# Building a Library?



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

I recently posted here about my sprawling collection of seldom-listened-to Tchaikovsky and got some excellent suggestions about what might be the 'core' Tchaikovsky repertoire, and what might be the most recommended performances of said repertoire. A pile of dross hit the bin in response, and I feel I've got a worthwhile, discoverable collection to work on going forward.

I wonder if I've missed similar threads about other composers? And if I haven't, whether it might not be a bad idea to put some together?

I notice my Mendelssohn, Beethoven and Schubert collections, for example, are similarly sprawling, 'completist' and thus seldom listened to. If, instead of having everything those three wrote (from one Brilliant boxed set or another, which seldom contain the absolute finest recordings of anything), I could whittle things down to the must-haves performed by the must-listens, I think that would be progress!

That's conceptually different from the posts we often see about 'what's the best recording of X?' or from the 'lists of top composers' or 'lists of top pieces' we also see. This is more: here's a composer, here is his/her greatest works, and here are a few suggestions for great recordings of each.

Anyway. Just thought I'd throw it out there!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, there's a problem with complete anything - you're right in that there's a lot of music you might listen to once and that's it. I have avoided those Brilliant boxes for that reason. To own every last little thing by some composers might be a goal of serious fans of said composer, most of us just really want the basics - the best he wrote. Of course when it comes to "best" recording opinions are all over the place. There's a new Hurwitz evaluation of the Rachmaninoff 2nd. He thought Previn's remake on Telarc was boring and dull. I find it excellent - exciting, beautiful and all you could ask. For the editor at Arkivmusic, its one of the recommended recordings. So choosing recordings is a challenge - which critic do you trust? For years, the go to reference was the venerable Penguin Guide, alas long gone. (The last remaining writer Robert Layton, just died.) The Penguin Guide was a great way to build a solid library. If I have time for it today, I might take up your challenge with one of my favorite, lesser known composers.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Yes, there's a problem with complete anything - you're right in that there's a lot of music you might listen to once and that's it. I have avoided those Brilliant boxes for that reason. To own every last little thing by some composers might be a goal of serious fans of said composer, most of us just really want the basics - the best he wrote. Of course when it comes to "best" recording opinions are all over the place. There's a new Hurwitz evaluation of the Rachmaninoff 2nd. He thought Previn's remake on Telarc was boring and dull. I find it excellent - exciting, beautiful and all you could ask. For the editor at Arkivmusic, its one of the recommended recordings. So choosing recordings is a challenge - which critic do you trust? For years, the go to reference was the venerable Penguin Guide, alas long gone. (The last remaining writer Robert Layton, just died.) The Penguin Guide was a great way to build a solid library. If I have time for it today, I might take up your challenge with one of my favorite, lesser known composers.


I'd appreciate that. And I don't think a variety of opinion is to be feared. I got lots of people recommending different recordings of the Tchaikovsky "standards": I picked three symphony cycles and called it quits. Doesn't stop others chiming in and saying, 'no this Symphony No. 6 is better than that one', but then it's up to the reader to make a judgment call for themselves as to how many versions of a work they're willing to acquire!

And, of course, no-one's going to agree on what a 'core' library for composer X is, either. The Tchaikovsky again was a good one: half-way through, someone said, "What about the Orchestral Suites!", and so they got added to the mix too. I think that's fine.

I just look at my Beethoven (courtesy, for the most part, of Brilliant Classics) and think, there's no way, this side of Heaven and Hell, I'm ever going to listen to all those 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' songs! So if someone said 'Symphonies, Late String Quartets, Fidelio, Piano Concerti, Piano Sonatas', I'd feel that was a much better _quality_ library that I'd be likely to listen to than "don't forget the 800 one-off songs you'll probably not enjoy much"!

I did like the Penguin Guide, and I'm not sure when it died, but there's so much stuff that has been recorded in the 2010s that I'd prefer not to just have a recitation of ye olde Penguin (which, from memory, was always very keen on British conductors and orchestras anyway!) But anything's better than nothing... so I really look forward to your go at a lesser-known composer.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As to lesser-known composers, I would suggest coming up with a list of representative works by a selection of such composers. After listening to those you would have an idea of which of them you wanted to explore in more detail.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Becca said:


> As to lesser-known composers, I would suggest coming up with a list of representative works by a selection of such composers. After listening to those you would have an idea of which of them you wanted to explore in more detail.


I think that's missing the point a bit. I'm thinking a series of these things, for complete neophytes to come to and say, "If I wanted to get into X, what would I need to acquire to say I had a good representation of X's work".

The point is for *you* then to say, "Well, I think these are the 'core' works, and I like these recordings of them'.

Then someone else will chip in to say, "I think you've forgotten these great works...""

And someone else will chime in to say, "I like those recordings you've proposed, but I think these are better over all". And so on.

The point is to *not* have to listen to it all yourself before working it out, but to get others who are knowledgable to steer you in the right direction, rather than let you loose, rudderless!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Other than being reminded of works which may have escaped ones attention, I disagree, the point *should* be to listen yourself. Taste is so personal that no one person can steer you in 'the right direction' as there is no right direction. While it may not have been so practical 20+ years ago, that isn't true any longer given the proliferation of streaming and video sites. Personal exploration is the key.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

I'll illustrate what I'm on about for Britten.

Building a Britten Library:

1. Operas: 
Peter Grimes - Benjamin Britten, 
Billy Budd - Decca, Peter Pears, Conducted by Britten
Turn of the Screw - Colin Davis, Orchestra of the Royal Opera House Covent Garden
Gloriana - Charles Mackerras, Welsh National Opera
A Midsummer Night's Dream - Benjamin Britten, London Symphony Orchestra
Curlew River - Benjamin Britten, Peter Pears, John Shirley-Quirk, Bryan Drake etc
Death in Venice - Steuart Bedford, English Chamber Orchestra
Paul Bunyan - Philip Brunelle, The Plymouth Music Series, Minnesota

2. Choral Works
Rejoice in the Lamb - Harry Christophers, The Sixteen
Hymn to St. Cecilia - Matthew Best, Corydon Singers
War Requiem - Benjamin Britten, London Symphony Orchestra

3. Orchestral Works
The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra - Benjamin Britten, London Symphony Orchestra
Violin Concerto - Benjamin Britten, English Chamber Orchestra, Mark Lubotsky (violin)

4. Chamber Works
Cello Suites - Rostropovich for #1 and #2, Tim Hugh for #3
Nocturnal after John Dowland - Julian Bream
String Quartet No. 3 - Amadeus Quartet

5. Vocal Works (with & without orchestra)
Phaedra - Janet Baker, Steuart Bedford
Serenade for tenor, horn and strings - Britten & Pears with Barry Tuckwell (horn)

I mean, there's a _huge_ amount of stuff I've missed out there, but I think if someone went out and acquired those works -and those particular recordings of those works- they'd have a good feel for what Britten did and in the form of some of the best recordings of those works that I know. It would be a 'core' from which they could go on to learn more about Britten as he takes their fancy. And if they're not keen, they haven't acquired a bazillion CDs getting to the point of deciding they don't like him!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Becca said:


> Other than being reminded of works which may have escaped ones attention, I disagree, the point *should* be to listen yourself. Taste is so personal that no one person can steer you in 'the right direction' as there is no right direction. While it may not have been so practical 20+ years ago, that isn't true any longer given the proliferation of streaming and video sites. Personal exploration is the key.


You're still missing the point, I fear.

I come to you as a *complete neophyte*. I know *nothing at all* about a composer or his work, his style or his "place" in the scheme of things. Point me, please, to a handful of his works which you think would be essential to understand the man. And if you can recommend some specific recordings along the way, so much the better. At least tell me the ones to avoid because they tell you more about Conductor X than composer Y.

Forget "reminding people of works they have forgotten". I'm talking about: assume a complete newbie. Now guide him or her in the right direction to get a rounded view of a composer.

I know what you're getting at in terms of "you have to work it out for yourself", but if one is floundering in a sea of 1000 pieces by a composer, performed by 2000 different orchestras and conductor combinations... where the hell do you *start*?! Getting started is the thing. Blindly picking stuff on Spotify and hoping you get lucky is not what I'm talking about. Be a mentor. Be a teacher. And if you still think that's the wrong thing to do, then clearly you're not the intended audience for this particular idea.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I am not "missing the point", I am disagreeing with the premise however it's your thread so I will shut up.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You're still missing the point, I fear.


Becca isn't missing the point. She just doesn't agree with your recommended route.

What you call "rudderless" I would call finding one's one way. Your method takes most of the fun and adventure out of the process of discovery.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Becca isn't missing the point. She just doesn't agree with your recommended route.
> 
> What you call "rudderless" I would call finding one's one way. Your method takes most of the fun and adventure out of the process of discovery.


Who is your favourite composer? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Entirely by yourself, out of thin air?

Or did a teacher, a friend, a parent, point you in a direction at any point in your life at all? Never read a book about the subject? Never got informed by an author on any aspect of music appreciation? You just discovered everything yourself, did you?

Of course not.

You now have well-formed opinions, because you were able to make them, having been _guided_ in your approach to music at various points in your life. If not, you are exceptional. Even Benjamin Britten needed a Frank Bridge.

But I don't intend to argue. If you think "Here's what I think would help you get a handle on ...Composer X..." is a silly way of doing things, you are most free to think so, and you too are clearly not the intended audience for this particular idea.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Becca said:


> I am not "missing the point", I am disagreeing with the premise however it's your thread so I will shut up.


I don't think you've understood the premise! If you had, you wouldn't have mentioned being "reminded of works which may have escaped ones attention". The premise is that your reader doesn't know ANY works, at least not enough to know what's worth listening to compared to what isn't!

You didn't spring forth from the womb loving (I don't know... say) Mozart or Beethoven. Someone _guided_ you to appreciate those things. It may have been an author of a book; it may have been a brilliant violinist friend. I don't know. But *no-one* forms intelligent opinions about things in a vaccuum. And your advice to, essentially, go to Spotify and click on stuff until something makes sense is vaccuum education: work it out for yourself.

I'm suggesting there is a better way. "This" worked for me to understand X, maybe it will help you too. You will have to listen and make your own judgements -but you're now listening in a framework or guide that I think will help you make those sorts of judgments for yourself".


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Who is your favourite composer? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?


Bach's my favorite, and I came to that conclusion by listening to his music and the music of others. I did this long before there were computers or streaming services. I extensively used library services and purchases - bought a lot of recordings that ended up being a waste of time (such as Vivaldi), but it's only money.

I'll shut up now unless you insult me again.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I think this is a great idea.

What is bread and butter to one person is new to another. With a wealth of recordings and works to choose from a bit of guidance is good.

When I first started exploring opera the first thing I did was put opera for beginners or best operas into google and stumbled upon a few lists with recommended recordings. I then went and sampled them and began forming opinions but I needed guiding.

I would now search TC if I wanted to get to k ow a genre or composer better but I agree with your point. Its daunting to know where to start.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Bach's my favorite, and I came to that conclusion by listening to his music and the music of others. I did this long before there were computers or streaming services. I extensively used library services and purchases - bought a lot of recordings that ended up being a waste of time (such as Vivaldi), but it's only money.
> 
> I'll shut up now unless you insult me again.


I didn't insult you! Quite the contrary, I said you had "well-formed musical opinions"!

I fundamentally asked you a question as to *how* you decided what things to borrow from the library and what things to purchase. You still haven't really answered that one. I simply don't believe you cooked these decisions about what to borrow and what to buy out of thin air, or at random. If we take your answer at literal face value, you've never have a friend recommend something; you've never read a review of a concert; you've never read a library book about a composer.... ??

If you were to ask _me_ about how I started to form my opinions about music, I would have mentioned a history teacher and an English teacher who both really got me started with choral music, and then a professor at Uni who got me into Church choral, and then a student friend who spent 5 hours telling me the entire story of The Ring, or lawyer friend who thought I listened to too much Britten and thought I might like Bach... and so on. I have no qualms about admitting that as a young man, I was a blank sheet of paper, musically, and I needed (even if I didn't realise it) help to navigate the enormous quantity of music that's out there. And no, just because Uni professor said, 'This is marvellous!' doesn't mean I thought it was. But if I disliked it, I had to have a _reason_ for disliking it that I could at least formulate, because clearly others _didn't_ dislike it, and so on.

All I'm advancing is that age-old concept of teaching, or mentoring, or guiding. Here's something that will get you started with Tchaikovsky; here's something that will give you a bird's eye view of Britten... None of it is an end of anything. It's merely a start of an exploration. And, actually... it's how we _all_ started on this classical music caper, even if you won't admit it.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

zxxyxxz said:


> I think this is a great idea.
> 
> What is bread and butter to one person is new to another. With a wealth of recordings and works to choose from a bit of guidance is good.
> 
> ...


Thank you! That's exactly the idea -and, indeed, you pick up a really good point which is that I came to TC (as I imagine many did) because they typed in things like 'best Mahler 5th' or 'best Beethoven 9th' and so on. TC's always been _excellent_ for advice (with a great diversity of opinions!) about music that someone already knows they want to know. But it seemed to me a curious gap in the provision for 'how to get started with...' information.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Its a difficult concept, AB, because there are so many differing opinions not only on performances but also what constitutes core repertoire. I know what you're saying but I rarely (with some exceptions) enjoy vocal works for example and complete operas. To others these works are essential. So apart from disagreement on core repertoire you have problems with performance interpretations. I can think of quite a few recordings that polarise opinions (a certain performance of Beethoven's 9th, for example that is lauded by some here but described as "terrible" by myself and a certain well-known music critic :lol. Its so difficult recommending anything to anyone. Even the old Penguin Rosettes were contentious for some. I used the old Penguin guides to start to build a collection but found that there were much more interesting recordings around and think that some of those rosettes were very undeserved. I actually felt that over those early years I wasted a fair amount of money listening to other people's recommendations. With the advent of streaming theres no need to take a shot in the dark any longer as you can listen to many of these on Spotify, etc. You can sample on YouTube, etc for free and try out repertoire and find what you like. Then theres the problem of tastes changing over time. Years ago I rarely enjoyed many string quartets apart from a few warhorses but now they are core to my listening. If id made a list of core repertoire in 2002 it would look very different today. Dont get me wrong, im not being critical, its just that its so difficult to make recommendations to anyone. When I do my Beethoven reviews I know there are some people sat at home thinking "this guy is talking utter *****, conductor X's Beethoven is fantastic." It doesnt stop me but even I change my mind over time. The TC recommended symphonies, SQ, etc threads are good for newbs.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I have the BIS set of Sibelius. It was interesting to hear the earlier versions of some of the works, but I do not see myself selecting the early version of symphony 5 over the last one very often.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Merl said:


> Its a difficult concept, AB, because there are so many differing opinions not only on performances but also what constitutes core repertoire. I know what you're saying but I rarely (with some exceptions) enjoy vocal works for example and complete operas. To others thee works are essential.


I take that point. My thought was that you -for example- wouldn't have mentioned Peter Grimes for Britten, but someone else might. Clearly, everyone's "Building a Library" contribution will be derived from their own experiences and/or preferences. But I think if you were somehow to review that Tchaikovsky thread I mentioned, that worked quite well. Lots of different opinions expressed, which is fine, and someone mentioned Orchestral Suites as being a 'must' that others had not. It all seemed to work out fine in the end though!



Merl said:


> So apart from disagreement on core repertoire you have problems with performance interpretations. I can think of quite a few recordings that polarise opinions (a certain performance of Beethoven's 9th, for example that is lauded by some here but described as "terrible" by myself and a certain well-known music critic :lol. Its so difficult recommending anything to anyone.


Obviously so, I think. But if people had in mind, "What would I recommend to a novice, in such a way that it wouldn't befuddle him or her", I think that would help. The advanced nuances of performance practice can be left for a more skilled audience, probably. I quite like Hurwitz on Bach, for example, a month or so ago: yes, there are HIP performances; yes, there are "modern instrument" performances; both are fine, but today I'm going to do the modern performances, because they're valid too.

Sure. If people get precious about things, and protecting their turf, as it were, then I can see it wouldn't work. But, to take one example, if in a discussion of Bach we kind of agreed that the Goldbergs were essential listening, I wouldn't have a problem with someone recommending Gould. Despise it though I do, I quite understand that a well-rounded listener at least needs to have heard the Gould in order to form an opinion about it!



Merl said:


> Even the old Penguin Rosettes were contentious for some. I used the old Penguin guides to start to build a collection but found that there were much more interesting recordings around. I actually felt that over those early years I wasted a fair amount of money listening to other people's recommendations.


Well, I think that's where things have improved a lot since then -because now you can listen to someone's recommendations on Spotify, for example, for nothing at all (at least, as I understand Spotify's free tier service). There's no drawback in having recommendations when it doesn't cost someone actual cash to follow up on them.

That said, obviously the idea is to 'channel' exploration to some extent, so I wouldn't want to see 58 recommendations for a work. That's just the same as having none at all! But a smattering of different suggestions seems a reasonable thing to do. On the Tchaikovksy, we got three symphony cycles recommended before someone piped up for Petrov (I think it was): I was committed by that point, so the extra recommendation fell on stony soil!



Merl said:


> With the advent of streaming theres no need to take a shot in the dark any longer as you can listen to many of these on Spotify, etc. You csn sample on youtibe, etc for free and try out repertoire and find what you like.


I should probably read your whole reply before answering to bits of it! I see we are of the same opinon... but seem to be coming to different conclusions! The fact that one can experiment for free is a huge improvement on the days of having to either borrow a crappy, scratched copy from a library or spend up big and keep your fingers crossed. But I see that as not only a great opportunity, but a monstrous wall of choice, in the face of which people... simply refuse to choose. Without any information about what or why they should listen to something, they simply won't. It doesn't mean that if you recommend Smirnov's Beethoven 9th, then no-one will ever listen to Blenkinsop's. Spotify means that they will listen to Smirnov's because you told them to... and then they'll be able to listen to lots of other versions and then make up their own mind. But a pointer in a vaguely right direction is an indispensible first step, I think.

Confession time: I had a lot of Beethoven Symphonies. None of them made particularly coherent sense and I generally didn't listen to any of them. Then I read your multi-multi-part guide to a bazillion cycles, made my choice from that and now have 4 I listen to quite a bit. Lose the wall of choice; focus down to a few recommendattions... then people can learn to find their own way forward. It's worked for me with you and Beethoven; it\s working for me with Tchaikovsky... I figure it can work for other people, too.



Merl said:


> Then theres the problem of tastes changing over time. Years ago I rarely enjoyed many string quartets apart from a few warhorses but now they are core to my listening. If id made a list of core repertoire in 2002 it would look very different today. Dont get me wrong, im not being critical, its just that its so difficult to make recommendations to anyone. When I do my Beethoven reviews I know there are some people sat at home thinking "this guy is talking utter *****, conductor X's Beethoven is fantastic." It doesnt stop me but even I change my mind over time.


That's fine too. Plastic information is a plus. The trouble with those Penguin Rosettes is they couldn't be updated in real time. We're not constrained in that way today.

And I don't think changing tastes is an issue. Again, look at the Tchaikovsky thread I keep banging on about. 6 people mentioned symphonies, ballets and a couple of opera. Only then did one lone voice pipe up and mention 'Orchestral suites, anyone?", and then lots of people piled in and said 'Oh, of course, forgot about them". If *you* are not a String Quartet person today, then someone else will be. That's the whole point of a collaborative effort in a public forum, I think.

Short version: I wouldn't over-think this. Come up with (for example) a 'core Beethoven' corpus, throw it out there and see what happens. The worst that can happen, surely, is that 43 pages later, no-one agrees on anything. But chances are, if it was phrased as 'this is how I would start with Beethoven', I think people would constructively add to it, but wouldn't -I'd hope- try to argue subtle nuance at interminable length.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> I have the BIS set of Sibelius. It was interesting to hear the earlier versions of some of the works, but I do not see myself selecting the early version of symphony 5 over the last one very often.


Yup. I just got done ripping that. 5 different versions of some obscure vocal work I'm never going to listen to again... no thanks! And one track of 31 seconds consisting of a hitherto unknown version of Bars 5 to 16 of Symphony whatever... Yeah. I'll pass!

I took from that a very good set of Vanska-conducted symphonies, some chamber works, some choral works, Snöfrid, and that was about it. The rest goes into the musicological trivia folder!

PS. I make an exception for the violin concerto, only because last year, pre-plague, I enjoyed a Proms concert and the violin concerto I heard was almost _but not quite_ what I was expecting to hear! I think they'd dug out the original 4-movement (?) version and were playing that... and I have to say, I really enjoyed the unexpectedness of it all. The tune you thought you knew, but then it did something weird and unexpected etc. So I will always want two versions of that concerto... but I don't need the 5 bars of scribble he used to put his coffee cup on one day so that it wouldn't put a ring on his table!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I fundamentally asked you a question as to *how* you decided what things to borrow from the library and what things to purchase. You still haven't really answered that one.


I borrowed everything I could get my hands one; same with purchases. Assuming my answer is sufficient, I'll stop posting here.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I visited every Manchester public library (they all had different stock) and came out armed with as many CDs as possible. Thankfully they sold off many of their old ones too so I have quite a few CDs with 'Manchester City Library Service' stamped on them. Lol. Then the Tories stopped funding the libraries. Grrrr.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

This core repertoire exercise is daunting when it comes to extremely popular and prolific composers like Tchaikovsky. I'll take a stab at a less tremendous composer who's one of my favorites: Charles Ives (1874-1954). It could well be that my contribution here will not be apt; I know that many people don't "get" or simply don't like Ives. But my idea is that a non-specialist in this composer could have a good and enjoyable representation of his works with the following (favorite recordings from my CD collection indicated):

Symphonies - One Numbered and One Programmatic:
Symphony No. 3 "The Camp Meeting": Slatkin/St. Louis, 1991, RCA Red Seal
New England Holidays - A Symphony: Ormandy/Philadelphia, 1974, RCA Red Seal

Orchestral Set:
Orchestral Set No. 1 - "Three Places in New England": von Dohnanyi/Cleveland, 1994, Decca

String Quartet:
String Quartet No. 2: Emerson SQ, 1994, DGG

Chamber Orchestra Pieces:
Central Park in the Dark: Ozawa/Boston, 1974, DGG
The Unanswered Question: Morton Gould/Chicago SO, 1965, RCA Red Seal (killer trumpet work by Herseth)

Solo Piano:
Piano Sonata No. 2 "Concord": Gilbert Kalish, 1992, Nonesuch

Hope this helps someone get into the music of Charles Ives!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I borrowed everything I could get my hands one; same with purchases. Assuming my answer is sufficient, I'll stop posting here.


You may post or not post as you please. I'm not the local policeman.

I get what you're saying to an extent. Let loose on the Cambridge City library with its relatively extensive selection of classical music cassettes, I borrowed whatever they had "in". Messiaen's Turangalila was a discovery by that route, entirely of my own making and guided by no-one.. oh, except that I'd heard of Messiaen because the Organ Scholar liked him and played him at every Sunday High Mass he could. So, no. Not even then could I say I was entirely and completely self-exploring.

Perhaps Albuquerque is more isolated than I remember it being. I don't know. I'm happy to take your word for it that you taught yourself everything you know about music and music appreciation without any input from anyone else at all, ever. It's an impressive achievement that I know of no-one else ever managing. I can only doff my cap to you in utter astonishment.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Simplicissimus said:


> This core repertoire exercise is daunting when it comes to extremely popular and prolific composers like Tchaikovsky. I'll take a stab at a less tremendous composer who's one of my favorites: Charles Ives (1874-1954). It could well be that my contribution here will not be apt; I know that many people don't "get" or simply don't like Ives. But my idea is that a non-specialist in this composer could have a good and enjoyable representation of his works with the following (favorite recordings from my CD collection indicated):
> 
> Symphonies - One Numbered and One Programmatic:
> Symphony No. 3 "The Camp Meeting": Slatkin/St. Louis, 1991, RCA Red Seal
> ...


Nice. It's late and I need to take a break from Mahler, but I shall have a check of this tomorrow against my own paltry collection of Ives. Thanks.

*Edited to add:*I have nearly all of your recommendations except (1) the Symphony No. 3 and (2) the Piano Sonata. I'll skip the sonata, since I'm not overly keen on solo piano, but I'll try and hunt down a Slatkin Symphony No. 3.

I have Ives' Symphony No. 2 (Bernstein conducting). Was there a reason you didn't recommend that symphony rather than No.3?


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Nice. It's late and I need to take a break from Mahler, but I shall have a check of this tomorrow against my own paltry collection of Ives. Thanks.
> 
> *Edited to add:*I have nearly all of your recommendations except (1) the Symphony No. 3 and (2) the Piano Sonata. I'll skip the sonata, since I'm not overly keen on solo piano, but I'll try and hunt down a Slatkin Symphony No. 3.
> 
> I have Ives' Symphony No. 2 (Bernstein conducting). Was there a reason you didn't recommend that symphony rather than No.3?


I believe that most people consider Symphony No. 4 to be his best, but it is notably complex and difficult to like. Symphony No. 3 seems to be the most frequently performed, and it is vey accessible. There are more recordings of it than of No. 2. I like them all, but No. 1 is not typical, and No. 4 is much more complex than the others. When I think about core repertoire, I always think it's convenient to be familiar with the most popular pieces even if they're not the "best" because it opens up more possibilities of discussing the composer with other listeners.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Simplicissimus said:


> I believe that most people consider Symphony No. 4 to be his best, but it is notably complex and difficult to like. Symphony No. 3 seems to be the most frequently performed, and it is vey accessible. There are more recordings of it than of No. 2. I like them all, but No. 1 is not typical, and No. 4 is much more complex than the others. When I think about core repertoire, I always think it's convenient to be familiar with the most popular pieces even if they're not the "best" because it opens up more possibilities of discussing the composer with other listeners.


Definitely. I'm listening to New England Holidays as I type. Am I allowed to say it reminds me of Grainger? Tunes that start one place and then end up multiplied and ending up somewhere completely odd?! Enjoying it quite a lot, actually, and I didn't think I'd ever say that!

Anyway, this sort of follow-up and response is why this isn't an exercise in "you must listen to vat I say, and no qvestions!", but an opening up of things, starting from a 'safe' framework. I appreciate it a lot... and may try and acquire Symphony No. 4 if I'm feeling brave.

Am I the only person who is a bit scared of Ives?!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

What's needed is a new topic thread. The moderators could add Classical Music 101 for Beginners!

If knowing what composers to start with, this list of the most popular from Arkivmusic pretty much is spot on. There is no one on the list who doesn't deserve to be, and I can't think of one who isn't there who should be. Not even Boulez.:devil:


----------



## Geoff48 (Aug 15, 2020)

I’m not sure how relevant this is.
To those of us of a certain age our first exposure to classical music was probably out parent’s record collection on 78 rpm shellac. Given the size of the records and the space they took up and their fragility most collections were fairly small. My favourite composer was Mendelssohn because Mum had been given the violin concerto and I loved it. Then the overture to Barber of Seville. And Pirates of Penzance because we had an 11 record album. There was no systematic exploration of a composer.
Then I acquired a four speed turntable for the radiogram and started buying the very occasional Bargain or second hand LP with saved up pocket money. Ace of clubs, saga and fidelity with their pseudonyms. And the lunchtime concerts by the BBC orchestras on the home service. And then Saturday night concerts at the Town Hall sitting behind the orchestra. Gradually I acquired composers whose music I knew I was likely to enjoy. And because concerts included more than one work I got to know other composers. The first concert I ever attended included Bruckner’s 7th which started a dislike of that composer which persists to this day. About the 3rd concert included Mozart’s 40th and Mendelssohn’s first piano concerto, neither of which I knew at the time. And I remember sitting by the gong in Francesca di Rimini. Happy days.
I guess what I’m saying is that most of the music I got to know was met in a haphazard manner and without planning. Even the records I bought were probably as a result of the radio or what was played in music lessons at school. And the City Library Record Section which came along later was a godsend.
Now I am retired I probably have far too many CDs in sets. And yes I’ve bought the Brilliant complete sets and tend to listen only to the works I know, there is often a good reason why some works are popular, and the large single composer compilations, thankfully not the complete works, by great artists of the last century.
But the idea of listening to everything a composer wrote in an organised manner seems abhorrent. Music is enjoyed best on a haphazard basis although I’m not too old to make new discoveries which I enjoy. I recently heard a ciolin concerto by Nardini which has a beautiful first movement but the rest of which left me cold.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I have no useful advice. None. In fact, I don't belong in this thread. I'm an imposter. I am an invincible and unreconstructed completist. And then I listen to it all as I work.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

I have a rather large library built up over many years. I built it in a very ad hoc way because this is the only way I could get music I liked.

I started with a single LP of Beethoven sonatas (Kempff 8, 14, 23) and after liking those I investigated some others and was lucky enough to get an LP of Richter-Haaser playing Op 2 as my second LP. I purchased these from the now defunct World Record Club (similar to MHS) and of course they sent me catalogues. 

From the catalogues I got a bit adventurous and chose works I hadn't heard before and my list of recordings and composers grew. I moved past Beethoven (while still targeting him) into Chopin, Schumann, Schubert, etc. From there I moved on to the local record store to audition in person. The new releases bin was my usual destination. The most important thing was that I could listen before purchasing.

What must be noted was that I had no concept of 'essential' works. What's essential to one is not necessarily the same for another. The HR-H LP also had the Op 77 G minor Fantasia alongside Op 2. Hardly essential but a work I love and a very early purchase for me so I class it as essential. Fidelio was mentioned in an earlier post - I still can't get my head around it so it's not 'essential' for me.

I fear that if you slavishly create a list there is going to be a lot of disappointment. Listen to classical on the radio, via YT, FB and see what leaps out and grabs you. No sense in having this collection of essentials that you hardly listen to.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Holden4th said:


> I have a rather large library built up over many years. I built it in a very ad hoc way because this is the only way I could get music I liked.
> 
> I started with a single LP of Beethoven sonatas (Kempff 8, 14, 23) and after liking those I investigated some others and was lucky enough to get an LP of Richter-Haaser playing Op 2 as my second LP. I purchased these from the now defunct World Record Club (similar to MHS) and of course they sent me catalogues.
> 
> ...


I don't fear that at all. It's not how I've acquired my music tastes. I got pointed in some directions, yes; but having mastered those, I was able to work out new directions for myself. Which, not surprisingly, is _exactly_ what you describe yourself doing: "after liking those, I investigated others... I got a bit adventurous".

It's called "learning" and it's what we all have done.

But I doubt you went to a school where they sat you down with an Encyclopaedia Britannica on day 1 and told you, 'It's all in there. Just work it out for yourself'! You don't give text books to children and let them just sort it out for themselves. We give them a path through the wall of text, in the form of lessons, guidance and mentoring, that ends up (we hope!) in comprehension.

In the same manner, _of course_ people will have to listen to the radio, Youtube, Spotify, whatever in order to make their own judgments about things, because being in someone's "core" list somewhere doesn't mean they will (or have) to like it. But *what* do they listen to? That's the first step that, given the vast swathes of music out there that _can_ be listened to, is difficult for many to take, I think.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> What's needed is a new topic thread. The moderators could add Classical Music 101 for Beginners!
> 
> If knowing what composers to start with, this list of the most popular from Arkivmusic pretty much is spot on. There is no one on the list who doesn't deserve to be, and I can't think of one who isn't there who should be. Not even Boulez.:devil:
> 
> View attachment 145668


I don't like that title! It implies (to me, at least) that we gracious experts are spelling out the basics for you newbies.

'Building a Library' is better, I think, because it's something we all do (well, those of us that actually own music rather than just streaming it, at least), even as we get extremely old, and no matter how clever we think ourselves  It also has a positive connotation of achieving something, not a negative one of having to be taught the basics.

I don't like your list of composers either. There's one very obvious and glaring omission, right from the get-go. Under the Bs.  Which is not to say it's not a reasonable start, but it's hardly comprehensive.

I also was imaginging that the list of who to include might more depend on what composers members here wanted to share with people. If someone has a mad-keen enthusiasm for, say, Villa-Lobos, they should be free to advance a 'core' for him, whether he's on the list or not.

That said, the entire idea seems to have been rained on from a great height by people who clearly managed to work it all out for themselves without any guides or shortcuts from anyone in their lives. So I suspect the idea's dead in the water before it starts.

Which is a shame, because I'm enjoying more Charles Ives this morning, precisely because of someone's enthusiasm for him, phrased in the form of a short checklist of works, in this very thread.


----------



## Mozart123 (Oct 8, 2020)

I think collating composers' core repertoire and recommended recordings is a great idea.

As a novice myself when it comes to classical music, I have found it can be quite overwhelming when you come to realise the vast breadth of works and interpretations available. It can be quite confusing to know where to begin. Guidance on the most accessible works and their most critically acclaimed recordings would be useful. But like others have commented, I think there is also a time where it is beneficial to explore other works and form your own opinions.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

"Building a Library" has probably been the greatest joy of my classical music journey. The thrill of discovery of a new work or interpretation I hadn't heard before and on hearing it thought - this is good!


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't like your list of composers either. There's one very obvious and glaring omission, right from the get-go. Under the Bs.  Which is not to say it's not a reasonable start, but it's hardly comprehensive..


I think the list is fine; maybe a bit too comprehensive for someone just starting with classical to not be overwhelmed with, but fine. However, if I was going to hazard a guess at what you saw as a glaring omission, I would hazard that the name, in addition to starting with a B, rhymes with cute kitten.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> I think the list is fine; maybe a bit too comprehensive for someone just starting with classical to not be overwhelmed with, but fine. However, if I was going to hazard a guess at what you saw as a glaring omission*, I would hazard that the name, in addition to starting with a B, rhymes with cute kitten*.


Brute Bitten? Never heard of him. No wonder he was an omisssion. I'm off to listen to Bustav Bahler's symphonies right now. Can't believe he got omitted too. :lol:


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Merl said:


> Brute Bitten? Never heard of him. No wonder he was an omisssion. I'm off to listen to Bustav Bahler's symphonies right now. Can't believe he got omitted too. :lol:


They are future presidential candidates.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I recently posted here about my sprawling collection of seldom-listened-to Tchaikovsky and got some excellent suggestions about what might be the 'core' Tchaikovsky repertoire, and what might be the most recommended performances of said repertoire. A pile of dross hit the bin in response, and I feel I've got a worthwhile, discoverable collection to work on going forward.
> 
> I wonder if I've missed similar threads about other composers? And if I haven't, whether it might not be a bad idea to put some together?
> 
> ...


There's like a dozen recommended lists on the forum.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> There's like a dozen recommended lists on the forum.


Point me to just one of them, would you.

I haven't seen any of this sort. As I say, I see lots of 'what's the best recording of X', but not 'what are the must-have compositions for Y'. But if they're out there, (a) I would certainly like to see even one example and (b) would like to see them brought together into a single 'building a library' thread.


----------



## musichal (Oct 17, 2020)

I wish for a thread as envisioned by the OP, and would certainly find it more helpful than a thread in which people simply argue about the approach. As a newb here, I expect surprises, and one of those I've encountered in a few threads is the opinion by some that recommendations defeat the joy of personal discovery as opposed to listening, as if these are incompatible endeavors.

In my view, a certain egocentric perspective is required on someone's part to think that I won't form my own opinions based on what I hear, prefer and enjoy (or not). A rec is just that, and if/when I find someone with whom I agree often - after listening - then I regard his input more than someone whose preferences are different than my own. Still doesn't stop me from taking a flier on something else now and then, either.

I realize that it is human nature to shoot down someone's idea; seems we have quite a few naturals on board. I wish the OP luck finding participants, and would suggest not arguing with detractors. I certainly won't; had my two-cent say - just one newb's opinion. If wrong, wouldn't be my first time.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

What is "essential" will likely be very controversial, especially at TC (where everything seems to be controversial). 

I might suggest trying for a list of essential works, then worry about what performances later. 

I suppose we can begin with a fairly safe recommendation for all of Beethoven's symphonies (and can argue about the best complete cycle or collection cobbled together from individual performances). 

Also at least Beethoven's piano concertos 4 and 5?

For Haydn, at least the London symphonies? 

For Mozart, the later symphonies?

All four of Brahms' symphonies. 

For Bach, what are the "essentials"? Goldberg? Brandenburg? 

For violin concertos, the Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruch 3rd, Mendelssohn?

For piano concertos (in addition to the Beethoven noted), the Tchaikovsky, the Grieg?

For choral works, I suppose Handel's Messiah

Some people might or not not consider any opera to be "essential" or any "ballet" music, depending on whether or not they are fans of those genres. 

This is, obviously, just a starting point, and put together somewhat hastily.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Merl said:


> Brute Bitten? Never heard of him. No wonder he was an omisssion. I'm off to listen to Bustav Bahler's symphonies right now. Can't believe he got omitted too. :lol:


Barols from King's Bollege Bambridge, anyone?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> What is "essential" will likely be very controversial, especially at TC (where everything seems to be controversial).
> 
> I might suggest trying for a list of essential works, then worry about what performances later.


I think that is OK, but I don't really see a need to dodge the issue. This is only going to be a problem if people forget why the post is being made in the first place: trying to help, teach and point others along a route. If they use it as an ego exercise, showing how clever and erudite they are, then yes, it won't go anywhere except down the usual bun-fight plug-hole.

I don't think a beginner's guide to getting up to speed with Composer X need become a bun-fight, though. Sure, someone might _really_ think, "That 1934 electric recording of piece A is essential!", but hopefully, putting ego to one side, they might recognise it as a bit of a ludicrous suggestion for a complete newbie! We'd instead end up with a list of "acceptable" recordings, not "must have, because I adore..."

Maybe I'm too much an optimist, though. The reaction to this thread generally suggests that it's not going to get the buy-in it needs from enthusiasts about composers X, Y and Z...



JAS said:


> I suppose we can begin with a fairly safe recommendation for all of Beethoven's symphonies (and can argue about the best complete cycle or collection cobbled together from individual performances).


See, that's a no-no! It's no good saying to a newbie "Listen to everything!". You have to be _selective_, distinguishing between "core" and "complete'. I would suggest Symphonies 1, 2 and 4 are nowhere near core (which is not the same thing at all as saying they're no good). I could live with a recommendation for 3, 5, 7... but even then, I think you really want no more than 2 exemplars of a 'genre' for any composer (though exceptions, of course, can be made where necessary). I'd say it would have to be #5, if we got really selective about it!



JAS said:


> Also at least Beethoven's piano concertos 4 and 5?


I think those would be fine selections.



JAS said:


> For Haydn, at least the London symphonies?
> 
> For Mozart, the later symphonies?
> 
> All four of Brahms' symphonies.


Any time anyone thinks "all of...", they should stop, because that's not being selective enough. Especially when they're are only four... pick one and make it stand for the others. You're trying to get someone "into" Brahms, at the end of the hook. You can direct them to the other 3 once they're properly hooked 



JAS said:


> For Bach, what are the "essentials"? Goldberg? Brandenburg?


It's up for debate and for a true Bachian to propose, I think. Personally, I would say St. John, B minor, Goldbergs, Brandbenburg 5, and maybe a concerto and one cantata.



JAS said:


> For violin concertos, the Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruch 3rd, Mendelssohn?
> 
> For piano concertos (in addition to the Beethoven noted), the Tchaikovsky, the Grieg?
> 
> For choral works, I suppose Handel's Messiah


Well, this was meant to be 'Building a Library _by Composer_', not 'build a thematic library by composition type'. I don't think it helps to do 'Choral Works': what can possibly be 'core' (and hence a gateway) if you pick one or two choral works out of 600 years of choral composing? I don't think a Classical Music newbie comes to the party in any case thinking, "I like choral" or "I like string quartets". They are more likely to say, I think, "I like the tune to that advert I heard the other day... what _else_ did that guy write?"



JAS said:


> Some people might or not not consider any opera to be "essential" or any "ballet" music, depending on whether or not they are fans of those genres.
> 
> This is, obviously, just a starting point, and put together somewhat hastily.


Again, it's not about types of compositions. It's about 'if I want to get to grips with Puccini, what should I listen to first?'. If someone's not a fan of opera, they're not going to be a fan of Puccini... so they won't ask the question about him in the first place. But maybe, having listened to a Britten 'core' because of his choral works, they might have appreciated a couple of his operas and thus now fancy listening to some proper 'grand operas' -and at that point, they'd want to know to listen to Tosca and not start with, say, Il Trittico.

Anyway. I appreciate your thoughts, even if I might disagree with some of them. At least they were all constructive!

For _my_ conception of the idea, and to take Simplicissimus' helpful suggestions earlier about Charles Ives, I threw this page together. A (very) little bit of biography. A tiny bit of characterisation of the man's output. Then the recommended core works, linked to Youtube performances so you can hear them immediately; and the recommended recordings of them, linked to somewhere you can buy the things. A one-stop shop for someone wanting to get started with Ives, with options for minimal (cash) investment, and other options for full-on commitment of the purchasing kind, too.

Follow the link on that page to 'Back to other composers' and there's 500 potential essays that could be written by one champion or another of any of them.

Maybe it requires too much of a single-editor approach to make it work here. I don't know: I can't see why it wouldn't technically be possible for one contributor to be editor for one (or more) composer's Building a Library pages, so you get strong single-minded shaping of the recommendations, but still open to input from others.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Just a couple of thoughts about how to make this process go smoothly:

1. Discuss the composers to be included starting with the surname "A".

2. After agreeing on a composer, discuss the works/recordings to be included.

There will be plenty of differences of opinions, and that's where the manager makes final decisions. Who's the manager? My pick would be AbsolutelyBaching. He started this thread and certainly has the enthusiasm to carry forward.

I'm thinking right now of the challenges of just one work - Bach's Goldberg Variations. It's certainly a "core" Bach work, but what recordings to pick? Instrument - harpsichord or piano or combination? Perahia? - some folks love him, others feel he's just Perahia playing Perahia. Tureck? Bach's Queen or an antiquated style not appropriate for the library?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Just a couple of thoughts about how to make this process go smoothly:
> 
> 1. Discuss the composers to be included starting with the surname "A".
> 
> ...


And when mulling that recommendation, I think you'd just say to yourself, 'What would I recommend to my young nephew/niece who's 13 and just getting his/her toes wet in these waters?' I don't think it needs to be over-thought more than that. Simply: what's a good, readily-available, reasonably-priced recording that's easy to link to on a purchasing site and/or a Youtube performance.

Since you perhaps would be allowed to declare something like BWV 1053 a 'core' work, too, you'd perhaps be able to suggest a harpsichord version of that... in which case, a piano version of the Goldbergs would make the recommendations sufficiently rounded so that our prospective neophyte is exposed to the beginnings of the debate about piano v. harpsichord, without getting sucked into it wholesale at the outset.

I think proposing we draw up lists and only deal with 'A' composers before moving on to the Bs is way more rigid an approach than I had in mind. I thought we would have mad-keen fans of all sorts of composers hereabouts (I spotted some Boulez fanatics just the other day, for example). If they're mad-keen, chip in. No need to wait for the list to get round to their pet projects, after all! Besides, I know my composers by first name: I'd hate to return to Edwardian school-room surname drill, personally.

I also don't think a 'manager' is particularly required. I think if, for example, there was a special area of the forum to which anyone could post the start of a new Building a Library thread (say: *Building a Library: Johann Sebastian Bach*) then someone else could start a new thread at any time called *Building a Library: Pierre Boulez*. Each thread can then look after its own debate and, maybe, the thread initiator can ask the mods to lock the thread if they think it's getting unwieldy? We might need someone to point out when duplicate threads have been created and nip them in the bud, merge them, re-direct them etc.

More than a project manager, we just need keen enthusiasts for one composer or another to step up and propose a 'core' for someone whose work they love, with performances that meet the cheap and readily purchaseable/linkable criteria.

Personally, I would like to see any such posts in the general form I've previously indicated: a tiny bit of biography and background, a vanishly quick overview of the sort of music you can expect from this composer, then a choice of genres in which that composer worked, with one or two (sometimes more, but not often) works in each genre. What a thread initiator thinks of as appropriate genres is again pretty much up to them: it makes no sense to make a list when Chopin didn't write a ballet and Mozart didn't write film scores! So whatever's most appropriate to the composer and the post-initiator.

Once we've got maybe half-a-dozen of these themed posts, maybe the mods will create a special forum where they can be moved to, and then that becomes the place for new 'Building a Library' posts for new composers to be made from that point on. Don't know if that's workable, though.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> . . . See, that's a no-no! It's no good saying to a newbie "Listen to everything!". You have to be _selective_, distinguishing between "core" and "complete'. I would suggest Symphonies 1, 2 and 4 are nowhere near core (which is not the same thing at all as saying they're no good). I could live with a recommendation for 3, 5, 7... but even then, I think you really want no more than 2 exemplars of a 'genre' for any composer (though exceptions, of course, can be made where necessary). I'd say it would have to be #5, if we got really selective about it! . . .


I think all nine of Beethoven's symphonies are core. You will note that I was more selective with others.

And the reason to start with works first, and specific performances second, is that for many works, there are at least roughly comparable performances. I think you will find argument about the core works (indeed you have already argued with me), and forcing it to the point of performances makes argument even more inevitable.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> I think all nine of Beethoven's symphonies are core. You will note that I was more selective with others.
> 
> And the reason to start with works first, and specific performances second, is that for many works, there are at least roughly comparable performances. I think you will find argument about the core works (indeed you have already argued with me), and forcing it to the point of performances makes argument even more inevitable.


Well, I can't explain the concept any more than I have, I fear. I'm *not* arguing over what is core. I'm trying to explain to you the concept of being *selective*, so that rather than tell your 13-year old god-daughter "You've got to listen to all 9", you can tell her 'Well, try that one -and if you like that one, there are 8 others you will probably like too. But if you hate it, well, maybe try some other type of music he wrote instead'.

We honestly do this sort of thing all the time, so I just don't get why some (rather many, actually!) people seem to have difficulty with it! When I did English Literature A-Level, I studied _Romeo and Juliet_ and _Anthony and Cleopatra_. They did not make me read all 39 plays and every single one of the 154 Sonnets before I could make an intelligent case about Shakespeare, his dramatic technique and his world-view!

I think the technical term we might be looking for is *synedoche*: where a *part* of something is taken as referring to the *whole* of something. If the *whole* of something is taken as referring to the *whole* of something, however, well... we haven't really progressed anywhere!

And I wasn't arguing with you, either, about "start with works first". My disagreement with your earlier post was you started to talk about 'Choral Works' as a corpus you'd have to select a core from. My point was simply no: Composer is king, not genre (for this particular idea, anyway). So pick a composer, find the choral works _he_ wrote and pick something from that body to declare as 'core' _for him (or her)_. Repeat for any other composer you care to mention. *Not*, think of hundreds of choral works from every age from the 1300s to the 21st century and pick 2 as 'core', which is what you appeared to be suggesting.

Specifically, Messiah would (might) be included on Handel's core, but there'd be plenty of room for The Creation on Haydn's, Rejoice in the Lamb on Britten's, Belshazzar's Feast on Walton's and so on.

If I've misunderstood what you were driving at before, my apologies.

But really: rather than us faffing around wondering what horrors of debate might be occasioned by this project, just think of a composer you love... and draft something along Simplicissimus' Charles Ives post from earlier, or even my own Britten one. Just have a go. Imagine only that you've got someone who hasn't a clue what X wrote or was capable of: what would you suggest to that someone as a way of getting 'the gist' of a composer. Throw it together, stick it up here and let's have a look at it! Seems more productive than worrying about whether someone will want to dispute your efforts.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Well, the title of the thread is building a library, not what few things might your 13-year-old god-daughter be persuaded to listen to. These are completely different things.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> Well, the title of the thread is building a library, not what few things might your 13-year-old god-daughter be persuaded to listen to. These are completely different things.


I come to you as a new listener to classical music. I know nothing of Beethoven, really. Maybe "duh-duh-duh-dum" and that's about it. I have no idea he wrote string quartets -or if I do, I have no idea which ones are must-listens instead of also-rans. Ditto with concertos: you mean he wrote violin concertos as well as piano ones!? I have no idea how to get into appreciating Beethoven. That could be me at 18, or your 13-year old niece, or some newly-retired 65 year old with time on his hands. The specifics don't matter: in _all_ cases, we're talking about helping someone build up a collection of Beethoven's music that someone keen on him thought would be usefully _representative_ of what he could write, and where each recommendation can be thought of as a 'gateway' to a more in-depth collection that can be accumulated over time as one's experience accumulates.

There are two exemplars further up-thread. They aren't hard to do. Participate or not. It's your choice.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

If the requirement is to pick just one or a few of Beethoven's symphonies, then I choose not to play.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> If the requirement is to pick just one or a few of Beethoven's symphonies, then I choose not to play.


You mean, you are unable to come up with a selection of Beethoven's works which are representative of his entire ouvre in the various genres he contributed to?

Fine, if that's too difficult, I understand your inability to participate.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You mean, you are unable to come up with a selection of Beethoven's works which are representative of his entire ouvre in the various genres he contributed to?
> 
> Fine, if that's too difficult, I understand your inability to participate.


I mean that I consider the premise absurd. The representative works of Beethoven in the genre of symphonies are all 9 of his symphonies.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> I mean that I consider the premise absurd.


That makes you about the third person to say so in this thread, so I dare say it's at least a plausible hypothesis.

But it's easily balanced by around 4, or 5, who thought it was a great idea and just wished someone would start implementing it!

And the fact that two of us have managed to cook up 'Building Guides' for two composers already, so it's clearly not impossible to do.

Whatever, really. If you have nothing to contribute, that's fine. Hopefully, others will understand the premise better, and respond more productively.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I've thought about your idea and I must say that I quite like it. I haven't grown up in a musical family or anything and got into classical music independently. Although I had some basic knowledge and knew quite a few things about music history, it was still very difficult to figure out _how_ to listen and _what_ to listen to. Even now, I sometimes struggle with composers I'm not that well acquainted with or with composers (especially those who composed in the 20th century) who didn't focus on the conventional genres of classical music, such as string quartets, piano sonatas or symphonies. That's why I also asked you about Britten's "most recommended" works some time ago and the recommendations have been very good and eye-opening. So, yes, I think it's a great idea!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

annaw said:


> I've thought about your idea and I must say that I quite like it. I haven't grown up in a musical family or anything and got into classical music independently. Although I had some basic knowledge and knew quite a few things about music history, it was still very difficult to figure out _how_ to listen and _what_ to listen to. Even now, I sometimes struggle with composers I'm not that well acquainted with or with composers (especially those who composed in the 20th century) who didn't focus on the conventional genres of classical music, such as string quartets, piano sonatas or symphonies. That's why I also asked you about Britten's "most recommended" works some time ago and the recommendations have been very good and eye-opening. So, yes, I think it's a great idea!


Thank you.

It seems to me that it requires vastly more energy to dismiss the idea as absurd on its face than it does to throw a couple dozen lines of thought into HTML form and see what constructive people will do with it.

The absurdity is none of the people claiming the idea is absurd do so in any other walk of life. Faced with a small mechanical issue with their car, they reach for the Haynes manual and a wrench (or appeal to the local garage that knows these things), not acquire a 7-year apprenticeship in mechanical engineering! Simplifying, distilling, condensing is the essence of teaching. It has rather disappointed me to think TC is more about list games and league tables than it is about helping people to _discover_ what it is we all claim to love. Maybe I misjudged.

Anyway: I expect your Wagner homework on my desk by close of business Monday!!

(I jest... but Wagner is an interesting one: you _can't_ have all his operas. You're not even allowed all the Ring. So what are you going to pick as 'essential', 'respresentative', 'proxy for the whole'? What do you reckon: Siegfried Idyl, Götterdämmerung and the Wesendonck Lieder?)

Edited to add: I reckon it might be Meistersingers after all that. Not the Ring at all. Don't know how that goes down with the Wagner afficionadi, however!


----------



## musichal (Oct 17, 2020)

I don't think there should be a goal or an expectation of reaching a consensus for a composer's core compositions. Rather, let each contributor post his own opinion. 

For instance, the person who opined that if he were expected to delete one or more Beethoven symphonies from his core list then he would not participate, did, in fact participate. He feels strongly that all nine are at Beethoven's core, which seems a perfectly valid position to me.

I might follow up his post by agreeing with him, but suggest Sym #3, 5 and 6 as good initial choices for a newbie. Others may suggest differently, and I rather suspect that all nine would get a mention - which would tend to reinforce the "non-participant's" stand, to my way of thinking, and would likely be all the consensus reachable, and maybe even desirable.

Then maybe I'd mention Piano Sonata #8. I don't think each poster should seek to be any more exhaustive than he wants (or has time) to be.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

musichal said:


> I don't think there should be a goal or an expectation of reaching a consensus for a composer's core compositions. Rather, let each contributor post his own opinion.
> 
> For instance, the person who opined that if he were expected to delete one or more Beethoven symphonies from his core list then he would not participate, did, in fact participate. He feels strongly that all nine are at Beethoven's core, which seems a perfectly valid position to me.


Well, of course: it's a valid opinion. But it's not a terribly _useful_ opinion in this context.

I am inescapably reminded of Blackadder inspecting a 'map' of captured territory in General Melchett's offices (2'19 in). 'What's the scale, Darling?' says Melchett. "Oh, ah, um. 1:1", replies Darling.

A map of New York that is as big as New York isn't, functionally, a map. It's just a bloody awkward piece of paper!



musichal said:


> I might follow up his post by agreeing with him, but suggest Sym #3, 5 and 6 as good initial choices for a newbie.


I wouldn't disagree. 3 seems OK to me, and I love 3 and 5, and 6 is the only piece of music that has ever physically cheered me up. So no problems. But you get the essence of selectivity, which is key.



musichal said:


> Others may suggest differently, and I rather suspect that all nine would get a mention - which would tend to reinforce the "non-participant's" stand, to my way of thinking, and would likely be all the consensus reachable, and maybe even desirable.
> 
> Then maybe I'd mention Piano Sonata #8. I don't think each poster should seek to be any more exhaustive than he wants (or has time) to be.


I think you're right. You wouldn't believe how much I chucked out of Britten that I would be heartbroken to be without, but which simply doesn't meet the brief of getting across the essence of his work without being a 1:1 representation of it. Even now, I think I might have been a bit heavy on the operas, but in my defence, there are 'grand(ish)' ones, chamber ones, church ones and so on. So...

Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere unless advocates of the likes of Boulez, Shostakovich and so on are prepared to step up and say, 'This is the essence of the man'. I love Shostakovich dearly... but I wouldn't have a clue as to what String Quartets to mention, for example. I'm simply not a SQ man.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Point me to just one of them, would you.
> 
> I haven't seen any of this sort. As I say, I see lots of 'what's the best recording of X', but not 'what are the must-have compositions for Y'. But if they're out there, (a) I would certainly like to see even one example and (b) would like to see them brought together into a single 'building a library' thread.


Look at the stickies, baby. Top of each forum board.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Look at the stickies, baby. Top of each forum board.


There's actually a one small problem with those lists, although I've found them to be super useful as well - they are the favourite works of experienced listeners and thus great for a person who's already a bit more acquainted with specific composers. But is Mahler's 9th the first Mahler symphony you'd recommend someone to listen to?

I had the exact experience when I first "properly" listened to Wagner. I read one of the many "rank Wagner operas" thread in the opera subforum. Consequently, I listened to _Die Walküre_ without any proper understanding of the plot. The idea of following the libretto probably didn't even enter my mind... The genius that I am (/s), I decided to continue with _Götterdämmerung_ because many TCers had put it to the very top of their lists. While this worked very well for me, it could scare away a few people. I think I would have given up the idea of liking Wagner for some time if I had started with _Tristan_, which took me long to appreciate even after I was quite familiar with Wagner's operas - it's simply musically challenging and very intense.

Now that I've listened to Wagner significantly more, I'd say that it's, in my opinion, much wiser to start with either _Lohengrin_ or _Das Rheingold_. The former is sweet and beautiful, dreamlike (a quality that will reach its climax IMO in _Parsifal_) and the latter is fun and musically more adventurous than Wagner's early operas. Neither are too long on the scale of Wagner and both give a relatively good understanding of Wagner's compositional language. I myself adore _Die Meistersinger_ but it's one of his longest operas and that _can_ (but might not) make it difficult for a newcomer. Although there's also the possibility to listen to it one act at a time. I think Siegfried's Idyll and Wesendonck Lieder are great beginner recommendations too. _Götterdämmerung_ really requires one to know the whole Ring to truly appreciate and understand.

Or this weird little polka :lol:: 



It's just so awkward.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Look at the stickies, baby. Top of each forum board.


None that I've seen have anything to do with the idea I've layed out. Top Recommended Operas/Top Recommended Symphonies... great. But if I want to know what to listen to by Rachmaninov? Nope, those lists won't do.

Which is not to say that they aren't useful. Merely that 'league tables' like that aren't what I was talking about.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I thought a bit about what I could contribute to this project given that my tastes in works and recordings are a bit all over the place. But have decided to provide some recommendations for the lighter side of opera! Its wonderful little sibling Operetta which I think is a great fun gateway to classical singing. (Even though my first opera was Tristan und Isolde)

So I would recommend the following to be explored and have included some sample recordings:

Gilbert and Sullivan: The Gondoliers, Decca 1961

Gilbert and Sullivan: The Mikado
My first choice rec would be the BHE film from the early sixties.

A more affordable choice would be Decca 1957 out of eloquence.

Johann Strauss II: Die Fledermaus, Decca 1972 conducted by Karl Böhm

Sigmund Romberg: The Student Prince, CPO 2017

Franz Lehár: Die Lustige Witwe (The Merry Widow)

My first choice rec would be the 1953 studio account starring Elizabeth Schwarzkopf and conducted by Otto Ackermann.

A more friendly alternative would be EMI 1980 conducted by Heinz Wallberg starring Edda Moser and Helen Donath.

I would recommend Offenbach's Orpheus in the underworld but as I only love this work performed in German on EMI I'm not really qualified to give a beginners rec.

I will also offer one out there choice which I find great fun when overacted.

Oscar Straus: Die Lustigen Nibelungen (The Merry Nibelungens) I would recommend the 1951 made for radio performance conducted by Max Schönherr.

Thankfully for everyone else there exists a 1998 recording on Capriccio, even if I find it a bit bland.

For starting full operas I would recommend:
Barber of Seville, I can't give a rec as my prefered version is from 1929.

Weber: Der Frieschütz, EMI 1958 conducted by Joseph Keilberth. The 2008 remaster is in superb sound. 

So there we go an attempt by zxxyxxz to provide beginner friendly operetta list.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

zxxyxxz said:


> I thought a bit about what I could contribute to this project given that my tastes in works and recordings are a bit all over the place. But have decided to provide some recommendations for the lighter side of opera! Its wonderful little sibling Operetta which I think is a great fun gateway to classical singing. (Even though my first opera was Tristan und Isolde)


Well, it's good of you to have put the effort in, but this isn't that project.

There are lots of existing lists of 'must have operas' or 'must have symphonies'.

_This_ project was about, "I want to get to know Composer X: what of his output should I listen to?"

Sadly, few seem to get the point, or why this approach is precisely *not* covered by any existing lists of 'your hundred best <works in a particular genre>'. But given the amount of ordure that has been thrown at the idea from assorted quarters, I can't blame you for not having noticed the point, lost as it has been amongst all the noise.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, it's good of you to have put the effort in, but this isn't that project.
> 
> There are lots of existing lists of 'must have operas' or 'must have symphonies'.
> 
> ...


Believe it or not, I agree with you. I suggest you start your project with a new thread before this all blows up - it's time for action, not discussion.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm a big fan in principle of the sort of thing I think you're aiming at here. The development of my own music library was a combination of haphazard whatever-took-my-fancy-at-the-time and reference to the likes of the _Gramophone Good CD Guide_ and, later, comparing reviews from online sources.

The reason I say "in principle" is two-fold. First, it turns out I'm much more interested in the music than the performance, so as long as I know the recording meets a reasonable definition of "good" I'm not especially bothered that I've got the "best". I've seen enough reviews to know that, once there's more than a handful of recordings of a work, there's just no such thing as a "best" that everyone (or even a plurality) will agree on.

Second, I'm not sure an online forum is the best way of getting what you want. I've been involved in various of the Recommended lists here and I think they're really valuable, but at best they're an averaging of disparate opinions, rather than an actually agreed-upon list. Without the structure imposed on those lists by nomination/voting rules, I'm pretty sure all you'll get is a vast and unmanageable mess of ideas. I don't know that I've ever seen an actual _discussion that leads to a consensus_ on TC, or something that's truly _curated_, which is the sort of thing I think is needed to produce something of the precision I think you're after. Personally I think the Recommended lists could be mined and combined with other things such as ArkivMusic's list of most-recorded works to produce a pretty decent "Building a Library" list for many composers (if not recordings), but even that requires proper curation and anyway it looks like you want something else.

It's still not clear to me what format you're looking for, because there seems to be a tension between


AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't think a variety of opinion is to be feared. I got lots of people recommending different recordings of the Tchaikovsky "standards"...
> And, of course, no-one's going to agree on what a 'core' library for composer X is, either. ...
> So if someone said 'Symphonies, Late String Quartets, Fidelio, Piano Concerti, Piano Sonatas', I'd feel that was a much better _quality_ library that I'd be likely to listen to


and


AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You have to be _selective_, distinguishing between "core" and "complete'. I would suggest Symphonies 1, 2 and 4 are nowhere near core (which is not the same thing at all as saying they're no good). I could live with a recommendation for 3, 5, 7... but even then, I think you really want no more than 2 exemplars of a 'genre' for any composer (though exceptions, of course, can be made where necessary).


So in short, yes, good idea and I might be interested in getting involved if I have time. I certainly wish you luck with it!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> Believe it or not, I agree with you. I suggest you start your project with a new thread before this all blows up - it's time for action, not discussion.


It's not, nor ever has been, "my" project. I can write a Build a Library for Benjamin Britten.. oh, I already have!... but I would not presume to write any others for any other composer you care to mention (RVW possibly being an exception).

It requires those who are "fans" of a composer to step up. Start here, because this thread is running, and if we get more than a half-dozen quality contributions, I'll ask the mods if it can be made into a forum of its own or something.

I keep making the invitation to contribute to the likes of yourself, but so far... nothing.

One more time then:

_*Building a Library of [Composer Name]*

X was born in 17xx and died in 18xx, making him a rough contemporary with A, B and C. His musical output was prodigious/reasonably small, but always of high/low/acceptable quality. His main works were in the field of concerti/symphonies/operas/etc, but he has excellent works in most of the standard genres. His choral writing is generally considered sub-par, but his church music somewhat saves his reputation in this regard.

*Symphonies*
Symphony No. 4 [Link to Youtube]. Recommended recording [Link to Amazon or Prestomusic]
Symphony No. 7 [Link to Youtube]. Recommended recording [Link to Amazon or Prestomusic]

*Orchestral, non-Symphonic Works*
Serenade No.9 [Link to Youtube]. Recommended recording [Link to Amazon or Prestomusic]

*Vocal Works*
Lieder eines Wegwanderer [Link to Youtube]. Recommended recording [Link to Amazon or Prestomusic]

*Choral Works*
Mass in D sharp minor [Link to Youtube]. Recommended recording [Link to Amazon or Prestomusic]
Mass in E sharp major [Link to Youtube]. Recommended recording [Link to Amazon or Prestomusic]

*Film Scores*
Miss Marple Regrets Absolutely [Link to Youtube]. Recommended recording [Link to Amazon or Prestomusic]
_

And so on. Stick to a general template, with variations as needed, set down your loves and likes for composer X or Y and see how it goes.

But it's not for me to write these things, since I have no expertise on anyone save the one or two composers I've already mentioned. If I did Bach, for example, we'd have a good representation of Cantatas, one of the Oratorios, one of the Masses, the Goldbergs... and then nada, really, because I simply don't know enough about Bach between about BWV 250 and BWV 980.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Nereffid said:


> I'm a big fan in principle of the sort of thing I think you're aiming at here. The development of my own music library was a combination of haphazard whatever-took-my-fancy-at-the-time and reference to the likes of the _Gramophone Good CD Guide_ and, later, comparing reviews from online sources.
> 
> The reason I say "in principle" is two-fold. First, it turns out I'm much more interested in the music than the performance, so as long as I know the recording meets a reasonable definition of "good" I'm not especially bothered that I've got the "best". I've seen enough reviews to know that, once there's more than a handful of recordings of a work, there's just no such thing as a "best" that everyone (or even a plurality) will agree on.


I'm absolutely with you there: good enough is, er... good enough for these purposes, at least!



Nereffid said:


> Second, I'm not sure an online forum is the best way of getting what you want. I've been involved in various of the Recommended lists here and I think they're really valuable, but at best they're an averaging of disparate opinions, rather than an actually agreed-upon list. Without the structure imposed on those lists by nomination/voting rules, I'm pretty sure all you'll get is a vast and unmanageable mess of ideas.


I think I'm tending to your opinion on this too. My only get-out clause was that I felt that if someone was ballsy enought to put together a guide to X first, then they 'own' that, and if they're open to suggestion and alteration, fair enough ...but otherwise, 18 pages of dispute can simply be ignored, since the 'definitive' Guide to X remains the 'property' of whoever wrote it. (But yes, I don't know that the forum technology is up to doing that sort of thing, to be fair). And the owner of that thread can simply ask the mods to lock it if he or she thinks the debate is becoming pointless.



Nereffid said:


> I don't know that I've ever seen an actual _discussion that leads to a consensus_ on TC, or something that's truly _curated_, which is the sort of thing I think is needed to produce something of the precision I think you're after. Personally I think the Recommended lists could be mined and combined with other things such as ArkivMusic's list of most-recorded works to produce a pretty decent "Building a Library" list for many composers (if not recordings), but even that requires proper curation and anyway it looks like you want something else.
> 
> It's still not clear to me what format you're looking for, because there seems to be a tension between


I'm sorry not to have included the quotes of mine you seemed to think were in tension with each other: apparently the forum software drops embedded quotes when one replies with quotes. Anyway, I don't quite see any tension between the two passages you cited -perhaps you thought that when I said 'Symphonies' in my first quote, I meant "all symphonies"? I didn't, but I realise that's not clear from the quote itself. I simply meant "these symphonies, these string quartets, that opera' and so on. I just didn't want to mention any specific symphonies, because that would be to pre-ordain the outcome, I thought!

Anyway, the format I was after I've just documented at post 66. But also, as mentioned up-thread, as at this page. A somewhat more elaborate (and probably too-wordy) example is also available here.

But that was only what was in my mind. It was never my intention to dictate a particular format to anyone, though, since I wouldn't be the one doing all the work!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It's not, nor ever has been, "my" project. I can write a Build a Library for Benjamin Britten.. oh, I already have!... but I would not presume to write any others for any other composer you care to mention (RVW possibly being an exception).
> 
> It requires those who are "fans" of a composer to step up. Start here, because this thread is running, and if we get more than a half-dozen quality contributions, I'll ask the mods if it can be made into a forum of its own or something.
> 
> I keep making the invitation to contribute to the likes of yourself, but so far... nothing.


I was not suggesting that you be the author of all the entries or even one of them, just that it's time to get this project rolling.

Yes, I haven't made any contributions. I'd so do for Bach and others but for your insistence that there be links to to Youtube. I don't do links nor do I embed videos.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I was not suggesting that you be the author of all the entries or even one of them, just that it's time to get this project rolling.
> 
> Yes, I haven't made any contributions. I'd so do for Bach and others but for your insistence that there be links to to Youtube. I don't do links nor do I embed videos.


Well, I definitely wouldn't want embeds. They take up a lot of space and make for a lot of scrolling: low information density, basically. All due respect, but my eyes tend to roll when Hammeredklavier posts his multi-embedded masterworks in various quarters, no matter how good the videos he links to might end up being! I agree with you that they can easily be a bit of a turn-off.

But the aim is to help newbies get into the music of someone, so I think making it easy for them to actually hear the stuff, rather than just read yet another long list of something, is actually quite important. So being able to click on important words and get taken to somewhere that makes sense of what they're reading is, I think, part of the point.

That said, you'll see from the Charles Ives page that I've previously mentioned that I was happy to take Simplicissimus's guide which he posted here as a plain, link-less text, and edit it to add links to Youtube performances (not that doing so will always be possible, I realise). I also was able to find all his recommended recordings at Presto and added links for those too. So, I'd be happy to do that should anyone want to email me a 'text draft': I could add the links, then mail it back and then the original author could post it as his or her own work here. It is a bit of a pallaver, though, when an author could much more simply knock his own links together!

As for getting the project rolling: it just needs some people to start posting! The thread's here. It's open for contributions. As soon as there's more than half-a-dozen, and the contributions need proper organising and so forth, that's when it would make sense (I think) to approach the mods to see what can be done. But all the while no-one's contributing here, there's no point trying to make it more formal and organised. Cart before the horse, etc.


----------

