I borrowed everything I could get my hands one; same with purchases. Assuming my answer is sufficient, I'll stop posting here.
I borrowed everything I could get my hands one; same with purchases. Assuming my answer is sufficient, I'll stop posting here.I fundamentally asked you a question as to how you decided what things to borrow from the library and what things to purchase. You still haven't really answered that one.
You may post or not post as you please. I'm not the local policeman.I borrowed everything I could get my hands one; same with purchases. Assuming my answer is sufficient, I'll stop posting here.
Nice. It's late and I need to take a break from Mahler, but I shall have a check of this tomorrow against my own paltry collection of Ives. Thanks.This core repertoire exercise is daunting when it comes to extremely popular and prolific composers like Tchaikovsky. I'll take a stab at a less tremendous composer who's one of my favorites: Charles Ives (1874-1954). It could well be that my contribution here will not be apt; I know that many people don't "get" or simply don't like Ives. But my idea is that a non-specialist in this composer could have a good and enjoyable representation of his works with the following (favorite recordings from my CD collection indicated):
Symphonies - One Numbered and One Programmatic:
Symphony No. 3 "The Camp Meeting": Slatkin/St. Louis, 1991, RCA Red Seal
New England Holidays - A Symphony: Ormandy/Philadelphia, 1974, RCA Red Seal
Orchestral Set:
Orchestral Set No. 1 - "Three Places in New England": von Dohnanyi/Cleveland, 1994, Decca
String Quartet:
String Quartet No. 2: Emerson SQ, 1994, DGG
Chamber Orchestra Pieces:
Central Park in the Dark: Ozawa/Boston, 1974, DGG
The Unanswered Question: Morton Gould/Chicago SO, 1965, RCA Red Seal (killer trumpet work by Herseth)
Solo Piano:
Piano Sonata No. 2 "Concord": Gilbert Kalish, 1992, Nonesuch
Hope this helps someone get into the music of Charles Ives!
I believe that most people consider Symphony No. 4 to be his best, but it is notably complex and difficult to like. Symphony No. 3 seems to be the most frequently performed, and it is vey accessible. There are more recordings of it than of No. 2. I like them all, but No. 1 is not typical, and No. 4 is much more complex than the others. When I think about core repertoire, I always think it's convenient to be familiar with the most popular pieces even if they're not the "best" because it opens up more possibilities of discussing the composer with other listeners.Nice. It's late and I need to take a break from Mahler, but I shall have a check of this tomorrow against my own paltry collection of Ives. Thanks.
Edited to add:I have nearly all of your recommendations except (1) the Symphony No. 3 and (2) the Piano Sonata. I'll skip the sonata, since I'm not overly keen on solo piano, but I'll try and hunt down a Slatkin Symphony No. 3.
I have Ives' Symphony No. 2 (Bernstein conducting). Was there a reason you didn't recommend that symphony rather than No.3?
Definitely. I'm listening to New England Holidays as I type. Am I allowed to say it reminds me of Grainger? Tunes that start one place and then end up multiplied and ending up somewhere completely odd?! Enjoying it quite a lot, actually, and I didn't think I'd ever say that!I believe that most people consider Symphony No. 4 to be his best, but it is notably complex and difficult to like. Symphony No. 3 seems to be the most frequently performed, and it is vey accessible. There are more recordings of it than of No. 2. I like them all, but No. 1 is not typical, and No. 4 is much more complex than the others. When I think about core repertoire, I always think it's convenient to be familiar with the most popular pieces even if they're not the "best" because it opens up more possibilities of discussing the composer with other listeners.
I don't fear that at all. It's not how I've acquired my music tastes. I got pointed in some directions, yes; but having mastered those, I was able to work out new directions for myself. Which, not surprisingly, is exactly what you describe yourself doing: "after liking those, I investigated others... I got a bit adventurous".I have a rather large library built up over many years. I built it in a very ad hoc way because this is the only way I could get music I liked.
I started with a single LP of Beethoven sonatas (Kempff 8, 14, 23) and after liking those I investigated some others and was lucky enough to get an LP of Richter-Haaser playing Op 2 as my second LP. I purchased these from the now defunct World Record Club (similar to MHS) and of course they sent me catalogues.
From the catalogues I got a bit adventurous and chose works I hadn't heard before and my list of recordings and composers grew. I moved past Beethoven (while still targeting him) into Chopin, Schumann, Schubert, etc. From there I moved on to the local record store to audition in person. The new releases bin was my usual destination. The most important thing was that I could listen before purchasing.
What must be noted was that I had no concept of 'essential' works. What's essential to one is not necessarily the same for another. The HR-H LP also had the Op 77 G minor Fantasia alongside Op 2. Hardly essential but a work I love and a very early purchase for me so I class it as essential. Fidelio was mentioned in an earlier post - I still can't get my head around it so it's not 'essential' for me.
I fear that if you slavishly create a list there is going to be a lot of disappointment. Listen to classical on the radio, via YT, FB and see what leaps out and grabs you. No sense in having this collection of essentials that you hardly listen to.
I don't like that title! It implies (to me, at least) that we gracious experts are spelling out the basics for you newbies.What's needed is a new topic thread. The moderators could add Classical Music 101 for Beginners!
If knowing what composers to start with, this list of the most popular from Arkivmusic pretty much is spot on. There is no one on the list who doesn't deserve to be, and I can't think of one who isn't there who should be. Not even Boulez.:devil:
View attachment 145668
I think the list is fine; maybe a bit too comprehensive for someone just starting with classical to not be overwhelmed with, but fine. However, if I was going to hazard a guess at what you saw as a glaring omission, I would hazard that the name, in addition to starting with a B, rhymes with cute kitten.I don't like your list of composers either. There's one very obvious and glaring omission, right from the get-go. Under the Bs.Which is not to say it's not a reasonable start, but it's hardly comprehensive..
Brute Bitten? Never heard of him. No wonder he was an omisssion. I'm off to listen to Bustav Bahler's symphonies right now. Can't believe he got omitted too. :lol:I think the list is fine; maybe a bit too comprehensive for someone just starting with classical to not be overwhelmed with, but fine. However, if I was going to hazard a guess at what you saw as a glaring omission, I would hazard that the name, in addition to starting with a B, rhymes with cute kitten.
They are future presidential candidates.Brute Bitten? Never heard of him. No wonder he was an omisssion. I'm off to listen to Bustav Bahler's symphonies right now. Can't believe he got omitted too. :lol:
There's like a dozen recommended lists on the forum.I recently posted here about my sprawling collection of seldom-listened-to Tchaikovsky and got some excellent suggestions about what might be the 'core' Tchaikovsky repertoire, and what might be the most recommended performances of said repertoire. A pile of dross hit the bin in response, and I feel I've got a worthwhile, discoverable collection to work on going forward.
I wonder if I've missed similar threads about other composers? And if I haven't, whether it might not be a bad idea to put some together?
I notice my Mendelssohn, Beethoven and Schubert collections, for example, are similarly sprawling, 'completist' and thus seldom listened to. If, instead of having everything those three wrote (from one Brilliant boxed set or another, which seldom contain the absolute finest recordings of anything), I could whittle things down to the must-haves performed by the must-listens, I think that would be progress!
That's conceptually different from the posts we often see about 'what's the best recording of X?' or from the 'lists of top composers' or 'lists of top pieces' we also see. This is more: here's a composer, here is his/her greatest works, and here are a few suggestions for great recordings of each.
Anyway. Just thought I'd throw it out there!
Point me to just one of them, would you.There's like a dozen recommended lists on the forum.