# A more fun way to do a TC most rec operas list?



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

*A better and more fun way to do a TC most rec operas list?*

It's done in batches of ten.

Each member votes for 10 operas of their choice.
In order of preference.
It's done one week at a time.

The top choice is given 10 points, the next 9, the next 8 and so on down to 1.

After one week the points are totaled and the 10 operas with the most points are our 1 thru 10 picks.
The rest out.

Then each member list their second batch of 10 in preferential order and we do the thing again.
For our 11-20 list.

And so on.
An opera can be submitted as many times as you like.

This way everyone can choose and vote for what they want.

Someone has to assign the points and make each list 
after each week. So we get 10 listings per week.

Nothings perfect, but I've seen this work before.
And it's fun.

What do you think?
Questions?

:tiphat:


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Are you suggesting that opera should be fun?


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

Obviously the current way will not result in an official list. If the OP is allowed to do it that way, with zero consensus regarding procedures and limits on recommendations, then I could easily do a list next year where no one is allowed to recommend Puccini, and it would have the same right to "Official" status.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Yes, I suggested something in the other thread to the same effect -- I've been browsing the board for a while and that's the method that seems most democratic and effective. Part of the frustration of the other thread is that no suggestions or concerns have been addressed, and this is something that needs to be thought out and discussed in a little more detail. Because I agree if done right it could be a lot of fun!

I don't want to undermine the OP's attempt, but it just seems a little haphazard, and if others are willing I would love to take a stab at trying to run or helping to run a more organized attempt at this...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Are there any restrictions on resubmitting a work that didn't get selected in a previous week?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Becca said:


> Are there any restrictions on resubmitting a work that didn't get selected in a previous week?


No, you can submit as many times as you like.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

The point is I don't mind whatever method works as long as Lachenmann's opera shows up on either list somehow. S'il vous plait.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Albert7 said:


> The point is I don't mind whatever method works as long as Lachenmann's opera shows up on either list somehow. S'il vous plait.


It's up to the votes sir :tiphat:


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

One problem you'd get is strategic voting. Which Verdi work first? You'd hate to see them split the vote if you're a Verdi fan, so maybe people wait to see how others vote first. Or maybe some of us get together and all agree to push one work first. Unless voting was secret, you'll gave some of this stuff, which may be a bit of a turn off. It won't just be vote your favorites. 

A second question is whether 10 through 1 is the way to go. Maybe you could make five 10 point submissions and five 5 point submissions, or something like that, as a sop to those who struggle to rank. Just an idea.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Itullian said:


> It's up to the votes sir :tiphat:


Cool as long as I don't see 12 Madame Butterflies in my tummy.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Yeah, I think it would be a mistake if we allowed the same work to appear on the final list 12 times.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

After thinking about this, I will not take part. The idea of listing 10 operas such than 1 is worth 10 times the other, etc., goes against totally against my beliefs. It was hard enough coming up with a list of 15 when there was no internal ranking.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Becca said:


> After thinking about this, I will not take part. The idea of listing 10 operas such than 1 is worth 10 times the other, etc., goes against totally against my beliefs. It was hard enough coming up with a list of 15 when there was no internal ranking.


The same thing came straight up in my mind.
So still on the fence .


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

You just list your 1 thru 10 each time.

And you can submit again the next round.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> A second question is whether 10 through 1 is the way to go. Maybe you could make five 10 point submissions and five 5 point submissions, or something like that, as a sop to those who struggle to rank. Just an idea.


The standard, at least for the last three lists that have been done (string quartets, art songs, chamber duos), has been a scale of 15-6, so that the latter half of the list still has significant worth, and yet the ranking still matters.

It's more "tried and true" than this current shenanigans, for sure.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Becca said:


> After thinking about this, I will not take part. The idea of listing 10 operas such than 1 is worth 10 times the other, etc., goes against totally against my beliefs. It was hard enough coming up with a list of 15 when there was no internal ranking.


Haha. Well, that's just the nature of the beast when it comes to these sorts of votes. They are _ranked_ lists afterall. Besides, there's no need to take it quite so literally -- just rank the operas by your own personal preference as best you can, and the point system is simply there to give weight to the scoring.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

Becca said:


> After thinking about this, I will not take part. The idea of listing 10 operas such than 1 is worth 10 times the other, etc., goes against totally against my beliefs. It was hard enough coming up with a list of 15 when there was no internal ranking.


You will actually end up listing something closer to 50-100 operas throughout a project. A simple glance at one of the lists with the same model will tell you this. But I have seen the belief issue before. Falls somewhere between "Do not covet your neighbor's wife" and "Do not covet your neighbor's goods" in some parts of the world.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

I think there are a couple other matters that should be discussed as well. I noticed that before operettas were disqualified from contention, and I'm wondering why? It can't be the length...there are plenty of one act operas. Or the fact there is spoken dialogue...works like The Magic Flute aren't disqualified. Beloved works by the likes of Gilbert and Sullivan, Johann Strauss II, Offenbach, etc. are certainly part of the operatic tradition...should they be automatically excluded on an upcoming list?

Also, it should maybe be discussed if works like Wagner's Ring or Puccini's Il Trittico should be counted as singular works or by their individual operas. In my mind The Ring is one unified work and each of the separate parts very much incomplete if viewed on their own, while Il tabarro, Suor Angelica, and Gianni Schicchi are each complete and intact operas that are just collected and performed together...but still, something worth discussing perhaps.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

The Ring is one. Trittico is separate.

You can submit ANY opera you'd like in this system.
That's the fun


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Itullian said:


> The Ring is one. Trittico is separate.
> 
> You can submit ANY opera you'd like in this system.
> That's the fun


So yes for operettas then? I'm absolutely for their inclusion, but wasn't sure if others object.

And just so I'm clear with the voting system...is this simply adding up the votes from the nominations for each round and ranking them based on the points they receive, or is it a two-part per round voting system where the first part is collecting the nominations to determine the 10 works to be ranked, then everyone voting on their preference for those 10 works. Personally I like the two-part per round method more as it ensures everyone has a chance to give their input on the order of the list. Otherwise it's plausible that 10 operas could make the list in a given round that some users didn't pick at all!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Each pesons list of 10 is given points from 10 to 1
After a week the points are totaled and the top 10 from all the lists make up the first 10 operas.
Then we move to the 2nd batch of 10.

ANY opera can be submitted, operettas too.
If one of your picks didn't make it in the first 10, you're free to submit it again.

It's very simple and fun.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Okay let's try this and see how it goes


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Itullian said:


> The Ring is one. Trittico is separate.
> 
> You can submit ANY opera you'd like in this system.
> That's the fun


... as long as you support the above statement? I have a different viewpoint...

Il Trittico premiered as a whole 'opera', a triptych with a common thread (the concealment of death) but should be regarded as 3 separate works? I understand what you are saying, but with reference to below, it seems inconsistent.

The four operas of the Ring, premièred many years apart (1869,1870,1876) except last two, performed on different days, invariably put on by companies as standalone performances rather than as a sequence. That should be regarded as one opera?

Doesn't this warrant a little more discussion?


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

nathanb said:


> The standard, at least for the last three lists that have been done (string quartets, art songs, chamber duos), has been a scale of 15-6, so that the latter half of the list still has significant worth, and yet the ranking still matters.
> 
> It's more "tried and true" than this current shenanigans, for sure.





Faustian said:


> And just so I'm clear with the voting system...is this simply adding up the votes from the nominations for each round and ranking them based on the points they receive, or is it a two-part per round voting system where the first part is collecting the nominations to determine the 10 works to be ranked, then everyone voting on their preference for those 10 works. Personally I like the two-part per round method more as it ensures everyone has a chance to give their input on the order of the list. Otherwise it's plausible that 10 operas could make the list in a given round that some users didn't pick at all!


These are both very good suggestions. They would result in the list reflecting a truer consensus of the membership's views and would also give every member a voice in the final ranking of each opera (even if s/he didn't nominate it in the first round).


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Itullian said:


> Each pesons list of 10 is given points from 10 to 1
> After a week the points are totaled and the top 10 from all the lists make up the first 10 operas.
> Then we move to the 2nd batch of 10.
> 
> ...


Yes, simply adding up all the nominations and then creating the list based on that is simpler. But as Balthazar said, doing a two-part vote per round would be more _thorough_ and would allow every member to give their input on the final order of the list. Because let's say I nominate 10 operas for the first round and none of my nominations happen to make the top 10. That doesn't mean I don't have preferences among the 10 operas that _did_ make it on the list. And by allowing me to vote on those it gives a truer reflection of member's choices.

So basically what I'm proposing is this, as based of what I've seen in other TC Top recommended threads:

In round 1 everyone submits a list of their 10 favorite operas ordered 1 through 10 in the *nomination portion* of the round; points are given accordingly (15 points for a #1 vote, 14 points for a #2 vote, etc.,) and there is a set amount of time (3 days? 1 week?) before all the votes are counted. At this time points are tallied, and the 10 operas receiving the most points from everyone's nominations make it onto the list. Then in the *ranking portion* of the round, users pick their 5 favorite operas out of the 10 that made the list, ranking them 1 to 5. Points are assigned for each rank. Then again after a set amount of time, be it 3 days, a week, or whatever, submissions are again counted and that determines the _order_ of the top 10. Then for round 2, the same method is used with users nominating 10 more favorite operas not including what made it into the list already, and so on.

I guess I would be ok with going along with the simpler method if that's what everyone preferred, but I wouldn't mind seeing the extra step taken to ensure a more accurate reflection.

Then of course we need to decide what the ceiling for the list is going to be...100? 200? And where there voting thread will be placed. I still suggest the vote is taken in the main forum where it will be seen by the maximum number of TC users, and a link can be inserted here, in this thread for example, for users who might only read threads in the opera forum.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> ... as long as you support the above statement? I have a different viewpoint...
> 
> Il Trittico premiered as a whole 'opera', a triptych with a common thread (the concealment of death) but should be regarded as 3 separate works? I understand what you are saying, but with reference to below, it seems inconsistent.
> 
> ...


I think it does warrant discussion, or at least a consensus, which is why I brought it up. But I would point out that the reason the operas of The Ring were premiered in different years by different companies had to do partly with the logistical difficulties of staging them, but mostly because Wagner no longer owned the rights to the operas. King Ludwig II, who _did_ own the rights to them, insisted on seeing what was finished before the entire score was composed, against Wagner's wishes that he wait until the work could be premiered as a whole.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Faustian said:


> I think it does warrant discussion, or at least a consensus, which is why I brought it up. But I would point out that the reason the operas of The Ring were premiered in different years by different companies had to do partly with the logistical difficulties of staging them, but mostly because Wagner no longer owned the rights to the operas. King Ludwig II, who _did_ own the rights to them, insisted on seeing what was finished before the entire score was composed, against Wagner's wishes that he wait until the work could be premiered as a whole.


I'm aware of the history, but is that the best reason why it should be classed as 1 opera?

As to this other plan, I'm concerned it's not so different to the other one, it just seems to circumvent a step. The problem still remains that if someone is away for a given week they might not get a say in the top 10 operas, and as it's now the summer, that seems likely for many.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> The problem still remains that if someone is away for a given week they might not get a say in the top 10 operas, and as it's now the summer, that seems likely for many.


I don't really see any way around that problem.  Broadband is pretty widely available anyway, so it should theoretically be possible for most members to vote from most locations, if that's what they want to spend their holiday doing!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I don't really see any way around that problem.  Broadband is pretty widely available anyway, so it should theoretically be possible for most members to vote from most locations, if that's what they want to spend their holiday doing!


I use an iPad 3 to do voting on the go and I suspect a lot of people will be voting by smartphone. Kinda like American Idol.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Lists are fascinating. ON the one had they are meaningless but ....


I prefer this method but would add one more qualification. An Opera has to get as minimum no of 10 (5?) votes to make the list. I think three's a finite no probably less than 100 or so excellent Operas and above that the selections come down to purely personal reasons.
Without this qualifier the list is meaningless. 
eg lookiign at the current top 100
Pique Dame, L'Amour de Loin or Porgy and Bess are all masterpieces. I think not.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> I'm aware of the history, but is that the best reason why it should be classed as 1 opera?
> 
> As to this other plan, I'm concerned it's not so different to the other one, it just seems to circumvent a step. The problem still remains that if someone is away for a given week they might not get a say in the top 10 operas, and as it's now the summer, that seems likely for many.


1) If you're not there, you're not there.

2) This is the method used in past lists. It has not been an issue. I don't believe you participated in past TC lists. Did you?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> I'm aware of the history, but is that the best reason why it should be classed as 1 opera?


I believe the best reason is what I stated before: it's not so much four operas that are complete and satisfying in their own right and happen to succeed each other in a series, like movie sequels, as it is one connected, organic work of art with distinct sections. At least that's how I and many others see it. If the majority of people here feel differently, we could split them up because _technically_, yes, they are four operas. But I'm on the side of it being voted on as one work rather than four operas.



> As to this other plan, I'm concerned it's not so different to the other one, it just seems to circumvent a step. The problem still remains that if someone is away for a given week they might not get a say in the top 10 operas, and as it's now the summer, that seems likely for many.


Yeah, I agree with others here. There's nothing that can really be done; if someone wants to contribute, they have to be here to participate. Perhaps someone could private message the person counting the submissions if they know they are going to be gone for a particular week and send them their list privately so it could be counted in the upcoming vote?


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

Faustian said:


> Yeah, I agree with others here. There's nothing that can really be done; if someone wants to contribute, they have to be here to participate. Perhaps someone could private message the person counting the submissions if they know they are going to be gone for a particular week and send them their list privately so it could be counted in the upcoming vote?


This, also, has been done before, without problems. In a couple cases, lists were sent privately. In other cases, permission was given to continue to use the same list (iow: if a person is away for a while, and a couple of their operas get in on one round, the other 8 from their 10 are continually cast as votes in the next round, and so on)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Belowpar said:


> eg lookiign at the current top 100
> Pique Dame, L'Amour de Loin or Porgy and Bess are all masterpieces. I think not.


L'Amour de Loin _is_ a masterpiece in my book, and the other two are definitely fine works as well.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> Lists are fascinating. ON the one had they are meaningless but ....
> 
> I prefer this method but would add one more qualification. An Opera has to get as minimum no of 10 (5?) votes to make the list. I think three's a finite no probably less than 100 or so excellent Operas and above that the selections come down to purely personal reasons.
> Without this qualifier the list is meaningless.
> ...


Only 100 or fewer excellent operas- ever?! As nice as it would be to see the back of Porgy and Bess, there are plenty of neglected masterpieces, and they aren't any less good just because they are no longer being recorded or performed, fashions in these things having moved on. I'm not knowledgeable enough to assess whether something is a masterpiece or not, but there are operas I revere which I have never heard anyone else enthusing about, and while I don't expect any of my favourites to 'win', barring operas with fewer than ten votes might well result in a list of thirty or so hackneyed works which wouldn't help to broaden anyone's listening horizons that much, and that would be a shame.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Faustian said:


> Yes, simply adding up all the nominations and then creating the list based on that is simpler. But as Balthazar said, doing a two-part vote per round would be more _thorough_ and would allow every member to give their input on the final order of the list. Because let's say I nominate 10 operas for the first round and none of my nominations happen to make the top 10. That doesn't mean I don't have preferences among the 10 operas that _did_ make it on the list. And by allowing me to vote on those it gives a truer reflection of member's choices.


Yes. I agree with the idea of multiple rounds per set. If everyone picks 10 operas (out of thousands) there will be a little consensus at the top but #10 may only have gotten a couple votes. And the eventual #11 would likely be better regarded.

Every submits nomination lists of ten operas not already listed.
The fifteen operas with the most nominations are eligible to be voted on for the voting round.
The top ten based on the voting round are official.
Then it begins again with a new nomination round, once again open to all operas not already on the list.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I really hate to have to rank operas.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> Yes. I agree with the idea of multiple rounds per set. If everyone picks 10 operas (out of thousands) there will be a little consensus at the top but #10 may only have gotten a couple votes. And the eventual #11 would likely be better regarded.
> 
> Every submits nomination lists of ten operas not already listed.
> The fifteen operas with the most nominations are eligible to be voted on for the voting round.
> ...


I must say, I do like that idea. So users would pick their favorite 5 out of the top 15 vote getters in the nomination round, with the 10 that get the most points making the list. I would support that.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Also I am hoping for more operas composed after the 1950s. The current voting operas is seriously lacking in so much there. And also pre 1930s recordings too.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I realize that polls that take many weeks, if not months, to complete are popular here at TC. Personally, I can't maintain interest for that length of time. If it takes longer than about 7 days, I'm a no-show.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

So many cooks! I'm exhausted already! I think I will leave all the technical workouts to you all.
Wake me when it's a done deal.
;-))


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

nathanb said:


> 1) If you're not there, you're not there.


1. Self-evidently true, but if we want to get as many people involved as we can, then making the entry point of the top 10 too brief might cause members not to participate in the rest of the project?



nathanb said:


> 2) This is the method used in past lists. It has not been an issue. I don't believe you participated in past TC lists. Did you?


So what's all this discussion about? What are you waiting for? Just get on and do it exactly the same way as last time!


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Bulldog said:


> I realize that polls that take many weeks, if not months, to complete are popular here at TC. Personally, I can't maintain interest for that length of time. If it takes longer than about 7 days, I'm a no-show.


That's why I originally suggested we just submit a list of our (however many) favourite operas and somebody aggregates them.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Sloe said:


> I really hate to have to rank operas.


Then don't. This is a list with a ranking system.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Sonata said:


> Then don't. This is a list with a ranking system.


Don´t be so negative.
Then there is no list yet. Can you honestly decide which opera is your fourth most favorite and which one is your fifth or first or tenth. Maybe you can but I think it is difficult.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Let's just face the undeniable fact that William Schuman's _The Mighty Casey_ is the greatest opera ever written.

There. I've said it. Now we can all stop this nonsense and go home.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

1. I would vote against the two-step process as it would drag on. On the other hand, I don't like Don Fatale's one-vote-and-it's-over process either. For many of us, the interactivity is the key.

2. If people really don't like ranking, then they probably can't play along. But you could reduce the effect by doing something other than a 10-to-1 point system. For me, the 1-point vote wouldn't seem to matter much. It's too big of a gap from first to tenth.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> 1. I would vote against the two-step process as it would drag on. On the other hand, I don't like Don Fatale's one-vote-and-it's-over process either. For many of us, the interactivity is the key.


I favor Don Fatale's recommendation. Although I understand the interactivity element, I just want to quickly play the game and see the results.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I favor Don Fatale's recommendation. Although I understand the interactivity element, I just want to quickly play the game and see the results.


While I can sympathize with the sentiments of not being involved in some long drawn out process, it seems to me that the round by round method allows participants to be as active as they want to be for as long as they want to be. If someone only wants to submit their favorite 10-20 operas for a round or two they can do that; the results of the top 10 will be up within a week tops, and then they can bow out gracefully and check the final list when it is completed if they so desire. In a previous post nathanb also pointed out that in the past:



> In a couple cases, lists were sent privately. In other cases, permission was given to continue to use the same list (iow: if a person is away for a while, and a couple of their operas get in on one round, the other 8 from their 10 are continually cast as votes in the next round, and so on)


So that's a potential _option_ using this method anyways. Quickly play by submitting a list of however many operas that will continuously be taken into account in the voting.

Besides, from what I understood about Don Fatale's recommendation, it had nothing to do with shortening the process. It was to attract the most lists possible over a longer period of time so that users who are away for a week or two, or new users who join the site can continuously submit their lists and be a part of the process. So we are talking a similarly long process, just a different method of submitting the votes: everyone makes one big list, submits it, and they're done. A potential problem I see with this is that while there could very well be a lot of activity as people submit their lists in the beginning, threads have a tendency to fade and to drop off the front page and be forgotten if there isn't a lot of constant interactivity. The reason the TC Top Recommended voting threads last so long, get so big and stay so active is because participants are continuously revisiting the thread and making more contributions.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> 2. If people really don't like ranking, then they probably can't play along. But you could reduce the effect by doing something other than a 10-to-1 point system. For me, the 1-point vote wouldn't seem to matter much. It's too big of a gap from first to tenth.


That's a valid point, and why something like a 15 point to 6 point system might be more suitable. Unless there's a suggestion for another point system that could reduce the effect. Your earlier suggestion of 10 points given to the first 5 slots on everyone's list, 5 points to the last 5 is an interesting one and worth consideration. My only observation would be that if there isn't enough differential given to the rankings, the list could potentially end up being comprised of the operas that show up on the most individual submissions, and there is less ability to showcase unique user preference. It's more likely to be a little "generic", if you will.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Sloe said:


> Don´t be so negative.
> Then there is no list yet. Can you honestly decide which opera is your fourth most favorite and which one is your fifth or first or tenth. Maybe you can but I think it is difficult.


I didn't really think I was being negative. I was merely being straightforward


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> That's a valid point, and why something like a 15 point to 6 point system might be more suitable. Unless there's a suggestion for another point system that could reduce the effect. Your earlier suggestion of 10 points given to the first 5 slots on everyone's list, 5 points to the last 5 is an interesting one and worth consideration. My only observation would be that if there isn't enough differential given to the rankings, the list could potentially end up being comprised of the operas that show up on the most individual submissions, and there is less ability to showcase unique user preference. It's more likely to be a little "generic", if you will.


It's actually not my complaint ... I'm OK with 10 to 1, although I might favor 15 to 6. Or we could do 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,4,4,4, which perhaps gets at the fact that it's harder to differentiate at the bottom of our lists (and also gives the bottom votes a bit more meaning).

In truth, people who are bothered by ranking probably won't be okay with anything. I mean, can you honestly say that A is your 10th favorite and B your 11th? If this bothers you, then you can't really play.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Enough talk!

For what it's worth (or not):*
1. Mefistofele
2. Don Carlo
3. Otello
4. Madama Butterfly
5. Dialogues des Carmelites
6. Tosca
7. Eugene Onegin
8. Turandot
9. Andrea Chenier
10. Rigoletto
11. Lucia di Lammermoor
12. La Boheme
13. Romeo et Juliette
14. Norma
15. Parsifal
16. Faust
17. La Traviata
18. Il trovatore
18. Fanciulla del West
19. Adriana Lecouvreur
20. Cav/Pag

Non Operas:
Sweeney Todd
The Consul

*subject to change


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

All this talk of how exactly points are awarded is becoming rather tedious, if I may say so. Why not stick with the voting system that produced the existing Top 100? As long as everybody gets a chance to nominate what they want, and there aren't any rules that block attempts to vote for anything unfashionable- as I understand it, the old system was fine in those respects, though I didn't participate on that occasion.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> All this talk of how exactly points are awarded is becoming rather tedious, if I may say so. Why not stick with the voting system that produced the existing Top 100? As long as everybody gets a chance to nominate what they want, and there aren't any rules that block attempts to vote for anything unfashionable- as I understand it, the old system was fine in those respects, though I didn't participate on that occasion.


You mean the existing Top 272? From what I gathered from the original thread, which was the first TC Top Recommended thread of its kind, they were just kind of making things up as they went, and their methods somewhat changed from the beginning of the vote to the end of it. It was also a smaller group of members participating. I think we all want this to be a fair, organized and transparent process, and I've been responding to various points and concerns. It wasn't intended to be a tedious discussion.

I was waiting for a little more feedback in general to kind of determine if users wanted a simpler, more straightforward approach or a more nuanced approach that might be a little more involved and time consuming. Whatever will promote the largest amount of participation. But if no one cares and just wants to start the voting I can certainly start a thread based on my preferences as I've stated thus far.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

A couple of points for consideration:

1) Most recommended, or favourites? To me there is a distinction.

2) If doing 10 a week if we must, can we run the top ten for longer than a week, perhaps several weeks, so that we can gather more people into the process.

3) How is the top 10 to be chosen. (In the previous version it felt like this was railroaded through).


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

You pick your favorite recording. It works itself out.

I think one week is plenty of time.

Points added up.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> A couple of points for consideration:
> 
> 1) Most recommended, or favourites? To me there is a distinction.
> 
> ...


1. I think the general rule is that everyone picks their favorites, and then the accumulated result will be the operas that the TC community "recommends" as a whole based on our preferences. I'm not even quite sure how possible it is to be objective in matters like this anyways; I know personally that my favorite operas are those that I consider to be of the highest quality. If individual users want to use their votes to nominate operas that they see as being significant or important in some other historical sense and want to see them on the list for that reason however, it is certainly at their discretion to do so.

2. I too think it might be a good idea to allow the voting for the top 10 to run for a little longer than the votes for subsequent rounds. If for no other reason than the early rounds seem to be the most popular and have the most user participation anyways.

3. The top 10 will be chosen like every other set of 10 on the list; the 10 operas receiving the most points from the voting process.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Faustian said:


> 1. I think the general rule is that everyone picks their favorites, and then the accumulated result will be the operas that the TC community "recommends" as a whole based on our preferences. I'm not even quite sure how possible it is to be objective in matters like this anyways; I know personally that my favorite operas are those that I consider to be of the highest quality. If individual users want to use their votes to nominate operas that they see as being significant or important in some other historical sense and want to see them on the list for that reason however, it is certainly at their discretion to do so.
> 
> 2. I too think it might be a good idea to allow the voting for the top 10 to run for a little longer than the votes for subsequent rounds. If for no other reason than the early rounds seem to be the most popular and have the most user participation anyways.
> 
> 3. The top 10 will be chosen like every other set of 10 on the list; the 10 operas receiving the most points from the voting process.


I agree... let each member select their 15 operas and then do the voting based on what each person selects on hand. Makes it easier. Plus I don't have to wade through another 15 Puccini operas because that would bore me to tears.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> You pick your favorite *recording*. It works itself out.
> 
> I think one week is plenty of time.
> 
> Points added up.


Recording or opera? We're not doing specific recording here, right?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Recording or opera? We're not doing specific recording here, right?


The opera of course . We are using a pool of recordings and not live performances.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> Recording or opera? We're not doing specific recording here, right?


Right, sorry, opera.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

I am planning on starting the thread and beginning the vote in the main forum very soon, later today or possibly tomorrow. Since I haven't noticed too much dissension the format I'm leaning towards is basically adopting that used in most of the other TC Top Recommended Threads as discussed before:

1. The scoring method where lists will be ranked 1 to 10, with the #1 position on everyone's list receiving 15 points and on down to the #10 position receiving 6 points.

2. A two-part voting system where there is a nomination round to determine the next 10 operas on the list, and a voting round to determine their order. I know GreenMamba said he preferred a one part voting system, but members like Balthazar and mountmccabe supported the two-part system. And again, it's been the foundation behind most of these lists in the past.

3. Cycles of operas like The Ring will be voted on as 1 work. After Don Fatale's advocacy for Il trittico being counted as one work, I think I'm leaning that way as well. Any other ambiguous cases that anyone can think of should be brought up as well.

So please, if anyone has any strong objections or things they want to add speak now or forever hold your peace...


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

The hijack is done. Go ahead. And good luck.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Faustian said:


> So please, if anyone has any strong objections or things they want to add speak now or forever hold your peace...


Throw in the Tarnhelm as collateral and we'll have a bargain. You can keep the Ring.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Faustian said:


> 3. Cycles of operas like The Ring will be voted on as 1 work. After Don Fatale's advocacy for Il trittico being counted as one work, I think I'm leaning that way as well. Any other ambiguous cases that anyone can think of should be brought up as well.
> 
> So please, if anyone has any strong objections or things they want to add speak now or forever hold your peace...


To clarify, my point was the discrepancy of somebody considering Il Trittico as separate operas while the four operas of the Ring Cycle were treated as one. To separate Il Trittico whilst joining the Ring seems illogical to me.

I'd be more content if the four operas of the Ring Cycle were treated as separate operas... because they are. That's why it's the Ring Cycle and not the Ring Opera. You can buy them separately, you can see them live separately. Mostly we do. Aside from this thread, I see little to no documentation referring to them a one opera. That's my opinion on the matter. If others think differently, that's absolutely fine.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> To clarify, my point was the discrepancy of somebody considering Il Trittico as separate operas while the four operas of the Ring Cycle were treated as one. To separate Il Trittico whilst joining the Ring seems illogical to me.
> 
> I'd be more content if the four operas of the Ring Cycle were treated as separate operas... because they are. That's why it's the Ring Cycle and not the Ring Opera. You can buy them separately, you can see them live separately. Mostly we do. Aside from this thread, I see little to no documentation referring to them a one opera. That's my opinion on the matter. If others think differently, that's absolutely fine.


Oh I understand your points and your perspective definitely holds validity. And I think I've explained the other way to look at it. Since no one else seems to have a strong opinion on it however I will proceed this way because A)that's what was agreed upon during the first vote and how it was handled, and B)it makes the vote a little less convoluted.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Faustian said:


> I am planning on starting the thread and beginning the vote in the main forum very soon, later today or possibly tomorrow. Since I haven't noticed too much dissension the format I'm leaning towards is basically adopting that used in most of the other TC Top Recommended Threads as discussed before:
> 
> 1. The scoring method where lists will be ranked 1 to 10, with the #1 position on everyone's list receiving 15 points and on down to the #10 position receiving 6 points.
> 
> ...


As long as members can vote for whatever operas they like, this seems like a good plan. I look forward to voting, and thanks for volunteering!


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> As long as members can vote for whatever operas they like, this seems like a good plan. I look forward to voting, and thanks for volunteering!


Absolutely, there is no preordained list of operas that has to be picked from.

I'm putting the final touches on the thread now, it will be up soon.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The voting thread is now open in the main forum. Please feel free to visit and cast your nominations.

 The 2015 TC Top 100+ Most Recommended Operas List


----------

