Learning Classical Music and/or Chess

[truemane]

Good morning, Playground! In my eternal and unending quest to turn my mobile phone into a net benefit in my life rather than a soul-sucking liability, I am looking for two very specific things and I thought maybe a good crowd-sourcing might help me out. One of them, an audio something on classical music to turn to while working and the other, a chess app to keep me off Reddit while waiting for the elevator.

Request #1 - Classical Music
I am looking for a way to 'learn' about Classical Music. I know that there's a lot of it, and it's all different modes and styles and eras and what-not. And maybe there's no single place to get everything I want, but what I would like is an AUDIO tool (ie not videos - I can't fit videos into my routines) that can walk me through as much of the topic as possible. History. Development. Notable figures. Milestones. Structure and content and theory of the actual music itself. I'd like to be able to listen to a piece and have some thoughts on when it was made and what kind of thing it is and what influences are part of it (the same way I can watch the Mandalorian and be like 'Oh, there's some Seven Samurai and some High Plains Drifter and a little Outlaw Josey Wales.").

Request #2 - Chess
I know how to chess pretty okay, I'd like to be able to chess a little better. At the moment, however, I don't have a ton of time to sit and PLAY a lot of chess games. What I would like is a phone app that, basically, can do lessons and then related puzzles all in a nice, organized row. I've tried all the main apps that you get when you Google "Want to learn Chess Plz" and they all are either too general or two specific or don't lay out the information in a clear, organized line. What I'd like, ideally, is an app that starts with 'Lesson 1 - This is a Chess Board' and goes all the way up to, like, 'Lesson 418 - The Sicilian.' I might not learn much from Lessons 1 to 103 or whatever, but I would love something that linear and comprehensive.

I don't at all mind paying for nice things, so don't shy away from suggesting paid options if you know any.

Thanks so much in advance!

[Peelee]

Request #2 - Chess
I know how to chess pretty okay, I'd like to be able to chess a little better. At the moment, however, I don't have a ton of time to sit and PLAY a lot of chess games. What I would like is a phone app that, basically, can do lessons and then related puzzles all in a nice, organized row. I've tried all the main apps that you get when you Google "Want to learn Chess Plz" and they all are either too general or two specific or don't lay out the information in a clear, organized line. What I'd like, ideally, is an app that starts with 'Lesson 1 - This is a Chess Board' and goes all the way up to, like, 'Lesson 418 - The Sicilian.' I might not learn much from Lessons 1 to 103 or whatever, but I would love something that linear and comprehensive.

Try looking for chess puzzle apps instead of chess learning apps. Chess puzzles are both fun and simplified; you're dealing with a much smaller number of pieces, which helps to show tactical advantages that are easier to miss with a full board setup, IMO.

My favorite chess app currently is super fun, but probably crap at teaching (though I don't know for sure) - Really Bad Chess. The "ranked mode" (not actually ranked, just an auto-handicap system) keeps pace with your level of skill, so if you're really bad, you're also massively overpowered, which also might make you feel kind of bad if you lose. And there's a freeplay mode, where you can set your own handicap level (up to the max level you've achieved in ranked mode).

[Aedilred]

Request #2 - Chess
I know how to chess pretty okay, I'd like to be able to chess a little better. At the moment, however, I don't have a ton of time to sit and PLAY a lot of chess games. What I would like is a phone app that, basically, can do lessons and then related puzzles all in a nice, organized row. I've tried all the main apps that you get when you Google "Want to learn Chess Plz" and they all are either too general or two specific or don't lay out the information in a clear, organized line. What I'd like, ideally, is an app that starts with 'Lesson 1 - This is a Chess Board' and goes all the way up to, like, 'Lesson 418 - The Sicilian.' I might not learn much from Lessons 1 to 103 or whatever, but I would love something that linear and comprehensive.

It might be that you've tried it and it didn't work for you, but I have found the chess.com website (and related app) sufficient for my chess-learning needs. They have reconfigured the lesson plan since I started and that screwed up my progress, but I think it at least offers a fairly linear progression from "how to move" into basic strategy to specific openings, endgame calculations and some analysis of famous games.

It has live play too, with the option to have those games analyzed in which case it'll tell you what the best move in each position was and suggest lessons on the basis of your performance.

I should also add that if you are willing to pay for premium features, I think it all fits together a little more neatly because you don't keep running out of free lessons per day or whatever like I do. I did try premium for a bit and it was an improvement, but at that point didn't use it enough to be worthwhile.

[Scarlet Knight]

Request #1 - Classical Music
I am looking for a way to 'learn' about Classical Music. I know that there's a lot of it, and it's all different modes and styles and eras and what-not. And maybe there's no single place to get everything I want, but what I would like is an AUDIO tool (ie not videos - I can't fit videos into my routines) that can walk me through as much of the topic as possible. History. Development. Notable figures. Milestones. Structure and content and theory of the actual music itself. I'd like to be able to listen to a piece and have some thoughts on when it was made and what kind of thing it is and what influences are part of it (the same way I can watch the Mandalorian and be like 'Oh, there's some Seven Samurai and some High Plains Drifter and a little Outlaw Josey Wales.").

May I recommend a Podcast called Aria Code. It is sponsored by the Metropolitan Opera and I enjoy it immensely.

"The Metropolitan Opera presents a podcast series exploring opera’s most legendary arias. Hosted once again by Grammy Award-winning (and opera-trained) folk singer Rhiannon Giddens, Aria Code dives into the beauty and drama of opera with several world-renowned opera stars—as well as noted actors, writers, psychologists, scientists, and other expert guests, who provide additional commentary".

Arias are special solo pieces in opera and are often the most popular works. This pod cast takes important arias, explains what is happening and why, why fans care, and educates the listener along the way. It also allows you to then listen to and enjoy the aria at the end, all in about 30 minutes.

I highly recommend it.

[Khedrac]

Additionally, for Classic Music, the subject is so vast that you cannot simply be taught (outside major music courses) to be able to listen to a pice of music and have a good idea of when or where it was written. What you can do is start listening to your local classic radio station (for the UK i would recommend Radio 3 over Classic FM or Scala Radio - not because it is better, but because you will learn more). Pay attention to their playlist (which should tell you what you are listening to - a good classical station will tell you what a piece is both before and after they play it, but the announcements can be easy to miss - and if you are interested in something (e.g. a composer, an opera or a 'style') then look it up on the interweb. Over time you will start to recognise some composers and their works and you will learn what you do and don't like.
Once you have gotten used to the style of one radio station, try others - you will then find out if you prefer them or not. Again in the UK both Classic FM and Scala play more crossover pieces than radio 3, and Scala plays quite a bit of pop music played by full orchestras, however Classic FM does have some programmes that are much more educational than the rest of their output which would be good for you.
(My main complaint about Classic FM, and I listen to them a lot, is that they play far too much from each year's "Hall of Fame" list that they compile every Easter - the more they play from this list they less their listeners will discover anything else. David Mellor used to front a show called "If you like that you'll like this" which took a piece from the Hall of Fame and tried to play other pieces from the same composer or in a similar style to show people what else they might like which was excellent for discovering oddities, but that show is no longer in their schedule; David remains one of their best presenters for playing less recognised works.)

[truemane]

It might be that you've tried it and it didn't work for you, but I have found the chess.com website (and related app) sufficient for my chess-learning needs. They have reconfigured the lesson plan since I started and that screwed up my progress, but I think it at least offers a fairly linear progression from "how to move" into basic strategy to specific openings, endgame calculations and some analysis of famous games.

I did indeed have a look at it and, at first glance, it seemed a lot of different kinds of lessons without any real sense of what's a good order to tackle them. I'll have another look, though, it's possible I wasn't looking at it correctly. Thanks for the recommendation.

May I recommend a Podcast called Aria Code. It is sponsored by the Metropolitan Opera and I enjoy it immensely.

I've tried this sort of thing before and I find that, without some kind of systematic foundation to stand on, I don't get as much out of it as I'd like. I'l give it a look, though, thank you.

Additionally, for Classic Music, the subject is so vast that you cannot simply be taught (outside major music courses) to be able to listen to a pice of music and have a good idea of when or where it was written. What you can do is start listening to your local classic radio station (for the UK i would recommend Radio 3 over Classic FM or Scala Radio - not because it is better, but because you will learn more).

Let's take film as an example. I am very conversant in world cinema. If you found a post-war Japanese film I'd never seen before I could tell you in moments if I was looking at a Kurosawa or an Ozu or a Mizoguchi or an Inagaki (or whomever). I can pick a Leone out of a sea of Petroni's. I coud spot a Scorcese from the sidewalk. And I got this way by watching a LOT of movies, sure, but my choices and viewings were greatly enhanced by having a very thorough grounding in the history and techniques of film at the outset. I could have watched film for decades by myself all higgledy-piggledy and never learned as much.

So that's what I'd like, if possible: the foundation. A good, strong, systematic review so I can use that to guide my own studies afterward.

[Peelee]

I'm not a fan of chess.com's puzzles, mostly because they are more complex, and are pure "what is the best move in this specific scenario," which is not so useful for beginners where like 3-6 pieces-on-the-board puzzles with specific, stated objectives tend to help more.

[Khedrac]

Let's take film as an example. I am very conversant in world cinema. If you found a post-war Japanese film I'd never seen before I could tell you in moments if I was looking at a Kurosawa or an Ozu or a Mizoguchi or an Inagaki (or whomever). I can pick a Leone out of a sea of Petroni's. I coud spot a Scorcese from the sidewalk. And I got this way by watching a LOT of movies, sure, but my choices and viewings were greatly enhanced by having a very thorough grounding in the history and techniques of film at the outset. I could have watched film for decades by myself all higgledy-piggledy and never learned as much.

So that's what I'd like, if possible: the foundation. A good, strong, systematic review so I can use that to guide my own studies afterward.

The problem with your example is that it is actually very flawed. Films have been made for approximately 120 years, and the early films being without sound probably form a different category - your example of post-war limits you to about 75 years of films.
Classical music has been around in various forms for c. 1000 years, and generally there is far more composed per year. (Again, records of the early end are limited so they probably count about as well as silent films.) Some composers have literally over 1,000 known works , and to add to the confusion, a lot of early works are now played on modern instruments rather than period (and opinions over period performance have been changing considerably over the last twenty years).
To get the "solid grounding" you are after you need to go and read music at university, or spend decades listening to the radio. I stand by my advice as the whole sphere is far too large for you to find a good introduction to the entire field that will provide the depth you are after.
Also, if you are after that sort of level of knowledge you need a serious classic music station not a popularist one.

[truemane]

I acknowledge that what I'm looking for might not exist. But this is how we find out.

[Scarlet Knight]

I used to see a company advertized in the NY Times called: "The Great Courses" which had classes on both Chess and Music. I never tried them but it might be what you are looking for to get your 10,000 hours in.

@v That looks like it.

[factotum]

These guys?

https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/

[DavidSh]

I used to see a company advertized in the NY Times called: "The Great Courses" which had classes on both Chess and Music. I never tried them but it might be what you are looking for to get your 10,000 hours in.

@v That looks like it.

I've used them and was satisfied, but (1) it was a course on Chinese history, not Chess or Music, and (2) I chose the option that included video, so that I could see pictures of things like maps and artifacts.

And now I get e-mail advertisements from them several times a week.

[Icewalker]

Aha, this is exactly my kind of learning.

One of my top methods for this sort of foundational knowledge is to find full lecture series of undergraduate courses. They tend to run from really square zero up to a general base of knowledge, in a nicely packaged set. Going through a couple courses on the same subject, and seeing where they overlap, can be a great way to pin down what areas are really central and reinforce them in memory.

Here's a 23-lecture course in music listening which emphasizes classical (in the broader meaning of the term). It has video, but I'm sure the audio alone will get you all of the content. (Here's the same course on Youtube)
Here's a smaller online course focusing on a small number of specific pieces over 7 "weeks" of lectures.
And here is a very old full course from Missouri State covering a fairly full history of western musical tradition, with 31 twenty to thirty minute lectures. I listened to this many years ago but I don't remember enough about it to speak to its quality, but I did go through the whole thing so I didn't think it was bad at the time.

Also if you're really going from square one, I have a note for you on terms and periods you might already be familiar with, but which may assist your searching.
For me (and I think most not music music historians) when I say "classical" I fuzzily mean "anything before 1900 and/or played by an orchestra or orchestraish instruments". Chronologically though, this western music history tradition can be vaguely broken down into periods:
Renaissance ("pre"-"classical")
Baroque
Classical
Romantic
The Romantic era ends to tail off around 1900 and then you get into modern things, though there are still modern "classical" composers. So another way to really nail down this full history, you might look for an entire course or set of materials about Baroque in particular, and then another about Classical, and then another about Romantic, and that'll reveal some hints about how one changed into another.

Also just on pure listening, try grouping a bunch of composers from each period into single playlists (and definitely check wikipedia first to see if they're considered really representative of that period, and not like "forward looking" or the like) and then listen to a bunch of baroque music some days and a bunch of classical music other days and see if you can notice any differences. That helped me start to pick up some distinctions. Also, if you know any classical music history buffs, just ask them to excitedly tell you about music history and they will probably oblige helpfully, that's always been one of my favorite methods.


Boy I haven't posted on the forums in...what two years? And outside The Challenge thread specifically in...five?

[halfeye]

I like go. I believe there are three games which are better games than chess, which are go, contract bridge and despite it's gambling aspect (which is in my view bad) poker. There may be other games that are also better than chess, but I am not aware of their virtue if there are.

[Peelee]

I like go. I believe there are three games which are better games than chess, which are go, contract bridge and despite it's gambling aspect (which is in my view bad) poker. There may be other games that are also better than chess, but I am not aware of their virtue if there are.

Given that you list a game with multiple variations (poker), are you also counting chess variations, like Fischer Random?

[halfeye]

Given that you list a game with multiple variations (poker), are you also counting chess variations, like Fischer Random?

I'm not counting the variations at all, there must be hundreds for each, shogi and Chinese chess are different games, but variations on the basics I'm just not counting.

[Peelee]

I'm not counting the variations at all, there must be hundreds for each, shogi and Chinese chess are different games, but variations on the basics I'm just not counting.

Not really very fair then, since (to the best of my knowledge) poker is a family of games.

[halfeye]

Not really very fair then, since (to the best of my knowledge) poker is a family of games.

How is it unfair? I'm only counting poker once, if I counted all the variants of everything, I'd be saying most of the 500? games of poker are better than most of the 200? games of chess, so main variant chess is the 250th (or something, it probably wouldn't be a nice round number like 250) best game in the world.

[Peelee]

How is it unfair?

Because you said you're using "the basics," but there is no "basic" poker. If I say "chess," you immediately know the rules. You know how play is set up, where each piece goes. If I say "poker," you don't. You may know the strengths of various hands, but you don't even know the basic setup. How many cards are you dealing, two or five (or maybe seven)? You're playing poker, so it could be any of those. Are you playing draw, stud, or community card? It's poker, so it could be any of those.

Again, poker is a family of games, not a single game.

[halfeye]

Because you said you're using "the basics," but there is no "basic" poker. If I say "chess," you immediately know the rules. You know how play is set up, where each piece goes. If I say "poker," you don't. You may know the strengths of various hands, but you don't even know the basic setup. How many cards are you dealing, two or five (or maybe seven)? You're playing poker, so it could be any of those. Are you playing draw, stud, or community card? It's poker, so it could be any of those.

Again, poker is a family of games, not a single game.

I'm still not understanding what the issue is. There are almost certainly some duff versions of poker. There are almost certainly some duff versions of chess. I'm saying that the popular version of poker is probably better than the popular version of chess. I am not a fan of poker, but it fairly clearly is an interesting and difficult game of skill. I am a fan of go, not high ranking, but I like it, and a long time ago when I knew enough people who played, I liked contract bridge.

[Peelee]

I'm still not understanding what the issue is. There are almost certainly some duff versions of poker. There are almost certainly some duff versions of chess.

The difference is, if I say, "hey, want to play chess," every person I talk to familiar with chess will know exactly which version I'm talking about; there is single game named chess, and then there are versions of chess, each with their own name. You're only counting the one, not the alternate versions.

Conversely, if I say, "hey, want to play poker," every person I talk to familiar with poker will not know which version I'm talking about; there is no single game named poker, and there are only versions of poker, each with their own name. You're counting all versions.

[Aedilred]

I mean, these days, if you say "we're playing poker" I think most people will assume Texas Holdem, but the point still stands, because while it is the most popular variant, it is not so overwhelmingly so that it doesn't need clarification.

Up to a point. It may depend on location, and the same probably goes for chess. If in pretty much anywhere in Europe, the Americas, or Australia you say "do you want to play chess?" everyone knows what game you're talking about: indeed, this is clear by the way that it doesn't actually have another appellation. If you then set it up as a 960 board they will deservedly say "what the hell?" But in China - I imagine that "chess" means "Chinese chess" by default. Then again I don't know any Chinese so it might be that the word for what we call Chinese chess is actually completely different from "chess".

An obvious comparison is with "football", which means "soccer" in Europe, "American football" in the USA, "AFL" in (large parts of) Australia, "rugby" in New Zealand and "a massive fight with a ball somewhere in the middle" in Alnwick*. From context it's usually clear what they mean, but the same definition isn't universal.

Given that we're all Anglo-American here, I suspect that we all know what kind of chess we're talking about. But with poker there is more ambiguity.

*probably

[Vinyadan]

I mean, these days, if you say "we're playing poker" I think most people will assume Texas Holdem, but the point still stands, because while it is the most popular variant, it is not so overwhelmingly so that it doesn't need clarification.

I normally assume it's Five-card draw, then I'm told that it's Texas Holdem, and I think "ugh".

[truemane]

I used to see a company advertized in the NY Times called: "The Great Courses" which had classes on both Chess and Music. I never tried them but it might be what you are looking for to get your 10,000 hours in.

One of my top methods for this sort of foundational knowledge is to find full lecture series of undergraduate courses.

Those are both very good ideas. Thank you!

[JNAProductions]

I normally assume it's Five-card draw, then I'm told that it's Texas Holdem, and I think "ugh".

Yeah, my default is NOT Texas Holdem.

[Jay R]

Sometimes the Internet is not the best tool. I recommend Fred Reinfeld's book The Complete Chess Course.

[mindstalk]

Sometimes the Internet is not the best tool. I recommend Fred Reinfeld's book The Complete Chess Course.

I grew up with that! Helped my opening and endgame a lot. I'm still clueless about going into the middle game if both sides open well, though, like symmetric Giucco Piano.

As for variants, I know the rules of shogi if not how to play well, and it's pretty different from Western chess. Yes, they're both branches on the chess or chatranj family tree, but the differences add up. Slightly larger board, much weaker pieces (in terms of range of movement), and the ability to drop captured pieces down as your own (like one form of team chess, where if you're White your Black partner can hand you pieces captured from their White opponent.) The first two elements mean that you can have multiple fights going on, whereas with chess pieces like bishops and queens radiate power across the whole board. The third element means that the common chess tactic of forcing piece exchanges to simplify the game[1] doesn't work.

[1] I.e. if I'm up one pawn in chess, and then can eliminate all other pieces in fair exchange, it comes down to king and pawn vs. king and I probably win, unless it's a side pawn and my opponent can force a stalemate.

As for 'better', I don't think there's any objective ranking of a two person full-information game with a multi-player hidden-information gambling game.

[Bartmanhomer]

Chess is a good game. I don't want to toot my own horn but I'm a grandmaster at chess.. Just kidding I'm a bottom-tier chess player.

[Mastikator]

The chess.com app helped me tons with chess. The puzzles and training exercises did nothing but playing against the computer with "Show Best Moves", "Show Threats" and "Show Blunders" all on. It always showed me really good moves but didn't communicate why, so I would try to figure out why. It also let me go back and try different moves, my strategy was to increase the difficulty whenever I was winning against the computer.
It really helped me get better at finding decent strategies, and importantly: it did it quickly. I was able to go from complete noob that couldn't spot a mate in 1 to crushing my chess playing colleague in only a month.