20 influential works?

[Dave2002]

Recently the Times had a supplement “20 classical works you should know” written by Richard Morrison.
There was also a comment that the works are “the 20 works have shaped the history of classical music”

I wondered why these 20 works were chosen. They may be as good as some other collections of supposedly representative works, though I do wonder why there wasn't anything by Schoenberg, - Pierrot Lunaire I believe was influential.
Haydn and Mozart could perhaps have featured more than once, for their contributions to the quartet, quintet and keyboard repertoire. Brahms doesn't feature at all, and why not Liszt instead/as well as Chopin? No Debussy, and closer to our time, no minimalist composers, nothing from America - Ives, and no Boulez.

The only piece I'm not at all familiar with is Gruppen.

1. William Byrd, Mass for four voices (1592)
2. Monteverdi, L'Orfeo (1607)
3. JS Bach, St Matthew Passion (1727)
4. Handel, Messiah (1741)
5. Mozart, Marriage of Figaro (1786)
6. Haydn, Symphony 104 , London (1795)
7. Schubert, Die schöne Müllerin (1823)
8. Beethoven, Symphony 9, (1824)
9. Mendelssohn, Octet (1825)
10. Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
11. Chopin, Etudes (1833)
12. Wagner, Ring (1876)
13. Verdi, Falstaff (1893)
14. Tchaikovsky, Symphony 6: Pathétique (1893)
15. Mahler, Symphony 5, (1904)
16. Stravinsky, Rite of Spring (1913)
17. Berg, Wozzeck, (1925)
18. Shostakovich, Symphony 5 (1937)
19. Stockhausen, Gruppen (1957)
20. Britten, War Requiem (1962)

[MrGongGong]

I do wonder why there wasn't anything by Schoenberg,

Which kind of destroys the idea that these are works which " shaped the history "

The only piece I'm not at all familiar with is Gruppen.

http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/stockhausen-gruppen-73901

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... written by Richard Morrison.
... I do wonder why there wasn't anything by Schoenberg

Cause and effect.

It's just another list - there'll be another one next month with a different 20 or 50 or however many. It saves journalists in the Murdoch empire the trouble of having to write anything worth reading. Like R3 - chatter not substance.

[visualnickmos]

Lists such as that in The Times are totally pointless.

[Roehre]

Lists such as that in The Times are totally pointless.

I concur fully

[Dave2002]

I concur fully

Except that they get people thinking - maybe that's not such a bad thing. The list of plays however from another day was, IMO, rather OTT, and esoteric, though perhaps that simply reflects my relative lack of interest in theatre and drama. Perhaps the music list would be revelatory and inspirational for someone who knew nothing about it.

I do find them very presumptious though, and in the case of the music list there are several questions which spring to mind.

a. Why Beethoven's 9, not 3,5, 7 or ... ? OK - maybe the first significant choral symphony. The assertion that this is "the most admired of all symphonies, and the masterpiece that most powerfully expresses Beethoven's idealistic hopes for mankind" would not find favour everywhere. Isn't there a view that Fidelio does the idealism/freedom better? Certainly many do not place the 9th at the top of the list of admired symphonies.

b. Why Haydn's London symphony? There are many other Haydn symphonies which are of interest. Indeed, why a symphony at all? I am very fond of the Nelson Mass, and I already suggested that Haydn made very significant contributions to chamber music, particularly string quartets.

c. I thought there was a response from Richard T - which now seems to have vanished. The comment seemed to be "why Falstaff?" out of Verdi's output. Again it seems to be some form of tokenism - I'm not sure that it is the best representative, or most influential of Verdi's works.

d. Why Mahler 5? What makes that one stand out from the others? Why not the Resurrection, or Das Lied von der Erde?

I actually found the Gruppen suggestion provocative, since I don't know it. Has it been influential? I will investigate further.

Missing composers include Puccini, Webern and Messiaen, in addition to those I have already pointed out.

[MrGongGong]

A list of 20 dead men
of influence on whom ?
composers ? audiences ? or recording marketing executives ?

[Richard Tarleton]

c. I thought there was a response from Richard T - which now seems to have vanished. The comment seemed to be "why Falstaff?" out of Verdi's output. Again it seems to be some form of tokenism - I'm not sure that it is the best representative, or most influential of Verdi's works.

Sorry, there was, I replied before I'd had my first cup of coffee and then decided it was pointless. In my own line of work, every year I came across a list of "20 Best Beaches/Picnic Spots/Country Walks/Birdwatching Spots" in travel sections, and really they're the last refuge of a lazy journalist stuck with a deadline.

[Dave2002]

Sorry, there was, I replied before I'd had my first cup of coffee and then decided it was pointless. In my own line of work, every year I came across a list of "20 Best Beaches/Picnic Spots/Country Walks/Birdwatching Spots" in travel sections, and really they're the last refuge of a lazy journalist stuck with a deadline.

"last refuge" - why not the first?

However, if lists are to be banned, what would you suggest instead?

Where I think these things are a pain is that they get rolled out with monotonous regularity. The numbers change sometimes, the actions/objects change, and there is nearly always some form of imperative "you must see/hear/do".

Lists are useful for trying to establish priorities, and for organisational purposes. Many newspapers and magazine repeat these things ad nauseam, though, perhaps forgetting that most of the readership read almost exactly the same stuff just a few months earlier.

**17 places you must go to wreck the wildlife before you die.
**You are a pleb if you don't read FILL IN THE BLANK at least once in your lifetime.
etc.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

"last refuge" - why not the first?

Richard Morrison is the Alsison Graham of the Music Critics: occasionally, he writes a piece that is genuinely thought-provoking, raises serious questions that concern the way the general public is served works of Art, and showing remarkable analytical acumen.

But for the most part, he's content tweeting out effortless fluff, designed merely to provoke reactions such as this latest list. He must know that it won't take long before his emploiyers realize that they can get a freshly-qualified twenty-year-old to come up with this sort of stuff far more cheaply than they pay Morrison, but for the moment, he seems content to accept the cheques.

[ahinton]

Richard Morrison is the Alsison Graham of the Music Critics: occasionally, he writes a piece that is genuinely thought-provoking, raises serious questions that concern the way the general public is served works of Art, and showing remarkable analytical acumen.

But for the most part, he's content tweeting out effortless fluff, designed merely to provoke reactions such as this latest list. He must know that it won't take long before his emploiyers realize that they can get a freshly-qualified twenty-year-old to come up with this sort of stuff far more cheaply than they pay Morrison, but for the moment, he seems content to accept the cheques.

But if and when Mr Murdoch does realise this, Mr Morrison will still be getting his cheques from BBC Music Magazine...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But if and when Mr Murdoch does realise this, Mr Morrison will still be getting his cheques from BBC Music Magazine...

Indeed - Mr Condy seems a fan, but then Morrison's MusMags articles tend to have a higher number of "reasoned" pieces - I don't think he's just presented a "List" and expected payment there. (They have other members of the junior staff to do this - in between serving Mr Condy's coffee.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Richard Morrison is the Alison Graham of the Music Critics:

That's extremely insulting.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's extremely insulting.

[Dave2002]

Richard Morrison is the Alsison Graham of the Music Critics: occasionally, he writes a piece that is genuinely thought-provoking, raises serious questions that concern the way the general public is served works of Art, and showing remarkable analytical acumen.

But for the most part, he's content tweeting out effortless fluff, designed merely to provoke reactions such as this latest list. He must know that it won't take long before his emploiyers realize that they can get a freshly-qualified twenty-year-old to come up with this sort of stuff far more cheaply than they pay Morrison, but for the moment, he seems content to accept the cheques.

It did occur to me that maybe this was written by one or two 20 year old somethings who did the leg work, then RM simply signed the final copy. However, I know little about how the papers work with this sort of thing, so this is pure speculation on my part. Would I have done much differently if I'd been given the same brief? Possibly not.

I would at least have expected to argue the toss about Pierrot Lunaire before publication.