# Nonessential music



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In the US, when a budget can’t be agreed and the money runs out, sometimes there’s what’s called a “government shutdown.” Some government employees continue working, but “nonessential employees” are told to stay home. This may be about to happen again.

Anyway, it made me wonder if the classical world has “nonessential music.” Your nominations are welcome!


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm a sucker for buying box sets, and if anything ranks as non-essential, it's stuff like Mozart's early symphonies and piano concertos. The best I can say that it's terrific work considering that the composer is ten years old. I'm sure that musicologists will get all worked up about this, but I don't have an infinite amount of time to listen to music, and when I do, it won't be Mozart when the K. number is < 150.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Could a certain piece of a specific duration that shall not be named be considered as essential non-music?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Literally everything between 1770 and 1830 except Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

*****Bolero*****


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

isorhythm said:


> Literally everything between 1770 and 1830 except Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert.


No Der Freischütz? :scold:


----------



## st Omer (Sep 23, 2015)

Almost anything by the 2nd Viennese School unless you want to use some of it for soundtracks to horror movies. I would 2nd the motion that there is an essential work of non-music unnamed by a previous poster that you cannot hear spending just over 4 minutes of your time doing anything, or nothing, and almost any of the music composed by the composer of the essential non-music.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

In addition to Der Freischütz I think an argument could be made for including Mendelssohn's Octet (1825) and Midsummer Night's Dream Overture (1826) among the essentials. Also, Rossini's Barber and sundry overtures. At least they were essential to my developing love for (some) classical music.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

We just about never buy any classical music composed after circa 1780, so I suppose that all classical music thereafter is 'non-essential' - which isn't to say that we don't enjoy (some of) it!


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

A lot of romantic music is pretty unimportant to me. There's nothing that annoys me more than a really run-off-the mill romantic symphony or concerto... I'm much more of a 20th century (and beyond) kind of listener. Of course I love many of the great names of the romantic period - Chopin, Schumann, Brahms... - but in general I'm more into baroque, classical and the eras after romanticism.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> Literally everything between 1770 and 1830 except Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert.


There goes all the Rossini Overtures....not to mention the actual Operas. Mendelsohn's Octet and Overture to MSND as well.
The Symphonie Fantastique might not survive either


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Anything prior to about 1910 is nonessential for me.


I have given all the big names and pieces by 'the giants' from pre 1910 a listen, but they do nothing for me. I return to them from time to time, to give them an honest chance at clicking with me, but so far, no go.


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

In the spirit of the original question, and as much as it pains me, there is a fair amount of redundancy in a lot of early (Renaissance and Baroque) music, something that's undoubtedly true for later periods as well. Palestrina wrote amazingly beautiful music, but there isn't an amazing amount of variation in a lot of it, even if it's always nice to listen to. The same goes for quite a few other Renaissance composers (except for Josquin, of course, whose entire opus is essential ). I do suspect, even with the limited time I've been around here, that some folks would consider all Renaissance music non-essential, but I'd increasingly agree with Janspe's post:



Janspe said:


> A lot of romantic music is pretty unimportant to me. There's nothing that annoys me more than a really run-off-the mill romantic symphony or concerto...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

josquindesprez said:


> In the spirit of the original question, and as much as it pains me, there is a fair amount of redundancy in a lot of early (Renaissance and Baroque) music...


Not just Renaissance and Baroque! Look at a later and very well-known work - the first movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Basically, Ludwig could only think of one theme, and he used it over and over. Pretty soon people notice this sort of thing!

Which is why people say of Beethoven, even his redundancies are redundant.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Late romantic music, composers like Moszkowski, Paderewski, Arenski, Bothiewicz, Scharwenka, Sauer, Henselt, Goedicke, Litolff, Huss, Schelling, Dreyschock, probably Godowsky, Boskowski, Paul von Schloezer, Sviridov, Sinding, Rebikov, Moscheles . . .


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

In my mind anything outside of the tradition of Bach and Brahms (which is not to say it's entirely without merit).


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Nonessential to whom? There are probably many composers who are nonessential to each of us. However, those very composers might have influenced some of our favorite composers. In that sense, some "nonessential composers" are (indirectly) essential to our listening experiences. Moscheles (who was mentioned above) is an example of this for me. I don't particularly enjoy listening to his music, but I admire him for his influence on Chopin's musical style.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Only the bad music is nonessential.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

DaveM said:


> *****Bolero*****


Only the best crescendo ever written 

I will go for Mozart's Nonet composed at the age of 18mths old it is so not with it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I question whether non-essential music exists... because who's going to erase or non-fund it? Only groups and performers can be relegated as non-essentials and non-funded. But the music? I doubt that any music mentioned so far could be turned into a non-essential. It's a hypothetical question that's unenforceable.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

The most incredible, amazing, wonderful, and awe-inspiring thing about music is _that every single note and rest of it is nonessential _- in terms of strict evolutionary survival of the species known as homo sapiens.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

"Literally everything between 1770 and 1830 except Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert."

I tend to agree but would include JC and CPE Bach...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Let's pink slip the minimalists. I mean if they're going to be lazy and not write many notes and try to pull it off as art, they're not pulling their weight.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Totenfeier said:


> The most incredible, amazing, wonderful, and awe-inspiring thing about music is _that every single note and rest of it is nonessential _- in terms of strict evolutionary survival of the species known as homo sapiens.


This is a fascinating idea. I am not sure I disagree or agree, but it is really interesting to think about. Does or did music provide any evolutionary advantage, or is it a side effect of other developments that were significant to our survival as a species.

Was it artistic from the beginning, or was there a functional purpose to music and with our evolution at some point it became mostly an aesthetic endeavor? Like say painting that originally had communications functions but became mostly aesthetic. Or dancing, which likely had ritual/religious and community building purposes at first.

Wow, this one deserves its own thread.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Good thinkin' there, JeffD!


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Totenfeier said:


> Good thinkin' there, JeffD!


I am always up for a good question. I wonder, I just wonder. A lot.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

JeffD said:


> I am always up for a good question. I wonder, I just wonder. A lot.


And I was thinking about your thoughts, as well. I'm inclined to not disagree with you that the first steps toward music had to do with ritual. Rhythmic drumming, perhaps on hollow logs, might have accompanied dance, and maybe wind whistling through trees or reeds suggested something to somebody. Perhaps the first real music was choral - chanting. But how - and, more importantly, _why_ - we went from that to counterpoint, orchestration and the art of the fugue is beyond me.


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

Not sure if this has ever gotten mention around here, but Cuban novelist Alejo Carpentier's The Lost Steps deals with similar ideas. It's about a European composer who goes into the jungle (most likely in Venezuela, but unnamed) looking for something more originary in his music. Carpentier was a musicologist before he was a novelist. He also wrote a few other works that have heavy musical backgrounds and structures (usually with politics also feeding into things): The Chase, The Harp and the Shadow, The Rite of Spring, and Concierto Barroco. If it helps sell his works better, you wouldn't have magical realism without him, even though his works aren't magical realist.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Late romantic music, composers like Moszkowski, Paderewski, Arenski, Bothiewicz, Scharwenka, Sauer, Henselt, Goedicke, Litolff, Huss, Schelling, Dreyschock, probably Godowsky, Boskowski, Paul von Schloezer, Sviridov, Sinding, Rebikov, Moscheles . . .


Ummm, I will disagree, at least with some of the names listed. For instances:


*Rebikov*: along with Debussy, among the earliest exponent of whole tone scale. Even Stravinsky acknowledged such importance.
*Borkiewicz*: excelled in piano music comparable with, say, Medtner.
*Scharwenka*: cannot agree that his music is nonessential (his place in Polish music is firm).
*Arensky*: not quite a major figure in Russian music, but his piano and chamber music should not be dismissed. Even his operas were well received at their premieres.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

If we define essential and inessential differently, to avoid making it a parallel to "what I like and what I can do without" ...

Lets say essential music the music that one should hear and have a basic familiarity with to call oneself an educated person, regardless of one's musical tastes. Inessential would be all the rest. In other words it answers the following question:

"I don't care much for music of any kind, but as part of my education I want to become familiar with the important works and trends in music. What should I listen to?"

I think it will lead to a similarly wide ranging and often snarky discussion, but at least at the end we will have something useful.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Totenfeier said:


> And I was thinking about your thoughts, as well. I'm inclined to not disagree with you that the first steps toward music had to do with ritual. Rhythmic drumming, perhaps on hollow logs, might have accompanied dance, and maybe wind whistling through trees or reeds suggested something to somebody. Perhaps the first real music was choral - chanting. But how - and, more importantly, _why_ - we went from that to counterpoint, orchestration and the art of the fugue is beyond me.


Yes, when, where and why did music become mostly aesthetic and inessential.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Totenfeier said:


> Perhaps the first real music was choral - chanting. But how - and, more importantly, _why_ - we went from that to counterpoint, orchestration and the art of the fugue is beyond me.


There is always someone that wants to spoil a good thing


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

For me the black hole of Classical music (i.e. 'nonessential') is Beethoven. Everything else is already on the way to becoming 'essential'.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

TxllxT said:


> For me the black hole of Classical music (i.e. 'nonessential') is Beethoven. Everything else is already on the way to becoming 'essential'.


I would say Beethoven is one of those mountain peaks of "most essential" music from which all other music history gently slopes down all the way to non-essential. Other peaks are Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler etc.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

1. I rarely explore beyond fairly well established works. I am not into obscure romantic piano concertos, for example, and I am reluctant to explore music just because it like me is English. But I do sometimes find some baroque byroads are worthwhile. And with contemporary music I find little choice but to explore because nothing is yet "established" and even if I am insufficiently wowed by a piece I still don't know if it just that I don't get it yet. On the whole, though, there is just so much music by acknowledged greats in forms that I have less knowledge of - opera, chamber music, (Bach) cantatas. And even works that I have heard a million times can sound fresh in a performance that I hadn't heard before.

2. I sometimes think of some contemporary but unchallenging music in the same way as fine art. Maybe I am travelling around on holiday and stop to look at a local gallery or something and find I like (or not!) an artist and would like a piece for my wall. I know it is not great but I still like it and, anyway, with fine art I could never expect to be in the market for great works! I see some music in the same way. This is how I think of, say, Holboe and MacMillan: I quite like it but do not expect to be lifted out of my world by it. Contrast this with Boulez or Carter or, yes, Petterson - music that I can put next to Beethoven or Mozart or Sibelius.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would say Beethoven is one of those mountain peaks of "most essential" music from which all other music history gently slopes down all the way to non-essential. Other peaks are Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler etc.


I just express my personal opinion: 'mountain peak' Beethoven resembles to me a volcano with a blasting hotheaded centre. But once I climb up & jump into it, there occurs a meltdown into nothingness.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Not just Renaissance and Baroque! Look at a later and very well-known work - the first movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Basically, Ludwig could only think of one theme, and he used it over and over. Pretty soon people notice this sort of thing!
> 
> Which is why people say of Beethoven, even his redundancies are redundant.


Funny, that's probably why it is my favorite symphony by any composer!


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Any music outside of the classical and romantic eras. Basically anything before 1800. Or after 1900.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" and Segerstam's Symphony #83.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

haziz said:


> Any music outside of the classical and romantic eras. Basically anything before 1800. Or after 1900.


Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

I never anymore listen to opera and Lieder and rarely to romantic music at all. I do not miss it, because there is so much else to listen to.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

TxllxT said:


> I just express my personal opinion: 'mountain peak' Beethoven resembles to me a volcano with a blasting hotheaded centre. But once I climb up & jump into it, there occurs a meltdown into nothingness.


The thing about volcanos: Jumping into them never turns out well.


----------



## KJ von NNJ (Oct 13, 2017)

There's a lot of music from each period that is less than essential. For instance, I like Raff's music but am inclined to think that only a couple of his works would be mentioned to represent his musical era. Maybe none at all. However, if one really loves a particular period the non-essentials become really interesting. I like Dvorak, Brahms and Liszt so what the heck.
I find several baroque composers to be quite boring. Sort of 'by numbers' music making. Someone else may feel quite differently about it though. And that's fine with me. I'm cool....I won't say anything......(please, make it stop!). That said, I love many baroque works. Couperin, JS Bach, Handel, Scarlatti (both of 'em), Telemann and so on. Even the greatest composers wrote some forgettable pieces. They can't all be zingers after all!


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

DaveM said:


> *****Bolero*****


I thought I was the only one!


----------



## KJ von NNJ (Oct 13, 2017)

Speaking to his colleague Arthur Honegger, Ravel said; "I created just one masterpiece, and it's 'Bolero'; unfortunately, it contains no music."


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Totenfeier said:


> The most incredible, amazing, wonderful, and awe-inspiring thing about music is _that every single note and rest of it is nonessential _- in terms of strict evolutionary survival of the species known as homo sapiens.


Ah, but, I keep hearing otherwise. Just decided to google "music in human evolution" and got lots of impressive looking hits. Here's a bit from one:
_
Music is a fundamental part of our evolution; we probably sang before we spoke in syntactically guided sentences. Song is represented across animal worlds; birds and whales produce sounds, though not always melodic to our ears, but still rich in semantically communicative functions. Song is not surprisingly tied to a vast array of semiotics that pervade nature: calling attention to oneself, expanding oneself, selling oneself, deceiving others, reaching out to others and calling on others. The creative capability so inherent in music is a unique human trait.

Music is strongly linked to motivation and to human social contact. ...._

Tra la


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

jenspen said:


> Ah, but, I keep hearing otherwise. Just decided to google "music in human evolution" and got lots of impressive looking hits. Here's a bit from one:
> _
> Music is a fundamental part of our evolution; we probably sang before we spoke in syntactically guided sentences. Song is represented across animal worlds; birds and whales produce sounds, though not always melodic to our ears, but still rich in semantically communicative functions. Song is not surprisingly tied to a vast array of semiotics that pervade nature: calling attention to oneself, expanding oneself, selling oneself, deceiving others, reaching out to others and calling on others. The creative capability so inherent in music is a unique human trait.
> 
> ...


Hm. Do you have a cite?


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Totenfeier said:


> Hm. Do you have a cite?


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4166316/ (From Frontiers in Neuroscience)

This was the second hit. I had a quick look and saw that there are more pages of references for "music in human evolution".


----------



## kangxi (Jan 24, 2014)

Heh. Chance to unload a couple of prejud^H^H^H^H sincerely held beliefs.

Rock and roll, including all those peculiarly named microdivisions of this deeply unpleasant source of noise (grunge, punk, garage, techno and the rest). Including "Heavy Metal" unless by that term you mean Wagner's brass section.
Cantonese pop (I frequently visit China where the stuff is ubiquitous).
"Easy" (shudder) Listening.
Musicals, aka opera without the musicality.

There was a famous book review in the Daily Mail around the year 1900: For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like.

I would not include the 2nd Viennese school as it is not entirely useless: it has caused me to acquire a set of lightning reflexes as I race for the off switch.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

For some, music broadens, expands the mind and deepens the emotions, bridging all classes of people and cultures, bringing understanding and tolerance, not one type exclusively over another even if one has a decided favorite, such as classical over everything else, because it’s all related to human experience and genius can be found in unexpected places. For others, it seems to narrow and isolate, finding joy in only the most rare and exclusive.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

kangxi said:


> Heh. Chance to unload a couple of prejud^H^H^H^H sincerely held beliefs.
> 
> Rock and roll, including all those peculiarly named microdivisions of this deeply unpleasant source of noise (grunge, punk, garage, techno and the rest). Including "Heavy Metal" unless by that term you mean Wagner's brass section.
> Cantonese pop (I frequently visit China where the stuff is ubiquitous).
> ...


And something I can use to annoy the neighbors with.


----------

