Glaring Omission

[AnotherSpin]

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

Mausoleum seems to be a more accurate word .

[DavidW]

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...

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

[aukhawk]

I'm not sure a "glaring omission" in this context is a thing.

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

[Florestan]

Here are my most glaring omissions.  In my 77th year, I have never yet listened to Beethoven's 9th symphony in its entirety. 

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

[Madiel]

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

[Jo498]

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

[hopefullytrusting]

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.

Hey is for horses, my dear friend.

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

[hopefullytrusting]

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

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

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

I feel in good company.

[71 dB]

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

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

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

[LKB]

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

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

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

[Brian]

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

[JBS]

@hopefullytrusting
@71 dB

Here's a simple way to fix that omission

[Cato]

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

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

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

[71 dB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hopefullytrusting]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel every bit of sentiment in this post.

This is worded so well.

I think I agree with it all.

[71 dB]

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

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

[71 dB]

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

[Cato]

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

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


Pierre Boulez conducting The Cleveland Orchestra and Anne Sophie Otter:

[Florestan]

the older I get the more disappointed I am with what we are getting. I see better the goodness of some old things. We might have had worse technology, but life was still good, even better than today.

The way of all flesh. 

[Florestan]

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

I feel every bit of sentiment in this post.

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

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

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