# Basic repertoire for listeners



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Pick maximum 20 pieces that you think represents classical music, and you think everyone should have heard! If you're having trouble limiting yourself, pick 10 from each genre.

My list will come. It obviously demands a bit of thinking.

But I will say that Eine Kleine Nachtmusic is a typical "must hear" - even if i dont like it 

_OMG. Havent you heard that piece? I mean, really??_


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2013)

There is no end to basic repertoire lists.

Gaaaaaaah.

How's this? It's all basic. Get out there and listen!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I probably have misinterpreted the proposition, but...
Monteverdi: Nisi Dominus
Bach: Goldberg variations, on harpsichord _and_ piano
Haydn: any of the Op. 76 string quartets
Mozart: Piano Concerto, K. 271
Beethoven: Symphony No. 5
Berlioz: Les Troyens
Schumann: Fantasia, Op. 17
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 6
Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade
Ravel: Gaspard
Bartók: Concerto for Orchestra

There are of course many, many more that I love, and one of those above I don't. The Rimsky must be heard though.

Except for the Monteverdi they _are_ all 'basic repertoire'. If the neophyte gets his head around these, _some guy_'s world comes next.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

some guy said:


> There is no end to basic repertoire lists.
> 
> Gaaaaaaah.
> 
> How's this? It's all basic. Get out there and listen!


Thats bad. Because now i'm sitting alone with no 'new' pieces to discover. I want to see what music people thinks that everyone should have heard by now. And who knows, maybe i missed something id like to discover. I dno? don't be so negative.

Now im currently listing to:

Bartok - Concerto for orchestra

for the first time. Since _hilltroll_ recommended it.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Chopin - Nocturnes op. 9
Ravel - Piano Concerto In G
Mozart - Piano Sonata No 1
Grieg - Ballade
Debussy - Suite Bergamasque
Ravel - Gaspard De La Nuit
Debussy - prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune
Brahms - Variations on a theme of schumann op. 9
Bruckner - Symphony 9 
Tchaikovsky - Symphony 6
Schubert - String Quartet no 14

From the top of my head...


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

Tallis: Spem in Alium
Vivaldi: 4 violin concerto in B minor
Bach: Goldberg Variations
Handel: Messiah
Haydn: Symphony no.104
Mozart: Symphony no.41
Beethoven: Symphony no.9
Beethoven: String quartet no.14
Schubert: Symphony no.9
Schubert: String Quintet
Brahms: Violin Concerto
Dvorak: Symphony no.9
Tchaikovsky: Symphony no.6
Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade 
Schoenberg: op.11
Webern: Symphony
Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé
Debussy: Piano preludes
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto no.2
Shostakovich: String Quartet no.8


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

You want a wide variety--
Sibelius, Symphony No. 7 in C major, Op. 105

Osmo Vänskä, Lahti Symphony 
Paavo Berglund, Bournemouth Symphony 
Neeme Järvi, Gothenburg Symphony 
Leif Segerstam, Helsinki Philharmonic
Okko Kamu, Copenhagen Philharmonic 
Colin Davis, London Symphony
Kurt Sanderling, Berlin Symphony
Anthony Collins, London Symphony
Thomas Beecham, Royal Philharmonic
John Barbirolli, Hallé Orchestra 
Sakari Oramo, City of Birmingham Symphony
Eugene Ormandy, Philadelphia Orchestra 
Serge Koussevitzky, BBC Symphony
Simon Rattle, City of Birmingham Symphony
Petri Sakari, Iceland Symphony
Pietari Inkinen, New Zealand Symphony
Herbert Blomstedt, San Francisco Symphony
Vladimir Ashkenazy, Royal Stockholm Philharmonic
Leonard Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic
Gennady Rozhdestvensky, Moscow Radio Symphony


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

schuberkovich said:


> Tallis: Spem in Alium
> Vivaldi: 4 violin concerto in B minor
> Bach: Goldberg Variations
> Handel: Messiah
> ...


Spot on! I very much agree with you.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

They've spent a great deal of time here doing recommended lists already

http://www.talkclassical.com/17996-compilation-tc-top-recommended.html


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ravndal said:


> Pick maximum 20 pieces that you think represents classical music, and you think everyone should have heard! If you're having trouble limiting yourself, pick 10 from each genre.


This is a little like those 20 best books list that everybody *should *have read. They may not be the best, they may not be the most definitive but they should be accessible. My trouble is that I dry up around 1840.

Let's see:

Vivaldi Op8 1 to 4 
Purcell Dido and Aeneas
Lully Atys
Bach Brandenberg Concertos
Bach Goldberg Variations
Corelli Concerti Grossi Op6
Rameau Les Indes Gallantes
Handel Water Music
Handel Music for the Royal Fireworks
Handel Concerti Grossi Op6
Mozart Symphony 41
Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
Beethoven Symphony 5
Beethoven Symphony 9
Beethoven Diabelli Variations
Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture
Bizet Carmen


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2013)

Ravndal said:


> Thats bad. Because now i'm sitting alone with no 'new' pieces to discover.


You stretch my credulity.



Ravndal said:


> don't be so negative.


Because I made a positive suggestion? That you get out there and listen? Hmmmm. (Mentally taps pencil on the desktop in my mind.)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

some guy said:


> You stretch my credulity.
> 
> Because I made a positive suggestion? That you get out there and listen? Hmmmm. (Mentally taps pencil on the desktop in my mind.)


You get exactly the same on popular music forums. Young people say 'I've got nothing to listen to please recommend something'. Some don't seem to want to take their own decisions. I just think exploring is more fun, music and art in general isn't a narrow recommended list. And even the most basic research on google will bring up basic canonical lists for a music genre as a starting point, but to find that people have to explore for themselves. Some might say finding a classical forum is exploring, but it's not if it's just used as a means to feed off other people exclusively which is what some really do (not saying this OP, but some are really like that). That's why it can be a good idea to have a recommendations thread to keep all that stuff in one place, or a thread such 'I like x recommend me something similar' (a really narrow and limited view anyway as if music is just pick and match). Then people don't make threads all for themselves on the same thing, which can look a bit self serving.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ravndal said:


> Thats bad. Because now i'm sitting alone with no 'new' pieces to discover. I want to see what music people thinks that everyone should have heard by now. And who knows, maybe i missed something id like to discover. I dno? don't be so negative.
> 
> Now im currently listing to:
> 
> ...


Try Bartok Cantata Profana -- a great work (The Concerto for orchestra and the third piano concerto are in that late Bartokian populist mode/ Bartok was ill, dying, and impoverished. I'm convinced that he consciously chose to write more 'tuneful' works to better his chances of performance revenues, and I believe that was a compromise he did not fully believe in.
Music starts @ 3'55''




a 'cleaner' recording, though I like the Hungarian performance above, for its intonation 













Or his equally fine and fantastic Music For Strings, Percussion & Celesta

















As far as 'basic,' well, I think a lot of what ends up popularly on those most recommended for beginners lists is fine enough, many great pieces, the most known, but as to "accessibility," I think a lot of those underestimate the possibility of new listeners _without_ a lot of preconceived notions... Ergo, I've gone out of my way to choose pieces not at the top of list for the more known composers, and several few have heard of -- all of it pretty fine music of one sort or another.

John Adams ~ Common Tones in Simple Time





Alfredo Casella: Partita per pianoforte e piccola orchestra





Francis Poulenc ~ Le Bal Masqué









Lukas Foss:
Song of Songs








Baroque Variations





Darius Milhaud ~ Les Choéphores





Igor Stravinsky ~ Oedipus Rex

















Joseph Fennimore ~ Concerto Piccolo for Piano and Chamber Orchestra





Harold Shapero ~ Four-Hand Sonata for piano









Irving Fine ~ Notturno for Strings and Harp









Steve Reich ~ Different Trains













Morton Feldman ~ Piano and String Quartet





Luciano Berio: 
Concertino




Folk Songs




Visage





Karlheinz Stockhausen ~ Gesang der Jünglinge

Olivier Messiaen ~ Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine




Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine





Fulvio Caldini ~ Bestiale





Nico Muhly ~ Mothertongue I Archive


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Try Bartok Cantata Profana -- a great work (The Concerto for orchestra and the third piano concerto are in that late Bartokian populist mode/ Bartok was ill, dying, and impoverished. I'm convinced that he consciously chose to write more 'tuneful' works to better his chances of performance revenues, and I believe that was a compromise he did not fully believe in.
> [...]


Wow, you put a lot of thought into that post; I need to save it out for 'research purposes'. Re late Bartók - since you are 'convinced', it is probably profitless to suggest that what he chose to do (and had developed the skill to do) was camouflage the works you mention (and the viola concerto) with a surface layer of conventional attractiveness. Depending on the performances you have heard, the underlying muscle may be too well hidden. Fricsay was an ardent _camo-remover_.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Try Bartok Cantata Profana -- a great work (The Concerto for orchestra and the third piano concerto are in that late Bartokian populist mode/ Bartok was ill, dying, and impoverished. I'm convinced that he consciously chose to write more 'tuneful' works to better his chances of performance revenues, and I believe that was a compromise he did not fully believe in.
> Music starts @ 3'55''
> 
> 
> ...


What a post! Thank you :- ) Looking forward to sit down and start discover them all.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

"OMG. Havent you heard that piece? I mean, really??"

I've been trying to build my knowledge up to the point where I won't hear that kind of thing, and I think it's a good project. My top-20 list might be (ignoring issues like who really wrote the works and accepting common labels): 

- Beethoven: Symphony #5
- Beethoven: Symphony #9 
- Handel: Messiah 
- Orff: Carmina Burana
- Beethoven: Für Elise 
- Bach: Toccata & Fugue in D minor
- Rimsky-Korsakov: Flight of the Bumblebee 
- Ravel: Bolero
- Vivaldi: The Four Seasons
- Pachelbel: Canon
- Albinoni: Adagio 
- Beethoven: Piano Sonata #14 Moonlight 
- Brahms: Wiegenlied (Lullaby) 
- R. Strauss: Also Sprach Zarathustra 
- J. Strauss II: The Blue Danube 
- Tchaikovsky: The Nutcracker
- Bizet: Carmen 
- Mozart: A Little Night Music
- Rossini: The William Tell Overture (The Lone Ranger)
- Haydn: String Quartet op. 76/3

I feel a little bad about some omissions so I'll go a bit beyond 20:

- Dvorak: Symphony #9 
- Mouret: Rondeau from Suite de Symphonies (Masterpiece Theater)
- Grieg: Peer Gynt Suite #1
- Chopin: Piano Sonata #2
- Copland: Fanfare for the Common Man 
- Khachaturian: Gayane
- Barber: Adagio for Strings
- Tchaikovsky: 1812 Overture 
- Fučík: Entry of the Gladiators
- J. Strauss I: Radetzky March 
- Mozart: Piano Sonata #11
- Mozart: Requiem 

At that point you're starting to get into the ordinary repertoire that will be recommended in ordinary lists. 

I think the most efficient way to get to know the popular-but-uncool-for-people-who-hang-out-on-classical-music-message-boards classical music is to get CDs like "greatest hits of the Baroque" and so on. At this point, if someone I knew asked me how to get to know classical music, I'd recommend starting with things like that, just listen to those things a few times, then begin to explore according to what strikes you there.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kleinzeit said:


> You want a wide variety--
> Sibelius, Symphony No. 7 in C major, Op. 105
> 
> Osmo Vänskä, Lahti Symphony
> ...


I think it was supposed to be a selection of works. By the time a person has listened to all of those they'll never want to hear it again--Ho! Ho!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

And he left out the best version... Vaclav Talich!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

There are only two pieces on basic listening lists that I can't abide listening to... Ravel's Bolero (for obvious reasons) and Orff's Carmina Burana. The more I hear CB, the crasser and sloppier it sounds to me. Those are the only two pieces on my music server that make me get up and change tracks. (Well Varese too, but I don't want to start a war.)


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I probably have misinterpreted the proposition, but...
> Monteverdi: Nisi Dominus
> Bach: Goldberg variations, on harpsichord _and_ piano
> Haydn: any of the Op. 76 string quartets
> ...


That wretched "Scherazade" is everywhere I go--I think I'd rather have the "Bumbling Bee" and it's shorter.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ravndal said:


> Thats bad. Because now i'm sitting alone with no 'new' pieces to discover. I want to see what music people thinks that everyone should have heard by now. And who knows, maybe i missed something id like to discover. I dno? don't be so negative.
> 
> Now im currently listing to:
> 
> ...


You tell them buddy! But I wasn't much impressed by the Troll's recommendations,I hope you have the Reiner version.
I think your idea is praiseworthy but I wish people would go out and experiment for themselves more.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2013)

I noticed that _Gesang_ didn't have a youtube link in PetrB's list.

There are several that are only the first nine minutes or so, posted before youtube expanded its time restraints, and some that have distracting videos.

Here's one that's the whole piece and without any distracting video:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Wow, you put a lot of thought into that post; I need to save it out for 'research purposes'. Re late Bartók - since you are 'convinced', it is probably profitless to suggest that what he chose to do (and had developed the skill to do) was camouflage the works you mention (and the viola concerto) with a surface layer of conventional attractiveness. Depending on the performances you have heard, the underlying muscle may be too well hidden. Fricsay was an ardent _camo-remover_.


Fricsay was... well, a profoundly fine and intelligent musician barely covers it, yes? 

I'll have to revisit those later works.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> I noticed that _Gesang_ didn't have a youtube link in PetrB's list.
> 
> There are several that are only the first nine minutes or so, posted before youtube expanded its time restraints, and some that have distracting videos.
> 
> Here's one that's the whole piece and without any distracting video:


THANK YOU! I think Gesang and the Berio Visage are two of the most remarkable electronic pieces to date -- maybe that makes me a retro conservative in certain quarters -- these pieces are just outstanding strong beauties


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

moody said:


> You tell them buddy! But I wasn't much impressed by the Troll's recommendations,I hope you have the Reiner version.
> I think your idea is praiseworthy but I wish people would go out and experiment for themselves more.


Thank you, my friend. I'm always discovering new music alone, I wanted to try something else - and who knows, maybe il find something in common with a member or two


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

science said:


> "OMG. Havent you heard that piece? I mean, really??"
> 
> I've been trying to build my knowledge up to the point where I won't hear that kind of thing, and I think it's a good project. My top-20 list might be (ignoring issues like who really wrote the works and accepting common labels):
> 
> ...


Very good list, but you forgot the Piano Concerto by Grieg!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ravndal said:


> Thank you, my friend. I'm always discovering new music alone, I wanted to try something else - and who knows, maybe il find something in common with a member or two


With classical music you can often find things in common with a lot of people at least with earlier music, because stuff that has lasted for over a century for example isn't likely to be crap. So I really don't think it's that difficult.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

starry said:


> With classical music you can often find things in common with a lot of people at least with earlier music, because stuff that has lasted for over a century for example isn't likely to be crap. So I really don't think it's that difficult.


It's not always so trivial. Most of the times when someone recommend me something they like - it becomes quite personal, and we end up discussing it. Now stop with all this nonsense. Contribute with something real to the thread, or don't contribute at all. This is thread was ment to highlight those overly famous basic repertoire pieces, because it is a bit fun - and as _science_ said


> "OMG. Havent you heard that piece? I mean, really??"
> 
> I've been trying to build my knowledge up to the point where I won't hear that kind of thing, and I think it's a good project


No one likes to be mocked for not having heard a famous piece.

PetrB went ahead and recommended pieces he personally felt that people should hear, which is highly appreciated and a good derivative.



Done with my rant, and over to something more on-topic:

Debussy's _Clair de Lune_ is definitely one of those pieces one should have heard of even if you dont like classical. Too bad it overshadows the rest of the suite - because all the other movements is at least equally beautiful.


----------



## sparsity (Apr 10, 2012)

Taggart said:


> This is a little like those 20 best books list that everybody *should *have read. They may not be the best, they may not be the most definitive but they should be accessible. My trouble is that I dry up around 1840.
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> ...


Why is everyone putting the Goldbers on the list? How about the cello suites?

As to more recent music, you can use some Bartok and Stravinsky and Prokofiev and Shostakovich.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ravndal said:


> It's not always so trivial. Most of the times when someone recommend me something they like - it becomes quite personal, and we end up discussing it. Now stop with all this nonsense. Contribute with something real to the thread, or don't contribute at all.


Actually I thought I was contributing something real. And I think it's you who are being extremely rude.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Actually I thought I was contributing something real. And I think it's you who are being extremely rude.


It may have been genuine, but there is a lot of popular tripe still being performed and recorded one hundred years after its time -- the "Proven by time" is a very tired, though Partially True, saw, and doesn't include a lot of great stuff less than 100 years old.

Are you going to wait until you are dead for that list of test of time works from your own time? 
Naw -- plow on through and get current recommends.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> It may have been genuine, but there is a lot of popular tripe still being performed and recorded one hundred years after its time -- the "Proven by time" is a very tired, though Partially True, saw, and doesn't include a lot of great stuff less than 100 years old.
> 
> Are you going to wait until you are dead for that list of test of time works from your own time?
> Naw -- plow on through and get current recommends.


Oh I like modern music, I just think there tends to be more consensus on older stuff probably because fewer are knowledgable about more recent music. Obviously there will be some difference in preferences and some will not listen to baroque or classical or romantic so much for instance. But most probably are open to those styles and generally I feel there can be agreement on particular works as being at least reasonably good.


----------



## Redfisher (Jun 8, 2013)

Perhaps not what you're looking for but I approached this as if I had a friend wishing to learn more about classical music and recalled the pieces that really helped "hook" me and ones that I would play for them ... Sticking mainly with orchestral pieces...


Beethoven 9th Symphony
Mahler 2nd Symphony
Beethoven 3rd Symphony
Vivaldi Four Seasons
Mozart Requiem
Beethoven 5th Piano Concerto
Ravel Bolero
Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture
Bach Brandenburg Concerto #5
Brahms Hungarian Dances
Rodrigo Concerto de Aranjuez
Wagner Ride of the Valkyries
Mozart 41st Symphony
Tchaikovsky 1st Piano Concerto
Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
Schubert 9th Symphony
Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition
Verdi Anvil Chorus from Il Trovatore
Wagner Flying Dutchman Overture
Gershwin Rhapsody in Blue


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2013)

"Basic repertoire" is so limiting, for one. And it's been done so often. I cannot believe that you cannot have found dozens of "basic repertoire" lists already, all of them pretty much the same.

And it sets up a really kind of sickening situation, for two. Think of the implications.

Indeed, think of all the pieces that will never get on a "basic repertoire" list. Some really incredible music. Now THERE'S negative for ya! (Nonsensical negativity, mayhaps.) If the basic repertoire lists do indeed all pretty much include the same pieces, then they all exclude the same _other_ pieces. What's wrong with those other pieces? Nothing. What makes them any less basic? Nothing.

As for "maybe il find something in common with a member or two," how hard can that be to do? Start talking about music. You'll **** some people off; you'll please some other people. Easy.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think most classical music listeners never even get close to completing the basic listening list, much less going beyond it. I've been seriously listening to classical music for over three decades and core repetoire still holds surprises for me. Classical music is a vast subject, even the "usual suspects" numbers in the hundreds and hundreds.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Here is yet another repertoire list, much to some guy's chagrin. 

To address his remark of "get out there and listen," I think it is first important to establish what one is interested in, which a tyro may not immediately know, and then work from there. As bigshot stated, classical music can appear to be a vast ocean to a newcomer and, thus, overwhelming in not only the quantity of pieces, but also the average length of pieces, especially if one is acclimated to music of other genres that normally span the length of only a few minutes. When compiled correctly, some lists can serve as helpful guides to sort out and sample the many different eras and genres that classical music spans. Keeping these factors in mind, I attempted to create a sampling of sorts a little beyond the "typical" standard repertoire:

Tallis - If Ye Love Me
Josquin - La Déploration de Johannes Ockeghem
Bach - Cello Suite No. 5
Handel - Music for the Royal Fireworks
Haydn - Symphony No. 45 "Farewell"
Mozart - Die Zauberflöte
Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 4
Chopin - Nocturnes, Op. 27
Schumann - Piano Quintet
Tchaikovsky - Serenade for Strings
Brahms - Clarinet Quintet
Bruckner - Te Deum
Schoenberg - Verklärte Nacht
Ives - The Unanswered Question
Mahler - Kindertotenlieder
Honegger - Pacific 231
Janáček - String Quartet No. 2 "Intimate Letters"
Vaughan Williams - Serenade to Music
Ligeti - Musica Ricercata
Adams - The Dharma at Big Sur

I realize there are plenty of these lists floating around (not just in this thread), as some guy pointed out, and that there are plenty of gaps in this list (which is inevitable when allotted only 20 pieces); however I hope that at least something can be gained from mine. Of course, no list is perfect, but I think this one gives a decent survey of the various genres and time periods while sticking to some of the more accessible works available in terms of length and style (the latter criteria, of course, being a lot more subjective).


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2013)

Trout said:


> I think it is first important to establish what one is interested in, which a tyro may not immediately know, and then work from there.


Well, what a list does is establish what other people are (have been) interested in. Those things may not be what this suppositious tyro turns out to be interested in.

Otherwise, this tyro that Trout hypothesizes is quite a different person from me, anyway. I know that there are many people who find the world of classical music to be overwhelming. From the first piece I heard, I was simply hooked. I loved the stuff and couldn't get enough. Vast ocean? Cool!

Come on, if you hear something you like, you find more things like it to like. What does it matter how big the ocean is? You only listen to one thing at a time. Do you really need to have some sort of grasp of the whole world of classical music _before_ you start exploring? Won't be exploring then, will it. Plus, so often it's not you exploring. Other people explore and then you follow them.

Really, I don't understand. If you are really and truly captivated by something, as I was with classical music and later on with twentieth century music, then nothing will seem like a chore, nothing will seem intimidating. It's just fun. But then, I wasn't trying to grasp anything. (If anything, it was me who was being grasped.) I wasn't trying to get a handle on historical periods or on harmony. I just liked the music. Everything else just happened. I never did a systematic study of "classical music." Such a thing would have seemed completely alien to me, completely separate from the activity of listening.

And in about ten years, I had pretty much (no one can do it all, I'm sure) covered all the usual stuff in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Plus a little seventeenth. In another twelve years, I'd covered all the twentieth century stuff, too, and was "up-to-date" by 1984. I say this not out of any braggadicio--really, who would care, anyway--but simply to illustrate what desire can do. I really liked this stuff, so I listened to it. And the more I listened to the more there was _to_ listen to.

Here's where I need to finesse "covered" a little. Because I'm continually discovering things in earlier music that I had never heard before. Saint-Saen's _Requiem_ is the most recent. That and _Helene._ Someone on some thread somewhere posted a link to a piece by Chopin that I had never heard before. But Saint-Saens and Chopin have both been familiar to me since before 1972. And I doubt if I could tell the difference between Telemann and Corelli. Unless for some reason some day I wanted to. Mozart and Haydn, though? Sure thing. Glass and Reich? Nothin' to it.

It seems like people who ask for these lists want something that has nothing to do with listening to music. All I ever wanted to do was listen to music. And because I did, things like keys and opus numbers and dates and such just came. I never put any effort into that kind of thing at all. Or nothing that _felt_ like effort. It was, as I have said before, just a great joy and pleasure. Still is.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> Well, what a list does is establish what other people are (have been) interested in. Those things may not be what this suppositious tyro turns out to be interested in.
> 
> Otherwise, this tyro that Trout hypothesizes is quite a different person from me, anyway. I know that there are many people who find the world of classical music to be overwhelming. From the first piece I heard, I was simply hooked. I loved the stuff and couldn't get enough. Vast ocean? Cool!


Well, I was that tyro once that I was musing about and, in a manner of speaking, I still am. I learned about and listened to music based _solely_ on recommendations and lists were a helpful medium that I almost always used and still do (e.g. the classical music project which you criticized following its inception). Now, maybe I am an anomaly, but ever since I was a kid, I have been fascinated with lists. I created them about many different things, whether they be about the popularity of presidents, a list of my favorite movies, or even recently a list of pieces in the classical repertoire, they provided me with a great amount of entertainment (which I hope does not "stretch your credulity" too much considering you consider lists to be antithetical to learning). So, it is quite apparent we come from two very different backgrounds of many. Therefore, since not everyone learns and listens the same way, it would be just as fallacious of me to discredit any method of learning for others as it would be of you to disparage "lists" and the like.



some guy said:


> Come on, if you hear something you like, you find more things like it to like. What does it matter how big the ocean is? You only listen to one thing at a time. Do you really need to have some sort of grasp of the whole world of classical music _before_ you start exploring? Won't be exploring then, will it. Plus, so often it's not you exploring. Other people explore and then you follow them.


But how would one know what things are similar to any particular piece? True if one likes a Beethoven symphony, it would only be logical to hop from one Beethoven symphony to the next, but once those are exhausted, how would one know what pieces can be stylistically considered similar to Beethoven without any recommendations from anything (as recommendations are psuedo-lists in of themselves)? In response to your quandary about exploring, I believe that no comprehensive knowledge is necessary before exploring; however I believe that a road-map of sorts can be beneficial as I definitely benefited from some. I will be more than willing to give you some examples, if this answer is too nebulous for you.



some guy said:


> Really, I don't understand. If you are really and truly captivated by something, as I was with classical music and later on with twentieth century music, then nothing will seem like a chore, nothing will seem intimidating. It's just fun. But then, I wasn't trying to grasp anything. (If anything, it was me who was being grasped.) I wasn't trying to get a handle on historical periods or on harmony. I just liked the music. Everything else just happened. I never did a systematic study of "classical music." Such a thing would have seemed completely alien to me, completely separate from the activity of listening.


I agree, music should never be something that is arduous nor frightening. I also never specifically sought out knowledge on any of the historical periods or harmony; they just came naturally with the music which I _did_ and _do_ systematically listen to. If you are extrapolating all this from my post, then I am afraid you misconstrued it (unless you are responding to the general tone of people here, which seems inaccurate to me).



some guy said:


> It seems like people who ask for these lists want something that has nothing to do with listening to music. All I ever wanted to do was listen to music. And because I did, things like keys and opus numbers and dates and such just came. I never put any effort into that kind of thing at all. Or nothing that _felt_ like effort. It was, as I have said before, just a great joy and pleasure. Still is.


I will sum up my thoughts here by saying explicitly that everyone has their own preference of learning and listening to music. Not everyone will learn and explore the way you do nor the way I do, but I believe we should let the listeners themselves determine which way is best _for them_. If lists and recommendations are not the way a newcomer wishes to learn, then he or she may simply ignore this thread. However, we should respect those that may find benefits through such mediums, as I know I once did. As the idiom goes: live and let live.

By the way, even though my argument is mainly anecdotally based, the same could be said of yours, so we are fairly even in that regard.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

The thing that worries me here is that there is little opera mentioned and no lieder. If anyone is suggesting that comes only to people when they are experienced such a theory is frankly nonsense.

I see that I can't spell " Scheherazade" but then I never could.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> I know that there are many people who find the world of classical music to be overwhelming.


And you're doing your darnedest to keep them that way!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Basic lists are good for _beginners_, whether it be for classical music or something else, though they are purely the start of an exploration unless someone just wants a bluffer's guide. And really they are easily available throughout the internet, I give people more credit who go out and find the information than want it delivered to them. If people want then to contribute to discussions that's great, though most who join for recommendations probably just want to tick off the pieces they feel they should know, feel they have passed their exam and then leave.

Beginners are probably more interested in favourites polls too, but most people probably don't care what most people's favourite piece in a genre is. They are probably just looking to see if someone else has the same fave as them so they can just be happy someone thinks the same. But as I said there is generally consensus on what is good anyway so it's not really a big deal. And sometimes you may not have a favourite, you might just like a lot of stuff. Maybe you are more likely to have a big favourite if you actually know less of something, if you know more your enjoyment is spread over more pieces and having 'favourites' might be pointless.

PetrB I'm curious what the _popular tripe_ is that you mentioned.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Music that I think *everyone* should have heard? Here it is in no order and, unsurprisingly, mostly from the 20th century.

*Igor Stravinsky* - _L'histoire du Soldat_ suite / _Ebony Concerto_
*Edgard Varèse* - _Amériques_ / _Déserts_
*Maurice Ravel* - _Daphnis et Chloé_ / _Shéhérazade_
*Frank Zappa* - _Civilization Phaze III_ / _The Adventures of Greggery Peccary_ (receiving its BBC Proms première this year!)
*Charles Ives* - _Holidays Symphony_ / _Central Park in the Dark_
*Richard Wagner* - _Das Rheingold_ / _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_
*Gustav Mahler* - _Symphony No. 7_ / _Symphony No. 6_
*Elliott Carter* - _A Symphony of Three Orchestras_ / _String Quartet No. 2_
*Olivier Messiaen* - _Turangalîla-Symphonie_ / _St. François d'Assise_
*Anton Webern* - _Fünf Sätzen für Streichquartett, Op. 5_ / _Sechs Stücke für Orchester, Op. 6_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

In the real world, it is more than usual to find one or more people who already are in to the area you wish to explore, and based on their recommendations, _and their personality, and tastes_ you then go, more or less, with their individual recommendations. Trouble is, asking for the same from a wide body of the general public does bring up, mainly, the most usual suspects.... with which, if you are unfamiliar, are welcome, good steers....

But there is a dearth on those lists -- the likelihood that one chamber work by any composer of any era will be listed is next to nil, ditto for art songs, opera, cantata, oratorio.

The area is, as already said, vast oceans and continents. I've been consuming, listening since the age of six, and now on the edge of the age of official retirement, have oceans left to go in each and every era. The amount of material is "an embarrassment of riches," indeed.

What I had, feel fortunate to have had, were fine music teachers from the age of six, other knowing adults generous with information and keen to share, get me deeper in, and later at one bricks 'n' mortar record store in the dark ages of 33 1/3 LP analog recordings, some salespeople on the floor who were exactly like the canniest of librarians: they noted, quickly, what I was buying (at the time exploring and expanding the 20th century rep) and very knowingly recommended this work, that composer, of which I might have heard but knew nothing. They always seemed to have a perfect sense of what I might next, perhaps a stretch, but knowing I would be totally receptive... very canny, their "timing," spot on 

The upshot of this is the moment someone is recommending things 'to your interest or taste,' latch on to them and pump them for all the information they are worth. Better if they have a sense of pushing your envelope, gently, to music which is a bit of a stretch for you... if they're good at it, their recommendations will lead you to music you might not have otherwise known of, or felt you "understood,' in such good order that you are more than ready for it when you do get to it.

I also urge anyone 'beginning' to learn of music to get almost directly to chamber music and the other non-symphonic genres, where some of many a composer's finest works happen to sit.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

But when someone is a beginner they may start off with relatively limited taste, later some may develop a vast kaleidoscope of tastes. And really all most 'taste' is is a knowledge of some styles and a lack of knowledge of others. Some may want to ask for recommendations of a piece like x, but really isn't that limiting rather than expanding taste? So not everyone is like that. And is music really just like going to the supermarket to pick something off a shelf? Surely it's more interactive.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Basic lists are good for _beginners_, whether it be for classical music or something else, though they are purely the start of an exploration unless someone just wants a bluffer's guide. And really they are easily available throughout the internet, I give people more credit who go out and find the information than want it delivered to them. If people want then to contribute to discussions that's great, though most who join for recommendations probably just want to tick off the pieces they feel they should know, feel they have passed their exam and then leave.
> 
> Beginners are probably more interested in favourites polls too, but most people probably don't care what most people's favourite piece in a genre is. They are probably just looking to see if someone else has the same fave as them so they can just be happy someone thinks the same. But as I said there is generally consensus on what is good anyway so it's not really a big deal. And sometimes you may not have a favourite, you might just like a lot of stuff. Maybe you are more likely to have a big favourite if you actually know less of something, if you know more your enjoyment is spread over more pieces and having 'favourites' might be pointless.
> 
> PetrB I'm curious what the _popular tripe_ is that you mentioned.


That is a matter of my personal taste, which I could "Back Up" by other very creditable sources who are in agreement, which could be countered with other very creditable sources in disagreement to that. To name any would just start a non-productive flame and spitting war, which I'm not wont to do. I'm not dodging out, just don't want a dung-flinging series of comments to hijack this thread.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> But when someone is a beginner they may start off with relatively limited taste, later some may develop a vast kaleidoscope of tastes. And really all most 'taste' is is a knowledge of some styles and a lack of knowledge of others. Some may want to ask for recommendations of a piece like x, but really isn't that limiting rather than expanding taste? So not everyone is like that. And is music really just like going to the supermarket to pick something off a shelf? Surely it's more interactive.


Why do people assume beginners, of any age, "Have Limited Taste?" The first classical music I can recall, a gift of records and a player around age four and a half or so, included Prokofiev and Janacek, Landowska playing Bach on Harpsichord. My first piano lesson, age six, had me in the Bartok Microkosmos.

It is somewhat safe, though, to assume if a person is older, they have heard what is 'classical' and may have a few more, and perhaps hardened, ideas of what classical music is. I still think a lot of introductory anything, from kindergarten to college survey courses, at least in the states, far underestimates people, and is often unconsciously extremely condescending toward the intelligence of those beginners.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well many beginners as we see on forums ask for a piece that sounds similar to something they already know, so I think we can say many of them are likely to be quite selective at the start. Some of those may expand over time, some may not.

I think it's safe to say that people with more experience of classical music or other types of music are likely to be more wide ranging in their listening as they have had more time and so experience. They have persevered with something for longer.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2013)

starry said:


> Well many beginners as we see on forums ask for a piece that sounds similar to something they already know


This says "timidity" to me. Many beginners on forums are timid.

I'm always trying to encourage bravery! (I know that that discourages "science," but "oh, well.")

It's another option. Hmmm. I guess I really do understand. Timid people don't want options; they want answers. The right answers. From experts. (Word in your ear: ain't gonna happen.)



starry said:


> people with more experience of classical music or other types of music are likely to be more wide ranging in their listening as they have had more time and so experience. They have persevered with something for longer.


The language of work and of drudgery and of effort that this topic seems to elicit. I've been listening to classical music for over fifty years now, and I don't remember persevering with anything. Except maybe Sibelius. I didn't get Sibelius at all when I first heard his music. So I just went to the downtown library, checked out all their lps of Sibelius, and listened to little else for a week.

Done.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Well many beginners as we see on forums ask for a piece that sounds similar to something they already know, so I think we can say many of them are likely to be quite selective at the start. Some of those may expand over time, some may not.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that people with more experience of classical music or other types of music are likely to be more wide ranging in their listening as they have had more time and so experience. They have persevered with something for longer.


Both circumstances exist.

I've had a lot of success with people who had preconceptions that Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. were what they ought to be listening to (taught, of course) and many do find that intimidating, all the stuff by the dead white European guys who wore wigs and knee-breeches 

But there are other possibilities of suggesting some very well-written 20th century music which is readily "accessible," requires no new set of reflexes to listen to and understand, and which by-passes any notion of needing to understand, say, symphonic form, etc. Copland's Appalachian Spring, since it is episodic, or Ravel's Rapsodie espagnole, Barber's (now overexposed but wholly effective for a beginner) Adagio for strings, and now, a generation later since I started recommending those, other readily listenable and tonal works by Reich, John Adams, etc. There are many other approaches than first initiating someone to the older period baroque, classical and romantic European traditional music.

Often, an introduction like that opens the door quite readily, without a squeak of a hinge or the invitee feeling at all overwhelmed or intimidated that they need to "know something about" prior just listening and enjoying.

That more negative cookie cutter approach, "these dead white European's music represents the apex of western civilization, and you need to know the formalistic aspects to appreciate this stuff," is very old school, and I believe has turned at least as many people off and away from classical music as it has turned people on, as well as being their initial very negative experience re: "the first intimidation."

Too, that you need to know the period, all about the composer is relative, somewhat if not entirely valid, but that does not at all have to precede "just listening."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bottom line is, sometimes someone wants to know, "What's the famous music? What's the music that has been famous?"

And instead of giving them an answer, we give them a bunch of arrogant attitude about how they're listening to music wrong and oh my god what a loser they must be to ask such a question. Why can't they just be as inspired and enlightened and cool as we are? 

It's a variety, a sort-of meta- version, of ordinary snobbiness. We have moved beyond scorning according to the canon and now scorn anyone who doesn't display sufficient post-canonicity.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2013)

science said:


> Bottom line is, sometimes someone wants to know, "What's the famous music? What's the music that has been famous?"
> 
> And instead of giving them an answer, we give them a bunch of arrogant attitude about how they're listening to music wrong and oh my god what a loser they must be to ask such a question. Why can't they just be as inspired and enlightened and cool as we are?
> 
> It's a variety, a sort-of meta- version, of ordinary snobbiness. We have moved beyond scorning according to the canon and now scorn anyone who doesn't display sufficient post-canonicity.


This is all interpretation. There is no scorn, there is no arrogance, there is no snobbiness. That's all you reading those qualities into what you read.

And it all stems, far as I can recall, with me not playing along with you on one little thread long, long ago. Since then, everything I've ever written, according to you, has been arrogant obstructionism.

I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise. I'm writing this to suggest to our colleagues that this is not the only possible interpretation of my position.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> This is all interpretation. There is no scorn, there is no arrogance, there is no snobbiness. That's all you reading those qualities into what you read.
> 
> And it all stems, far as I can recall, with me not playing along with you on one little thread long, long ago. Since then, everything I've ever written, according to you, has been arrogant obstructionism.
> 
> I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise. I'm writing this to suggest to our colleagues that this is not the only possible interpretation of my position.


The modern music thread? Maybe that's when you noticed me, but I knew you long before that.

But this isn't about you, or at least I didn't mean it to be about you. It's a broader phenomenon, of which you're sometimes a part.

BTW, I used the word "we" in my post advisedly. I've been guilty too. We all have our own ways. For now I really don't want to get into forensic research about who did what with what intentions. Just to point out that there is - or ought to be - nothing wrong with wanting to know what music has been famous, and there would be nothing wrong with answering the question straightforwardly.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravndal said:


> Pick maximum 20 pieces that you think represents classical music, and you think everyone should have heard! If you're having trouble limiting yourself, pick 10 from each genre...


Well let me say on the outset that these are not 'shoulds' but more like works that for me where gateways to further enriching, enjoyable, worthwhile experiences in classical music. So I will take your by the genre option since with it I can unpack a bunch of my gateway works. A lot of these in my early days of classical, way back, some when I got back into it in recent years more heavily again.

*Choral*
Palestrina Stabat Mater
Monteverdi Vespers of 1610
Handel The Messiah
Mozart Great Mass in C
Haydn The Creation
Bruckner Mass in E minor
Puccini Messa di Gloria
Nielsen Three Motets
Kodaly Psalmus Hungaricus
Ramirez Misa Criolla

*Symphony*
William Boyce Eight Symphonies (I'm counting this as one...so kinda cheating?!)
Mozart Symphony #41
Haydn Symphonies 49 'La Passione,' 88, 103 'Drum-roll'
Beethoven Symphony #6 'Pastoral'
Brahms Symphony #4
Bruckner Symphony #6
Shostakovich Symphony #10
Vaughan Williams Symphony #8

*Chamber*
Haydn 'Emperor' Quartet
Beethoven String Quartet Op. 132
Schubert String Quintet in C
Mendelssohn Octet for strings
Janacek String Quartets 1 and 2
Messiaen Quartet for the End of Time
Shostakovich Piano Trio #2
Walton String Quartet in A minor
Carter String Quartet #1

*Concerto*
Vivaldi The Four Seasons (again, its one work!)
Haydn Piano/Keyboard Concerto in D
Mozart Clarinet Concerto
Beethoven Piano Concertos 4 and 5 "Emperor"
Saint-Saens Piano Concertos 2 and 4
Brahms Violin Concerto
Walton Viola Concerto
Bartok Concerto for Orchestra (I see it as more like a symphony, but anyway)

*Solo instrumental*
J.S. Bach Chaconne from Partita for solo violin #2 (BWV1004)
J.S. Bach Goldberg Variations
Beethoven Pathetique and Waldstein Piano Sonatas
Alkan Sonata "Les Quatre Ages"
Debussy Preludes, books I and II
Ligeti Etudes, books I and II
Ravel Gaspard de la nuit
Rachmaninov Preludes (esp. in C Sharp minor, C minor, G minor)
Janacek Piano Sonata I.X.1905 "From the Street"

Even with these, I left out so much! (probably forgot some?).

I can do other genres like opera and ballet, but thats what I got time for now. Hope this is of use to you.



> But I will say that Eine Kleine Nachtmusic is a typical "must hear" - even if i dont like it


Well its one thing I don't seem to tire of, despite its overplayed status!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Both circumstances exist.
> 
> I've had a lot of success with people who had preconceptions that Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. were what they ought to be listening to (taught, of course) and many do find that intimidating, all the stuff by the dead white European guys who wore wigs and knee-breeches
> 
> ...


But if people want to get into classical music they are unlikely to be that intimidated by it otherwise they wouldn't bother in the first place. Though most people obviously start with the famous names, and I don't think that's necessarily because they have to be told to do that, it's because they are the names that represent classical music to most people. And if something is beyond you for the time being then you try something else, which is what I did without the need of internet help in the 80s. There's loads of cds that are classical music for beginners playlists anyway. There's a basic repertoire list sticky at the top of the forum page which few people seen to look at.

I think it would be helpful for beginners if all these threads asking for what to start with were merged, then it would be all there in one place for people. They wouldn't be under the huge misapprehension that they are somehow alone and have to make a thread about their own needs when really it just fits into very many other threads that have been made here in the past. There is a big consensus on many things, it really isn't very difficult at all to find easy classical pieces that can be appreciated by beginners.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2013)

I've said this before, but really, I swear, this is for all the world like taking a bunch of kids to a candy store and having them all say, "Oh, what should I get? Is this chocolate good? I don't know if I like lollipops or not. What are your ten favorite candies?"

Can you imagine that? It would never happen.

I would love to see all these "beginners" stop thinking of themselves as beginners, too. You don't know very much about the world of classical music? So what? As I've also said before, you can only listen to one piece at a time. So do it! Listen to the piece. Then listen to another one. It's fun, isn't it? (If it's not, why by all that's holy are you doing it, then?)

Where I would expect to see eagerness and greediness, all I see is trepidation. _That's_ my point.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ I agree with you about just delving into it, but I guess some people are timid or easily overwhelmed by nature and _do_ require their hands held.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I would also recommend that "beginners" also delve into some of the non-core repertoire. Just take a chance on something random from time to time.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a core canon of works that you're _supposed_ to like. (Which is how I think it would seem to a "beginner".)


----------



## wzg (Jun 17, 2013)

Prokofiev's Symphony No. 5! Tuneful, but complex...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> ...there is - or ought to be - nothing wrong with wanting to know what music has been famous, and there would be nothing wrong with answering the question straightforwardly.


Wouldn't google take care of that just as well as anyone here could?

Really famous, as in known in households where no other classical music is known, maybe the name of the piece and composer also unknown, runs something like this:

Bach ~ Air on the G string / Sheep shall safely graze
Mozart ~ A snippet of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik / Rondo ala Turca
Beethoven ~ Fur Elise / first movement of Sonata 14 / the opening theme of the fifth symphony, the ode to joy section, even that truncated, from the last movement of the ninth symphony. (racking it up here, Beethoven is _really famous_
Carl Orff ~ the introduction to Carmina Burana, O Fortuna

and so it goes....


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> But this isn't about you, or at least I didn't mean it to be about you. It's a broader phenomenon, of which you're sometimes a part.
> 
> BTW, I used the word "we" in my post advisedly. I've been guilty too. We all have our own ways. For now I really don't want to get into forensic research about who did what with what intentions. Just to point out that there is - or ought to be - nothing wrong with wanting to know what music has been famous, and there would be nothing wrong with answering the question straightforwardly.


Approximately everything about music is 'about' _some guy_.

It does seem logical to me for a newbie to want to know what the 'famous' music is, because it is _reasonable_ to assume that the music is 'famous' for one or more reasons. I'm not at all sure that 'going famous' is any better a method for getting the hang of classical music than pure random selections would be. I don't see the harm in it either, even if that approach moves the 'getting the hang of' modern music a few flips of the calender away. What's the hurry?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Approximately everything about music is 'about' _some guy_.
> 
> It does seem logical to me for a newbie to want to know what the 'famous' music is, because it is _reasonable_ to assume that the music is 'famous' for one or more reasons. I'm not at all sure that 'going famous' is any better a method for getting the hang of classical music than pure random selections would be. I don't see the harm in it either, even if that approach moves the 'getting the hang of' modern music a few flips of the calender away. What's the hurry?


It's perfectly natural to go for the famous tunes at the start, but there are so many cds catering to that it shouldn't be very hard to find them for anyone who is at all inquisitive. I think it's the culture of the internet now that people go on forums to ask everything, even stuff that they really could find out for themselves.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Wouldn't google take care of that just as well as anyone here could?


Not that I know of. I tried.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=l...78,d.d2k&fp=ce42366cbac5f732&biw=1296&bih=575


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

apricissimus said:


> I would also recommend that "beginners" also delve into some of the non-core repertoire. Just take a chance on something random from time to time.


They pretty much have to given the lack of information available to them.

Anyway, I cannot imagine a beginner who actually just listens in order to a list of recommended works. Everyone is going to be intrigued by something or other and try it regardless of where it stands on any lists. So that is not a problem.

In my own case - despite YEARS of trying to get to know the basic repertoire, YEARS of trying to find out what music was the most famous, during which I KNEW HOW TO USE GOOGLE THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I knew Alexander Agricola, Lennox Berkeley, George Crumb, Charles Stanford, Frederic Rzewski, Eugène Ysaÿe, Muzio Clementi, Wojciech Kilar, Emil von Sauer, Carl Czerny, Zhou Long, Gabriel Pierné, Ernest Chausson, Carl Stamitz, Sylvius Leopold Weiss, John Jenkins, Josef Fiala, Frantisek Antonin Rosetti (Rössler), Jan Dismas Zelenka, Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck, Manos Hadjidakis, Jeajoon Ryu, Giacinto Scelsi, Paul Moravec...

and of course many, many more...

Before I knew of the Radetzky March.

I'd been a participant on talkclassical and other boards for several years, before I knew of the Radetzky March.

The idea seems to be that only idiots don't know of the Radetzky March. The idea, in other words, is that beginners at classical music are idiots.

And _*the* primary underlying motive_ for our refusing to tell them about something like the Radetzky March is that we want them to remain idiots in order that we can retain our great superiority.

Of course it is _essential_ that we deny it. Our superiority, we must pretend, is inherent, or is the kind of thing that is so insurmountable that the beginner need not even bother trying to catch up. That is the only way our superiority can be really secure, ourselves bearing no role in it. It's the divine order of things. We can't fight god. So stay ignorant, plebes. It's humiliating that we even have to talk to you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=l...78,d.d2k&fp=ce42366cbac5f732&biw=1296&bih=575


Of course I knew and used classical net. For years.

Of course I hadn't gotten around to John Knowles Paine yet.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

So the bottom line is that you guys are all so amazing, so awesome, wow I wish I could be like you. Jeez, what sublimity in your august presence! 

Oh, wait till they hear this back in West Virginia. They won't believe it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

science said:


> The idea seems to be that only idiots don't know of the Radetzky March. The idea, in other words, is that beginners at classical music are idiots.
> 
> And _*the* primary underlying motive_ for our refusing to tell them about something like the Radetzky March is that we want them to remain idiots in order that we can retain our great superiority.
> 
> Of course it is _essential_ that we deny it. Our superiority, we must pretend, is inherent, or is the kind of thing that is so insurmountable that the beginner need not even bother trying to catch up. That is the only way our superiority can be really secure, ourselves bearing no role in it. It's the divine order of things. We can't fight god. So stay ignorant, plebes. It's humiliating that we even have to talk to you.


You're making very big assumptions about other people there. For myself I just listen to classical music for enjoyment not to worry over whether I will meet someone's assumed standards. For example with Wagner I don't know anything beyond his best bits. I will get around to hearing The Ring eventually, but it doesn't worry me. Everybody will always be ignorant about something because there is so much music out there. There's always plenty of other things to talk about which someone has heard rather than worry too much about what you haven't yet.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2013)

science said:


> They pretty much have to given the lack of information available to them.


There is no lack.



science said:


> In my own case - despite YEARS of trying to get to know the basic repertoire, YEARS of trying to find out what music was the most famous


Why? Why not just listen?



science said:


> Before I knew of the Radetzky March.


So?



science said:


> The idea seems to be that only idiots don't know of the Radetzky March. The idea, in other words, is that beginners at classical music are idiots.
> 
> And _*the* primary underlying motive_ for our refusing to tell them about something like the Radetzky March is that we want them to remain idiots in order that we can retain our great superiority.


This is all you. This idea is only in your mind. You feel inferior so it's essential that it be our fault. We ain't buyin' it.



science said:


> the kind of thing that is so insurmountable that the beginner need not even bother trying to catch up.


Bovine excrement. It's ridiculously easy to "catch up," if that's what you're into. And listening to music is not about catching up but about enjoying some really fine stuff. And enjoying it without worrying about what other people are thinking about you. They're probably not thinking about _you_ at all. Too busy listening to that Brahms clarinet trio, you know. Or that Lachenmann guitar duo.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Symphony
Beethoven 4, 6, 9
Brahms 3, 4
Dvorak 9
Mozart 40

Solo piano
Beethoven sonatas 21, 23, 29, 31
Chopin nocturnes 8, 15
Chopin ballades 1, 4
Liszt piano sonata
Schubert wanderer fantaisie
Schumann fantaisie

Violin solo
Bach chaconne

Piano concerto
Beethoven 3, 4, 5
Chopin 2
Grieg
Liszt 2
Mozart 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Schumann
Rachmaninoff 2

Violin concerto
Beethoven
Brahms
Mendelssohn 2

Cello concerto
Dvorak
Elgar
Schumann 

String quartet
Beethoven 13, 14
Schubert 13


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> There is no lack.
> 
> Why? Why not just listen?
> 
> ...


Another post in which you tell me that I should be more like you, share your goals, abandon my goals. As I should listen to music like you, maybe I should dress like you, walk, talk and act like you. I just might be the next best thing, but not quite you, 'cuz you're the real Slim Shady!

I love you dude, but not that much. I'm going to go on listening and exploring the way that I want to listen and explore, not the way you (say that you) think I should.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> You're making very big *assumptions* about other people there. For myself I just listen to classical music for enjoyment not to worry over whether I will meet someone's assumed standards. For example with Wagner I don't know anything beyond his best bits. I will get around to hearing The Ring eventually, but it doesn't worry me. Everybody will always be ignorant about something because there is so much music out there. There's always plenty of other things to talk about which someone has heard rather than worry too much about what you haven't yet.


I don't think "assumptions" is the right word. I've been around for a while now, I've seen the game played.

Fact is, someone is going to judge you for not having heard The Ring yet. No one (or nearly no one) is going to judge you for not having heard Gluck's Les Chinoises. So there's a lot of music and we'll all always be ignorant of something, but not all ignorances are created equal.

If I recommended Les Chinoises above The Ring, it'd be strategic. The thing would be to show what a novel, creative recommendation I can make, so that the other illuminati can admire me, all dressed up in the robes and furred gowns of helping someone along.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I don't think "assumptions" is the right word. I've been around for a while now, I've seen the game played.
> 
> Fact is, someone is going to judge you for not having heard The Ring yet. No one (or nearly no one) is going to judge you for not having heard Gluck's Les Chinoises. So there's a lot of music and we'll all always be ignorant of something, but not all ignorances are created equal.
> 
> If I recommended Les Chinoises above The Ring, it'd be strategic. The thing would be to show what a novel, creative recommendation I can make, so that the other illuminati can admire me, all dressed up in the robes and furred gowns of helping someone along.


Your post is an interesting blend of acuity and... some sort of 'rubbed the wrong way' sensitivity. The fur-trimmed robes and funny-looking head gear picture is _good_! Seems like there must be a artist among us who could make something of that. A pseudo-Rembrandt group scene maybe, and/or a comic strip. Yeah...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

science said:


> Fact is, someone is going to judge you for not having heard The Ring yet.


And that's not the kind of judgement that I'd care less about anyway, so it wouldn't even bear thinking about for me, let alone talking about. But even though you say you will go the way you want to you actually seem very concerned about others and what they may think you should have heard. So that seems a bit of a contradiction to me.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

For me, it's about when will I hear the Ring *again*!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

bigshot said:


> For me, it's about when will I hear the Ring *again*!


Which is fine, I haven't made any judgement on it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> And that's not the kind of judgement that I'd care less about anyway, so it wouldn't even bear thinking about for me, let alone talking about. But even though you say you will go the way you want to you actually seem very concerned about others and what they may think you should have heard. So that seems a bit of a contradiction to me.


No, I'm all about self-education. It's about who I want to be. Now that is an inherently social thing, not a individualistic project, but it's really me. The self/other dichotomy isn't troubling me so much.

See, there is a real world, as far as I can tell, and other people are a part of it, and I enjoy trying to participate in it. Maybe in some Zen solipsism POV a department store in Apgujeong is just as wonderful as the Sistine Chapel or Angkor Wat, but not from my POV. The 411 comes from others, as it must, but the desire is approximately my own.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

regardless of the possible self-aggrandizing reasons behind a suggestion, it could be of benefit to the curious to take the suggestion maker up on the challenge and listen to the work. Life's too short to worry too much about who's looking down their nose at you.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2013)

The reluctance on the part of some members to make recommendations I find puzzling. I'll not defend a specific member for asking - perhaps ravndal should know better, perhaps not. But someone who knows next to nothing needs either a starting point or a map, not a mere exhortation to explore - or s/he wouldn't have asked!

Internet searching is all very well, but it doesn't offer the human touch, even if you can just type in "top twenty classical pieces" and get a Youtube link - 



 (_Flight of the BumbleBee_ for god's sake!?) - it's not come with the endorsement of the members that a TC acolyte might be looking for, nor the reasons for their recommendation.

I think I'd probably try to recommend pieces that emphasised what is different about Classical from popular music - so, pieces that were not mere tunes, but offered something different in texture or length from the 3 minute pop song.

Ligeti - Atmospheres
Stravinsky - Rite of Spring
Ravel - Bolero
Shostakovich - Symphony No 7
Beethoven - Symphony No 8
Reich - Music for 18 Musicians

etc.

[edit] (Posted before I read the exchange between science and someguy, but after I read the first few posts on page 1.)


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Well, the thread didn't end up as i first intended. Which is my fault for not writing clearly enough. I wouldnt call my self a beginner at all, but with so many works that has been composed the last 500 years people are bound to have a big variety of recommandations - which i have benefitted from already. The recommended lists is good, but quite unaccurate - since there is always a change in tastes and members on the forum.

But thanks to those who have contributed, and i hope to be clearer in future threads.

G'nite yall :tiphat:


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I had to look up the 411, google was my friend. 

Basically you can get hundreds of recommendations from different people, but you won't have time to hear it all. Ultimately it always is an individual's choice what you want to hear and not the choice of someone who is putting a list up. Like above a particular Beethoven symphony is recommended, but it's likely that someone who likes classical will get around to hearing them all eventually and will decide for themselves which are their favourites anyway. You could say the same of many other things.



Ravndal said:


> Well, the thread didn't end up as i first intended. Which is my fault for not writing clearly enough.


Not really. Music forums are for discussion and threads will branch out according to which directions people want to discuss an issue. This isn't a forum game or part of the recommendations project here (which is explicitly lists and I have linked to that on threads), which will have their own rules.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravndal said:


> .....
> But thanks to those who have contributed, and i hope to be clearer in future threads.
> 
> ...


You where clear enough to me, the way I made sense of it anyway. So I put some things in each genre that let me branch out into other things, what I called gateway works.

BTW if you want me to do the same as I did before, but with other genres (chamber orch., opera, ballet, experimental/avant garde) let me know.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The problem with recommending a particular piece as a gateway for someone is while it may be the gateway in your mind it might not actually be that for someone else. So somebody else might find Shostakovich 7th not to be that good a gateway to his music compared to another piece, so the only way someone can find out is to listen to the other symphonies until they find which one is and which performance is. So it takes work and time often. It's not as simple as beginners think, they do actually have to do some work.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Another approach: A list I made for another thread the other day. All "friendly" 20th Century music....

Arthur Honegger ~ Pastorale d'été 





Aaron Copland ~ Appalachian Spring









Manuel de Falla ~ Nights in the Gardens of Spain













Francis Poulenc:
Gloria




Suite from the ballet, Les Biches









Joaquin Rodrigo ~ Concierto Serenata for harp and orchestra













Claude Debussy ~ Danses sacrée et profane, for harp and strings





Maurice Ravel ~ Introduction and Allegro, for harp, Flute, Clarinet, and strings





Gerald Finzi ~ Eclogue for piano and string orchestra





Lou Harrison ~ Chorale, from Suite for Symphonic Strings





Prokofiev ~ Symphony No. 1 "Classical"





Stravinsky ~ Apollo, for string orchestra













John Adams ~ Common Tones in Simple Time


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I think the key is the wider context. Many, maybe most, just focus on what are the greatest pieces, what is the best in a style, the best by a composer, or even the best composer. The other approach is just to look at any piece and say whether you think it is any good or not. In other words just enjoy the music and it's place within music rather than worrying about anything else, that might develop a wider appreciation of music. I could put a list up, I could include things like Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, Arriaga symphony, Joseph White's Valse caprice, Müller-Siemens Passacaglia for orchestra. But I could no doubt name very many hundreds of things so really it's just pointless random stuff. If I did a list like that I'd consider it among my weakest posts on the forum and not in my view contributing in as interesting as way as I might. And at least as importantly not producing very interesting discussion on a discussion forum.

I still maintain that if you put recommendation threads together it would help people more, instead of making people think everyone has to do their own thread. It really isn't about me me me, there is plenty of consensus. Merge recommendations together and people will see that. People ignore the recommendations sticky so that doesn't really seem to help.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> They pretty much have to given the lack of information available to them.
> 
> Anyway, I cannot imagine a beginner who actually just listens in order to a list of recommended works. Everyone is going to be intrigued by something or other and try it regardless of where it stands on any lists. So that is not a problem.
> 
> ...


My goodness,are you sure that your imagination isn't working overtime ?
There may be musical snobs, but most people are happy to help beginners not least because they can show them what they love as examples.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> The problem with recommending a particular piece as a gateway for someone is while it may be the gateway in your mind it might not actually be that for someone else. So somebody else might find Shostakovich 7th not to be that good a gateway to his music compared to another piece, so the only way someone can find out is to listen to the other symphonies until they find which one is and which performance is. *So it takes work and time often. It's not as simple as beginners think, they do actually have to do some work.*


As far as I can tell, no one suggested anything to the contrary, especially to the part in bold.

If someone actually did ask, "Which works will I like the most?" I guess we'd all agree there's no way to know.

But at least from my perspective, enjoyment is cheap and can be had cheaply. That's just my POV; evidently most people, even most people who identify as fans of classical music, find classical music difficult to enjoy. But as for me, I can enjoy it all pretty easily. (Not so with literature, for example, with which I'm much more discerning, much pickier, much more opinionated, much less tolerant of anything like mediocrity.)

So that's not what I'm after, or what I've ever been after. Nor do I want to know whether I'm supposed to enjoy a certain work - another common red herring in these discussions. And I doubt many beginners want these things. After all, few people are that stupid.

Isn't it interesting that you, at least in this post, assume that beginners think it's simple, think that they won't have to do any work? "They don't know much about classical music; therefore, they are naive and lazy." Your assumptions about them amount to slander.

And how far, I'd like to know, are you above them?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> They pretty much have to given the lack of information available to them.
> 
> Anyway, I cannot imagine a beginner who actually just listens in order to a list of recommended works. Everyone is going to be intrigued by something or other and try it regardless of where it stands on any lists. So that is not a problem.
> 
> ...


Well,that is one hell of a rant, and I sincerely hope you feel better now.

It is not a conspiracy, nor elitism, It IS an everyday phenomena in all sorts of specialized areas, though.
UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT TO ASK FOR IT, You may as well be someone in a land where you don't speak the language and stand their waving your hands and gesticulating. A massively frustrating discomfort many are familiar with.

Now, no judgment meant here, If you had asked for the light, fluffy, well made but inconsequential pops / lite classical, most anyone would have known right away what you were looking for, Radetzky March, Grand Canyon Suite, Liadov Musical Snuffbox, Leroy ANderson Musical Clock /Sleigh Ride, J. Strauss Junior Waltzes, Rhapsody in blue, Stars 'n' Stripes forever, Orchestral suites from Lehar's Merry Widow, etc. etc.

Me, and others, mistaking your inarticulate request as being for food, did not know you were looking for sugary desserts -- sometimes whether music or actual food considered guilty pleasures.( BTW. The Viennese -- and Germans -- call that genre "Whipped cream." 

If you get a book or look up an article on the art of cinema, chances are slight it will make mention of those Laurel and Hardy shorts, Mack Sennett flatfoot reels, may mention Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, not The Little Rascals, Spanky and his Gang, etc. etc. Some of all that cultural gold, well made, and a pure delight. But you asked about FILM, not funny flickers. It is really a dynamic as basic as that. Maybe you've found a niche for a market in a kind of guide book to the arts and entertainment?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Well,that is one hell of a rant, and I sincerely hope you feel better now.
> 
> It is not a conspiracy, nor elitism, It IS an everyday phenomena in all sorts of specialized areas, though.
> UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT TO ASK FOR IT, You may as well be someone in a land where you don't speak the language and stand their waving your hands and gesticulating. A massively frustrating discomfort many are familiar with.
> ...


Hey look, you managed to embody a lot of the attitude I had in mind! Well done, there.

But of course I did not have in mind "light, fluffy, well made but inconsequential pops / lite classical," and if I had wanted that I could have asked for it - as you expressed no intention of judgment in your remarks, so I now claim to intend no judgment in remarking that there _may_ be some irony in you labeling me "inarticulate." Although that's not fair, of course, just in case English isn't your native language, and certainly I'd do much worse trying to express these things in Korean. Or you may be dictating to a computer program. Or have a headache. Or something. So, unlike you, I sincerely intend no judgment. But in any case it is fair to notice some irony in your post beginning by labeling my post a rant.

Here's the content that really matters: If I hadn't heard of some very heavy, pretentious, ever-so-important work just as famous as the Radetzky March, I'd have been just as disappointed. Sorry to tell you that, because it means you'll have to construct a new basis for your scorn. But I guess you will have done so by...........

Now.

Let's hear it! Should be no less edifying than what we've seen so far.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ladies and Gentlemen! As I attempted to indicate a few posts back in the thread, friend _science_ has ****** in his armor, and some exposed nerve ends near them. I found that out a couple years back, so don't get the notion that I am unusually perceptive. (Damn few unusually perceptive Vermont hillbillies on the ground.)

I suggest you guys just back off, take three deep breaths, and then go do something else. Eh?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

What a laugh--PetrB may be many things and probably is but inarticulate ? Not really !!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Hey look, you managed to embody a lot of the attitude I had in mind! Well done, there.
> 
> But of course I did not have in mind "light, fluffy, well made but inconsequential pops / lite classical," and if I had wanted that I could have asked for it - as you expressed no intention of judgment in your remarks, so I now claim to intend no judgment in remarking that there _may_ be some irony in you labeling me "inarticulate." Although that's not fair, of course, just in case English isn't your native language, and certainly I'd do much worse trying to express these things in Korean. Or you may be dictating to a computer program. Or have a headache. Or something. So, unlike you, I sincerely intend no judgment. But in any case it is fair to notice some irony in your post beginning by labeling my post a rant.
> 
> ...


You're just determined to have it your way and sustain your high dudgeon snit, I guess. You want to know about the Raderzky march, you have to inquire about lighter fare. I did, without thinking it condescending in any way, say that many of those 'whipped cream' pieces were very well made, I.e. "Good Writing." But if I make any attempt to assuage your mythic perpetuation of the elitist cadre not wanting you to know of the Radetzky March, I feel I will be depriving you of some life-sustaining adrenaline.

What you might actually be looking for is a sort of Carl Sagan of classical music. Of many a brilliant person in his field, there was only one Carl Sagan.

Carry on.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Bach: Goldberg Variations 
Beethoven: Symphony No. 3
Brahms Symphony No. 1 
Dvorak: Symphony No. 9
Elgar: Enigma Variations
Handel: Concerto Grosso No. 10, Op. 6
Haydn: Piano Trio, H XV No. 30
Mozart: Piano Concerto No. 24
Nielsen: Symphony No. 1
Poulenc: Concerto for Two Pianos
Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 3
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 3
Ravel: Piano Concerto in G
D. Scarlatti: Sonata for Keyboard, K550 
Schubert: "Trout"
Schumann: Symphony No. 3
Scriabin: Piano Sonata No. 3
Sibelius: Symphony No. 2
Stravinsky: Le Sacre du Printemps
Tchaikovsky: Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Trout said:


> Here is yet another repertoire list, much to some guy's chagrin.
> 
> To address his remark of "get out there and listen," I think it is first important to establish what one is interested in, which a tyro may not immediately know, and then work from there. As bigshot stated, classical music can appear to be a vast ocean to a newcomer and, thus, overwhelming in not only the quantity of pieces, but also the average length of pieces, especially if one is acclimated to music of other genres that normally span the length of only a few minutes. When compiled correctly, some lists can serve as helpful guides to sort out and sample the many different eras and genres that classical music spans. Keeping these factors in mind, I attempted to create a sampling of sorts a little beyond the "typical" standard repertoire:
> 
> ...


Fail, no "Trout".


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2013)

Ravndal said:


> Pick maximum 20 pieces that you think represents classical music, and you think everyone should have heard! If you're having trouble limiting yourself, pick 10 from each genre.
> 
> My list will come. It obviously demands a bit of thinking.
> 
> ...


I'm sure these points have already been covered, but just to be sure, I wanted to leave behind the Radetzky March and look again at what the OP was asking.

First, "20 pieces". A tiny fraction of what might be chosen, so clearly an impossible task, unless there is a greater specification. There is. Ravndal clarifies - "that you think represents classical music." That could make things easier, provided that whoever sets about making an offering explains their criteria - how the 20 pieces they've chosen 'represent' classical music. Of course, the word 'classical' brings with it its own troubles, but surely it's possible to offer a largely uncontroversial 19, and make the point that the 20th represents the debate about where classical becomes something else (like Merzbow, perhaps?)

Now, Ravndal makes things a little more challenging when he refers to 'genre' - as if we already know what the genre are and what would represent them. And then, to top it off, he introduces the voice of scorn and incredulity, aimed at putting down anyone who either hasn't heard a 'representative' piece, or, more likely, a piece that is so ubiquitous that only a brainless hermit can't have come across it.

Returning to possible criteria, this presents its own problems. Shall I go for 20 that represent Ravndal's 'genres'? Or try to represent classical from its beginnings (at least, where we have something recorded) to its most recent incarnations? Or the ways in which the various instruments are used - solo piano, string quartet, violin concerto, symphony orchestra, tape and laptop? At any rate, I see no hint of either 'greatest' or 'favourite' or even 'popular' in the OP.

So, Ravndal returns and clarifies a little (but also muddies the waters a little) by suggesting simultaneously that he wants to listen to new things, but also wants to make sure he's listened to the obvious. He even tells science in #26 what's missing (Grieg Piano Concerto) from the list offered in #16.

So, Ravndal didn't really want to know what 20 pieces might represent, but what might make you look foolish if you owned to not having heard it. In which case, we return to where we started - an impossible task: Sisyphus had it easier!


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I'm sure these points have already been covered, but just to be sure, I wanted to leave behind the Radetzky March and look again at what the OP was asking.
> 
> First, "20 pieces". A tiny fraction of what might be chosen, so clearly an impossible task, unless there is a greater specification. There is. Ravndal clarifies - "that you think represents classical music." That could make things easier, provided that whoever sets about making an offering explains their criteria - how the 20 pieces they've chosen 'represent' classical music. Of course, the word 'classical' brings with it its own troubles, but surely it's possible to offer a largely uncontroversial 19, and make the point that the 20th represents the debate about where classical becomes something else (like Merzbow, perhaps?)
> 
> ...


I think you're thinking too hard


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2013)

schuberkovich said:


> I think you're thinking too hard


Nah, you're just a lightweight!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

J.S. Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1
Beethoven: Egmont Overture
Cage: Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano
Chopin: Nocturnes, Op. 27
Debussy: Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun
Haydn: Symphony No. 45
Ives: Piano Sonata No. 2 "Concord"
Ligeti: Musica Ricercata
Messiaen: Turanga-Lila Symphony
Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition
Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet
Satie: Three Gymnopedies
Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 3
Schoenberg: Verklarte Nackt
Sondheim: Sweeney Todd
Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring
Tchaikovsky: Swan Lake
Varese: Ameriques
Webern: Symphony
Zappa: The Black Page


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> J.S. Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1
> Beethoven: Egmont Overture
> Cage: Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano
> Chopin: Nocturnes, Op. 27
> ...


This looks like you had a goal similar to mine in mind. Add a couple earlier works and I could 'live' with it.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> you can only listen to one piece at a time.


I beg to differ :3


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> This looks like you had a goal similar to mine in mind. Add a couple earlier works and I could 'live' with it.


what was your goal?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> what was your goal?


Hmm. I don't remember.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> I beg to differ :3


Haha, it's true! Indeed, some pieces are designed to be played simultaneously.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starry said:


> The problem with recommending a particular piece as a gateway for someone is while it may be the gateway in your mind it might not actually be that for someone else. So somebody else might find Shostakovich 7th not to be that good a gateway to his music compared to another piece, so the only way someone can find out is to listen to the other symphonies until they find which one is and which performance is. So it takes work and time often. It's not as simple as beginners think, they do actually have to do some work.


Well it can be a stab in the dark, these recommendations are not 'sure fire' things. However, I grew up listening to classical through my family being interested in it. So me and others like this, we have a kind of advantage over those who started with classical later, even as adults. I was initially critical of science's list threads (top 100 or whatever) but now I'm not. I don't take part in them for many reasons, in some respects its due to the fact that I'm not much like anyone on this forum. But I have discovered composers in other threads, but not needed to take part in those list building threads. I can see they serve a purpose for others, even though I am content in not participating there.

It does take time, effort, money, all that stuff to find your own niches or many niches of the classical universe. But any help or advice can be potentially useful. If I was to get into an area of music totally new to me, I would want some help. Doesn't mean every bit of advice I get is useful (or if I want it in the first place!) but there's potential for success if you try hard enough.

But the general thing I go by is stick with the big name composers. They have, more often than not, yielded success for me at a high rate. There is hardly a big name composer i don't like, or don't like at least some of their things. In terms of my favourite genres of instrumental music, the success rate becomes bigger, the odds of me liking stuff better. & I'm not just talking about world famous composers, I'm even including those just famous in a particular country or region. I have grown accustomed to and liked a number of these, just as much as the big international names in classical music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> You're just determined to have it your way and sustain your high dudgeon snit, I guess. You want to know about the Raderzky march, you have to inquire about lighter fare. I did, without thinking it condescending in any way, say that many of those 'whipped cream' pieces were very well made, I.e. "Good Writing." But if I make any attempt to assuage your mythic perpetuation of the elitist cadre not wanting you to know of the Radetzky March, I feel I will be depriving you of some life-sustaining adrenaline.
> 
> What you might actually be looking for is a sort of Carl Sagan of classical music. Of many a brilliant person in his field, there was only one Carl Sagan.
> 
> Carry on.


I knew you could do it. But, though you so perversely persist in insisting that a few years of asking about famous or popular music ought not to garner any information about the Radetzky March, we have to smoke the peace pipe after that praise of Sagan.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen! As I attempted to indicate a few posts back in the thread, friend _science_ has ****** in his armor, and some exposed nerve ends near them. I found that out a couple years back, so don't get the notion that I am unusually perceptive. (Damn few unusually perceptive Vermont hillbillies on the ground.)
> 
> I suggest you guys just back off, take three deep breaths, and then go do something else. Eh?


Armor? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm an open book in the public domain, a paragon of invincible vulnerability, with nothing to defend, hide, or protect. (Or so I present myself for reasons I'd rather not reveal.)

But seriously, I have no idea.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> science's list threads (top 100 or whatever)


I may be stealing credit from other people here. I've been responsible for only one of the lists, and even that is now maintained mostly by Trout, who has put in many, many times more work than I have. I want to make sure credit goes where it's deserved largely because I appreciate Trout's work so much!

That list, by the way, is not exactly what I would've wanted when I was starting out in classical music - you'll notice if you check that we're in the 1100s and recommending some pretty obscure stuff but we still haven't recommended the Radetzky March! - but it is the very nearest thing I know of _*on the entire internet*_ - prioritized, covering all genres and all periods, almost always recommended in forms commonly available as recordings. I anticipate a jazzed-up, fleshed-out version of it being _extremely_ helpful to some people in the future.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> I may be stealing credit from other people here. I've been responsible for only one of the lists, and even that is now maintained mostly by Trout, who has put in many, many times more work than I have. I want to make sure credit goes where it's deserved largely because I appreciate Trout's work so much!
> 
> ...


Well then I give credit to not only you but also Trout and others who have participated and made it happen. Its easy for people to discount such things but I think we often forget that what you're doing is spending your time here for a productive purpose. Its spent free of charge of course, and there's an element of helping others there. I now think there's a lot of good in that, something positive and commendable.


----------

