The collectors' dilemma

This thread has turned in some, well, interesting directions. I'd like to return to the spirit of Jah's original posting with this question: As those of us who are newer to the study of classical music add to our collections, do we need to spend more time listening to new acquisitions than our more experienced counterparts? For example, I just added Strauss' Alpine Symphony to my collection (Haitink, Concertgebouw). I have only a passing familiarity with Strauss, thanks to our wonderful local radio station, KUSC. Seems to me that I'll need to play this piece a few times in order to absorb it on a deep level. In contrast, most of you could listen to it once (or twice) and form a judgment. Your thoughts?

On the contrary. The Italian composers you cite tried to move the form on and, for the most part, succeeded in taking their audiences with them. Audiences that were more sophisticated than, clearly, you give them credit for. Some of the highest art is contained in some of the works of these composers that make the notespinning Barouquers the muzak of their age. The fact the occasional great sacred work emerged out of the slime is but an exception that proves the rule.

I suggest that you put the 18th century behind you and explore the work of these innovative composers. An expensive exercise, I admit, but well worth it for the wealth of music you will find.

I must say that I struggle with chamber music and not because I do not understand it. I understand it only too well thank you very much for your patronising and, frankly, insulting insinuation.

Who do you think you are, Parla?

Well along with  the greatest symphonic and concertante works I have to say I get the greatest musical satisfaction from piano music. The Beethoven 32, late Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, late Brahms, Liszt etc. Yes I do have a number of opera recordings but with the sole exceptions of the sublime music of the Magic Flute & Marriage of Figaro I cannot get the same intellectual or emotional satisfaction from opera, but I will readily admit I have little interest in the theatre. 

Puccini, for example, was a showman who like many others played to the gallery with a few hits interspersed with some boring bits, the forerunner of todays "musicals". I have attended the Bolshoi in Moscow (Khovanshina) and yes it was a most amazingly spectacular theatrical event, superbly done, but it did little for me musically.

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place instead of making your nonsensical assertions?

If you do not like something and not, unlike Parla, you do not understand it is a position I can understand as it mirrors mine on the boring Baroque.

Like you I've tried, have a number of recordings including the St. Matthew Passion (only becaus so much of it reminds me of singing hymns at school assembly) and I do like some of it but it tends to be Vivaldi and Gluck (opera, again).

My experience is that most self styled opera lovers care much more about "the drama" than they do about the music - which seems completely wrong to me.

Troyen, you should bother to answer my question whether you express an opinion and only that, because, then, your view belongs only to you and to those who may agree (if any) with you (and, then, they may find out "how right you are").

You don't have to direct me to any work of any Italian composer, because I have an archive possibly larger than yours (all the recorded works of Bellini, Rossini, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini, just name them, in multiple versions). It's not that I do not know or comprehend the genre or the composers. I simply do not believe their contributions in Classical Music goes further than the Opera itself. In most cases, not even further than the Italian one. So, what's the big deal of a "Lucia" or a "Sonanbula" (except for the melomanes) compared to any prelude and fugue of Bach that has become the object of studies, research, transcriptions, etc of almost any musician, various composers, scholars and most of music lovers too?

I really enjoyed your reasoning on the appreciation of St. Matthew Passion ("it reminds me of singing hymns at school assembly"). A work, mostly based on the narrative of the Passion, with plenty of Arias and recitatives and with very few memorable, incredibly sublime and difficult to perform (to the letter) choruses. However, as an opinion, I can accept anything you said, Troyen.

Parla

You keep avoiding any response to the actual question, resorting to any kind of foul and even irrelevant language.

To help you out: If you simply accept yourself (even without coming with a confession post) that your views on Opera and Baroque are your opinion and nothing else, nobody will bother to argue, contest or debate on these assertions. To me, it is absolutely clear (I like BIG in music) and it's perfectly fine with me, as long as you may comprehend that your predilection with BIG does not interfere with the importance of Baroque, that you have all the right to ignore, detest, etc.

Parla