# Collecting Recordings: Do you tend to go DEEP? Or do you prefer to go WIDE?



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Here's a question that I posed on another, jazz-related forum. It prompted some interesting discussion, so I thought I'd ask it here too:

There are so many recordings out there. As listeners, we've all got to make decisions about where to go next: what to listen to next, what to buy next.

When I find an artist (whether it's a composer or a performer) that I really like, I tend to go a little bananas and want to hear a LOT of those recordings. I really like to dig deeply into the discography.

But that also means that I lose out on hearing some of the breadth of music that's are out there -- because my music dollars, time, and energy tend to get poured into fewer musicians.

These two potential ways collecting & listening might be called _*deep*_ and _*wide*_.

(Note: I'm not talking about depth or breadth with regards to styles or time frames. You can collect deep across multiple styles & eras: 100 Bach recordings and 100 John Adams records. Different eras, different styles; but this is still deep collecting. Likewise, you can collect wide across a single style & era: i.e., nothing but modern stuff, but only one or two records per composer.)

You might think of this way: Look at the CDs on your shelves. Suppose there are 100 CDs. Are there 10 artists with 10 CDs each (deep)? Or are there 75 artists with one or two CDs each (wide)?

And yet another way to think about it: Suppose I give you a gift certificate to go get 10 free CDs. If you want 10 CDs by 10 different artists, then your collecting tendencies might be called wide. If you want 7 or 8 or more of the CDs to be by the same artist, then your collecting might be called deep.

*So, do you generally lean one way or the other, deep or wide?*

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: There's no right way. I'm just interested in hearing what other music lovers/freaks do & think about this.

One other question: Has the way you listened/bought music (deep vs. wide) changed over time, as you became more knowledgeable?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I try to do both within my rather limited budget... but because of my crazy wide-ranging tastes I tend to go wide... and very wide.

Everything from Anonymous 4 to Stockhausen in my ripped collection. And iTunes downloading not helping either.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I tend to go both. I'm deep regarding Beethoven's symphonies, Bruckner's works, and Erik Satie. I also had a period where I snatched up every Tallis Scholars, Clerks' Group, and John Eliot Gardiner recording I could find. 

But I'm also pretty indiscriminate in my listening, so my collection is pretty wide; it goes from a Greek music reconstruction to the present. 

If I had a gift certificiate, I'd go wide. That is, if I'd get around to spending it. I've have a $10 credit at iTunes for 5 months, and I still haven't cashed it in; I can't figure out what to get.

I've gone from deep to wide. Back when I had time, I used to study composers and their works more deeply. Today, I just have time for listening. Combined with that, my used CD store always has something interesting, so I'm always trying new things.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

To give an indication of how eclectic my collection is, here is a screenshot of my iTunes collection as of last week:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Actually this may be sad (LOL), but you allowed me only 10 things to get. I might end up just getting 10 box sets which covers both wide and deep.

That is the problem with my jazz collecting. If I had all the money to burn, I would buy 10 Mosiac box sets over say 10 different Diana Krall albums.

In that way, I'm a completist too. Right now I'm pining away to own every single Wagner opera.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Of course one will have favorites that go deep on the collection shelves (and, unfortunately, deep into the bank account). I am a sucker for Schubert _Winterreise_s and have too many recordings, including probably all the "classic" versions -- ones that go wide, too, by straying from the piano/single voice for which Schubert wrote: I have versions with orchestra, guitar accompaniment, string quartet....

My Bach Cantatas go deep, with several complete versions to choose from and assorted other recordings with great stylistic range. And at last count I had more Beethoven Fifths than fingers and toes times ... a hand's worth of fingers, anyhow. The same goes for Bruckner Sevenths and Mahler Fourths (though to a much lesser range than the Beethoven Fifths).

And nearly 100 different versions of Stravinsky's _Rite_.

Too, I have quite a few of those "Complete Works" box sets (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, Mahler ...), so that may count as both deep and wide.

But a quick glance at my record/tape/CD collection will reveal a wideness that ranges from punk rock to Medieval chant, and nearly everything in-between (except for polkas, country western, and Justin Bieber and his ilk -- or Britney and her ilk.... -- though to be fair to country western, I did discover a Hank Williams LP today in my collection, unopened and previously unplayed. I'll crack into that later. Hank Williams is not just country western. The man was a genius of a song writer. And I love Hank Williams.)

I do think many of you out there would enjoy the fare on my record shelves. Plenty there for Baroque fans who never wish to go beyond 1756. Plenty there for anyone interested in only Mozart. Plenty there of Romantics (including the complete set of the Hyperion Romantic Piano, Violin, and Cello Concertos). Plenty there for modern music lovers -- a lot of Maxwell Davies, Penderecki, Henze, Poul Ruders, Holmboe, Cage.... And the complete Vienna Modern Masters catalog!

And I'm sure most of you would find several surprises on the classical shelves, single CDs by folks you never heard of. A lot of guitar solo music. Mostly symphonies and concertos. Most of the great operas (in at least one recording), and some far ranging experimental things.

And the jazz collection is splendid, too, and includes the giant 500 disc Megabox titled _World's Greatest Jazz Collection - The Encyclopedia of Jazz_, and most of the recently released Black Saint/Soul Note collections. And quite a bit of Miles, including the complete Columbia recordings, the "trumpet case" collection, and dozens of '50s radio broadcasts and quite a few of the Live sessions. And the Complete Bessie Smith!

Did I mention the Beatles? I have too much of this stuff (deep and wide), from the Parlephone Blue Box LPs to the latest LP sets of Remastered Stereo albums and the most recent Mono Box set. As well, I have the Stereo and Mono CD sets, and the American Albums collection. Just today I ordered the red and blue album sets (LP) from POP MARKET. And then there are the various individual discs and the jazz and pop bands who cover Beatles material. And even one country western Beatles cover album.

Yes ... a lot of rock n roll and 70s and 80s pop.

But the punk collection remains unique, I suspect, in all my collection. Album covers that feature teeth in the pictures. Noisy stuff, splendid stuff. Kraut rock, underground bands, foul language named bands ... and of course the complete Black Flag from SST. In fact, I have quite a few SST albums, going way back to the label's founding. Glorious din.

So ... depth and width ... with a little bit (or maybe a lot) of madness thrown in.

But no Justin Bieber. Not yet, anyhow. I won't go that wide. I won't. I won't.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Okay I must be trouble because I went as wide to own two Taylor Swift albums LOL.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I spent a good many years building a music library that is rather wide in scope. I have music by composers from 1000 years ago and earlier up to the present... and I have tried to pick up a taste of as broad a range of composers in each era as possible. With the passage of time... I developed a taste or preference for certain composers, certain works, certain performers and conductors and my collection grew far more "deep". I have some 300+ discs of music by J.S. Bach. Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven aren't far behind. I have more recordings than I should of all of Mozart's greatest operas, Wagner's Ring, Parsifal, and Tristan, and many of Richard Strauss' operas. At this point, I don't make much of an effort toward discovering composers who are "new" to me, but invest far more time (and money) toward alternative performances/recordings of works I already know and admire. At present, I'm on a bender toward fleshing out my collection of Italian opera: Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini, etc... with alternative recordings. I'm also filling in the gaps in my collection of performances/recordings by Maria Callas.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Okay I must be trouble because I went as wide to own two Taylor Swift albums LOL.

I wouldn't have admitted to such... but then I don't have anything by TS. In fact I had to go so far as to "unfriend" the TIME Magazine feed from my Facebook site because they were bombarding me with inane posts concerning Ms. Swift 4 and 5 times a day... to the point I started to suspect that she was a majority stockholder.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I have a narrow and intense focus, so my approach is deep. "Eclectic" is an alien term to me.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

My focus has been deep. When I like a composer, I want to hear a lot of the things that composer wrote in all of the genres that interest me that he was active in (and a taste of some of the genres that I am not so interested in, too). This doesn't mean that I will buy everything, of course, but I do like to get sets like the complete string quartets or complete trios or complete violin sonatas and the like (if the composer was extremely prolific in a genre, however, then I will typically settle on a _best of_ selection of 2-4 discs in each genre of interest).

Since my collection is relatively small, compared to the collections of many here, I only have about 15 composers with more than a dozen discs, about twice as many composers with about 6-10 discs, and an increasing number of composers with only 1-3 discs.

This means that, since I have collected depth in the composers I consider most important to me presently, I am starting to concentrate on shallow width to flesh out the skeleton of my interest. Hence, I have just answered your latter question. My collecting has somewhat changed to wide, as I have pretty much explored the main composers I am interested in and I am sending out wide feelers. Some of these composers may get deeper with time, and yet more feelers will be sent out. It is like an organic process, how my collection grows.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

There are a few major artists (Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Ellington, Armstrong, Waller, etc) that I go deep on. But generally, I go wide with the best of the various genres of music (classical, opera, jazz, pop vocals, country, bluegrass, latin, etc.). That way I am always bathing in musical genius!


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I tend to go deep these days, especially with artists. There are certain conductors and performers that I really love and tend to buy their recordings for them more than content, i.e. Bernstein, Argerich, and the Emerson Quartet. I found an obscure Argerich recital recently at the used CD store and snatched it, I didn’t even look to see what she was playing! When I started out on this marvelous journey I was much more ‘wide’ going for variety and breadth. This was because I wanted to broaden my exposure to the work of course. However, reading the posts here on TC has helped my breadth a lot recently. For instance, I read TurnaboutVox’s enthusiastic posts about Frank Bridge and this prompted me to listen to some of his work which I was unfamiliar with. I love what I have heard so far and will explore more of Bridge’s work because of this.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I think I tend to go deep on a few composers, Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev etc And wide for a few other composers. As I scroll through the current listening thread, there are many composers I haven't heard of, or only have a sparse knowledge of. I've learned a lot during my 14 months here on TC, and I've explored some new music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I LOVE going wide. I have so many different performances of the Beethoven 9 symphonies, string quartets, keyboard sonatas, etc.
Same deal with many other composers-many different performances of the Mahler symphonies, Haydn's London and Paris Symphonies, 5 different performances of Haydn's Creation, Two HIP of all the Mozart keyboard concertos, not even mentioning modern piano performances, etc;
My reason for being is to compare different performances of the same works. Otherwise there's no fun!!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Re wide, about 140 composers from Arcangelo Corelli to Unsuk Chin. Composer depth usually involves genre, not multiple copies of the same work.:tiphat:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I tend to nose dive into a single composer, work or series. I did it with Handel's Messiah (5 sets not counting the several I sold off), Beethoven's Ninth (40+), Beethoven symphony cycles (just got Szell today, my 6th complete cycle). I actually have a fear of getting to diversified and losing my mind with way too many choices.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I go wide. I try not to get too many recordings of the same works. 

I can't imagine having more than six or seven sets of Beethoven's symphonies. I know that a lot of people are content to listen to something just a couple of times, but in order to feel like I know a recording, I need to listen to it at least five times, and probably more like twenty times. So I have three sets of Beethoven's symphonies and might eventually get two or three more (Toscanini and one or two HIPPI sets) - each a commitment of hundreds of hours of my time. 

Beethoven's symphonies are arguably the very apex of the classical music tradition, so they might deserve that many sets. But in general, there is too much out there to spend so much of my time on so little music.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Looking at my collection with a historical perspective, I would have to say that it is pretty wide, with deep spots at times. What I mean is this: When I was young I was pretty indiscriminate in my collecting and listening, Mozart, Brahms, Bizet, Wagner, ect. When I was in my mid-thirties I had an obsession with Bach, so I have a particularly deep collection where that composer is concerned. I haven't bought a lot of Bach lately, since I am content with what I have. Recently one of my off-line friends steered me toward Kabalevsky. I really don't purchase very many CDs these days, but I fear that I may find a dozen recordings of Kabalevsky in my collection in the near future. So my collection is pretty wide, but awfully deep too in parts, due to periodic obsessions.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

It's those periodic obsessions that constitute my most rewarding musical experiences. For example, I spent about a year collecting and listening to nothing but Bach's organ works; that was great!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

science said:


> But in general, there is too much out there to spend so much of my time on so little music.


 On the other hand, there is some music that is so good that there is not enough time to spend on a lot of other music. I feel like I could listen to Beethoven's symphonies 1000 times and not get tired of them. So far I maybe have gone through them all a few dozen times or so, and it would be nice to know what symphony and movement I am in by what is playing, but I have a long way to go yet.

The real problem is "so much great music, so little time." If only I could partition my brain and listen to two different works at once, one in each ear.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Wide*

I think I have addressed this in other threads.

With a few exceptions, wide.

I checked my data base and I have over 2,000 CD's and they cover about 9,000 composers. There are over a thousand onesies and twosies. Many of them real losers. The price for gambling. You Tube and this forum has eliminated much of the guess work.

There are some duplications.  For example I have eight recording of the Barber _Violin Concerto_. Most of the time it is paired on a recording of other works I am interested in. I recently acquired my eighth recording because it was paired with works by John Corigliano and Mason Bates that I did not have.

Altogether I have recordings of over 7000 different works.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

With box sets being so cheap these days, it's very affordable to go deep. In the past I would buy one CD by a composer. Now I can get a 15 CD box for 35 dollars.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I go deep with composers that I have a particularly profound affection for, like Bach, Brahms, Sibelius, Bruckner. This includes many different recordings of the same works. Not that I'm specifically looking for soulmate composers, so to speak, but this seems to be the way I connect. However, I do look around and try to close gaps too, as it were.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Oops!!!!!*



arpeggio said:


> I think I have addressed this in other threads.
> 
> With a few exceptions, wide.
> 
> ...


Boy did I goof. It is only about 900 composers not 9,000. 

Sorry about that.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

1/4 shallow, 1/4 knee deep, 1/2 in depths over my head!

/ptr


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> I think I have addressed this in other threads.
> 
> With a few exceptions, wide.
> 
> ...


I'm still debating as a new classical collector to figure out how selective that I should be. Should I stop at around 500 albums, 1000 albums? 2000 albums? Where is the limit for me?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> Altogether I have recordings of over 7000 different works.


I keep thinking I'm eclectic... and then I read stuff like this.


----------



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

I try to discover as many composers I can.
When I find some really moving pieces, and when it is possible, I try to find as many recordings as possible, to get the widest range of interpretations, and eventually find the best one possible for me.
So far and wide, and deep when there is strong affinity.

By the way, I think it is a good "classical" milestone. When a contemporary composer gets a lot of interpretations (Ligeti for instance), then they become a classical composer.


----------



## xpangaeax (Oct 1, 2013)

I'm kind of new to the game, but so far I definitely choose to go deep. I'm interested in having many Beethoven, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Wagner cycles, and sort of casting a wide net to get a feel for the rest and what else I may like. At which point, a few more may end up going deep (maybe Mozart operas for example) but some like Brahms symphonies I will be just fine with 1-2 cycles.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I haven't set any numerical limits to my collection. I ordered less than one third as many in 2014 as in each of the previous two years, and I expect this trend to continue, but I never cease to think of composers and works I'd like to have recordings of. For me, a limit is conceived more in terms of what I can realistically absorb in my lifetime.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> I haven't set any numerical limits to my collection. I ordered less than one third as many in 2014 as in each of the previous two years, and I expect this trend to continue, but I never cease to think of composers and works I'd like to have recordings of. For me, a limit is conceived more in terms of what I can realistically absorb in my lifetime.


Agreed with you there... I try not to set myself too ambitiously and don't try to collect too many more than what I am capable of listening to. Maybe I'm a tad more selective but I've stopped collecting just for collecting's sake.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I've never collected for the sake of collecting, I thing such is rather uninteresting, I collect to build a private library like any enlightenment gentleman would have done by collecting books or filling their curio cabinets! I have a feeling that collecting culture in hard copy in this age of internet super availability is sort of a curio cabinet in it self... 

/ptr


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

ptr said:


> I've never collected for the sake of collecting, I thing such is rather uninteresting, I collect to build a private library like any enlightenment gentleman would have done by collecting books or filling their curio cabinets! *I have a feeling that collecting culture in hard copy in this age of internet super availability is sort of a curio cabinet in it self.*...


Yeah, I agree.

Ever since I was a kid, I've wanted to build an interesting "music library" that reflects my interests and predilections. It's a very _personal_ thing. I guess that's a strange, outmoded concept to people growing up in the internet age.

But, even though the game's changed, I'm not quitting!  It's still FUN to me. And having tangible objects in my collection -- whether they're CDs or LPs -- is still important to me.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I keep asking myself why I bother making purchases, when I can hear almost anything for free as often as I wish from countless free and legal web sites, public library checkouts, etc. I could have saved thousand$! Nevertheless, I simply like having my curio cabinet and I enjoy filling it with tangible objects that are hand-picked by me. Instead of massive complete works crates, I have had to cut corners, due to costs, and the end result is a rich selection of exactly what I have chosen, replete with glaring gaps that I might one day get around to filling. That adds fun to my collecting.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Indeed, of course right now I'm focused on building up my symphony cycles by major composers starting with Beethoven and Mahler and moving onto to obscure composers such as Nielsen. Also adding if possible complete string quartet cycles too.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

With Beethoven, I bought two boxed sets, each one by a different conductor. The first set, I bought new and at full price, back in the '90s, when that used to cost around $100  and the second set I discovered completely by chance at a local used record shop for a mere $15 

With Mahler, I got a different conductor for each and every symphony, as I handpicked not the whole cycle, but each and every symphony! It was fun  I don't know if the majority would agree that I got the best choice for each one, but I am thrilled :clap:

With Nielsen, since I really only knew the 4th and 5th slightly, I got an inexpensive reissue of the entire cycle, hence one conductor :tiphat:

I definitely agree about the string quartets, as well as piano trios, string quintets, piano sonatas, string trios, violin sonatas, cello sonatas, concertos, etc. It is pretty much endless.


----------



## Declined (Apr 8, 2014)

Wide. As much as I would like to I can't afford to have too many different recordings of the same piece.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

albertfallickwang said:


> Indeed, of course right now I'm focused on building up my symphony cycles by major composers starting with Beethoven and Mahler and moving onto to *obscure composers such as Nielsen*. Also adding if possible complete string quartet cycles too.


Nielsen, obscure composer...I didn't know that.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Vaneyes said:


> Nielsen, obscure composer...I didn't know that.


Relative to composers like Bach & Beethoven, he is.

Relative to others... not so much.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Vaneyes said:


> Nielsen, obscure composer...I didn't know that.


Sorry I wasn't specific. I meant relatively obscure. And surprisingly a lot of people don't know who he was. When Thierry Fischer did his complete symphony cycle last year with the Utah Symphony, people were like huh?

That's all right. Next year is his anniversary so we get to hear his music live again at the concert hall.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> Sorry I wasn't specific. I meant relatively obscure. And surprisingly a lot of people don't know who he was. When Thierry Fischer did his complete symphony cycle last year with the Utah Symphony, people were like huh?
> 
> That's all right. Next year is his anniversary so we get to hear his music live again at the concert hall.


I'm jealous!  I've never heard Nielsen's music in concert. And I would LOVE to.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

JACE said:


> I'm jealous!  I've never heard Nielsen's music in concert. And I would LOVE to.


You ought to come out to visit the Utah Symphony... we are always doing innovative pieces by new commissions to Schoenberg and Nielsen. Next year will be quite the blend I am looking forward to.


----------

