Classical Genre Thread

No one's started it yet, so here it is. It's not "my" thread, so any of you classical buffs should contribute your current obsessions or favorite CDs of your collections. For my own postings, I will most likely tend to lean toward symphonic works, solo piano, and chamber works.

So, to start, the disc I was obsessed with during the Thanksgiving week:


Honegger: Orchestral Works

I suppose it is understandable that Honegger is not a very well-known or often-played composer, due to the difficulty of his compositions, but it is unfortunate that these pieces aren't more well known amongst the general classical community. The works here are difficult to digest; they are densely packed with ideas that take time and repeated listening to organize, have no real discernible traditional structure, often seem to have more orchestral "effects" than substance, do not have traditionally developed themes, and contain quite a lot of dissonance. The disc can be hard to sit through at once; these pieces were not meant to be heard as a whole and they do not function that way--they were written at different times for different mediums and purposes, and since they all exist as self-contained entities the only thing that helps is the strategic choosing and placing of the order of works by the conductor. The disc is very skillfully put together in that sense, beginning with a short piece that was written as a prelude, putting the most serious, weighty piece in the center, and ending with majestic film music, filling in the gaps with shorter symphonic poems.

Pastorale d'été
This piece was my first exposure to the music of Arthur Honegger; I played it as a college student in my chamber orchestra. I am very grateful to my conductor at the time for picking this piece, as I would never have found a reason to pick up any works by Honegger in my life. It certainly lives up to its name, and sounds as pastoral as any work could--it definitely shares some kinship with Beethoven's 6th symphony in that regard. It does have some wonderful moments of "what the hell is that" with an uptempo middle section that introduces some decidedly non-pastoral, non-thematic rhythmic portions that I guess could be considered dance-like, before Honegger brings us back to a beautiful Swiss country landscape (in my eyes, on a summer night of a full moon).

Horace Victorieux
This work is the beast of the disc, clocking in at nearly twenty minutes. It is the work that has taken me the longest to come to appreciate, but it deserves its spot as the centerpiece of this collection. For years I wrote it off as a painfully uninteresting gallimaufry of ideas that I would suffer through in order to get to the cool piece about the locomotive (nowadays, I don't see why that piece deserves any more attention than the majority of the other pieces here). It was originally conceived to accompany a ballet depicting the story of the battle between the Horatii and Curatii, but Honegger's collaborator passed away before the work could be completed. Honegger nonetheless completed the music and put the piece out on the concert circuit, enjoying a bit of popularity with it. The story can be followed if one desires, but it's really better to just experience the piece as a marvelous creation on its own merits.

It starts with layered blasts of percussion and brass for thirteen seconds before immediately switching to a chorale of shifting false harmonic tones in the strings with a wind accompaniment that drifts and flows like a twisted river. The solo lines and voices move amongst each other without settling on an idea or repeated statement, with wandering contrapuntal harmonies trading opportunities to be in the foreground. At six minutes a more structured and forceful fugal statement appears that is again overtaken by a more wistful wind melody which again makes way for the dark fugal material--they try to coexist and end up melting into each other. There are fanfares, battle music, expressive chamber moments, and death represented. The piece is constantly on the move, and Honegger is continuously introducing new ideas and motifs even as others seem to have barely established any solid footing. It moves like a virus that refuses to be quarantined for study. It's brilliant, but at the same time if the listener does not remain focused and engaged, it is easy to grow lost and disinterested.

Mermoz Suites 1 & 2
The disc ends gloriously with these two "symphonic movements" of music distilled from the score to the 1943 Cuny film. It's the most melodic and easy to digest, with the suites sharing the same thematic material and actually developing a nice arch with what could be considered an almost Romantic progression to the sound. Film composers of today could take a lesson from the pages of Honegger's works in being able to write music for a film that can be brought together to make a strong concert piece. Listening to these two movements, there's no need to have a film in front of you at all, the music is so descriptive and alive, and is not at all secondary to whatever could be happening on a screen.

The Orchestre du Capitole de Toulouse led by Michel Plasson along with the engineers of the recording do a remarkable job of cleanly tackling and bringing out the voices in the hardest rhythmic and contrapuntal passages, and all of the virtuosic elements for each voice show no signs of hesitation or weakness, with the single standout "whoopsie" exception in the Mermoz Suite No. 2 at the 5:15 mark, where the piccolo comes down off of a group rising scale before the rest, which in turn helps a lone string player miscount and come in early at the next entrance. It's very small, though I wonder, given the excellence of the rest of the performance, how it is that that was allowed to remain in the recording. It is also a testament to how in touch the players in this symphony are with each other.

The Prelude to Shakespeare's Tempest, Pacific 231, and Rugby are also equally amazing works, with Pacific 231, from what I can see regarding Honegger's available discography, being the most popular of his pieces.

Awesome. I was waiting for someone to start this and I'll check the album out

I was going to do a review this weekend if no one else had, but I'll write one and post it next week.

I'll check this out tomorrow.

I've been somewhat removed from a classical funk lately, but I'm sure it will return... Hopefully I'll have something good to contribute here.

Also definitely gonna check that Honegger collection out.

For completely unrelated reasons to this thread I've been in a monstrous classical binge lately. My first one in over 1.5 years if my memory serves me well. Unfortunately I'm not so far broadening my range very much, as it's the sort of thing I always go for when listening to classical, namely, Pollini Chopin interpretations, Gould Bach recordings, Ashkenazy Rachmaninov piano concertos, etc. I suppose it's because piano is the only instrument I play classical music on, but I seem to have this need for almost any classical I listen to to be heavily piano-driven. I've made some weak efforts at exploring string quartets, but they just haven't retained my interest yet. I suppose the next most prominent instrument that I go for is prominent violin work.

Looking at your user title, maybe check out Scheherezade by Rimsky-Korsakov. Highly Romantic Russian big orchestral work with a ton of violin solos.
The collection I posted here is definitely off the beaten path--Honegger was associated with Les Six (Honegger, Durey, Auric, Milhaud, Poulenc and Tailleferre--three of those I don't even know about) who were "collected" by Satie. It's hard to come by, I think, so if you're interested I could help out.

Thanks, Fretless. Completely unfamiliar with Honegger's work; will check out. If something worthy springs to mind, I'll contribute a review.

Yeah I can't find this

Sounds good to me.

Cool to hear a different orchestra play the Pastorale. This one brings more of an edge to the piece.

I just listened to this twice because I couldn't find the disc at my CD shop (I don't download).

Fretless is right: it sounds about as pastoral as pastoral can get. I mean, parts of it don't really sound like music as much as musical instruments imitating outdoor noises. It's a really cool approach, I think. Parts of it reminded me of the quieter portions of Le Sacre du Printemps, and I think Fretless was right to draw a comparison to Beethoven's 6th.

I think I liked it but because this isn't a piece with any really memorable parts after two listens, I think I'm going to have to live with it some more. I'd like to see the score for it. I will say that it has introduced me to a new composer whom I had never heard of, and I will add it to the list of composers I keep in my pocket to keep an eye out for at CD shops.



I'm not sure what to review. Part of me wants to do the 9th, but lots of people probably know it. That said, I feel I could point out new things. But then there is the issue of which recording, etc. Part of me wants to do Bruckner 4, which I love. But I think Fretless would probably be a better Bruckner reviewer than I would. Part of me wants to do something like Janacek's Mladi, or one of Brahms' String Sextets, but I think I would like to find youtube videos of whatever I choose so it can be very easily accessible. And part of me wants to do Vaughan Williams' Dona Nobis Pacem to celebrate the Christmas season, but I'm not very familiar with it except the last part. The overwhelming pull is to do something of Wagner, which I've come to know really well, and where I think my enthusiasm would be most contagious. I had a long talk with a German lady at work today who was telling me all about going to Bayreuth to see Katarina Wagner's universally-panned production of Die Meistersinger two years ago. Perhaps I'll take that as a jumping-off point and review an act or maybe just some orchestral selections. We'll see. At any rate, I'm going to pour a libation and ponder this for a while before I start writing tomorrow.

So is this now a review and discuss thread? Or can we just talk about whatever, whenever?

Considering there are about four of us here who listen to and discuss classical music on the forum, it's whatever we want. As long as it doesn't turn into a thread with JCP declaring which of Tchaikovsky or Shostakovitch is more metal, I'm good.

Hahahah, sounds good. I have been listening to the Brahms Op. 51 Quartets in my car lately. I picked them up on Naxos, with the Ludwig quartet as my intro to Brahms' Chamber music. I had heard the Requiem before (and my girlfriend owns the Rattle recording with BPO), but I couldn't digest it right away, and I had sung in the chorus for Schicksalslied. This cd drew me into Brahms though, the players play with great musicality, and the sound is great. I was slow to these recordings at first however, just because my expectations were a bit different than what I got. Mostly because I wanted one in a major key but these are minor. At the time of purchase, I was just in a major mood. But I have since really warmed to them. Are there any other pieces by Brahms I should check out? I am kinda looking for his chamber music, but any specific symphony from which to start, or not start?

I really don't listen to classical very much. I guess I just never looked into it. However, I'm listening to Tchaikovsky Concerto no 1 right now. It's the only classical I own.

He wrote two string sextets that I like a good deal. #2 in G is pretty great. I'm not huge on what symphonies of his I own, 2 &4, but I can tell that there is a seed of liking them that will probably develop later.

Just picked up Szell & Cleveland doing Beethoven 3 & 8. All of my Beethoven symphonies so far are Furtwangler and Toscanini. It'll be interesting to see how Szell does it. It's only my second recording of 8, but my fourth of 3.

Ahh, I currently have listened to Josef Krips' readings with LSO for the Beethoven symphonies. Everything he does I don't like. So now I am getting the Simon Rattle Vienna Phil recording. It has earned mixed reviews, but I liked most of what I've heard from his Sibelius symphonies, so I thought I'd go with it.

I'm edging towards a review of the Brahms piano quartets played by the Beaux Arts Trio with Walter Trampler. Two of them are in minor, but there is an A Major piano quartet (no. 2) that I'm sure you would really love. But the G Minor has a Rondo alla Zingarese finale that makes you feel as great as some of the major key stuff.
I checked out the string quartets from the local library to give them a listen.
The fourth symphony is an "essential" for Brahms, but they're all great.

We just did the third a couple of months ago. I like everything except the Andante. As long as the conductor takes it at a reasonable tempo I can tolerate it.

I've always been hesitant about getting Beethoven symphonies for my collection. It would be cool if Eric would do some comparisons and recommendations.

Duly noted. Once I give the Szell 3 & 8 disc a few more spins, I'll chime in.

EDIT - I will just say if you're hesitant about which to get because of money, just get this one: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-van-Beethoven-Symphonies-Toscanini/dp/B0000CNTLU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1260757852&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Ludwig van Beethoven: The 9 Symphonies - Arturo Toscanini / NBC Symphony Orchestra: Ludwig van Beethoven (Composer), Arturo Toscanini (Conductor), NBC Symphony Orchestra: Music[/ame]. Toscanini conducting NBC in the early 1950s in good mono sound for $2 a symphony. You cannot beat that deal. I've used that as my jumping off point.

For my first review I've decided to stick close to home and will be talking about two of Wagner's preludes. Because I wanted everyone to be able to access this stuff, I've chosen just from youtube videos. I will list some recommended recordings at the end.

Before we start, let me just express my affection for the generation of conductors who died in the mid 1950s-mid 1960s. There were a number of just astounding Wagner conductors then: first and foremost, Toscanini and Furtwangler, but also Knappertsbusch, Keilberth, Krauss, Klemperer, with Bohm kind of rounding out the group. Having first heard Wagner through Solti's orchestral excerpts and his recording of Tannhauser, it was refreshing to go back one generation and find some absolute gems. A large part of my preference stems from the fact that lots of Wagner conductors more recently, including but not limited to Solti, Levine, Sinopoli, Abbado, and Barenboim, all have this notion that when you want to sound deep, you get slow. Wagner sort of lends itself to that. But that also perpetuates the notion, which I think is false, that Wagner is massive and overblown. Wagner's music is dramatic at most times and occasionally gut-wrenching, especially when that sort of sound matches the happenings on stage. But it does not have to feel slow, and does not have to be tedious. Therefore I generally turn back a few generations and put up with questionable sound quality in order to keep the dramatic fires burning and the performances moving.

Now for the music.

Lohengrin, Act 1 Prelude

A word on the instrumentation before we begin: the prelude is peculiar in that the violins are not split more or less equally into two sections. There are four solo violins that carry the piece for 17 bars re-emerge at the end. Seventeen bars might not sound like much, but the whole piece is 75 measures. The rest of the violins are split into four sections throughout. I also get the sense that this is one of the earlier works to include the bass tuba.

I won’t get into the plot of the drama here because it does not matter much in the context of the prelude. The prelude acts to set the tone of the Grail and the sort of “otherness” of the drama. Incidentally, Wagner took this principle much further in his second Grail drama and last work, Parsifal, where the music in general is meant to sound foreign, ethereal, and timeless.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E"]YouTube- Otto Klemperer: Prelude to Richard Wagner's Lohengrin[/ame]

Lavignac said this in his book on Wagner: "This introduction is intended to describe the return of the Holy Grail to the mountain of the pious knights." The beginning of the piece sounds pretty pastoral to me, out in an open field in the morning with the dew waiting for something to happen. You can hear that something building throughout, especially when at moments like 2:35 where the ethereal rhythms become definite for a moment. At 4:35 with the chromatic downward movement, I think Wagner is hinting at the sort of sound he ends up realizing fully in his next drama, Tristan und Isolde. When the tension is built sufficiently and you know it is coming, there it is: at 6:35 the Grail is revealed and we are able to sit and view it for a moment before it retreats. Ernest Newman has to say about that moment: “There is a law in a certain species of musical design - not a law, of course, to which composers consciously conform but a procedure which they follow intuitively - that might be called the law of two-thirds, the time-period that follows the climax being to the time-period of the ascent to the climax numerically as one to two. ... In the Lohengrin prelude the pivotal point comes with almost mathematical exactitude.” Now after that climax at 8:50, which is over a minute left to go, the piece seems to be at an end. But for a long while there are the four solo violins and the woodwinds extending out the feeling of having been shown something spectacular minutes before.

This recording comes from this disc: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Orchestral-Music-Richard/dp/B00006I0AU"]Amazon.com: Wagner: Orchestral Music: Richard Wagner, Otto Klemperer, Philharmonia Orchestra: Music[/ame]



Die Meistersinger, Act 1 Prelude

I’m going with a more recent recording here because I think that Sinopli gets the right feel for it. You can see in his conducting that this opera is supposed to be a comedy. The opening theme is supposed to be pompous, and the way he conducts it, you can see that.

First, a bit of plot, because the prelude is so dependent on a couple of events in the drama. Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg is about a young man, Walter, who falls in love with the daughter of a craftsman, Eva. Her father is a member of a guild of poet-craftsmen, who make shoes, jewelry, or bread by day, and craft songs according to complex rules. Eva’s father will give her hand in marriage to the winner of a song contest, to be held on the next day. Walter, not being a guild member, tries immediately to win membership so he can compete the next day, but in his audition the mastersingers deride him for not knowing or following their strict rules. But the best of them, Hans Sachs, sees in Walter great potential. Various events take place, and that night Sachs and Walter write the “prize song,” which conforms to their rules but surpasses any other song written by the guild. Though he was not eligible to compete, in the third act at the song contest he sings the song that he and Sachs had wrote and is declared the winner by everyone around.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9VqdSnEZqo"]YouTube- Richard Wagner: Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg — Vorspiel zum I. Aufzug[/ame]

Right at the beginning, the theme is of the guild of “the Mastersingers in their corporate capacity - a solid bourgeois crew, firm on their feet, very self-conscious and sure of themselves,” says Newman. For a while, the theme seems distracted and wandering aimlessly, which shows the tendency of the guild to get bogged down in their particular rules and customs. At 1:11, there is the statement of the theme of Walter’s wooing of Eva. The violins with a long 16th note figure take us to 1:49, where the theme of the Guild’s Banner appears. At 3:45, the violins carry a theme of Walter’s love for Eva in, which eclipses any sound of the guild for a time. At 4:10 appears what will become the song by which Walter will win Eva’s heart in the song contest in Act 3. From 5:35 there is a short theme, two eighth notes followed by an eighth note triplet and repeated, which represents Walter’s earlier attempt to win membership in the guild. That theme and the first theme of the guild interact, fighting for supremacy, for a long while until 8:15 where they are reconciled and presented together, showing Walter’s winning membership into the guild and Eva’s heart in the process. In the full opera, the last C Major chord leads directly into a hymn being sung in a church.

Bonus video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rM96_RS1Os"]YouTube- Furtwangler conducts Die Meistersinger in 1942[/ame]

Wilhelm Furtwangler conducts the prelude to Die Meistersinger in an airplane factory in 1942 Germany in a propaganda video by Goebbels. This video is fascinating to me in lots of ways other than the music. Obviously there are the swastikas all over the place, and the idea of playing this music to a group of factory workers seems absolutely ridiculous today. But then again, that’s the sort of people Wagner thought his dramas would appeal to. At 1:37, you can catch a great glimpse of Furtwangler’s conducting style. People who played for him said that in performance, he was like a medium, and you can see that here. I often watch this video and put up with the poor sound to watch Furtwangler conduct and to see the cross-armed, angry Aryan crowd.


There are any number of albums of Wagner’s orchestral extracts. Usually they are a two disc set. I have Solti’s and it’s very decent. Furtwangler’s got one that I’ll check out someday. Karajan and Klemperer have them released on EMI’s Recordings of the Century series, I think. Now when I want to listen to Wagner, I usually just do it an act at a time, or if I really want to hear a prelude or overture, I listen to the one from the full recording of whatever drama I want to hear. If you want more specific recommendations than that, I’ll help as much as I can.

All four symphonies are essential. The last movement of no. 4 is one of the finest pieces for orchestra of all time. Also his violin concerto and 2 piano concertos are phenomenal. I need to listen to his chamber music more myself.

Although I can't really contribute to this thread (except for possibly avant-garde classical, but anyone with an interest in the genre probably knows as much as me), I will be keeping a close eye upon it.

Sinopoli--It's nice to see a conductor being simple and clear yet still being expressive and full of the music instead of being full of himself. So many cool things to watch there--I especially got a kick out of the timpanist's almost conductorial preparations to his big moments.
That Furtwangler video was amazing. It reminded me in moments of the opening scene of Fellini's 8 1/2, when the main character is gasping for breath in his overheating car in the middle of a stopped jam, with silent, still faces staring at him not doing a thing. And that factory is huuuuuuge. The effect of the music while seeing the various faces--old people, wounded soldiers, women, aryan young, is stirring.

It's interesting to note the way they set up their orchestral strings, too.
I think Sinopoli has it: 1st violins, 2nd violins, cellos, violas, basses in two rows behind the violas on the right.
Furtwangler, from what I can tell: 1sts, celli, violas, 2nds, basses behind the cellos on the left side of the stage.
The modern standard that 95% of the orchestras I've played in go 1sts, 2nds, violas, cellos, basses behind cellos.

I wonder what their different reasons for the string placement were. I played Beethoven 7 last month, and our guest conductor switched the violas and cellos, so the second violins (us) were next to the cellos, and the violas were sitting by the edge of the stage, away from us, like Sinopoli's group. A huge amount of rhythmic accompanimental material is in the 2nds and violas in that symphony. Why he separated us I cannot figure out, and of course he made a big deal about us not being together with such important material. And yes he was a douchebag (Stephen d'Agostino).
Anyway, I don't recall how the strings in Meistersinger do with like material, but every voice really has their own job.
I've played a few Lohengrin and Meistersinger preludes/overtures, but never has any conductor taken the time to stop and say anything about the themes and what they mean. Thinking back to my youth orchestra days, that seems inexcusable, especially since musically they were far over our heads.

On Sinopoli - I was shocked that his Meistersinger was this good. His Parsifal recordings that I've seen are Levine-slow, which is inexcusable in my mind. It sucks the drama out of a piece when each note is heard for half again as long as it should be.

On the Furtwangler recording - I really do love that video for all the reasons you mentioned.

On orchestra set up - We always set up the standard way when I played. I like the idea of doing stereo violins. The 1st / viola / cello / 2nd setup used to be much more popular. I'm quite sure that is how Toscanini did it, for example. Interesting note: at Bayreuth, they set up with stereo violins, but backwards, so that the 2nds are on the conductor's left and the 1sts on his right. Actually, the basses and harps are in stereo, too, on little podiums. Here is a picture of that pit, which is very strange because it goes down on a slant below the stage:



Violins on the top step, violas and cellos behind them, and then basically the standard setup going back down to the heavy brass and tympani at the back.

And I do think it's important when playing any programmatic piece to at least explain the basics of what is going outside of the music insofar as it informs the music, whether it's a Stravinski ballet or a Strauss tone poem. And especially with Wagner, where the leitmotivs are so integral to the working of a piece, it seems silly not to tell your musicians what so and so a theme is doing in the piece as a whole.

I recently discovered Nicolas Flagello. Excellent, excellent neo-romantic composer.

Listening to the Honegger album now. Reminds me of Messiaen so far.

I have a quick question. How much does classical music constitute your own daily listening? I rarely listen to music outside of classical music. Maybe some sigur ros or one or two other bands, but generally it sticks within the "classical" confines. Just interested in your guys' own habits, I guess.

Also, I have gotten myself back into Schoenberg's Gurrelieder after not having listened in a while. Great, massive, piece. I may do a review for it in the coming days. If your interested, it's the Riccardo Chailly recording on Decca with the Radio Symphony Orchestra Berlin.

My classical listening is very sporadic. Honestly the most frequent component is classical pieces I play on the piano. Other than that, it's binges every few years and the odd album or assortment of pieces every now and then. I am in one of those binges right now though, so several hours a day at the moment.

90% of my listening these days is classical. Other than that, it's a lot of Peter Gabriel, Warren Zevon, and Greensky Bluegrass.

Also, probably half of my classical listening is either Beethoven or Wagner. Back in the day, I would listen to Stravinsky or Copland or Holst for a few days and then go right back into my standard listening. It was more of a curiosity than anything else. Now, I don't think about it.

Yeah, 90% seems to be a good number here too. I never thought of asking which composers you usually are drawn to. I guess I'll point out that the majority of my collection is Schoenberg, thus I listen to him a lot. Also I enjoy Sibelius. Stravinsky, Messiaen and Mahler are kind of up there as well, but I haven't heard as much as I'd like to with these three. I've been opening up to Wagner as of late, as well as Strauss.

What Wagner and what Strauss?

I loved playing Sibelius and was thinking about buying a cycle of his symphonies soon, probably this one: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Symphonies-Finlandia-Kullervo-etc/dp/B00011KOF4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1261098143&sr=8-3"]Amazon.com: Sibelius: The 7 Symphonies; Finlandia; Kullervo; etc. [Box Set]: Karl Magnus Fredriksson, Jean Sibelius, Colin Davis, London Symphony Orchestra, Hillevi Martinpelto: Music[/ame]

I've got a little bit of Schoenberg and I like what I have but I have to be in the right state of mind to enjoy it. I've not heard Messiaen. I like Stravinsky though after reading his book The Poetics of Music I like him a little less. Actually, it probably just has to do with the fact that Stravinsky was all I listened to for about a month a while back. Mahler is a composer I feel like I should like more than I do. I've got symphonies 4, 5, and 8. I like 4 a good deal but 8 just doesn't appeal to me. Having just bought 5, I haven't had a chance to sit down with it yet.

My next classical music purchase will probably be this: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Four-Symphonies-Symphony-Orchestra/dp/B00000JPCE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1261098426&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Brahms: The Four Symphonies (NBC Symphony Orchestra Vol. IV): Johannes Brahms, Arturo Toscanini, NBC Symphony Orchestra: Music[/ame]

I've only got Brahms' 4th, which I didn't care for much early on but I find it growing on me. In general I love Toscanini and at $2 a symphony you really can't go wrong. If I find myself liking it I'll probably get another set down the road. That's the nice thing about Brahms: there isn't a ton of it, so a full set isn't very expensive.

Well, as you may remember from the Wagner thread, I have listened to/watched Tristan und Isolde. I was thinking about doing the Ring next, but I feel that may be too much too soon. There is a dvd of Tannhauser at my school I might check out. Also, my Strauss has been Don Juan. I have rented Elektra and I have a recording of Bernard Haitink doing Also Sprach Zarathustra, which I've not heard all of yet. Plan on checking out Tod und Verklarung and Eine Alpensinphonie sometime soon too.

Also, that cycle of the Sibelius symphonies is actually Davis' least recommended one, or so I understand from when I was searching for my own set. I ended up going with the Simon Rattle boxset, but from what I hear, Davis' new cycle with LSO and his old BSO recordings are top notch. If it's a price thing, you still can't beat Davis for quality though, great Sibelian.
As for Messiaen, his Turangalila Symphony would probably be the best first piece. I also adore his quartet for the end of time.
I agree with the Schoenberg comment, actually. The only pieces that I don't have to be in "the mood" for are his Concerto for String Quartet, Verklarte Nacht, String Quartet in D (1897), String Quartet 2, and selections from Gurrelieder. His first Chamber Symphony is so incredibly dense. I still don't understand it, but I'm determined to. And I think that's what draws me to Schoenberg. There is this world which you can discover once you really delve into the music, and it goes beyond tonality or atonality. He really knew what he was doing. This is why he dominates my music collection, and in my school everybody just knows me as "that percussionist who actually likes Schoenberg". My goal is to listen to every piece he has composed and see if I can find this in all of his music. It's a rewarding experience.

My listening of late composer-wise hasn't been anything too exotic - Chopin, Rachmaninov, J.S. Bach, Mahler. I also have some Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven lined up. I've actually been focusing more on performers lately - Pollini, Argerich, Ashkenazy, Gould, and Hahn in particular.

I didn't make the connection between you in this thread and you in the Wagner thread. I just got Bohm's 1966 Bayreuth Tristan on CD, so I'll be able to discuss that with you a little bit once I listen through one time.

The Ring may be overdoing it next, but Tannhauser is probably a good choice. That was my first Wagner drama, actually, and I like it pretty well. You can tell it's early material, but long stretches of it are very good. You might also pick just one of the parts of the Ring, probably Die Walkure but perhaps Das Rheingold, and get acquainted with that. Parsifal, my favorite, probably wouldn't be a bad choice either. You really can't go wrong with Wagner.

Come to think of it, I've only got one recording of Strauss, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Strauss-Eulenspiegels-Merry-Pranks-Transfiguration/dp/B0000025JH/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1261106937&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.com/Strauss-Eulenspiegels-Merry-Pranks-Transfiguration/dp/B0000025JH/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1261106937&sr=8-1[/ame], which is Szell conducting Cleveland. I like everything I've heard, but I've only really loved Tod und Verklerung. Like Mahler, Strauss is one of those guys I should probably like a lot more than I do, and someday I'm sure they'll hit me for all their genius. Until then, I'll listen to them whenever I get the itch.

That's a worthwhile thing to know. It's probably not the next symphony cycle I'll buy, but it's right behind Brahms, which is no big deal regarding cost, and Bruckner, which is a bit bigger of a deal. That said, I've got a lot of stuff I've only heard once or twice or three times that I should probably listen to a couple more times before I go off buying long symphony cycles like Bruckner's.

You always say that you listen to pretty much exclusively piano music. And then you say that classical music never really holds your interest for very long, and that listening to it comes in binges. Perhaps try something other than piano works?

I have tried different formats and they don't capture my attention as much is what I mean. I'm open to suggestions though.

Does anyone have any opinions on Havergal Brian? I heard a symphony of his, maybe a month ago, on the radio at three in the morning, and it impressed me so much that I spent two days checking the website and calling the station to find out what it was. I'm thinking of asking for a CD of his for Christmas. Apparently he wrote an impressive 32 symphonies, but there seems to be little in the way of information on this guy.

I found a link to his first symphony, it seems to be the most well-known and so I'm hoping it was the one I heard. And according to wiki it outstrips even Mahler's 8th in the number of musicians required.

I can't listen often to one genre for long. I usually try to listen to something classical every day, but sometimes my mind's just not into it. I have no idea what kind of percentage it would be.

Beethoven's symphony cycle.

I have the recording of his "Gothic" Symphony--it's a Guinness record holder for largest symphony ever composed. I don't really know what to think of it, but the last time I tried listening to it I didn't think it was very good. I have the Marco Polo label recording and I think the problem is that it's not very well recorded. It sounds rushed and I think takes away from what could be a good piece.

I've never seen a DVD of Wagner, actually. But I do think often about how I would stage his dramas. For me, the Ring could be done in any number of ways that could work. I don't have anything against the Boulez/Chereau production in theory. If you're going to watch that one, I would recommend reading Bernard Shaw's The Perfect Wagnerite beforehand. Shaw sort of pioneered that interpretation of the Ring, and his account is compelling and a great read regardless of whether you agree with it.

My complain against Levine's Wagner really has nothing to do with the Ring and everything to do Parsifal, which he takes slow enough to make me puke. Just looking at the sound recording, his Ring is 14 discs, which is the same as my Krauss recording. It's a good deal longer than Bohm's very quick recording but not much longer than the famous Solti and Karajan recordings. So maybe Levine wouldn't be so bad there. Siegfried Jerusalem plays Siegfried for him, and Jerusalem is one of the better heldentenors of the last 50 years, plus James Morris plays Wotan, which is a plus. His cast is surely better than the Boulez recording.

For what it's worth, Shaw said his favorite way of taking in Wagner was sitting in the back of an opera box, unable to see the stage. I'm not sure if he's right, but the notion of Wagner communicating almost wholly through the music and an understanding of the story is one that I think is right. A good production can do well, and I would have killed to see the 1951-mid-60s Bayreuth Parsifal, which was done with almost no set except for columns of light, but in general I think a production has a lot more room to go wrong than it does to go right. Not that there is a single "right" interpretation to any of these dramas, but to have a decent, believable interpretation actually executed well is something that I get the impression is rare.

In short, I would pay a lot more attention to the quality of the singers and orchestra and conductor than I would to the set, at least for a first acquaintance with one of these dramas. Even shorter, I'd say just go for a good audio recording, of which there are more to choose from than the videos.

I listen to almost exclusively classical of late. Recently I have been listening to a lot of Haydn(his string quartets and Creation oratorio are divine), Janacek, and Shostakovich. My staples that never leave my listening rounds are the Trinity of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Schubert, Chopin, Puccini, Verdi, and Strauss.

Eric, I think you would respond well to Strauss's operas. Salome, Elektra and Der Rosenkavalier are probably his finest, although you can't really go wrong with any of them. Also you should listen to Mahler's 6th and 9th Symphonies.

Symphony: are you familiar with the works of Berg and Webern? They are students of Schoenberg and the three of them making up th Second Viennese School(analogous to the "First" Viennese School of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven). Berg's Violin Concerto and his opera Wozzeck are among the most powerful works written in the 20th Century, and Webern's music is incredibly dense and focused.

Also regarding Messiaen: Turangalila, Quatour pour le fin de temps, Vingt Regards sur l'enfant Jesus, and La Transfiguration de notre Seigneur are all masterpieces of the highest order and should be included in any music collection.

I wonder if that inspired this production to some extent, even though it's a different opera:

It's part of a whole theory on staging theater in general that was advanced by Adolphe Appia before WWII. It's a really compelling way to update the look of these dramas. For example, act 1 of Parsifal as staged by Wieland Wagner in 1937:



Same drama, same producer, different theory, in 1951:



I think it's cool because Wieland Wagner basically opened up the gates for staging Wagner in a way that was different than the original sets Wagner had seen. Now there are any number of ways of staging these old works that can be visually and philosophically stimulating, like the 1976-1981 Industrial Ring. But then you also end up with bullshit like this:

Considering how deeply the singers should be immersed in the role and the history, you'd think there would be quite a bit of "you want me to wear what? I don't think so..." or if they're really just ruled by the paycheck and director and don't have a voice. But I'd certainly want all of my performers to be invested in the overall vision.