A Best Way to Tackle Music Appreciation?

[Sapphire]

Just as a possible sub-topic here, I'm wondering whether others might agree with me that the best way to tackle music appreciation is by following a rough chronological order, starting with baroque, classical, post classical, early/mid/late romantic, impressionism, neo-classical.

This thought occurred to me after seeing knotslips' comment about Schubert's late symphonies, given his starting point and liking for Dvorak's. I reckon that if he had started with Symphonies by Haydn/Mozart and moved forward in time, his assessment might have been different.

The same applies to solo piano. With hindsight, I wish I had started with Bach/Handel, then Haydn, Clementi, Mozart. And after that, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, etc. Although I got "there" eventually, in fact I went all over the place, and it led to a slightly confused picture about what exactly I did like on the way. I reckon if you start at the "beginning" one will finish up liking a lot more of what you have heard.

Any other views?



Sapphire

[Corlyss_D]

I thought this was a good enough topic to have its own thread.

[Teresa B]

It is an interesting idea. I think most formal courses do just that--chronological order. It makes sense--after all, music builds on what came earlier.

But...since nothing is carved in stone, you could also go by, say country of origin of the composers to discern different folk motifs that might be used, or different styles, etc.

You could also go (commonly done, I would think) by a sort of Top 40 and work your way laterally to lesser-known stuff.

Or you could be utterly disorganized like many of us!
Teresa

[knotslip]

Chronologically may have worked...I must admit that it is quite daunting to jump in to this genre head first and know what to listen to and purchase. The technique, if you can call it that, that I have used thus far is to listen to samples, write down what I like, purchase it and if I like it, purchase more by that particular composer. I also have asked questions here about who I might like, knowing that I like composers A, B and C, etc. So far, it has worked out okay...although I still feel overwhelmed and like I haven't even made a dent in it. The hard part is finding figuring our what to buy once I know I like something...For example, a solo piano piece by DeBussy - There are so many versions by diffierent pianists and it's difficult to kow which are worthwhile. I also have avoided mono recordings...Attributing them to poor sound quality - but I really have no idea...Should I avoid them?

I also wonder...how well should I know a piece before I move on to the next? Should i listen to it over and over and know it well (be able to recognize it) or just listen to it a few times and move on to the next. Like I stated in an earlier post, I love The Four Seasons and Eine Kleine Nacht Musik, but I have trouble recognizing Spring (I believe) from the former...

After several re-listens, I am lliking the Schubert symphonies more. I still think I prefer #8. I like the melodic parts and I'm finding that I prefer peices with nice melodies and rhythms throughout. I think this is why Dvorak and DeBussy appeal so much to me.

Well, no matter, I'm having a blast and spending a ton of dough on this. I have loved music since I was a young kid and it's a essential part of my life. Classical is just the next step.

PS- I'm going to my first classical concert ever on Oct. 6th to see my local orchestra open their season. I can't wait. The program for the night will be :

Program to Include:

Paul Dukas
Fanfare to La Peri

Richard Wagner
Prelude to Die Meistersinger

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Overture to The Marriage of Figaro

Johann Strauss, Jr.
Pizzicato Polka

Leonard Bernstein
West Side Story Overture
and additional selections from Antonin Dvorak, Claude Debussy, Steve Reich and more!

I haven't heard any of these but I'm sure I will enjoy it. I plan to attend several of their concerts this year.

[moldyoldie]

Or...

You can do as I did and work backward from a piece or period you really like to see how it evolved. It's like reading the last chapter of a book and then starting at the beginning, something I've done often.

[karlhenning]

I don't think there will be any One Size Fits All approach; chronological may work for some. But I know many folks whose entree to classical music was (no great surprise) the Romantic lit (and who continue to have greater sonic fondness for that era than for either, say, Baroque, or Classical). And (what will seem very peculiar to many, I am sure) some of us actually got fired up for classical, as a whole, after being drawn in by the 20th-c. literature.

There are, I think, many paths . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl

[johnQpublic]

I've forgotten which Music Appreciation text book comes in two versions, but one is chronological, while the other starts with the Romantic before going to the others.

[absinthe]

Until a few years ago our local adult education authority ran courses in musical appreciation. Perhaps a tall order to cover much in 30 90-minute sessions but the lecturer opted to introduce students to the most popular works covering the major periods from classical up to about Debussy / Ravel and Dvorak but not in chronological order. I assumed the idea was to introduce students the various periods after which they could browse a discography of like works. That also allowed him to receive feedback and adjust the course accordingly. It touched on Italian opera - if I recall, famous chunks from Rossini and Puccini.

I knew the lecturer and his aim was to get people listening without boredom. The success of these classes is often measured by the dropout rate. In the year I'm thinking of he lost about 40%, allowing for a few who probably decided they weren't interested anyway.

[Ralph]

Any comfortable way of being exposed to different epochs is fine. Unless one is studying music for a degree, informality and personal comfort and enjoyment should rule. Mixing different genres is perfectly fine and may increase understanding of changes in the development of music.

[jbuck919]

I don't think there will be any One Size Fits All approach; chronological may work for some. But I know many folks whose entree to classical music was (no great surprise) the Romantic lit (and who continue to have greater sonic fondness for that era than for either, say, Baroque, or Classical). And (what will seem very peculiar to many, I am sure) some of us actually got fired up for classical, as a whole, after being drawn in by the 20th-c. literature.

There are, I think, many paths . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl

I have to agree. I certainly did not go chronologically.

[Wallingford]

Funny, I always thought simply following what appeals to your ears most is the practical & facile way. (A local library is a definite must.)

[RebLem]

I think, for most people, a chronological approach can lead to excruciating boredom. It certainly does no comport with the haphazard way I first started learning about classical music, by taking LPs out of the local public library in the late 1950's, when I was still in high school.

I learned a bit about music just by reading the liner notes (Columbia used to be especially good about this). And the first three works I learned to really like were the Haydn Military Symphony (Scherchen), the Overture and Venusburg Music from Tannhauser (B Walter), and Stravinsky's Firebird conducted by Stravinsky.

If you have to have a gimmick, I would suggest starting with a particular genre, and the genre I would suggest is the violin concerto. Violin Concerti generally have fairly easily followed development sections, and you learn not just about a particular composer, orchestra, and conductor, but a particular soloist as well.

A good specific place to start is EMI 5 85562 2, a 10 CD set of concerted violin works performed, and sometimes conducted, by Yehudi Menuhin. You get 31 works by 20 composers; it covers about half the violin concerto standard repertoire in mostly magnificent performances. And in time, it covers composers from Arcangelo Corelli (1653-1713) to Michael Tippett (1905-1998).

[Sapphire]

Now that we've heard from The Oracle, and a few others, I would respond ...

Classical music has progressed through the ages, largely building upon itself through a process of evolution and occasional revolution. You don't learn history backwards. Thus, I believe that anyone who wants to obtain a reasonable music appreciation has to do so by acquiring knowledge in at least a rough chronological order. This is the way most formal music appreciation courses are organised, which validates my point.

Remember, too, that my comments were made in another thread (and moved here). They were given in a specific context relating to the learning curve of someone who had specifically asked for assistance in deciding which composers to pursue next in the world of the symphony and solo piano. Instead of offering the trite reply "listen to what you like", I tried to be rather more helpful by suggesting he might pursue a rather more ordered approach by going back to the beginning and finding what led to what, thus attempting to assist his learning process. Please see the opening thread again, and you'll see what I was really saying.


Sapphire

[Brendan]

Chronologically would be a course of study for a particular reason (or degree in musicology/music history), I would have thought. Learning notes, scales, soanata form and such is music, I guess, not music appreciation.

The standard canon of Western music is actually the best guide IMHO: what has been popular for decades/centuries among buyers and listeners of classical music is actually a pretty good method, over a long time, of sorting wheat from chaff. So I would/did start with the big names and pieces old hands call 'warhorses'.

Beethoven's 5th & 9th, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, yes, the much-bemoaned Pachelbel's Canon, Boccherini's Minuet, Peer Gynt Suite, Rossini's overtures, Dvorak's Slavonic Dances . . . all the standards are standards for a reason, IMHO.

[Teresa B]

There's no need to "should' on yourself! You certainly don't have to listen to something any particular number of times, or whatever. (Some things I've listened to only once and vowed never again!)

The important thing is that you're having a great time.
Teresa

[Corlyss_D]

I was fortunate to be exposed to classical music by my parents. My mother loved certain composers and that was what she played on the Victrola. I didn't get my own tastes until a school concert c. 1960 made me want to listen to the classical radio station in DC. The school orchestra did excerpts from the Faure Requiem and Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis. Talk about varied program. Naturally what the radio station played was the Core Repertoire, i.e., lots and lots of Romantic German and Russian symphonies and concertos. I branched out from there, discovering real Baroque just about the time Nonesuch issued its first recordings. I was actually EM before I picked up the Baroque.

That's the long way of saying that for an individual listening program, I don't think there is a desirable systematic approach better than "listen as much as you can, find what you like, and then branch out from there." It's not a dreary marathon to prove how informed or cultured you are.

Or...You can do as I did and work backward from a piece or period you really like to see how it evolved.

I've recounted several times that due to a scheduling issue, my Music History prof in college started with the moderns and worked backward. If I were not already extensively read in the subject and a practiced listener with wide-ranging tastes, it would have been hard for me to make either sense or fun out of his approach. I don't think a music history class should be taught that way and I said so in the course eval. But I did get the Crocker text out of the course, and it has never been very far from my elbow since.

I don't think there will be any One Size Fits All approach;

Amen.

And some of us actually got fired up for classical, as a whole, after being drawn in by the 20th-c. literature.

Well, let's face it, Karl. As a working composer, you are stuck with the era you were born in. It's nice that you don't think of it as "stuck" and that you make some beautiful music with the tools left you by the past. I am privileged to hear your music.

I think, for most people, a chronological approach can lead to excruciating boredom.

I would be inclined to agree if one is crafting an individual study program. The Romantic musical vocabulary surrounds us, in TV, movies, in most incidental music, and I think that is what makes it the easiest to imbibe and why most newbies start there.

Classical music has progressed through the ages, largely building upon itself through a process of evolution and occasional revolution. You don't learn history backwards. Thus, I believe that anyone who wants to obtain a reasonable music appreciation has to do so by acquiring knowledge in at least a rough chronological order.

If one is looking for a comprehensive cradle to grave music history sort of appreciation, I think it imperative start at the beginning and plow thru to the present. But I think most people can get pretty satisfying classical music experience without making it an endurance contest. Will their appreciation be heightened by knowing more? Sure. That can be said of any experience. Are they crippled without the knowledge? I don't think so. I agree with Teresa's observation that having a great time is more important than extensive or detailed knowledge of the subject.

[slofstra]

I like to use 'travel' as an analogy. Generally, less is more. It's better to focus and spend some time in one place rather than spend too much time in the car or on the plane. The analogy in music would be to spend more time listening to one specific composer or era, and less time just grazing in the grass (can you dig it?).
With an important qualification: a rapid survey (like a short bus tour) is invaluable in getting the lay of the land. I would have delved into choral music much sooner than if I had had more knowledge of that area. So in that sense I would second Sapphire's idea of taking a chronological survey, but just of the highlights.
And now that I think of it, the NPR Guide to classical music is very good as an initial basis for an exploration of the subject.
But after the initial survey I would take one area - say Beethoven orchestral music and concertoes and become very familiar with them. But in terms of what those areas should be, let your fancy take you where it may, once you have established a basic knowledge of the standard repertoire.

[jbuck919]

"Victrola." Now when was the last time I heard that word? (For those who do not know it is a record player named after the arm of RCA called RCA Victor).

In spite of my fancy education, nobody had to tell me about Gregorian Chant or Renaissance Polyphony or most of the greatest composers of the tonal period. I figured that out for myself. Perhaps the only exception is, and here I will name names because I am only saying good things, is Brahms, from whom I learned from Claudio Spies at what artistic level he really was. One day Milton Babbitt walked into the class shaking his head having just heard a performance of one of the piano concertos (it was in fact Sviatislov Richter conducted by Erich Leinsdorf--don't ask how I remember) and all he could say was "you've been right; you've been so right."

Spies, BTW, was a famous friend of Stravinsky, but I didn't need him to convince me about Stravinsky, or Babbitt who actually met him once about Schoenberg. You see how it works? I appreciated those composers before I figured out (to the extent that I have) Beethoven.

[RebLem]

Oh, I forgot. I should have mentioned that in the US, at least, Copland's excellent little paperback, "What to listen for in music" can be found in most used book stores for under a buck.

[Agnes Selby]

I am a believer in early music education. I think I mentioned it before
that most schools in my state of New South Wales have bands and
orchestras and chamber music groups, and not only private schools excel in giving students the opportunity to be part of a musical experience.

However, even an earlier program would be advisable. Some years ago, I wolunteered to teach children "music appreciation" at my local primary school.
The program began when the children were 8 years old. I invented a pilot, a "Mr. Flanagan", who the poor devil, was constantly on a diet as his wife did not want him to die from a heart attack. So giving him pretend goodies behind his wife's back was one of things that made him "human".

This Mr. Flanagan landed at the playgropund of our school and only my class was privileged to see him. He selected his own co-pilot and stewardesses (different ones each time he arrived) and off we flew to visit Mozart or Beethoven or Schubert or Papa Haydn. There really were
few composer we did not listen to over a period of 3 years. The children
liked contemporary music, they liked to dance to Bartok, they sang
with Papageno, generally we had great fun. As they got older, the
ABC allowed us to come to the Sydney Symphony rehearsals at the
Opera House.

I am very happy to say, that I meet "my" children at concerts, two
of them are professional musicians out of a class of 18. One, a steward
on Qantas very kindly served me first class food in economy class and
told me all about the concert he attended in Hawaii the previous night.

Some children are lucky to have parents who love classical music and are exposed to the genre early on. Most, however, are not. To introduce classical music through stories and a participation in the composers' lives
would be of great benefit to the future of classical music and,
of course, to the future enjoyment of music for all concerned.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Opus132]

Anybody should simply begin with Bach (arguably, the first 'modern' composer) and move forward. It just seems the most logical approach to me.

[slofstra]

Chronologically may have worked...I must admit that it is quite daunting to jump in to this genre head first and know what to listen to and purchase. The technique, if you can call it that, that I have used thus far is to listen to samples, write down what I like, purchase it and if I like it, purchase more by that particular composer. I also have asked questions here about who I might like, knowing that I like composers A, B and C, etc. So far, it has worked out okay...although I still feel overwhelmed and like I haven't even made a dent in it. The hard part is finding figuring our what to buy once I know I like something...For example, a solo piano piece by DeBussy - There are so many versions by diffierent pianists and it's difficult to kow which are worthwhile. I also have avoided mono recordings...Attributing them to poor sound quality - but I really have no idea...Should I avoid them?

I also wonder...how well should I know a piece before I move on to the next? Should i listen to it over and over and know it well (be able to recognize it) or just listen to it a few times and move on to the next. Like I stated in an earlier post, I love The Four Seasons and Eine Kleine Nacht Musik, but I have trouble recognizing Spring (I believe) from the former... :D

After several re-listens, I am lliking the Schubert symphonies more. I still think I prefer #8. I like the melodic parts and I'm finding that I prefer peices with nice melodies and rhythms throughout. I think this is why Dvorak and DeBussy appeal so much to me.

Well, no matter, I'm having a blast and spending a ton of dough on this. I have loved music since I was a young kid and it's a essential part of my life. Classical is just the next step.

PS- I'm going to my first classical concert ever on Oct. 6th to see my local orchestra open their season. I can't wait. The program for the night will be :

Program to Include:

Paul Dukas
Fanfare to La Peri

Richard Wagner
Prelude to Die Meistersinger

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Overture to The Marriage of Figaro

Johann Strauss, Jr.
Pizzicato Polka

Leonard Bernstein
West Side Story Overture
and additional selections from Antonin Dvorak, Claude Debussy, Steve Reich and more!

I haven't heard any of these but I'm sure I will enjoy it. I plan to attend several of their concerts this year. :D

This is a very positive development, knotslip, and one you'll really enjoy. What's the name of your local orchestra?

[slofstra]

I am a believer in early music education. I think I mentioned it before
that most schools in my state of New South Wales have bands and
orchestras and chamber music groups, and not only private schools excel in giving students the opportunity to be part of a musical experience.

However, even an earlier program would be advisable. Some years ago, I wolunteered to teach children "music appreciation" at my local primary school.
The program began when the children were 8 years old. I invented a pilot, a "Mr. Flanagan", who the poor devil, was constantly on a diet as his wife did not want him to die from a heart attack. So giving him pretend goodies behind his wife's back was one of things that made him "human".

This Mr. Flanagan landed at the playgropund of our school and only my class was privileged to see him. He selected his own co-pilot and stewardesses (different ones each time he arrived) and off we flew to visit Mozart or Beethoven or Schubert or Papa Haydn. There really were
few composer we did not listen to over a period of 3 years. The children
liked contemporary music, they liked to dance to Bartok, they sang
with Papageno, generally we had great fun. As they got older, the
ABC allowed us to come to the Sydney Symphony rehearsals at the
Opera House.

I am very happy to say, that I meet "my" children at concerts, two
of them are professional musicians out of a class of 18. One, a steward
on Qantas very kindly served me first class food in economy class and
told me all about the concert he attended in Hawaii the previous night.

Some children are lucky to have parents who love classical music and are exposed to the genre early on. Most, however, are not. To introduce classical music through stories and a participation in the composers' lives
would be of great benefit to the future of classical music and,
of course, to the future enjoyment of music for all concerned.

Regards,
Agnes.

A great story. I wondered about a couple of details. It sounds like you worked primarily with a specific group of kids? From what age to what age? Or did you repeat with several groups.
Your 'story' approach with Mr. Flanagan reminds me of the 'Classical Kids' series of tapes, which were a significant part of our household when the kids were young. Later, we found that we could buy 'student' subscriptions very inexpensively, and we always had one of our children along with a friend, along to our concerts.

[jbuck919]

Anybody should simply begin with Bach (arguably, the first 'modern' composer) and move forward. It just seems the most logical approach to me.

That would be one approach against which I would not make an argument, but the difference between the baroque and the classical period (including Bach and his own sons) cannot be exaggerated. Though they were not completely ignorant of Bach and certainly thought "fugue" occasionally only because of him (or perhaps Handel), it is really quite remarkable how little the composers of the classical period were influenced by Bach. In fact, Bach detested the new style and though he was a great enough musician eventually to figure it out, would have initially had a problem even with Mozart and Beethoven. It is only from a later perspective that we can consider these equal artists.

[Agnes Selby]

I am a believer in early music education. I think I mentioned it before
that most schools in my state of New South Wales have bands and
orchestras and chamber music groups, and not only private schools excel in giving students the opportunity to be part of a musical experience.

However, even an earlier program would be advisable. Some years ago, I wolunteered to teach children "music appreciation" at my local primary school.
The program began when the children were 8 years old. I invented a pilot, a "Mr. Flanagan", who the poor devil, was constantly on a diet as his wife did not want him to die from a heart attack. So giving him pretend goodies behind his wife's back was one of things that made him "human".

This Mr. Flanagan landed at the playgropund of our school and only my class was privileged to see him. He selected his own co-pilot and stewardesses (different ones each time he arrived) and off we flew to visit Mozart or Beethoven or Schubert or Papa Haydn. There really were
few composer we did not listen to over a period of 3 years. The children
liked contemporary music, they liked to dance to Bartok, they sang
with Papageno, generally we had great fun. As they got older, the
ABC allowed us to come to the Sydney Symphony rehearsals at the
Opera House.

I am very happy to say, that I meet "my" children at concerts, two
of them are professional musicians out of a class of 18. One, a steward
on Qantas very kindly served me first class food in economy class and
told me all about the concert he attended in Hawaii the previous night.

Some children are lucky to have parents who love classical music and are exposed to the genre early on. Most, however, are not. To introduce classical music through stories and a participation in the composers' lives
would be of great benefit to the future of classical music and,
of course, to the future enjoyment of music for all concerned.

Regards,
Agnes.

A great story. I wondered about a couple of details. It sounds like you worked primarily with a specific group of kids? From what age to what age? Or did you repeat with several groups.
Your 'story' approach with Mr. Flanagan reminds me of the 'Classical Kids' series of tapes, which were a significant part of our household when the kids were young. Later, we found that we could buy 'student' subscriptions very inexpensively, and we always had one of our children along with a friend, along to our concerts.

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

The children were 8 years old when we started to enjoy music together. By 11 years old, jut a year before their final year of primary school, my
family moved to Philadelphia. I would have liked to see them through
to the end of their primary school experience but it was not to be. It was
the same group of children from the beginning to the end.

The children came from middle class homes. It was a public school and
the State Department of Education allowed me to have these weekly sessions with the children. I wrote a new story for them every week
making sure that every child was involved in the lives of the composers.
Of course, the composers could not see us as we had not yet been born,
so we could help or hinder them at will. It was a lot of fun, the music
came from recordings and I enjoyed it as much as the children.

Regards,
Agnes.
------------------

[Sapphire]

Thank you all for your valuable and welcome comments.

I really did not think this thread would generate any interest at all, and it was not my intention to create it. Although I have been posting here for over a year now, and have expressed views on various topics, I mainly prefer to chip in when I see fit rather than generate new material.

In fact, this is the only thread under my name and was started for me. I stress that I have no intention to proselytize in general terms about how people should acquire musical appreciation skills, regardless of their age, background, and musical ambitions. If I had wanted to set out my considered views on acquiring a decent music appreciation, I would have done so in more detail, distinguishing between different age groups, musical experience, ambitions, time and budgetary resources. My comments arose out of a specific set of issues generated on another thread, which I have explained. I hope therefore I do not come over as someone having cranky or finicky views on this topic.

I certainly agree with Karl's view that a “one cap fits all” approach is not appropriate. All I was suggesting was that if an adult newcomer to symphonies likes Composer X’s works and actually asks for advice on how to acquire a more thorough knowledge of this (or other) genre, then there there’s a better approach than suggesting they merely pop down their local library, grab a bunch of CDs, and chuck out what they don't like. My point is that if they pursued such a random approach they could finish up chucking out loads of material which they might not otherwise have done if they had followed a more structured approach based on working through a rough chronology of the best in class.

In my case, I have never asked for music advice in dialogue on any Board. It's not my style. However, I have certainly followed what I consider to be very good recommendations on the best in classical music, not here but elsewhere where I found rigorous sets of results formally set out and discussed. I found that hugely helpful.

If it needs emphasising, I certainly wouldn't recommend the above approach for, say, 8 year olds. On the contrary, any selection provided it's short, catchy and something they can dance to would be my suggestion: Tchaikovsky ballet music? That's all they want. I know!


Sapphire

[knotslip]

Slofstra - The name of the local orchestra here is the Brevard Sysmphony Orchestra. They have a web site if you do a search for it.

Sapphire - I just wanted to thank you for the post, as I'm fairly certain this was intended for me on another post in the forum.

I think that at this point, my best way to proceed is by continuing to explore and build upon what I have acquired so far (Which seems like a lot )

Thanks again.

Someone mentioned Bartok and said that the kids liked to dance to it - Can I assume from this that Bartok composed melodic music like Dvorak and Tachikovsky's Ballets?

Thanks.

[Mahler]

I'm wondering whether others might agree with me that the best way to tackle music appreciation is by following a rough chronological order

In general, I agree, although this approach would require absolute discipline and a real interest in classical music in all its varieties. After all, it is a long way from, say, Bach's Wohltemperiertes Klavier to Chopin's Nocturnes, and it is quite possible you will never make it to Bruckner's ninth if you actually plan to take in all of Haydn's symphonies. Plus, few of us can actually choose their starting point; most (myself, for one) are probably just "thrown into" their first experience with classical music. Nevertheless, I try to stick to chronology whenever I approach a composer I have not yet dealt with.

[jbuck919]

I'm wondering whether others might agree with me that the best way to tackle music appreciation is by following a rough chronological order

In general, I agree, although this approach would require absolute discipline and a real interest in classical music in all its varieties. After all, it is a long way from, say, Bach's Wohltemperiertes Klavier to Chopin's Nocturnes, and it is quite possible you will never make it to Bruckner's ninth if you actually plan to take in all of Haydn's symphonies. Plus, few of us can actually choose their starting point; most (myself, for one) are probably just "thrown into" their first experience with classical music. Nevertheless, I try to stick to chronology whenever I approach a composer I have not yet dealt with.

You have neither started nor ended at a logical point if one wants to take this approach, which I don't recommend in the first place. I'm sorry, I tend to avoid absolute statements these days, but you can use neither the Well-Tempered Klavier as a terminus a quo nor Chopin's nocturnes (let alone--gag--Bruckner) as a terminus ad quem. The picture is impossibly more complicated than that, which is why I always recommend (as someone else on this very thread here has) just going to the library and checking out stuff.

[Mahler]

You leave me puzzled. I was merely giving chronological examples for piano (Bach, Chopin) and symphonies (Haydn, Bruckner). Plus, I did not even address the complex nature of classical music. Please do not to interprete my words beyond what I actually wrote.

[slofstra]

I'm wondering whether others might agree with me that the best way to tackle music appreciation is by following a rough chronological order

In general, I agree, although this approach would require absolute discipline and a real interest in classical music in all its varieties. After all, it is a long way from, say, Bach's Wohltemperiertes Klavier to Chopin's Nocturnes, and it is quite possible you will never make it to Bruckner's ninth if you actually plan to take in all of Haydn's symphonies. Plus, few of us can actually choose their starting point; most (myself, for one) are probably just "thrown into" their first experience with classical music. Nevertheless, I try to stick to chronology whenever I approach a composer I have not yet dealt with.

I don't want to speak for sapphire here but I don't think he suggested a linear approach to the entire repertoire. His later words were "working through a rough chronology of the best in class". Which in my own view is a very sound initial approach, not pre-emptive of other methods or applicable in all cases, but better than random.

But allow me to raise another question. I find myself constantly confronted with the decision of what to listen to next. I feel that the particular decision is often guided by the following 'choice' strategy:
a) listen to familiar recordings,
b) listen to new renditions of familiar compositions,
c) listen to new compositions of familiar composers,
d) listen to new composers working in known areas,
e) explore entirely new terrain.

I have an example of each sitting on my stereo desk right now (CDs I pull from the shelf for repeated listening).

They are:
a) Bernstein - Mahler's 5th,
b) new Beethoven cycle by Haitink,
c) Shostakovich string quartets and other material,
d) Chausson symphony,
e) Norgard.

I'd further break the choice strategies into three routes, as follows:
a and b) comfort zone,
c and d) expanding horizons,
e) explorer.

So my question is, given that you have a block of listening hours, how do you allocate between these choices? Or which route do you tend to prefer. For example, my guess is that Lance would say 100% comfort zone, because his horizons are fully expanded (take note of how I define the term), and like the aged Ulysses, not all that interested in (e). (I may be wrong and should probably let Lance speak for himself.)
There is no right or wrong answer here. I just think it's an interesting way to characterize your listening habits and where you might be in the journey.

For myself, I'm roughly spending
a & b) comfort zone - 20%
c & d) expanding territory - 60%
e) explorer - 20%

I get my biggest kick when something that was new 'becomes' familiar. There's a moment of penetration or comprehension of a work that is not found on first listening, but is found somewhere along the way in repeated listening. That's what I'm constantly striving for. I experienced it the other night in listening to Bartok's Rhapsody for Piano and Orchestra. That "Eastern" sound in his work has been offputting, so I've only dabbled with Bartok, but somehow I suddenly understood where that particular piece was going. Those are the epiphanies I enjoy and work toward, but you never know exactly where they will come up. There's also joy in finding a new composition of a familiar composer, but it's a different animal. Such was my experience listening to some 'two piano' music of Rachmaninoff on the CBC yesterday. But I consider that to be working within the 'comfort zone', which has its own felicities.

[Corlyss_D]

Can I assume from this that Bartok composed melodic music like Dvorak and Tachikovsky's Ballets?

No. He was a folk music fan in an age when folk music was collected and studied avidly by ethnomusicologists. His Hungarian Sketches and Romanian folk dances are his most appealing works IMO, but they are not ballet per se like Tchaikovsky. If you are thinking of Dvorak's Czech Suite, that's probably closer.

[Mahler]

I get my biggest kick when something that was new 'becomes' familiar. There's a moment of penetration or comprehension of a work that is not found on first listening, but is found somewhere along the way in repeated listening.

A wonderful description of a moment I experienced most strikingly with Brahms' symphonies. Still, there is an even bigger "kick" for me: finding something new in a piece I thought I knew inside out. This may happen upon 30th, 50th or 100th listening, but it still happens to me, which gives me all the more reason to turn to my personal favourites time and again. You might call this my "comfort zone" as you did in respect to Lance, although, of course, I am certainly much less experienced than he is.

[slofstra]

Can I assume from this that Bartok composed melodic music like Dvorak and Tachikovsky's Ballets?

No. He was a folk music fan in an age when folk music was collected and studied avidly by ethnomusicologists. His Hungarian Sketches and Romanian folk dances are his most appealing works IMO, but they are not ballet per se like Tchaikovsky. If you are thinking of Dvorak's Czech Suite, that's probably closer.

The vanguard of post-modern music composition, in my view.

[slofstra]

I get my biggest kick when something that was new 'becomes' familiar. There's a moment of penetration or comprehension of a work that is not found on first listening, but is found somewhere along the way in repeated listening.

A wonderful description of a moment I experienced most strikingly with Brahms' symphonies. Still, there is an even bigger "kick" for me: finding something new in a piece I thought I knew inside out. This may happen upon 30th, 50th or 100th listening, but it still happens to me, which gives me all the more reason to turn to my personal favourites time and again. You might call this my "comfort zone" as you did in respect to Lance, although, of course, I am certainly much less experienced than he is.

Unlike pop music, which tires out after 10 or so listenings, classical music offers that kind of depth. I'm calling this a 'comfort zone' experience, but I believe that as one matures in this pursuit, more time is spent doing just that.

[Corlyss_D]

The vanguard of post-modern music composition, in my view.

Who? Bartok or ethnomusicologists?

[Mahler]

Unlike pop music, which tires out after 10 or so listenings, classical music offers that kind of depth.

I agree. Personally, I find this most gratifying: being able to experience something endlessly. As you said, pop music does not offer that, nor does it offer dozens of interpretations from different decades. This is a unique aspect of classical music: its depth and tradition.

[slofstra]

The vanguard of post-modern music composition, in my view.

Who? Bartok or ethnomusicologists?

Bartok, Vaughan Williams, Kodaly, Brahms somewhat, Grainger, Arnold. Those early 20th century composers who sought to blend folk traditions into their work. As opposed to the 'moderns' who worked in a more abstract space.

[jbuck919]

The vanguard of post-modern music composition, in my view.

Who? Bartok or ethnomusicologists?

Just for the record, Bartok was the greatest ethnomusicologist of all time. It does not necessarily fit into his classical compositions in a serious way, nor was it intended to, but what he preserved, though you have to go to an archive to figure it out, is for the ages.

[karlhenning]

Just for the record, Bartok was the greatest ethnomusicologist of all time. It does not necessarily fit into his classical compositions in a serious way . . . .

Depends on what you mean; certainly the inflections of folk-music "inform" a great deal of his composition. Bartók was not allergic to the folk music, John :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[knotslip]

Well, I have a very small comfort zone as Slofstra refers to it because I'm just not that familiar with a lot of classical music yet. This in turn, leads me to spend more time exploring, because I am trying to hear all that is out there and decide what I like and don't like. The problem is that there is only so much time in a day that I can listen and there is a ton of classical material out there to be heard.

I do 10% comfort - Listening to what I know I like and trying to become even more familiar with it...

40% exploring new works by familiar composers based on recommendations from folks here or based on hearing a small sample of their works...

50% totally new exploration - buy and listen to a composer that I've never heard - and there are still SOOOO many of them.

I must admit that it is very cool to know that there is still so much I have to listen to for the very first time. Lots of new music to look forward to. I still haven't heard some of the big ones like Schumann, Haydn, Mahler, Shostakovich, Dittersdorf , and others - too many to name here.

I'm currently in comfort mode listening to Dvorak's symphonies and the Schubert CD I just bought...Waiting on about 8 CD's I've ordered recently so I can go into exploring mode again.

[Agnes Selby]

Someone mentioned Bartok and said that the kids liked to dance to it - Can I assume from this that Bartok composed melodic music like Dvorak and Tachikovsky's Ballets?

Thanks.[/quote]
---------------

The ballet-pantomime, "Miraculous Mandarin", "Rumanian Dances" and any number of Hungarian melodies in the "Microcosmos" would satisfy a child's desire to dance. Bartok's music contains a wealth of Hungarian, Transylvanian and Slovak music. You may have to get acquainted with this particular genre in order to understand it.

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

[Sapphire]

Well, I have a very small comfort zone as Slofstra refers to it because I'm just not that familiar with a lot of classical music yet. This in turn, leads me to spend more time exploring, because I am trying to hear all that is out there and decide what I like and don't like. The problem is that there is only so much time in a day that I can listen and there is a ton of classical material out there to be heard.

I do 10% comfort - Listening to what I know I like and trying to become even more familiar with it...

40% exploring new works by familiar composers based on recommendations from folks here or based on hearing a small sample of their works...

50% totally new exploration - buy and listen to a composer that I've never heard - and there are still SOOOO many of them.

I must admit that it is very cool to know that there is still so much I have to listen to for the very first time. Lots of new music to look forward to. I still haven't heard some of the big ones like Schumann, Haydn, Mahler, Shostakovich, Dittersdorf , and others - too many to name here.

I'm currently in comfort mode listening to Dvorak's symphonies and the Schubert CD I just bought...Waiting on about 8 CD's I've ordered recently so I can go into exploring mode again.

As a further dimension, it's probably worth bearing in mind that the main composers vary in terms of their overall "accessibilty". This is a feature which may not be known by newcomers to classical music.

Below is my estimation of the "greatest" composers, with their accessibiliy ranking as the second figure.

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

N.B. The "greatness" rankings are my objective view of things, not my personal preferences, as I would have Schubert, Schumann and Wagner rather higher.

By "greatness" I mean as assessed by (i) the quality, quantity, and variety of their output, (ii) by their contribution to musical development and influence on later composers, and (iii) by their general popularity.



Sapphire

[Opus132]

certainly the inflections of folk-music "inform" a great deal of his composition.

It does, but to my knowledge he never directly quoted folk melodies in his music. Even his transcriptions of folk songs are rarely left in pure form. He didn't simply borrow, he actually developed the Hungarian folk idiom thought a modern classical canvas.

[Chalkperson]

Just for the record, Bartok was the greatest ethnomusicologist of all time.

I would argue that Percy Grainger holds that particular position...

[Corlyss_D]

Just for the record, Bartok was the greatest ethnomusicologist of all time.

I would argue that Percy Grainger holds that particular position...

You're both wrong. It was John Jacob Niles.

what he preserved, though you have to go to an archive to figure it out, is for the ages.

Since he and Kodaly worked together, how do you tease out what he did for special mention?

[jbuck919]

Just for the record, Bartok was the greatest ethnomusicologist of all time.

I would argue that Percy Grainger holds that particular position...

You're both wrong. It was John Jacob Niles.

what he preserved, though you have to go to an archive to figure it out, is for the ages.

Since he and Kodaly worked together, how do you tease out what he did for special mention?

Oh, let's not nit-pick, shall we? You're the one who asked about the distinction between Bartok and an ethnomusicologist. But it is hardly worth a quibble.

[Corlyss_D]

You're the one who asked about the distinction between Bartok and an ethnomusicologist.

No, I didn't. I asked Henry to clarify to which his comment applied.

[arglebargle]

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

Now this is most interesting. Perhaps Mozart is (if he is) the most popular with the general public because his greatness and accessability are both near the top. Whereas Beethoven is more great but less accessable and Schubert the other way round... hmmm, interesting way to look at it.

[Mahler]

I still haven't heard some of the big ones like Schumann, Haydn, Mahler, Shostakovich, Dittersdorf , and others - too many to name here.

If I may give another recommendation: Do not be too hasty with Mahler. As with Bruckner, Mahler's music is said to be among the most difficult and most complex, at least in the field of symphonies. Personally, I was first introduced to Mahler's fourth when I had not even heard any of his songs as well as the first three symphonies. Looking back, I wish I had taken a chronological approach, perhaps starting with Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen as an introduction to Mahler's first symphony, which features parts of those songs. Everything else would have fallen in place after that.