Where to start with classical music?

[Rores28]

I have a little bit of vivaldi's four seasons on my computer that I like. And I enjoy Pachel's Canon in D...

[Patrick_Bateman]

Best place to start is with the "Waltz King" Johann Strauss II

Recommended works : Die Fledermaus - Ouverture (Vienna Philharmonic), Emperor Waltz Op 437 (Vienna Philharmonic), Artist's Life Op. 316 (Vienna Philharmonic)

[Lokasenna]

I have a little bit of vivaldi's four seasons on my computer that I like. And I enjoy Pachel's Canon in D...

If you like Vivaldi, then you could try some more Baroque music - that could be a good idea before going off to explore: Handel and Bach would be the main figures, though you could look up Telemann for some good music as well.

From Bach, in a similar vein to Vivaldi, you could try his Brandenburg Concertos, Violin Concertos or his Orchestral Suites.

From Handel give his Water Music and Royal Fireworks Music a try, though his Concerti Grossi are enjoyable as well.

There are also plenty of other Vivaldi Concertos out there as well, which you could listen to - sure, they're not as famous as the Four Seasons, but they're still great music.

Or perhaps you'd like to try something wildly different? Perhaps if you give us a sense of what you like best? Perhaps you really like piano concertos, or are full orchestral works your thing? It'll be easier to give guidance based on that.

For what its worth, I got into classical music by listening to Chopin, who remains one of my favourite composers to this day.

[stlukesguild]

When begining to explore classical music, the first thing that I would recommend is a good reference guide... something to explain the difference between a concerto, a symphony, and a tone poem... the difference between the Baroque, the "Classical" era, and Romanticism... and something to give some introductory bios on the major composers and recommended works.

The best resource book for beginners that I have come across for classical music is Phil G. Goulding's Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1,000 Greatest Works.. Goulding was not an expert or an academic and wrote the book with the intention of making classical music comprehensible to other non-experts. He writes in a clear, concise manner explaining the various necessary terms and concepts (Symphony, Concerto, Concerti Grosso, Sonata Form, Tone Poem, Atonalism, Baroque, etc...), gives a good firm grounding in the development of music, and explores the lives, history, and works of the most important composers.

Of course, once you discover a composer you are particularly interested in, you may wish to explore them in greater detail through individual biographies. Ultimately, you need to listen to the actual music, and here you are confronted by the fact that the greatest works have often been recorded 100s of times by various performers who often differ to a great extent in their interpretations.

When starting out, I would avoid box sets of the complete works by anyone and look into major pieces by composers you like. You can often check the critical opinions on different interpretations in the Penguin Classical CD Guide or the Gramophone Classical CD Guide prior to purchasing. With time... if you listen enough... you will come to develop your own preferences for certain orchestras, soloists, and conductors.

Considering the fact that you admit to a liking for the Baroque, I will second Lokasenna's recommendation that you explore the music of that era in a greater depth:

J.S. Bach-

Brandenburg Concertos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ9qWpa2rIg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBmygI-N3M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscAvQ88KYY&feature=related

Keyboard Concertos (I recommend Murray Perahia's recordings)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWEaBlIOi8g&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsUl4qTxcTY

Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recommended):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7LWANJFHEs

A great introduction to Bach's choral work (in which he is unrivaled) is this recent disc:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5162/5239030591_88a26dd433.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJcL-dSn5zo

George Handel-

Water Music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yurw5Cf4HY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nvg8eQnjPs&feature=related

Royal Fireworks Music-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I38Kw-oG0kE

Highlights from The Messiah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6_nJ11BgTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3gCpmNrYbk

Vivaldi-

Mandolin Concertos-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikHCVWv1uvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvFZTeuBYA&feature=related

Gloria-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVAvs4hNkN8

After exploring the Baroque a bit you may wish to head into the "Classical" era (Mozart, Haydn, early Beethoven) and Romanticism (late Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, etc...)

Perhaps some of the most immediately accessible music of these eras would include:

Mozart- Piano Concertos 20 and 21-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df-eLzao63I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhNITXBguSs

Beethoven- The great piano sonatas (look for a set including no.s 8, 14, 21, 23):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXwP2QG4Z-M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6txOvK-mAk&feature=related

Beethoven's 5th Symphony-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IRMYuE1hI

Chopin- Nocturnes (Rubinstein recommended)-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGRO05WcNDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnFs85pLmj4

I actually began my adventure with classical music with the Baroque composers including Vivaldi, so you're in good company.:D

[Lokasenna]

The best resource book for beginners that I have come across for classical music is Phil G. Goulding's Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1,000 Greatest Works.. Goulding was not an expert or an academic and wrote the book with the intention of making classical music comprehensible to other non-experts. He writes in a clear, concise manner explaining the various necessary terms and concepts (Symphony, Concerto, Concerti Grosso, Sonata Form, Tone Poem, Atonalism, Baroque, etc...), gives a good firm grounding in the development of music, and explores the lives, history, and works of the most important composers.


I'll have to disagree with you there, I'm afraid - I think Goulding's book is rather vulgar. I'm hardly an expert on classical music, but I found him too basic. The only thing that I can say about it is that it does provide a signpost to the most popular pieces by a certain artist. Beyond that, I don't think he's too useful.

Also, hideous as the idea of making a Top 50 list is, he misses out some seriously major composers: Elgar, Britten, Rachmaninov, Purcell and Byrd all sprang to my mind. I mean, is he seriously saying that Elgar is somehow inferior to the likes of Borodin and Couperin?

I think I was first irritated by Goulding when, in his opeing chapter, he attempted to sum up each composer in five words or fewer, which lead to Chopin being bathetically termed 'Mr Piano'. Instead, I would recommend looking online - heck, the classical music pages of Wikipedia aren't half bad.

[stlukesguild]

Goulding based his ranking of composers from the number of recordings, number of times pieces were scheduled by major orchestras/operas, the number of articles written etc... upon a given composer. He admits to the fact that some composers are afforded far more importance as a result of their historical relevance than he would give them himself. Rachmaninoff is a case in point. It does well to recognize that for much of the 20th century, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, and several other marvelous composers were dismissed as minor populist figures in comparison with the far more "important" avant-gard composers such as Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, etc... In this sense, Goulding's book is certainly dated. I'll also admit that his is not a book one is likely to continue to read or refer to after one has passed the novice stage... but it is a good, solid, inexpensive introductory resource.

Of course I may be giving Goulding brownie points for largely ignoring the whole of the Second Viennese School (Schoenberg/Werber/Berg).:biggrin5:

As for Elgar, Britten, Purcell and Byrd... might you not be over-estimating these composers a bit out of a misguided sense of nationalism? I fully agree that all are marvelous composers... and I personally have a great love for early English music (especially choral music) but in all fairness, might I not bristle as an American at the fact that Aaron Copland, Samuel barber, George Gershwin, and Philip Glass are all snubbed as well? But I must acknowledge that the 2oth century composers that Goulding included (Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Ravel, Hindemith, Bartok, Richard Strauss, Ralph Vaughan-Williams, Leos Janacek, Gabriel Faure, etc... ) are invariably greater and more representative of the century than Elgar or Copland. Britten is an exception... and I'll agree with you on him. I think his reputation continues to grow... especially in response to his operas. But Elgar? I personally prefer Delius

Likewise you ask if Byrd and Purcell are inferior to Couperin and Borodin? I can't speak objectively on Borodin as I'm notoriously cool on the Russians in general. I do recognize that Borodin seems to have been far more highly valued earlier in the 20th century than he is now, and I would suggest that Scriabin might have been a better selection. But Couperin? Considering the centrality of Paris under Louis XIV it is quite likely that Couperin was far more influential upon the development of subsequent music in Europe than Byrd and Purcell in the insular nation of England. I will admit that his keyboard compositions might rank only behind those of Bach and Scarlatti in the Baroque era and I notice Scarlatti isn't included either. On the other hand, while Byrd and Purcell are excluded, Goulding does include Palestrina and Monteverdi as representative of the music of the 17th century, and you would surely be hard-pressed to argue that they are not the far greater composers.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the greatest short-coming of Goulding's book is in the over-representation of the composers of Romanticism and Post-Romanticism at the expense of earlier (and later... ie. contemporary) music. Of course this was largely the bias for much of the 20th century upon which Goulding based his research. Since the 1980s and certainly the 1990s the HIP (Historically Informed Performance) movement has led to a rediscovery and increased appreciation of earlier music. Handel's operas, cantatas, and oratorios have been rediscovered. Monteverdi has been recognized as one of the towering figures of classical music, almost-forgotten composers of great originality such as Scarlatti, Biber, Zelenka, Rameau, Lully, Buxtehude, Sweelinck, Hasse, etc... have been again placed along Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi. Renaissance and Medieval figures such as Gesualdo, Dufay, Josquin des Prez, Orlando Gibbons, Byrd, Obrecht, Ockeghem, Hildegard of Bingen, Leonin, Perotin, Francesco Landini, Oswald von Wolkenstein, John Dunstaple, etc... have also been reevaluated and properly recorded.

I think I was first irritated by Goulding when, in his opeing chapter, he attempted to sum up each composer in five words or fewer, which lead to Chopin being bathetically termed 'Mr Piano'.

Of course he does offer quite a bit more of a biography upon each composer in the subsequent chapters. I understand that a Chopin fan might be irritated by their hero being dismissed as "Mr. Piano"... but then again... the name does fit.:biggrin5: Whatever did Chopin write of any real merit beyond the piano? Perhaps you are a bit too sensitive to the fact that your personal musical hero is not shown the proper reverence... nor even placed within the top ten.:frown2: Surely, as a Wagnerian I should be even more irritated to read the opening words of the Wagner entry:

Richard Wagner was a dreadful human being. He was a liar, a cheat, a wife-stealer, a home-wrecker and a betrayer of friends. He was anti-semitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-French. He was immoral and dishonorable. No one in music had a bigger ego, and he properly belongs high on a list of The World's Most Unpleasant Men.

He was also, of course, an incredible musical genius...

Of course every word of this is also true.

I also must recognize Goulding for getting the 3 greatest musical immortals right: Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.:biggrin5:

Seriously, there are undoubtedly any number of quality resources available to the classical music novice. I personally used to scour the classical music guides by Gramophone and Penguin... as well as one by a rather curmudgeony old critic with whom I disagreed on several accounts: he hated Karajan, preferred Handel to Bach (blasphemy!!!!:incazzato::willy_nilly:), and declared that Messiaen was the sole composer to ever make him physically ill.:eek: I agree that Wikipedia offers a good biography upon the individual composers and styles... but a guide that offers some explanation of sonata form, defines the symphony and concerto, and places the composers in some semblance of a chronological order is probably of use to the novice... especially a guide that doesn't overwhelm the novice with technical and musical terms that end up alienating beginner.

I haven't read a lot of musical criticism or musical history/biography recently outside of what I glean from BBC Music Magazine, and Gramophone Magazine... with the exception of a great book for novices wishing to explore opera. The Story of Opera, by Richard Somerset-Ward (Abrams Books) offers a solid basic history of the development of opera and the major operas and composers (as well as singers, conductors, producers, etc...) all beautifully illustrated in full color.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5006/5242898450_20358d8c73.jpg

[Drkshadow03]

I also must recognize Goulding for getting the 3 greatest musical immortals right: Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.:biggrin5:


Heh. I'd probably put Brahms somewhere in my top 3, except to be honest, I'm not sure who I would move . . .

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

As a tyro I have to agree with St Luke's recommendation of Goulding's book, which I have found extremely useful, especially as a beginning resource.

It helps to learn and understand the forms of the music too. That to me is the biggest learning curve.

[stlukesguild]

I think I've been slow to warm to Brahms... or rather never developed a deep passion for his music... for the simple reason that he is probably strongest as a composer of chamber music, and I will freely admit to the fact that chamber music ranks low among my preferred musical forms. His lieder pale before Schubert and Schumann... and perhaps even Wolfe, Debussy, Faure, etc... His symphonies can be heavy-handed... even ponderous... although a recent muscular and stripped-down series by John Elliott Gardiner is leading to a reevaluation of these on my part:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5103389721_0f6a0c89d2.jpg

His piano concertos are certainly fine... but pale behind Beethoven's and Mozart's.

Of course we have the brilliant Deutsches Requiem... which leads one to wish he had written more choral works... and the brilliant chamber pieces: the Cello Sonatas, Violin Sonatas, the quartets and quintets... and perhaps finest of all... the chamber pieces for clarinet.

Brahms is simply not as great of a figure in my own preferred musical genre: Choral, Opera, Lieder, and other vocal music, symphonic music, and music for solo instrument.

Besides... Brahms was nearly as big of an a**hole as Wagner... especially in his poor treatment of other composers (Wagner, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, etc...)... even beginning talents.

[OrphanPip]

When I took music history in university I had Listen edited by Kerman and Tomlinson. The text takes an approach of only making a few representative selections to explain different forms/innovations/techniques from various periods, but then provides you with lists of other composers and pieces that would be appropriate to listen to. The book has the benefit of providing a set of CDs with the recordings of the representative pieces discussed in the text. The benefit of this is that the book can tell you at exactly what second on the recording a certain something is happening in the piece, making it very easy to understand what's going on.

The prof of the course also brought in a lot of extra stuff from outside the book and required attendance to a few performances, but I found the book pretty useful for an overview of Western classical music.

http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Joseph-Kerman/dp/0312434197/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

The book is expensive though.

If I were you I'd just start with the wiki on the history of Western music.

[stlukesguild]

That's the same text that I had for my course on Music Appreciation that I took some years ago as required to maintain my teaching license. Of course, by that time I was already quite familiar with the major figures from Bach to Stravinsky. It was the early music and the modern and contemporary music that were somewhat new to me. I also remember gaining a greater understanding of some of the musical forms/structures. The most valuable part of the course, however, was the requirement that we attend 3 live concerts and report on the music.

[stlukesguild]

If I were you I'd just start with the wiki on the history of Western music.

This is certainly possible... but even just an exploration of the basics of Medieval music would involve more than a few pages from Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_music

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosian_chant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallican_chant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_chant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_nova

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrigal_%28music%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plainchant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_mode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28music%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9rotin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9onin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubadour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouv%C3%A8re

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaut_Daniel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernart_de_Ventadorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertran_de_Born

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantigas_de_Santa_Maria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isorhythm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_de_Machaut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trecento-Madrigal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Landini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dunstable

This includes just a few known composers in the era in which we have the least knowledge. Moving only into the Renaissance I would suspect that one would need to scour double or triple the pages to get a fair grasp of things... and even then the challenge is a lack of linear organization... of someone guiding you from concept to concept, innovation to innovation, composer to composer in a logical manner.

[Lokasenna]

I don't think it's an unwholesome nationalistic sentiment on my part that most of the composers I think are missed out happen to be British. I think actually that Goulding might have a wee touch of prejudice against the British - Elgar and Britten very obviously belong high up on the list, and Vaughn Williams (the only Brit he puts on his list) should be much higher. As for Byrd, he should be on there because Goulding includes only one Renaissance composer, Palestrina, and quite high up on the list as well - arguably, Byrd was just as influential and talented.

As for Wagner, I think there is a modern tendency to play up this idea that he was a dreadful man, which isn't really fair. I mean, Beethoven was a horrendous person (probably far worse than Wagner in practice), but you hardly ever hear about it.

Ah, his three immortals. Well, I'm not keen on the way he totemises Bach. I'll admit that I have a difficult relationship with Bach, but even being as objective as I can be, I believe he is over-rated. At the very least, I place him down below Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner. Even in terms of the Baroque, I probably rate Handel higher!

To be fair, the book does have its uses - I just wouldn't lay much stress on Mr Goulding's opinions, that's all! :biggrin5:

[LitNetIsGreat]

For me there's nothing sublimer than listening to Bach. Yes Mozart's operas come close, but listening to Bach is still my ultimate divine musical experience.

[Emil Miller]

For me there's nothing sublimer than listening to Bach.

There is one thing more sublime Neely and thats playing Bach. I have spent a good part of the day practising the Air from his suite No.3; the one that used to be used in that advert for Hamlet cigars. Even in a stripped down version, there is amazing pleasure to be had from playing it. Another thing about Bach is that you can put in your own bits and pieces as an experiment and it still sounds like Bach, the ending is just so majestic it's impossible not to be moved by it.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Rores28,

What has been posted thus far provides a wealth of composers along with various forms of classical music to choose from, which is a great start, but in order to cement your appreciation for classical music, you must experience the music live.

I realize that ticket prices for a symphony performance can be costly, however, it is well worth it, this is assuming you have a symphony hall nearby. Perhaps you can narrow your selection down to a few "must hear" composers/ piece from the options above and experience the music. You are certain to find at least one of the options suggested cycling through a given symphony.

As for my limited knowledge of classical music, I can say that I have always held an appreciation for Antonin Dvořák, such as "Serenade for Strings".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH9YC5N0pZs&feature=related


Good luck.
Gilliatt

[weltanschauung]

" March Hare: Start at the beginning.
Mad Hatter: Yes, yes! And when you come to the end, hehehe, stop! See?"
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/shts/asjfsdf.jpg

[LitNetIsGreat]

There is one thing more sublime Neely and thats playing Bach. I have spent a good part of the day practising the Air from his suite No.3; the one that used to be used in that advert for Hamlet cigars. Even in a stripped down version, there is amazing pleasure to be had from playing it. Another thing about Bach is that you can put in your own bits and pieces as an experiment and it still sounds like Bach, the ending is just so majestic it's impossible not to be moved by it.

Ah, I imagine that must be wonderful. Not having any musical talent I can only guess at it. In the same sense of course Gilliat is correct you cannot beat a live performance. There is something magical about being in the presence of good, live music. I also think that there is something special about being around like-minded people. That and the wine. It is always good to have a glass or two and listen to music I feel.

I love the air suite No. 3. I agree, it is impossible not to be moved by it. It is not unbeknown for me to play that over and over again for about 2 hours - though that sort of behaviour is not uncommon by my standards. That's interesting though what you say about how Bach is particularly open and workable to experimentation.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think it's an unwholesome nationalistic sentiment on my part that most of the composers I think are missed out happen to be British. I think actually that Goulding might have a wee touch of prejudice against the British - Elgar and Britten very obviously belong high up on the list, and Vaughn Williams (the only Brit he puts on his list) should be much higher.

Now come on, Lokasenna, you don't think that suggesting that Elgar, Byrd, Britten, and Vaughan-Williams deserve to be much higher upon the list of the 50 greatest composers of all time comes off just a smidgen nationalistic. Let's look at the list:

1. J.S Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
8. Schumann
9. Handel
10. Tchaikovsky

I certainly can't see one in Goulding's top ten that I would quibble with let alone replace with Vaughan-Williams or Elgar. Personally I'd raise Schubert up to no. 5 and place Handel at 6, Haydn at 7, Brahms at 8, Schumann at 9, and Tchaikovsky at 10 (although I might honestly replace Tchaikovsky with Monteverdi.

11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Stravinsky
16. Verdi
17. Mahler
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovitch
20. Richard Strauss

Again I might make changes in the order... raising Verdi, Mahler, Strauss, and lowering Shostakovitch and Stravinsky... but again no glaring omissions or composer grossly over-rated. Again I can't see a single composer inferior to Elgar or Vaughan-William.

From no.s 20 on is where things get blurry and open to dispute.

21. Berlioz
22. Debussy
23. Puccini
24. Palestrina
25. Bruckner
26. Telemann
27. Saint-Saens
28. Sibelius
29. Ravel
30. Rossini
31. Grieg
32. Gluck
33. Hindemith
34. Monteverdi
35. Bartok
36. Cesar Frank
37. Vivaldi
38. Bizet
39. Mussorgsky
40. Rameau
41. Faure
42. Rimsky-Korsakov
43. Donizetti
44. Vaughan-Williams
45. Smetana
46. Johann Strauss
47. Karl Maria von Weber
48. Janacek
49. Couperin
50. Borodin

Honestly, Debussy, Monteverdi, Puccini, Ravel, Faure, and Bartok are all under-rated. There are a number of others I suspect are over-rated... based upon their reputations from earlier in the 20th century which have since waned. There are also a number of others I could recommend should be on the list: Bellini, Buxtehude, Biber, Scarlatti, Messiaen, Scriabin, Josquin des Prez, Hildegard of Bingen, Gesualdo, and in spite of my personal opinion, certainly Schoenberg. I might also include Britten myself... but hell, after the first twenty, there are literally hundred of composers that one might argue are deserving of recognition vying for the next 30 slots... which of course is why such lists are ultimately doomed to failure.

But this gets us no where. If you are serious, which composers on this list would you remove (and why) and replace with your beloved Byrd, Britten, or Elgar? Get specific and we can have a conversation.

As for Byrd, he should be on there because Goulding includes only one Renaissance composer, Palestrina, and quite high up on the list as well - arguably, Byrd was just as influential and talented.

Byrd was nowhere near as influential as Palestrina. You are forgetting that when it came to music, Italy was the center of the world even into the Baroque era while England was about as much of an insular hinterland as Spain... not to say that I don't love English Renaissance choral music... but before Byrd you must include Ockeghem, Dufay, Josquin des Prez, Orlando de Lassus, Carlo Gesualdo, and that other great English composer, John Taverner.

As for Wagner, I think there is a modern tendency to play up this idea that he was a dreadful man, which isn't really fair. I mean, Beethoven was a horrendous person (probably far worse than Wagner in practice), but you hardly ever hear about it.

Obviously, Wagner suffers from the fact that he did write anti-semitic essays railing against Jewish music and he had the bad luck to have these essays brought to a larger public through Hitler and the Nazis who at the same time, embraced his music for all the wrong reasons.

Ah, his three immortals. Well, I'm not keen on the way he totemises Bach. I'll admit that I have a difficult relationship with Bach, but even being as objective as I can be, I believe he is over-rated. At the very least, I place him down below Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner. Even in terms of the Baroque, I probably rate Handel higher!

There I fully disagree. No one comes near to Bach. The scale and breadth of his music is rivaled only by Mozart (who isn't even close) while he is far more continually brilliant than Mozart (or any other composer) in whatever genre he tackles. Beethoven and Wagner are greater innovators... while Bach takes existing forms to such a level as is rarely ever surpassed.

Handel, as I suggested above, is probably underrated... but then again, he has been underrated by almost everyone until the last few decades. prior to that time he was known largely for the Messiah, the Royal Fireworks Music, the Water Music, a few concerti grossi such as the "cuckoo" organ concerto, and highlights from a few other Oratorios (Solomon, Saul, and certainly Ombra mai fu). We now have discovered 42 operas, 29 oratorios, and 120 cantatas... much of which has only recently had its debut recordings.

[Lokasenna]

:biggrin5: I love you, you know that?

I wouldn't meddle with Goulding's top 20 too much either - though I still have my doubts about Bach. Dont get me wrong - I think he is one of the greatest composers there is - but he is simply not the best. And that perhaps could be the topic of a thread of its own.

As for the others I mentioned, I honestly believe that Elgar, Britten and Vaughn Williams should make the top 40, or even the back end of the top 30, and Byrd and Purcell deserve a place on the list, albeit at the back end.

And of course, in my first post on the subject, I also mentioned the lack of Rachmaninov. Goulding does at least reference that particular lapse, but has a rather bizarre moment in his biographical sketch of Telemann where he states that he doesn't actually enjoy Telemann, and tells the reader to replace him with Rachmaninov instead if they prefer - that struck me as very odd, at least?

[Drkshadow03]

I think I've been slow to warm to Brahms... or rather never developed a deep passion for his music... for the simple reason that he is probably strongest as a composer of chamber music, and I will freely admit to the fact that chamber music ranks low among my preferred musical forms. His lieder pale before Schubert and Schumann... and perhaps even Wolfe, Debussy, Faure, etc... His symphonies can be heavy-handed... even ponderous... although a recent muscular and stripped-down series by John Elliott Gardiner is leading to a reevaluation of these on my part:


You know, it's in large part that I enjoy his symphonies so much that I rank Brahms highly. The piano and violin concertos too.

[stlukesguild]

I love you, you know that?:D

Now you're not another one of those who thinks I'm a girl now are you?:shocked::lol:

I wouldn't meddle with Goulding's top 20 too much either - though I still have my doubts about Bach.

You just need to listen to more. I prescribe a healthy dose of the Well Tempered Clavier, followed by the Cello Suites and a few choice cantatas.

As for the others I mentioned, I honestly believe that Elgar, Britten and Vaughn Williams should make the top 40, or even the back end of the top 30, and Byrd and Purcell deserve a place on the list, albeit at the back end.

As much as I like Elgar, Vaughan-Williams, Purcell, Byrd, and even Delius, I simply think that I could come up with better choices to fill the next 20 positions.

And of course, in my first post on the subject, I also mentioned the lack of Rachmaninov. Goulding does at least reference that particular lapse, but has a rather bizarre moment in his biographical sketch of Telemann where he states that he doesn't actually enjoy Telemann, and tells the reader to replace him with Rachmaninov instead if they prefer - that struck me as very odd, at least?

I think Goulding recognized that ultimately any such list was an exercise in futility... and that no matter how objective one tries to be, the choices are still but opinions based upon personal likes and dislikes. Goulding admits that he far prefers Rachmaninoff and Copland to Telemann... and suggests that he would question anyone else who didn't feel the same. Personally, I question why he places Telemann so high. While I quite like some of his work, I find much of it... as has been said of Vivaldi... all sounds the same. I understand Telemann's status during his lifetime... but Hasse may have been as popular or moreso and there is no mention made of him. Biber, Lully, both of the Scarlatti's, Buxtehude, etc... would have been better choices for further Baroque composers beyond Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi.

Gluck is also an interesting case in point. Goulding places him as high as he does because of his impact upon opera... but suggests he is little performed or recorded today. This has surely changes over the last 20+ years. Any number of Gluck's operas have been afforded major productions and recordings to the extent that he is now recognized as perhaps THE greatest opera composer of the "classical" era after Mozart. Rachmaninoff, as I have have suggested elsewhere, is a composer (not unlike Puccini) whose reputation has survived a lengthy period during which many "serious" music people dismissed him as lightweight and populist. In part, this is due to the fact that with time certain aspects of Modernism (such as atonalism and serialism) seem less and less important and relevant.

Debussy, I would suggest, is another grossly underrated composer. For years he was seen along with Ravel as the exemplar Impressionist... but Impressionism was imagined as a rather small movement within music... having little subsequent impact. In reality, it is Debussy who probably took the ideas involving stretching the possibilities of tonality rooted in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde further than anyone prior to Schoenberg. His shimmering soundscape drew upon Wagner, Russian music, and even Asian music creating a music that blurred tonality and atonality and wandered across the keys. Almost the whole of French music following is indebted to him, as is the music of Delius, some Spanish composers, and even later figures such as Messiaen, Takemitsu, John Cage, Ligeti, Tristan Murail, Gérard Grisey, Julian Anderson, Kaija Saariaho, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Jonathan Harvey and other contemporary composers.

[faithosaurus]

I don't think it's an unwholesome nationalistic sentiment on my part that most of the composers I think are missed out happen to be British. I think actually that Goulding might have a wee touch of prejudice against the British - Elgar and Britten very obviously belong high up on the list, and Vaughn Williams (the only Brit he puts on his list) should be much higher.

Now come on, Lokasenna, you don't think that suggesting that Elgar, Byrd, Britten, and Vaughan-Williams deserve to be much higher upon the list of the 50 greatest composers of all time comes off just a smidgen nationalistic. Let's look at the list:

1. J.S Bach
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Wagner
5. Haydn
6. Brahms
7. Schubert
8. Schumann
9. Handel
10. Tchaikovsky

I certainly can't see one in Goulding's top ten that I would quibble with let alone replace with Vaughan-Williams or Elgar. Personally I'd raise Schubert up to no. 5 and place Handel at 6, Haydn at 7, Brahms at 8, Schumann at 9, and Tchaikovsky at 10 (although I might honestly replace Tchaikovsky with Monteverdi.

11. Mendelssohn
12. Dvorak
13. Liszt
14. Chopin
15. Stravinsky
16. Verdi
17. Mahler
18. Prokofiev
19. Shostakovitch
20. Richard Strauss

Again I might make changes in the order... raising Verdi, Mahler, Strauss, and lowering Shostakovitch and Stravinsky... but again no glaring omissions or composer grossly over-rated. Again I can't see a single composer inferior to Elgar or Vaughan-William.

From no.s 20 on is where things get blurry and open to dispute.

21. Berlioz
22. Debussy
23. Puccini
24. Palestrina
25. Bruckner
26. Telemann
27. Saint-Saens
28. Sibelius
29. Ravel
30. Rossini
31. Grieg
32. Gluck
33. Hindemith
34. Monteverdi
35. Bartok
36. Cesar Frank
37. Vivaldi
38. Bizet
39. Mussorgsky
40. Rameau
41. Faure
42. Rimsky-Korsakov
43. Donizetti
44. Vaughan-Williams
45. Smetana
46. Johann Strauss
47. Karl Maria von Weber
48. Janacek
49. Couperin
50. Borodin

Honestly, Debussy, Monteverdi, Puccini, Ravel, Faure, and Bartok are all under-rated. There are a number of others I suspect are over-rated... based upon their reputations from earlier in the 20th century which have since waned. There are also a number of others I could recommend should be on the list: Bellini, Buxtehude, Biber, Scarlatti, Messiaen, Scriabin, Josquin des Prez, Hildegard of Bingen, Gesualdo, and in spite of my personal opinion, certainly Schoenberg. I might also include Britten myself... but hell, after the first twenty, there are literally hundred of composers that one might argue are deserving of recognition vying for the next 30 slots... which of course is why such lists are ultimately doomed to failure.

But this gets us no where. If you are serious, which composers on this list would you remove (and why) and replace with your beloved Byrd, Britten, or Elgar? Get specific and we can have a conversation.

As for Byrd, he should be on there because Goulding includes only one Renaissance composer, Palestrina, and quite high up on the list as well - arguably, Byrd was just as influential and talented.

Byrd was nowhere near as influential as Palestrina. You are forgetting that when it came to music, Italy was the center of the world even into the Baroque era while England was about as much of an insular hinterland as Spain... not to say that I don't love English Renaissance choral music... but before Byrd you must include Ockeghem, Dufay, Josquin des Prez, Orlando de Lassus, Carlo Gesualdo, and that other great English composer, John Taverner.

As for Wagner, I think there is a modern tendency to play up this idea that he was a dreadful man, which isn't really fair. I mean, Beethoven was a horrendous person (probably far worse than Wagner in practice), but you hardly ever hear about it.

Obviously, Wagner suffers from the fact that he did write anti-semitic essays railing against Jewish music and he had the bad luck to have these essays brought to a larger public through Hitler and the Nazis who at the same time, embraced his music for all the wrong reasons.

Ah, his three immortals. Well, I'm not keen on the way he totemises Bach. I'll admit that I have a difficult relationship with Bach, but even being as objective as I can be, I believe he is over-rated. At the very least, I place him down below Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner. Even in terms of the Baroque, I probably rate Handel higher!

There I fully disagree. No one comes near to Bach. The scale and breadth of his music is rivaled only by Mozart (who isn't even close) while he is far more continually brilliant than Mozart (or any other composer) in whatever genre he tackles. Beethoven and Wagner are greater innovators... while Bach takes existing forms to such a level as is rarely ever surpassed.

Handel, as I suggested above, is probably underrated... but then again, he has been underrated by almost everyone until the last few decades. prior to that time he was known largely for the Messiah, the Royal Fireworks Music, the Water Music, a few concerti grossi such as the "cuckoo" organ concerto, and highlights from a few other Oratorios (Solomon, Saul, and certainly Ombra mai fu). We now have discovered 42 operas, 29 oratorios, and 120 cantatas... much of which has only recently had its debut recordings.

I can agree with this :) Except I would put Mozart first, then Bach (though it's a very close draw).

My favorites are usually the piano pieces.

[Cunninglinguist]

One can easily argue that the artistic merits of Bach's work are surpassed by Mozart. Bach is so popular because he is such a convenient place to start teaching students piano and music history, and furthermore because he was so influential and innovative he is held as the "best." But it is important to bear in mind that this conception of best is not a measure of artistic merit alone. But, as with all art, if you're going to measure by artistic merit alone, it's all subjective and relative; any attempt to make a list of the "best" would merely be a list of one's favorites and therefore be utterly stupid to impose on anyone else.

On artistic merits alone I agree with Lokasenna that Bach is overrated simply in virtue of the fact that philistines infer that his importance in music history therefore means that his compositions and music was better or more beautiful than everyone else's. This is simply not true, especially if you were to only listen to historically informed music.


I have a little bit of vivaldi's four seasons on my computer that I like. And I enjoy Pachel's Canon in D...

Everybody enjoys Pachelbel's Canon.....unless they're a musician, in which case you're obligated to hate it, along with a few other choice compositions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

"they're all named Johann...I'll see you in hell, Pachelbel!"


Ah, I imagine that must be wonderful. Not having any musical talent I can only guess at it. In the same sense of course Gilliat is correct you cannot beat a live performance. There is something magical about being in the presence of good, live music. I also think that there is something special about being around like-minded people. That and the wine. It is always good to have a glass or two and listen to music I feel.

There are certain things you get in a concert that you cannot get in a recording and certain things in a recording that you cannot get in a concert. Glenn Gould would have his studio sometimes record him playing the same piece over and over again for the entire day until he got it perfect, and if he didn't he would do it over again the next day. You usually cannot get this kind of quality in a concert. That said, however, most musicians don't put in as much effort as Gould did and prefer playing in concert because, I have been told, that recordings last forever. In the case of Gould he preferred the opposite.

I concur on the alcohol:yesnod: but, sadly, I'm still underage


I wouldn't meddle with Goulding's top 20 too much either - though I still have my doubts about Bach.

You just need to listen to more. I prescribe a healthy dose of the Well Tempered Clavier, followed by the Cello Suites and a few choice cantatas.

Insofar as loveliness goes, the WTC are not Bach's best works, in my opinion. After a while all the fugues mesh together and sound quite the same. They are so disproportionately popular compared with some of his other stuff because the preludes (at least) and the fugues are relatively easy to learn. But they are really incomparable to some of his organ work between BWVs 531 and 582 (my favorite being the fugue from 542*) among other compositions*. I say this from punctiliously listening to all the organ pieces between BWV 531 and 582, listening to both books of the WTC and playing a few of the preludes and fugues from it.

Speaking of those other choice compositions musicians are obligated to hate Prelude from Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 is arguably one of them.

*BWV 542 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6clTa8_QYQE
To name a few:
BWV 906 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT3mVs2_EWs
BWV 903 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGO0wbRdI4Y "Bach for people who do not like Bach"
826 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tVwtfCvOsk
1001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spUT-2tU2Yk

[yanni]

The term "classical music" did not appear until the early 19th century, in an attempt to "canonize" the period from Johann Sebastian Bach to Beethoven as a golden age.[6] The earliest reference to "classical music" recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is from about 1836.[1][7]

Wikipedia

[Varenne Rodin]

" March Hare: Start at the beginning.
Mad Hatter: Yes, yes! And when you come to the end, hehehe, stop! See?"
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/shts/asjfsdf.jpg

Ahahaha. Ha. :D

[Lokasenna]

The term "classical music" did not appear until the early 19th century, in an attempt to "canonize" the period from Johann Sebastian Bach to Beethoven as a golden age.[6] The earliest reference to "classical music" recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is from about 1836.[1][7]

Wikipedia

Well, people who listen to 'Classical' music are already aware that it is divided up into several very different styles, which are in order: Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Twentieth Century. So although 'Classical' is the label given to the whole genre, it is not in fact particularly accurate. As for it being a class issue, I really don't think so - I know plenty of working class people who listen to Classical Music for pleasure, and I know plenty of upper class people who think that great music begins and ends with Lady GaGa.

[yanni]

The 19th century brought about, with the help of "Bach" and family, a new european "class" system (putting science, arts and letters, including banking, above landlords) and this became "official" after Napoleon's fall.


So although 'Classical' is the label given to the whole genre, it is not in fact particularly accurate.

[stlukesguild]

One can easily argue that the artistic merits of Bach's work are surpassed by Mozart.

Is that so? Let me see you try to make a case for Mozart as the superior composer... and bear in mind that I ranked him at no. 2. But let us look at Mozart's unquestioned masterpieces.

Mozart composed a huge body of music, but over a full half of it may be dismissed as juvenile and mediocre at best. Of his symphonies only Nos. 25, 29, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 are considered the essential works and except for no. 41 with the brilliant contrapuntal finale (inspired by Bach) none of his symphonies rival the best of Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, etc... and one might point out that even Haydn's last symphonies (The London Symphonies) may be a greater achievement in the symphonic form.

Mozart's violin concertos (5 in number) are largely early to middle period compositions and while they have their moments they certainly don't rank among the greatest violin concertos ever. Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Brahms, etc... all achieved something far greater within the form.

Most music critics have acknowledged that Haydn was better than Mozart when it came to the piano sonata for the simple reason that Mozart's sonatas were largely written for students, while Haydn's were written for his own performance. They absolutely pale before Beethoven's and Schubert's achievements in the genre... to say nothing of Schumann's and Chopin's works for solo piano.

When it comes to the string quartet, again Haydn is the greater... if only as a result of his position as the very inventor of the form (but they are far more than historical curiosities). Mozart acknowledged Haydn's achievements himself in the 6 quartets he dedicated to Haydn. These quartets (14-19) plus the final four account for Mozart's essential achievements in the form. Again, Mozart breaks some new ground, but it is Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Shostakovitch, Bartok and others that one thinks of when speaking of great string quartets, not Mozart.

Turning toward the piano concertos, we begin to uncover the real genius of Mozart. His piano concerto no. 9 may be one of his earliest masterpieces and pretty much everything from no. 14 through no. 27 are masterful. While Mozart was never a virtuoso on the level of Beethoven (and true "classical" music rejected such virtuosity) he achieved far more within the genre than Beethoven (who abandoned it early due to his hearing loss), Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, or any other major composer.

There are a good number of other major works. Mozart was especially marvelous when composing for wind instruments and masterpieces in the form include the clarinet quintet, the clarinet concerto, the concertos for flute and flute and harp, the Serenade for 13 Wind Instruments ("Gran Partita"), the Serenade no. 13 for strings (Eine KLeine Nachtmusic) and various other serenades and divertimenti.

Most important in Mozart's oeuvre, however... even more so than his achievements with the piano concerto... is his vocal music. Mozart's major choral works include the Coronation Mass, the Great Mass in C-minor, the Requiem (unfinished), several earlier masses, and smaller works such as the Exultate, jubilate. These largely leave one wishing that he had spent more time composing for the church as opposed to light entertainments for the aristocracy. Mozart must also be credited for a small body of lovely songs, including the great "concert arias".

This brings us to the pinnacle of Mozart's achievement: opera. Much ado is mafe of Mozart's "great four" operas, but in all reality he has 7 operas that are as good or better than anything else composed during his time: Idomeneo, re di Creta, Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Le nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni, Così fan tutte, La clemenza di Tito, and Die Zauberflöte. Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi..., and Die Zauberflöte are all generally counted in classical and operatic circle as towering achievements... among the greatest operas ever composed. The three da Ponte operas (Figaro, Cosi... and Don Giovanni) brought an unheard-of attention to real human drama to opera. The Magic Flute broke ground toward the German tradition of opera... the comic opera... and the opera composed for a middle-class audience rather than an aristocracy.

All of these achievements are quite formidable it must be admitted. But now lets look at Bach.

J. S. Bach was a master of the keyboard. His compositions for the organ alone amount to some 12 or more discs of music. Reducing this to the absolute essential work one is still left with some 4 or 5 discs of music including such towering works as the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, Prelude and Fugue in D major, Toccata and Fugue in D minor "Dorian", and the Passacaglia in C minor. Where some composers such as Beethoven are great innovators, others like Bach are unrivaled masters within a received tradition. Bach regularly takes a given art form to such heights as to remain unsurpassed. Such is true of Bach's organ works. One cannot think of a single rival to Bach upon this great instrument.

Of course Bach composed a wealth of keyboard works written almost certainly for the harpsichord, but playable upon that instrument, as well as the clavichord, the piano forte, the piano, the organ, etc... Among Bach's great keyboard works one must include the Well-Tempered Clavier, the Goldberg Variations, the Art of Fugue, the 6 partitas, the French and English Suites, etc... The Art of Fugue, Well Tempered Clavier, and Goldberg Variations have been recorded an endless number of times by many of the greatest pianists of all time. They are considered unrivaled within the genre of Baroque keyboard music and examples of musical counterpoint. The works have had a profound impact upon composers ranging from Mozart and Beethoven through Chopin, Debussy, Schoenberg, Shostakovitch, Ligeti, Stockhausen and Glass. (Philistines, perhaps?)

Bach's orchestral compositions include his violin and keyboard concertos, his orchestral suites, his flute concertos, and his Brandenburg concertos. Here one is left wishing Bach had composed more within this realm. His Brandenburg Concertos are the ultimate achievement within the genre of concerti grossi and begin to push toward the concept of the keyboard concertos... which will eventually lead to Mozart's and Beethoven's piano concertos. One might argue that none of these rival Mozart's achievements with the concerto or symphonic form, but there is still a marvelous wealth of innovation and beautiful music rarely rivaled by any composer.

Here we might move on to the sonatas and suites for solo instruments (or solo instruments and continuo). The sonatas for solo violin were a favored form of the Baroque. Tartini, Biber, and numerous other composers achieved some of their most spectacular works in this genre. Bach's works for solo violin are again unrivaled... at once spectacular show pieces and powerfully expressive works of music. The same is true of his sonatas for violin and continuo and his cello suites. Few composers after Bach even attempted the sonata for solo violin or compositions for solo cello out of fear of comparison.

All of this music amounts to but a small percentage of Bach's oeuvre. Like Mozart, it is in his vocal compositions that Bach attains his greatest genius. Bach composed at least four "passions"... long oratorios setting the texts of Christ's final hours according to the Biblical texts. Only two of these passions have survived, The St. John Passion and the St. Matthew Passion. The latter is commonly refereed to as the single greatest work of music ever. While any such judgment must be taken with a grain of salt, one certainly must acknowledge that these works have had a continued impact upon choral compositions... from Mendelssohn to Elgar to Britten to Brahms to Martin, and beyond.

Beyond the 2 great passions, Bach also composed the joyful Magnificat and Christmas Oratorio, and the Mass in B-minor. While Mozart's Requiem and his Great Mass in C-minor are brilliant, they are not unrivaled. Verdi's and Faure's Requiem, Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and Mass in C, Haydn's Creation, and Handel's Messiah are all worthy rivals. Yet Bach can provide 4 immediate rivals in the above named choral masterworks... and this completely ignores the greatest achievement in the whole of Bach's oeuvre: his cantatas.

Bach wrote at least a known 256 cantatas, 224 of which are still in existence, and there may have been at least 100 more lost over time. The cantatas of Bach are generally small oratorios built upon Biblical texts and related hymns. They range in scale from 15-20 minute compositions for solo voice with chorus of 4 singers accompanied by organ, a few strings, and perhaps an oboe to huge works employing multiple soloists, a full choir, full orchestra, and instrumental soloists. Bach's cantatas are recognized within the music world as an achievement equal in breadth and scale to Michelangelo's Sistine or Shakespeare's plays. While there are surely passages that are less inspired, the cantata as a whole are astoundingly consistent in quality with endless passages of sheer brilliance. In spite of the speed at which Bach was expected to compose, the works exhibit an incredible range of moods and "colors" and variety of instrumental and vocal composition. The whole of Bach's cantatas alone numbers in the realm of 60 CDs. These alone dwarf the achievements of most composers and make an argument for Mozart's artistic superiority far from "easy".

Bach is so popular because he is such a convenient place to start teaching students piano and music history, and furthermore because he was so influential and innovative he is held as the "best."

Bach is far from an easy starting point for teaching piano. This is especially true when one recognizes the fact that the Baroque keyboard (Harpsichord, etc...) has a very different layout from the modern piano making somethings far more challenging. Music history starts well before Bach, although he was something of the starting point for "classical music" early last century. Bach is not without innovations... but his real achievements involve taking existing forms to an unheard of and unsurpassed level. The work is held to be "great" not because it was the first, but because it has remained beloved by generations of music lovers and recognized for its brilliance by generations of musicians and composers.

On artistic merits alone I agree with Lokasenna that Bach is overrated simply in virtue of the fact that philistines infer that his importance in music history therefore means that his compositions and music was better or more beautiful than everyone else's.

This makes little sense, considering the fact that the "Philistines" are far more likely to gravitate toward Mozart, Chopin, Beethovens, and Vivaldi's Four Seasons than to Bach. The Well Tempered Clavier, The Art of Fugue and the Saint Matthew Passion are not generally favorites of recent initiates to classical music.

This is simply not true, especially if you were to only listen to historically informed music.

Certainly any number of other composers have composed music that is as "beautiful" as anything by Bach. What makes Bach such a towering figure is the same thing that makes Shakespeare such a giant: he was able to compose such music on an unheard of scale... again and again and again.

Insofar as loveliness goes, the WTC are not Bach's best works, in my opinion.

Of course your opinion would seem to be at odds with a great many musicians, composers, and classical music lovers.

[OrphanPip]

Well, people who listen to 'Classical' music are already aware that it is divided up into several very different styles, which are in order: Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Twentieth Century. So although 'Classical' is the label given to the whole genre, it is not in fact particularly accurate. As for it being a class issue, I really don't think so - I know plenty of working class people who listen to Classical Music for pleasure, and I know plenty of upper class people who think that great music begins and ends with Lady GaGa.

And then you have to consider that those broader classifications can be further subdivided, with different forms having very different conventions. Of course, when you get to the 20th century there is an explosion of different movements, just like modernism in the visual arts and literature. Debussy and Webern are both 20th century, but French Impressionism is very different from the expressionist Second Viennese School.

I also don't get the class thing either. Although, it is true that the 18th and 19th century were the beginning of music becoming accessible to the bourgeoisie instead of exclusively the aristocracy.

[stlukesguild]

I think initially there was a connection between classical music and class... as there was with most of the fine arts. This was simply an issue of who could afford the patronage of "classical music" whether in the form of having a composer on staff as with Haydn at the Esterhazy court, commissioning serenades for a gathering of one's aristocratic friends... or purchasing seats in the theater. Opera, surprisingly, was one of the classical genres to first break away from the control of the courts in the same manner as the theater of Shakespeare's day. Various producers and impresarios began to stage concerts that were open to anyone who could afford the ticket price. Handel, for example, was quite the impresario, engaging in competition with other theaters and composers he employed leading singers, and eventually turned away from opera proper toward the English-language oratorio with plenty of rousing choruses as a means of supplying the audience demand.

I have read on more than one occasion how earlier classical concerts were quite unlike today's affairs. The audience came and went, often talking, drinking, eating. More like the summer concerts we have here in which the orchestra plays and the evening often ends with fireworks, while families gather with picnic lunches on the hillsides. When the audience for "classical music" became more "egalitarian"... during the Romantic era... there was a shift toward a more hushed and reverent approach to the music... which now, ironically, has evolved into a sort of set collection of proper etiquette which in some ways is responsible for the notion held by many that "classical music" is not for them... that it is too "snooty".

Watching a performance such as Anna Netrebko's at the Proms one recognizes that classical music in no way need to be seen as something stiff... reserved... and inaccessible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_kaOYC_Fww

[Patrick_Bateman]

One can easily argue that the artistic merits of Bach's work are surpassed by Mozart.

Is that so? Let me see you try to make a case for Mozart as the superior composer... and bear in mind that I ranked him at no. 2.

Wow! just wow

Every post I read from you suggests acute megalomania

[stlukesguild]

One can easily argue that the artistic merits of Bach's work are surpassed by Mozart.

Is that so? Let me see you try to make a case for Mozart as the superior composer... and bear in mind that I ranked him at no. 2.

Wow! just wow

Every post I read from you suggests acute megalomania

OK... let me see. I'm a megalomaniac because I differ in opinion with another poster who has suggested that Mozart is the greatest composer of all time while I place him second only to J.S. Bach. or perhaps because I offer up reasoning behind my opinions based upon some experience?

I mistakenly thought that the purpose of this site was to engage in a dialog... about literature, music, art... and other things... and that such a dialog entails something more than just cheer-leading ("I think Mozart's the best" "Gee! Me too!). It may even involve disagreements and debates which imply offering rationale and the reasoning behind one's opinions...

Or one can simply stoop to name-calling.

:wave:

[arrytus]

Schubert. Give me Schubert. I must own 5 dozen cds and cassettes and records of his works, possibly more and more than likely actually more than that.

Next is Verdi.

And finally I love Segovia.

You can find some of my favorite songs- at least ones which were available on youtube with decent performances [which means there are ones i like better that aren't online] here:
[1]

http://www.thepokerfox.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=4365

[2]

http://www.thepokerfox.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=4438