestral works on that list, for example BERSTEIN's Prelude, Fugue and Riffs, VARÈSE: Ionisation for 13 percussion instruments, mediaeval and early dances and songs which really were folk music of the day.

It's not an either/or, it's when one rejects the traditional it's nice to know the non-traditional exists.  If I hadn't found the non-traditional I would have been kept from all the glorious Power Orchestra works I love.  :-*

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on February 28, 2008, 10:28:07 AM
not to mention pieces like Jonchaies (which has pounding drum rhythms most of the way through), or Ata, where it seems like the whole orchestra is a dissonant percussion instrument!  :o

Thanks I put these on my to hear list!

Quote from: Topaz on February 28, 2008, 01:06:20 PM
Just to underline this point, which several of us have made, I have had a quick look at ARKIVMUSIC's (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/NameList?role_wanted=1&featured=1) listings of recordings by the main composers.  I fully accept all the weaknesses of this as a measure of popularity, but it's interesting to note that if one takes 14 of the main composers who are not listed among Teresa's favourites (see her introduction thread) the number of recordings totals over 39,000!  I've included here: Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Handel, Vivaldi, Verdi, Puccini, Haydn, Bruckner. 

This 39,000 is a staggeringly high figure both absolutely and relatively, when compared against the figures in the table.  Any list of recommended works which excludes such a vast selection of material seems pretty scatty to me, to say the very least.

There already exists recommended lists for those composers, more lists it that vein are not needed.

Quote from: just josh on February 28, 2008, 03:43:32 PM
It's been some 20 years since I've first read it, but I've just started re-reading Aaron Copland's excellent little book What to Listen for in Music.  Its one of the books my girlfriend (who is new to classical music) is reading right now as well.

Just an FYI: I highly recommend this book not only to be read, but to be re-read over the years-- its not just a book for newcomers, serves as a great refresher course for long-time listeners and its a way of recalibrating the ear so to speak.  Copland's clear way of writing is refreshing and it addresses many of the issues that have been discussed in this thread.

(goes back to reading...)

I also recommend this book as well, it was a good read.  0:)

Sorry for the late replies - I don't check this section very often.

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
Lethe how dare you call the Classical music I love "second rate"!

Sorry, but much of it simply is. It doesn't mean that your enjoyment of it is any less, though (I find a personal connection with many obscure and far from great composers and works).

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
I agree a lot of it is unjustly obscure but I am trying my best to help these wonderful works become better know!

That would be fine if it were a list of obscurities aimed at increasing peoples depth of knowledge in the orchestral field, but it is not - it is aimed at beginners. As it stands, the list is a rather confusing combination of very obscure works and very major ommissions, for example:

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
Did not read the title of the list "Power Orchestral Music"?

Then why do you list only one Wagner piece? Surely the Tannhäuser overture is ideal for requirements, and many other famous "bleeding chunks" from the operas. One piece by Wagner and seven by Robert Farnon does not give me much confidence in the choices being made.

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
You sound like some of the arrogant establishment I'm trying to overcome!

Considering every style of classical music as worthy, rather than just orchestral, should not be derided as an establishment conspiricy. I was simply shocked to see the music misrepresented in such a narrow way. After all the build-up about "power orchestral music" already convincing potential broad-minded fans that chamber music is worthless, I do not see the list as a very helpful introduction - it may limit a potentially interested persons horizons.

Quote from: Teresa on February 23, 2008, 04:47:37 PM
So you have a problem with Ralph Vaughan Williams very enjoyable Folk Song Suite; Toccata Marziale and The Wasps?

No, but I recognise that they are rather obscure choices next to the Norfolk Rhapsody No.1, Tallis Fantasia, symphonies, Job, and all manner of greater works (I have a particularly personal emotional response to the folk song suite, but would not class it as top flight RVW).

Edit: After having read some of the thread -

Quote from: Teresa on February 25, 2008, 07:49:28 PM
None of you still get it! "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music" is for listeners WHO DO NOT LIKE CLASSICAL MUSIC!!!!!  I was one of those who didn't like classical music and my suggestions are based on my 26 year journey with the Classics, good and bad. 

Few people will share your specific tastes. It is equally feasable that somebody who associates classical music with pompous orchestras would feel very engaged by chamber music - perhaps a person used to rock bands can find more to enjoy in a quartet, where they can follow every line like they can with rock music.

Quote from: Teresa on February 28, 2008, 06:51:24 PM
Wagner was a very prolific writer, but he did know the days of absolute music was pretty much over.

Then Wagner was wrong about this (as about most things).  Sibelius's great symphonies, the acme of absolute music IN MY OPINION, came many years after the big-headed runt was dead and gone.

Quote from: Teresa on February 28, 2008, 06:51:24 PMBeethoven was a romantic composer and his Symphony No. 6 "Pastorale" was an example of early Impressionism.

Beethoven was a Classical composer and his Symphony No. 6 "Pastorale" is an example of incorporating programatic musical ideas into classical symphonic structure based on sonata form.

Quote from: longears on February 29, 2008, 05:32:02 AM
Beethoven was a Classical composer and his Symphony No. 6 "Pastorale" is an example of incorporating programatic musical ideas into classical symphonic structure based on sonata form.

Hey, let's not get started on Teresa's dubious understanding of musical history.

Quote from: Teresa on February 28, 2008, 06:51:24 PM
  Beethoven was a romantic composer and his Symphony No. 6 "Pastorale" was an example of early Impressionism.

I find this to be a very provocative idea.

Quote from: Haffner on February 29, 2008, 05:57:02 AM
I find this to be a very provocative idea.

As you wish. But bear in mind that "program music" is a concept that dates back to the Renaissance, including such works as William Byrd's The Battell, which has the descriptive sections: "Souldiers sommons, marche of footemen, marche of horsmen, trumpetts, Irishe marche, bagpipe and the drone, flute and the droome, marche to the fighte, the battels be joyned, retreat, galliarde for the victorie." Baroque examples include Vivaldi's Four Seasons and Bach's Capriccio on the Departure of a Beloved Brother; classical examples include Dittersdorf's Symphonies on Ovid's Metamorphoses as well as Beethoven's Pastorale.

But other than the thunderstorm interlude, Beethoven's symphony is written in standard classical sonata forms and he insisted that the programmatic elements were intended more as generalized feelings than any specific attempt to tell a story. The argument over whether Beethoven was a classical or Romantic composer has perhaps not been thoroughly resolved, but I follow Charles Rosen's lead in continuing to consider his forms predominantly classical. As for Impressionism, it refers to a period in late 19th-century music spearheaded by Debussy, and including such composers as Delius, Griffes, Koechlin, etc.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 29, 2008, 06:07:38 AM
As you wish. But bear in mind that "program music" is a concept that dates back to the Renaissance, including such works as William Byrd's The Battell, which has the descriptive sections: "Souldiers sommons, marche of footemen, marche of horsmen, trumpetts, Irishe marche, bagpipe and the drone, flute and the droome, marche to the fighte, the battels be joyned, retreat, galliarde for the victorie." Baroque examples include Vivaldi's Four Seasons and Bach's Capriccio on the Departure of a Beloved Brother; classical examples include Dittersdorf's Symphonies on Ovid's Metamorphoses as well as Beethoven's Pastorale.

But other than the thunderstorm interlude, Beethoven's symphony is written in standard classical sonata forms and he insisted that the programmatic elements were intended more as generalized feelings than any specific attempt to tell a story. The argument over whether Beethoven was a classical or Romantic composer has perhaps not been thoroughly resolved, but I follow Charles Rosen's lead in continuing to consider his forms predominantly classical. As for Impressionism, it refers to a period in late 19th-century music spearheaded by Debussy, and including such composers as Delius, Griffes, Koechlin, etc.

Excellent post. I am reminded of the great book by Charles Rosen, "The Classical Style".

I wonder how "sonata" were some of the latest LvB String Quartets.

Quote from: Haffner on February 29, 2008, 05:57:02 AM
I find this to be a very provocative idea.

Provocative, but not persuading :D Beethoven is classical through and through. He was also enormously innovative, bending and playing with forms, but firmly rooted in classicism...

Quote from: Haffner on February 29, 2008, 06:13:25 AM


Excellent post. I am reminded of the great book by Charles Rosen, "The Classical Style".

I wonder how "sonata" were some of the latest LvB String Quartets.

Since you know Rosen, read again his chapter on Beethoven's late style, where he addresses this issue. All the individual movements from the late quartets are written within the four major classical principles - sonata-allegro, rondo, variations, or ABA dance form. The major formal innovation in the quartets applies to the number and ordering of the movements, with op. 130 most like a suite and 135 most traditional. A piano sonata like op. 111 has only two movements (sonata-allegro and variations). But even 131, which appears to have seven movements, really has only five - as 3 and 6 are interludes or introductions. And so in truth op. 131 has a basic structure consisting of Fugue - Scherzo I  - (Interlude) - Variations - Scherzo II -  (Introduction) - Sonata-Allegro. In fact the most radical procedure in 131 is placing the main sonata-allegro movement at the end, where traditionally it was mostly used as the first movement. This tends to weight the quartet towards the finale as the most formally complex part of the work.

Concerning 'program music' from the classic period one must also consider Beethoven's 4th concerto, who's unusual nature must surely relate to the Orpheus Myth. Of course Beethoven was never one to let any programmatic element overpower the essential musicality of his work.

My web host moved me to their new platform yesterday and had to redo my website with new tools.  Here is the redesigned home page: http://analog-lovers.blogspot.com/ (http://analog-lovers.blogspot.com/) also reworded my two controversial articles / recommended list to not so offend lovers of Chamber Music and core Classical repertoire revealing the alternative possibilities.  "Classical Music for music lovers who don't think they like Classical Music" http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html (http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html) "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like traditional Classical music." http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm)

LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN
"German composer. Often considered a transitional figure from the Classical to the Romantic era.

Ludwig van Beethoven is often described by musicians as a "giant straddling two styles": the Classical and the Romantic. Indeed, it is a testimony to Beethoven's place in history that he is claimed for both periods. Whether Beethoven was a Classical or a Romantic composer, however, is beside the point. Instead, we might best view him as a new composer for a new age -- an age that is reflected in both musical as well as the nonmusical worlds."

http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/composer/beethoven.html (http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/composer/beethoven.html)

I have all 5 of Beethoven's Piano Concertos and IMHO based on the versions I have Nos. 1,2 and 3 are Classical with No. 1 to my ears sounding very much like Haydn.  However IMHO Concertos Nos. 4 & 5 definitely sound Romantic to me, early Romantic but Romantic nevertheless.

My version: 
BEETHOVEN, LUDWIG VAN (1770-1827)
  Concertos for Piano and Orchestra Nos. 1-5
    Ashkenazy, Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra [4 LPs] London ffrr CSA-2404

:D  0:)

QuoteAs for Impressionism, it refers to a period in late 19th-century music spearheaded by Debussy, and including such composers as Delius, Griffes, Koechlin, etc.

'Impressionism' describes a movement in the visual arts, not one in music. The music of Debussy (particularly) was described by some commentators as being 'impressionist', but it was not a lable he ever condoned himself. As such, the description of music as being Impressionist is, while useful, not particularly presciptive (IMHO) as to the composers/eras in which it can be applied.

The tendency of the 6th to avoid traditional tonic-dominant dichotomies through a less tradition I-IV-I type movement is just as harmonically stagnant to classical ears as Debussy was to late romantic ears.

I'm not sure the word 'impressionist' should be applied to either situation, but on a very basic level I understand and agree with what Teresa is trying to say here. But I think this is really an issue of what the piece does, rather than what the piece is.

Re: Beethoven, Classical vs Romantic
All humans are taxonimist at heart, and the need to pigeonhole Beethoven as being Classical, Romantic, or foot-in-both-camps is a result of this, rather than his intrinsically channelling some primal classical/romantic spirit. Actually, Beethoven was Beethoven, pure and simple (same for Haydn, same for Mozart, same for Schubert). His music emerges very clearly from the tradition of Haydn, and he makes some startling innovations. The belief that one morning Beethoven woke up and invented Romanticism is somewhat fallacious.
The 'classical' period, though, defines a rather narrow period of time, more or less beginning with Haydn and ending with Beethoven. Of no other period (except perhaps the 'Roccoco', which there is far from a unanimous definition, or even name, for) does such a temporally and stylistically narrow definition exist. The Romantic period on the other hand (rather like the Baroque) spans an enormous multiplicity of styles and innovations. To my ears, the music of Schubert is much closer to the music of Haydn than it is to the music of Mahler, and it seems slightly absurd to talk about them as if they were somehow musically equivalent.
Similarly, the music of Bach is light-years away from the music of Monteverdi, the music of Machaut is vastly different to Leonin and Perotin.

I'm sure that all this talk of periods is useful, but certainly not in isolation from a meaningful discussion of the content of the music itself.

Here's a short essay on the The Music of the Romantic Era (http://cnx.org/content/m11606/latest/).  In relation to the discussion above, it emphasises the point I would make, namely that the Romantic composers - especially the early ones - did not reject the basic building blocks of Classical music.  On the contrary, they consciously emulated the composers they considered to be the great classicists, and retained the basic rules of those musical forms while stretching the limits to which it was "proper" to go in seeking novelty.  I would agree with the author that Beethoven (middle and later period) was surely more a member of the Romantic school than an unreconstructed Classicist, as seems to be suggested by one or two comments above.  Short and simple though it is, I usually find articles such as this to be far more informative, and reliable, than the half-baked crap (and very often, worse) that tends to predominate on Music Forums, mostly by people who have grossly inflated opinions about themselves.

Another thoughtful post, Robert!

To pigeonhole is to own, to master, to control, to file and forget, to no longer see the forest or the trees but to replace them with a label.  Our system of education rewards and encourages this conflation of taxonomic information with knowledge and understanding.

The profundity of the second Biblical creation account, from Genesis 2:5 to 4:14, seldom fails to give me goosebumps. 

Quote from: Teresa on February 29, 2008, 08:12:35 PM
My web host moved me to their new platform yesterday and had to redo my website with new tools.  Here is the redesigned home page: http://www.analoglovers.com/index.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/index.html) also reworded my two controversial articles / recommended list to not so offend lovers of Chamber Music and core Classical repertoire revealing the alternative possibilities.  "Classical Music for Everyone" http://www.analoglovers.com/id10.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/id10.html) "The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like traditional Classical music." http://www.analoglovers.com/id11.html (http://www.analoglovers.com/id11.html)

...

Teresa, thank you for the new links.  I have added them to my Favorites.  :D

I note that what was once call, "New to Classical -- Classical Music for Everyone" is now simply called, "Classical Music For Everynone".  I see this as a welcome but partial redaction on your part.  Viz. no longer explicitly makes comments and recommendations for beginners, but merely for "everyone".

Next time you rework the website, you may go the full distance and rename the it, "Classical Music for People Who Hate and Abhor Classical Music and Won't Make an Effort to Overcome Their Limitation".   ;D

Quote from: Robert Dahm on February 29, 2008, 10:17:21 PM
All humans are taxonimist at heart, and the need to pigeonhole Beethoven as being Classical, Romantic, or foot-in-both-camps is a result of this, rather than his intrinsically channelling some primal classical/romantic spirit. Actually, Beethoven was Beethoven, pure and simple (same for Haydn, same for Mozart, same for Schubert). His music emerges very clearly from the tradition of Haydn, and he makes some startling innovations. The belief that one morning Beethoven woke up and invented Romanticism is somewhat fallacious.
The 'classical' period, though, defines a rather narrow period of time, more or less beginning with Haydn and ending with Beethoven. Of no other period (except perhaps the 'Roccoco', which there is far from a unanimous definition, or even name, for) does such a temporally and stylistically narrow definition exist. The Romantic period on the other hand (rather like the Baroque) spans an enormous multiplicity of styles and innovations. To my ears, the music of Schubert is much closer to the music of Haydn than it is to the music of Mahler, and it seems slightly absurd to talk about them as if they were somehow musically equivalent.
Similarly, the music of Bach is light-years away from the music of Monteverdi, the music of Machaut is vastly different to Leonin and Perotin.

I'm sure that all this talk of periods is useful, but certainly not in isolation from a meaningful discussion of the content of the music itself.

That was a damn fine post, Robert!  :)

Quote from: Feanor on March 01, 2008, 12:47:27 PM
Next time you rework the website, you may go the full distance and rename the it, "Classical Music for People Who Hate and Abhor Classical Music and Won't Make an Effort to Overcome Their Limitation".   ;D

wow, such a fitting title

Quote from: just josh on March 01, 2008, 03:32:52 PM
That was a damn fine post, Robert!  :)

Why thank you! (*gushes*)

I had another thought on this issue of period and compositional language. Teresa mentioned a couple of times the 'overly strict rules of composition' at various points in history. She is far from the only person to have this view on (particularly) the Baroque and Classical eras.
I think most composers just did what seemed natural with the syntax they were familiar with. There are examples of composers intentionally attempting to innovate (Florentine Camerata, Wagner, Schoenberg, etc), but for the most part, I don't think that people 'wrote within restrictive rules'. I think they probably just wrote in the language that came naturally - it probably didn't occur to, say, Haydn, to write in any other way.
To draw a parallel with language and grammar, T.S. Eliot writes:

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

While we often think of Eliot as a grand innovator, he was simply expressing himself in the way that seemed natural, in the language he had available to him. It simply would not have occurred to him to express himself like THIS (http://www.corprew.org/content/lolcat-wasteland/).

Quote from: Robert Dahm on March 01, 2008, 09:35:41 PM
I think most composers just did what seemed natural with the syntax they were familiar with. There are examples of composers intentionally attempting to innovate (Florentine Camerata, Wagner, Schoenberg, etc), but for the most part, I don't think that people 'wrote within restrictive rules'. I think they probably just wrote in the language that came naturally - it probably didn't occur to, say, Haydn, to write in any other way.

Yeah, this is the sort of thing Copland makes mention of at the beginning of his chapter on musical structure (chapter 9) in What to Listen For in Music.  And the "rules" actually were merely classified by theorists AFTER the fact.

Quote
To draw a parallel with language and grammar, T.S. Eliot writes:

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

That always reminds me of one other instance of this in Eliot: "Let us go then, you and I..."

"April is the most cruel month" or "Let us go then, you and me" just isn't so gripping!   :P

Quote from: Robert Dahm on March 01, 2008, 09:35:41 PM
It simply would not have occurred to him to express himself like THIS (http://www.corprew.org/content/lolcat-wasteland/).

wow, no comment on that one.....

Quote from: longears on February 29, 2008, 05:32:02 AM
Then Wagner was wrong about this (as about most things).  Sibelius's great symphonies, the acme of absolute music IN MY OPINION, came many years after the big-headed runt was dead and gone.

Gee, for absolute music his symphonies sure are evocative!  ;D
(One thing Wagner was right about IMHO was that the conductor should find the melody in every bar and make it sing.)


Re Classifying Beethoven, Robert's post was definitive, which won't stop anyone from posting! We can agree, I hope, that Beethoven represents a tipping-point between two eras. In terms of strongly individual expression I find him Romantic, certainly more than Schumann, for instance.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 02, 2008, 04:24:25 PM
We can agree, I hope, that Beethoven represents a tipping-point between two eras. In terms of strongly individual expression I find him Romantic, certainly more than Schumann, for instance.

Certainly you jest.

Quote from: eyeresist on March 02, 2008, 04:24:25 PM
Re Classifying Beethoven, Robert's post was definitive...

Well no, I don't regard Robert's post as being definitive in the slightest, regarding Beethoven or anybody else. What Robert has said appeals strongly to our post-Romantic notions of individuality. And of course there are individual variations in the musical personalities of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and any number of other lesser composers one could mention. But to associate these composers with a style called "classicism" is not necessarily to pigeonhole them, so long as both the common features of the language as well as their individual features of style are recognized.

As far as Beethoven goes, the article recommended above by Topaz, by one Catherine Schmidt-Jones, states the following concerning the composer:

QuoteLudwig van Beethoven, possibly the most famous composer of all, is harder to place. His early works are from the Classical period and are clearly Classical in style. But his later music, including the majority of his most famous music, is just as clearly Romantic.

I love all this "clearly" stuff when nothing about it is clear at all. Mr. Topaz complains that some statements on this web-site are half-baked, but with Schmidt-Jones, the oven hasn't even been preheated. It seems to me that our own Robert is closer to the mark when he writes, "The belief that one morning Beethoven woke up and invented Romanticism is somewhat fallacious." And I would largely agree with Lethe that "Beethoven is classical through and through. He was also enormously innovative, bending and playing with forms, but firmly rooted in classicism..."

This is the position that Charles Rosen takes as well in "The Classical Style," when he argues that Beethoven is one of the three primary exponents of this style and remained so throughout his career. And no one who's read Rosen can accuse him of "talking about periods ... in isolation from a meaningful discussion of the content of the music itself." Part of what Rosen does, and does so well, is to try to define the elements of classical style, and to show how they persist throughout Beethoven's career despite his often startling innovations. For example, Rosen points to how in Beethoven's late music he preserves the convention of the cadential trill, expanding it considerably in the slow movements of sonatas like opp. 109 and 111. Or how he preserves the anchoring use of the subdominant key in his recapitulations, a tendency that is often missing in composers like Schubert or Chopin. Beethoven also made little use of genres that were to become central to Romanticism - such as the song cycle and the instrumental character piece, though he produced occasional examples like An die ferne Geliebte and the piano Bagatelles.

No one can possibly deny that there were composers in the so-called Romantic period who remained essentially classical - Mendelssohn and Brahms perhaps most obviously. And how to characterize Beethoven has been a source of controversy for generations. To the early 19th-century, as expressed by writers like E.T.A. Hoffmann and Victor Hugo, as well as composers like Wagner and Berlioz, Beethoven symbolized Romanticism, however that murky term might be understood. Undoubtedly Beethoven's extremely forceful, Michelangelesque personality - both as composer and otherwise - had much to do with it, and certainly the image of the tragic, isolated, misunderstood deaf composer (very different from the modest craftsman Haydn understood himself to be) did much to shape the century's image of how a composer is to take his place in the world. (Just think of how the image shaped the personalities of composers as various as Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, Schoenberg, Pettersson, and more.) Even in 1933 a fellow named Robert Haven Schauffler produced a book called "Beethoven: The Man Who Freed Music," ignoring the fact that the so-called rules of form Beethoven was breaking were not codified until after his death.

On the other hand, starting in the later 19th century and culminating decisively with Rosen's work, the pendulum began shifting back towards a recognition that Beethoven's work remained firmly grounded in classical models. I don't want to say "rigid forms," because there was an extraordinary variety of approaches to models like sonata-allegro, variations, rondo, within Beethoven's work. But to see Beethoven as essentially classical is still a plausible argument, even if not ultimately definitive. A useful article by Maynard Solomon, "Beethoven: Beyond Classicism," which is included in the book "The Beethoven Quartet Companion" edited by Winter and Martin, shows some of the limitations of the classicist position - particularly the fact that Beethoven's work was often seen by his contemporaries as bizarre, grotesque, and extreme. Ripe for the madhouse, said Weber. And so in this respect some of the attributes often associated with classicism - balance, proportion, ironic detachment - may well be superseded in some (though hardly all) of Beethoven.

So what I'm saying is: though I'm not confident seeing Beethoven exclusively as a example of classicism or Romanticism, I'm not confident either that these terms are useless, or that "Beethoven was Beethoven, pure and simple," as if there were no common elements of style by which he can be related to his contemporaries.

Quote from: Sforzando on March 02, 2008, 06:42:59 PM
What Robert has said appeals strongly to our post-Romantic notions of individuality. And of course there are individual variations in the musical personalities of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and any number of other lesser composers one could mention.

Beethoven was the first of the classical composers to consistently say "This is me, world - Raaaarggh!" through his music (i.e. the conscious expression of his individual personality), which for me at least is the definitive Romantic trait.

Quote from: Sforzando on March 02, 2008, 06:42:59 PMOn the other hand, starting in the later 19th century and culminating decisively with Rosen's work, the pendulum began shifting back towards a recognition that Beethoven's work remained firmly grounded in classical models.

There's no denying that. :)

Quote from: eyeresist on March 02, 2008, 04:24:25 PM
Gee, for absolute music his symphonies sure are evocative!  ;D

Gee, for a smartass you sure are ____.

Quote from: longears on March 02, 2008, 07:58:59 PM
Gee, for a smartass you sure are ____.

No need to make it personal - I was just funnin' ya.

Quote from: Sforzando on March 02, 2008, 06:42:59 PM
On the other hand, starting in the later 19th century and culminating decisively with Rosen's work, the pendulum began shifting back towards a recognition that Beethoven's work remained firmly grounded in classical models. I don't want to say "rigid forms," because there was an extraordinary variety of approaches to models like sonata-allegro, variations, rondo, within Beethoven's work. But to see Beethoven as essentially classical is still a plausible argument, even if not ultimately definitive. A useful article by Maynard Solomon, "Beethoven: Beyond Classicism," which is included in the book "The Beethoven Quartet Companion" edited by Winter and Martin, shows some of the limitations of the classicist position - particularly the fact that Beethoven's work was often seen by his contemporaries as bizarre, grotesque, and extreme. Ripe for the madhouse, said Weber. And so in this respect some of the attributes often associated with classicism - balance, proportion, ironic detachment - may well be superseded in some (though hardly all) of Beethoven.

And that's where one should take extra care: characterizing LvB's music based primarily or exclusively on formal considerations omits a big part of the picture. The emotional character and impact of many of his works is what presumably has led so many to hear him (as opposed to academically categorizing him) as a Romantic. The latter characteristics may not be as easily defined as his use of forms, but that in no way negates their importance for listeners.

Quote from: Grazioso on March 03, 2008, 03:49:36 AM
And that's where one should take extra care: characterizing LvB's music based primarily or exclusively on formal considerations omits a big part of the picture. The emotional character and impact of many of his works is what presumably has led so many to hear him (as opposed to academically categorizing him) as a Romantic. The latter characteristics may not be as easily defined as his use of forms, but that in no way negates their importance for listeners.

As a former academic myself, I wince at your use of the term "academic," which I infer you are using pejoratively. Academics are humans beings like everyone else, and they have their share of insights and misunderstandings just like the rest of us. But to say that "emotional character" and "impact" make Beethoven a Romantic seems to imply that composers prior to Beethoven lacked these qualities. I'm not sure that's always the case (think of the Mozart G minor string quintet, especially the fourth movement, or the penultimate scene in Don Giovanni where the statue drags our hero down to hell). Nor am I even sure that Beethoven's forms can always be easily characterized. I had a debate not so long ago with a friend where we couldn't decide where the second subject of the Eroica (1st mvt.) begins, and I was taken aback to read in a recent study that the author felt the slow movement of the 9th is in sonata form, where I was (and still am) certain it is a set of variations.

Problem is, none of these things is simple, and even if we come up with a working definition of what the terms Classic and Romantic mean, we're still going to get bitten on the ass by exceptions and counterarguments. And yet, these terms are almost unavoidable ...

(At this point maybe some of these last posts ought to be moved into a Was Beethoven a Romantic? thread. I think there's one out there somewhere.)

Quote from: Sforzando on March 02, 2008, 06:42:59 PM
Well no, I don't regard Robert's post as being definitive in the slightest, regarding Beethoven or anybody else. What Robert has said appeals strongly to our post-Romantic notions of individuality. And of course there are individual variations in the musical personalities of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and any number of other lesser composers one could mention. But to associate these composers with a style called "classicism" is not necessarily to pigeonhole them, so long as both the common features of the language as well as their individual features of style are recognized.

Sorry, I think you hae misapprehended the point I was trying to make. I was certainly not trying to imply that Beethoven was some kind of loner out on a musical limb.

'Classical style' as a descriptor is something that has largely been retroactively applied to a certain period of more-or-less common practice. I don't think Beethoven consciously adopted a classical (or romantic) style. I don't think many composers 'consciously' adopt style at all. Like a mother-tongue, the 'classical style' was the manner in which Beethoven felt most natural expressing his ideas. It simply would not have occurred to him to express them any other way. Same with Mozart. Same with Haydn. This aggregation of shared musical language* is what has made it possible, even natural, for subsequent academics (not in a pejorative sense) to point to these composers and say "this is the classical style". While I don't think there was any doubt in their minds at the time that the music they were writing was very different from the music Handel (for instance), they were close enough to the coalface (I think) to be viewing it as a natural progression out of that music, rather than a new 'school'.

So, yes, labels like Classical and Romantic are useful, but I think we need to remain aware of what the label actually means:
Beethoven was not a 'classical composer', he was a composer whose music exhibits a set of qualities later writers have referred to as 'classical'. Same with Haydn. Same with Mozart.

For my money, Beethoven is more of a classical composer than a romantic composer. Romanticism was, to a great extent, enabled by LvB's work, but I'm not sure that he was a Romantic himself (see Sforzando's post, which was definitive).

*Incidentally, I spent last week listening to the complete symphonies of Haydn (the Brilliant Classics release). It's interesting to hear Haydn trying to come to terms with what a symphony actually is. We are so familiar with Beethoven's 9 symphonies, and their innovations with relation to symphonic form, and it's sobering to reflect that only a few decades earlier the 'symphonic form' (in the specific way we think of the classical symphony) hadn't yet percolated into anything resembling common practice. I love, for instance, that No. 4 ends with a Minuet, and that No. 5 begins with an Adagio. When, in symphony 60, you first hear what we now think of as the 'Haydn slow introduction', it's generally shocking and exciting.

Quote from: Lethe on February 28, 2008, 10:53:17 PM

... perhaps a person used to rock bands can find more to enjoy in a quartet, where they can follow every line like they can with rock music.

Not likely IMHO as rock bands have at least a drum set and many have additional percussionists as well.  It is rare that a classical string quartet ever has any percussion. :o

Here is the link to my newest greatly expanded and rename article Classical Music for music lovers who don't think they like Classical Music http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html (http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html)

And the link to my published version of The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm)

;) Also I updated the links in the older posts to my new articles and blogs.

Quote from: Teresa on January 02, 2010, 01:59:32 PM
Here is the link to my newest greatly expanded and rename article Classical Music for music lovers who don't think they like Classical Music http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html (http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/classical-music-for-music-lovers-who.html)

And the link to my published version of The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm)

;) Also I updated the links in the older posts to my new articles and blogs.

Thanks for the update, Teresa.  Your articles were and are very interesting.

Quote from: Teresa on January 02, 2010, 06:18:27 AM
Not likely IMHO as rock bands have at least a drum set and many have additional percussionists as well.  It is rare that a classical string quartet ever has any percussion. :o

Pavel Haas has one, the 2nd:

"Haas wrote the second string quartet, titled "From the Monkey Mountains", at the age of 26 as a reminiscence of his summer holiday in the Czech-Moravian Highlands, which went by this nickname in Brno at the time. The individual movements are more or less genre images. The quartet joins forces here with the 30 year old internationally renowned percussionist from Edinburgh, Colin Currie, to present the version with percussion instruments"

From the notes on the Supraphon recording by the Pavel Haas Quartet.

Quote from: erato on January 05, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
Pavel Haas has one, the 2nd:

"Haas wrote the second string quartet, titled "From the Monkey Mountains", at the age of 26 as a reminiscence of his summer holiday in the Czech-Moravian Highlands, which went by this nickname in Brno at the time. The individual movements are more or less genre images. The quartet joins forces here with the 30 year old internationally renowned percussionist from Edinburgh, Colin Currie, to present the version with percussion instruments"

From the notes on the Supraphon recording by the Pavel Haas Quartet.

Thanks, I listened to sound samples and the percussion is only in the fourth movement, overall I am sad to say I was not impressed with the composition.  However it is good to see composers starting to spice up their works for small ensembles the way they do with larger forces. 

Quote from: Teresa on January 05, 2010, 08:13:44 PM
Thanks, I listened to sound samples and the percussion is only in the fourth movement, overall I am sad to say I was not impressed with the composition.  However it is good to see composers starting to spice up their works for small ensembles the way they do with larger forces.

It would be difficult for Haas to start spicing up his works; he died in 1944.

Complaining about chamber music not having percussion is like asking the apple tree to grow peaches.

Quote from: Teresa on January 02, 2010, 06:18:27 AM
Not likely IMHO as rock bands have at least a drum set and many have additional percussionists as well.  It is rare that a classical string quartet ever has any percussion. :o

To imply that a string quartet ought to have percussion is to miss the point of the string quartet form.

Quote from: Feanor on January 06, 2010, 09:00:24 AM
To imply that a string quartet ought to have percussion is to miss the point of the string quartet form.

Precisely.

Debussy's could have used a good beat behind it.

*runs away*

Well Jazz Quartets and Rock Quartets have percussion and I believe this is one reason me and other listeners from other music worlds have a very hard time trying to listen to most chamber music is the absence of percussion.

There are larger chamber works with percussion I do love though, Stravinsky's "L'histoire Du Soldat", Kurt Weil's "Kleine Dreigroschenmusik" and Leonard Bernstein's "Prelude, Fugue and Riffs" for example.  I know there are others I have yet to discover.

Quote from: Teresa on January 06, 2010, 11:21:47 AM
Well Jazz Quartets and Rock Quartets have percussion and I believe this is one reason me and other listeners from other music worlds have a very hard time trying to listen to most chamber music is the absence of percussion.

I came from the jazz/rock world to classical music and don't have any trouble listening to chamber music.  In fact, I prefer it (string quartets in particular), in general, to orchestral music.  And the orchestral music I especially like is the kind where the composer uses the orchestra not tutti but as a series of small ensembles.

Quote from: Teresa on January 06, 2010, 11:21:47 AM
Well Jazz Quartets and Rock Quartets have percussion and I believe this is one reason me and other listeners from other music worlds have a very hard time trying to listen to most chamber music is the absence of percussion.

That's because you confuse one genre with another. Chamber music is neither jazz nor rock. It's a completely different kind of music, with a completely different outlook and completely different expressive tools.

I've been working on an arrangement of Beethoven's C# minor quartet for maracas and xylophones.

Quote from: Teresa on January 06, 2010, 11:21:47 AM
Well Jazz Quartets and Rock Quartets have percussion and I believe this is one reason me and other listeners from other music worlds have a very hard time trying to listen to most chamber music is the absence of percussion.

I think most people who love rock enjoy the beat more than the percussion in and of itself, and either way, most rock fans seem to focus more on the melodies and lyrics than any subtleties of drumming--let alone harmony or form, which tend to be extremely cliched and simple. (With jazz, harmony and rhythm tend to be much more sophisticated, while form tends again to be simple and generic.)

While chamber music in particular, and classical music in general, usually lacks (extensive) percussion, it does usually have very clear rhythms to which you can tap you toes just as easily as if a bass drum were thumping time. If someone can't hear/feel the rhythm of a Vivaldi violin concerto or a Mahler march tune, then they need to develop their ear :)

I came to classical from rock (to which I still listen) and love jazz. The absence of a drum kit in chamber music has been no hindrance to me at all. And I tend to agree with Lethe's original supposition that the clarity of texture in most chamber music makes it perhaps easier for a rock fan to enjoy, but then again, outside of musicians, not many rock listeners in my experience pay any attention to details, which are so important in classical music: which one of them can hum the bass line back to you after listening to a song, or tell you the time signature or how many different chords are used in the chorus?

Ultimately, anyone going into classical music hoping to find rock played with violins is missing the point entirely. It's like hoping your salad will taste like a bowl of chili. I think anyone who loves music should be able to move between radically different genres with relative ease and not automatically seek or need some stylistic common ground. They'll understand that they need to develop an understanding of each genre's unique suppositions and aims so they can approach the music on its own terms.

Quote from: Teresa on January 06, 2010, 11:21:47 AM
Well Jazz Quartets and Rock Quartets have percussion

But the drummer in a Jazz quartet is one of the four players, with a specific role in that style of music. If you add a drummer to a string quartet, you no longer have a quartet --  unless you want to replace one of the string players with the drummer. Then you'll have yourself a quartet, but not a string quartet.

Quote from: Teresa on January 06, 2010, 11:21:47 AMand I believe this is one reason me and other listeners from other music worlds have a very hard time trying to listen to most chamber music is the absence of percussion.

"I give it a seven ... I like the beat!"

Quote from: Grazioso on January 08, 2010, 04:59:56 AM
Ultimately, anyone going into classical music hoping to find rock played with violins is missing the point entirely.

Amen!

Quote from: Grazioso on January 08, 2010, 04:59:56 AM
I think most people who love rock enjoy the beat more than the percussion in and of itself, and either way, most rock fans seem to focus more on the melodies and lyrics than any subtleties of drumming--let alone harmony or form, which tend to be extremely cliched and simple. (With jazz, harmony and rhythm tend to be much more sophisticated, while form tends again to be simple and generic.)

While chamber music in particular, and classical music in general, usually lacks (extensive) percussion, it does usually have very clear rhythms to which you can tap you toes just as easily as if a bass drum were thumping time. If someone can't hear/feel the rhythm of a Vivaldi violin concerto or a Mahler march tune, then they need to develop their ear :)

I came to classical from rock (to which I still listen) and love jazz. The absence of a drum kit in chamber music has been no hindrance to me at all. And I tend to agree with Lethe's original supposition that the clarity of texture in most chamber music makes it perhaps easier for a rock fan to enjoy, but then again, outside of musicians, not many rock listeners in my experience pay any attention to details, which are so important in classical music: which one of them can hum the bass line back to you after listening to a song, or tell you the time signature or how many different chords are used in the chorus?

Could depend on the type of Rock music one is coming from?  The Rock music I love stresses music over lyrics and often the music is quite complex and some works totally instrumental.  Groups such as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues and other progressive and art-rock groups, all use instruments normally heard in classical and orchestral music, and some even use arrangement of classical compositions. 

Someone coming from Pop would better fit your description, perhaps it is those who would like chamber music?  All I know is I am not one who likes chamber music in the least little bit except for a few works that feature percussion, however I still prefer orchestral music.  Also I prefer orchestral music that includes winds, brass and percussion.  To me no matter what type of music percussion is key, to me it is like the seasoning I put on my favorite foods. 

QuoteUltimately, anyone going into classical music hoping to find rock played with violins is missing the point entirely. 

I agree completely however many Classical music compositions, especially of the orchestral variety, offer plenty of percussion, the main difference is rhythm is stressed over beat.   The percussive-heavy classical compositions were my gateway into the world of classical music from Progressive-Art Rock.

Quote from: Szykniej on January 08, 2010, 03:04:20 PM
But the drummer in a Jazz quartet is one of the four players, with a specific role in that style of music. If you add a drummer to a string quartet, you no longer have a quartet --  unless you want to replace one of the string players with the drummer. Then you'll have yourself a quartet, but not a string quartet.

In the case of the Kronos Quartet, it is String Quartet plus percussion and sometimes plus many other instruments.  In short there are some String Quartet plus compositions I like but no String Quartet alone compositions I like. 

Quote from: Teresa on January 09, 2010, 02:26:46 PM
Could depend on the type of Rock music one is coming from?  The Rock music I love stresses music over lyrics and often the music is quite complex and some works totally instrumental.  Groups such as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues and other progressive and art-rock groups, all use instruments normally heard in classical and orchestral music, and some even use arrangement of classical compositions. 

These are bands that I enjoy listening to also, and I'd include "Yes" in their category. I would argue the point that they stress music over lyrics, though, especially in the case of the "Moody Blues" whose music usually has well-written and profound lyrics and messages. And If I was forced to view these groups as symphonic or chamber, I'd have to place Jethro Tull in the latter category based on the frequent use of acoustic guitar and flute in very chamber-like settings.

Quote from: Teresa on January 09, 2010, 02:26:46 PM

To me no matter what type of music percussion is key, to me it is like the seasoning I put on my favorite foods. 

Everyone has their own tastes, and should enjoy what they enjoy. There are people who like ketchup on filet mignon, and if that's how they want to eat it, more power to them. But are they really appreciating the quality of the meal?

Quote from: Teresa on January 09, 2010, 02:26:46 PM
Could depend on the type of Rock music one is coming from?  The Rock music I love stresses music over lyrics and often the music is quite complex and some works totally instrumental.  Groups such as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues and other progressive and art-rock groups, all use instruments normally heard in classical and orchestral music, and some even use arrangement of classical compositions. 

In my listening experience, most art/prog rock (and metal, which tends to be the other relatively sophisticated rock genre) is ultimately much closer to other types of rock than classical music in terms of overall feel, instrumentation, form, and complexity.

Part of the reason you may not like chamber music is that it rests fundamentally on the idea of music as intelligent conversation between equal partners, and that's something very rare in rock music, where the voice takes primacy, and after that the lead guitar, with other instruments generally (but I know not always) relegated to background support or embellishment. Similarly, like classical music in general, chamber music typically focuses on the elaboration of thematic material and harmonic contrasts, whereas rock music tends to rely on simple strophic forms, literally repeated material with perhaps a couple little ornaments, and simple modulations, if any. In these regards, classical music and actually shares much more with jazz than with rock.

I understand that you love percussion--nothing wrong with that!--but using that as a prerequisite for what you explore and enjoy in classical music is to approach the entire genre on woefully narrow terms that will result in you missing much great music--and much of what classical music is all about. That's like an American traveling to Paris and only eating at McDonalds, an opportunity wasted.

Quote from: Grazioso on January 10, 2010, 04:12:44 AM
In my listening experience, most art/prog rock (and metal, which tends to be the other relatively sophisticated rock genre) is ultimately much closer to other types of rock than classical music in terms of overall feel, instrumentation, form, and complexity.

Part of the reason you may not like chamber music is that it rests fundamentally on the idea of music as intelligent conversation between equal partners, and that's something very rare in rock music, where the voice takes primacy, and after that the lead guitar, with other instruments generally (but I know not always) relegated to background support or embellishment. Similarly, like classical music in general, chamber music typically focuses on the elaboration of thematic material and harmonic contrasts, whereas rock music tends to rely on simple strophic forms, literally repeated material with perhaps a couple little ornaments, and simple modulations, if any. In these regards, classical music and actually shares much more with jazz than with rock.

I understand that you love percussion--nothing wrong with that!--but using that as a prerequisite for what you explore and enjoy in classical music is to approach the entire genre on woefully narrow terms that will result in you missing much great music--and much of what classical music is all about.

Word.

Quote from: Grazioso on January 10, 2010, 04:12:44 AM
That's like an American traveling to Paris and only eating at McDonalds, an opportunity wasted.

I've met some, not in Paris but in Venice. :)

And an American girl in Florence complained about not having TV in her hotel room.

Quote from: Grazioso on January 10, 2010, 04:12:44 AM
In my listening experience, most art/prog rock (and metal, which tends to be the other relatively sophisticated rock genre) is ultimately much closer to other types of rock than classical music in terms of overall feel, instrumentation, form, and complexity.

Part of the reason you may not like chamber music is that it rests fundamentally on the idea of music as intelligent conversation between equal partners, and that's something very rare in rock music, where the voice takes primacy, and after that the lead guitar, with other instruments generally (but I know not always) relegated to background support or embellishment. Similarly, like classical music in general, chamber music typically focuses on the elaboration of thematic material and harmonic contrasts, whereas rock music tends to rely on simple strophic forms, literally repeated material with perhaps a couple little ornaments, and simple modulations, if any. In these regards, classical music and actually shares much more with jazz than with rock.

I understand that you love percussion--nothing wrong with that!--but using that as a prerequisite for what you explore and enjoy in classical music is to approach the entire genre on woefully narrow terms that will result in you missing much great music--and much of what classical music is all about. That's like an American traveling to Paris and only eating at McDonalds, an opportunity wasted.

I disagree as I hate Metal and electric guitar heavy music.  That is what attracted me to Art Rock to begin with is the broader range of musical instruments and the diminished role of the electric guitar and in some cases it's disappearance altogether.   

I prefer that all music have percussion not just Rock and Classical.  For example I do not like solo piano and piano and bass Jazz music.  I prefer at least a Jazz Quartet or larger- Piano, Bass, Drums and a wind instrument.  My favorite Jazz groups are Big Bands. 

With Progressive/Art Rock such as ELP and others, I don't much care for electric guitar but tolerate it if it is not in the forefront, though I do like acoustic guitar.  The only electric instruments I have enjoyed in Rock is Electric Bass and Synthesizer.  I prefer an "orchestral sound" to my rock music whither accomplished with a real symphony orchestra, or the band members playing a variety of orchestral and even "eastern" instruments or the orchestral sound created by a synthesizer.  I had no idea that Art Rock was imitating a symphony orchestra until I actually discovered Classical music for myself. 

I am exposed to non-percussion music of all kinds on Samplers, etc. but I never keep them as percussion is my main ingredient in music of all kinds. 

If I happen to go to France I will not eat snails and pattee!   >:( I don't like McDonald's either, perhaps I will pick up something editable from the grocery store or not go to France at all!

Quote from: Teresa on January 10, 2010, 03:21:08 PM
If I happen to go to France   listen to Classical music I will not eat snails and pattee!   listen to string quartets  >:( I don't like McDonald's non-percussion music either, perhaps I will pick up something editable from the grocery store   listenable from my list or not go to France listen to Classical music at all!

Fixed.

Quote from: Florestan on January 10, 2010, 11:38:40 PM
Fixed.

Love your reply, LOL!   :)

BTW so far I have managed to find 1,612 classical compositions by 291 composers, so there is no shortage of classical music that is literally seasoned with percussion.  Plus there are thousands of compositions I have yet to discover! 

Most of my collection is orchestral, but I do have works for smaller groups including chamber ensembles with percussion.  I also have Ionisation by Edgard Varèse written for thirteen percussionists. 

The classical works I enjoy the most are symphonic poems, dances, overtures, ballet music, orchestral suites and instrumental excepts from operas. Although symphonies and concertos written in a programatic style on a colorful orchestral canvas with plenty of percussive accents can be quite enjoyable as well.

Clearly not everyone needs or even wants percussion in their music, however I do!

Quote from: Szykniej on January 09, 2010, 03:39:38 PM
These are bands that I enjoy listening to also, and I'd include "Yes" in their category. I would argue the point that they stress music over lyrics, though, especially in the case of the "Moody Blues" whose music usually has well-written and profound lyrics and messages. And If I was forced to view these groups as symphonic or chamber, I'd have to place Jethro Tull in the latter category based on the frequent use of acoustic guitar and flute in very chamber-like settings.

I agree with most of this, poetry is also important to the Moody Blues, but the music is quite complex and profound and really supports the lyrics well.  Ian Anderson is quite a wild flute player, however percussion is quite a large part of the Jethro Tull sound.

UPDATE 1/12/10: The problem I have with the group YES is I don't like the sound of Jon Anderson's singing voice.  I like the original acoustic version of Roundabout with the guitar harmonics at the beginning for the LP Fragile but I don't care for the rest of the LP.  For me Yes has too much electric guitar for my tastse.

QuoteEveryone has their own tastes, and should enjoy what they enjoy. There are people who like ketchup on filet mignon, and if that's how they want to eat it, more power to them. But are they really appreciating the quality of the meal?

While I would never put ketchup on a filet mignon, spices such as salt, pepper and garlic really bring out the flavor.  That is why I compare spices to percussion as percussion really brings out the flavor of the music for me.

Quote from: Teresa on January 11, 2010, 01:34:36 AM
Clearly not everyone needs or even wants percussion in their music, however I do!

Nothing wrong with that. Try listening to Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture in the original version, the one with cannon shots. That's as percussive as it gets! :)

Quote from: Teresa on January 11, 2010, 02:38:38 AM
I agree with most of this, poetry is also important to the Moody Blues, but the music is quite complex and profound and really supports the lyrics well.  Ian Anderson is quite a wild flute player, however percussion is quite a large part of the Jethro Tull sound.

Quick off-topic comment: While Ian Anderson is indeed a fine player, I feel he relies a little too much on the voice-while-fluting technique.  I'd like to see him also use some other alternative techniques such as multiphonics and key hits.

Okay, back on topic. :D

Quote from: Teresa on January 11, 2010, 02:38:38 AM
While I would never put ketchup on a filet mignon, spices such as salt, pepper and garlic really bring out the flavor.  That is why I compare spices to percussion as percussion really brings out the flavor of the music for me.

So now I know which instruments you probably play. ;D

Seriously, I love percussion.  One of my favorite things to do is to sit in on a drum jam with my flute, although I have to limit my playing mostly to the top octave so it'll be heard. :o But sometimes I just like to revel in other tones: a quick ascending flute run, a long-held oboe tone, a distant horn call, a violin cadenza... Some foods are just better without spices, and some music is just better without drums. :)

For a fantastic chamber work that uses percussion in a very effective manner, I'd suggest Bartok's Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion.

Quote from: Topaz on February 28, 2008, 12:06:26 AM
Although I totally disagree with Teresa's opinions, I could see early on in this thread that nothing any of us might say to defend the status quo would make the slightest difference to her views.  No-one has said anything of substance that hasn't already been said by the critic whose views are set out in her website, and she rubbished that.  These reactions, however, needed saying and many of them are very eloquent.

To me, Teresa's arguments lead to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Her rejection of  absolute music, opera, and most chamber music has produced a highly skewed suggested list of classical music which most of us would say is a gross caricature of "classical music", it being little more than a curious mix of largely second rate rock-inspired, jazzed-up, pop-culture with the odd genuine article thrown just to give it a semblance of authenticity. 

I have known many people who dislike classical music, in fact the vast majority of my friends, relations, neighbours, work colleagues.  Whenever I've tried to discuss the reasons for this I've invariably found a major reluctance among these people to enter into any kind of serious discussion.  Mostly, people decline to say any more than the minimum they can get away with.  The best I've had by way of explanation is that too much of classical music is too complex and generally has a saddening effect on them, whereas they're looking for something more uplifting and light and the best way of achieving that is by pop culture type of music, so their attitude is why complicate things by introducing a pseudo-classical dimension.  Occasionally, someone might show a bit of interest, and out of courtesy might listen to some recommendations, but on the whole I don't kid myself that my efforts achieve anything lasting in the majority of cases.  I'm happy to accept the fact that classical music is a very small minority interest, always has been and probably always will be. 

Nor could I see that we would ever get an answer to the underlying question concerning what actual evidence she has that her list of suggested works is any more likely to stimulate interest in classical music among the 97% (or whatever) of the population who say they have no interest in this genre.  I think I asked this question previously but I have not seen any attempted answer.  I know why.  I don't think Teresa has any evidence at all that this so-called "power orchestral" stuff (Ugh!)  - with emphasis on percussive instruments - is the magic ingredient that will turn on the classical music sceptic.  It's merely what she likes, and the rest is pure wishful thinking.  I think that all we have in Teresa's "classical music" list, and her other musings and responses here, is nothing more than an expression of her own musical prejudices.  I can't see why she thinks it is more likely than a more conventional list to be of value to a professed classical music sceptic. 

So I remain completely unconvinced that Teresa has presented any evidence that her views on classical music for the sceptic either (i) actually have any wider applicability, or (ii) may have wider applicability if she can get the message over to a wide public, or (iii) should have wider applicability given their intrinsic merits.

Right on!

links don't work anymore

Quote from: westknife on May 15, 2011, 01:54:26 PM
links don't work anymore

That's because this thread was started over 3 1/2 years ago and Teresa and Topaz are long gone from the site.

Quote from: westknife on May 15, 2011, 01:54:26 PM
links don't work anymore

Here are new links, folks ...

Teresa's The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music ...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm)

Teresa's Classical Music for Everyone ...
http://vinylfanatics.com/analoglovers/page20.html (http://vinylfanatics.com/analoglovers/page20.html)

Welp, that was about as inane as I expected, given the reaction here.

Quote from: Fëanor on May 16, 2011, 04:15:57 PM

Here are new links, folks ...

Teresa's The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don't like Classical music ...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htm)

Teresa's Classical Music for Everyone ...
http://vinylfanatics.com/analoglovers/page20.html (http://vinylfanatics.com/analoglovers/page20.html)

Looking at this now, it's a nicely eclectic selection of light classical music.  It's not ideal as a list for beginners since even they might want some meatier fare in the mix.  In fact, it's the more challenging music that attracts many people to classical music in the first place. 

Well, I found the overall tone of the writing demonstrated the same snobbishness the author claims is possessed by "stuffed shirt academics", just of a different variety.

That said, I'll probably try some of these pieces.  Her list includes three composers whose works I have enjoyed lately (Bernstein, Copland, Gershwin).  Maybe her tastes and mine are similar in some areas; that won't prevent me from enjoying those genres she doesn't.

I'm going to ignore the condescending fish wrapping and concentrate instead on the fish and chips therein.

Quote from: Daverz on May 18, 2011, 01:41:16 AM
Looking at this now, it's a nicely eclectic selection of light classical music.

Offhand, the only light classical music I see on there is Robert Farnon.

Speaking of light music, I saw a documentary about the Wallfisch family last night, "Saved by music". It included an interesting little section in which two young brothers, singer and pianist/composer, were discovering and playing a bit of an opera by Albert Coates (who it turned out was actually a relative).

Quote from: bigshot on May 19, 2011, 05:41:09 PM
Offhand, the only light classical music I see on there is Robert Farnon.

And Gottschalk, Gould and Grofe.  OK, much of it is "serious", e.g. Bartok, but much of it is stuff that used to be staples of "pops" concerts before actual pop music took over.  A lot more of that than I would include in a "beginners" list.

The overtures, tone poems and vivid programmatic works are EXACTLY what got me interested in classical music initially. The blogger who compiled the list overstates her case a bit, but the basic idea is sound. Symphonies with large form architecture are important and wonderful, but they can be off-putting to beginners who aren't able to grasp the structural elements of classical music yet. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the music on her list. It's as rich and diverse as any other field of classical music. It's just more immediate. You have to walk before you can run.

Quote from: bigshot on May 20, 2011, 12:41:06 PM
The overtures, tone poems and vivid programmatic works are EXACTLY what got me interested in classical music initially.
...

Me too, but it's chamber music that sustained my interest in classical. As we see, Teresa is dismissive of chamber music.

Quote from: bigshot on May 20, 2011, 12:41:06 PM
...
The blogger who compiled the list overstates her case a bit, but the basic idea is sound. Symphonies with large form architecture are important and wonderful, but they can be off-putting to beginners who aren't able to grasp the structural elements of classical music yet. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the music on her list. It's as rich and diverse as any other field of classical music. It's just more immediate. You have to walk before you can run.

This is all completely true.  I envy Teresa her musical training and broad listening experience which, at this stage of my life, I'm certain I will never to equal.  However Teresa will likely never truly be a classical music lover.

Another board I frequent is filled with Mahlerites, and whenever a newbie comes along looking for an entry point, they list off their favorite Mahler symphonies with a half dozen different conductors. Now don't get me wrong, I love Mahler. But I can't think of a more off-putting introduction to classical music... Except perhaps suggesting just chamber music. People seem to suggest things without considering the person receiving the advice. Instead of trying to set a spark that might grow to a roaring fire, they take the opportunity to parade their own tastes and look down upon certain other types of music and the people who listen to it.

Perhaps the blogger is right. Maybe a lot of classical music fans *are* snobs.

Mahler was one of the first composers I got into

Ditto. Cheap cutouts of 4 and 5 with the RPO conducted by Inoue. Admittedly, I didn't know what the hell I was hearing.

Quote from: bigshot on May 21, 2011, 09:32:58 AM
Another board I frequent is filled with Mahlerites, and whenever a newbie comes along looking for an entry point, they list off their favorite Mahler symphonies with a half dozen different conductors. Now don't get me wrong, I love Mahler. But I can't think of a more off-putting introduction to classical music...

For you perhaps, but a lot of people first got turned on by Mahler.  He's popular for a reason.

Quote
Perhaps the blogger is right. Maybe a lot of classical music fans *are* snobs.

Theresa has her own rather large blind spots.

Quote from: Daverz on May 23, 2011, 04:49:21 AM
For you perhaps, but a lot of people first got turned on by Mahler.  He's popular for a reason.

I see Mahler 1 recommended to newbies pretty often.

Whatever else Mahler's music does, it does grab one's ears. :D

Listening to Mahler without understanding its architecture is like looking at the ocean one wave at a time. I can't imagine newbies listening to the peaks and valleys over and over for that long without understanding their context. It would be like listening to a film score without the film.

Quote from: bigshot on May 24, 2011, 10:48:48 PM
I can't imagine newbies listening to the peaks and valleys over and over for that long without understanding their context. It would be like listening to a film score without the film.

Maybe, but they are most likely to be very impressed by the giant orchestra and acquire the wrong notion that music played with less than 150 instruments is not worth their time.  :)

Quote from: bigshot on May 24, 2011, 10:48:48 PM
Listening to Mahler without understanding its architecture is like looking at the ocean one wave at a time. I can't imagine newbies listening to the peaks and valleys over and over for that long without understanding their context. It would be like listening to a film score without the film.

What context?  This is absolute music for the most part.

Quote from: Daverz on May 25, 2011, 03:21:23 AM
What context?

The context of the overall architectural structure. Popular music has nothing like that.

Quote from: bigshot on May 25, 2011, 10:11:13 AM
The context of the overall architectural structure. Popular music has nothing like that.

I know dick about musical architecture but have still come to enjoy listening to (some) Mahler.

Quote from: bigshot on May 25, 2011, 10:11:13 AM
The context of the overall architectural structure.

And one can pick that up by...listening!  Unless you're saying that one needs to be able to read scores to appreciate Mahler.  Fortunately, Mahler was very good at making his structures easy to follow.

When I first listened to Mahler, it was when I was first getting into Romantic symphonies... way back in college. I listened to Beethoven and Schubert and Brahms and Buckner and Mahler and a lot of the other core symphonic repertoire. Bruckner and Mahler stood out to me as just being an overlong string of alternating loud and quiet parts. I liked the huge orchestras, but couldn't get any hold on the music itself. Bruckner and Mahler seemed like the same thing to me. I used them as soundtracks dubbed onto silent films like Metropolis because they sounded like they needed some sort of program to go with them.

Now I totally see the difference between the structure of Bruckner and Mahler. But back then, I didn't have the experience to look at things that way. I could totally grasp the Russians and Schubert and I could begin to understand Beethoven's symphonies, but Mahler was of a scale that I couldn't get far enough back from to discern the overall shape of the thing.

It seems to me that newbies would be better introduced to classical music by pieces that they have a possibility of understanding. Maybe I was just dense as a kid and other people can grasp Mahler from a cold start. But for me, starting with Mahler would be like starting a seven course meal with the roast beef. It took a little warming up before I could appreciate it.

Quote from: eyeresist on May 22, 2011, 05:59:09 PM
Ditto. Cheap cutouts of 4 and 5 with the RPO conducted by Inoue. Admittedly, I didn't know what the hell I was hearing.

I must admit that one reason I found this music accessible was that the opening bars of the 5th had been used for the Australian edition of In Search Of, broadcast here as Great Mysteries of the World. Just that element of familiarity made the symphony as a whole easier to get into.

Quote from: bigshot on May 26, 2011, 11:01:37 AM
When I first listened to Mahler, it was when I was first getting into Romantic symphonies... way back in college. I listened to Beethoven and Schubert and Brahms and Buckner and Mahler and a lot of the other core symphonic repertoire. Bruckner and Mahler stood out to me as just being an overlong string of alternating loud and quiet parts. I liked the huge orchestras, but couldn't get any hold on the music itself. Bruckner and Mahler seemed like the same thing to me. I used them as soundtracks dubbed onto silent films like Metropolis because they sounded like they needed some sort of program to go with them.

Now I totally see the difference between the structure of Bruckner and Mahler. But back then, I didn't have the experience to look at things that way. I could totally grasp the Russians and Schubert and I could begin to understand Beethoven's symphonies, but Mahler was of a scale that I couldn't get far enough back from to discern the overall shape of the thing.

It seems to me that newbies would be better introduced to classical music by pieces that they have a possibility of understanding. Maybe I was just dense as a kid and other people can grasp Mahler from a cold start. But for me, starting with Mahler would be like starting a seven course meal with the roast beef. It took a little warming up before I could appreciate it.

Interesting post.

My first Mahler was the Third and I was so enthralled that I thought him to be far superior to any other composer I previously heard, my beloved favorite Beethoven included --- and for quite some time I listened to nothing BUT Mahler. Now, of course that was a teen-ager reaction (I must have been around 14 back then) and today, 35 years later, Beethoven is still my beloved favorite to whose music I listen at least weekly, while I can live for months without hearing any Mahler. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis... :)

Still, I personally know quite a few people who, having heard Mahler in their teens, some even beginning their classical music journey WITH Mahler, never again escaped this "Mahler magic" and for whom Late Romanticism, particularly the "holy trinity" Mahler / Bruckner / Wagner, is the nec plus ultra of music, everything else, and especially chamber music, being just triffles they won't waste their time with.

Therefore, I would never recommend a newby to start with Mahler --- not because he might not grasp it, but precisely because he might be so spellbound as to subsequently reject anything that does not resemble Mahler.  :)

Quote from: Daverz on May 25, 2011, 03:21:23 AM
What context?  This is absolute music for the most part.

But not "absolute music" in the same sense as in Bach's fugues or Mozart's symphonies (and there may be some question as to how "absolute" Mozart's symphonies were).  In those, the music is be-all and the end-all.  In Mahler's music, there are, by the composer's own testimony, strong emotive associations; yet Mahler, who for a time titled his movements, later deleted most of the titles, calling them "crutches for cripples".  He didn't want his listeners to be "limited" in their associations, but I believe he would not react kindly to having his music called "absolute." :)

Getting stuck in a musical rut isn't good even if the music you're stuck with is good.

Quote from: Florestan on January 11, 2010, 03:56:19 AM
Nothing wrong with that. Try listening to Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture in the original version, the one with cannon shots. That's as percussive as it gets! :)

But don't stand in front of the speakers unless you've written your last will and testament.

Anecdote:
Met a fellow some twenty years ago. He was a plumber in a small town outside of Montreal who decided to change his life. He knew nothing about classical music so he decided to buy a series of cds that contained one to two minute extracts of Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc.

Quote from: RJR on August 27, 2012, 05:26:37 AMAnecdote:
Met a fellow some twenty years ago. He was a plumber in a small town outside of Montreal who decided to change his life. He knew nothing about classical music so he decided to buy a series of cds that contained one to two minute extracts of Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc.

... And?

Quote from: eyeresist on August 27, 2012, 06:01:18 PM
... And?

And, well, I think the point is that 2-3 minute excerpts of classical composers teaches you almost nothing about classical music.  Classical music isn't about single motives however pretty or memorable.

Quote from: bigshot on May 27, 2011, 11:05:02 AM
Getting stuck in a musical rut isn't good even if the music you're stuck with is good.

This reminds me of another classical music site whose principal denizen rarely listens to anything but Beethoven or Handel, and when he does so it's with considerable condescension.

Quote from: Fëanor on August 28, 2012, 06:22:38 AMAnd, well, I think the point is that 2-3 minute excerpts of classical composers teaches you almost nothing about classical music.  Classical music isn't about single motives however pretty or memorable.

Someone must be listening to these things, because there are quite a few such compilations available.

Quote from: eyeresist on August 29, 2012, 01:03:46 AM
Someone must be listening to these things, because there are quite a few such compilations available.

There are many engaging themes that can be cherry-picked from classical music, and cross-over goes back a long way. I remember about 40 years ago a very popular LP, (wish I could remember the actual name). Each track consisted of a familiar classical theme, first briefly play in classical style, then switched to jazz style repeating the single theme with back-beat, etc.. It was very pleasant and the recording sold a lot of copies.

A colleague's wife loved and asked me if I thought it was a good introduction to classical music. She expected me to answer in the affirmative. She was chagrined when I said I didn't thinks so because it wasn't what classical was actually about.

I'm in agreement with Sara (Lethe). I never understood why people make these lists. I mean who are they really aimed at? Lists, like anything else that comes from someone else, is subjective. I never could make a list for beginners because I don't know what beginners should or shouldn't be listening to. Music is such a personal thing for me. I can easily make a recommendation. That's never an issue. Newcomers to classical music should explore what they want to and there shouldn't be a definite set of composers that they should listen to. What a newbie should do is use his/her own judgement and do a lot of research, which entails going over to YouTube and listening to some music. It's really all about filtering out what you like and what you don't like but you also have to keep an open-mind. Thank goodness I listened to my judgement and continued down my own path, because if I listened to what people thought I should be listening to I would have never heard of most of the composer's music I listen to now. Anyway, that's my take on this subject.

Quote from: Mirror Image on August 30, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
Music is such a personal thing       

Word!

Quote from: Mirror Image on August 30, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
I'm in agreement with Sara (Lethe). I never understood why people make these lists. I mean who are they really aimed at? Lists, like anything else that comes from someone else, is subjective. I never could make a list for beginners because I don't know what beginners should or shouldn't be listening to. Music is such a personal thing for me. I can easily make a recommendation. That's never an issue. Newcomers to classical music should explore what they want to and there shouldn't be a definite set of composers that they should listen to. What a newbie should do is use his/her own judgement and do a lot of research, which entails going over to YouTube and listening to some music. It's really all about filtering out what you like and what you don't like but you also have to keep an open-mind. Thank goodness I listened to my judgement and continued down my own path, because if I listened to what people thought I should be listening to I would have never heard of most of the composer's music I listen to now. Anyway, that's my take on this subject.

There's no harm in making a list of recommendations. The problem comes if we feel that list is somehow definitive.  I made a list, (see below); I did it as a near-beginner and the purpose was to guide my own listening. It was compiled from many popular sources -- most of which had its own list.

And yet (particularly in the case of orchestral music) without a collective, without a consensus, the music does not get made.

Quote from: Fëanor on August 31, 2012, 08:16:59 AM
There's no harm in making a list of recommendations. The problem comes if we feel that list is somehow definitive.  I made a list, (see below); I did it as a near-beginner and the purpose was to guide my own listening. It was compiled from many popular sources -- most of which had its own list.

The general problem I ran into were people telling that I need to be listening to Beethoven or Mozart or Schubert. I don't like this kind of attitude. I listen to what I want, when I want. As I said, making a recommendation is one thing. Giving somebody some sort of guide as to what composers they should or shouldn't be listening to has never been something I'm into. I forged my own path with classical music because I was curious about the music. I had my grandfather telling me in one ear to listen to this composer and had my Dad telling me to listen to that composer in my other ear. It becomes just too much for one to deal with. A person has to go on their own and jump right in without safety nets. It's all a matter of just doing the listening and the research. I'm proud of myself for going my own way with classical music and I really pride myself knowing that I think I made some very good decisions. The reason why it all worked for me is because I did it on my own, my own way, just like anyone new to classical music will have to do. People have to learn to go with their own gut and make their own decisions about music. I may have some unpopular opinions about music and I may like some composers that nobody else likes and this is the way it's supposed to be. I listen with my heart and mind and this is what someone who is new to this music should do. The ball is in their court.

The list and the reasons for it are the product of someone that doesn't really appreciate classical music.  But the intentions are pure.  Misguided, uninformative blogs are a dime a dozen.  Let it go everyone.

Quote from: Mirror Image on August 31, 2012, 09:02:43 PM
The general problem I ran into were people telling that I need to be listening to Beethoven or Mozart or Schubert. I don't like this kind of attitude. I listen to what I want, when I want. As I said, making a recommendation is one thing. Giving somebody some sort of guide as to what composers they should or shouldn't be listening to has never been something I'm into. I forged my own path with classical music because I was curious about the music. I had my grandfather telling me in one ear to listen to this composer and had my Dad telling me to listen to that composer in my other ear. It becomes just too much for one to deal with. A person has to go on their own and jump right in without safety nets. It's all a matter of just doing the listening and the research. I'm proud of myself for going my own way with classical music and I really pride myself knowing that I think I made some very good decisions. The reason why it all worked for me is because I did it on my own, my own way, just like anyone new to classical music will have to do. People have to learn to go with their own gut and make their own decisions about music. I may have some unpopular opinions about music and I may like some composers that nobody else likes and this is the way it's supposed to be. I listen with my heart and mind and this is what someone who is new to this music should do. The ball is in their court.

You have the right to do whatever you like and like whatever you like, but there's something above that suggests you don't care for advice. A saying of mine is, "Any fool can learn from his own mistakes; it takes a wiser person to learn from other people's". (Granted, some fools don't even learn from their own.)

I found it instructive to listen to other people's suggestions when I started listening to classical more seriously.  Doubtless it saved me a lot of time and wasted effort.  Since then I've formed my own preferences that don't necessarily conform to the original advice but it was a worthwhile learning experience.

Wow, I'm glad I wasn't here in 2008. Those guys hated people like me! In fact, I'm not sure I'm safe here now....

Quote from: coffee on September 18, 2012, 07:36:46 AM
Wow, I'm glad I wasn't here in 2008. Those guys hated people like me! In fact, I'm not sure I'm safe here now....

Which guys?
JdP, Teresa, someone else?

Quote from: coffee on September 18, 2012, 07:36:46 AM
Wow, I'm glad I wasn't here in 2008. Those guys hated people like me! In fact, I'm not sure I'm safe here now....

Well, if you really must know, it's the shoes... :P  ;D

Quote from: Mirror Image on August 30, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
Music is such a personal thing for me.

You are of course in your right while using music in such a way. But I'm afraid it is probably the worst way of listening. You only close yourself within yourself missing possiblity to open your mind for infinity of spiritual experience mirrored in all works.

If this is the 'Teresa' I know from various hi-fi forums she's, to be blunt, a well-known loony and extremist who should not be debated with seriously.

Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 06:44:10 AM
If this is the 'Teresa' I know from various hi-fi forums she's, to be blunt, a well-known loony and extremist who should not be debated with seriously.

And the same Teresa who woke up one day and discovered she couldn't stand classical music any more.  I'd be worried I'd had some kind of mini-stroke if that happenned to me.

Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 06:44:10 AM
If this is the 'Teresa' I know from various hi-fi forums she's, to be blunt, a well-known loony and extremist who should not be debated with seriously.

I see you've been around ... and you're sharp enough to recognize the obvious. ;) Welcome to GMG, Rev!

(* chortle *)

Quote from: mszczuj on September 26, 2012, 07:17:52 AM
You are of course in your right while using music in such a way. But I'm afraid it is probably the worst way of listening. You only close yourself within yourself missing possiblity to open your mind for infinity of spiritual experience mirrored in all works.

How do you know that I'm not open-minded? Why make an assumption based on information that you don't have? By the way, it's obvious that English isn't your first language, but you really should work on your phrasing, because while I get the general idea of what you're saying, it still reads like a jumbled mess.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 16, 2012, 06:06:49 AM
How do you know that I'm not open-minded? Why make an assumption based on information that you don't have? By the way, it's obvious that English isn't your first language, but you really should work on your phrasing, because while I get the general idea of what you're saying, it still reads like a jumbled mess.

Almost every post you make displays the state of your mind for the entire world to see.

Quote from: mszczuj on September 26, 2012, 07:17:52 AM
You are of course in your right while using music in such a way. But I'm afraid it is probably the worst way of listening. You only close yourself within yourself missing possiblity to open your mind for infinity of spiritual experience mirrored in all works.

Not only have I no trouble understanding your posts, mszczuj, but I admire your command of English, even though it's less idiomatic than expected of native speakers and sometimes your sentence structure reads more like German (Polish? Czech?) than good ol' 'merican. And I appreciate that your comments always add something of interest to the discussion. Thank you.

I learned long ago the truth of which you speak: Nothing prevents learning so much as believing we already know.

Quote from: Reverend Bong on October 13, 2012, 06:44:10 AM
If this is the 'Teresa' I know from various hi-fi forums she's, to be blunt, a well-known loony and extremist who should not be debated with seriously.

She is one & the same.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 16, 2012, 06:06:49 AM
How do you know that I'm not open-minded? Why make an assumption based on information that you don't have? By the way, it's obvious that English isn't your first language, but you really should work on your phrasing, because while I get the general idea of what you're saying, it still reads like a jumbled mess.

I'm sorry, but there is no need to insult other members in this way. We should welcome members of all languages. If something isn't clear, we can always ask for clarification.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 16, 2012, 06:06:49 AM
How do you know that I'm not open-minded? Why make an assumption based on information that you don't have?

Everyone is open-minded in some area, close-minded in other, I'm afraid. You just do not use a thinking tool which I find very useful for surviving in the stream of music.  I highly appreciate your experience with listening of the music of late the19th and the 20th century but you disdain some composers I find extremely interesting. My experience says that the only reason for disdaining a composer is a lack of listening. But if you disdain one you can't fully appreciate other composers. That is the reason I think it would be good if you try some Beethoven or Mozart from time to time. What you write about Shostakovitch or Ravel would be more informative for me. And listening to the music  of these two masters of the Classical Era wouldn't be bad for you.  (And you know your spit in my gods faces, not a great problem but still unpleasantness.)

I must say I was really glad when I saw you had started to write in the Haydn thread.

Quote
By the way, it's obvious that English isn't your first language, but you really should work on your phrasing, because while I get the general idea of what you're saying, it still reads like a jumbled mess.

Yes, it is a problem. I'm afraid that writing in English become for some reasons more and more difficult for me.

Quote from: DavidRoss on October 16, 2012, 06:30:17 AM
Not only have I no trouble understanding your posts, mszczuj, but I admire your command of English, even though it's less idiomatic than expected of native speakers and sometimes your sentence structure reads more like German (Polish? Czech?) than good ol' 'merican. And I appreciate that your comments always add something of interest to the discussion. Thank you.
I learned long ago the truth of which you speak: Nothing prevents learning so much as believing we already know.

Thank you for your kindness. Mszczuj is an old Polish name which I find rather funny. (It is not my real name, though.)

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 16, 2012, 06:06:49 AM
How do you know that I'm not open-minded? Why make an assumption based on information that you don't have? By the way, it's obvious that English isn't your first language, but you really should work on your phrasing, because while I get the general idea of what you're saying, it still reads like a jumbled mess.

And you should work on not being so disrespectful.

I think lists for beginners are very helpful, but they're particularly helpful if they're grouped into particular styles of music. Randomly listening to music from all over the place makes it difficult to understand the context and meaning of the music. It ends up being "I like" or "I don't like" instead of true appreciation.

When I start out in any genre of music, I look for a guru to point me to a few major pieces to get me started. I listen to those and read and think about them until I get the lay of the land, then I dive in deeper. It seems to work very well.

But the world--and especially the internet!--is rife with self-appointed gurus who are pompous ignoramuses at best. If one hasn't some education, experience, and good guidance in the first place, it can be difficult to select a "guru" whose inflated ego is not full of sheer BS.

Hang around here, however, and any reasonably perceptive music lover will soon learn to recognize that Bulldog Don's guidance on Bach and Gurn's on Haydn (for instance) are invaluable and damned near faultless. ;)