# Pinnacles



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

*M'aidez, m'aidez* - when you're a Classical Music Novice, it's hard to know *what to single out*.

I'm thinking of the Big Names - Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Rachmaninov and so on into the sunlit uplands of modern music. (I daren't go on - and in fact, I've probably already missed out Someone Major!  )

But I'd love to hear about the Small Names too. Talent cut short? Unjustly underrated?

If you love a composer, what, for you, is *the pinnacle* of his (or her) achievement? Of which piece could you say, 'Even if you don't like this guy in general, you just *have* to listen to this. It's out-of-this-world?'

And why do you like that piece so much? Please, tell me something about the qualities you perceive in it, or the way you respond to it. This is about *your personal taste*, not about what the textbooks would single out as his/her greatest work.

Note that this is _not_ a poll, so I'm hoping that some of TC's own 'big names' will come on and tell me what they love; and if possible recommend a recording or YouTube link.

Or any member of TC, please, you fabulous people?

:tiphat: Thanks in advance for any replies. Have a lovely week.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Sometimes there can be a difference. I love Bach, but feel that the pinnacle of his work - things like the Well Tempered Clavier or The Art of Fugue or the Goldberg variations - are not directly accessible. They take time to get into. Different performers have different takes on them in terms of tempo and ornamentation and they take an effort to understand. On the other hand, something like his Double Violin Concerto in D minor, BWV 1043 is much more accessible because of the subtle yet expressive relationship between the violins throughout the work. This makes it a *must listen to* piece.

This version features Rachel Podger, Andrew Manze and the Academy of Ancient Music. It's a proms performance so a little OTT but still very nice.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Have you tried listening to Schubert's Moments Musicaux - there are 6 of them - here is one.






... or perhaps Kinderszenen by Robert Schumann






... or this wonderful piece by Couperin






... or the Missa Pange Lingua by Josquin






... or Prokofiev's 1st symphony






I am but a novice, so this list probably consists of solely things you have already heard and enjoyed - but I like them a lot, and consider them pinnacles alright.  :tiphat:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

More novice than thou! I haven't heard a single one before... 

:tiphat: Thank you very much, Shangoyal. I'm really looking forward to trying your :angel: suggestions.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> If you love a composer, what, for you, is *the pinnacle* of his (or her) achievement? Of which piece could you say, 'Even if you don't like this guy in general, you just *have* to listen to this. It's out-of-this-world?'
> 
> And why do you like that piece so much? Please, tell me something about the qualities you perceive in it, or the way you respond to it. This is about *your personal taste*, not about what the textbooks would single out as his/her greatest work.


I am sorry fot the length of my pinnacle, but I'd say Wagner's Ring.

Why? It' possibly my most satisfying listening, it's really a neverending discovery. It's a whole world created (Rhinegold prelude) and then destroyed (Gotterdammerung final scene) by his creator, and in between there's everything you can discover in one's man life.
Hope I have been not too much "bombastic", but honestly it's quite difficult for me to explain myself better, mainly because English is not my mother tongue...


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Can I introduce you to this wonderful little piece for violin and orchestra by the criminally little known Chausson who died too young but certainly knew how to write beautiful music, none more so than the following.

File under Small Names, Talent cut short and Unjustly underrated!


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> *M'aidez, m'aidez* - when you're a Classical Music Novice, it's hard to know *what to single out*.


When you're a classical music novice, you shouldn't be trying to single anything out. Come to think of it, when you're a classical music expert, you shouldn't be trying to single anything out. To what end would that singling out be directed?

Anyway, singling out, as you put it, is actually quite easy, as is illustrated in the following quote:



Ingélou said:


> I'm thinking of the Big Names - Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Rachmaninov and so on into the sunlit uplands of modern music. (I daren't go on - and in fact, I've probably already missed out Someone Major!


See? Easy. At least with these people, who are by no means equally major (as well as all the by every means major* ones you've left out), you really didn't have to do anything at all, did you. It was already done for you. Easy.



Ingélou said:


> But I'd love to hear about the Small Names too.


Small names, eh? The little people. The also rans. Hmmm. Yes, by all means let's categorize prior to experiencing. (Sarcasm.) But you see the danger of categorizing? Especially of doing it before you've done any listening. So already, if a name is not on the Big Name list then it is, by definition, on the small names list. So you're going into it with the idea "small name" already part of your reality, an idea that could possibly taint your experience. Why anyone would want to taint their experience is beyond me. And who, realistically, is going to want to promote this or that person as a "small" composer? Or a favorite piece as a "small" piece. If it's favorite, it's large, _by definition._

Music is not a landscape. Or, if it is, it's a different landscape for each listener, and an ever-shifting landscape as well. Perhaps landscape is not the most felicitous metaphor. (I'm reminded of another pretty much useless metaphor that you see a lot in these discussions. The agricultural metaphor of wheat and chaff. But music is also not a field of grain, either. And no amount of threshing is ever going to separate musical wheat from musical chaff because there is nothing in music that corresponds to those two unequivocal and distinct physical entities.)



Ingélou said:


> This is about *your personal taste*, not about what the textbooks would single out as his/her greatest work.


This isn't going to be another one of those anti-academe threads is it?



Ingélou said:


> TC's own 'big names'


What is this obsession with size?



Ingélou said:


> Or any member of TC, please, you fabulous people?


Any "small" member, eh? And to soften the sting of having implied that we're "small," you add that we're "fabulous"? Whoops. Might have been more diplomatic to have simply referred to all of us as "fabulous" and dispensed with the other categories. We won't believe "fabulous" in either case, but in the first case, it's you setting us up to disbelieve.

Uh oh.



Ingélou said:


> Have a lovely week.


OK.

I had other plans, but I like your idea better.

*With "major," as with all the other categories, the question is always, "says who?" Who gets to decide? If you listen for yourself, only, then it's you. Otherwise....


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

some guy said:


> A. When you're a classical music novice, you shouldn't be trying to single anything out.
> 
> B. Small names, eh? The little people. The also rans. Hmmm. Yes, by all means let's categorize prior to experiencing. (Sarcasm.)
> 
> ...


I added the alphabetic letters for ease of answering.

A. You are not a classical music novice. I am. I cannot listen to lots of things at once, or even consecutively. I have not sorted music history out. So yes, I do need to single things out, so that I can learn.

B. We all categorise before experiencing, or a split second before. Otherwise we'd walk into doors.

C. I won't reply to this verbiage. These are *your* metaphors, and mixed metaphors at that. 
*Edit: I will reply, to say that when I titled this thread 'pinnacles' I was thinking of architecture. But even if I had been thinking of landscape, 'wheat & chaff' mixes the metaphor. 
*
D. No, it isn't.

E. I don't know - why _*are *_you so obsessed?

F. All TC members are fabulous, not just the music experts like you & PetrB & Mahlerian. The last two have helped me a great deal, which is why I praised them by calling them 'big names'. SimonNZ and Sid James have been good advisers too. I have not a few other names in mind, but as I don't name them, theoretically everyone is free to regard himself/herself as a music expert. Calling a member of parliament 'honourable' does not imply that the other members are dishonourable. I genuinely like the atmosphere & members of TalkClassical (most of them) and I have said this on several occasions.

H. Not at all. It's you reading things into what I said based on your own psyche, not mine.

I. When I use 'major', I'm referring to a generally accepted view of music history which says that the names on my list are major composers. If you don't think one or more of them is major, please argue your case and I'd be interested.

J. I can only listen for myself, but because I admire a composer, it doesn't make him or her 'major'. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wish you the sort of day that you want for yourself, then. At least you must have passed a very pleasant half-hour. And I'm still interested if you do have any constructive recommendations to offer, in the spirit of the OP. 
Bye now.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Now, I wonder if I can ask any person of goodwill if they have a 'prime work' from a loved composer that they can recommend as a 'must-listen'. I have learned such a lot by listening to the recommendations over the year that I've been in TalkClassical. 
:tiphat: Thank you to all the nice people out there.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Liszt is an amazing genius, but it's easy to get lost in his enormous output that includes amazing works for piano and orchestra, including some dazzling transcriptions--not to sprawling masterpieces like the Sonata in B minor or the Valle d'Obermann that are more fun to get lost in the better you know them. I'll recommend his little, late gem, "Nuages Gris."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Now, I wonder if I can ask any person of goodwill if they have a 'prime work' from a loved composer that they can recommend as a 'must-listen'. I have learned such a lot by listening to the recommendations over the year that I've been in TalkClassical.
> :tiphat: Thank you to all the nice people out there.


I would recommend the Bartok Violin Concerto #2 with Mutter, Chung or Shaham.
It's modern but full of Hungarian folk tunes. Quite irresistible, IMO.

it is the greatest violin concerto written in the 20th century and perhaps of all time.
Hope that qualifies as a "pinnacle".


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

The _Winterreise_ is in my opinion the pinnacle of Schubert's career, but also one of the pinnacles of vocal music and one of the pinnacles of Romanticism.






Other pinnacles which come to mind? Shangoyal has already mentioned one of my favourites, the _Missa Pange Lingua_ of Josquin. If I were to go even further back in time, Machaut's _Messe de Nostre Dame_ must be one of the earliest musical pinnacles we have, yet it is a piece which never fails to surprise and amaze modern audiences.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

very nice thread Ingelou

I will not say again the Bach chaconne,
but the Massenet Meditation theme from the opera Thais, is a pinnacle for sure


especially when played by Nathan Milstein, it will give the finishing touch,
to the pleasure of senses


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Thomas Linley was a promising composer who died at 22 in 1778. His Song of Moses is probably his pinnacle work. Stephen Layton has a well-done recording of it. Here is one piece from it. The oratorio is interesting to me because it is part Handel, part JC Bach; in other words, it's fun to hear, with lots of word-painting.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Taggart said:


> Sometimes there can be a difference. I love Bach, but feel that the pinnacle of his work - things like the Well Tempered Clavier or The Art of Fugue or the Goldberg variations - are not directly accessible.


I understand what you're saying. I think you're point applies more directly to my belovèd Wagner than to Bach. For my part, I don't think the _Goldberg Variations_ are particularly resistant to accessibility. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that they were considered a slightly frivolous backwater in the serious canon of Bach's art... until this iconoclastic Canadian pianist went to Manhattan to play a piano into a monaural Columbia microphone-- and in so doing introduced a segment of the late-50s/early-60s generation to Bach... in many cases for the first time.

For works where mastery and accessibility are present in the same piece- let me open my suggestions with:

Tchaikovsky- _Swan Lake_- complete
Brahms- _Violin Concerto_

I could go on- but I don't want to use up TOO much oxygen...


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Where, for mine, there is a single absolutely outstanding piece by a composer that is a cut above the rest of their work that I'm familiar with (otherwise I'd feel too bad about singling anything out):

Resphigi - Fountains of Rome
Rachmaninov - Symphonic Dances
Mendelssohn - Midsummer Night's Dream Overture
Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherezade
Barber - Piano Concerto
Hindemith - Symphonic Metamorphoses

They're all a lot of fun too


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Likewise, here are a few where to my taste the following works are by far the best in these composers repertoires:

Alwyn - Harp concerto lyra angelica
Barber - Knoxville summer of 1915
Britten - A war requiem
Faure - Requiem
Gorecki - Symphony 3
Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherezade
Verdi - Requiem


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

You've got an awful lot of new music to listen to Ingelou. (how do you get that pesky accent when on a desktop)

I gave you a "small" name earlier.
Now for a bigger name as you've asked.
This is handpicked especially for you. Pulling you away from your beloved early music, in the christian tradition, but Russian Orthodox.

Rachmaninov's All Night Vigil (more commonly known as the Vespers)
For me - Rachmaninov never wrote anything close in terms of beauty and intimacy. I hope you enjoy this pinnacle as much as I have and continue to enjoy it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

Hey Ingélou, first of all, I am glad we are comfortable with each other enough to be blunt when bluntness is appropriate. I think you know I wish you only the best. Even when I disagree with you. So that's all to the good, I think.

On to your letters. A very clever solution, by the way.:tiphat:

A. I started out as a classical novice. I immediately noticed two things about listening to music. One, it was easy to find out which composers were considered to be major. Those were the ones with the largest sections in the record stores or the longest chapters in the books or the most plays on the radio stations. Two, I really liked whatever it was I was hearing. So much so that the size of the world was not something I ever thought about. If I had, it would have been not intimidation but pleasure. Big world? Thousands of composers? Tens of thousands of pieces? Cool!!

I did, however, think of this in regards to jazz, which I also liked. But I noticed that when I listened to classical music on the radio it was easy to remember names and dates and such. And easy to remember pieces, to recognize them on subsequent hearings, even starting--as one does when turning on the radio--in mid-piece. I noticed I could do none of that with jazz. I liked it, but it wasn't such an overwhelming passion, so remembering names and pieces (or "sets") was not nearly as easy. So I understand being intimidated by all the immensity and variety.

B. Listening to music is not like negotiating the rooms in a house.

C. Your thread is entitled "Pinnacles." So the landscape metaphor is yours. The agricultural metaphor is a common one. It's not mine. My point was that neither is appropriate to apply to music. And no mixing, either. A mixed metaphor is one that switches images mid-stream: "This is awfully weak tea to have to hang your hat on" is a favorite of mine. Whatever else is true about the landscape and agricultural metaphors, they are neither of them mixed. They could be mixed, of course, but haven't been in this thread anyway.

D. I know. I was just being a smart-***.

E. Whether I'm obsessed or not is irrelevant to the question of why you emphasize size so much in your post.

H. Another dodging ploy.

I. OK. But isn't that just to go "by the books"?

J. My point was that listening for yourself is the only valid reality. That "major" or "minor" are not absolute terms. That Bach is considered a major composer and Chausson is considered a minor one by a bunch of people that you don't even know has, or should have, no relevance at all to your ability to enjoy any particular piece. While you're listening to Chausson's _Poème,_ that's the piece you're listening to. It is itself. Categorization and ranking are irrelevant to those particular notes in that particular order.

My advice, as a nice person of goodwill, is to explore for yourself without worrying about whether or not some anonymous group of unknown people happens to have agreed that what you're listening to at the moment is "major" or not. That is, the putative major-ness of any given piece really has nothing to do with whether that piece can be important, illuminating, exciting, pleasurable for you. And if it is any of those things for you, then surely that is enough.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Don't listen to him, Ingelou--you can trust us!

The center of Shostakovich, a notoriously uneven but at times magical composer, has always been for me the Preludes and Fugues, his remarkable set of piano pieces from a particularly difficult time in his troubled life. Here's the composer himself playing-imperfectly but passionately--my favorite pieces in the set, prelude and fugue #16 in B flat minor.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Someguy, excuse me, but if you dislike the ideas behind my thread, please do not post on it. 
And if you do post on it, please be relevant. This is not a thread to discuss my terminology or your background in jazz, but to discuss what you consider to be the 'best pieces' that a loved composer wrote.

I am sorry to say that I do not feel 'comfortable' with your unsought bluntness. Since you wrote your first post on this thread imputing to me all sorts of ideas & motives that I do not have, I have in fact been most *un*comfortable.

I will be pleased to listen to any musical recommendations you may have.

My thanks to all who have posted their recommended music on my thread. I listened to some pieces already, & they were gorgeous, and I look forward to more.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Someguy, excuse me, but if you dislike the ideas behind my thread, please do not post on it.
> And if you do post on it, please be relevant. This is not a thread to discuss my terminology or your background in jazz, but to discuss what you consider to be the 'best pieces' that a loved composer wrote.
> 
> I am sorry to say that I do not feel 'comfortable' with your unsought bluntness. Since you wrote your first post on this thread imputing to me all sorts of ideas & motives that I do not have, I have in fact been most *un*comfortable.
> ...


You shouldn't be uncomfortable, Ingélou, you posted a very good thread that people like participating in . I guess arguing would defeat the purpose of the thread - suggestions are far more welcome.

Here's Michael Haydn's symphony No. 29 in D minor. He was a very skilled composer, revered in his day but very underrated these days since Joseph Haydn is more widely acknowledged.
















Love that 1st movement.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Thank you, HaydnBearstheClock. :tiphat: I welcome your :angel: suggestion about Michael Haydn. Please also recommend me your best-loved piece for Joseph Haydn, as one of the composers I ought to know about, but don't, or not much anyway!


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Someguy, excuse me, but if you dislike the ideas behind my thread, please do not post on it.
> And if you do post on it, please be relevant. This is not a thread to discuss my terminology or your background in jazz, but to discuss what you consider to be the 'best pieces' that a loved composer wrote.
> 
> I am sorry to say that I do not feel 'comfortable' with your unsought bluntness. Since you wrote your first post on this thread imputing to me all sorts of ideas & motives that I do not have, I have in fact been most *un*comfortable.
> ...


I agree 100%. I don't understand why some people needlessly speak in a derogatory tone with others. His rant wasn't even directed at me and I'm mad for you. I don't think those kind of posts should be tolerated on this forum.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

SomeGuy, I don't where you live, but let's imagine for a moment it's New York. I dread to think what you might say to some out-of-town tourist who dares approach you and asks for help on "visiting the major sights". Will you upbraid them if they say they've heard the Empire State Building is worth a visit? Will you spit on them if they ask you whether or not the American Museum of Natural History justifies a stopover? Or will you make snide comments about how they dare come to New York without the cultural baggage that has taken you - as a native - years to build up? 
I will finish this posting by saying that your response to Ingélou's honest (maybe naive) request is ungracious and bordering on diatribe. Further, I have read many of your postings with interest but must report that I have become a little fatigued by the constant high-pitched "whine" that impedes engagement with the material.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

*Hint* The answer to TalkingHead's question is to mention the Frick Museum and Neue Galerie as less-crowded alternatives to the Met and MOMA, should the tourist in question be an art-lover.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Here are a few compositions that represent a lesser-known composer very well:

Salieri: Organ Concerto
Kozeluch: Clarinet Concerto No. 1
Bizet: Carmen
Hummel: Piano Concerto No. 3
Gounod: Funeral March of a Marionette
Litolff: Concerto Symphonique No. 4
Bruch: Violin Concerto No. 1
Ponchielli: Dance of the Hours
Holst: The Planets
Orff: Carmina Burana
Atterberg: Symphony No. 2


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Oh, for Joseph Haydn there's a lot (now you got me started):

Symphony No. 49 in F minor, 'La Passione': 




Symphony No. 94 in G Major, 'Surprise': 




The Seasons, introduction to Winter:






The Seasons, 'So lohnet die Natur den Fleiß': (rough translation: this is how nature rewards industry)






String Quartet Op. 71 No. 3 in E-flat Major:






Piano Trio No. 38 in D Major:






Seven Last Words - Introduzione:






The Creation - The Representation of Chaos:






The Creation - Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes:






There are many more! A truly amazing composer, imo.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

In the meantime Ingélou, I see no shame in asking the "specialists" on this forum for guidance; after all, what else is its _raison d'être_?
I wish I could offer you my own "pinnacles", but I really wouldn't know where to start. I'll leave that task to the more pedagogically inclined. Happy discoveries!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm going to do a bit of sacrilege here. My mother always complained that Haydn all "sounded the same." In a sense, it's true -- because his virtues are pretty much uniform throughout his music. For me, it's almost all great stuff, and really for the same reasons from piece to piece.

But I suspect if you've heard three or four of his more popular works and they didn't float your boat, hearing some others might not help much. Maybe better just to let a year or two pass...


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Oh, for Joseph Haydn there's a lot (now you got me started) [...]


Ingélou, don't listen to HaydnBearstheClock! Nah, his advice is solid, but get your wallet out is all I'll say!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'm going to do a bit of sacrilege here. My mother always complained that Haydn all "sounded the same." In a sense, it's true -- because his virtues are pretty much uniform throughout his music. For me, it's almost all great stuff, and really for the same reasons from piece to piece.
> 
> But I suspect if you've heard three or four of his more popular works and they didn't float your boat, hearing some others might not help much. Maybe better just to let a year or two pass...


It's true, you either 'get' Haydn or you don't, and I think it has a lot to do with his humour and his rigorous compositional style. Haydn definitely does not all sound the same, how does this






sound anything like this:






which doesn't sound similar to this:






which in turn is very different from this:






Haydn's music is a universe in itself, I think. So much to explore. Everything so meticulously, coherently composed and brought together, and yet the result sounds so natural.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I don't think there is anything "to get" in Haydn. He is one of the most accessible of composers. Anyone can appreciate any of the London or Paris Symphonies; the irresistible humor of many of his string quartets; the pomp and ceremony of his wonderful masses; some of the irresistible choruses and arias of "The Creation", etc;


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I'm going to do a bit of sacrilege here. My mother always complained that Haydn all "sounded the same." In a sense, it's true -- because his virtues are pretty much uniform throughout his music. For me, it's almost all great stuff, and really for the same reasons from piece to piece.
> 
> But I suspect if you've heard three or four of his more popular works and they didn't float your boat, hearing some others might not help much. Maybe better just to let a year or two pass...


Dear Ken,
Before I get down to the "meat", so to speak, of this thread, may I henceforth call you "Sugar Pie" as a term of endearment, which is not to be taken (nor intended) as an ad hominem as we have -I hope - made clear to the senior Mod via PM?
Anyway, you naughty boy, claiming that Haydn all sounds the same (and don't you hide behind your mother - come out here when I'm talking to you!) is really sacra ... sacro ... sacrilegious. This is the problem with eating fine food everyday, one loses ones _repères_.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I would also recommend to you the Allan Pettersson 7th Symphony, one of the best symphonies of the 20th Century.
Very accessible and emotional.
A symphonic pinnacle, no doubt about it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I don't think there is anything "to get" in Haydn. He is one of the most accessible of composers. Anyone can appreciate any of the London or Paris Symphonies; the irresistible humor of many of his string quartets; the pomp and ceremony of his wonderful masses; some of the irresistible choruses and arias of "The Creation", etc;


Mr HPowders! I concur with many of the adjectives you deploy in describing the works of Papa Joseph, but please, as far as the string quartets go, there is not only the irrepressible humour, there is also the total mastery over the genre that irritated Beethoven no end; and as far as the St Nicholas mass goes, there is not so much the pomp, more (to my feeble ears) an excruciating melancholy mixed with joy. An unhappy mix, rather like post-coital shame. But that, I believe, is an example of over-intellectuazing [_sic_] one's responses to the art.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> SomeGuy, I don't where you live, but let's imagine for a moment it's New York. I dread to think what you might say to some out-of-town tourist who dares approach you and asks for help on "visiting the major sights". Will you upbraid them if they say they've heard the Empire State Building is worth a visit? Will you spit on them if they ask you whether or not the American Museum of Natural History justifies a stopover? Or will you make snide comments about how they dare come to New York without the cultural baggage that has taken you - as a native - years to build up?
> I will finish this posting by saying that your response to Ingélou's honest (maybe naive) request is ungracious and bordering on diatribe. Further, I have read many of your postings with interest but must report that I have become a little fatigued by the constant high-pitched "whine" that impedes engagement with the material.


Hey Talking. I don't live in New York, but I have visited there many times. New York's a very well-known place. I cannot imagine anyone visiting there and not knowing already that the Empire State Building is worth a visit. Same for the American Museum of Natural History and a dozen other places.

As for Ingelou's asking for suggestions I have nothing to say. I was focused on the idea of major-ness as a determining quality for a listener's consideration. And my point there was that, as an experienced listener, my advice is not to worry about major-ness.

Ingelou then expressed some concern about how she could know, unaided, whether a piece was major or not. My response was to reiterate that major-ness was not important. That's all.

And my advice to everyone everywhere would still be the same. What's worth listening to? Everything.

(The answer to "What's worth listening to again?" can only be answered by each individual person for themselves.)

I'm sorry this has come across as so contentious. But oh well.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Medtner - "Night Wind" Sonata. It's one of my favorite piano pieces ever, really. The length can be offputting, and it's not a work you'll fully appreciate at first listen, but the more often I hear it, the more often I pick up on little things I hadn't noticed before, and the more I love it





Busoni - Fantasia nach J.S.Bach. Here, Busoni takes a few of Bach's less appreciated organ works and weaves them together into a very heartbreaking, beautiful gem





Schmidt - Fuga Solemnis. I fell in love with this work at first listen. The second half is kinda...commercial [as in, it sounds like Schmidt is trying a little too hard to make it sound happy and powerful] but nonetheless, it's a beautiful piece.





Poulenc - Gloria. Personally, my attention kinda drifts during the second half, but the first two movements are great anyway





Mahler/Seo - Symphony No. 9 chamber reduction. Already, I love the 9th, but this guy re-wrote it for a small ensemble. Not only do they retain the power and beauty of the original, but they also key in on counterpoint that otherwise may not have been so clear in a large orchestra. Kudos to them.





Schumann - Davidbundlertanze. I don't really like Schumann that much, but I was so shocked when I gave this work a listen. There's so much variation throughout, it's hard not to be intrigued





Mendelssohn - Symphony No. 2. This was the symphony that got me into Mendelssohn. Surprisingly, it's one of his lesser preformed works, yet it is my favorite of his symphonies (not that the Scottish and Italian aren't gems of their own right, but neither have the oomph this one has). Maybe I'm biased because I love choruses. O well. I'd post a link, but I don't really like any of the versions on youtube. Check out Claudio Abbado with the London Symphony Orchestra


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I am bold enough to post my own 'pinnacle'. For anyone who only knows Boccherini's 'Minuet' (which I like, though) here is the first part of one of his gorgeous _*Cello Concertos, No 7 in G major*_. One of the sad but endearing things about Boccherini is that he refused to change his music even at the request of his patron, and so ruined his career.






People keep posting these lovely suggestions - a positive orgy of listening, and thank ye all kindly.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

some guy said:


> Hey Talking.


And hey to you, Some!



some guy said:


> I don't live in New York [...]


I know; I said "...let's imagine...". I'm sure you can do that for us.



some guy said:


> [...] but I have visited there many times. New York's a very well-known place. I cannot imagine anyone visiting there and not knowing already that the Empire State Building is worth a visit. Same for the American Museum of Natural History and a dozen other places.


Wrong. I don't know NY at all and would appreciate some non-condescending advice from a native. First I'll check out the generally accepted main sights, then I'll branch out on my own. But first the well intended, gracious advice for the hick from out of town.



some guy said:


> As for Ingelou's asking for suggestions I have nothing to say. I was focused on the idea of major-ness as a determining quality for a listener's consideration. And my point there was that, as an experienced listener, my advice is not to worry about major-ness.


You are, in my favourite pollster ArtMusic's terms, over-itellectulassing [_sic_] the issue at hand. Ingélou is asking for honest guidance. It is only human and decent to help her. Ingélou has no pretension, only a thirst to know.



some guy said:


> Angelou then expressed some concern about how she could know, unaided, whether a piece was major or not. My response was to reiterate that major-ness was not important. That's all.


Your response was couched in terms that hardly made that clear. I read "snide and unhelpful comment".



some guy said:


> And my advice to everyone everywhere would still be the same. What's worth listening to? Everything.


I agree with your sentiment. But I'm a novice. I don't know where to start. Help me. Don't kick me. In Yiddish parlance, try and be a _mensch_. It don't cost a cent.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There have been many recommendation threads around here, but I'm surprised you call yourself a novice when you've been on this message board for a year. And there are so many good works and what someone will like the most is impossible to say. I could agree or disagree with various comments here, but it's of little matter really, it's simply my preference.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

starry said:


> There have been many recommendation threads around here, but I'm surprised you call yourself a novice when you've been on this message board for a year. And there are so many good works and what someone will like the most is impossible to say. I could agree or disagree with various comments here, but it's of little matter really, it's simply my preference.


Nah, Starry! I was talkin' (Head) sort of metaphorically, innit?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

TalkingHead said:


> Nah, Starry! I was talkin' (Head) sort of metaphorically, innit?


I was talking to the OP.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

starry said:


> I was talking to the OP.


Sorry. Phew, we all get 'trigger happy' on this forum, don't we? I really have to learn to chill out. Mr HPowders, I believe, has the right frame of mind. Or maybe the right "accoutrements". Know what I'm sayin?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There are many crests on the waves of classical music that have wafted over me though the years. Here is one such.

For a long time I enjoyed the music of Chaminade. I felt here was another French composer with a feminine sounding name, not unlike Camille Saint-Saens (feminine sounding to an American that is), but with something far nicer melodically for me. With few exceptions the melodies and phrases simply speak to me more so than with Saint-Saens. The works seem ever so slightly more exotic or mystical as well.

And so I was temporarily thunderstruck to realize Cecile Chaminade's name does not merely sound feminine. It was proof beyond doubt that I love her music for itself and not just to be fashionably correct.

This piano concerto may give some idea of her borderline bombastic yet rousing romantic style. But her chamber works may give a clearer more intimate sample of her melodic world as in this Concertino for flute. I love the sudden bold modulations.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> Of which piece could you say, 'Even if you don't like this guy in general, you just *have* to listen to this. It's out-of-this-world?'


You have some great thread ideas.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Faure - Requiem


Most people would probably agree with you on this, but just to me personally his piano quintets are (inevitable pun alert) "quintessential Fauré."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> My advice, as a nice person of goodwill, is to explore for yourself without worrying about whether or not some anonymous group of unknown people happens to have agreed that what you're listening to at the moment is "major" or not. That is, the putative major-ness of any given piece really has nothing to do with whether that piece can be important, illuminating, exciting, pleasurable for you. And if it is any of those things for you, then surely that is enough.


Of course I don't actually know "Ingélou," but she doesn't strike me as the sort of person who is going to evaluate her experiences (i.e. with works of music) in terms of what she thinks other people think they should be. She's probably going to like what she likes and not like what she doesn't like, without suffering great angst.

So she's probably safe having a conversation with other people about what they like.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bharbeke said:


> Bruch: Violin Concerto No. 1


Good one! To me, that's not of course "the best" romantic violin concerto (I'll defer to the experts on such a thing), but it is the quintessential one. Such an amazing violin part, such poignance and fire... maybe the orchestra doesn't really get to do its thing as well as in some others, but there are certainly some good parts for it as well.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> It's true, you either 'get' Haydn or you don't, and I think it has a lot to do with his humour and his rigorous compositional style. Haydn definitely does not all sound the same, how does this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know that experts or even any other person in the world would agree with me, but to me, the key to Haydn's music (and to a lesser degree to common practice period music generally) is to listen for the structure. That's where it gets interesting.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ok, let me venture a few....

Rebel: Les élémens, but especially the opening. (Check the date first. Get in your mind, ok, this is something from the 1700s. Like Vivaldi and Bach and Telemann and Haydn and Mozart. Then listen to the music.)

Allegri: Miserere. Sure, this is sort-of the Four Seasons or 1812 Overture of Renaissance music, but it is that for a very good reason. If you try it and don't like it - try another recording! Maybe it's too sugary for some, but for me that is as close to heaven as Western music gets. (What heaven _actually_ sounds like, of course, is Byzantine chant.)

Enescu: Oedipe. Everyone else would say the Romanian Rhapsodies or perhaps the third violin sonata, and I'll give them credit for making very good points. But for me, it is Oedipe.

I'll be back with more. Let me storm my brain a bit....


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort (Jan 24, 2014)

Things have gotten 'ouchy' around here of late. Nevertheless, I am summoning-up the courage to nominate two personal pinnacles (nothing, assuredly, to do with 'Twin Peaks' or Tolkein's 'Two Towers', but perhaps some of our resident grouches will beg to differ): 
Henri Duparc's _L'Invitation au voyage_ 




and my eponym's _Villanelle_ from _Nuits d'été_


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

science said:


> Most people would probably agree with you on this, but just to me personally his piano quintets are (inevitable pun alert) "quintessential Fauré."


What about the Pelleas et Mellisande Suite - the Sicilienne is famous but the whole thing is unbeliveably powerful, a real music drama


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dgee said:


> What about the Pelleas et Mellisande Suite - the Sicilienne is famous but the whole thing is unbeliveably powerful, a real music drama


Oh, that's interesting. I don't think I've ever talked to a strong advocate for the suite. I've heard it... maybe three times at the most... and it never did anything special for me! But thanks to your advocacy, I will give it another go and see what happens this time!


----------



## Lyman (Feb 2, 2014)

Several years ago, the owner of Houston's classical music shop introduced me to a Naxos CD of music composed by Jakub Ryba. Ryba's work, _Czech Christmas Mass, "Hail, Master!"_ is lovely. I don't wait to Christmas to listen to it. The whole CD is a gem.

I also bought some MP3 files of Ryba's string quartets and flute quartets. They are very nice.

For my money, _Czech Christmas Mass, "Hail, Master!"_ is Ryba's best work.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I wake up this morning to find more lovely contributions on this thread. Thank you very much. No wonder TalkClassical is growing, with such helpful & supportive members. This is a real community. 
Peace & long life to you all...


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Smetana's Moldau maybe?
Always beautiful and inspiring to listen to.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The pinnacle of Classicism symphonic-concerto writing was of course the piano concertos of Mozart. We almost take these for granted not realising these were the very first mature forms of the piano concerto genre and nothing else on the planet sounded like them at the time. I love this first movement.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Taggart said:


> Sometimes there can be a difference. I love Bach, but feel that the pinnacle of his work - things like the Well Tempered Clavier or The Art of Fugue or the Goldberg variations - are not directly accessible. They take time to get into. Different performers have different takes on them in terms of tempo and ornamentation and they take an effort to understand. On the other hand, something like his Double Violin Concerto in D minor, BWV 1043 is much more accessible because of the subtle yet expressive relationship between the violins throughout the work. This makes it a *must listen to* piece.
> 
> This version features Rachel Podger, Andrew Manze and the Academy of Ancient Music. It's a proms performance so a little OTT but still very nice.


I agree to an extent, but feel that when speaking of the pinnacles of Bach's oeuvre, things like the Mass in B minor, St. Matthews Passion and his violin suite BWV 1004 should definitely be mentioned, as well as probably some of the cantatas such as the stunning BWV 82. Bach certainly thought of himself as a spiritual composer first and foremost, and placed a lot of importance on these kinds of works. I think your point about accessibility applies even more to a work like the St. Matthew Passion than it does to the Well Tempered Clavier, which personally I would place in the more accessible side of things, but completely agree with you in terms of the Art of Fugue and the double violin concerto.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Padre Antonio Soler is from the time that you enjoy and his music is extraordinary. Whether on harpsichord,organ or both and great fun,if you already know him --fine but listen even more.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm gonna venture something here. I don't think I've ever heard a work by Reicha, but supposedly he is the pinnacle of the wind quintet. (Have I got this right? Am I confusing something?) What's interesting is there just aren't many recordings of his music.... For a pinnacle of anything, you'd think there'd be more.

(For most sorts of quintets, the official answer is probably Boccherini, with the exception of string quintet, which Schubert probably wins. For piano quintet, the correct answer even if it isn't official is Brahms'. Some people will say Schumann's. Put those people on "ignore" before you read other ridiculous things from them. Ahead of Schumann are _at least_ Schubert's "Trout" quintet, Fauré's piano quintets, Dohnanyi's piano quintets, and Taneyev's piano quintet. Martinu and Bloch and Saint-Saens and even Enescu deserve a hearing here. And then maybe - maybe - Schumann.)

The pinnacle of minimalism is probably supposed to be Adams' _Harmonielehre_, but as I am sometimes even willing to disagree with "probably-supposed-to" judgments (though I have to build up the psychological energy for the effort like a D&D magic user casting a high level spell), I'm going to go with Reich's _Drumming_. Even with Reich it's probably supposed to be _Music for 18 Musicians_, but all truly sensitive culturistos will know that the latter is actually just populist trash whereas the former is the dang bomb its own self.

Reich also wins "pinnacle of classical works for tape" with _WTC 9/11_. Does Feldman's _Three Voices for Joan La Barbara_ qualify for this? If so, I'll let it go as high as third, beneath only the pinnacle itself and Nono's _Como una ola de fuerza y luz_. Ostertag's _All the Rage_ is a must-hear as well. There are all good examples of things someone should mention when someone else says something like, "Classical music hasn't had any emotion for fifty years."

The pinnacle of French romantic ballet is Adams' _Giselle_. There is a lot more competition for that spot than most highbrows would imagine, but _Giselle_ has the nonmusical virtue of explicitly legitimizing the aristocracy's sexual exploitation of the lower classes, and that's implicitly the entire point of ballet, so _Giselle_ gets the inevitable nod.

After refreshing myself with that bit of cliché, I'm ready to take on the establishment once again. The pinnacle of the piano sonata genre was composed by Franz Liszt. (Sorry Beethoven.)

The pinnacle of the French piano sonata is Dukas. That wasn't very hard, actually.

Earlier I'd written that the pinnacle of Renaissance music is Allegri's _Miserere_. It is possible, though the logic of this situation is difficult for me to work out, that I made a mistake. The right answer may have been Tallis's _Spem in Alium_. Of course the right answer is actually Palestrina's _Missa Papae Marcelli_ and/or Josquin's _Missa pange lingua_ but those are too obvious to mention in this elite company. Brumel's "Earthquake" mass is up there too. Why don't people like Renaissance music more? My theory #1: because there were no pianos. My theory #2: it's hard to hear it in concert.

Greatest work for solo cello - in this case the establishment must be defended: Kodály's Sonata for Unaccompanied Cello. That's the right answer by some distance.

The pinnacle of Spanish-flavored classical music: Albéniz's _Iberia_.

The pinnacle of the 2nd Vienna School, not counting anything by Berg: Schoenberg's String Trio.

Counting Berg: Everything famous by Berg.

To the best of my knowledge, I've only ever heard one nonet, so that must be the pinnacle: Spohr.

The pinnacle of the piano trio genre, discounting Brahms' first: either of Rachmaninoff's. Then Brahms' first (as edited) and then Shostakovich's.

That reminds me: the pinnacle of the string quartet genre. I cannot reveal it yet. Sit down. Put your coffee down, swallow any food or drink already in your mouth. The answer is not Beethoven, nor Schubert, nor Bartók, nor whatever other excellent candidate you have in mind. The answer is hidden in the middle of this paragraph to discourage people from skipping to the end. The answer is Shostakovich's eighth. That is the answer and it is the only answer. I will not deign to defend this against gainsayers, though I will mention at this point Janacek's string quartets because they are really excellent and I intend to punish people who skipped to the end of this paragraph to find the answer: Janacek.

Let me consider whether the pinnacle of the 20th century mass is Martinu's Field Mass. I'm sure that can't be right but I'm getting a big blank right now trying to think of the competition.

I don't know that "greatest Stabat Mater" ought to be a thing, but if I can slip it in, it's Szymanowski's. I think that's the official answer. Pergolesi is up there. The one more people ought to know about is Steffani's. And John Browne's, from the Eton Choirbook.

Pinnacle of the 1950s: Boulez's _Le marteau sans maître_.

The official "greatest set of variations since the Diabelli's" is Rzewski's Variations on _El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido_.

Greatest formerly misattributed work that is not "Bach's" Toccata and Fugue in D minor - Pokorny's flute concerto. Incidentally I put no thought into this category at all, because I figure if I haven't offended you at this point, there's no reason for me to go on trying. Have a nice day and enjoy the music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Pinnacle of the sonata for solo harpsichord: D. Scarlatti. 

What is the competition? That is the $25 question. (I suspect the "answers" will cost me rather more.)


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

@Science - fab, thanks - I'll have to come back to your post to see if I agree in 3 years' time! :lol:


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

science - the difficulty with which somebody is posed when reading your comments and evaluating them for their own satisfaction absolutely befits your username.

PS: that's a compliment.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2014)

science, that was the most efficient indictment of the whole notion of greatness in music that I have ever read.

Great job!!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> science, that was the most efficient indictment of the whole notion of greatness in music that I have ever read.
> 
> Great job!!


Well, thank you. I suspect you meant this in a different way than I am going to take it, but after all, a hungry dog will take a dry bone.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> @Science - fab, thanks - I'll have to come back to your post to see if I agree in 3 years' time! :lol:


Science really went to town,sort that lot out and you will certainly have plenty of extra knowledge.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

moody said:


> Science really went to town,sort that lot out and you will certainly have plenty of extra knowledge.


I went to the worst neighborhood of town, too.

Moody, this is the first time I can remember you being unambiguously _nice_ to me. It's a pleasant surprise, and, I hope, the beginning of a beautiful friendship.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

science said:


> I went to the worst neighborhood of town, too.
> 
> Moody, this is the first time I can remember you being unambiguously _nice_ to me. It's a pleasant surprise, and, I hope, the beginning of a beautiful friendship.


Sounds suspiciously like the end of 'Casablanca' to me!


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

May I offer Mozart Piano Concerto 23 as my personal pinnacle 
When I listen to it I am left with a feeling that it was written by a higher being, not because it is complex or revolutionary but because it is the finished article, the real deal or the dogs ******** ( just can't get the right phrase here). Call it what you like, but I am sticking with perfection
The slow movement is simple and just sublime, especially when played by Perahia 
Could go on all night but won't as this really is a personal opinion
By the way I would also nominate Here Comes the Sun by The Beetles for the same reasons if this was about popular music
Just pushes the right buttons for me


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

For my offering a few things that come under the heading of lesser known- but I wouldn't be without any of 'em, so I suppose that makes them all a sort of pinnacle for me!

First of all, Julius Harrison (1885-1963), a composer who knew and was admired by Elgar, particularly the following, his "Worcester Suite", this is from a marvellous CD by the BBC Concert Orchestra/Barry Wordsworth. I'd hoped to put up "Bredon Hill" a Rhapsody for violin and orchestra, but it ain't on youtube! Anyway this is pretty good


Next, Vladimir Horowitz playing Rachmaninoff's Piano Sonata No.2 Op.36 at the Festival Hall in 1982, this is like a concerto without orchestra, and Horowitz was certainly one of the pinnacles of 20th century pianism.

An unjustly neglected piano concerto next, Anton Rubinstein's 3rd, played here by his pupil Josef Hofmann, with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra/Arthur Rodzinski.


And finally, a tour-de-force for organ, George Thalben-Ball's Variations on a theme of Paganini for pedals, played here with brilliant aplomb by Diane Bish, this is certainly the pinnacle of pedal work!

Hope these provide a little enjoyment at the very least.

My apologies for the lack of videos, Ingelou, but all the numbers/letters I cued in didn't work, not sure what I've done wrong, so rather than leave a great swathe of things which tell you "this video does not exist", I've scrubbed them, but I've every faith in your ability to find the things on youtube should you so desire! Sorry again for the muck-up!


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Erik Satie remains one of my pinnacles
I find myself drawn to the Reinbert de Leeuw interpretations
Simple, but captivating


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Another, perhaps bigger, wave crest for me:

Claudio Monteverdi: _Vespro Della Beata Vergine_ (1610 Vespers)

Monteverdi, poised on the thrilling transition between renaissance and baroque, wrought stunning melodies loaded with scintillating picardy thirds and complex rhythms. The entire work lasts nearly an hour and a half, but this hymn segment probably moves me the most. (It does pick up the pace somewhat after the churchy bit at the beginning.)

His opera L'Orfeo is equally brilliant and the Jordi Savall production below is an aural and visual treat.












.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Haydn man said:


> May I offer Mozart Piano Concerto 23 as my personal pinnacle
> When I listen to it I am left with a feeling that it was written by a higher being, not because it is complex or revolutionary but because it is the finished article, the real deal or the dogs ******** ( just can't get the right phrase here). Call it what you like, but I am sticking with perfection
> The slow movement is simple and just sublime, especially when played by Perahia
> Could go on all night but won't as this really is a personal opinion
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly. Artur Rubinstein did it proud too!


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Science, I cannot agree with you on your Liszt recommendation. His piano sonata did very little for me. For a different and perhaps lesser-known work that is amazing to my ears, try Totentanz (Enrico Pace performed it marvelously).


----------



## Roi N (Oct 22, 2013)

If you are new to classical music, you must first understand which eras you like and which you don't. Now, there are 4 major eras - Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Modern. Each sound completely different. Each have their best composers and works.
You need to here the pinnacles of the best genres - in the Baroque, listen to Bach piano works, Vivaldi concerti and Handel operas and oratirios.
In the Classical, listen to Haydn and Mozart's symphonies, quartets, concerti, piano works and operas (If you asked me, the pinnacle of music was at the classical era). 
There are two kinds of Romantic composers - the conservatives (write symphonies and 'pure music'), and the "Wagnerians" (write more emotional music, focus on opera). Understand which kind you prefer. Anyway, try Beethoven (he's your guide-line from the classical period). Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Brahms, Mendelsohn recommended as well.
I don't like the Modernists, so I won't try to tell you about them.
Anyway, I hope I helped


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Baroque is my favourite era of classical music and Handel is among my absolute favourite composers. If I had to choose a 'pinnacle' from his instrumental music, it would have to be 'The Arrival of the Queen of Sheba' -






Yes, I know it's 'popular' but its joie de vivre grabs me every time.

If I had to pick a 'pinnacle' from his choral music, it would be something from 'The Messiah'. Maybe this rendition of 'And He shall feed his flock', because both voices are so beautiful...


----------



## DaDirkNL (Aug 26, 2013)

Schubert's pinnacle could be a few pieces. The String Quintet in C, Winterreise, the Unfinished Symphony.
I think I'd go with Winterreise.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Don't know how well known Luigi Cherubini is, but I understand that he was greatly admired by Beethoven, particularly for his operas. I have a Cherubini mass that is quite nice:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

J. S. Bach, Christmas Oratorio - Jauchzet, frohlocket! (Diego Fasolis; Coro della Radio Svizzera, Lugano; I Barocchisti).


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

----------------------------

Wrong thread, sorry for the post.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think for Mozart the most organic, ethereal, limitless music is _The Magic Flute_. Some of it sounds literally like it wasn't composed at all, but that it leaked here from some place else. It's just too pure. _Don Giovanni_ might be the pinnacle for so many other reasons, but for simply sounding natural and perfect and utterly sublime, I think _The Magic Flute _takes it, and while it does, it has to leave any sane person of good taste wishing to cry for what we never got to hear after...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Kieran said:


> I think for Mozart the most organic, ethereal, limitless music is _The Magic Flute_. Some of it sounds literally like it wasn't composed at all, but that it leaked here from some place else. It's just too pure. _Don Giovanni_ might be the pinnacle for so many other reasons, but for simply sounding natural and perfect and utterly sublime, I think _The Magic Flute _takes it, and while it does, it has to leave any sane person of good taste wishing to cry for what we never got to hear after...


Yes. It does "have to leave any sane person of good taste wishing to cry for what we never got to hear after." Well said!!

I feel the same after listening to other late works of Mozart-the 27th piano concerto, the clarinet concerto, etc;

Imagine 30 more years of Mozart! What incredible gems we'd have.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

hpowders said:


> ....
> Imagine 30 more years of Mozart! What incredible gems we'd have.


Yes, I'd say the same for Schubert.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Yes, I'd say the same for Schubert.


Yes YOU would! 

After another 30 years, Schubert may have become Mahler!!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GioCar said:


> Yes, I'd say the same for Schubert.


Mozart lives until 1850. But at age 38 he has become so wealthy from his operas that he retires, like Rossini, and never writes another note.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Stockhousen still alive and now writing Minimalism and advertising jingles


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vasks said:


> Stockhousen still alive and now writing Minimalism and advertising jingles


I am not! And not.


----------

