Classical Music - Definitive Editions?

MangoMonkey posted:

Perfect! That's e exactly what I needed.

in the meantime, I also have a couple of sampler  CDs by Helene Grimaud on order.. 

(Perspectives by Helene...)

That will suffer a bit from the thing that Periquozi flagged, that it's got movements from multiple pieces rather than the whole pieces. Having said that, there are some wonderful bits of music there, and I think you'll really enjoy it, it looks a nice intro to classical piano music, although I would suggest then moving on to the whole pieces.

The two Bach Prelude and Fugues (labelled as BWV 847 and BWV 875) are from his masterful Well Tempered Clavier, and will stand up well on their own without the other 44 movements. It then has the whole of Bartok's Romanian Folk Dances, 6 short movements, which is a lovely setting of 6 traditional folk dances, it runs to about 5-10 minutes from memory. That's followed by the first  movement from one of the late great Beethoven Piano Sonatas (Op. 101), I think it's quite reasonable to believe (and I do) that in his late piano sonatas and string quartets that Beethoven took music to a level of sophistication and self-revelation that has never been surpassed. But it isn't as pompous or pretentious as I make it sound, this is a lovely warm piece of music. I can also spot a Debussy piece and a Liszt piece, each a movement from a collection of preludes. Again lovely  music. The other pieces I'm not helped to identify by Amazon's track listing, they've just taken the movement name, Allegro doesn't really narrow it down.

Grimaud is a pianist who divides opinion, she's very expressive, critics say that she puts her interpretation above the notes the composer write, fans say that she gives great interpretations. I've seen her live a few times and she is a great musical communicator, I wouldn't worry about the purist position, just enjoy the music.

 

Eoink posted:

I took the original question to be MM asking for music to introduce him to classical music, while being able to keep the attention of a 6 year old, and answered that way.

 

I took it the same way. To your suggestions:

 

Eoink: Romantic period is a good way in, Schubert ....

In addition to the other interpretations you recommend, I'd also add the Takacs quartet. Both for Schubert and for Beethoven. 

Eoink: For orchestral works Beethoven's best known symphonies, the 6th as a started, then the 9th and 5th, plus a plug for my personal favourite the 7th.

My favorite as well. Particularly Mariss Jansons directing the Bavarian Radio Orchestra in Tokyo.

Eoink: I'd also suggest trying Bach's Goldberg Variations

Glen Gould is polarizing, but I think masterful playing them.

I would add the Beethoven violin sonatas. Particularly Spring and Kreutzer. Accessible and beautiful.

 

 

perizoqui posted:

Ah, answering which work is good is easier than answering why.

p.s. If you like the Requiem, Marriner is very nice, there's also a new recording out on Linn records from the Dunedin Consort with John Butt directing. Very good, highly recommended.

So you did not answer my question.

Butt/Dunedin's Requiem isn't new. It's been out for a couple of years albeit newer than the Marriner recording.

Whilst it will not be mistaken for an analogue recording, It sounds terrific ( i have it in vinyl )  It's done in HIP style, so It does not have the usual gravitas but what ends up is a tremendous intensity created by human voice. Vocals and the orchestra are working extremely close together keeping a fast timing, right up there with Gardiner set which is another fave of mine. The problem is for me tho, that  the Lacrimosa does not have much of lucidity nor feeling of sorrow.  It is handled rather straight. guess that's part of HIP thing with less romanticism. It usually provides a contrast to the heavy bits.  Soprano (  Joanne Lunn ) is quite lovely, hovering like an angel with bell like tones with no sign of strain.

If I have to pick between Marriner and Butt, I think I'll  pick the former. They are both good but Marriner set has the most haunting but majestic reading and the timing seems just right for me. 

You might prefer the other way around or some other readings all together.

The OP requested *definitive* classical. Mozart's Requiem should be one of the definitive for the genre.

Save

Some possible intros for MM (which won't irritate his 6yo)

Arvo Part - Spiegel Im Spiegel

Allegri's Miserere (Latin version preferable - look for The Tallis Scholars version)

Anything by Philip Glass (try Complete String Quartets by The Smith Quartet)

Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos 1-4 (especially no 2) - so many versions it's hard, but I have the LSO/Ashkenazy on Decca

Also MM I really enjoyed a book called "The Rest Is Noise" by Alex Ross - it's about modern classical composers and is, in my view, exceptional. It has great recommended listening lists and a there's a good website. Got me into loads of stuff which I couldn't now live without.

Picking up on EOINK's very helpful advice I think the way into classical music is through the "choon". That's the easiest way in my view. Which brings in composers like Tchaikovsky, Puccini, Rachmaninov and many more. Try to meet them half way and because its "Chamber Music" don't be put off by that title. Schubert wrote some of his best works in this medium, including a vast number of songs. There is also the elitist view held by a lot of people, that its not for people like us!

I am currently playing an LP of "South Pacific", Te Kanawa/Carreras, on a heavily modified LP12 with a Stiletto plinth, brilliant. Those guys, Rogers and Hammerstein just knew how to write a tune. Mind you, some of the best bits are the silences between the notes. Think of Gustav Mahler symphonies.

Douglas.

kuma posted:

So you did not answer my question.

 

Save

No. I can't answer it! Spent the whole day yesterday thinking about it. I could say that good music rewards repeated listening with greater enjoyment, but that's unsatisfactory. It's true that after a few listens modern music gets old, whereas the more I listen to Beethoven's string quartets the more I enjoy them. But that's not the answer, or at least not the whole answer. It's an emotional pull, but more than that. I read a study somewhere claiming people think better with classical music than with no music, and worst of all with modern music. But that still feels incomplete. Some philosopher somewhere must have tackled why Beethoven is better than Tchaikovsky, and both are leagues better than Eminem.

Why is my Naim 300 better than an NAD C275 power amp? It's not THD, or any other spec. NAD has twice the power... But my Naim is better, much. 

We talk a lot about musicality here. Beginning and end of notes. Taken literally there's a lot of BS in that, but it isn't BS because it's just a clumsy attempt to put in words what we feel when we listen.

Answering what makes a work good or bad is even harder.

But Beethoven's quartets are better than anything written in the last 100 years 

perizoqui posted:
 But that still feels incomplete. Some philosopher somewhere must have tackled why Beethoven is better than Tchaikovsky, and both are leagues better than Eminem.

But Beethoven's quartets are better than anything written in the last 100 years 

I am not a fan of a top 40 nor Eminen, but Music is art.

Artists' objective is to communicate with human souls. If someone is moved by the music of Eminen then, that's good music for them. And if Beethoven's music does not penetrate a soul, then that's not good music for them.

I am not completely convinced you can put a hierarchy in music. We have a tendency to put classical music at the top of the food chain. I think Bach and Beethoven is no better than the Beatles or Dylan.

In my household Handel sits comfortably right next to Hancock and Sir Roland Hanna  on my record shelf.

In case no one has mentioned it, Benjamin Britton's 'Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra' is the way to give anyone an introduction to instruments and music. 

We had a piano and so it was natural that both our children would experiment with musical instruments. My daughter by the age of 4 was playing tunes by ear thanks to the help my wife gave her. I would warn against leaving the piano keyboard open as they both enjoyed bashing the veneered keys with their bricks! At 18 months my son's eldest could do a respectable turn on his drum kit (3 drums and cymbals). He also has an electronic keyboard and is showing interest in playing tunes. We also have a grownup keyboard and they make a bee line for it when they visit. A nursery that includes music is a good thing.

I think I mentioned some days ago at the beginning that playing classical music in the background calms children and aids their concentration. Others have made similar observations. I would never force them to just listen unless they wanted to. They will take it in just as my 2 year old grandson is taking in Spanish and English and is now able to have a simple conversation in both languages. He understood the languages some while ago. His mother speaks to him in Spanish and my son in English (although he is fluent in both plus reading and writing). 

Phil 

kuma posted:
perizoqui posted:
 But that still feels incomplete. Some philosopher somewhere must have tackled why Beethoven is better than Tchaikovsky, and both are leagues better than Eminem.

But Beethoven's quartets are better than anything written in the last 100 years 

I am not a fan of a top 40 nor Eminen, but Music is art.

Artists' objective is to communicate with human souls. If someone is moved by the music of Eminen then, that's good music for them. And if Beethoven's music does not penetrate a soul, then that's not good music for them.

I am not completely convinced you can put a hierarchy in music. We have a tendency to put classical music at the top of the food chain. I think Bach and Beethoven is no better than the Beatles or Dylan.

In my household Handel sits comfortably right next to Hancock and Sir Roland Hanna  on my record shelf.

Do you really think that?
I would have thought that most people would agree that the music of Parsifal is of a higher quality than that of Rienzi or that Verdi’s Otello and Falstaff contain better music than Ernani, good though it is.
So if there is a hierarchy within a composers works, why not between composers?

perizoqui posted:
notnaim man posted:

Surely all music is "good stuff", which is good for any individual depends on their taste.

 

Nonsense. That's like saying all books are good, all movies entertaining, and all architecture beautiful. Not only is all music not "good," the vast majority of it is garbage. That, among other reasons, is why almost all of it is forgotten with time. Taylor Swift isn't good stuff, nor were the Bee Gees, or the vast majority of what folks play at audio shows for that matter. We can disagreee on what the good stuff is, but you can't tell me it's all good! Moral and aesthetic relativism make me twitchy ��

Really?

Should that not be "not all music is to my taste"?

At a recent family event the restaurant provided a sound system, you had to plug your phone in and stream.

The lady whose birthday was being celebrated asked for Queen. Two people got up and left the room, these people being quite happy to spend £100 a ticket to see Brian Wilson attempt to recreate thd heyday of the Beach Boys. The children aged 6 to 13 were not happy, so after a while we changed to Little Mix, those half dozen children put down their tablets and phones, got up danced and sang along. That music was definitely not to my taste, but in that context it was good. I hope that as they grow older, those children will expand their horizons and enjoy other music.

I was posting in the spirit of what I read as the OP's question, music that might interest a six year old.

And without checking all replies, remembering Saturday mornings, the Light Programme and Uncle Mac, how about The Planets?

notnaim man posted:

Should that not be "not all music is to my taste"?

 

I don't think so. I mean, you're right, all music is definitely not to my taste. The same can be said for all books, buildings, paintings, sculptures, etc... But there's a difference between saying something is not to my taste and saying something is not good. I recognize the quality, innovation, and depth behind Picasso, but his paintings have just never been to my taste. I love and much prefer Turner, but I recognize that he lacked the breadth, originality, and impact of Picasso. It can be hard to separate what is good from what I like, but it can be done and I think it's an important distinction. 

In music I love Guns 'n Roses, because it was the music of my adolescence. But I know it's got very little in the way of artistic merit and that's okay. The other day I was listening to Dianna Krall (at my wife's request!) and I could feel my soul draining out of me I mean, she has a beautiful voice, and she's always so well recorded from a technical point, but her work is to music what Tofu is to food. Then we switched (I couldn't take it anymore) to Billy Holiday. Just as good a singer, not so well recorded, but the emotion! The pathos! "Southern trees bearing strange fruit..." An artist who actually has something new to say. So Billy Holiday, on the artistic merits, is better than Diana Krall, regardless of who any of us likes better. The Beatles, on the artistic merits, are better than Guns 'n Roses, even though I like GNR much better than that boy band from the sixties. Because of their impact, because they broke new ground, because they changed and advanced the genre.

My point isn't that I know what best is, rather that there is a best. Understanding what that is and possibly why, is a journey worth going on. To the extent that art represents something higher in its creator, and elicits something higher in those of us who bear witness, it is a link to metaphysical truth. Whatever that may be, it is, and knowing it is hugely important.

Morton posted:
kuma posted:
perizoqui posted:
 But that still feels incomplete. Some philosopher somewhere must have tackled why Beethoven is better than Tchaikovsky, and both are leagues better than Eminem.

But Beethoven's quartets are better than anything written in the last 100 years 

I am not a fan of a top 40 nor Eminen, but Music is art.

Artists' objective is to communicate with human souls. If someone is moved by the music of Eminen then, that's good music for them. And if Beethoven's music does not penetrate a soul, then that's not good music for them.

I am not completely convinced you can put a hierarchy in music. We have a tendency to put classical music at the top of the food chain. I think Bach and Beethoven is no better than the Beatles or Dylan.

In my household Handel sits comfortably right next to Hancock and Sir Roland Hanna  on my record shelf.

Do you really think that?
I would have thought that most people would agree that the music of Parsifal is of a higher quality than that of Rienzi or that Verdi’s Otello and Falstaff contain better music than Ernani, good though it is.
So if there is a hierarchy within a composers works, why not between composers?

Kuma,

I am interested in your answer to Morton but here is my two cents worth:

De gustibus non est disputandum!  (There's no accounting for taste):

"I am not completely convinced you can put a hierarchy in music. We have a tendency to put classical music at the top of the food chain. I think Bach and Beethoven is no better than the Beatles or Dylan."

As to a hierarchy in music, I do not believe Government (or an individual) should be involved in choosing a hierarchy for us (or someone else) but on a personal level each of us typically picks the music that is most meaningful to us.  This can change over time.  As in economics, left alone, we all will do more of what brings us pleasure and less of what doesn't in all of our choices.  Maybe off topic here but a comment that could go directly to a thread called Liberalism - Gone Mad we see that a liberal view means the Government (or an arm of the government) actually enforces radio stations / TV to artificially play (or talk about) so many minutes per hour of Canadian music.  Other than trying to make us all equal(ly stupid) this only encourages mediocrity.  And what do we have in abundance today?  So you can put out pure tripe and s%!$ and be rewarded for it financially.  This speaks for itself and automatically means that their must be a hierarchy, otherwise, why try to benefit something that can't stand on its own?

The masses seem to go for this type of thing but a small proportion of the population will always tend to look for the best in what ever genre they are interested in.  Beyond the sameness of top 40 and the marketers paradise, our musical taste is also strongly influenced by one's culture and education.  So their is a hierarchy for me and my personal tastes based on this.  Honestly, classical music is truly only suited for a small proportion of society anyway.  Madonna, on the other hand, tends to appeal to the masses and this is sad but fine by me due to my belief in everyone's right to freely choose.

I like the Beatles and Dylan but their can be no comparison to Bach or Beethoven or the like.  Not saying the latter is better than the former for most people but the skills alone involved in comparison are night and day.  Maybe not better but certainly different.  Compare St. Matthew Passion to She Love's You - Ya, Ya, Yaaaah.  Different style and purpose I know but I'm sure Bach could whip up a Beatles tune as easily as passing gas but the fab four could never come up with the Goldberg Variations (compose or play it).

Kuma, one last comment.  Your library filing system will be much happier and bring more comfort and joy if you take the opportunity to put all your Herbie Hancock albums in alphabetical order by album title.  There, I had to say it ...  ;-)

Florestan posted:

Kuma, one last comment.  Your library filing system will be much happier and bring more comfort and joy if you take the opportunity to put all your Herbie Hancock albums in alphabetical order by album title.  There, I had to say it ...  ;-)

I too was studying the photograph showing Kuma's Herbie Hancock collection. Funnily enough I have six HH albums, but I notice that we only overlap on one title, 'Maiden Voyage'. Mine aren't in alphabetical order either and I don't find it causes any stress!

BTW I'm not convinced the Beethoven is necessarily better than Tchaikovsky either. Im not saying that Beethoven's music isn't totally absorbing, but the Pathétique is so gorgeous (esp. the 4th movement) that it compares favourably with any of Beethoven's symphonies IMHO.

Clive B posted:
Florestan posted:

Kuma, one last comment.  Your library filing system will be much happier and bring more comfort and joy if you take the opportunity to put all your Herbie Hancock albums in alphabetical order by album title.  There, I had to say it ...  ;-)

I too was studying the photograph showing Kuma's Herbie Hancock collection. Funnily enough I have six HH albums, but I notice that we only overlap on one title, 'Maiden Voyage'. Mine aren't in alphabetical order either and I don't find it causes any stress!

BTW I'm not convinced the Beethoven is necessarily better than Tchaikovsky either. Im not saying that Beethoven's music isn't totally absorbing, but the Pathétique is so gorgeous (esp. the 4th movement) that it compares favourably with any of Beethoven's symphonies IMHO.

I agree too.  Beethoven is not 'better' than Tchaikovsky - only different.  We are talking about the individual personality of two equally interesting individuals.

Further, in comparing Beethoven to Tchaikovsky (or similar) we are comparing apples with apples.  Compare Beethoven to something like Madonna is comparing apples to ???   (I wouldn't want to insult oranges by branding them as Madonna). 

Lightbulb moment - for me, Beethoven is not the best, but perhaps that is a reaction to my education, the music teacher came to England as a refugee during WWII, for her there were no good composers after 1900 or born outside Germany. Of course bolshie schoolboys tha we were, we played Stravinsky and Saint Saens and Copland......

Florestan posted:

Kuma, one last comment.  Your library filing system will be much happier and bring more comfort and joy if you take the opportunity to put all your Herbie Hancock albums in alphabetical order by album title.  There, I had to say it ...  ;-)

Strange comment! When I had a physical collection I filed individual artists' album releases in date order - just as valid as alphabetical by name, as that is how I usually choose them, but more fundamentally I filed by genre before artist, as that was usually my first thought, do I want to listen to classical or rock, then browse that section. All of course are equally valid, just depends on the individual's preference.

Florestan posted:

As to a hierarchy in music, I do not believe Government (or an individual) should be involved in choosing a hierarchy for us (or someone else) but on a personal level each of us typically picks the music that is most meaningful to us.  This can change over time.  As in economics, left alone, we all will do more of what brings us pleasure and less of what doesn't in all of our choices.  Maybe off topic here but a comment that could go directly to a thread called Liberalism - Gone Mad we see that a liberal view means the Government (or an arm of the government) actually enforces radio stations / TV to artificially play (or talk about) so many minutes per hour of Canadian music.  Other than trying to make us all equal(ly stupid) this only encourages mediocrity.  And what do we have in abundance today?  So you can put out pure tripe and s%!$ and be rewarded for it financially.  This speaks for itself and automatically means that their must be a hierarchy, otherwise, why try to benefit something that can't stand on its own?

The masses seem to go for this type of thing but a small proportion of the population will always tend to look for the best in what ever genre they are interested in.  Beyond the sameness of top 40 and the marketers paradise, our musical taste is also strongly influenced by one's culture and education.  So their is a hierarchy for me and my personal tastes based on this.  Honestly, classical music is truly only suited for a small proportion of society anyway.  Madonna, on the other hand, tends to appeal to the masses and this is sad but fine by me due to my belief in everyone's right to freely choose.

I like the Beatles and Dylan but their can be no comparison to Bach or Beethoven or the like.  Not saying the latter is better than the former for most people but the skills alone involved in comparison are night and day.  Maybe not better but certainly different.  Compare St. Matthew Passion to She Love's You - Ya, Ya, Yaaaah.  Different style and purpose I know but I'm sure Bach could whip up a Beatles tune as easily as passing gas but the fab four could never come up with the Goldberg Variations (compose or play it).

Is this the sort of education in which one is taught the difference between "their" and "there"?

Roger

Morton postedo you really think that?

I would have thought that most people would agree that the music of Parsifal is of a higher quality than that of Rienzi or that Verdi’s Otello and Falstaff contain better music than Ernani, good though it is.
So if there is a hierarchy within a composers works, why not between composers?

Morton,

You see, I would place Tristan higher than Parsifal or Rienzi as the latter 2 pieces do not do much for my soul yet the Tristan always get me. My assessment of composers would probably differ from others. It's too subjective isn't it? Would I place Wagner above Verdi?

As much as I loath Stockhausen or Nono, I can't say their music is any lesser than the Big 'B's as maybe some of these music might appeal to someone else's soul. ( not me so far! ) Pollini toured Japan back in the 90s playing both Beethoven and Stockhausen. He obviously value both composers equally. He goes on to say he sees the similarities in both composers. Musically I don't see it but both music has given strong enough impact on Pollini.

When asked' what is the beauty in Stockhausen's music, he seems a harmonic colours in these fragmented dischords. I don't think Stockhausen's music will be a concert repertory any time soon, but who knows 200 years from now, more people might enjoy it.

The time is the ultimate critic.

Kuma,

Ah, I knew I should have sighted Tristan (one of my all time favourites) but really I think any of the mature operas are, by any reasonable judgement, greater operas than the first three, notwithstanding the fact that Rienzi was for a long time Wagner’s most popular opera.As you say, time has told.
As for comparing different composers, for me this only makes sense, if it is done at all, for rough contemporaries. For instance I would think J. S. Bach is superior to Telemann, Beethoven greater than Hummel.
Trying to make a judgement between Bach and say Brahms or Stravinsky does not seem to make much sense to me.
In any case, not having any in depth knowledge in the subject, I can only make my personal list of favourites simply by how much pleasure their music provides and how much time and money I am prepared to spend on going to concerts and on this measure Wagner wins by quite some margin.
I confess the music of Stockhausen does not mean much to me either, but I am intrigued by his seven day, 29 hour opera ‘Licht’ which I think involves four helicopters during Mittwoch!

 

Morton posted:

Ah, I knew I should have sighted Tristan (one of my all time favourites) but really I think any of the mature operas are,by any reasonable judgement, greater operas than the first three, notwithstanding the fact that Rienzi was for a long time Wagner’s most popular opera.As you say, time has told.
As for comparing different composers, for me this only makes sense, if it is done at all, for rough contemporaries. For instance I would think J. S. Bach is superior to Telemann, Beethoven greater than Hummel.

Trying to make a judgement between Bach and say Brahms or Stravinsky does not seem to make much sense to me.
In any case, not having any in depth knowledge in the subject, I can only make my personal list of favourites simply by how much pleasure their music provides and how much time and money I am prepared to spend on going to concerts and on this measure Wagner wins by quite some margin.
I confess the music of Stockhausen does not mean much to me either, but I am intrigued by his seven day, 29 hour opera ‘Licht’ which I think involves four helicopters during Mittwoch!

 

Ok. so being pedantic at the moment, what is your definition of 'by any reaonable judgement'? You know popularity alone does not determine a superiority in art.

I sort of agree regarding Telemann/Hummel vs. Bach if we judge it from sheer complexity of the music they scored. Telemann stuff is awfully predictable and easily accessible. There isn't whole much going on underneath like Bach's tunes ( altho, some of his stuff can get pretty mundane  but considering his vast catalogue, some are bound to be duds: he was churning the stuff every week for the church at some point in his career )

Yet Telemann/Hummel scores even to this date, are played often by early music folks and enjoyed worldwide. They were like baroque version of pop music back then. So maybe it's not one of my fave, it's the music that appeal to some people. that's good enough. We don't have to study music to judge a piece of music. If it appeals to you that's good enough. ( hell with critics. Often they are wrong anyways. )

I forgot you are a Wagner man.  I am more in the *conservative* Brahms camp. But I can't put them over the others. They are equally valid and  paved the way for the next generation of the composers. The Tristan chords always will haunt me and Brahm's piano concerts as well as his 4 symphonies are always going to be dear to my heart. He's been compared to Beethoven all his life. Is he a lesser composer than Beethoven? I don't think so.

P.S. Opera is expensive!. However, if Tristan ever came to The Lyric, I am prepare to pay for a good seat. ( cant' say the same for Parcifal or Rienzi )

Save

Kuma,

I can just about play the alto saxophone, it may be possible (although extremely unlikely) to find someone who preferred my fumbling to the playing of the majestic Charlie Parker but I think any reasonable person would not agree with that judgment!
Similarly anyone who thinks that either Die Feen, Das Liebesverbot or Rienzi, are in some way greater operas than Tristan are, in my view, probably wrong.
As you say, I am a bit of a Wagner nut but in fact at home I am more likely to listen to Brahms or Beethoven than Wagner, preferring to save the great man for live performances, so far this year Die Meistersinger at Covent Garden, Tristan at Longborough Opera and Die Walkure at Grange Park Opera.

 

Florestan posted:

...The masses seem to go for this type of thing but a small proportion of the population will always tend to look for the best in what ever genre they are interested in.  Beyond the sameness of top 40 and the marketers paradise, our musical taste is also strongly influenced by one's culture and education.  So their is a hierarchy for me and my personal tastes based on this.  Honestly, classical music is truly only suited for a small proportion of society anyway.  Madonna, on the other hand, tends to appeal to the masses and this is sad but fine by me due to my belief in everyone's right to freely choose.

I like the Beatles and Dylan but their can be no comparison to Bach or Beethoven or the like.  Not saying the latter is better than the former for most people but the skills alone involved in comparison are night and day.  Maybe not better but certainly different.  Compare St. Matthew Passion to She Love's You - Ya, Ya, Yaaaah.  Different style and purpose I know but I'm sure Bach could whip up a Beatles tune as easily as passing gas but the fab four could never come up with the Goldberg Variations (compose or play it).

Kuma, one last comment.  Your library filing system will be much happier and bring more comfort and joy if you take the opportunity to put all your Herbie Hancock albums in alphabetical order by album title.  There, I had to say it ...  ;-)

Doug,

When you talk about the Beatles , I'd think it's only fair to pick something  *post* Yesterday. That was the pivotal tune Beatles music started to become more sophisticated with something to say. Supposedly, Dylan criticised them by saying they have nothing to say. ( this was when they were still doing bubbly pop music.

I am not much of fan of the Beatles or Dylan  but I listened to their music because they are pioneers of sound making and gives me a historical perspective.  They experimented a lot to come up with their own distinctive sound (pre synthesizer days! ) to tell an effective story. Could be personal ( just as Beethoven's tunes were ) or to make a political statement/commentary. So that's how their music can connect to people.  And they might be the first to put some strings instruments in the mix. I am amased how much young musicians are stealing from them. ( should i say *inspired* instead? )

There is a deeper connection to the music one can have with lyrics. Maybe you can identify with the main character or agree with the hero in the tune.  I can't  say 'She's Leaving Home' is lesser musically than Goldberg Variations ( which mainly written for soothing the nerve of a rich guy without any narrative ) But back in the 60's and 70s when a long vinyl format were  a king, the song sequence  also was considered important by the artist to tell the story effectively. ( Think of it as an entire album as a book front to back ) Listen to the Sgt. Pepper front to back. It's pretty complex with a different mix of sound and it's a lot going on! ( not to mention each tune is well thought out ) Like Goldberg Variations, no throw away track on this album.

Iphone generation ruined that now but I still find those older pop/rock music equally valid and creative. I am not saying I like them all but can't say in a sweeping statement Bach is better than the Beatles.

Here's another one after over 45 years, this tune still has a strong appeal and very relevant and poignant especially after last week's Charlottesville incident. Does it have the same scale and complexity as St. Mathew's Passion? no. but equally effective in a matter of 3 minutes!

Mother, mother
There's too many of you crying

Brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying

You know we've got to find a way
To bring some loving here today - Ya


[Verse 1]
Father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer

For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some loving here today


[Chorus]
Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me, so you can see

Oh, what's going on
What's going on
Ya, what's going on
Ah, what's going on


[Bridge]
In the mean time
Right on, baby
Right on
Right on

P.S. My filing system is somewhat idiosyncratic. I try to file it chronologically. ( well sort of as you can see Hancock's timeline is screwed up there ) I have most of Sinatra's albums or Ramsey Lewis, and I am pretty familiar with the year of release on each record. But for some it's loosey goosey. 

Clive B posted:
Funnily enough I have six HH albums, but I notice that we only overlap on one title, 'Maiden Voyage'. Mine aren't in alphabetical order either and I don't find it causes any stress!

BTW I'm not convinced the Beethoven is necessarily better than Tchaikovsky either. Im not saying that Beethoven's music isn't totally absorbing, but the Pathétique is so gorgeous (esp. the 4th movement) that it compares favourably with any of Beethoven's symphonies IMHO.

Clive B,

I have to split up my collection in three places due to space constraints and convenience. I might have the missing five.

Pathetique is great. One of my fave especially Mravinsky's/Leningrad. I can't say it's gorgeous but his final movement can induce a suicidal thought plunging into abyss. Tension and sense of despair he creates are like no other. Interesting comparison of two composers. Tchaikovsky finishes off the tune in down mode without any hope. Beethoven, OTOH, usually he leaves a sliver of hope or makes certain of a goodness of human being will prevail.

Whilst rummaging in Oxfam, I was struck by how dull so many covers were, especially in the classical section. Then this one jumped out and having already identified Pacific 231 as a possible introduction to classical, I had to buy the record and share.

Particularly (in a frivolous vein only) in the second image, the message on the back cover about this record label. The logo, when we all spend so much on our interest seems quaint.

I'm so glad I had music classes aroung 4-6th grades.  The first woman put on exciting music, then the Lone Ranger and we squealed in delight.  The donkey in the Grand Canyon Suite, THEN the significance of Beethoven's 5th, this was early 60s.  In later years it was learning to sing in our teens, overcoming embarrassment, being in front of people.  Many children now don't have that exerience or support to express their individuality.  My interests lay in drawing and a photography class in 9th grade.

I now listed to an incredible range of music and have an open mind to new sounds. I was playing quiet music recently at night and a friend gave me a favorite of his, Gesualdo Quinto Libro di Madrigali, Hilliard Ensemble.  It was so spriritual, hypnotic and 3 dimensional  with just voices,  or was it the Scotch I was sipping at midnight?

MangoMonkey posted:

Hey guys,

Dipping my toe into the classical scene. The extent of my exposure has been stuff that Yo-Yo Ma has played over the years. His Vivaldi, Baroque and Bach CDs. Discovered  Max Richter's recomposition of Vivaldi - and like it.

So - maybe a top 10 CD list? Accessibility is paramount - my  6 yr old should not want me to turn it off. :-)

MM, if you haven't  watched 'Amadeus' I'd suggest that as fairly inspirational. Even if you don't like the music it's a good movie!

CD's : not 10 here but a few varied picks you could try that hopefully shouldn't incur the wrath of your 6year old! 

Thanks 

 

And of course some Piano, Grieg's Piano Concerto .... by Grieg!

 

This has grown on us:

as has this:

 

Also started the kiddo on violin lessons. I attend as well (lots of parental involvement in this method) so who knows - maybe I'll be playing too (will probably need a knock on my head...)

 

Also, I'll be coming back to this read repeatedly, picking up selections from the suggestions made. It'll probably take me several years to go through all the great music suggested.

MangoMonkey posted:

 

Also started the kiddo on violin lessons. I attend as well (lots of parental involvement in this method) so who knows - maybe I'll be playing too (will probably need a knock on my head...)

 

Suzuki method?

The first piece I ever played on a cello and one that I now sing in shower or while cleaning the house in the following tones:

DU du du du DU  DU
             or
NA na na na NA  NA
             or
EE ee ee ee EE  EE

.....Then go on to a different rhythm  

 Enjoy.  Your child will be successful when you participate along.  If you rent a violin the first year to play along you will be (seemingly) more talented at the beginning for about 6 months and then it will change so that you won't catch up to them after this.

I would encourage you to do this for the experience.  I believe everyone who tries to learn an instrument at some point in their life will have a different view on how they listen and how they 'judge' others who do play.  It will also maybe entice you to be more curious and listen to more classical music!

 

Growing up with all kinds of music I subsequently ended up in the Indie corner in my early 20ies. Still I also listened to Jazz and Classic in these days. Shostakovich, Lutoslawski etc. were my heroes then. And Bach. But I hated Mozart. Mainstream, bah.

Many years later I once got a hand on a recording by Harnoncourt and his Concentus Musicus Wien. A record out of his early Mozart symphonies cycle with No. 16 and 18. First time ever I Ioved Mozart.

Why all this fuzz? Saw today that all 7 records out of this Harnoncourt series had been reissued in 2014 and can be bought - at Qobuz e.g. - for a mere 16 Euros.... Definitely a worthwhile contribution to a collection and something children will like too... 

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×