Joined
·
42,693 Posts
I borrowed everything I could get my hands one; same with purchases. Assuming my answer is sufficient, I'll stop posting here.
Building a Library?
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
Joined
·
9,234 Posts
I visited every Manchester public library (they all had different stock) and came out armed with as many CDs as possible. Thankfully they sold off many of their old ones too so I have quite a few CDs with 'Manchester City Library Service' stamped on them. Lol. Then the Tories stopped funding the libraries. Grrrr.
Joined
·
862 Posts
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!
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!
You may post or not post as you please. I'm not the local policeman.
I get what you're saying to an extent. Let loose on the Cambridge City library with its relatively extensive selection of classical music cassettes, I borrowed whatever they had "in". Messiaen's Turangalila was a discovery by that route, entirely of my own making and guided by no-one.. oh, except that I'd heard of Messiaen because the Organ Scholar liked him and played him at every Sunday High Mass he could. So, no. Not even then could I say I was entirely and completely self-exploring.
Perhaps Albuquerque is more isolated than I remember it being. I don't know. I'm happy to take your word for it that you taught yourself everything you know about music and music appreciation without any input from anyone else at all, ever. It's an impressive achievement that I know of no-one else ever managing. I can only doff my cap to you in utter astonishment.
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?
Joined
·
862 Posts
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.
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!
Anyway, this sort of follow-up and response is why this isn't an exercise in "you must listen to vat I say, and no qvestions!", but an opening up of things, starting from a 'safe' framework. I appreciate it a lot... and may try and acquire Symphony No. 4 if I'm feeling brave.
Am I the only person who is a bit scared of Ives?!
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
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:
![Font Screenshot Number Circle Document]()
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:
I’m not sure how relevant this is.
To those of us of a certain age our first exposure to classical music was probably out parent’s record collection on 78 rpm shellac. Given the size of the records and the space they took up and their fragility most collections were fairly small. My favourite composer was Mendelssohn because Mum had been given the violin concerto and I loved it. Then the overture to Barber of Seville. And Pirates of Penzance because we had an 11 record album. There was no systematic exploration of a composer.
Then I acquired a four speed turntable for the radiogram and started buying the very occasional Bargain or second hand LP with saved up pocket money. Ace of clubs, saga and fidelity with their pseudonyms. And the lunchtime concerts by the BBC orchestras on the home service. And then Saturday night concerts at the Town Hall sitting behind the orchestra. Gradually I acquired composers whose music I knew I was likely to enjoy. And because concerts included more than one work I got to know other composers. The first concert I ever attended included Bruckner’s 7th which started a dislike of that composer which persists to this day. About the 3rd concert included Mozart’s 40th and Mendelssohn’s first piano concerto, neither of which I knew at the time. And I remember sitting by the gong in Francesca di Rimini. Happy days.
I guess what I’m saying is that most of the music I got to know was met in a haphazard manner and without planning. Even the records I bought were probably as a result of the radio or what was played in music lessons at school. And the City Library Record Section which came along later was a godsend.
Now I am retired I probably have far too many CDs in sets. And yes I’ve bought the Brilliant complete sets and tend to listen only to the works I know, there is often a good reason why some works are popular, and the large single composer compilations, thankfully not the complete works, by great artists of the last century.
But the idea of listening to everything a composer wrote in an organised manner seems abhorrent. Music is enjoyed best on a haphazard basis although I’m not too old to make new discoveries which I enjoy. I recently heard a ciolin concerto by Nardini which has a beautiful first movement but the rest of which left me cold.
To those of us of a certain age our first exposure to classical music was probably out parent’s record collection on 78 rpm shellac. Given the size of the records and the space they took up and their fragility most collections were fairly small. My favourite composer was Mendelssohn because Mum had been given the violin concerto and I loved it. Then the overture to Barber of Seville. And Pirates of Penzance because we had an 11 record album. There was no systematic exploration of a composer.
Then I acquired a four speed turntable for the radiogram and started buying the very occasional Bargain or second hand LP with saved up pocket money. Ace of clubs, saga and fidelity with their pseudonyms. And the lunchtime concerts by the BBC orchestras on the home service. And then Saturday night concerts at the Town Hall sitting behind the orchestra. Gradually I acquired composers whose music I knew I was likely to enjoy. And because concerts included more than one work I got to know other composers. The first concert I ever attended included Bruckner’s 7th which started a dislike of that composer which persists to this day. About the 3rd concert included Mozart’s 40th and Mendelssohn’s first piano concerto, neither of which I knew at the time. And I remember sitting by the gong in Francesca di Rimini. Happy days.
I guess what I’m saying is that most of the music I got to know was met in a haphazard manner and without planning. Even the records I bought were probably as a result of the radio or what was played in music lessons at school. And the City Library Record Section which came along later was a godsend.
Now I am retired I probably have far too many CDs in sets. And yes I’ve bought the Brilliant complete sets and tend to listen only to the works I know, there is often a good reason why some works are popular, and the large single composer compilations, thankfully not the complete works, by great artists of the last century.
But the idea of listening to everything a composer wrote in an organised manner seems abhorrent. Music is enjoyed best on a haphazard basis although I’m not too old to make new discoveries which I enjoy. I recently heard a ciolin concerto by Nardini which has a beautiful first movement but the rest of which left me cold.
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 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 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".
It's called "learning" and it's what we all have done.
But I doubt you went to a school where they sat you down with an Encyclopaedia Britannica on day 1 and told you, 'It's all in there. Just work it out for yourself'! You don't give text books to children and let them just sort it out for themselves. We give them a path through the wall of text, in the form of lessons, guidance and mentoring, that ends up (we hope!) in comprehension.
In the same manner, of course people will have to listen to the radio, Youtube, Spotify, whatever in order to make their own judgments about things, because being in someone's "core" list somewhere doesn't mean they will (or have) to like it. But what do they listen to? That's the first step that, given the vast swathes of music out there that can be listened to, is difficult for many to take, I think.
I don't like that title! It implies (to me, at least) that we gracious experts are spelling out the basics for you newbies.
'Building a Library' is better, I think, because it's something we all do (well, those of us that actually own music rather than just streaming it, at least), even as we get extremely old, and no matter how clever we think ourselves
It also has a positive connotation of achieving something, not a negative one of having to be taught the basics.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.I also was imaginging that the list of who to include might more depend on what composers members here wanted to share with people. If someone has a mad-keen enthusiasm for, say, Villa-Lobos, they should be free to advance a 'core' for him, whether he's on the list or not.
That said, the entire idea seems to have been rained on from a great height by people who clearly managed to work it all out for themselves without any guides or shortcuts from anyone in their lives. So I suspect the idea's dead in the water before it starts.
Which is a shame, because I'm enjoying more Charles Ives this morning, precisely because of someone's enthusiasm for him, phrased in the form of a short checklist of works, in this very thread.
Joined
·
17 Posts
I think collating composers' core repertoire and recommended recordings is a great idea.
As a novice myself when it comes to classical music, I have found it can be quite overwhelming when you come to realise the vast breadth of works and interpretations available. It can be quite confusing to know where to begin. Guidance on the most accessible works and their most critically acclaimed recordings would be useful. But like others have commented, I think there is also a time where it is beneficial to explore other works and form your own opinions.
As a novice myself when it comes to classical music, I have found it can be quite overwhelming when you come to realise the vast breadth of works and interpretations available. It can be quite confusing to know where to begin. Guidance on the most accessible works and their most critically acclaimed recordings would be useful. But like others have commented, I think there is also a time where it is beneficial to explore other works and form your own opinions.
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
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.
Joined
·
9,234 Posts
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:
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
They are future presidential candidates.
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
There's like a dozen recommended lists on the forum.
Point me to just one of them, would you.
I haven't seen any of this sort. As I say, I see lots of 'what's the best recording of X', but not 'what are the must-have compositions for Y'. But if they're out there, (a) I would certainly like to see even one example and (b) would like to see them brought together into a single 'building a library' thread.
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
