# Eclectic music lovers thread



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm an eclectic listener, and that's not unusual around here, from what I gather?

I appreciate & enjoy classical composers from all periods, from early music to the C21st. The same goes for a composer's individual output - I like orchestral, choral, chamber, instrumental, opera.

I think I like listening to a variety of classical, as it increases my perception of the music. I also like hearing the similiarities (i.e. connections) & differences. Eg. between Palestrina & Bruckner, Haydn & Beethoven, Tchaikovsky & Myaskovsky, Busoni & Varese, & so on.

So here's the place for eclectics to hangout. Impressions of what you see as interesting connections, differences, influences, reactions in music would be generally appreciated. I hope this is not too vague a topic, but that hasn't stopped others from making less specific threads in the past...


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

It's a great topic and I'm definitely eclectic, but unfortunately I'm not a musician and don't have the technical knowledge to be able to compare works like that.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I'm pretty eclectic. I like composers from Corelli, Rameau to Brahms, Dvorak to Bruckner, Mahler to Faure, Ravel to Bartok, Stravinsky. I would say that's pretty eclectic. I'm not a completely one-trick pony as some would believe.

In terms of genres I enjoy: orchestral, choral, and chamber works.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Yep, me too. I like lots of stuff - from early music to baroque and to post-romantic with some 20th century. I enjoy some jazz, IDM and some other types of electronic music, sample-based music, abstract hip-hop, couple types of metal, a bit rock (especially prog. rock and post-rock) and others that I didn't bother to mention. Also, I do follow the philosophy of eclecticism in virtually everything, not just music.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

When I was young I loved loud orchestral music and that was about it. So I would crank up the big symphonies and symphonic poems. I couldn't stand chamber, thinking it too wimpy and I thought solo piano was plain old vanilla boring. That was like 40 years ago.

Eventually I branched out into progressive rock from the mid 70's which is really very similar to the loud orchestral works when you think about it. The type of prog rock I enjoyed is called "symphonic prog" these days. So I was still in the same rut. As I got older I started branching out. I almost abandoned large symphonic work for almost a decade and binged on baroque and early music.

It took until my mid 40's to appreciate other chamber works though, and I think my current Beethoven binge had a lot to do with that. Now I can appreciate almost anything, including all forms of so called classical, even opera. Also jazz, rock of almost all forms, elctronica, folk, new age, ambient. In fact the only thing I think I don't like is rap, country, and pop wherein a young lady's navel is the _raison d'etre_.

I think we naturally evolve toward eclecticism, or we stagnate and wither.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I'm pretty eclectic. I like composers from Corelli, Rameau to Brahms, Dvorak to Bruckner, Mahler to Faure, Ravel to Bartok, Stravinsky. I would say that's pretty eclectic. I'm not a completely one-trick pony as some would believe.
> 
> In terms of genres I enjoy: orchestral, choral, and chamber works.


Your tastes must have changed a bit recently MI


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird (Jan 25, 2009)

i guess you could say im pretty eclectic, in terms of genre my classical music collection is about 25% orchestral 25% solo instrumental 20% chamber 20% choral (mostly a capella) and 10% songs/opera (mostly songs). orchestral music is actually my least favorite of those but i got a lot of it i guess

by period its less eclectic i guess. if you plotted it on a graph it would have peaks at early music and contemporary music and dip around classical and romantic. but its not like i got nothing from those


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Yes, this is the best way to be - diversity is how a good ecosystem works...why not a human brain as well!

I consider myself a very eclectic musician, and I try to embrace this in my compositions as well. I think that many of the newest trends in music are embracing eclecticism, and abandoning rigid stereotypes of all kinds. This is good. It is the new era.

Maybe we should talk about some overtly eclectic works.

One pioneer in this is Alfred Shnittke and his "Concerto Grosso for 2 Violins, Prepared Piano and String Orchestra".

(sorry, didn't see the first part).






Another quite well known composer of this "post modern" kind of sensibility is Thomas Ades. One of my favorite works of his, Asyla, is a tour de force of multiplicity. Give it all a listen if you have the time.






For me, what become so fascinating with this kind of music is that it has added a layer of structure - sections become delineated not only by tempo, or feel, but the actual style of the music. Rather than a Scherzo, one can have "jazz" - rather than Adagio, one can have chant. Materials can be transported between sections for coherency.

I'm just finishing a new work called "Blues'n Riff: The Spectacular Tale of Katy Caboose" that has elements of blues, jazz, latin, greek traditional, 12 tone, modernism, electro-acoustic but all embodied within the framework of a traditional romantic orchestral piece. All of the material is derived from a single source, so, I hope it all works well together.

We shall see...

(hey haydnguy! didn't know you were here!)


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Scott Good said:


> (hey haydnguy! didn't know you were here!)


Hey Scott! Yes, been here for just a little while.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2009)

Gangsta Tweety-Bird said:


> i guess you could say im pretty eclectic, in terms of genre my classical music collection is about 25% orchestral 25% solo instrumental 20% chamber 20% choral (mostly a capella) and 10% songs/opera (mostly songs). orchestral music is actually my least favorite of those but i got a lot of it i guess
> 
> by period its less eclectic i guess. if you plotted it on a graph it would have peaks at early music and contemporary music and dip around classical and romantic. but its not like i got nothing from those


Being as you are keen on early music and choral a capella you should visit the renaissance lounge started by andre http://www.talkclassical.com/6237-renaissance-composers-lounge-2.html#post66183 it should find the members with good taste


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

I only like one composer, and that is Haydn. I do not belong here.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Andante said:


> Your tastes must have changed a bit recently MI


They grow with each passing week.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Weston said:


> When I was young I loved loud orchestral music and that was about it. So I would crank up the big symphonies and symphonic poems. I couldn't stand chamber, thinking it too wimpy and I thought solo piano was plain old vanilla boring.


I think it's natural: everyone who begins to explore classical music starts with the symphonic stuff and get bored with chamber music. So was I, and probably everyone on this forum.

As for beign eclectic... before I seriously started to listen to classical, I've been through alsmost every genre of music. And I still like to return to every single one of them and see if I still can enjoy things like I did before or if I will still appreciate them - classical music changes the way you think about music in general. Inside of classical I'm less eclectic. I like reneissance, baroque, classicism, romanticism and (partially) XXth century, but there are also many things that I simply can't stand and despise.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Aramis said:


> everyone who begins to explore classical music starts with the symphonic stuff and get bored with chamber music.


Speak for yourself


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Still Looking....*

I am not exactly where I fall in terms of music. The more I study the more I like. I just looked at what I flagged that I liked in iTunes. Here are a few composers I love from these time periods:

Renaissance
Tallis, Anchieta, Dowland, Sheppard, Byrd, Palestrina, Caccini, Cornysh, Gabrieli, Lassus, Ludford, Neusidler, Pres, Gombert, Marenzio, Lhritier

Modern
Stravinsky, Ives, Bacewicz, Bartok, Prokofiev, Berg, Britten, Gorecki, Hindemith, Khachaturian, Piazzola, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Szmanowski, Tippet, Dutilleux, Messiaen

Contemporary
Tsintsadze, Corigliano, Bryars, Kancheli, Lang, O'Connor, Part, Glass, Silvestrov, Webber, Cage, Tavener, Lindberg, Rihm, Assad, Schnittke, Takemitsu, Ligeti

You can see from my favorites in iTunes I am all over the board. I left out several periods but I am varied quite a bit.

Currently I reading about Opera/Ballet. The opera book is over 500 pages and will take awhile. I am always open to new things with in classical music. No Rock or other genre here.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

kg4fxg said:


> I am not exactly where I fall in terms of music. The more I study the more I like. I just looked at what I flagged that I liked in iTunes. Here are a few composers I love from these time periods:
> 
> Renaissance
> Tallis, Anchieta, Dowland, Sheppard, Byrd, Palestrina, Caccini, Cornysh, Gabrieli, Lassus, Ludford, Neusidler, Pres, Gombert, Marenzio, Lhritier
> ...


No Romantic composers?


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Romantic*

Yes, I left out Romantic, Post-Romantic, Classical, Baroque, Impressionist, Medieval as I did not want to get to long winded. Romantic is always a favorite.


----------



## UniverseInfinite (May 16, 2009)

UI is happy to join this band!

Everything -- melodious... unique rhythm... moving...inspirational -- sound good to ears and mind


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2009)

Bach said:


> I only like one composer, and that is Haydn. I do not belong here.


You've got that right Bach, that's what we have been telling you for ages so why hang around?

that was meant as a humorous dig and not to be taken seriously


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

UniverseInfinite said:


> UI is happy to join this band!
> 
> Everything -- melodious... unique rhythm... moving...inspirational -- sound good to ears and mind


Just out of curiosity, why do you always talk in third person?


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> They grow with each passing week.


If you are that eclectic. Please name your favorite piano sonata, string quartet, opera, song cycle and oratorio. From each period: renaissance, baroque, classicism, romanticism, modern and late 20th. century.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> If you are that eclectic. Please name your favorite piano sonata, string quartet, opera, song cycle and oratorio. From each period: renaissance, baroque, classicism, romanticism, modern and late 20th. century.


I guess you missed the memo where I have mentioned (many times now) I'm a fan of orchestral music only. I do enjoy some chamber works, but that's about it. Plus, I have nothing to prove to you anyway.

I'm also not going to argue with you or anyone about what I like. It's pointless as I have learned myself. People can't help what they're drawn to.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I guess you missed the memo where I have mentioned (many times now) I'm a fan of orchestral music only. I do enjoy some chamber works, but that's about it. Plus, I have nothing to prove to you anyway.


If you only like late romantic orchestral music, then you are not eclectic at all.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> If you only like late romantic orchestral music, then you are not eclectic at all.


I guess you also failed to read the post where I *clearly* stated that I like everything from Corelli and Scarlatti to Brahms and Mendelssohn to Bruckner and Sibelius to Poulenc and Ravel, etc.

Why are you being so argumentative?


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I guess you also failed to read the post where I *clearly* stated that I like everything from Corelli and Scarlatti to Brahms and Mendelssohn to Bruckner and Sibelius to Poulenc and Ravel, etc.


A handful of baroque composers, one early romantic and then a truckload of late romanticism can't be called eclectic in any definition of the word.



Mirror Image said:


> Why are you being so argumentative?


Just keeping with the semantics of the term "eclectic":

According to the Merriam Webster:

* Main Entry: 1eclec·tic
* Pronunciation: \e-ˈklek-tik, i-\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Greek eklektikos, from eklegein to select, from ex- out + legein to gather - more at legend
* Date: 1683

*1 : selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles*
2 : composed of elements drawn from various sources


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> A handful of baroque composers, one early romantic and then a truckload of late romanticism can't be called eclectic in any definition of the word.
> 
> Just keeping with the semantics of the term "eclectic":
> 
> ...


You are aware that I only gave a few examples of composers I like, right? I can't possibly list all the composers I listen to. That would be tedious.

I'm not sure why you're being so argumentative, but it's not necessary and I'm sure the moderators would agree.

ar·gu·men·ta·tive (ärgy-mnt-tv)
adj.
1. *Given to arguing; disputatious.*
2. *Of or characterized by argument: an argumentative discourse.*
argu·menta·tive·ly adv.
argu·menta·tive·ness n.
Synonyms: argumentative, combative, contentious, disputatious, quarrelsome, scrappy


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I'm not sure why you're being so argumentative, but it's not necessary and I'm sure the moderators would agree.


But I'm not mean, just saying that being ecletic is liking everything, and you fall considerably short of it. And since that's nothing good in being (or not) eclectic, I don't know why are you are making such a patently false statement.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> But I'm not mean, just saying that being ecletic is liking everything, and you fall considerably short of it. And since that's nothing good in being (or not) eclectic, I don't know why are you are making such a patently false statement.


I didn't make a false claim. I said I was eclectic in the composers I enjoy listening to, which is more than I can say for you.

You won't listen to any composer who isn't academically "accepted" and I don't find that eclectic. I find that incredibly shallow.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Look at my classical collection. A wide variety of composers and styles:

http://classicalmusiccollection.blogspot.com/


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I didn't make a false claim. I said I was eclectic in the composers I enjoy listening to, which is more than I can say for you.
> 
> You won't listen to any composer who isn't academically "accepted" and I don't find that eclectic. I find that incredibly shallow.


Fair enough, in this sense I'm not as eclectic as others, including you.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Fair enough, in this sense I'm not as eclectic as others, including you.


Did you look at my collection, bdelykleon?

I think you're eclectic in the genres of classical that you listen to. You're alot more eclectic than I am in this regard.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Did you look at my collection, bdelykleon?


Yes, some of the collections (Bartók, Berlioz)are ridiculously similar to mine. But there are several comopsers I never bothered to hear: Bantock, Cascarino, Glière, etc. AS to myself I don't like to buy a cd in order to know a composer, I usually know compsoers in live performances and then I buy some discs if I liked the music. I have a mortgage to pay, so can't afford bad CDs.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

kg4fxg said:


> Stravinsky, Ives, Bartok, Prokofiev, Britten, Hindemith, Shostakovich, Szmanowski


I like this list.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Yes, some of the collections (Bartók, Berlioz)are ridiculously similar to mine. But there are several comopsers I never bothered to hear: Bantock, Cascarino, Glière, etc. AS to myself I don't like to buy a cd in order to know a composer, I usually know compsoers in live performances and then I buy some discs if I liked the music. I have a mortgage to pay, so can't afford bad CDs.


I understand that. It's tough taking a risk on buying CDs that you haven't heard, but I don't just buy everything I see. I do an extensive amount of research on a recording by reading professional reviews or articles of the recording in question. Classics Today is a good resource for reading reviews about recordings.

You'll be surprised to know that I have only bought 2 or 3 CDs that I have been disappointed in and I've sold those. I might play one recording more than another one, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy all of them. I enjoy hearing as many different interpretations I can of a piece of music.

You can walk up blindfolded to my collection and pick up something, put it in the CD player, mash play, and it'll be good. It might not be up to your standards perhaps, but I'm very careful about what I buy.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> AS to myself I don't like to buy a cd in order to know a composer, I usually know compsoers in live performances and then I buy some discs if I liked the music. I have a mortgage to pay, so can't afford bad CDs.


When I started with CDs I always searched for the one with the best review, for the same reason as you, they were just too expensive, I had to limit myself to 4-6 CDs per month, I found the most reliable reviews were in the Penguin Guide they were totally unbiased as compared to the Gramophone Magazine which I suspect had to look after its big advertisers, that habit has stuck with me up to now. also I avoid complete editions unless they are at give away prices, I remember the Mozart Edition put out by Phillips a few excellent discs but the majority were very ordinary.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Thank you*



Mirror Image said:


> I like this list.


Some of the books I read will give wonderful descriptions about the composer and pieces which in turn leads me to buying them. Some composers I love at first listen and others take time to get to know.

I know, it sounds crazy buying a CD because it is featured in Gramophone or in a book but it is one way to get exposed to something new. I have tried to build a library containing a good representation from all classical periods. It is never finished but like you after a while you do end up with a eclectic collection.

One would be hard pressed looking at my collection to figure out where I stand, Opera, Ballet, Symphony, Concerto, Strings, Piano, I am just glad to dabble in it all.

Here is what I have loaded into iTunes. It is not everything but a good representation of what I listen to most often.

Medieval - 4 Albums
Renaissance - 22 albums
Baroque - 156 Albums
Classical - 129 Albums
Romantic - 190 Albums
Post Romantic - 207 Albums
Impressionistic - 46 Albums
Modern - 162 Albums
Contemporary - 53 Albums

Oh, no, a brief glance at my library and I am heavy into Post Romantic
And I thought I was eclectic?


----------



## Mr Dull (Mar 14, 2009)

I prefer to listen to a wide spread of music and have music from the middle ages to a couple of years ago.
Its easier for me to say what I don't like (Opera, Classical vocal music generally, chamber music) but even then I have several pieces of each type that I like and will no doubt add more as time goes by. Why impose limits on yourself when there is so much wonderful music you haven't heard yet.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Mr Dull said:


> Why impose limits on yourself when there is so much wonderful music you haven't heard yet.


Because for some people, like me, we have preferences and opinions about other genres. I like orchestral works, but there are so many "sub-genres," if you will, under orchestral music like tone poems, ballets/incidental music, concerti, choral, symphonies, etc. There is a lot of variety just within an orchestral framework, so I'm tired of people on this forum telling me I need to go listen to opera or chamber music. I like orchestral music and all its guises. There's nothing limiting about orchestral music. Many people enjoy variety with different genres, I enjoy variety within the same genre.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird (Jan 25, 2009)

orchestral music requires the use of an orchestra


----------



## UniverseInfinite (May 16, 2009)

MI, there is no "me" or "you".
think deeply or not...in every way...
no need to think...
or every need to think...
hahahahaha...


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Through eclectic listening you can discover unexpected links. I had a band called Hokum that intuitively explored the common ground shared by skiffle, blues, hokum, jug band music, jazz & swing.
More recently I had a phase of listening almost exclusively to 1920s jazz & Baroque chamber music. They have so much in common, but different conceptions of counterpoint.
It's fascinating to delve into these things.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Mark Harwood said:


> Through eclectic listening you can discover unexpected links. I had a band called Hokum that intuitively explored the common ground shared by skiffle, blues, hokum, jug band music, jazz & swing.
> More recently I had a phase of listening almost exclusively to 1920s jazz & Baroque chamber music. They have so much in common, but different conceptions of counterpoint.
> It's fascinating to delve into these things.


Very true. Connections are to be found everywhere.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It's great to see so many people have a knowledge & understanding of a wide range of classical & other music too. I've only been collecting classical for the past year, but I recently realised alot of my collection is C20th, even though I like all periods of music, really. That's why I like to listen to classical radio & go to concerts. So I'm making a conscious effort to collect more of a range now. I'm particularly interested in getting into the other eras of music which I haven't collected yet but still enjoy greatly...

I'm not that concerned with the actual physical collection a person has, being eclectic is more of an attitude, as bdelykleon's definition suggests. It's more of an approach to appreciating great art through the ages, without putting any blinkers of prejudgement on. I suppose we all have our preferences, but it's great to appreciate what artists have produced right throughout history...



Mr Dull said:


> Why impose limits on yourself when there is so much wonderful music you haven't heard yet.


Exactly! I mean, I've been listening on & off to classical for 20 years now, but there's still vast tracts of unexplored territory out there for me to discover. Like I've recently bought a Cd of Byrd's masses, & I want to get into early & Renaissance music more, which in the past I dismissed exactly because you don't get a big orchestral sound. But now I've come to enjoy how the earlier composers did so much with so little & their music has alot of depth. It's also interesting how they influenced & passed the baton on to later composers...



Mark Harwood said:


> Through eclectic listening you can discover unexpected links...phase of listening almost exclusively to 1920s jazz & Baroque chamber music. They have so much in common, but different conceptions of counterpoint.
> It's fascinating to delve into these things.





Scott Good said:


> Very true. Connections are to be found everywhere.


This is why my l like to listen to classical music of all periods & genres. Yes, counterpoint is a technique that connects so much music, from Baroque to today. I think people who enjoy Bach or Telemann can find it easier to get into modern composers like Piazzolla exactly due to this reason. Ditto Renaissance polyphony, which influenced everything from Bruckner to Arvo Part.

& I recently bought a Cd of Mozart's violin sonatas, and have been surprised how they seem to foretell the way the genre would develop in the hands of Beethoven & Brahms. This is why I have a great deal of respect for composers of all periods. They have excellent musical training & are able to foretell what will happen, as well as absorb the current trends in thier own unique way.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

nickgray said:


> I do follow the philosophy of eclecticism in virtually everything, not just music.


Wasn't it the dude from Burzum who claimed his philosophy was "syncretic eclecticism"?


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Conservationist said:


> "syncretic eclecticism"?


I'm having a hard time with this phrase. Syncretism usually means melding together different things (usually religion, religious practices and similar). So... syncretic eclecticism? Either I'm really sleepy (which I am, btw ) or this phrase is just meaningless. I'm leaning towards the second.


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

nickgray said:


> I'm having a hard time with this phrase. Syncretism usually means melding together different things (usually religion, religious practices and similar). So... syncretic eclecticism? Either I'm really sleepy (which I am, btw ) or this phrase is just meaningless. I'm leaning towards the second.


It makes much sense to me. And, is dealing with what I brought up earlier (but no one responded), and that is about eclecticism within single works of art.

At least, I think this is what it's about.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

CLASSICAL COMPOSERS 
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Richard Strauss, Antonin Dvorak, Giacomo Puccini, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Maurice Ravel, Johann Sebastian Bach, Gustav Mahler, Joseph Haydn, Giuseppe Verdi, Johannes Brahms, Bela Bartok, George Frideric Handel, Franz Schubert, Richard Wagner, Peter Tchaikovsky and many, many more

CLASSICAL SINGERS 
Mirella Freni, Kiri Te Kanawa, Placido Domingo, Renée Fleming, Nicolai Ghiaurov, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Rolando Villazon, Anna Netrebko, Lisa Della Casa, Luciano Pavarotti, etc

CLASSICAL MUSICIANS and CONDUCTORS 
Martha Argerich, Otto Klemperer, Jascha Heifetz, Mitsuko Uchida, Herbert Von Karajan, Trevor Pinnock, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Neeme Jarvi, Wilhelm Furtwangler, Jacqueline Du Pre, Sviatoslav Richter, John Eliot Gardiner , etc

ROCK/POP/ETC. GIRLS 
Linda Ronstadt, Dusty Springfield, Joni Mitchell, PJ Harvey, Carole King, Lucinda Williams, Bjork, Janis Joplin, Sheryl Crow, Patti Smith, Emmylou Harris, Kate Bush, Eva Cassidy, Bonnie Raitt, etc

ROCK/POP/ETC. BOYS 
Bob Dylan, Howlin' Wolf, David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, Beck, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Marley (& the Wailers), Johnny Cash, Van Morrison, Chuck Berry, Elvis Costello, Neil Young, Muddy Waters, etc

ROCK/POP/ETC. BANDS 
The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Dixie Chicks, Steely Dan, Led Zeppelin, Fairport Convention, The Byrds, The Clash, The Who, Fleetwood Mac, Los Lobos, The Kinks, Abba, The Beach Boys, etc

SOUL/FUNK/R&B 
Aretha Franklin, Sly and The Family Stone, Ray Charles, Etta James, Marvin Gaye, James Brown, Earth Wind & Fire, Curtis Mayfield, Millie Jackson, Funkadelic, Michael Jackson, Otis Redding, Prince, Isaac Hayes, Stevie Wonder, etc

JAZZ 
Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Django Reinhardt, Art Blakey, Charlie Parker, Cannonball Adderley, Charles Mingus, Wayne Shorter, Benny Goodman, Sonny Rollins, Count Basie, etc

JAZZ & TRADITIONAL POP VOCALISTS 
Peggy Lee, Sarah Vaughan, Frank Sinatra, Chris Connor, Nat "King" Cole, Billie Holiday, June Christy, Betty Carter, Louis Armstrong, Nina Simone, Ella Fitzgerald, Tony Bennett, Anita O'Day, etc


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> CLASSICAL COMPOSERS
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Richard Strauss, Antonin Dvorak, Giacomo Puccini, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Maurice Ravel, Johann Sebastian Bach, Gustav Mahler, Joseph Haydn, Giuseppe Verdi, Johannes Brahms, Bela Bartok, George Frideric Handel, Franz Schubert, Richard Wagner, Peter Tchaikovsky and many, many more
> 
> CLASSICAL SINGERS
> ...


*My Gosh, are you sure you didn't miss one ?*


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Andante said:


> *My Gosh, are you sure you didn't miss one ?*


That's what the etc(eteras) are for.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I take it "eclectic" means you like a broad array of music of vastly different styles, eras, intentions, etc... but not necessarily everything. As an artist I spend a good many hours in the studios which I share with several other artists. I always have music playing. My studio mates are somewhat nonplussed at my sudden, schizophrenic shifts in musical style or genre. One minute they may come into my space to find me listening to a Bach cantata, a Gregorain chant, or perhaps something by Arvo Part. The next time they enter they may find me listening to Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, or the Stanley Brothers. 

The vast majority of my music collection is admittedly made up of classical music... everything from Gregorian chant and other medieva and Renaissance works from Sephardic Spain to Russian choral works to Josquin, Gesualdo, and Palestrina, etc... on through the Baroque (Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Telemann, etc...); the Classical era (Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, Beethoven, CPE Bach, Joseph Kraus, John Field, etc...; Romanticism (Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Puccini, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Grieg, Chopin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Verdi, etc...; Impressionism (Ravel, Debussy, Faure, Saint-Saens, Charpentier, Reynaldo Hahn, Chabrier, Modernism and Late-Romanticism (Richard Strauss, Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Elgar, Albinoni, Zemlinsky, Szymanowski, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Scriabin, Grechaninov, Shostakovitch, Copland, Howells, Schoenberg, Henze, Messiaen, Howard Hanson, etc... and Post-Modernism/Contemporary (Ned Rorem, Douglas Lilburn, James MacMillan, John Adams, Phillip Glass, Arvo Part, Henryck Gorecki, Tan-Dun, Osvaldo Golijov, David Diamond, Hovhaness, etc...

Beyond the classical realm the next largest body of music that I own is jazz, followed by pop/rock, bluegrass, and some "folk" music from various other cultures... especially Celtic and Islamic-Persian.

Although I own some examples... I am not overly thrilled with atonal music... with music that grates upon the senses. I love the Rite of Spring but have problems with later Stravinsky. I also love Gurre-Lieder and Verklärte Nacht... but cannot stomach most of Schoenberg's later experiments. And yet I love Messaien? Personally I think that if the work does not speak to me on a sensual/sensory level I cannot get into it... no matter how intellectually clever it may seem.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio, that wide-ranging type of classical collection is what I'm aiming at, but I only started collecting last year, so the majority of my purchases have been my favourite era, the C20th. But I'm looking forward to delving into everything like you in the next few years...

But, as I said, being eclectic for me is more an attitude than what one owns. It's the way you come to & absorb a wide array of music, whether it's on cd, radio or at a live performance. It's about being open to everything out there...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Andre said:


> But, as I said, being eclectic for me is more an attitude than what one owns. It's the way you come to & absorb a wide array of music, whether it's on cd, radio or at a live performance. It's about being open to everything out there...


I guess in this sense I'm not eclectic. I'm still trying to absorb all of this music from the Romantic and early 20th Century periods. I'm not even sure how long it will take me. I'm just so into the sophistication, the amount of passion, the emotional and musical contrasts found in these periods that it's hard for me to stray too far from it. Hearing music from this period is like I'm coming home after a long trip somewhere else and we all know how good it feels to be home.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I'd like to see myself as an "eclectic music lover". I very much like Hindustani and Japanese classical music as well as the Western Renaissance, Baroque, and Late-Romantic/20th Century traditions. I like jazz as well.

I'd actually like to get into some college courses (maybe minor in) ethnomusicology. It's always deeply fascinated me.


----------



## kg4fxg (May 24, 2009)

*Your not alone my friend!*



Mirror Image said:


> I guess in this sense I'm not eclectic. I'm still trying to absorb all of this music from the Romantic and early 20th Century periods. I'm not even sure how long it will take me. I'm just so into the sophistication, the amount of passion, the emotional and musical contrasts found in these periods that it's hard for me to stray too far from it. Hearing music from this period is like I'm coming home after a long trip somewhere else and we all know how good it feels to be home.


MI, I am trying to do the same. I can't get into other genres like Jazz, Rock, Metal, etc. It is all I can do to work in this huge genre classical with the small "c". I too have focused much on Post-Romantic and will drift in other periods but that is it.

I guess I am boring because my library does not contain any Rock, Jazz, Metal, etc. Well, I do have Gershwin maybe that will count for Jazz?

I just got my BBC Music Magazine and the CD is Shostakovich Symphony 11. Never heard it before, I like it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I do have Gershwin maybe that will count for Jazz?

Nope... no cigar.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

StlukesguildOhio, that wide-ranging type of classical collection is what I'm aiming at, but I only started collecting last year, so the majority of my purchases have been my favourite era, the C20th. But I'm looking forward to delving into everything like you in the next few years...

But, as I said, being eclectic for me is more an attitude than what one owns. It's the way you come to & absorb a wide array of music, whether it's on cd, radio or at a live performance. It's about being open to everything out there...

I came from a background of rock and country and got into the Baroque first of all classical genre... undoubtedly because I could relate to the steady, driving rhythms. From there I expanded outward... forward almost chronologically... Mozart and Haydn to Beethoven etc... After having built up a rather wide-ranging collection of the core composers and compositions I then began to broaden this out with various performances of favorites... and now I'm on to strengthening or deepening what I own within certain areas... more Romantics, a broad range of vocal, choral, and opera... medieval... and 20th century.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

kg4fxg said:


> MI, I am trying to do the same. I can't get into other genres like Jazz, Rock, Metal, etc. It is all I can do to work in this huge genre classical with the small "c". I too have focused much on Post-Romantic and will drift in other periods but that is it.
> 
> I guess I am boring because my library does not contain any Rock, Jazz, Metal, etc. Well, I do have Gershwin maybe that will count for Jazz?
> 
> I just got my BBC Music Magazine and the CD is Shostakovich Symphony 11. Never heard it before, I like it.


Yes, there's just so much music found in these periods. I mean it's like the more you keep digging, the more you find and I think this is a great thing.

You like Shostakovich's 11th? That's a good symphony. You should definitely hear his 4th, 7th, and 10th symphonies as well. Outstanding. His concerti are also very good. He's one of my favorites.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

kg4fxg said:


> I guess I am boring because my library does not contain any Rock, Jazz, Metal, etc.


Not really. I for one love popular music with a passion, but I find a library without any classical music far more boring than one without rock or pop.


----------



## Padawan (Aug 27, 2009)

Nearly all my music is on iTunes, so I used their classifications to describe my collection. When it comes to music, I like *almost* anything!

Alternative 
Christian & Gospel (Imagine Me - Kirk Franklin)
Classic Rock (Santana)
Classical
Dance
Disco
Electronic (Gotan Project, anyone?)
Funk (Parliament, Funkadelics)
Hip-Hop
Jazz
Latin
New Age
Pop
R & B
Reggae
Rap - Old School
Soul

*p.s.: *I like Blues, but only when it's played live.


----------

