# Are the people who made this list in hail already?



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit

title.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I found the list (maybe I have contributed a little) very OK. I could have suggested Tannhäuser in the first tears (and of course works of Liszt), but, apart from this, the list is meaningful and artistically good establish.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

444mil said:


> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit
> 
> title.


Hail?

................................................


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Hail?
> 
> ................................................


Yes, _hail_. Stop dodging the question!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Hell?

--------------------


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Same question, hell?
If so, why?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

If I have contributed to this list, I apologise.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I like this list. People around here tend to be enthusiast and knowledgeable about music and I think that it's good to have a reference of their (our) tastes, and this is one of the best I have, at least from the members who participate in the games subforum. I have discovered a lot of great music since I entered TC some two years ago and lists such as this helped me a lot (and still do).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I've been seeing mysterious posts about tiers for quite some time but never quite got around to investigating. This is what you people have been up to? Jeeeeezuz H. Cripes.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Given the works listed in these tiers, particularly the ones way down the list, what the hail constitutes a tier and what determined why a given work got into them?


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Hahaha. Yes, i rage-miss typed. Hail/jail/hell, they deserve all. 

Later i'll mention a few works in example.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Given the works listed in these tiers, particularly the ones way down the list, what the hail constitutes a tier and what determined why a given work got into them?


It's all about voting.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> I've been seeing mysterious posts about tiers for quite some time but never quite got around to investigating. This is what you people have been up to? Jeeeeezuz H. Cripes.





DaveM said:


> Given the works listed in these tiers, particularly the ones way down the list, what the hail constitutes a tier and what determined why a given work got into them?


The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommend Works

Explains the rules and regulations regarding tiers...

which are located and voted upon here -

https://www.talkclassical.com/classical-music-discussion-polls/

This area is colloquially known as "Gameland" - all tiers are games but not all games are tiered...


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Well we all have a view, I know. But c'mon, Bruckner 8 13th tier????!! You havin a tin bath?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Voting occurs in threads like this. I love the idea of the project as something for newcomers to use as a reference. However, I must say that I prefer (as a matter of my personal preferences on the works, and the format of the project) this  original list, as the concept of "tier" to me is vaguer and more confusing than simply having a ranked list. Also, there's really no definite end date to this project; the voting cycles (according to the member science, who's running it) will essentially go on forever. I do participate in the voting threads that I'm knowledgeable enough to vote on, though. And some of the lower tiers really help me discover a lot of great new works/composers.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

I use some of these lists to get to know some new music too, but this list in particular...


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Voting occurs in threads like this. I love the idea of the project as something for newcomers to use as a reference. However, I must say that I prefer (as a matter of my personal preferences on the works, and the format of the project) this  original list, as the concept of "tier" to me is vaguer and more confusing than simply having a ranked list. Also, there's really no definite end date to this project; the voting cycles (according to the member science, who's running it) will essentially go on forever. I do participate in the voting threads that I'm knowledgeable enough to vote on, though. And some of the lower tiers really help me discover a lot of great new works/composers.


That original list is the first 3,000 entries of the current one. What people found was that some works were forgotten about when they should have been enshrined and given comparatively low rankings as a result; the "tiers" are fluid so newly nominated works can move up the rankings if need be.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

How some of you are just becoming aware of this list is beyond me. It's been here for years and is probably one of the best things to come out of TC. I can't think of any other ranked list on the internet this exhaustive. And it is constantly being added to and revised. Duncan's post has links to the rules if you're interested.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> Voting occurs in threads like this. I love the idea of the project as something for newcomers to use as a reference. However, I must say that I prefer (as a matter of my personal preferences on the works, and the format of the project) this  original list, as the concept of "tier" to me is vaguer and more confusing than simply having a ranked list. Also, there's really no definite end date to this project; the voting cycles (according to the member science, who's running it) will essentially go on forever. I do participate in the voting threads that I'm knowledgeable enough to vote on, though. And some of the lower tiers really help me discover a lot of great new works/composers.


We had a different voting system in place for the original list. And the problem with it was that once a work made the list ... that's it. It was stuck in place and couldn't move up or down to a more "proper" position (for some definition of proper). So, for example, if you didn't like the B Minor Mass at the top, there was nothing you could do about it. The current voting system allows for mobility, and tiers makes that more manageable.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

calvinpv said:


> We had a different voting system in place for the original list. And the problem with it was that once a work made the list ... that's it. It was stuck in place and couldn't move up or down to a more "proper" position (for some definition of proper). So, for example, if you didn't like the B Minor Mass at the top, there was nothing you could do about it. The current voting system allows for mobility, and tiers makes that more manageable.


That's a better way of putting it.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Although it is certainly a helpful list I've never understood the extreme aversion to Haydn. Just looking at the list one would get the sense Fauré, Sibelius, Debussy, Shostakovich, etc. were all far more important composers than Haydn. I'm putting on some London symphonies in protest.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

This list brings tiers to my eyes. The last tier #108 includes Flotow's Martha which has these two highly thought of arias:











It also includes the Schumann Fantasiestucke op73:






No matter how people try to spin this above, this #108 tier has the heading 'Least Recommended'. If people want to see this as just a helpful list of works they have been interested in, then perhaps these headings should be removed.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

DaveM said:


> This list brings tiers to my eyes. The last tier #108 includes Flotow's Martha which has these two highly thought of arias:


Why don't you create a thread for Flotow's _Martha_ to bump it up a bit? Or better yet, participate to help out other favorite works? There's no point in sitting on the sidelines and complaining.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Portamento said:


> There's no point in sitting on the sidelines and complaining.


Maybe not for you.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> This list brings tiers to my eyes. The last tier #108 includes Flotow's Martha which has these two highly thought of arias:
> ...
> No matter how people try to spin this above, this #108 tier has the heading 'Least Recommended'. If people want to see this as just a helpful list of works they have been interested in, then perhaps these headings should be removed.


If I understand you, you are suggesting that we have ranked some of the more than 5000 works incorrectly. I assume everyone who has been part of this project would agree with you.

The lowest tier is labelled "Least Strongly Recommended." I assume that will not be changed as it's true.

I greatly appreciated the pun in your post.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> This list brings tiers to my eyes. The last tier #108 includes Flotow's Martha which has these two highly thought of arias:


If you do a "Martha" write-up (per Science's instructions), the opera would move up at least 7 tiers - problem solved.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

BachIsBest said:


> Although it is certainly a helpful list I've never understood the extreme aversion to Haydn. Just looking at the list one would get the sense Fauré, Sibelius, Debussy, Shostakovich, etc. were all far more important composers than Haydn. I'm putting on some London symphonies in protest.


I agree that Haydn's top works are not ranked as highly as some might wish or expect including me. On the other hand, Haydn comes in fourth in total works recommended (84 at present) behind only Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart and well ahead of Faure (~42), Sibelius (~27), Debussy (~43), and Shostakovich ( ~45). I'm not sure I would call that extreme aversion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DaveM said:


> This list brings tiers to my eyes. The last tier #108 includes Flotow's Martha...
> 
> It also includes the Schumann Fantasiestucke op73...
> 
> No matter how people try to spin this above, this #108 tier has the heading 'Least Recommended'. If people want to see this as just a helpful list of works they have been interested in, then perhaps these headings should be removed.


No, no, no. I titled a few things provocatively on purpose!

If you don't like where some things stand, you can accept it, or you can participate. Up to you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> Although it is certainly a helpful list I've never understood the extreme aversion to Haydn. Just looking at the list one would get the sense Fauré, Sibelius, Debussy, Shostakovich, etc. were all far more important composers than Haydn. I'm putting on some London symphonies in protest.


Not necessarily more "important," but definitely more loved here on TC.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

science said:


> No, no, no. I titled a few things provocatively on purpose!
> 
> If you don't like where some things stand, you can accept it, or you can participate. Up to you.


I guess a tier system means different things to different people. Because tiers as I know them don't seem to apply in this list I would/couldn't take part. I am told above that if I do 'a Martha writeup', it would move up at least 7 tiers. Wow! Now it would be in the 101st tier.

Btw, I think that overall it's an impressive list of works. It's just IMO not a truly meaningful tier-based list which implies that TC recommends works in tier 100 over those in tier 101 which is what a newbie to the forum would think based on the tier headings. I can hear said newbie asking, 'Why is Schumann's Fantasiestucke Least Strongly Recommended?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> I agree that Haydn's top works are not ranked as highly as some might wish or expect including me. On the other hand, Haydn comes in fourth in total works recommended (84 at present) behind only Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart and well ahead of Faure (~42), Sibelius (~27), Debussy (~43), and Shostakovich ( ~45). I'm not sure I would call that extreme aversion.


I guess I just didn't scroll down far enough. Perhaps there is just a lack of Haydn enthusiasm as opposed to a Haydn aversion on the forum!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I am told above that if I do 'a Martha writeup', it would move up at least 7 tiers. Wow! Now it would be in the 101st tier.


Yes it would. And if you started voting, maybe it could manage to land at tier 99. It's your call.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

BachIsBest said:


> I guess I just didn't scroll down far enough. Perhaps there is just a lack of Haydn enthusiasm as opposed to a Haydn aversion on the forum!


This list means nothing with regards to Haydn's worth. First, there is bias amongst the members who feed off each other. I highly doubt all voters know all the works well enough to vote as any election of works has to be considered along with comparable works. Better to simply vote based on a person's favorite in a general category but even then, how to know all the works.

Haydn falls short due to each voter being focused on the most popular works overall. Haydn isn't know for the greatest symphony, piano concerto, piano trio, violin concerto, opera, well, the list goes on. He is just good at doing what he does best and that kind of listening is not "serious" enough to generate conversation on the TC.

So, pour some coffee, or wine and enjoy Haydn for yourself. Act like you have a gold mine and no one else seems interested and know it does not really matter if your deeply felt favorites are not getting all the attention. Of course I know Haydn is well loved on the forum...please no protests...but when voting comes it is about "us" too.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

I would say dont follow the list. Only 1 first tier work and except bach the second tiers is all wagner.

Did germans and wagnerites made the list. almost all 5 first tiers is german.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

How is rach 2nd concerto that low?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

444mil said:


> How is rach 2nd concerto that low?


There are 61 works above that concerto. I would think that's indicates a very highly rated work. A very, very highly rated work. No?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

*THIS LIST ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ACCURATE, IT'S JUST SUPPOSED TO BE THE MOST ACCURATE ONE WE HAVE. :tiphat:*

Trying showing us a better one without attracting sneers, or better yet--participate in this list.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

If we're just going to use this thread to complain that the works we like best aren't ranked high enough, then there's no point. I question many things too - e.g. I think the Mozart works in the 4th tier are ridiculously overrated - but life's too short to get worked up over things like that. When it comes down to it, I think that science's goal is to create a RELATIVELY authoritative (because there's no such thing as universally authoritative here) list of recommendations for newcomers - something which is nonexistent on the web outside of TC. I personally do not believe that Beethoven's 5th is greater than the _Art of Fugue_ - but I think the 5th is the much better work for newcomers to hear first, and it's good that they see it higher up the list. I would also like to see reference threads for at least all the top 100 works, because as a "lurker," I enjoyed clicking those thread links and reading forum members' opinions, recording recommendations, etc.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

the most overrated thing in this forum are the early 20th century pianists and recordings.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I've been seeing mysterious posts about tiers for quite some time but never quite got around to investigating. This is what you people have been up to? Jeeeeezuz H. Cripes.


I have yet to penetrate the veil of tiers.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If we're just going to use this thread to complain that the works we like best aren't ranked high enough, then there's no point. I question many things too - e.g. I think the Mozart works in the 4th tier are ridiculously overrated - but life's too short to get worked up over things like that. When it comes down to it, *I think that science's goal is to create a RELATIVELY authoritative (because there's no such thing as universally authoritative here) list of recommendations for newcomers* - something which is nonexistent on the web outside of TC. I personally do not believe that Beethoven's 5th is greater than the _Art of Fugue_ - but I think the 5th is the much better work for newcomers to hear first, and it's good that they see it higher up the list. I would also like to see reference threads for at least all the top 100 works, because as a "lurker," I enjoyed clicking those thread links and reading forum members' opinions, recording recommendations, etc.


In the description page of the project it's written that the list is meant to be "as helpful to an old veteran looking for a surprise as to a newbie just familiarizing herself with the canon", so I understand that it's up to the participating member to decide why and to whom he/she is recommending a work. Personally, when I decide to participate I always vote for what seems more significative to me and don't really care if the work is novice-friendly or not.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If we're just going to use this thread to complain that the works we like best aren't ranked high enough, then there's no point. I question many things too - e.g. I think the Mozart works in the 4th tier are ridiculously overrated - but *life's too short to get worked up over things like that.*


Or maybe you just can't come up with a more objectively convincing argument other than "I do/don't like". I on the other hand wouldn't need to know why you're fine with Schubert's Winterreise being ranked at 6th and his C major Quintet ranked at 5th place, rating it higher than other composers' in the genre by a huge margin. I think I'm done with these discussions too.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> I personally do not believe that Beethoven's 5th is greater than the _Art of Fugue_ - but I think the 5th is the much better work for newcomers to hear first, and it's good that they see it higher up the list.


Why am I not surprised you don't compare the 'set of works', _Art of the Fugue_ with another 'set of works', _Winterreise_, which is actually ranked equally with the _Art of the Fugue_. 
I hate to say it, but this ranking is an epitome of people's extreme obsession in ranking 'works of art'. There's no other way to put it. They're so obsessed with ranking, they're taking 5000+ works and ordering them in 100+ places. In my view, all they're just doing is just doing endless ranking for the sake of ranking. They call it the "Most Recommended Works" (for newcomers), but in their mind it's something else. You can just tell by the way by looking at the way the participants talk. There's no way I would recommend this to any newcomer, or spend any time 'improving' it. The whole idea was flawed from the start. It's a lost cause.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

444mil said:


> Hahaha. Yes, i rage-miss typed. Hail/jail/hell, they deserve all.
> 
> Later i'll mention a few works in example.


Don't bother ...................................


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Bigbang said:


> This list means nothing with regards to Haydn's worth. First, there is bias amongst the members who feed off each other. I highly doubt all voters know all the works well enough to vote as any election of works has to be considered along with comparable works. Better to simply vote based on a person's favorite in a general category but even then, how to know all the works.
> 
> Haydn falls short due to each voter being focused on the most popular works overall. Haydn isn't know for the greatest symphony, piano concerto, piano trio, violin concerto, opera, well, the list goes on. He is just good at doing what he does best and that kind of listening is not "serious" enough to generate conversation on the TC.
> 
> So, pour some coffee, or wine and enjoy Haydn for yourself. Act like you have a gold mine and no one else seems interested and know it does not really matter if your deeply felt favorites are not getting all the attention. Of course I know Haydn is well loved on the forum...please no protests...but when voting comes it is about "us" too.


My post was not meant as a complaint or a protest, I was, rather, merely surprised. Regardless, I don't drink wine or coffee so will just have to have a nice cup of tea with my Haydn.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I see it as something for fun that some will find useful and some won't. It is reflective of a tiny group of participants tastes, nothing more. 

I suspect there are rules employed that allow for more flexibility and possibly a more enjoyable and ongoing process in creating the list itself. That make sense, but I think the list itself looks really poor. Admittedly it is not possible to create a very good list when trying to rank so many disparate works over centuries of music, but this one just...gah... (No I don't wish to participate in creating it). 

Having only one work in tier 1 for example looks very bad, as does so many pieces by so few names filling up the majority of the top spots. Yes the 3 B's, Mozart and Wagner are incredible composers, but they aren't the only great composers who composed top tier works. If one of the goals is helping a novice there should be a little more variety in the top spots. In that sense this list can be seen as a counter productive exercise, because it just reinforces biases towards certain composers, whose compositions aren't objectively better than the best pieces of Machaut or Monteverdi or Ravel or Bartok etc.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Rogerx said:


> Don't bother ...................................


i regret instantly .


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I was perusing the top 20 tiers. With little exception, all the works are famous and have received great critical acclaim. It's a fine list, and any newbie would be lucky to find it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DaveM said:


> I am told above that if I do 'a Martha writeup', it would move up at least 7 tiers. Wow! Now it would be in the 101st tier.


It would move up 11 tiers, passing nearly 2400 works.

You'd almost have it on the upper half at that point.

You're apparently a very knowledgeable person. I wish you would participate so that your knowledge could be incorporated into our recommendations.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> They call it the "Most Recommended Works" (for newcomers), but in their mind it's something else.


No, it's not.

To be clear, since we're throwing out insulting ideas, I believe the actual opposition to projects like this is that a lot of you want to make it harder for people like me to approach classical music. If it gets more popular, then you aren't as special.

Too bad, though, bro.

And to be clear on yet more points, from the beginning of the original thing on Amazon until now, I made this list for myself, to force people to prioritize the works they recommend to me. Five thousand recommended works -- what are you most likely to scorn me for not knowing? I made this to help me overcome people like you and DaveM who take so much pleasure in looking down on people like me because we know less about classical music than you do.

So my assault on your special status will not stop. This trailer park trash is coming for you and your pretty little hydrangeas. And there is nothing you can do about it. The more you stomp your feet and scream about what a philistine I am, the more attention you bring to the project, the better it becomes, and more _people like me_ become better able to pass _as one of you_. Of course there's more to that than just knowing which works are most important to learn about, but that's a start.

And now, fifteen years into this, if we sat down and chatted, there's a fair chance that I _would_ pass as one of you. That's something you can put in your hat, friend-o.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

444mil said:


> How is rach 2nd concerto that low?


The 10th tier is extremely high -- it's literally the top 1% of works!

There are only 3 piano concertos ranked higher.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

science said:


> The 10th tier is extremely high -- it's literally the top 1% of works!
> 
> There are only 3 piano concertos ranked higher.


Yeah my bad. I didn't take into consideration that there are 5k+ works ranked.

So even 20th tier is top tier.


----------



## Shosty (Mar 16, 2020)

I'm a newcomer to this forum and compared to many members here I'm definitely a novice classical music listener, and this list is one of my favorite things to come out of this forum. I've discovered several composers whose names I'd never heard and even more whose works I'd only passingly explored through this very list, and I think that's more the point of the list than whether this composer is better than that.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

This list is not the ultimate truth, which doesn't exist. It is a condensed overview of members here who like to join the ranking games. So biased and all, it still provides a rough guide into classical music. The ranking is irrelevant, the various tiers as well. You can just use the list to learn new stuff, wherever you see it.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

How can anyone complain? - the rubric clearly states:

*Naturally, our list represents the knowledge and tastes of the people who have helped build it. We do not claim that it is the single, official objective canon of art music! *


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Lets be sensible here - what we see is a list of works by a wide range of composers in some sort of order of importance decreed by a number of people, how many I have no idea.
If it is of use to people who are coming to classical music as a interest, as I did 30 years ago - great, whats the harm.
If you don't feel the need to use it, don't - no problem.
Why do people feel the need to put things down they don't agree with - just keep on walking by.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Doing it in tiers allowed for discrimination between works to be more lumpy but the advantage may have been lost by having so many, and such small, tiers. It was just a game and those who participated probably enjoyed it. I doubt they though they were doing anything definitive or critically valid. It does worry me when the results are taken seriously (positively or negatively), though, and there is some evidence in this thread that many do.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

I'm sure for those who enjoy this sort of thing, it has been and continues to be a fun diversion. On the whole I don't think newbies are particularly interested in or benefit from long lists. I can't imagine someone with no knowledge of the music or its context looking at an endless list of names that mean nothing to them, sitting down and working their way through consecutive items and getting much worthwhile out of it. Discovering new music is much more spontaneous, it consists of hearing something that strikes your fancy and investigating further, or reading about something that sparks your imagination and makes you want to hear it for yourself. Which is why for all the "top recommended" lists to be found on this site, the greatest advocacy for any given composer or piece of music are the enthusiastic and knowledgeable discussions that take place around them, or the descriptive responses to inquiries that users have about what other music they might like if they already enjoy something in particular, or recommendations on specific recordings, etc.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This list has good correlation to other lists I've seen, and to much of the outlook on the canon and word-of-mouth by critics in general, which I'm sure a lot of us have access to. I wonder how good the correlation would be if all listeners of a good sample size, say 500 members, listen to all the works when previously equally unfamiliar with them, and not being shown what is already highly praised, some kind of guinea pig study, and see how much is due to preconception.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Anybody else besides me who is disappointed that ? And The Mysterians didn't make the 96th tier?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> This list has good correlation to other lists I've seen, and to much of the outlook on the canon and word-of-mouth by critics in general, which I'm sure a lot of us have access to. I wonder how good the correlation would be if all listeners of a good sample size, say 500 members, listen to all the works when previously equally unfamiliar with them, and not being shown what is already highly praised, some kind of guinea pig study, and see how much is due to preconception.


I partly agree. But I doubt you could get much consensus for such small tiers. If, say, five tiers were joined together it might work. As far as a broad consensus is concerned the added detail to the valuation from having so many tiers is probably an artifact of the method.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

HenryPenfold said:


> Well we all have a view, I know. But c'mon, Bruckner 8 13th tier????!! You havin a tin bath?


A tin hat would be more appropriate, if you're "living in hail"......:lol:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ManateeFL said:


> I'm sure for those who enjoy this sort of thing, it has been and continues to be a fun diversion. On the whole I don't think newbies are particularly interested in or benefit from long lists. I can't imagine someone with no knowledge of the music or its context looking at an endless list of names that mean nothing to them, sitting down and working their way through consecutive items and getting much worthwhile out of it. Discovering new music is much more spontaneous, it consists of hearing something that strikes your fancy and investigating further, or reading about something that sparks your imagination and makes you want to hear it for yourself. Which is why for all the "top recommended" lists to be found on this site, the greatest advocacy for any given composer or piece of music are the enthusiastic and knowledgeable discussions that take place around them, or the descriptive responses to inquiries that users have about what other music they might like if they already enjoy something in particular, or recommendations on specific recordings, etc.


I disagree. If I was a newbie, I could see myself starting with tier 1 and working myself down the listings.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Room2201974 said:


> Anybody else besides me who is disappointed that ? And The Mysterians didn't make the 96th tier?


That joke very nearly - but not quite - justifies the existence of this thread.

I enjoy contributing to the list, each opportunity to vote is an entertaining way for me to think about some of the music I like.

I've never really understand the puritanical impulses of many on TC, whose hackles are raised at the sight of other people enjoying music the wrong way.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> It does worry me when the results are taken seriously (positively or negatively), though, and there is some evidence in this thread that many do.


Partita did pretend as if we must accept the placement of Schubert works in the ranking as being absolute and objective. (Again, it's Schubert, as always) I don't know why but when it comes Schubert, there are still so many things that can't be explained by logic, as if it's like Jesus performing miracles even after His Ascension to Heaven.

View attachment 130739




hammeredklavier said:


> The way he modulates and everything.. sounds too much like compositional exercises rather than actual serious works.
> View attachment 131540
> 
> Rosamunde quartet, in each measure it goes like - all the voices start on note A, the next measure, on note D, the next, on G, the next, on C.. (Wow..)
> ...



View attachment 126171


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

I don't really see a problem with the list personally. Ranking can sometimes stultify exploration of a broader canon, by subliminally suggesting something not on the list is not worth listening to I think. But this just seems to be a list of people's enthusiasms, not ex cathedra pronouncement, and I agree with others that it may well be welcome for people seeking a bit of direction.

Is there a reason some works are hyperlinks and others not? Ones with dedicated threads on TC and ones without?



Room2201974 said:


> Anybody else besides me who is disappointed that ? And The Mysterians didn't make the 96th tier?


Heh!


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

We have the phenomenon, millions of people to vote for Boris and Donald and we'll complain for the TC lists? :lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> I disagree. If I was a newbie, I could see myself starting with tier 1 and working myself down the listings.


I remember that such lists where actually pretty useful when I started with more structured listening. Of course not as a stand-alone listening project but just to discover new stuff and somehow understand the whole system itself. If you have no real musical training they can be very beneficial, at least for the start. Afterwards when you've developed a some sort of understanding of the type of classical music you like, you are most likely to wander off from the list nevertheless and start listening more thoroughly to the stuff you like .


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm hoping that over time we add more "reference threads" so that anyone curious about a work is able to find a little discussion here about it and maybe ask questions or participate in another way.

I have a few things on my to-do list, but someday I might add links from the names of the composers on the list to the threads in the "composer guestbook" part of this forum.

You might also want to check out the "Music Selector" made by an anonymous lurker here who has apparently enjoyed the project enough to do this work and share it for us. It's an easy-to-use tool that might help you find a few new works to enjoy.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Iota said:


> I don't really see a problem with the list personally. Ranking can sometimes stultify exploration of a broader canon, by subliminally suggesting something not on the list is not worth listening to I think.


Not to worry. Before Science passes on, every single piece of classical music will be listed. :lol:


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Well, I drink tea too (Typhoo) and green teas but lately been on a coffee spell with my music. I get it but I just look at it and forget it. If it were up to me, Beethoven works would be top tier in many categories and only then move from there. Why have a piano sonata at one tier and another down so many tiers? There really is no rhyme or reason to the place of many of the works. So, if anything, it simply reminds me to rehear a work or check one out. But for a newcomer, Wagner is not a good choice. I have made it my choice not to worry about the operas because I am not interested in spending my time in them. Hours upon hours and for what? Believe me, unless I thought I would attain some sort of insight that would alter my being, I would be doing mostly non opera and after a period of initiation, go where thy spirit will take thee.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I'm not sure what exactly the OP means (still have yet to read the whole thread :lol, BUT if _Der Ring des Nibelungen _is not in the first tier, the list is *wrong*, period.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

It's not a well balanced list. But that's what you get when you rely on groupthink - a generic list of favorites. 

I mean Mahler 2 in the same tier as Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps? 

This forum has a lot of Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, and Wagner worshippers and that comes across in this list.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

20centrfuge said:


> It's not a well balanced list. But that's what you get when you rely on groupthink - a generic list of favorites.


Godowsky: Java Suite
Léonin: Magnus Liber Organi 
Willan: Introduction, Passacaglia, and Fugue
Rosetti (Rössler): Concerto for 2 Horns in F
Steffani: Stabat Mater
Kabeláč: Mystery of Time
Volans: String Quartet #1 "White Man Sleeps" 
Wellesz: Symphony #2, op. 65 "The English"
Obrecht: Missa Maria zart 
Rădulescu: Intimate Rituals

A generic list of favorites? I think one of the main reasons some of us like this list is precisely because it is exactly not a generic list of favorites.



20centrfuge said:


> I mean Mahler 2 in the same tier as Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps?


Clearly you think one of these is much better than the other. I have no idea which one.



20centrfuge said:


> This forum has a lot of Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, and Wagner worshippers and that comes across in this list.


I think reality has a lot of Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, and Wagner worshippers.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

20centrfuge said:


> I mean Mahler 2 in the same tier as Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps?





mmsbls said:


> Clearly you think one of these is much better than the other. I have no idea which one.


I utterly adore these types of puzzles.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

mmsbls, I'm sure down lower, where all interest is lost (tier 60?) there start to be obscure and interesting picks, but at the beginning, it seems a bit too predictable. You could probably just look for the pieces with the most recordings and they'd be at the top of the list. Does that mean they are the best? I don't think so, but they are the ones picked by the most people on this website.

Don't get offended, my friend, the list is just not really my cup of tea.

All I meant about "groupthink" is this: Think of any problem to be solved. If you have one brilliant decisive person, you will come up with a better solution than a committee will, because the committee always has to make compromises to satisfy every member of the committee. It results in a solution that is less effective, less dynamic, but results in a decision where everyone can say "ok, I don't love it, but I can live with it" --- That's how I feel about this list.

And just to be clear. Le Sacre is 20x the piece of music that is Mahler 2.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The thing is most people getting into classical music don't need it explained to them that Bach and Beethoven's etc. biggest, most well known works should be explored. 

By placing so few composers in the high tiers, the list basically implies the composers not represented there are the "lesser" composer's works, and not as important to look into. From this perspective this list is flawed, and also boring.

Don't get me wrong if I really thought all the best works were represented in the higher tiers, I wouldn't point this out. I'm not arguing that other composers should be better represented in the higher tiers simply for the sake of being inclusive, I'm saying many of these works have as much right to be represented there as Beethoven's 9th or anything else. 

I think that the general argument that is made why Bach Mozart and Beethoven are the big 3 is because of how prolific and consistent they were composing many high quality works in a variety of genres, not that their individual works tower over the best works of many other composers.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

20centrfuge said:


> And just to be clear. Le Sacre is 20x the piece of music that is Mahler 2.


I think your music-amount-o-meter requires recalibration.

I mean, you're not using standard units for that, are you? Metric all the way.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

*@tdc* I suppose that issue could be fixed if we had a piece voting-portal installed into the forum that made a database of all users' votes on works, instead of the 'linear' tier system. We'd go to the portal and give each piece a score from 1-10. Though one could find problems with that too, so not to knock Science's brilliant system.

I personally love Science's list. Greats of composers like Brahms and Dvorak are well-represented.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

20centrfuge said:


> mmsbls, I'm sure down lower, where all interest is lost ...


The lower tiers are where many of us have the most interest. For me, the best part of the list are the least well known works. Those tiers are the strength of the list.



20centrfuge said:


> ...but at the beginning, it seems a bit too predictable. You could probably just look for the pieces with the most recordings and they'd be at the top of the list. Does that mean they are the best? I don't think so, but they are the ones picked by the most people on this website.


I have no problem with what you say, but I think it's perfectly reasonable that the top works in this list of recommendations are similar to many other such lists.



20centrfuge said:


> Don't get offended, my friend, the list is just not really my cup of tea.


I'm not offended. It's fairly common on TC, and for people in general, to criticize work others do. Criticism is incredibly valuable in general.



20centrfuge said:


> All I meant about "groupthink" is this: Think of any problem to be solved. If you have one brilliant decisive person, you will come up with a better solution than a committee will, because the committee always has to make compromises to satisfy every member of the committee. It results in a solution that is less effective, less dynamic, but results in a decision where everyone can say "ok, I don't love it, but I can live with it" --- That's how I feel about this list.


My understanding is that groups generally do a better job at tasks such as this than individuals do.



20centrfuge said:


> And just to be clear. Le Sacre is 20x the piece of music that is Mahler 2.


Thank you. I didn't know that.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

20centrfuge said:


> And just to be clear. Le Sacre is 20x the piece of music that is Mahler 2.


I'd go for the Stravinsky too. But neither of them should be in the same tier as Beethoven's 6th.

This forum tends to value more detailed composition, over larger statements. I think Chopin's 1st Concerto and Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night are a bit underrated. Mendelssohn came out pretty low on our last forum poll.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

tdc said:


> The thing is most people getting into classical music don't need it explained to them that Bach and Beethoven's etc. biggest, most well known works should be explored.


What's unusual about this list is that it attempts to be useful for those with essentially no experience with classical music, those with modest experience, and those with extensive experience. When I first started, I knew Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, but I had no idea which of their works were considered exceptionally good. I had never heard of The Ring, The Well Tempered Clavier, or the Mass in B minor. I used Goulding's The 50 Greatest Composers..., but I also would have loved this list.



tdc said:


> By placing so few composers in the high tiers, the list basically implies the composers not represented there are the "lesser" composer's works, and not as important to look into. From this perspective this list is flawed, and also boring.
> 
> Don't get me wrong if I really thought all the best works were represented in the higher tiers, I wouldn't point this out. I'm not arguing that other composers should be better represented in the higher tiers simply for the sake of being inclusive, I'm saying many of these works have as much right to be represented there as Beethoven's 9th or anything else.


We all have a view on which works should be recommended most highly. TC's members would likely produce different lists of most recommended works. Some would have more composers in the very top tiers. My list would differ as well, but I'm perfectly happy with this one.

I assume by boring you are referring to the top tiers and not to the full list of over 5000 works.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> _[Originally Posted by 20centrfuge: "And just to clear. Le Sacre is 20x the piece of music that is Mahler 2.]_
> 
> Thank you. I didn't know that.


Brilliant. Reply of the year. :tiphat:


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I guess if the first one is brilliant, the second one should be even better.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Brilliant. Reply of the year. :tiphat:


The Talk Classical Community's Favourite and Most Highly Recommended Posts?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

20centrfuge said:


> Don't get offended, my friend, the list is just not really my cup of tea.


There's the problem - it's not supposed to be *your* cup of tea.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Ok. I guess it’s my turn to be poked fun at. 

I apologize to you Mahler fans.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Bulldog said:


> There's the problem - it's not supposed to be *your* cup of tea.


Fair enough, Bulldog


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It's because Mahler's not Russian. Literally, the piece is over twice the length!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> It's because Mahler's not Russian. Literally, the piece is over twice the length!


??? ................


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

So really, Le Sacre is 0.5x Mahler 2,

And I’m the last to get the joke


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

20centrfuge said:


> mmsbls, I'm sure down lower, where all interest is lost (tier 60?) there start to be obscure and interesting picks, but at the beginning, it seems a bit too predictable.


So look down lower. That's where you are as a listener at this point in your life.

As for me, I can remember a time when I hadn't heard a lot of the works near the top of that list.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

How is brahms clarinet quintet so high?

I think i first made this post after seeing the higher rank tiers and getting mad. 

Sry if it turned personal, i was just having fun, opening discussions.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

444mil said:


> How is brahms clarinet quintet so high?


At least among TC members who participate in these projects and games, the clarinet quintet is hugely popular. Why not? I think it's a wonderful work and likely the best clarinet quintet of all. I stopped voting for it in recent weeks, and the piece still keeps winning.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

science said:


> I'm hoping that over time we add more "reference threads" so that anyone curious about a work is able to find a little discussion here about it and maybe ask questions or participate in another way.
> 
> I have a few things on my to-do list, but someday I might add links from the names of the composers on the list to the threads in the "composer guestbook" part of this forum.
> 
> You might also want to check out the "Music Selector" made by an anonymous lurker here who has apparently enjoyed the project enough to do this work and share it for us. It's an easy-to-use tool that might help you find a few new works to enjoy.


I just bookmarked the Music Selector!! That's awesome, I will be using it. Thank you thank you to whoever made that (and of course big thanks to science for the list in the first place). Guys let's support passion and love for music, and let people on the newer side to classical music (such as myself) explore the enormous options presented with this list.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

444mil said:


> How is Brahms clarinet quintet so high?


I've wondered that myself - it actually came in 3rd place on the old list! I found this curious since it doesn't have nearly the same level of prestige and influence as the B Minor Mass, Tristan, B9, etc. But I don't blame anyone who ranks it that high - I don't see how it's possible to dislike it! After all it was the work that made me into the Brahmsian I am today. But then again, I would say the same thing for the vast majority of Brahms's chamber music and don't particularly see what qualities the clarinet quintet has that distinguishes it so widely from the piano quintet, piano trios and quartets, string sextets, and violin sonatas - all of which are its equal IMO.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I've wondered that myself - it actually came in 3rd place on the old list! I found this curious since it doesn't have nearly the same level of prestige and influence as the B Minor Mass, Tristan, B9, etc.


This is exactly why we needed the fluid rankings of the new list. But I'm unconvinced that the Clarinet Quintet "doesn't have nearly the same level of prestige and influence" as the other works you mention. These types of things _can_ be quantified, but it's not an exact science by any means.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Some of the criticism: The list is too predictable! 

Some of the criticism: The list has some unpredictable results! 

To be honest, I don't think anyone who's been helping us make this list is 100% satisfied with the results. Everything is a huge compromise.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I can only imagine the monumental task of having to gather the opinions and values of as diverse and outspoken a group as members of TC. I applaud you Science for what you did and I can see there is a lot of value in the list. 

I doubt it’s possible to come up with the “ideal” list. Probably like getting a political candidate that appeals to everyone.

Also, just out of curiosity, is there a stated purpose or objective for the list? I think a clearly defined objective could be an important step to then having criteria for evaluation.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

20centrfuge said:


> I can only imagine the monumental task of having to gather the opinions and values of as diverse and outspoken a group as members of TC. I applaud you Science for what you did and I can see there is a lot of value in the list.
> 
> I doubt it's possible to come up with the "ideal" list. Probably like getting a political candidate that appeals to everyone.
> 
> Also, just out of curiosity, is there a stated purpose or objective for the list? I think a clearly defined objective could be an important step to then having criteria for evaluation.


I can't mandate anyone else's purpose for their participation, but for me it's really just about prioritizing recommendations.

When I advocate (via a vote) for a work to be promoted to a higher tier, what I mean is that I would like to recommend that work more strongly than the other works on its current tier.

For example, let's take the 80th tier. (This is about one third of the way down the list in the sense that there are about 5200 works on the list and about 1/3 of them are above the 80th tier and about 2/3 of them are below the 80th tier.) As I skim that tier, at least half a dozen works jump out to me as higher priorities (as far as I know) in a classical music fan's self-educational journey, such as Beethoven's Eroica variations and Brian's Gothic symphony, so the next time we vote on that tier I will vote to promote those works.

On the other hand, when I look at the tiers, if I see a work on one tier that I know much less well than the other works on that tier, it tells me that my fellow classical music fans (at least the ones willing to share their opinions with me) recommend that work to me as strongly as the other works on that tier, so maybe I should get to know it better.

So to use the 80th tier again, I am quite surprised that my fellow fans have recommended Raff's second piano quartet that highly. To be honest, it's one of about five works on that tier that I've never even heard. There are probably also works probably every tier below the 80th that I haven't heard, but my fellow fans have recommended Raff's second piano quartet more highly than any of them! So perhaps I should consider getting to know it....


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

science said:


> ...To be honest, I don't think anyone who's been helping us make this list is 100% satisfied with the results. Everything is a huge compromise.


I don't think I'd be satisfied even with a list that I could create all by myself. This is the pitfall of any ranking...
We should not take the standings as dogma. Comparing, for example, Bach with Janáček is more than problematic. But anyway, this list certainly serves as an inspiration to broaden horizons and find great music to listen to. Thanks!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

A lot of the top pieces here actually bore me when it comes to harmony. The _structure_ of their composition is really good, but it's the harmonies that tend to be too repetitive and by-the-numbers for me. I feel Late Romanticism started truly solving these problems.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I'm just going through the list to see how much of it I own recordings of.

From the first ten tiers, I'm missing the St. Matthew Passion and Winterreise. Need to get those soon.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

20centrfuge said:


> And just to be clear. Le Sacre is 20x the piece of music that is Mahler 2.


An interesting observation (although not making any judgments) is that Mahler works are very consistently high while Stravinsky in Tier 4 then dips down much lower.

You could also hold the perspective that this list has a traditionalist bias in tastes, from them being go-to works that people initially develop their early tastes with, thus self-identify more with:

If you resort the list by giving slight preference to newer works (as when people initially develop their musical tastes, they miss them), Le Sacre du printemps comes up as the #1 piece, followed by especially Mahler and Brahms.

It kind of reminds me of this video. The works further up the chain (closer to the top) when pulled through time, are going to leave a bigger impression on the overall canvas of history, even up to this modern point. Meaning, traditionalism sticks around more by default even if people don't notice it or it's not warranted. The big hitters who finally arrived, Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, will overshadow possibly better works further down the forward chain of time. But because people are used to the traditional aesthetic, their mind will inherently be unable to perceive new pieces' appropriate worth.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

There is barely anything post-1900 in the top ten tiers.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Deleted....Please ignore.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Deleted........Please ignore.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

adriesba said:


> The more I look at this list, the more I find that I don't with it.
> 
> There is barely anything post-1900 in the first 10 or so tiers!
> 
> ...


I'm not sure which list you are looking at. All 13 of Wagner's operas are on the list. There are 8 Puccini operas. There are several works by Schmidt and Orff. Every work you mentioned above is on the list. And there are 18 works by Cage as well.

I'm guessing you somehow are not looking at the full list or the correct one.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure which list you are looking at. All 13 of Wagner's operas are on the list. There are 8 Puccini operas. There are several works by Schmidt and Orff. Every work you mentioned above is on the list. And there are 18 works by Cage as well.
> 
> I'm guessing you somehow are not looking at the full list or the correct one.


Oh boy, I see!

I bet what happened was my internet connection (which has been awful recently) was lagging when I used the search tool to see what pieces were included in the document, so not everything showed up. Now when I search, they do show up!

I guess my rant was for nothing. :lol:

Silly me!

Sorry! 

Although I am saddened by the fact that there are more pieces by John Cage on this list than I thought!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

adriesba said:


> Oh boy, I see!
> 
> I bet what happened was my internet connection (which has been awful recently) was lagging when I used the search tool to see what pieces were included in the document, so not everything showed up. Now when I search, they do show up!
> 
> I guess my rant was for nothing. :lol:


Well, it's still true that, "There is barely anything post-1900 in the top ten tiers." I personally don't think too much about exactly where works are placed. We all would order the list at least somewhat differently, but whether a work makes the top 5 tiers or top 20 tiers, it's still a wonderful work that we strongly recommend.



adriesba said:


> Although I am saddened by the fact that there are more pieces by John Cage on this list than I thought!


Probably many would be saddened by the suggestions for Cage's works. When I first came to TC, I would have shook my head at those suggestions, but I've come to quite like several of his works.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If we admit that what I described in my last post, the inescapable bias of taste-developing towards traditional works, automatically seeps into culture, every time (as throughout the decades individuals sustain old works regarding them as better than anything even though everyone is simply moreso growing up with them) then listing top pieces with more weight toward their newness makes sense (where the works of Mahler, Brahms, Rite of Spring, and perhaps Bach, are the real greats, or will be regarded as soon.) You don't have to sacrifice objectivity taking this perspective: because traditionalist bias is inherent in everything, old favorites always last longer than needed, the _way _it happens is like the video in the last post of mine. And it doesn't mean we have to totally disregard any worth of peoples' favorites, like Schubert, Mozart, Schumann.

I can even run the algorithm with a little more weight toward newness, and it wouldn't change the greatness of Beethoven or Mozart that much. Most people would still say they're the best, because that's what people grew up with, but it doesn't mean it's accurate, if they were to grow up around listening to all composers.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> I can even run the algorithm with a little more weight toward newness, and it wouldn't change the greatness of Beethoven or Mozart that much. Most people would still say they're the best, because that's what people grew up with, but it doesn't mean it's accurate, if they were to grow up around listening to all composers.


Assuming you're isolating at home, it sounds like a great exercise. Let us know your results.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

adriesba said:


> The more I look at this list, the more I find that I don't with it.
> 
> There is barely anything post-1900 in the first 10 or so tiers!
> 
> ...


The Wagner operas are all there, some of them thanks to my effort. I've been trying to improve their positions in the list but unfortunately for me it seems that the other members don't care much for them and, as they say, one swallow doesn't make a summer. Maybe would you consider joining the project so that we _together_ can bring them up?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> I can even run the algorithm with a little more weight toward newness, and it wouldn't change the greatness of Beethoven or Mozart that much. Most people would still say they're the best, because that's what people grew up with, but it doesn't mean it's accurate, if they were to grow up around listening to all composers.


My thoughts started wandering. I wonder what would my musical taste look like if I grew up listening to only Schoenberg and Berg...

In reality, I don't think that an algorithm with more weight toward newness would be that accurate. There are a lot of composers from Baroque, Classical and Romantic period who are even more neglected than the contemporary and 20th century composers. The assumption that the older composers are more loved just because they've been dead for a longer time isn't sensible without any clear proof that the time period is the reason of their popularity.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Allerius said:


> The Wagner operas are all there, some of them thanks to my effort. I've been trying to improve their positions in the list but unfortunately for me it seems that the other members don't care much for them and, as they say, one swallow doesn't make a summer. Maybe would you consider joining the project so that we _together_ can bring them up?


So this is ongoing? Where do I go?!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

adriesba said:


> So this is ongoing? Where do I go?!


You can currently vote to promote works on:


The 11th tier - open to April 28
The 78th tier - open to April 28
The 98th tier - open to May 1


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

annaw said:


> My thoughts started wandering. I wonder what would my musical taste look like if I grew up listening to only Schoenberg and Berg...
> 
> In reality, I don't think that an algorithm with more weight toward newness would be that accurate. There are a lot of composers from Baroque, Classical and Romantic period who are even more neglected than the contemporary and 20th century composers. The assumption that the older composers are more loved just because they've been dead for a longer time isn't sensible without any clear proof that the time period is the reason of their popularity.


I think, of course anyone would say some composers they like are neglected. My point was, the traditionalist bias (or the need for emphasis on gradually newer works) is an objective phenomenon. It can be reasoned. It's like the video in my prior post. Early works have much more chance of making their mark on our culture than those in the shadow, that is, early works have much more of a chance in altering how we'd judge music in the first place, that it's fundamentally not fair to later perceptions of music. If you grew up listening to all music, the way your mind works in that case would make fundamentally more of a fair assessment, even though it's impossible for most people to care doing. Now, if you mean there are some composers who have become more popular recently, like your Josquins, Bachs, etc, I agree that the formula won't work perfectly.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Allerius said:


> The Wagner operas are all there, some of them thanks to my effort. I've been trying to improve their positions in the list but unfortunately for me it seems that the other members don't care much for them and, as they say, one swallow doesn't make a summer. Maybe would you consider joining the project so that we _together_ can bring them up?


Opera has always been a bit of an issue for polling and lists such as this. Operas, as well as oratorios and other very long works, are not as easy to listen to in a given time period. If one has not heard the opera, it's difficult to arrange time to hear and use that information to vote. Also I think there is a bit of a disconnect between those who love opera and others on TC. Many who love opera tend not to participate in these type of lists so their input is, unfortunately, not included.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

adriesba said:


> So this is ongoing? Where do I go?!





science said:


> You can currently vote to promote works on:
> 
> 
> The 11th tier - open to April 28
> ...


You also might want to look at the main thread that summarize the whole project. You can add works that currently do not appear on the project list once a day.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Probably many would be saddened by the suggestions for Cage's works. When I first came to TC, I would have shook my head at those suggestions, but I've come to quite like several of his works.


The CDC has issued a warning that this is a complication of social distancing and sheltering in place.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> The CDC has issued a warning that this a complication of social distancing and sheltering in place.


Hopefully many have taken the extra time afforded by sheltering in place to discover wonderful new things.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> I think, of course anyone would say some composers they like are neglected. My point was, the traditionalist bias (or the need for emphasis on gradually newer works) is an objective phenomenon. It can be reasoned. It's like the video in my prior post. Early works have much more chance of making their mark on our culture than those in the shadow, that is, early works have much more of a chance in altering how we'd judge music in the first place, that it's fundamentally not fair to later perceptions of music. If you grew up listening to all music, the way your mind works in that case would make fundamentally more of a fair assessment, even though it's impossible for most people to care doing. Now, if you mean there are some composers who have become more popular recently, like your Josquins, Bachs, etc, I agree that the formula won't work perfectly.


Okay, I think I now see your point . I initially understood that you are talking about a purely time-based bias.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think the sole reason why it's not named "TC's Greatest.." is to avoid controversies.


I created the list to get recommendations for myself. I've explained that it doesn't have any other purpose but people continue to believe that I'm simply lying, so there's really nothing else I can do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

"Naturally, our list represents the knowledge and tastes of the people who have helped build it. We do not claim that it is the single, official objective canon of art music!

However, to the best of our knowledge, nothing else like this exists - no other list of prioritized recommendations including all genres of classical music, no other list as helpful to an old veteran looking for a surprise as to a newbie just familiarizing herself with the most famous works. We are confident everyone can find many wonderful surprises and spend many delightful hours exploring these recommendations."

"The point is to learn from each other and help each other, to have a good time exploring music together."

And of course, a little less euphemistically:



science said:


> ... from the beginning of the original thing on Amazon until now, I made this list for myself, to force people to prioritize the works they recommend to me. Five thousand recommended works -- what are you most likely to scorn me for not knowing? I made this to help me overcome people like you and DaveM who take so much pleasure in looking down on people like me because we know less about classical music than you do.
> 
> So my assault on your special status will not stop. This trailer park trash is coming for you and your pretty little hydrangeas. And there is nothing you can do about it. The more you stomp your feet and scream about what a philistine I am, the more attention you bring to the project, the better it becomes, and more _people like me_ become better able to pass _as one of you_. Of course there's more to that than just knowing which works are most important to learn about, but that's a start.
> 
> And now, fifteen years into this, if we sat down and chatted, there's a fair chance that I _would_ pass as one of you. That's something you can put in your hat, friend-o.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

science said:


> "Naturally, our list represents the knowledge and tastes of the people who have helped build it. We do not claim that it is the single, official objective canon of art music!
> 
> However, to the best of our knowledge, nothing else like this exists - no other list of prioritized recommendations including all genres of classical music, no other list as helpful to an old veteran looking for a surprise as to a newbie just familiarizing herself with the most famous works. We are confident everyone can find many wonderful surprises and spend many delightful hours exploring these recommendations."
> 
> ...


You almost made me cry.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

BachIsBest said:


> Although it is certainly a helpful list I've never understood the extreme aversion to Haydn. Just looking at the list one would get the sense Fauré, Sibelius, Debussy, Shostakovich, etc. were all far more important composers than Haydn. I'm putting on some London symphonies in protest.


Well, we all have our pet peeves when it comes to this list. One piece of work I marvel on how it gets such high ratings is Stravinsky's Le Sacre Du Printemps (The Rite of Spring). I have recently listened to that piece twice in the last 2 days (probably about 15 other times before that in the last 30 years) and am baffled how people can rate this as a "great" piece of music. To me Firebird BLOWS IT OUT OF THE WATER. It's not even close, but hey, I am certainly an outlier when it comes to that piece and that's the way things go sometimes.

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

ManateeFL said:


> I'm sure for those who enjoy this sort of thing, it has been and continues to be a fun diversion. On the whole I don't think newbies are particularly interested in or benefit from long lists. I can't imagine someone with no knowledge of the music or its context looking at an endless list of names that mean nothing to them, sitting down and working their way through consecutive items and getting much worthwhile out of it. Discovering new music is much more spontaneous, it consists of hearing something that strikes your fancy and investigating further, or reading about something that sparks your imagination and makes you want to hear it for yourself. Which is why for all the "top recommended" lists to be found on this site, the greatest advocacy for any given composer or piece of music are the enthusiastic and knowledgeable discussions that take place around them, or the descriptive responses to inquiries that users have about what other music they might like if they already enjoy something in particular, or recommendations on specific recordings, etc.


Yes but discovering "new" music in a genre as vast as "classical" music, these lists go a long way to help. When I was in college, I took 4 music history courses. 1 - Middle Ages to Renaissance. 2. Baroque & Classical Eras. 3. Romantic Era & 4. 20th Century.

At the end of each book was a list of the "most popular/ most influential" pieces of the canon within those eras. It was a great "guide" for almost all of us students to start on. I have every single piece of music on all those lists (over 400 pieces) and from and during that collection, expanded well beyond that "suggested" list. I thank that teacher (may he RIP) to this day he took the time to do such a thing. I believe that is the value in this project. And a great value it is. God bless Science and all those who vote.

V


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The 'expert composers' would say _The Rite of Spring_ is better than _Mahler's 2nd_, because they rate Stravinsky so high; in turn the Mahler pieces would be a bit lower. I personally agree with their suggestions the most. The same goes for when BBC also polled film critics around the world for their favorite flicks. Much better suggestions than avid folk. I can still use this OP list perfectly well, so thank you for contributing and working hard on it!

There's a clear correlation to how I would personally rank 'lists' people come up with:

Music:
1. Experts
2. The Mainstream
3. Avid Listeners

Movies:
1. Experts
2. The Mainstream
3. Avid Watchers

Why on earth the "avid folk" tend to be the worst for me, I don't know. Maybe the avid folk are the real experts, and the 'experts' are just paid to satisfy the customer. In that case, woe is me, I still have some work to do.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

20centrfuge said:


> mmsbls, I'm sure down lower, where all interest is lost (tier 60?) there start to be obscure and interesting picks, but at the beginning, it seems a bit too predictable. You could probably just look for the pieces with the most recordings and they'd be at the top of the list. Does that mean they are the best? I don't think so, but they are the ones picked by the most people on this website.
> 
> Don't get offended, my friend, the list is just not really my cup of tea.
> 
> ...


It may be too predictable to someone with your knowledge, but certainly not predictable to a newcomer to classical music. There is also a reason why many of these pieces are at the top of the canon. It's not just a "Talk Classical" phenomenon. These pieces have stood the test of time, performers, musicologists, historians, critics, et al.

OK great, you think Le Sacre is 20x the piece that Mahler is 2 is. Personally Le Sacre wouldn't make my top 1,000 classical pieces list and Mahler's 2nd would be in my top 30. However, most people would put both of these pieces in the top 50 pieces time and time and time and time again.

I still explore these lists and discover things all the time. If I were to start exploring classical music now, like I did over 35 years ago, I would find a list like this invaluable.

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> The 'expert composers' would say _The Rite of Spring_ is better than _Mahler's 2nd_, because they rate Stravinsky so high; in turn the Mahler pieces would be a bit lower. I personally agree with their suggestions the most. The same goes for when BBC also polled film critics around the world for their favorite flicks. Much better suggestions than avid folk. I can still use this OP list perfectly well, so thank you for contributing and working hard on it!
> 
> There's a clear correlation to how I would personally rank 'lists' people come up with:
> 
> ...


I have never put much stock in the "wisdom" of "experts." Experts have "knowledge" that I may be interested in, but it doesn't mean they have wisdom to apply knowledge in an efficacious way. 50 experts in a given field have no more or less wisdom than 50 electricians, 50 short stops in Major League Baseball, 50 Doctors, etc.

As the great William F Buckley once said, "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston telephone directory than the 2000 faculty of Harvard University."

V


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Yes but that list is so goood. Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky and Debussy all in the Top 5, as they should be.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't why there's so much attention to the top 5 or 50 or maybe even 500 works. Anyone who's been active at talkclassical (or any other way of learning about classical music) for a year has already discovered most of the top 50 works, and if you've been here five years you're probably already familiar with most of the top 500. 

The list really begins to get special, to me at least, when it gets down past that first few hundred works that "we" all know. I don't actually want to say which works those are because that would be offensive to someone and anyway every single one of us has overlooked something that we probably should've discovered already. 

Again, don't take it as a ranking of greatness or anything like that. I don't know who's qualified to evaluate the greatness of anything, but I'm not. (To be honest, "greatness" is a pretty vacuous concept AFAICT.) 

It's prioritized recommendations, nothing more and nothing less. Slide down the list until you see works you don't already know. That's where it begins to be for you.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

Hello everyone. I just came over from the other thread regarding the lists. I wanted to say thanks @Science *and to all the others involved in the project.* I am a new guy here am finding them very helpful. I don't understand why exactly those involved in compiling this list are catching heat for the manner in which they have done so, but I appreciate all of your efforts.

Like many people in the world, I understand how the internet works, and also understand from years of looking for "the best android phone under $200" or "the best hepa filter vacuum cleaner" or any other such thing that lists have OPINIONS in them. And like many people in the world, I realize that the opinions of others are not necessarily the only answer. In fact quite a few of the works on the list were decidedly not for me at this time, but I just moved on to another work on the list and gave it a try because I'm an adult. At no time did I feel fear that my love for classical music was being smothered by the manner in which the list was organized or by its title.

Anyways, since I supposedly am a member of the demographic which the lists are at least in part meant to assist, I thought I'd give some feedback. It is obvious that a lot of effort has and is going into them. I imagine it might be frustrating and/or discouraging to be repeatedly criticized for the manner in which you have directed your efforts or the words used to describe them, but this new guy is benefiting from them.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

science said:


> I don't why there's so much attention to the top 5 or 50 or maybe even 500 works. Anyone who's been active at talkclassical (or any other way of learning about classical music) for a year has already discovered most of the top 50 works, and if you've been here five years you're probably already familiar with most of the top 500.
> 
> The list really begins to get special, to me at least, when it gets down past that first few hundred works that "we" all know. I don't actually want to say which works those are because that would be offensive to someone and anyway every single one of us has overlooked something that we probably should've discovered already.
> 
> ...


Because people come to this list looking for the "most recommended works", not the best alternative/lesser known works, and they end up listening to brahms clarinet quintet...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

444mil said:


> Because people come to this list looking for the "most recommended works", not the best alternative/lesser known works, and they end up listening to brahms clarinet quintet...


Presumably some will consult the list for well known, highly loved works while others will look for best alternative/lesser known works. I think there are lots of good ways to use the list.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say, "they end up listening to brahms clarinet quintet...", but that sounds like a great outcome for anyone.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say, "they end up listening to brahms clarinet quintet...", but that sounds like a great outcome for anyone.


It's up to you.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say, "they end up listening to brahms clarinet quintet...", but that sounds like a great outcome for anyone.


That's what I was thinking. Such a beautiful piece!

These sorts of lists will never, ever please everybody.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Btw, title says "most highly recommended works".

There is another list where you can find "Works That Deserve to be Better Known" here: Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists

I don't know the relationship between these lists.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

444mil said:


> Btw, title says "most highly recommended works".
> 
> There is another list where you can find "Works That Deserve to be Better Known" here: Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists
> 
> I don't know the relationship between these lists.


There's no technical relationship but of course many of the people who helped make one list also participated in others.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

444mil said:


> Because people come to this list looking for the "most recommended works", not the best alternative/lesser known works, and they end up listening to brahms clarinet quintet...


I guess I don't understand what the concern behind this comment is. If someone hasn't heard Brahms's clarinet quintet yet, then that work and probably other works on that tier and surrounding tiers are probably very good recommendations for them.

If you're so familiar with Brahms's clarinet quintet that even thinking about it bores you badly, it seems like your attention should be lower on the list. I guess you'll find plenty of interesting works that are new to you before you get to "the absolute bottom tier."

For me, personally, the list starts to get really interesting in the 50s. That's where I start running into works that make me think, "Yeah, I've heard of that here and there, but I didn't expect to see it recommended this highly. Maybe Is should look it up and give it a listen." You might know a lot more than I do, and you might not have a feeling like that until the 90th tier or so. Whereas when I'm looking at the 90s probably a full third of the works are completely unfamiliar to me, and on the bottom five or so tiers I know less than half of the works.

But however much you know, if you browse the list, you'll find a work on a tier that will jump out at you, making you think something like, "I've never heard this work... Should it really be ranked with these other works that I respect so much? Who has been voting for this?"

And maybe if you look it up, learn about it, listen to it, maybe you'll have had a good experience and the list will have served its purpose.

If you decide that it should not be ranked so highly, maybe you'll be willing to promote works you'd recommend more strongly by voting for them when we do that tier next, or if you decide that actually it's a great work and you wish you'd heard it sooner, maybe you'll vote to promote it even further next time we do that tier. Either way, you'll be helping other people who don't yet know as much as you do and (believe it or not) that's actually a nice thing to do.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

444mil said:


> Btw, title says "most highly recommended works".
> 
> There is another list where you can find "Works That Deserve to be Better Known" here: Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists
> 
> I don't know the relationship between these lists.


The _Works That Deserve to be Better Known_ list was compiled by asking members to suggest a single work that they felt deserves to be better known and compiling those suggestions over the period of a week. Both lists contain suggestions of works, but this list is ordered and is the result of many years of work.

As science says, some members have contributed to both lists, though as best as I can tell, relatively few contributed to both.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> The _Works That Deserve to be Better Known_ list was compiled by asking members to suggest a single work that they felt deserves to be better known and compiling those suggestions over the period of a week. Both lists contain suggestions of works, but this list is ordered and is the result of many years of work.
> 
> As science says, some members have contributed to both lists, though as best as I can tell, relatively few contributed to both.


Maybe my impression was wrong, but it seems to me that there was a lot of overlap between the people who made lists like the symphonies list and the keyboard concerti lists. The overlap between any of them and "the TC project" is much less, especially now, but was probably greater at the time they were made.

A few months ago you asked me how many people have contributed to the project that I'm leading right now, and I gave a very conservative answer, something like "several dozen." I wish I had a way to know for sure. I believe it'd be several hundred but I hate to say such a large number without having good evidence.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> Maybe my impression was wrong, but it seems to me that there was a lot of overlap between the people who made lists like the symphonies list and the keyboard concerti lists. The overlap between any of them and "the TC project" is much less, especially now, but was probably greater at the time they were made.
> 
> A few months ago you asked me how many people have contributed to the project that I'm leading right now, and I gave a very conservative answer, something like "several dozen." I wish I had a way to know for sure. I believe it'd be several hundred but I hate to say such a large number without having good evidence.


Yes, there has been a lot of overlap between those who made many of the TC Top Recommended lists. I went through the list of "Works That Deserve to be Better Known", and I think the vast majority who added suggestions to that list have not participated in this list.

How many do you think have participated in this list from TC? Do you think there have been roughly similar numbers from the other site? I think there have been at least 40 from TC, but I really don't know if the number is 30 or 60. There are 253 members who have read the latest thread so presumably there could be 300 or more who have read any of the threads on the list. Of course just because someone has read the thread doesn't mean they have any interest in the list.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Science, don't take it personal. When i said you almost made me cry, i meant it. I'm just being passive-agressive and having fun discussing. I'm salty because for example, Beethoven: String Quartet #16 in F, op. 135 [1826] is in the 28th tier, and the same goes for some of the most sublime works ever composed, while you are recomending me Mozart PC 21 (wich i would recommend to a new classical music listener)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, there has been a lot of overlap between those who made many of the TC Top Recommended lists. I went through the list of "Works That Deserve to be Better Known", and I think the vast majority who added suggestions to that list have not participated in this list.
> 
> How many do you think have participated in this list from TC? Do you think there have been roughly similar numbers from the other site? I think there have been at least 40 from TC, but I really don't know if the number is 30 or 60. There are 253 members who have read the latest thread so presumably there could be 300 or more who have read any of the threads on the list. Of course just because someone has read the thread doesn't mean they have any interest in the list.


I was thinking something like 40 from the Amazon days and something like 150 here. In the past year or so here there's probably been about 25 different people who've voted at least once; I think if we looked back ten years ago we'd find something like 25 who'd voted at least once then too, and at least five of us have been here the whole time.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

444mil said:


> Science, don't take it personal. When i said you almost made me cry, i meant it. I'm just being passive-agressive and having fun discussing. I'm salty because for example, Beethoven: String Quartet #16 in F, op. 135 [1826] is in the 28th tier, and the same goes for some of the most sublime works ever composed, while you are recomending me Mozart PC 21 (wich i would recommend to a new classical music listener)


I wasn't taking anything personal. (I think you'll be able to tell if I do....)

I just think you're not understanding the list itself.

Here is a thing you might like to see. Most of the numbers are silly or meaningless (unless you want to help me figure out how many works we should promote and when to split a tier), but stay over on the first few leftmost columns.

As you can see the top 8 tiers have 55 works, which are the top percentile.

The 10th percentile is the 39th tier.

And so on.

Mozart's PC 21 is on the 11th tier right now. That means, as you can see on the chart, that we've recommended 77 works more strongly, and that it's in the 2nd percentile.

Even the 28th tier is pretty high. We have 298 works on or above that tier, and the works on that tier are in the 5.68% of works recommended.

You don't reach the 50th percentile until the 96th tier -- fully half of the works we've recommended are on or below that tier.

Anyway, if you have such strong feelings, you should participate. I have strong feelings that very few works from the Renaissance are known as well as they deserve to be known, and that most listeners would benefit from knowing them better, so I vote for those works pretty strongly, and although things almost never go completely my way the list definitely looks more like I think it should because of my votes. Everyone participating must feel something like that. You can make a difference too.

Right now the lowest tier we're doing is the 98th tier -- we'll be moving up about 200 works from that tier! Almost four percent of the works on our entire list are about to get moved up! About 75 of them (over 1% of the total works on our list) will go up to the 96th tier, which will then have about 180 works, and when we do that tier we'll move up about 90 of those works. And so on. You see, a lot of works are moving around, so your votes will make an immediate impact.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

444mil said:


> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit
> 
> title.


Yes, they are in Sieg _Hail_. Wagner's ring at no. 2? You know they dream of taking Poland.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

1996D said:


> Yes, they are in Sieg _Hail_. Wagner's ring at no. 2? You know they dream of taking Poland.


Godwin's Law in just 145 posts. Impressive!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

444mil said:


> Science, don't take it personal. When i said you almost made me cry, i meant it. I'm just being passive-agressive and having fun discussing. I'm salty because for example, Beethoven: String Quartet #16 in F, op. 135 [1826] is in the 28th tier, and the same goes for some of the most sublime works ever composed, while you are recomending me Mozart PC 21 (wich i would recommend to a new classical music listener)


I'm getting rather tired of folks primarily connecting this project to new classical music listeners. The benefits of the project are available to *all* TC members.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

science said:


> I wasn't taking anything personal. (I think you'll be able to tell if I do....)
> 
> I just think you're not understanding the list itself.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't participate because i don't know all the works from each tier, so it wouldn't make sense. I would end up voting the works i know and like, vs those who i don't know, or have listened to very few times.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I'm getting rather tired of folks primarily connecting this project to new classical music listeners. The benefits of the project are available to *all* TC members.


I didn't.

characters.........


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> Godwin's Law in just 145 posts. Impressive!


There's a whole thread further reinforcing Wagner's connection to the Nazis. The likelihood of the Ring being exactly what it was in the story to Hitler is high, and that's most likely what gave him the courage to do what he did.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The only issue with science's list is that Wagner should be even higher.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Couchie said:


> The only issue with science's list is that Wagner should be even higher.


I've only heard many overtures and excerpts, and already ranked him at the top of my favourite composers (maybe top 3).


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I rank him in my top as well. I actually give him the number 1.5 spot. Because the top spot alone is not good enough for Wagner, he spills over into Bach's second-place spot as well.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

Couchie said:


> I rank him in my top as well. I actually give him the number 1.5 spot. Because the top spot alone is not good enough for Wagner, he spills over into Bach's second-place spot as well.


What's your first?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Presumably everyone who looks at the list in detail will take exception to some of the rankings. One benefit of such lists is that they are created by groups of people rather than a single person. The combined rankings likely reduce the likelihood of outliers. I checked this list compared to some of the TC Top Recommended lists and found significant agreement in piano concertos and string quartets. There was, however, a huge disagreement. Bach's Harpsichord Concerto No. 3 (BWV 1054) was the 11th ranked keyboard concerto on the TC Top Most Recommended Keyboard Concerto list, but it's listed on the 96th tier in this list. I'm sure there are other such examples.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Presumably everyone who looks at the list in detail will take exception to some of the rankings. One benefit of such lists is that they are created by groups of people rather than a single person. The combined rankings likely reduce the likelihood of outliers. I checked this list compared to some of the TC Top Recommended lists and found significant agreement in piano concertos and string quartets. There was, however, a huge disagreement. Bach's Harpsichord Concerto No. 3 (BWV 1054) was the 11th ranked keyboard concerto on the TC Top Most Recommended Keyboard Concerto list, but it's listed on the 96th tier in this list. I'm sure there are other such examples.


I assume the explanation for 1054 being so low is merely historical -- we happen not to have noticed that it was missing until relatively recently.

But another thing I've observed is how much of a difference the participation of a single individual can make. There are some works relatively high on our list whose position there I can attribute to a particular voter. That was probably also true of the "TC Top Recommended" lists.

(A passionate individual can push a favored work up our list fairly effectively, but it takes everyone's indifference for a work to fall!)


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

444mil said:


> What's your first?


I think Couchie meant that Wagner gets the first place and half of the second one :lol:.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

annaw said:


> I think Couchie meant that Wagner gets the first place and half of the second one :lol:.


Right. I didn't get it


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

1996D said:


> There's a whole thread further reinforcing Wagner's connection to the Nazis. The likelihood of the Ring being exactly what it was in the story to Hitler is high, and that's most likely what gave him the courage to do what he did.


I wasn't taking issue with the well-worn Wagner/Hitler hobby-horse. More to your implication that those of us involved in producing the list of works are Nazis. But whatever.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

1996D said:


> There's a whole thread further reinforcing Wagner's connection to the Nazis. The likelihood of the Ring being exactly what it was in the story to Hitler is high, and that's most likely what gave him the courage to do what he did.


I believe Rienzi was the only work of Wagner Hitler had his delusional fantasies with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rienzi#Rienzi_and_Adolf_Hitler
"August Kubizek, a boyhood friend of Adolf Hitler, claimed that Hitler was so influenced by seeing Rienzi as a young man in 1906 or 1907 that it triggered his political career, and that when Kubizek reminded Hitler, in 1939 at Bayreuth, of his exultant response to the opera Hitler had replied, "At that hour it all began!" 
Although Kubizek's veracity has been seriously questioned, it is known that Hitler possessed the original manuscript of the opera, which he had requested and been given as a fiftieth birthday present in 1939. The manuscript was with Hitler in his bunker; it was either stolen, lost or destroyed by fire in the destruction of the bunker's contents after Hitler's death (the manuscript of Wagner's earlier work Die Feen is believed to have met with the same fate). Thomas Grey comments:
In every step of Rienzi's career - from ... acclamation as leader of the Volk, through military struggle, violent suppression of mutinous factions, betrayal and ... final immolation - Hitler would doubtless have found sustenance for his fantasies.
Albert Speer claims to have remembered an incident when Robert Ley advocated using a modern composition to open the Party Rallies in Nuremberg, but Hitler rejected this idea:
"You know, Ley, it isn't by chance that I have the Party Rallies open with the overture to Rienzi. It's not just a musical question. At the age of twenty-four this man, an innkeeper's son, persuaded the Roman people to drive out the corrupt Senate by reminding them of the magnificent past of the Roman Empire. Listening to this blessed music as a young man in the theater at Linz, I had the vision that I too must someday succeed in uniting the German Empire and making it great once more.""


----------

