How to 'follow' classical music?

[rcarlberg]

I was not offended by the term "simplicity" because I think you're right, a lot of music from this period is very straightforward and obvious, though pleasantly so. Even stuff a little earlier -- Mozart being a prime example -- once you figure out his method just about every piece follows the same format and after a while the sameness of his composing gets kinda claustrophobic. It's not intellectual, it's all very mechanical.

Unlike, say, Bruckner or Rachmaninoff.

[PeterG]

Even stuff a little earlier -- Mozart being a prime example -- once you figure out his method just about every piece follows the same format and after a while the sameness of his composing gets kinda claustrophobic. It's not intellectual, it's all very mechanical.

Unlike, say, Bruckner or Rachmaninoff.

Exactly.

[fictionmusic]

Having a passing knowledge of the assumptions a given form will have makes following the music a lot easier. Like the link(s) to that summary stated, a Symphonic movement procedes in a fairly formal manner and identifying the 1st and second themes is pretty easy (of course sometimes in modern pieces it is more of a theme group than a big soaring melody) and that gives you all the meat you'll need to see the how subsequent developments and additional material come together.

I'd strongly recommend composers like Samuel Barber (either of his Essay's for Orchestra work well), Aaron Copland (Symphony #3 is great for that), Arthur Honegger (again Symphony #3 which has one of the most beautiful and dramatic openings around), and others in the conservative side to start with. Their music is ripped off constantly for Hollywood type scores as they all have a pretty modern voice as well as big lyrical themes in their symphonic material. Usually it is a breeze to see where one theme ends and another begins (and I am thinking of the exposition part of a movement here) and nothing they do is too off-putting.


Honegger has a great quote about his music where he says that the listener doesn't mind being at sea as long as they get glimpses of the shore once in awhile. That seems to be his over-riding concern as he ventures into dangerous waters, but never forsakes the themes he starts with.

Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra is another great piece to identify obvious themes and their developments, especially the intermezzo parts between movements 1 and 3 and 3 and 5.

[jake]

Also, unless you particularly like the Romantic and Classical stuff - Chopin, Beethoven, Brahms, Liszt, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Schuman, Franck and so on...don't start with them because you will get bored with the "simplicity" and similarity of them all very quickly.

Identify what you like periodwise and focus on that first.

On one hand I can see what you mean - but i think that is a very fiip analysis.
Chopin wrote almost exclusively for the piano - a few orchestral pieces notwithstanding. His music - admittedly to a lesser extent than that of Liszt, feels improvised and is of course fiendishly virtuosic - rarely boring.
Beethoven's music just kept developing layers of complexity as he himself grew older. The string quartets alone are worthy of a lifetime's study.
Don't get me started on Brahms - those 4 Symphonies are gems and his concert overtures are magnificent. Again look to his chamber music for more formal structures.
For me Schubert is one of the greatest composers - especially if you are looking to study form and structure in music. his music is so easy to listen to - check out his String Quintet or his effortlessly melodic 5th Symphony - a masterpiece of orchestration and balance.
What can one say about Tchaikovsky - perfection in orchestration - endlessly inventive melodicist - a master at every genre he worked in - he just nailed orchestration - i hear him in Sibelius, Grieg, Prokofiev and many more. he wrote a hell of a lot more than just ballets and "that" piano concerto.
I am less familiar with Schumann and Franck - I love the former's "Kinderszenen" piano pieces and the latter's lovely cello sonata.
I don't think you will get bored with the "simplicity" of these composers, in fact I think if the thematic material is relatively unchallenging it only serves to allow you to more deeply listen to the form of the music. Later composers like Webern paid great attention to form but the overall musical experience for me is so challenging as to make it difficult to delve into the hidden structures therein. Not that I haven't tried. Berg's Violin Concerto is deeply emotionally rewarding even given its dense tonal language.
Its a big world of music out there - don't exclude anything - you never know what you are missing.

[rcarlberg]

Having a passing knowledge of the assumptions a given form will have makes following the music a lot easier.

Sounds like you have a lot more than a "passing knowledge" -- thanks!