# Should a new listener begin with Renaissance?



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Hi! I'm new to this forum. I joined after reading several interesting threads about classical music, and because I've gained an interest in classical music.

I'm an avid listener of several modern genres (prog rock and metal mostly) and I've always loved listening to first albums of bands, and then listening through their whole catalog chronologically. Not only this, but I love listening to older music, such as 60's rock, or 40's and 50's blues, and things like that in order to see the progression music has made. I find it very interesting to see how things change and evolve, both with regard to individual artists/groups and with genres as a whole.

All that being said, would it make sense to do a similar thing with classical music? Since Renaissance is, as far as I know, the earliest era of classical music should I begin there, listening to the biggest names in the era? Or does classical music have such a huge catalog that if I did that I'd be in danger of never making it to the Baroque? Does anybody have any general suggestions for getting into classical? Any tips, comments, or random brain pickings would be appreciated.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> Hi! I'm new to this forum. I joined after reading several interesting threads about classical music, and because I've gained an interest in classical music.


Welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy it here, and I hope you enjoy discovering Classical music.



Dedalus said:


> I'm an avid listener of several modern genres (prog rock and metal mostly) and I've always loved listening to first albums of bands, and then listening through their whole catalog chronologically. Not only this, but I love listening to older music, such as 60's rock, or 40's and 50's blues, and things like that in order to see the progression music has made. I find it very interesting to see how things change and evolve, both with regard to individual artists/groups and with genres as a whole.
> 
> All that being said, would it make sense to do a similar thing with classical music? Since Renaissance is, as far as I know, the earliest era of classical music should I begin there, listening to the biggest names in the era? Or does classical music have such a huge catalog that if I did that I'd be in danger of never making it to the Baroque? Does anybody have any general suggestions for getting into classical? Any tips, comments, or random brain pickings would be appreciated.


A number of classical listeners do this kind of thing, but generally with individual composers rather than the entire history of Classical music. Even just going with the "big names", this would be a huge project, and getting lost in one era or another would be a distinctly possible outcome.

Based on my experience here and elsewhere, the majority of Classical fans are more interested in music after the Renaissance (and, even more specifically, after 1700, which is the middle of the baroque). Earlier music is quite different from what followed in the types of melodies and harmonies it used, and this can be a barrier to some.

I would recommend dipping in wherever and whenever (including the Renaissance, of course), and when you find something that interests you, _then_ go back and try to trace where that interesting bit came from and what it developed into. Of course, while doing that, you're apt to encounter other things that are of interest, leading to new trails to follow.

I hope this helps!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Welcome to the site.

Renaissance is way too late - start back with Hildegard of Bingen! 

Seriously, the different periods of music represent quite different styles. We came into classical music through folk which then took us into early music (that can be very odd!) and then down into Baroque. We're also folk dancers so we were already used to Playford tunes - basically mid 17th century. I've basically stuck with early and Baroque music because I like it, but when I move forward in time, I tend to skip towards the folk oriented composers of the late 19th and early 20th century, who I already know through their work as folk song collectors.

You need to find stuff you like. Then work from there going forward or backward as the mood takes you. The time scales for the various music periods are flexible. You'll find somebody like Monteverdi being described as either renaissance or Baroque but really he's on a point of transition. You'll find Baroque composers after 1750, particularly in the more rural or outlying areas because they haven't caught up with the latest styles.

Enjoy the journey and don't worry about where you're going to end up.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Thanks for the responses guys. Seems like good advice from both of you. 

I haven't ever heard of Hildegard of Bingen hah, but perhaps I should start even earlier than that, Greek Dithyramb maybe? (Which I actually think sounds pretty cool) lol! But I see your point about the fact that it's not as though Renaissance is any kind of "beginning" and that the eras don't have definite edges, but rather everything is an evolution, and even within that I'm sure every composer has his own uniqueness.

So far I'm dipping into the obvious names, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and also Richard Wagner (because I've been studying Nietzsche and he freaking loved the man's music).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I started with Romantic and Classical era stuff. If I had started with other eras, I have the feeling that I would have just stayed in that one era and not gone much further. There is such a variety in classical and romantic, it taught me the musical vocabulary to understand everything else. I don't know if Renaissance music would have prepared me for Mahler, or if Webern would have prepared me for the Classical era.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Forget the Renaissance. If you don't, you'll have to wait around for a traveling minstrel with his lute to reach your village, and that could take years.

Rather, start with the 21st century. Like, now ... today. What I mean is, make use of the resources available to you the exploring listener, resources that just weren't there when I was a youngster back in the ... Renaissance.

YouTube has a lot of offerings to allow you to "try out" pieces of music, from whatever era. Look around. Listen. Follow threads. See where they lead.

When you finally come to someone like Shostakovich (the 20th century Soviet era symphonist), you may first encounter his Eleventh Symphony and like it. You might want to then attempt to explore him further, chronologically. Of course, you'll find his First Symphony is a distance away in sound from that Eleventh, and as you work your way through the early symphonies -- Two, Three, Four -- you might find you're getting discouraged, since they differ substantially from that Eleventh. But around the Fifth you should start to see something happening ... and if you make it to the Fifteenth, you'll have gained an education. You can then explore the string quartets -- there are fifteen of those, too.

But this is not the only way to listen.

I began with a piece by Tchaikovsky -- _Capriccio Italien_. I recommend it. It took me deep into this enjoyable sound world of "classical music".

[video]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4Q3ywwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D01S EOm9oS-k%26feature%3Dkp&ei=FqitU6qnMueF8gH0x4GYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEGYRfvpCqXivsn3cIuJO3i4db47A&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2U[/video]

(Secondly ... if you _do_ start with the Renaissance and proceed chronologically, you'll never live long enough to get to Bach, let alone to Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich....)


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Ok here's another question. Each piece of classical music is much longer than sons of today. Their length is more comparable to albums. On a first time listen of an album of contemporary music, it never really "sinks in", rather I have to listen to it at least two or three times to get a good sense, and several more times until I feel quite familiar. Would it be recommended to listen to classical pieces multiple times to get some familiarity with them, or to enjoy them once and move on?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Dedalus said:


> Ok here's another question. Each piece of classical music is much longer than sons of today. Their length is more comparable to albums. On a first time listen of an album of contemporary music, it never really "sinks in", rather I have to listen to it at least two or three times to get a good sense, and several more times until I feel quite familiar. Would it be recommended to listen to classical pieces multiple times to get some familiarity with them, or to enjoy them once and move on?


I listen again if I liked what I heard the first time; if not, the assumption is that I'm not going to get anywhere by brute-forcing it, so I put it aside and come back to it in maybe a month or so, but sometimes there have been pieces that I have positively hated for years and then suddenly turned completely around on.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> Ok here's another question. Each piece of classical music is much longer than sons of today. Their length is more comparable to albums. On a first time listen of an album of contemporary music, it never really "sinks in", rather I have to listen to it at least two or three times to get a good sense, and several more times until I feel quite familiar. Would it be recommended to listen to classical pieces multiple times to get some familiarity with them, or to enjoy them once and move on?


It depends. Some things you will find yourself interested in. When this happens, you should listen a few more times to get into it more. Most classical pieces have movements that are interconnected (being a fan of prog, you'll have heard this kind of thing before), or at the very least are meant to go together on a deeper level than things simply stuck together (like the difference between a well-crafted album and one that just has one or two hits and a bunch of filler).

If you don't find yourself compelled to listen again, though, there's no reason to force it. Come back at another time, perhaps, but simply forcing yourself to go through something because you feel you "should" is not a route to enjoyment.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

It is totally backwards to start with Hildegard von Bingen, history should always be covered in hindsight!

Start with contemporary classical music and work yourself back i history, modern classical loans a lot from the popular music genres, rock, progg and Jazz! 
If You dig Nietzsche, You've got to dig in to his music! (Lieder and Piano Music) It is second to all and more of an existential experience in perseverance! 

/ptr


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The important thing is not to start with Beethoven, Mozart etc. I've seen so many people get locked into those styles, it's really dangerous and limiting. There is such strong pressure to see them at the heart of a canon. Start with contemporary - late Nono maybe. Or Boulez's Repons. Or Murail's Ethers. 

One problem with starting with renaissance music is that so much of it is mass settings. That may put you off if you're not a believer (it did me for a long time.)


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> One problem with starting with renaissance music is that so much of it is mass settings. That may put you off if you're not a believer (it did me for a long time.)


I'm definitely not a believer, but I don't think that would necessarily turn me off. I understand that religion has inspired all manner of art, and I don't think that makes it worse (or better, necessarily).

But it seems most people are advising me to start with more modern things. I'll definitely take this advice, and some of the specific suggestions given. On the other hand, I still feel a great curiosity for things like beethoven and mozart, if only to see what all the hubbub is about, so to speak. Though I can see how that might just be more of a popular opinion kind of thing, and that people really versed in classical music don't see these names as being as monolithic as the layman perceives them to be. But on the other other hand I see these names as comparable to Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer, and as a reader of all these I know that it's not just popular opinion that these guys are literary geniuses, but there really is something to them. That makes me think the same must be true of the big names in classical.

So basically I'll take the advice of listening to more modern classical music, and also listen to the older guys, and just see what I like, as others have said, and branch out from there.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Dedalus, Welcome. Hope you enjoy the adventure of exploring what is a vast realm full of vast delights and artistic grandeur.

In your opening post, you mentioned how you enjoyed following the chronological unfolding of music (of bands and of eras of popular music). And in your most recent post, you mention that you are thinking of following "the advice of listening to more modern classical music." Let me suggest putting those two things together. Several months ago, I put together a list of 100 classical works from the 20th and 21st century in chronological order. When I had posted these on another thread, people around here thought it was a pretty decent list. So let me re-post here and see if it is of help to your explorations:

1. Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto #2 in C minor, op. 18 (1901)
2. Mahler: Symphony #5 in C# minor (1901-1902)
3. Debussy: La Mer (1903-1905)
4. Ravel: String Quartet in F major (1903)
5. Albéniz: Iberia (1906)
6. Scriabin: Piano Sonata #5, op. 53 (1907)
7. Ravel: Gaspard de la nuit (1908)
8. Webern: Passacaglia for Orchestra, op. 1 (1908)
9. Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto #3 in D minor (1909)
10. Mahler: Das Lied von der Erde (1909)
11. Schoenberg: 5 Pieces for Orchestra, op. 16 (1909)
12. Debussy: Preludes, Book 1 & 2 (1910, 1913)
13. Stravinsky: L'Oiseau de feu (Firebird) (1910)
14. Stravinsky: Petrushka (1911)
15. Schoenberg: Pierrot Lunaire (1912)
16. Stravinsky: Le Sacre du printemps (Rite of Spring) (1913)
17. Prokofiev: Piano Concerto #2 in G minor, op. 16 (1913)
18. Ravel: Piano Trio in A minor (1914)
19. Ives: Piano Sonata #2 ("Concord"), S. 88 (1915)
20. Sibelius: Symphony #5 (1915, rev. 1919)
21. Holst: The Planets, op. 32 (1917)
22. Prokofiev: Violin Concerto #1 in D major, op. 19 (1917)
23. Prokofiev: Piano Concerto #3 in C major, op. 26 (1921)
24. Berg: Wozzeck (1922)
25. Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue (1924)
26. Villa-Lobos: Choros #8 for large orchestra & 2 pianos (1925)
27. Janáček: Sinfonietta (1926)
28. Szymanowski: String Quartet #2, op. 56 (1927)
29. Bartók: String Quartet #4, Sz 91 (1928)
30. Schoenberg: Variations for Orchestra, op. 31 (1928)
31. Bartók: Piano Concerto #2, Sz. 95 (1931)
32. Ravel: Piano Concerto in G (1931)
33. Medtner: Piano Sonata in B flat minor ("Sonata Romantica"), op. 53/1 (1932)
34. Syzmanowski: Symphony #4 ("Symphonie Concertante"), op. 60 (1932)
35. Berg: Violin Concerto (1935)
36. Bartók: Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta, Sz. 106 (1936)
37. Orff: Carmina Burana (1936)
38. Shostakovich: Symphony #5 in D minor (1937)
39. Roy Harris: Symphony #3 (1937)
40. Martinů: Double Concerto for 2 String Orchestras, Piano and Timpani (1938)
41. Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez (1939)
42. Barber: Concerto for Violin, op. 14 (1939)
43. Prokofiev; Alexander Nevsky, op. 78 (1939)
44. Messiaen: Quatuor pour la fin du temps (1940)
45. Wm. Schuman: Symphony #3 (1941)
46. Bartók: Concerto for Orchestra, Sz. 116 (1943)
47. Copland: Appalachian Spring (1944)
48. Messiaen: Vingt Regards sur l'enfant-Jésus (1944)
49. Villa-Lobos: Bachianas Brasileiras #5 for soprano and orchestra of violincelli (1945)
50. Stravinsky: Symphony in Three Movements (1945)
51. Britten: Peter Grimes (1945)
52. Barber: Knoxville: Summer of 1915 (1947)
53. Strauss, R.: Four Last Songs (1948)
54. Shostakovich: Preludes and Fugues, op. 87 (1951)
55. Carter: String Quartet #1 (1951)
56. Shostakovich: Symphony #10 in E minor, op. 93 (1953)
57. Lutosławski: Concerto for Orchestra (1954)
58. Xenakis: Metastaseis (1954)
59. Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1955)
60. Stravinsky: Agon (1957)
61. Bernstein: West Side Story (1957)
62. Stockhausen: Gruppen (1957)
63. Ligeti: Atmospheres (1961)
64. Riley: In C (1964)
65. Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
66. Ligeti: Lontano (1967)
67. Carter: Concerto for Orchestra (1969)
68. Reich: Drumming (1971)
69. Crumb: Black Angels (1971)
70. Rochberg: String Quartet #3 (1971) 
71. Messiaen: Des canyons aux étoiles (1974)
72. Shostakovich: String Quartet #15 in E flat minor, op. 144 (1974)
73. Glass: Einstein on the Beach (1975)
74. Rzewski: The People United Will Never Be Defeated! (1975)
75. Nørgård: Symphony #3 (1975)
76. Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976)
77. Gorecki: Symphony #3 ("Symphony of Sorrowful Songs") (1976)
78. Pärt: Tabula Rasa (1976)
79. Gubaidulina: Offertorium (1980, rev. 1986)
80. Holmboe: String Quartet #17, op. 152 (1983)
81. Kapustin: Eight Concert Etudes, op. 40 (1984)
82. Dutilleux: L'arbre des songes ("Tree of Dreams"): Concerto for Violin (1985)
83. Ligeti: Études pour piano (1985, 1994)
84. Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)
85. Nono: Promoteo (1985)
86. Adams: Nixon in China (1987)
87. Dusapin: Seven Solos for Orchestra (1992-2008)
88. Lutosławski: Symphony #4 (1994)
89. Rautavaara: Symphony #7 ("Angel of Light") (1994)
90. Gubaidulina: Canticle of the Sun (1997)
91. Nørgård: Symphony #6 ("At the End of the Day") (1999)
92. Kancheli: Styx (1999)
93. Golijov: La pasión según san Marcos (2000) 
94. Adams: Dharma at Big Sur (2003)
95. Daugherty: Fire and Blood (2003)
96. Adès: Violin Concerto ("Concentric Paths") (2005) 
97. Tabakova: Concerto for Violincello and Strings (2008)
98. Penderecki: String Quartet #3 ("Leaves of an unwritten diary") (2008)
99. Greenstein: Change (2009)
100. Dessner: Aheym (2013)

Many of these are available on YouTube, but I have never tried to systematically check. This list is pretty dizzying in terms of the array of names and styles. To learn to make sense of the larger flow, consider reading on the 20th century. I would recommend a popular work (nominated for the Pulitzer Prize): Alex Ross, _The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century_. You'll see how modern classical is a sort of intricate tapestry of many many threads (and sometime boisterous conflicts!). All the best.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Enough of this foolishness. Listen to Haydn and Mozart. Their music has people-friendly melodies AND the triad AND simple logical rules for laying it all out so it can last more than 3 minutes. You don't need to recognize the triad or the rules scholastically, just listen. When you get used to following the music a whole movement at a time, and then again for a couple more movements, THEN the world's your oyster.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> The important thing is not to start with Beethoven, Mozart etc.


The important thing is actually to start with Bach/Mozart/Beethoven but to never stop once you start


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> I'm an avid listener of several modern genres (prog rock and metal mostly) and I've always loved listening to first albums of bands, and then listening through their whole catalog chronologically.


I came to classical from listening to progressive rock, progressive metal (and jazz-fusion), also.

But since I tend to listen to the more avant-garde forms of these, I gravitated to classical music of the 20th century. Prog bands like Henry Cow, Magma, The Thinking Plague, Universe Zero and their like were highly influenced by the classical of the 20th/21st centuries, so that's where my tastes in classical came from.

I did not feel the necessity to relive the history of classical. I just listen to what I like.

That's not to say that I won't explore classical from earlier eras, but so far my tastes are within the modern era.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> The important thing is actually to start with Bach/Mozart/Beethoven but to never stop once you start


On the contrary, these three stooges will pop up frequently anyway, there is no need to seek them out, they will haunt You no matter if You like them or not! 
Be brave, be bold, avoid convention and go from now and till then!

/ptr


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Alypius said:


> 1. Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto #2 in C minor, op. 18 (1901)
> 2. Mahler: Symphony #5 in C# minor (1901-1902)
> 3. Debussy: La Mer (1903-1905)
> 4. Ravel: String Quartet in F major (1903)
> ...


*Yo! I don' see no Ferneyhough, Barrett, Finnissy, Dillon or Feldman. Wussup wit dat? Don' make me come ova there...*


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> The important thing is not to start with Beethoven, Mozart etc. I've seen so many people get locked into those styles, it's really dangerous and limiting. There is such strong pressure to see them at the heart of a canon. Start with contemporary - late Nono maybe. Or Boulez's Repons. Or Murail's Ethers.
> 
> One problem with starting with renaissance music is that so much of it is mass settings. That may put you off if you're not a believer (it did me for a long time.)


The _important _thing is not to take any notice of someone who tells you that the important thing is _not _to....


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

A lot of good intentions posted here, but ... before you get all confused by all the offerings on what to listen to, pick up a copy of something like _100 Best Classics_









a six disc sampling of "classical" music. (There's actually a second volume, too.) You can actually find a used box at Amazon for under 2 bucks (not including shipping). Something in there is bound to make you want to hear more. Then go for it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2014)

ptr said:


> On the contrary, these three stooges will pop up frequently anyway, there is no need to seek them out, they will haunt You no matter if You like them or not!
> Be brave, be bold, avoid convention and go from now and till then!
> 
> /ptr


But wouldn't you hate if someone started with a rando, just to avoid convention, and never got to Allan Pettersson because he was bored by Wilhelm Peterson-Berger? Accessible is not a bad thing, boys and girls.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Only if he went to Ancestry.com and traced his roots back that far.
Then you can play some of the music your great grandpappy used to dance to.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Now here's a question. Once I get into classical, will I be able to snobbishly look down on the "unenlightened" who know not the glorious heights and wonder that is classical music?


I'm totally kidding with the above statement. Seriously now, I'm really enjoying all the advice. Alypius' list seems very cool, I'll have to make use of it. Even though some of the advice is contradictory because of differing opinions, I still find it quite useful. I can see the logic behind the different opinions, and that's almost more important than the actual opinion.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> Now here's a question. Once I get into classical, will I be able to snobbishly look down on the "unenlightened" who know not the glorious heights and wonder that is classical music?


Nah, you'll find most people who are snobs would have been snobs no matter what whether they were Jazz snobs or Prog Rock snobs or Classic Rock snobs or Classic Rap snobs or whatever. If you weren't a snob before, you're not likely to become one!


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Nah, you'll find most people who are snobs would have been snobs no matter what whether they were Jazz snobs or Prog Rock snobs or Classic Rock snobs or Classic Rap snobs or whatever. If you weren't a snob before, you're not likely to become one!


Yes, but you can then think "My classical snobbery is so much more justified than my past metal snobbery! This is glorious!"

Prescribed medicine for the above quote: Keep hanging out on this forum. Out there, amongst the "normies", a Schubert song cycle is enough to make you feel elite. Then you venture over here and realize you still know nothing.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

In retrospective, there's a consensus that the _tradition_ we call "classical music" started in the Middle Ages with the sacred music of that time. Gregorian chant, later the first experiments with polyphony, etc.

The following are pieces from the Codex Calixtinus (12th-century), they are one of the early examples of polyphony (note the alternation between polyphony and monophonic, gregorian-like, chant; the polyphony is still quite embrionary, though):


























At Notre Dame, you have Perotin, the most renowned composer of the Ars Antiqua period:





 (playlist; in my opinion, one of the most amazing music ever composed, despite its primitive stand in the history of classical music)

Later, you have the Ars Nova and the Ars Subtilior:






(btw, I'm an atheist and for me the religious thematic of this music is not a problem, and I don't see why it should be)

It's not a bad idea to explore this music, I find it fascinating and beautiful. The Perotin sounds refreshing even 1000 years after.

But I think a good idea is not to become a slave of your obsession. You can try a chronological approach, but from time to time a jump of a couple of centuries is good 

From the 12th-century to 1973! 






Enjoy


----------



## Declined (Apr 8, 2014)

Find something you like. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky are quite accessible. Once you find a composer or period that you like, explore similar composers and then just explore further.

A book like this would put the music into its historical/cultural perspective: 
http://www.amazon.com/Western-Human...1403920496&sr=1-4&keywords=western+humanities

http://www.amazon.com/Humanities-Cu...d=1403920540&sr=1-6&keywords=humanities+sayre - This is a book I've used in a Humanities class in college and it is quite thorough. I would recommend it (used, of course).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Dedalus said:


> I'm definitely not a believer, but I don't think that would necessarily turn me off. I understand that religion has inspired all manner of art, and I don't think that makes it worse (or better, necessarily).


I'm glad you feel this way. As an atheist, I can definitely say that some of the most beautiful pieces of classical music are sacred pieces.

Usually the lyrics aren't particularly dogmatic or ideological anyway.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I would start with Monteverdi. So 1610 would be a good starting point.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Here is a list of names. Not in timeline order. I might get to that later.
Monteverdi, Rameau, Pergolesi, Telemann, Corelli, Boccherini, D. Scarlatti, CPE Bach, Faure, Berlioz, Handel, Bach, Pachelbel, Albinoni, Haydn, R. Strauss, Messiaen, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Sibelius, Bruckner, Schoenberg, Vivaldi, Mahler, Bartok, Smetana, Schumann, Massenet, Verdi, Brahms, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Rossini, Ravel, Dvorak, Vaughan Williams, Wagner, Mozart, Mussorgsky, Prokofiev, Ligeti, Liszt, Stravinsky, Elgar, Beethoven, Bizet, Bruch, Saint-Saens, Puccini, Debussy, Mascagni, Rachmaninoff, Orff, Part, Grieg, Copland, Barber, Strauss II, Delibes, Tchaikovsky, Cage, Chopin, Gershwin, Khachaturian, and Satie. Enjoy the journey. 

Edit. FInished 1610-1750 in order.
Monteverdi->Lully->Pachelbel->Corelli->Albinoni->Vivaldi->Telemann->Rameau->Bach->D. Scarlatti->Handel.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> Now here's a question. Once I get into classical, will I be able to snobbishly look down on the "unenlightened" who know not the glorious heights and wonder that is classical music?
> 
> I'm totally kidding with the above statement. Seriously now, I'm really enjoying all the advice. Alypius' list seems very cool, I'll have to make use of it. Even though some of the advice is contradictory because of differing opinions, I still find it quite useful. I can see the logic behind the different opinions, and that's almost more important than the actual opinion.


I knew this would happen: _of course_ the advice is contradictory! We all have different ways of seeing the world, so inevitably we won't see classical music the same way either.
I think attempting to listen to a completely unfamiliar type of music in chronological order is a marvellous way of tackling it, but only for someone who's prepared to stick with a long-term plan.
We have no idea what you might like. Maybe you'll start with Renaissance music and love it, and be disappointed by what comes after. Maybe you'll hate it or be confused by it. And the same applies to any other starting point we could name. _We just don't know_. Even if you tell us what other kinds of music you already like, we still won't know what classical music you'll like.
I started with the popular orchestral classics; other people started with baroque music; others with avant-garde. What works for one person as an intro to classical music could be a hilariously wrong choice for someone else.

*Seriously: Ignore everyone's advice.*

Find some useful resource - the "top lists" here on TC, Wikipedia, a general book on classical music or guide to recordings - then pick out something that takes your fancy and just plunge in and listen to it. If you don't like it, pick something different. If you like that, then it's up to you whether the next thing you listen to is going to be something like that or something different again.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> *Seriously: Ignore everyone's advice.*


_But here, take my advice..._


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> *Seriously: Ignore everyone's advice.*


Of course I knew contradictory opinions would happen, too. I would have been far more worried if there was a perfect consensus. But as I stated earlier, I enjoy all the advice, and find it all useful, even if it is contradictory. The more I hear people's different opinions, the more I get a sense of what and how people think when it comes to classical music. I'll pick and choose little parcels of advice from each person as I see fit, and toss anything that doesn't make sense to me. I thank you for your advice!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dedalus said:


> Of course I knew contradictory opinions would happen, too. I would have been far more worried if there was a perfect consensus. But as I stated earlier, I enjoy all the advice, and find it all useful, even if it is contradictory. The more I hear people's different opinions, the more I get a sense of what and how people think when it comes to classical music. I'll pick and choose little parcels of advice from each person as I see fit, and toss anything that doesn't make sense to me. I thank you for your advice!


Hmph. My advise is the only advice that should make sense to you.



:tiphat:

:angel:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> I thank you for your advice!


Well, it seems to have been wasted.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

If you think you'd like to listen to your music chronologically, then you could try what I do. I frequently listen to Baroque in the morning, then music from the classical era, the romantic era in the afternoon and music from the 20th Century in the evening. 

I don't normally end my day with Bach nor start my day with Shostakovich. 

This way you can sample music from all eras without having to wait years before you start to sample music from the 20 century.

If not progressing through the day, perhaps day one is Renaissance, day two is baroque, day three is classical, day four romantic, day five is fin de siècle (~1900), day six is 20th Century, day seven is recent. After one week you can start again from the beginning.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes it would interesting to begin with Renaissance and discover the beauty of pure voices. (I definitely would not begin with avantgarde however.)


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Yes it would interesting to begin with Renaissance and discover the beauty of pure voices. (I definitely would not begin with avantgarde however.)


Agreed. But I prefer Baroque over Renaissance. Stay away from 21st century classical music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Agreed. But I prefer Baroque over Renaissance. Stay away from 21st century classical music.


That's pretty awful advice.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> Of course I knew contradictory opinions would happen, too. I would have been far more worried if there was a perfect consensus.


I wonder then, what is the significance of its being contradictory? Why do you feel the need to observe that it is? And would you have expected a _general _consensus, rather than a perfect one?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> That's pretty awful advice.


I thought it was great advice.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> I thought it was great advice.


Why would you tell someone to not listen to an entire period of music?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> Why would you tell someone to not listen to an entire period of music?




In the general context of the discussion - where to start - jumping in at avant garde is equivalent to jumping off the high board into the shallow end of the pool.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2014)

Ukko said:


> In the general context of the discussion - where to start - jumping in at avant garde is equivalent to jumping off the high board into the shallow end of the pool.


Cue variations on a theme..."Jumping in at x genre is equivalent to jumping off the x board into the x end (no water/brackish/polluted) wearing water wings/fully clothed/naked...

In fact, there's no need to jump in at all - you can just saunter - or better still, don't think of music as a pool full of water that you might drown in but a walk from where you are to where you aren't, taking the route that seems most appealing at the time you set off on your journey and without fretting about your destination.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Cue variations on a theme..."Jumping in at x genre is equivalent to jumping off the x board into the x end (no water/brackish/polluted) wearing water wings/fully clothed/naked...
> 
> In fact, there's no need to jump in at all - you can just saunter - or better still, don't think of music as a pool full of water that you might drown in but a walk from where you are to where you aren't, taking the route that seems most appealing at the time you set off on your journey and without fretting about your destination.


Irrelevant "variations on a theme". aside from that, 'sauntering' into avant garde is equivalent to 'sauntering' into the leading edge of a partway open door; folks get nosebleeds that way.

ut:


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Irrelevant "variations on a theme". aside from that, 'sauntering' into avant garde is equivalent to 'sauntering' into the leading edge of a partway open door; folks get nosebleeds that way.


:lol:
:lol:
 .


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I wonder then, what is the significance of its being contradictory? Why do you feel the need to observe that it is? And would you have expected a _general _consensus, rather than a perfect one?


I don't think there is any significance to its being contradictory. It's to be expected that humans have different opinions. I don't feel the need to observe the fact that there is contradictory advice; I actually have no choice but to notice that there is when I read the thread. As to why I decided to mention it, I guess I just wanted to. A general consensus wouldn't have worried me so much, since there would at least be minority opinions. A perfect consensus is the product of a hive mind mentality, and nobody wants that.

But even with the conflicting advice, from this thread and reading elsewhere on TC in my two days since finding it, it seems to me that there isn't even a general consensus but rather different "camps" people belong to. That some people like the modern stuff, some people like this era, others that one. I could be wrong here, and I'm not discounting the fact that there are exceptions to the rule. So if this is true, that there are a few camps, or cliques, that people belong to, I bet that while the whole TC community may not have a general consensus on many things, you would actually find a general consensus more often within a specific group. For example, the folks who all think modern music is the best would agree with each other more often than the community at large all agrees with each other.

Ok, I feel like I've rambled, and I may be completely off base. I just woke up, and apparently these are my thoughts this morning, haha. I hope I made sense, at least.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dedalus said:


> [...]
> Ok, I feel like I've rambled, and I may be completely off base. I just woke up, and apparently these are my thoughts this morning, haha. I hope I made sense, at least.


Consider your hope dashed.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> I don't think there is any significance to its being contradictory. It's to be expected that humans have different opinions. I don't feel the need to observe the fact that there is contradictory advice; I actually have no choice but to notice that there is when I read the thread. As to why I decided to mention it, I guess I just wanted to. A general consensus wouldn't have worried me so much, since there would at least be minority opinions. A perfect consensus is the product of a hive mind mentality, and nobody wants that.
> 
> But even with the conflicting advice, from this thread and reading elsewhere on TC in my two days since finding it, it seems to me that there isn't even a general consensus but rather different "camps" people belong to. That some people like the modern stuff, some people like this era, others that one. I could be wrong here, and I'm not discounting the fact that there are exceptions to the rule. So if this is true, that there are a few camps, or cliques, that people belong to, I bet that while the whole TC community may not have a general consensus on many things, you would actually find a general consensus more often within a specific group. For example, the folks who all think modern music is the best would agree with each other more often than the community at large all agrees with each other.
> 
> Ok, I feel like I've rambled, and I may be completely off base. I just woke up, and apparently these are my thoughts this morning, haha. I hope I made sense, at least.


You may have found that some people belong to 'camps' as far as the 'what' is concerned (that's where you'll find the hive minds, I think), but also people belong to camps as to the 'how' and to the 'whether'.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Ukko said:


> Consider your hope dashed.


Nnnooooo, my hopes!



MacLeod said:


> You may have found that some people belong to 'camps' as far as the 'what' is concerned (that's where you'll find the hive minds, I think), but also people belong to camps as to the 'how' and to the 'whether'.


I get what you mean, and I think there is some truth in that.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!!!!!!!!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Hello, no. I find Renaissance to be a specialty that I personally will never even try to approach. Start with what attracted you to the Classical music in the first place.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Serge said:


> Start with what attracted you to the Classical music in the first place.


That would be Nietzsche and his gushing over Richard Wagner.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

There you go! Nietzsche. A great great composer, and I can't repeat that enough.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The initial question was about starting points, at least partly. There's a trap that I've seen people fall in, people who contribute to forums like this and people in real life, which is they start their musical life by listening to Beethoven and Mozart and then, they find it really difficult to enjoy music which isn't really mostly about tunes you can hum. They can't see the point of music which is about counterpoint or about the way textures change or about . . . whatever renaissance music's about. 

What's more, they develop a naïve view of music history which basically puts Beethoven at the centre - all things before lead to LvB, all things after are a response to him.


----------



## Muse Wanderer (Feb 16, 2014)

I started with classical era music and got stuck into a time warp of Mozart and Beethoven.

I then ventured into baroque era and got stuck in another universe called Johann Sebastian Bach for almost a year with ventures to my previous world of Beethoven and a bit of Mozart. Bach is still my all time favourite composer and I can't imagine life without his music.

Then I took the plunge into early Romantic era with Brahms. He was sooo different! It took me ages to know him at a time when I could easily digest any of Bach's fugues for breakfast on first listen. My mind had to get used to a completely different set of rules especially when I got to Schumann and company.

Late romanic was typified by Bruckner, Mahler and Wagner. Indeed Wagner is _monumental_ and his operas at first best appreciated when seen on video with libretto at hand.

Next I took the plunge in renaissance with Palestrina and Josquin being notable highlights.

I finished off with 20th century when I became a Sibelius fanatic and got to idolise Schoenberg after probably hundred listens to each of his pieces! Non-tonal and avant garde music needs loads of patience but it is hugely rewarding.

Now I dip into each era as the need arises. Your journey will probably be completely different. Just follow your gut instincts and keep listening repeatedly at first to the best composers of each era. One can't emphasise enough how repeated listening can bring to the foreground the marvels of classical music.

Enjoy your adventure!


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> There's a trap that I've seen people fall in, people who contribute to forums like this and people in real life...


And I've seen people who don't.

That's people for you: you just can't trust them to act the same!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Alright I finished my key Composers Timeline based on Date of Birth.

Monteverdi->Lully->Buxtehude->Pachelbel->Corelli->Purcell->F. Couperin->Albinoni->Vivaldi->Telemann->Rameau->Bach->D. Scarlatti->Handel->Pergolesi->CPE Bach->Gluck->Haydn->Boccherini->Mozart->Beethoven->Weber->Rossini->Schubert->Berlioz->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Chopin->Liszt->Verdi->Wagner->Gounod->Offenbach->Franck->Bruckner->Smetana->Strauss II->Bizet->Brahms->Saint-Saens->Delibes->Bruch->Mussorgsky->Tchaikovsky->Dvorak->Massenet->Grieg->Rimsky-Korsakov->Faure->Elgar->Puccini->Mahler->Debussy->Mascagni->R. Strauss->Sibelius->Satie->Scriabin->Vaughan Williams->Rachmaninoff->Schoenberg->Holst->Ravel->Bartok->Stravinsky->Prokofiev->Orff->Gershwin->Poulenc->Copland->Khachaturian->Shostakovich->Messiaen->Barber->Cage->Britten->Ligeti->Gorecki->Part->Glass->Adams.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Renaissance would be an unusual starting point, but if it floats your boat, I say do it!


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

I started with Borodin and other Russians (Tchaikovsky, Glinka, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninov and even Shostakovich). This is because I was completely excited by their traditional combinations of "Russian"-sounding fanfares together with beautiful melodies. While this captivated me, you might prefer to start with other composers.
My main idea is that one should start with LATE ROMANTICISM to POST-ROMANTICISM, together with the different nationalisms of this time. You have from (almost) Brahms to Richard Strauss and further in. 

The fact that I'm so convinced that this is the best start is that these composers synthesize the aftermath of what happened to music until then and that they are the initial seed for all 20th Century music.


----------



## Declined (Apr 8, 2014)

neoshredder said:


> Alright I finished my key Composers Timeline based on Date of Birth.
> 
> Monteverdi->Lully->Buxtehude->Pachelbel->Corelli->Purcell->F. Couperin->Albinoni->Vivaldi->Telemann->Rameau->Bach->D. Scarlatti->Handel->Pergolesi->CPE Bach->Gluck->Haydn->Boccherini->Mozart->Beethoven->Weber->Rossini->Schubert->Berlioz->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Chopin->Liszt->Verdi->Wagner->Gounod->Offenbach->Franck->Bruckner->Smetana->Strauss II->Bizet->Brahms->Saint-Saens->Delibes->Bruch->Mussorgsky->Tchaikovsky->Dvorak->Massenet->Grieg->Rimsky-Korsakov->Faure->Elgar->Puccini->Mahler->Debussy->Mascagni->R. Strauss->Sibelius->Satie->Scriabin->Vaughan Williams->Rachmaninoff->Schoenberg->Holst->Ravel->Bartok->Stravinsky->Prokofiev->Orff->Gershwin->Poulenc->Copland->Khachaturian->Shostakovich->Messiaen->Barber->Cage->Britten->Ligeti->Gorecki->Part->Glass->Adams.


That may take a while.


----------



## Bored (Sep 6, 2012)

Listen to Mozart first, that will get your mind ready!! Also most modern music comes from Mozart's style.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Declined said:


> That may take a while.


Depends how deep you want to go in the repertoire of each Composer.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Be aware of where the music you listen to fits in the chronology of classical music, but don't feel bound to go in any specific order through time. You may find you like certain periods more than others, and that's great. I can appreciate the development of music through the years without listening to it in a linear manner, and I also think a great work should stand on its own.


----------

