# What Makes a Quality Thread?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I've been thinking about this for a while now. What makes a good thread? I have an answer: I like threads that either put me in touch with new, quality music, or provide information and insight into the music I already know and love. After all, isn't this what really matters? Isn't this why most of us are here in the first place, _because we love classical music?_ It is also enjoyable to talk about the music we love and share our enjoyment with other people who feel the same way.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

My idea of a quality thread is a bit more broad: I think the best threads are the ones that spark engaging conversation, whether positive or negative. So long as it promotes discussion, I think it can be a great vehicle to allow others to share their insights on music. Some of my favorite ones have been on the more controversial side, or tend to spark "debate". I don't always participate in these, because to be honest, I always feel like everyone on this forum knows so much more than me, but I do enjoy reading what others write.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

In a sense I look for threads which expand my knowledge of music. Learning about new composers or works that I am not familiar with. I am not interested in threads that tell me everything that has been composed since the death of Mahler is garbage or classical music is dying based on flimsy anecdotal evidence.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

What makes a quality thread? Why, polls, of course!


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Klassic said:


> I've been thinking about this for a while now. What makes a good thread? I have an answer: I like threads that either put me in touch with new, quality music, or provide information and insight into the music I already know and love. After all, isn't this what really matters? Isn't this why most of us are here in the first place, _because we love classical music?_ It is also enjoyable to talk about the music we love and share our enjoyment with other people who feel the same way.


Cool story, Klassic.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2016)

Any thread started by me, of course!


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Any thread that doesn't devolve into a full-blown spitstorm full of insults, mud slinging, and other forms of online warfare among the members of TC.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2016)

violadude said:


> What makes a quality thread? Why, polls, of course!


You mean, not this one, as there's no poll options?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

If I knew the answer I'd be starting quality threads. Sometimes threads just take off when you least expect it, and other times they seem to sink for no reason, even when the idea is novel.

What I enjoy the most is discussion of one or two individual works -- just a sentence or two or short paragraph about why you like a piece rather than a list of 40 composers. If it gets too technical my eyes may glaze over, but I still enjoy these more than the "Choose the 5 and half and only 5 and a half top 5 and half Belgian composers of xylophone concertos who died before 1917" variety. I still participate in the latter.

clavichord's thread about obscure classic era works is an example of the kind I enjoy, but I realize that approach can be a bit daunting. Current Listening also has this approach depending on how much time and energy the poster want's to put into it. That thread has become a little unwieldy for me lately -- way too much to browse, but I miss it and plan to return to it soon.

I also like threads with individual posts of no more than three short paragraphs so that I can read them quickly. You get bogged down with half a screen full of characters. I confess to just skim reading these and then I foolishly repeat what has already been said because the point is buried. Shorter posts are better.

Oh, wait - -


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2016)

Generally speaking, I would predict that a quality thread would come from someone who doesn't make a lot of threads in the first place.


----------



## drnlaw (Jan 27, 2016)

For me personally it's easy: any thread from any perspective as long as it involves music from anywhere along the great early-romantic-up-through-its-apex-Mahler-and-Bruckner-back-down-through-the-post-romantic-but-still-somewhat-melodious bell curve which begins with perhaps Beethoven and Schubert and terminates -- well, still continues, but stylewise terminates with the likes of Shostakovich and Stravinsky.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2016)

Any thread about 4' 33"


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Weston said:


> If I knew the answer I'd be starting quality threads. Sometimes threads just take off when you least expect it, and other times they seem to sink for no reason, even when the idea is novel.


Yes - as a person who's started a lot of threads, I agree - it's amazingly unpredictable.

As to quality threads - I enjoy polls, but only if they promote discussion rather than acrid argy-bargy; I like threads that ask about personal experience of music, as it introduces me to characters on the Forum; and I love anything that involves wit or wordplay. Sometimes threads that play about with composers' names or make puns based on their works are amazingly informative - whether one is reading the offerings of others or doing the necessary research to post for oneself. I am learning 'accidentally' while having fun on these playful threads - the best way to pick up knowledge.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Short Posts*



Weston said:


> I also like threads with individual posts of no more than three short paragraphs so that I can read them quickly. You get bogged down with half a screen full of characters. I confess to just skim reading these and then I foolishly repeat what has already been said because the point is buried. Shorter posts are better.


I also do not care for ten thousand word essays. When the discussions get too wordy I tend to drop out. I am afraid that I might repeat something that was mentioned in one of the more lengthy entries.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I think the following discussion could be helpful here:

http://owensolivia.blogspot.com/2012/10/your-sewing-thread-under-microscope.html


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I've never started a thread, but I think that this is a *GOOD* thing. You have to know your limitations.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I think it's good to let threads happen again if they seem to repeat every few months or years.
New people come on the board and have a need to express themselves. There are a lot of things
that make good threads, but one thing for sure to make a bad thread is when people troll
and wreck threads with questionable senses of humor or entitlement. In this case, I have no
resentments, but you have to keep a pure heart about these kinds of things.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

50% cotton 50% silk


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Morimur makes quality threads.

You're welcome.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I do not. One of these days I might.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Some quality threads, for sure.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Where people aren't making bad pun jokes to get likes...


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2016)

Five new threads in two days' time in one subforum is not the best way to start.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Antiquarian said:


> I've never started a thread, but I think that this is a *GOOD* thing. You have to know your limitations.


Wise and I mean: very wise words :tiphat:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I like threads that encourage freedom of (polite) opinion during discussion of any classical music matters. Most importantly of all, this is a public forum open to anyone irrespective of how many years of classical music listening and or education.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

My requirements for a good thread is when other members treat my posts as truly oracular and regard my wisdom as all encompassing. Once those necessary preconditions have been satisfied, I'm easy to please.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Has anyone created a perfect thread? If somebody has done that, we could just post the perfect thread over and over again and no other threads would be needed.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Preferably ones that don't compare composers with inanimate objects, food and beverages items or polls including modern pop stars. Those seem profoundly nonsensical to me. To my way of thinking the last couple of terrific threads (with in 6 weeks or so) in terms of fascinating reading and content from TC members were, "In which I will resolve the tonality debate", and "Why is modern art so bad"... Honorable mention goes to "Your classical music pet peeves".

(Edit)- Oh and no threads that have anything to do with Schumann. :devil:


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> Has anyone created a perfect thread? If somebody has done that, we could just post the perfect thread over and over again and no other threads would be needed.


The Alma Deutscher thread was pretty f--king perfect, but I don't think it will ever be repeated.

Your Milton Babbitt thread was in my mind a close second.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A thread about John Cage where all discussion is polite and reasoned...

A thread about Wagner where Nazis are never mentioned...


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A thread about John Cage where all discussion is polite and reasoned...
> 
> A thread about Wagner where Nazis are never mentioned...


Yeah, fat chance of this..


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> Preferably ones that don't compare composers with inanimate objects, food and beverages items or polls including modern pop stars. Those seem profoundly nonsensical to me. To my way of thinking the last couple of terrific threads (with in 6 weeks or so) in terms of fascinating reading and content from TC members were, "In which I will resolve the tonality debate", and "Why is modern art so bad"... Honorable mention goes to "Your classical music pet peeves".
> 
> (Edit)- Oh and no threads that have anything to do with Schumann. :devil:


Interesting, I found the Coca-Cola thread to be a gold mine relative to the unsightly garbage "Why Is Modern Art So Bad?"

Guess you have to be ok with a significant portion of this forum being here to smear things more than to talk about things they like.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Interesting, I found the Coca-Cola thread to be a gold mine relative to the unsightly garbage "Why Is Modern Art So Bad?"
> 
> Guess you have to be ok with a significant portion of this forum being here to smear things more than to talk about things they like.


Personally I enjoyed the discourse and debate stirred up on "Why is modern art so bad", the contrasting of the different era, art, ect... In addition to this there were many fine pieces of art I was turned onto by some of the posts. More discussion over the seemingly more trivial responses given under the so called "Coca-Cola" thread (no disrespect to it's poster meant we all have dud threads me more so than most).

For the record I feel my ratio of smearing things to accentuating the positive is fairly even, if not so in favor of the positive.. Again provided Schumann is being discussed (sorry, couldn't help myself).


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Five new threads in two days' time in one subforum is not the best way to start.


This only makes sense to me if it reads: five _crappy_ threads in two days' time is not the best way to start. Would anyone object to five _quality_ threads in two days time? Or is it just "wrong" to post five threads in two days regardless of their quality? Is this a real rule? I personally am drawn to this forum because I like to see all the new threads that are constantly being created.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2016)

Klassic said:


> This only makes sense to me if it reads: five _crappy_ threads in two days' time is not the best way to start. Would anyone object to five _quality_ threads in two days time? Or is it just "wrong" to post five threads in two days regardless of their quality? Is this a real rule? I personally am drawn to this forum because I like to see all the new threads that are constantly being created.


I wasn't going to add descriptions, but since you asked, I'd say: one decent thread, three crappy threads, and one ironic thread.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2016)

nathanb said:


> I wasn't going to add descriptions, but since you asked, I'd say: one decent thread, three crappy threads, and one ironic thread.


Or five hundred as long as there isn't a faching poll.


----------

