Christopher Webber said:

>I'll add my own "Why so?" to the pile of objections to this thought.
>I knew virtually all the pieces listed before I got remotely interested
>in Beethoven, or Handel, or Mozart ... I have found it infinitely
>easier to interest people in opera by taking them to "War and Peace"
>or "Wozzeck" than to "Fidelio" or "La Traviata".

By this thought, he was referring to my earlier comment:

>>'... But the great failing of this list is that it pre-supposes a
>>classical vocabulary.  So let's hope Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc
>>figure in the background too! ... '

Curious.  I see nothing wrong in starting a book at the end, but for
somebody starting with classical music, surely there is no hint in any
other experience of the basic structures or vocabulary used in Wozzek? It's
not wrong, just a lot more difficult!  And as we are talking a multi-hour
experience, not a multi-minute experience, surely the frustration and
boredom factor might creep in?

First impressions and enthusiasms are very often based on some little
fragment of familiarity accompanied by lots that is new.  So my contention
stands: it is easier to learn French, Portuguese, Spanish if you have a
fragment or two of Latin, but you can still learn it if you have no Latin.
Similarly it is easier to come to terms with 20th Century classical music
via something more akin to common musical parlance of the vernacular.
Popular songs are popular often because they are relatively simplistic and
easily digested; going from Eleanor Rigby to Beethoven string quartets is
one small step initially, going from Penny Lane to Lulu is another!

Christopher Rosevear