Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Would you consider the following to be "The 30 Greatest Orchestral Works"?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

aesthete8

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 9:27:46 PM1/7/12
to
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=7330

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 8:20:44 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 7, 9:27 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=7330

No.

aesthete8

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 9:50:21 PM1/8/12
to
On Jan 8, 3:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:27 pm,aesthete8<art...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=7330
>
> No.

Shouldn't Beethoven's 5th and Berloz's Symphonie F. have been included?

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:18:27 AM1/9/12
to
No. The question is illegitimate.

Charles H. Sampson

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 11:35:01 AM1/9/12
to
aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=7330

The culprit here is the person who titled the course. It might fly
without ruffling too many feathers if it were titled something like "30
Great Orchestral Works" or "Exploring Orchestral Music Through 30 Great
Works". The minute you use a superlative in talking about any of the
arts, your judgement becomes suspect.

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
Message has been deleted

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 11:21:08 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 6:42 pm, Terry <b...@clown.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:35:01 +1100, Charles H. Sampson wrote
> (in article <1kdlh1w.em68x47eqk86N%csamp...@inetworld.net>):
>
> > aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=7330
>
> >      The culprit here is the person who titled the course.  It might fly
> > without ruffling too many feathers if it were titled something like "30
> > Great Orchestral Works" or "Exploring Orchestral Music Through 30 Great
> > Works".  The minute you use a superlative in talking about any of the
> > arts, your judgement becomes suspect.
>
> >                         Charlie
>
> The word "great" has become meaningless. It's high time we rediscovered
> "good", "fine", "excellent", "mediocre", etc. and stopped all this hyperbole.
> (I note that even the course itself, and the website, bear the moniker "The
> Great Courses"!)

Presumably because of Mortimer Adler & Robert Maynard Hutchins's
"Great Books."

Peter Granzeau

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:09:12 PM1/10/12
to
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 18:27:46 -0800 (PST), aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=7330

One person (the professor's) opinion on the term "greatest". I am sure
everything listed is a worthy work, but there are other works
(frequently by the same composers) that other people would include. For
instance, Beethoven's fifth symphony is included in many people's lists.

I am sure that the professor intended to give a wide review of
orchestral works, from the baroque through classical and romantic to the
modern era. His choice of works is probably intended to show works
which illustrate the growth of orchestral music. I note he starts with
Vivaldi's Four Seasons--works which were unknown until rediscovered in
the 1940s. If this lecture series had occurred in the 1930s, those
works wouldn't have been know, thus omitted.

Please also note a lecture titled "The Ones That Got Away".

Doug McDonald

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 7:51:59 PM1/10/12
to
On 1/10/2012 2:09 PM, Peter Granzeau wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 18:27:46 -0800 (PST), aesthete8<art...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=7330
>
> One person (the professor's) opinion on the term "greatest". I am sure
> everything listed is a worthy work, but there are other works
> (frequently by the same composers) that other people would include. For
> instance, Beethoven's fifth symphony is included in many people's lists.

Yes, but given the "first new thing" criterion, the 3rd it simply must be.

>
> I am sure that the professor intended to give a wide review of
> orchestral works, from the baroque through classical and romantic to the
> modern era. His choice of works is probably intended to show works
> which illustrate the growth of orchestral music.

Yes, indeed, that's clear.

But the lack of Bartok's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta"
or even "Concerto for Orchestra" or a concerto, is
a serious flaw. Etc.

Doug McDonald

Peter Granzeau

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 6:37:23 PM1/11/12
to
NPR had a series of the hundred best CDs for classical music.
Then they trimmed it to the 50 best.
I don't know if they went down to 25, but at the very end, the critic
decided that a certain recording of Beethoven's fifth was the single CD
everyone should have.

But since all these lists are subjective, I rather agree that
Beethoven's third and his ninth show high points in the growth of
classical music that must be included.
0 new messages