A little Classical 101

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid /img/forum/go_quote.gif No Nielsen, Martinů, Britten, Orff, Szymanowski, Janáček or Barber? I'd clear out the saccharine Mozart to make room for some really worthwhile music.

awww poor Mozart, haha.........I wouldn't call him saccharine. I would say, more than any other composer Mozart stated the obvious in things......and pealed away a lot of the distortions to reveal ultimate truths. He's by no means my favorite composer, but in a sense he is an essential part of classical music.....to many people he is classical music.

 

[JayG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid /img/forum/go_quote.gif No Nielsen, Martinů, Britten, Orff, Szymanowski, Janáček or Barber?

With you so far. Obviously something has to give in such a short list, but I too would miss these composers, especially Nielsen and Janacek.

Quote:

I'd clear out the saccharine Mozart to make room for some really worthwhile music.

But now you lost me. Even if you think Mozart tends toward the saccharine (which I strongly disagree with), calling Don Giovanni, PC 20, Symphony No. 40, or the Requiem saccharine makes me think you find it logical to lump everything he ever wrote into a wildly inaccurate stereotype because you don't love some of his stuff. And if you think Mozart is saccharine, how do you feel about every Classical composer other than WAM, Haydn, and early Beethoven?

EDIT: Sorry for the thread resurrection. I just felt like I needed to defend poor Wolfgang's honor.

 

[fjf]

No Handel!!.

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjf /img/forum/go_quote.gif No Handel!!.

there's two handel recommendations.

 

[Bunnyears]

I'd keep the Tchaik violin concerto, but cull the Smetana and a few other things like anything by Elgar or the Bloch or anything designed to showcase a virtuoso (such as all Liszt). I'd put in Alban Berg's violin concerto, too.

By the way I rather have the Trout than the string quintet, but they should both be on the list.

 

[jsaliga]

I think this is an excellent list and a great anchor point for someone wanting to build a nice classical music library.

Sure, some will have quibbles as a matter of personal taste and their own sense of what is important. But I don't think anyone could go wrong with these selections. Probably the only thing I would change would be to knock off a complete Ring cycle (very expensive for someone just starting out). A good compromise would be one of several excellent Wagner samplers available, such as the Adrian Boult Overtures & Preludes two disc set from EMI. One can always work their way up to a complete cycle once a basic collection is built.

This thread should be a sticky.

--Jerome

 

[compuryan]

Its so hard to compact a classical collection into such a small list, but this is pretty good. I am a piano performance major and am quite a classical nut. There are hundreds of pieces I could add to this list. So I won't even try lol. Still I can't help myself, I would love to see these on the list:

Barber: Adagio for Strings
Tchaikovsky: 1812 (essential!), Reinzi, Marche Slav
Dvorak: String Quartet in F Major, Op. 96 "American"
Bach: Toccata in d minor
Chopin: Polonaises and Etudes
Liszt: Liebestraum, Don Juan Paraphrase, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2
Holst: The Planets
Smetana: The Bartered Bride
Brahms: Academic Festival Overture, String Quintet
Beethoven: String Quartets

 

[fjf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif there's two handel recommendations.

Sorry, didnt see them. It is a good list, considering the 100 items limit.

 

[davidhunternyc]

David, I don't know if you have listened to John Corigliano's, Symphony No. 1, but it is truly one of my favorite pieces of muisic of any genre. This is classical music made relevant for the 21st century. It is fire and ice. It is perfect. My favorite recording is by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

Barber's, Adagio for Strings is also another one.

 

[compuryan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif David, I don't know if you have listened to John Corigliano's, Symphony No. 1, but it is truly one of my favorite pieces of muisic of any genre. This is classical music made relevant for the 21st century. It is fire and ice. It is perfect. My favorite recording is by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Barber's, Adagio for Strings is also another one.

CSO kicks ass. I saw them play The Planets by Holst in the spring of 08. Best orchestra I have ever seen; incredible.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Yes, I agree. CSO is magnificent. Please, I urge you, if you have not heard their recording of Corigliano's 1st, check it out. It is eye opening. I often think that classical music composition is anachronistic in this day and age. With the advent of electricity, music just wasn't the same, and anyone who makes music looking backwards is doing so in folly. Yet, Corigliano does just that. He succeeds and it makes me sick, it is so brilliant.

 

[JayG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif I often think that classical music composition is anachronistic in this day and age. With the advent of electricity, music just wasn't the same, and anyone who makes music looking backwards is doing so in folly.

This doesn't make very much sense. "Classical" music isn't necessarily acoustic, and non-"classical" music isn't necessarily electronic. There are great examples to the contrary that prove this. The acoustic guitar didn't become obsolete with the invention of the electric guitar, did it? No more so did violins, French horns, pianos or symphony orchestras.

Good music is good music regardless of the medium for which it is composed, and in general there is far too much stylistic pigeonholing these days IMO.

 

[davidhunternyc]

^^^ Unfortunately there were two details you left out of your quotation. One; I said that I "often" think. I did not say this was a rule. Two; I finished my comment with an example that is an exception to my thoughts; Corigliano. The truth is in the details.

 

[JayG]

I understand that. But as you say now, you consider the Corigliano an exception to your thoughts on contemporary classical music. And while I may agree with your exception, in no way do I agree with your thoughts on the situation as a whole, which is what I was addressing in the first place.

In every time period and in every genre, there is both successful and unsuccessful music. For the most part, we only remember the successful work. What you are saying is like a person living in the Classical period saying "Well, Mozart is fantastic, but for the most part I think composing this kind of music in this day and age is folly." Yes, Mozart may have been fantastic, but so were Haydn and Sammartini and Viotti and C.P.E. Bach and many others. Sure, there were many Dittersdorfs for every Mozart, but that doesn't mean the whole genre was on the verge of collaps. You just have to separate the wheat from the chaff. So it was then and so it is now.

 

[tjhmuse]

Thanks for the list. Will definitely help in expanding my classical horizons.