# Request your Input - Contemporary Masterpieces Listening Group



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

*CONTEMPORARY MASTERPIECES LISTENING GROUP*

I have had an idea for a while but I'm not absolutely certain how to best execute it. I would like input from the TC members that are interested in Contemporary music.

The hope of the proposed thread would be to get as many people as possible, by consensus, or ranked voting, or some other method, to come up with a list of Masterpieces of the last 40 to 45 or 50 years. And then to slowly, maybe one work per week, immerse in the piece and, as a group, to examine the work, instrumentation, background, program notes, impact, and any other aspects worth discussing.

And, to be honest, I would enjoy the comradery of hanging out with other new music enthusiasts and getting to discover great music.

*Question 1:* WHICH TIME FRAME DO YOU PREFER? 
1.1970-2020 (fifty years)
2.1975 (Shostakovich's death) to 2020
3.1980 to 2020

*Question 2:* Selection process? This is tricky because there may be one work that is outstanding but that only 1 or 2 of you know. How do we help those rare gems still make it on the list? I think a ranking system could be the answer. Or perhaps we say that every participant has one work that is assured to be on the list of works we explore.

I envision that we do the usual nomination/seconding system and then once we have a preliminary list to then let people do some sort of ranking.

*Question 3:* How many works, or in other words, how long do we want this proposed thread to run? I am thinking we shoot for 20-30 works, though I could see an argument for as few as 10 and as many as 50.

I welcome any of your thoughts and would like to know if you are interested.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

For Question 1, post Shostakovich or 1980-2020 is my pick, since it would be more appropriately 'contemporary'. I think most people who wanted to be are already familiar with Shostakovich's works. And it could turn into the undisputed great Shostakovich vs. everyone else sort of deal.

Personally I'd like to leave ranking out of it. There is so much variety that ranking doesn't seem appropriate to me. What would voting between Lachenmann and J Adams prove? But there is some use to a selection process, so maybe each person can nominate 3 to 5. You tally up the results, and the 20 or 30, etc. most nominations are considered 'masterpieces'. I'd say depending on the number of responses to cut out 2/3 of entries

For selection process, maybe wait a few months, before nominations. Anyone interested would surely have seen and considered their selections by then. Newcomers after probably wouldn't affect results much.

I do think it may be worthwhile to limit choices per person to 1,2 or 3, or else it would just turn into another general thread that everyone just dumps anything that turns them on, but turns others off.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

You propose voting to produce a list and then have participants listen to the selected pieces, right?

Why not the other way around, like in the Obscure Favourites thread: have people submit one choice each, have participants listen to all these pieces, then if you want you can have them vote these pieces in pre-defined tiers. On to the next batch and so on.

PS: whatever period you zoom in on, I'd advise to double check all suggestions. In my current game about works composed in 2000 or later, a few from before 2000 have been nominated.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Phil loves classical said:


> For Question 1, post Shostakovich or 1980-2020 is my pick, since it would be more appropriately 'contemporary'. I think most people who wanted to be are already familiar with Shostakovich's works. And it could turn into the undisputed great Shostakovich vs. everyone else sort of deal.
> 
> Personally I'd like to leave voting or ranking out of it. There is so much variety that ranking doesn't seem appropriate to me. What would voting between Lachenmann and J Adams prove? But there is some use to a selection process, so maybe each person can nominate 3 to 5. You tally up the results, and the 20 or 30, etc. most nominations are considered 'masterpieces'. I'd say depending on the number of responses to cut out 2/3 of entries
> 
> ...


I don't care about voting or ranking per se either, it was just a thought to have some means of selecting works to listen to. I do like what you are proposing with nominations but 3-5 noms seems too little. I'd think 10 noms per person, maybe through email to me so it's not a peer pressure thing. I also think the exact number of noms would depend in large part on how many want to participate.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

20centrfuge said:


> I don't care about voting or ranking per se either, it was just a thought to have some means of selecting. I do like what you are proposing with nominations but 3-5 noms seems too little. I'd think 10 noms per person, maybe through email to me so it's not a peer pressure thing. I also think the exact number of noms would depend in large part on how many want to participate.


I would rather see the nominations online, it would be interesting to see who and what others pick. It could show interesting patterns. For me that is the most interesting part of the exercise rather than what the results actually are. But if some want to keep their nominations private they can PM you.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Art Rock said:


> You propose voting to produce a list and then have participants listen to the selected pieces, right?
> 
> Why not the other way around, like in the Obscure Favourites thread: have people submit one choice each, have participants listen to all these pieces, then if you want you can have them vote these pieces in pre-defined tiers. On to the next batch and so on.
> 
> PS: whatever period you zoom in on, I'd advise to double check all suggestions. In my current game about works composed in 2000 or later, a few from before 2000 have been nominated.


I guess the vibe I'm after is - "we're a bunch of new music nerds. Together we think these 30-ish pieces are outstanding, now let's relax and really get to know these works and have fun in the process"

I don't want it to be about pecking order or saying that THIS work is superior to THAT work or anything like that.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical has answered almost exactly as I would have done. I would enjoy participating in this although occasionally I am away from the internet for 2-3 weeks and would have to drop for those weeks.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A Pre-existing but Underutilized Contemporary Music Lovers Group:

https://www.talkclassical.com/groups/contemporary-music.html


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Strange Magic said:


> A Pre-existing but Underutilized Contemporary Music Lovers Group:
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/groups/contemporary-music.html


Everyone who is going to do this proposed listening group should join the "Contemporary Music Lovers" - it could be a valuable way to easily communicate messages to the whole group.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think there does need to be some "voting" to select the final listening list. Whether that voting is simply a summing of nominations or actual votes from a list of suggested works, I don't care. I also like having people post their nominations or votes so others can see.

I imagine most people here will know about the list created the "standard" way of top post-1950 works. Some may wish to consult that for ideas.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

20centrfuge said:


> Everyone who is going to do this proposed listening group should join the "Contemporary Music Lovers" - it could be a valuable way to easily communicate messages to the whole group.


Or you could start the "real" thread for the project and use this thread for questions, comments, and communication once the project starts.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Right now a list of twenty works is sounding about right.

What would you think about hoping for at least 20 participants and each participant could take a turn as discussion leader for a different work. We'd have a schedule of when everything would happen.

Of course if we have fewer than 20 participants then some would lead discussion a second time.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Also, do you think it would be good to limit the number of works by the same composer? One? Two?


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

I'm down. I've been slowly creating a ranked list of my own the past few months on this very time period (I'll share it at some point on TC). But I'd be happy to take part, and doing so will give me a better sense as to who and what I should be searching for when making my list.

As far as your questions go:

1. I'd say 1980-2020 is the best of your options, but I'd also consider 1990-2020. By 1990, much of the old guard either just died or are on their last legs (Feldman, Cage, Grisey, Nono, Maderna, Ustvolskaya, Scelsi off the top of my head) while others are just beginning (e.g. Saariaho, Andre) or are just beginning to achieve fame (e.g. Rihm).

2. I'm a little confused. Are you proposing to rank the pieces over and above some initial nomination process? As in, we create a shortlist of 20-30 pieces through some nomination process and then we rank the pieces within that shortlist? Or, are you proposing that the rankings be "built in" to the nomination process itself? As in, we rank a much longer list of pieces -- all of which were nominated by some person -- and choose the top 20-30? 

I don't really care what the procedure is. Some of you know better than I as to what's most effective. Just as long as I have time to listen to the works before voting.

3. I think 20 pieces should be the max, just to avoid the possibility of interest waning over time. 20 pieces also forces us to think long and hard as to who really belongs in this exclusive list. And I think one work per composer is best.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

calvinpv said:


> 2. I'm a little confused. Are you proposing to rank the pieces over and above some initial nomination process? As in, we create a shortlist of 20-30 pieces through some nomination process and then we rank the pieces within that shortlist? Or, are you proposing that the rankings be "built in" to the nomination process itself? As in, we rank a much longer list of pieces -- all of which were nominated by some person -- and choose the top 20-30?
> 
> I don't really care what the procedure is. Some of you know better than I as to what's most effective. Just as long as I have time to listen to the works before voting


TENTATIVELY, I am thinking at this point that every person nominates 10 works. We gather up all the nominations and see which works have the most nominations. Those with too few nominations will be removed from the list. Then, if necessary we will have a vote to determine which ones to include in the final 20.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Why not do this in decades? 1980-89, 1990-99 and so? I'm sure there are enough great pieces to do that  Or one can be even more specific, doing styles or genres...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

20centrfuge said:


> TENTATIVELY, I am thinking at this point that every person nominates 10 works. We gather up all the nominations and see which works have the most nominations. Those with too few nominations will be removed from the list. Then, if necessary we will have a vote to determine which ones to include in the final 20.


Oh! Voting so often leads to the majority rejecting the works they don't know and voting for those that they do. At its worst this can lead to a dumbing down of the list. I really liked the idea of each participant bringing along 2 or 3 pieces that they love to the party and trying to share what it is about them that they love. This seems to fit better with your original purpose.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

That's a brilliant idea, Kjetil!


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Enthusiast said:


> Oh! Voting so often leads to the majority rejecting the works they don't know and voting for those that they do. At its worst this can lead to a dumbing down of the list. I really liked the idea of each participant bringing along 2 or 3 pieces that they love to the party and trying to share what it is about them that they love. This seems to fit better with your original purpose.


Excellent point. That was one of my initial worries. I'd rather not just have it a list of "ones everyone has heard of", BUT, there has to be some selection process.

I'm glad you like the idea of letting each participant bring one to the party.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

calvinpv said:


> I'm down. I've been slowly creating a ranked list of my own the past few months on this very time period (I'll share it at some point on TC). But I'd be happy to take part, and doing so will give me a better sense as to who and what I should be searching for when making my list.


You might post that long list you've been making in the Group, where it would be easy to find--I'd be interested in the list.


----------

