Glaring Omission

[Karl Henning]

But I don't mind you blasting KHS into oblivion.

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

[hopefullytrusting]

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

[JBS]

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

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

[Brian]

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

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

[hopefullytrusting]

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

Easily, from my perspective, one of the best.

[Madiel]

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

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

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

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

[AnotherSpin]

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

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

[foxandpeng]

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

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

[71 dB]

Hence the use of the word "glaring."

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

[hopefullytrusting]

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

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

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

[hopefullytrusting]

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

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

[Papy Oli]

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

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

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

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

[71 dB]

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

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

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

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

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

[71 dB]

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

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

Thanks for your explanations!

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

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

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

[hopefullytrusting]

Thanks for your explanations!

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madiel]

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

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

[AnotherSpin]

Thanks for your explanations!

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

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

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

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

[Cato]

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

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

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

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

[pjme]

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

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

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

[DavidW]

So, this is about omissions we shouldn't have made based on our own preferences and tastes.

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

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